Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« Bush's Surprise Nominee: Dick Cheney!!! | Main | Son Of A Bitch To The Extreme: Bridget Johnson Gets A Call About Her Pitch From A Producer Listening to Hoist The Black Flag »
July 19, 2005

Newsflash: Democrats Proud of Their Ability To Manipulate Stupid American Voters

Okay, that's not really a newsflash. The newsflash is that a Democratic hack came perilously close to admitting that:

Geoff Garmin, a leading Democrat pollster, blithely admits that the Democrats manipulated the public's view of this issue because the concept of a filibuster was "beyond the pay grade of the American voter."

How revealing of the Democratic mindset regarding John Q. Public! They nakedly proclaim the view that the majority of Americans as being ignorant and beneath contempt. While advertisers happily pony up tens of thousands of dollars for a single page advert in the Sunday Times Magazine, Democrats seem to think nobody will notice their disregard of the intelligence of their constituents. The worldview is so deeply ingrained that they do not even see it as something remarkable to be discussing in the national forum.

H/t to NIF, who has a bonanza of links, lots of good bloggy, newsy goodness throughout.


posted by Ace at 09:06 PM
Comments



I guess that means that the media feels no particular ongoing duty to actually explain things so that more people are in the "pay grade" that can understand them.

Posted by: Craig McCarthy on July 19, 2005 09:20 PM

Ya know its funny.
Today's journalists are so far alienated from:

-Mainstream thought
-The ability to construct a proper sentence
-Historical understanding
-Basic Fucking Reporting

that as far as I'm concerned it is a happy thought that they think they are still in control of the masses.

Shhhh
Let Rumpelstiltskin slumber.

Posted by: lauraw on July 19, 2005 09:28 PM

Thanks for the linkage ... and I have been making lots of damned-blogger-template mods, so please excuse any formatting CFs.
/TJ

Posted by: TJ on July 19, 2005 09:35 PM

Yeah, the first quarter of that article is pretty fascinating, isn't it? That and the rest of it pretty much confirms everything Maha Rushi said about the filibuster and Social Security reform back when all this stuff was being fought out in real time.

Posted by: Moonbat_One on July 20, 2005 12:44 AM

That word was ''framing.'' Exactly what it means to ''frame'' issues seems to depend on which Democrat you are talking to...

I think it reads better if you use the more accurate word.

That word was ''lying.'' Exactly what it means to ''lie" about issues seems to depend on which Democrat you are talking to...

voila!

Posted by: Editing in Texas on July 20, 2005 10:21 AM

Good one Dave.
'Framing' is the Dems new office fad.

Personally I think they should try to dynamically interface with the American people, and form a synergistic relationship with reality. The potential for this innovative paradigm exists but it hasn't been actualized yet.

Posted by: lauraw on July 20, 2005 11:08 AM

a revealing blueprint of Democratic efforts to control the hearts and minds of a public they view as being ignorant and beneath contempt.

I have yet to see mentioned in any discussion of this point that Liberals believe that they largely have changed the hearts and minds of us all, and in a way they have. Because they have changed the sexual mores of this country (an easy thing to do), have so warped the justice system that they have made the streets of this country safe for ciminals, and have shoved "equality" and "affirmative action" (government sponsored racism against white people) down all of our throats by sheer force, (to the point where they've made it verboten to even speak about) they believe that they have "changed the world" for the better and this justifies everything they do. It is their reason for existence and gives them license to do all the shitty things they do, i.e., because they are on the side of good and the "upward ascent of mankind" while anyone who opposes them is evil, and part of the "extra chromosone wing of the Republican party" as Al Gore famously said.

But the truth is quite different. The "sexual revoloution" has been a catastrophe for everyone, especially children. All they really suceeded in doing was largely unraveling marrige and creating an epidemic of divorce. The whole thrust of the 60's civil rights protection of criminals' "rights" has produced an explosion of crime that has torn apart the world we live in and made fear of death or injury at the hands of violent criminals a day to day reality. Liberals have passed laws and set in motion government sponsored racism against white people and created a climate of fear such that no one even dares to even speak about it anymore. (Incidentally, they also believe that they, and they alone, are responsible for the 8 hr work day, child labor laws, health care and enviromental protection, all ideas whose time had come and would've been passed with or without them.)

From this point of view, they have changed the hearts and minds of the public and manipulated public opinion. Largely by demonizing their opponents, creating negative stereotypes through the Liberal Media and offering "free" goodies to certain segments of the public, they have changed this country, and not for the better.

Most importantly, Liberals believe they are totally justified because they have created a better world, that the public is too stupid and ignorant to know what is good for itself, and that they must do it for us whether or not we agree. Scary, isn't it?

Posted by: 72 VIRGINS on July 20, 2005 11:41 AM

Don't 72 just make you want to open a vein sometimes?

Hello, world, here's the song that we’re singin’
C’mon get happy!

A whole lot of lovin’ is what we’ll be bringin’
We’ll make you happy!

Posted by: lauraw on July 20, 2005 11:51 AM

Most importantly, Liberals believe they are totally justified because they have created a better world, that the public is too stupid and ignorant to know what is good for itself, and that they must do it for us whether or not we agree. Scary, isn't it?

Yeah, it is. It is couched in the language of feelings and emotions. I don't doubt some of them thought their motivations were good (they don't like admitting their results suck), although there's a fair bit of vote-pimping that goes along with it.

It deserves to be confronted.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on July 20, 2005 12:08 PM

lauraw

Writing to make us happy is not the point, we must face the real truth whether we like it or not before confronting and changing it. After that we can use ridicule and laughter to boost our spirits and as a means to an end. But ignoring and hiding from the truth is one of the ways that we've gotten into the fucked up mess we are in today.

Posted by: 72 Card Monte on July 20, 2005 12:40 PM

Look, nobody wants to whitewash anything; but I tend to believe that this nation is more resilient than you do.
I don't disagree that there are problems, but 'fucked up mess' is not how I'd characterize life in the US today.

Posted by: lauraw on July 20, 2005 12:47 PM

lauraw

I hate to mention it, but I must be older than you for I remember vividly when things were not like this. As restrictive as the atmosphere of the times I grew up in seemed, in very important ways it was a much better world than the one we live in today. And having watched it all go from bad to worse and knowing there is no end to Liberal destruction unless we stop it, I try to make people aware of the danger we are facing, wheter they like it or not.


Posted by: 72 MANIACS on July 20, 2005 01:19 PM

lauraw

PS - It need not be the same for you and younger people. You are already part of the soloution. And when you look back on what has happened, you can be proud that you took part in a tidal wave of change for the better. I wish you all the luck.

Posted by: 72 VIRGINS on July 20, 2005 02:51 PM

Just for curiosity's sake- how old are you? I'm 35.

Posted by: lauraw on July 20, 2005 03:41 PM

Older than 35.

Posted by: 72 Old Guys on July 20, 2005 04:44 PM

Bastard
LOL
Honesty gets you nowhere on the internet. Unless you're a shaved teenage whore, of course.

Posted by: lauraw on July 20, 2005 08:49 PM

lauraw

Been awhile since I've had a shaved teenage whore. Perhaps before the Peloponnesian War.

Posted by: 72 Hanging Gardens of Babylon on July 21, 2005 11:17 AM

lauraw

Been awhile since I've had a shaved teenage whore. Perhaps before the Peloponnesian War.

Bastard!

And i waited all day for your reply so I could ask you if you were up for the job!

Posted by: Mercury's 72 Winged Messengers on July 21, 2005 05:03 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*
Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.
A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.
The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.
Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!
Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all
Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
One day I'm gonna write a poem in a letter
One day I'm gonna get that faculty together
Remember that everybody has to wait in line
Oh, [Song Title], look out world, oh, you know I've got mine
US decimation of Iran's ICBM forces is due to Space Force's instant detection of launches -- and the launchers' hiding places -- and rapid counter-attack via missiles
AI is doing a lot of the work in analyzing images to find the exact hiding place of the launchers. Counter-strikes are now coming in four hours after a launch, whereas previously it might have taken days for humans to go over the imagery and data.
Robert Mueller, Former Special Counsel Who Probed Trump, Dies
“robert mueller just died,” trump wrote in a truth social post on march 21. “good, i’m glad he’s dead. he can no longer hurt innocent people! president donald j. trump.”
Canadian School Designates Cafeteria And Lunchroom As "No Food Zones" For Ramadan
Canada and the UK are neck and neck in the race to become the first western country to fall to Islam [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD have a short chat about Iran, the disgusting SAVE Act theater, Mamdani's politicizing of St. Patrick's Day, and more!
Recent Comments
RedMindBlueState[/i][/b][/s][/u]: "[i]Damn, RMBS. Here, but serving grilled London b ..."

RI Red : "5 GTs in a month. Thanks, Weasel! ..."

Itinerant Alley Butcher: ">>> As of Friday, I am armed with the first firear ..."

Ed L: "Hello, Weasel! ..."

Pug Mahon, Trumpy can do magic: "Grass fed is different. I like both corn finished ..."

RI Red : "Damn, RMBS. Here, but serving grilled London bro ..."

Skip: "Good evening everyone ..."

Jackson K.: "98 >>"...certain PA Dutch processed meats..." S ..."

RedMindBlueState[/i][/b][/s][/u]: "Gub nood. ..."

RI Red : "Here! ..."

RedMindBlueState[/i][/b][/s][/u]: "Evenin', Weasel. ..."

RedMindBlueState[/i][/b][/s][/u]: "st! ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives