George W Bush

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism+23 April 2004 - 01:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 23 April 2004 - 01:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by hobbes@
Mad? I have only been mad once on this forum, and I conducted my discussion on that matter via PM. Annoyed "yes".

I never said you were "mad". Since you have said you were annoyed I&#39;ll assume you mean "mad" as in "insane". I never questioned your sanity.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Since nothing I have ever said seems to make any sense to you and my points appear "morphed" into something other than intended, I will not bother clarifying, again.

I represented your points accurately and highlighted, what I think, are flaws in your logic. If you wish to respond and show me the flaws in my analysis of your points then please do.

Otherwise this is looking like a case of sour grapes to me. [/b][/quote]
Accurately and "accurately in your mind" are two different things entirely. I tire of explaining the obvious because it boils down the fact that you either can&#39;t nor wish to understand them. I cannot be of service here.

Everything I have wanted to say is out there for the willing to read and it appears they have. You are left alone, twisting words and chasing windmills.

I am sorry that your grapes are sour.

The points:
1) A picture which was designed to elicit an emotional reaction for the purpose of political progangda. Apparently because the reality itself is not enough? And somehow, the picture condemns Bush for everything, without bothering to explain how it came to this conclusion. That&#39;s a bit of a cheap shot quite frankly.

2) A distortion of the actual numbers killed. Why did they use pictures more than once? Because those pictures alone somehow did not cut the mustard to meet the political goals of the poster.

As to why you think the posting of a black and white movie of starved corpses being bulldozed naked into a pit and the creation of photomontage of george bush using dead soldiers, or puppy dogs, or baby seal pups, are equivalent, is quite frankly beyond me. One is a depiction of grim reality, the other a foundless political statement. By making the picture, somehow we are to believe the point is true.

The point may very well be true, but it is like calling someone a racist, then making them disprove it. Once a label is placed on you, it is hard to shed.

Quite simply it was a cheap shot.

In addition, with the links provided earlier (you saw those right?), I have shown equal hostility when Bush and the media attempted to play that same card themselves.

I was afraid of this, hence my post, "Who cares about the people of Iraq?", which was to keep people focused on the justification of the war, not to be distracted by the "liberation of the oppressed" hype.

Troops returning home, fathers reunited with their children- stock response tripe. I&#39;m embarrassed for my country. You bunch of stupid hicks&#33; Check to see if there is a hand up your ass, because you are nothing but puppets. Don&#39;t let the prestidigitators fool you.



Accountability is essential. Freedom means the freedom to think for yourself, not parrot nationalistic propaganda.

I hate deception and manipulation. Plainly stated, clearly stated, and consistently stated.

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
1) A picture which was designed to elicit an emotional reaction for the purpose of political progangda. Apparently because the reality itself is not enough?&nbsp; And somehow, the picture condemns Bush for everything, without bothering to explain how it came to this conclusion. That&#39;s a bit of a cheap shot quite frankly.
[/b]

How would you suggest the photomontage "explain how it came to this conclusion"?

Just because a political piece of art causes you to respond emotionally does not automatically mean that it is propaganda. This is hardly the Nazi leaflet "The Poisonous Mushroom". Thats propaganda.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes

2) A distortion of the actual numbers killed. Why did they use pictures more than once? Because those pictures alone somehow did not cut the mustard to meet the political goals of the poster.
[/quote]

Although I can see and understand your perspective of your initial point, (although I don&#39;t agree with it in this instance), your second point is definitely unfair.

Why use the pictures more than once? Because there weren&#39;t enough to make up Dublyas face&#33;&#33; A simple practical matter I would have thought...

As I said before, the point of the photo is not to inform people of the number of dead in Iraq or to "distort the actual numbers killed" . Why host it on a website that has the precise number of dead in prominent view if thats the authors intention? Surely that would be counter productive?

Are the numbers killed really relevant to the point the author is trying to make?

According to your second point 709 would not "cut the political mustard" but 1400 would.

709 unnecessary deaths or 1400 unnecessary deaths.. that doesn&#39;t make much difference to me.

[Chevy]

Originally posted by leftism@23 April 2004 - 01:32

How would you suggest the photomontage "explain how it came to this conclusion"?

By being a photomontage - an expressive peicce of art - tying ideas together

Just because a political piece of art causes you to respond emotionally does not automatically mean that it is propaganda. This is hardly the Nazi leaflet "The Poisonous Mushroom". Thats propaganda.

It is as propagandic as feck - if it was a photomontage "pro-war" what would we be talking bout right now?

Why use the pictures more than once? Because there weren&#39;t enough to make up Dublyas face&#33;&#33; A simple practical matter I would have thought...

It&#39;s a piece of art and should be seen as that - yes it&#39;s fair to repeat the faces to make the pic - did you present this as a piece of art or a statement?

As I said before, the point of the photo is not to inform people of the number of dead in Iraq or to "distort the actual numbers killed" . Why host it on a website that has the precise number of dead in prominent view if thats the authors intention? Surely that would be counter productive?&nbsp;

I first saw it here

Are the numbers killed really relevant to the point the author is trying to make?

So, he&#39;s making a point.........that George W Bush is responsible for the deaths???? It&#39;s put emotionally not factually or even via debate.

According to your second point 709 would not "cut the political mustard" but 1400 would.

709 unnecessary deaths or 1400 unnecessary deaths.. that doesn&#39;t make much difference to me.

I doubt anyone believes that




FTR.......I am anti-Bush but agree with Hobbes, there&#39;s a right way to do things


BTW - I saw this pic on my local board and it was slammed immediately


..

[sampson]

Originally posted by shn@22 April 2004 - 17:59
hiroshima was a d34th trap.............

But you did&#39;nt see any nude children because they were all burnt up.

Why someone put a laughing smily at the end there creeps me out

[hobbes]

Originally posted by sampson+23 April 2004 - 03:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sampson &#064; 23 April 2004 - 03:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-shn@22 April 2004 - 17:59
hiroshima was a d34th&nbsp; trap.............

But you did&#39;nt see any nude children because they were all burnt up.&nbsp;

Why someone put a laughing smily at the end there creeps me out[/b][/quote]
I think that Shn was pointing out, that given the context surrounding that picture, the lack of clothing on a little child should be the least of our concern.

It reveals something a bit perserve about our priorities and indoctrination about nudity and sexuality, that we should even notice her lack of clothing given the stark terror and bewilderment on the faces of these children.

The point is not "girls gone wild- Vietnam edition", but rather "Everything you have ever known and trusted, distroyed in a moment and you are left running naked down the street." The nudity is part of the art, catastrophy does not wait for you to get dressed.

I think Shn was telling us not to let the nudity distract us from the real message here, but it may just add a punctuation mark to it.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by hobbes
the picture condemns Bush for everything, without bothering to explain how it came to this conclusion. That&#39;s a bit of a cheap shot quite frankly.

You want an accompanying thesis with the picture?

The image stands by itself, without the need for an explaination, same as the other pics I posted.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism@23 April 2004 - 02:32
Although I can see and understand your perspective of your initial point, (although I don&#39;t agree with it in this instance), your second point is definitely unfair.

Why use the pictures more than once? Because there weren&#39;t enough to make up Dublyas face&#33;&#33; A simple practical matter I would have thought...

According to your second point 709 would not "cut the political mustard" but 1400 would.

Well, let me explain.

I saw a post about GWB by AlexH- We know exactly what he thinks of George, what is he up to?-Strike 1

Click on the picture- links to Michael Moores site- Strike2
Picture is comprised of dead soldier- Oh, I get.- Strike 3

Those 3 Strikes primed my bias, the scent of poltical bullshit was thick in the air.

I then looked at the picture and thought, "Damn, that is a lot more then I thought had died". So I did react to the total number of pictures.

I then decided to count the boxes and realized that the number was much higher than the actual count. While counting the right row, I noticed a picture used twice.

Given my bias and discovering this duplication, I concluded that it all part of the political game.

Now I have told others that a man who cannot recognize his bias is a fool and that applies to me as well.

I considered your point. Perhaps the composer figured out how many pixels the picture needed to contain to allow Bush to be clearly detailed and also allow the viewer to recognize the individual soldier photos. It was a legistic decision, not an overt attempt to distort or deceive (again I go back to my initial impression of the number of boxes).

I will not try to figure out if this is true, I will just say my bias was peeked by the author, site and content. You may be correct, on this point, I cannot say. Overall, even if I give you that point, without contention, it doesn&#39;t change the bottom line.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Alex H+23 April 2004 - 05:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H &#064; 23 April 2004 - 05:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
the picture condemns Bush for everything, without bothering to explain how it came to this conclusion. That&#39;s a bit of a cheap shot quite frankly.

You want an accompanying thesis with the picture?

The image stands by itself, without the need for an explaination, same as the other pics I posted.[/b][/quote]
No, it is an opinion, not a reality.

You really need to get the distinction.

Perhaps I could post a picture of George Bush comprised of smiling Iraqis toppling Saddams statue.

Just another piece of propaganda, from the other side.



As for the other photographs, you need not know anything about politics or even be able to speak the language of those being photographed, to understand exactly how they feel by their facial expressions and body languange.

In fact, the other photos are transcendant to the actual struggle, they reflect a pure emotion that we can all tap into.

A hundred years from now, that picture of Bush will need to be explained to people, 100 years from now, the impact of those terrified and disoriented Vietnamese kids will be as strong as the day it was captured.

[shn]

Originally posted by vidcc+22 April 2004 - 18:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 22 April 2004 - 18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-shn@22 April 2004 - 15:59
hiroshima was a d34th&nbsp; trap.............

But you did&#39;nt see any nude children because they were all burnt up.&nbsp;

you think that&#39;s funny?[/b][/quote]
I think it&#39;s hilarious

What I did not find amusing is when the japs bombed Pearl Harbor with their pitiful suicide missions.

I think they got what they deserved IMO.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by shn@22 April 2004 - 22:08
I think it&#39;s hilarious

What I did not find amusing is when the japs bombed Pearl Harbor with their pitiful suicide missions.

I think they got what they deserved IMO.

let&#39;s ignore you not being alive when that happened and the fact that you find the use of the first atomic weapon on civilians..many of the children you spoke of being "burnt up" not being born untill after pearl harbour quote "hilarious"..... By your own standards did those people that lost their live on 9:11 deserve what they got because of american foriegn policy?...do you think that if an iraqi citizen planted a bomb in the USA and killed innocent people..they deserved it because we invaded iraq?...i think not.
The 2 bombs were dropped. Some might argue that it ended the war and saved more lives than it took. Some might say it was the darkest invention of mans will to destory man. Whatever side one sits only a complete moron would find such carnage funny.