Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Scandal Mongering Basics; Lesson # 219: The Shot Gun Effect = Crying Wolf
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Bret Cahill
May 18, 2013, 6:36:37 PM5/18/13
to
Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
to end run the sovereignty of the people.
Is this really a good idea?
First of all, the general public won't be interested for long. Why?
Because it isn't a pocketbook issue like tax hikes on the rich.
Scandals hardly compete against the culture war issues gush hyped by
the legacy media.
Second, having a lot of trumped up scandals going on at the same time
is confusing to the average voter.
Third, even if there is a real scandal in there somewhere you will
have cried "wolf" once too often and would get ignored on the real
scandal.
Repugs need to have a convention and _vote_ on whatever they think is
their best hope of overturning a popular election and then put all
their gush hyping behind that scandal.
Remember, if your message involves more than three words, you'll
confuse the voters who are too dumb to figure out you just don't like
popular elections.
Bret Cahill
ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
to end run the sovereignty of the people.
Is this really a good idea?
First of all, the general public won't be interested for long. Why?
Because it isn't a pocketbook issue like tax hikes on the rich.
Scandals hardly compete against the culture war issues gush hyped by
the legacy media.
Second, having a lot of trumped up scandals going on at the same time
is confusing to the average voter.
Third, even if there is a real scandal in there somewhere you will
have cried "wolf" once too often and would get ignored on the real
scandal.
Repugs need to have a convention and _vote_ on whatever they think is
their best hope of overturning a popular election and then put all
their gush hyping behind that scandal.
Remember, if your message involves more than three words, you'll
confuse the voters who are too dumb to figure out you just don't like
popular elections.
Bret Cahill
BeamMeUpScotty
May 18, 2013, 9:06:32 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/2013 6:36 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
And Liberals would only lie profusely and point at everyone else.... if
> Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
it was "a scandal" else they would take their Liberal actions as heroic.
Liberals always claim credit for anyone's success and always blame
anyone else for their failures.
--
*Rumination*
#11 - A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but
when either of them take control, they become self destructive.
Bret Cahill
May 18, 2013, 9:09:09 PM5/18/13
to
> > Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> > ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> > to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> And Liberals would only lie profusely and point at everyone else.... if
> it was "a scandal" else they would take their Liberal actions as heroic.
>
> Liberals always claim credit for anyone's success and always blame
> anyone else for their failures.
Looneytarians are always projecting.
> > ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> > to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> And Liberals would only lie profusely and point at everyone else.... if
> it was "a scandal" else they would take their Liberal actions as heroic.
>
> Liberals always claim credit for anyone's success and always blame
> anyone else for their failures.
Bret Cahill
Harold Burton
May 18, 2013, 10:10:10 PM5/18/13
to
In article
<eed5adee-b51a-4bcb...@oj8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh
<eed5adee-b51a-4bcb...@oj8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> Is this really a good idea?
It's working, even the lamestream media has climbed on board.
> Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> Is this really a good idea?
laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh
Harold Burton
May 18, 2013, 10:11:02 PM5/18/13
to
In article
<da329254-9aa0-417e...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
Which makes them different from leftards, how?
snicker
<da329254-9aa0-417e...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
snicker
Bret Cahill
May 19, 2013, 12:25:27 AM5/19/13
to
> > Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> > ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> > to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> > Is this really a good idea?
>
> It's working,
A little, for a few weeks. But that was true for the Ron Paul
> > ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> > to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> > Is this really a good idea?
>
> It's working,
campaign.
>even the lamestream media has climbed on board.
sides of non issues.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
May 19, 2013, 12:49:26 AM5/19/13
to
> > > > Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> > > > ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> > > > to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> > > And Liberals would only lie profusely and point at everyone else.... if
> > > it was "a scandal" else they would take their Liberal actions as heroic.
>
> > > Liberals always claim credit for anyone's success and always blame
> > > anyone else for their failures.
>
> > Looneytarians are always projecting.
>
> Which makes them different from leftards, how?
Looneytarians are always projecting.
> > > > ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> > > > to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> > > And Liberals would only lie profusely and point at everyone else.... if
> > > it was "a scandal" else they would take their Liberal actions as heroic.
>
> > > Liberals always claim credit for anyone's success and always blame
> > > anyone else for their failures.
>
> > Looneytarians are always projecting.
>
> Which makes them different from leftards, how?
Dare
May 19, 2013, 8:09:06 AM5/19/13
to
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:eed5adee-b51a-4bcb...@oj8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
People may care about the IRS scandal...especially since the IRS
will be overseeing Obamacare.
Will the government then have a database of everyone's personal
health records? Do you think they should have that kind of access?
Will the GOP be able to pull off de-funding Obamacare via the IRS scandal?
It seems to me delaying implementation for a year is a fair compromise.
Then we'll see what happens.....in 2014.
will be overseeing Obamacare.
Will the government then have a database of everyone's personal
health records? Do you think they should have that kind of access?
Will the GOP be able to pull off de-funding Obamacare via the IRS scandal?
It seems to me delaying implementation for a year is a fair compromise.
Then we'll see what happens.....in 2014.
Bret Cahill
May 19, 2013, 9:37:45 AM5/19/13
to
> > Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> > ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> > to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> > Is this really a good idea?
>
> > First of all, the general public won't be interested for long. Why?
> > Because it isn't a pocketbook issue like tax hikes on the rich.
> > Scandals hardly compete against the culture war issues gush hyped by
> > the legacy media.
>
> > Second, having a lot of trumped up scandals going on at the same time
> > is confusing to the average voter.
>
> > Third, even if there is a real scandal in there somewhere you will
> > have cried "wolf" once too often and would get ignored on the real
> > scandal.
>
> > Repugs need to have a convention and _vote_ on whatever they think is
> > their best hope of overturning a popular election and then put all
> > their gush hyping behind that scandal.
>
> > Remember, if your message involves more than three words, you'll
> > confuse the voters who are too dumb to figure out you just don't like
> > popular elections.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> People may care about the IRS scandal...especially since the IRS
> will be overseeing Obamacare.
Besides, its not like hyping Bengazi is going to stop Hillary in
> > ever again. You decide to call everything under the sun "a scandal"
> > to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> > Is this really a good idea?
>
> > First of all, the general public won't be interested for long. Why?
> > Because it isn't a pocketbook issue like tax hikes on the rich.
> > Scandals hardly compete against the culture war issues gush hyped by
> > the legacy media.
>
> > Second, having a lot of trumped up scandals going on at the same time
> > is confusing to the average voter.
>
> > Third, even if there is a real scandal in there somewhere you will
> > have cried "wolf" once too often and would get ignored on the real
> > scandal.
>
> > Repugs need to have a convention and _vote_ on whatever they think is
> > their best hope of overturning a popular election and then put all
> > their gush hyping behind that scandal.
>
> > Remember, if your message involves more than three words, you'll
> > confuse the voters who are too dumb to figure out you just don't like
> > popular elections.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> People may care about the IRS scandal...especially since the IRS
> will be overseeing Obamacare.
2016. Unlike Obama who wants everyone to "be nice" the Clintons
thrive on GOP scandal mongering. They love every minute of it because
they know it's a loser, the white flag of defeat, for the GOP.
The AP won't do as a scandal at all, partly because it's a legitimate
matter for the U. S. Supreme Court. Police can conduct warrentless
searchs of your house or apartment but not an entire apartment bldg.
Since a single publisher has complete editorial control over all news
in his outlet, the entire outlet must be treated as a single house or
apt. -- not an apt. bldg. Moreover, the legacy media have been
suggesting "Americans aren't interested in money" so they have little
credibility with Americans on anything. It is too late in the day for
the legacy media to pretend that they have special rights above and
beyond any feral right wing nut job blogger. If the media claim
everyone else must be transparent and open but not themselves, it will
hardly damage public support for the gummint's now extraordinary
powers to conduct the BushCo era Patriot Act "war on terror" -- or
Obama. The legacy media are as monkey wrenched as the GOP.
Better to focus on Obama and his health care reform. Maybe they
cannot get the court to strike it down but it make keep the legacy
media and their bastard off spring, hate radio, busy boring the
general public out of politics.
The real weakness with GOP scandal mongering is the same as everything
else the GOP tries: There is no leadership.
There is no way to get a good majority of wingers to agree on how to
hype which scandal.
Bret Cahill
Dare
May 19, 2013, 9:53:26 AM5/19/13
to
"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:36171723-f50c-4a4f...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Can Hillary win in 2016? Are we ready for female POTUS?
Are there elements within the DNC who want to stop her?
Any Dem rivals for the nomination better not do to her what
the GOP rivals did to Romney in the 2012 primary.
> The real weakness with GOP scandal mongering is the same as
> everythingelse the GOP tries: There is no leadership.
Rove may be waaay overplaying this.
>
> > People may care about the IRS scandal...especially since the IRS
> > will be overseeing Obamacare.
>
> Besides, its not like hyping Bengazi is going to stop Hillary in
> 2016. Unlike Obama who wants everyone to "be nice" the Clintons
> thrive on GOP scandal mongering. They love every minute of it because
> they know it's a loser, the white flag of defeat, for the GOP.
You agree that the IRS scandal might be an issue to the voters?
> > People may care about the IRS scandal...especially since the IRS
> > will be overseeing Obamacare.
>
> Besides, its not like hyping Bengazi is going to stop Hillary in
> 2016. Unlike Obama who wants everyone to "be nice" the Clintons
> thrive on GOP scandal mongering. They love every minute of it because
> they know it's a loser, the white flag of defeat, for the GOP.
Can Hillary win in 2016? Are we ready for female POTUS?
Are there elements within the DNC who want to stop her?
Any Dem rivals for the nomination better not do to her what
the GOP rivals did to Romney in the 2012 primary.
> The real weakness with GOP scandal mongering is the same as
>
>There is no way to get a good majority of wingers to agree on
> how to hype which scandal.
That's true.
>There is no way to get a good majority of wingers to agree on
> how to hype which scandal.
Rove may be waaay overplaying this.
Bret Cahill
May 19, 2013, 10:35:40 AM5/19/13
to
> > > People may care about the IRS scandal...especially since the IRS
> > > will be overseeing Obamacare.
>
> > Besides, its not like hyping Bengazi is going to stop Hillary in
> > 2016. Unlike Obama who wants everyone to "be nice" the Clintons
> > thrive on GOP scandal mongering. They love every minute of it because
> > they know it's a loser, the white flag of defeat, for the GOP.
>
> You agree that the IRS scandal might be an issue to the voters?
Probably not even assuming it's a scandal. For one thing about 80% of
> > > will be overseeing Obamacare.
>
> > Besides, its not like hyping Bengazi is going to stop Hillary in
> > 2016. Unlike Obama who wants everyone to "be nice" the Clintons
> > thrive on GOP scandal mongering. They love every minute of it because
> > they know it's a loser, the white flag of defeat, for the GOP.
>
> You agree that the IRS scandal might be an issue to the voters?
the public assumes that "everyone does it" which will discount most of
its "scandal value."
For another scandal mongering in general just makes it look like the
Republicans are sore losers. "Don't be such a sore loser" and "would
you like some cheese with that whine" really draws blood from the
teabag posters still stinging from their defeat in 2012.
And this is assuming the Obama doesn't call the GOP on it by proposing
permanent independent bipartisan oversight of the IRS.
> Can Hillary win in 2016?
has a chance against the Clintons and Republicans themselves know
they'll lose to her by double digits.
Why do you think Republicans are so busy scandal mongering?
There's nothing else for them to do.
> Are we ready for female POTUS?
> Are there elements within the DNC who want to stop her?
issued fatwahs against Hillary.
In answer your question: No, at least not any more.
> Any Dem rivals for the nomination better not do to her what
> the GOP rivals did to Romney in the 2012 primary.
after the election. The legacy media gushing "it's a horse race"
every 4 years is one of the biggest lies in American politics -- and
that's saying something.
So what Ron Paul or Michele Bachman said was irrelevant.
> > The real weakness with GOP scandal mongering is the same as
>
> >There is no way to get a good majority of wingers to agree on
> > how to hype which scandal.
>
> That's true.
> Rove may be waaay overplaying this.
Rove is just in it for himself short term. Why would anyone expect
> >There is no way to get a good majority of wingers to agree on
> > how to hype which scandal.
>
> That's true.
> Rove may be waaay overplaying this.
him to care about the long term future of the GOP? Rove knows even
better than the "liberal" legacy media that the GOP has no
intermediate term future, let alone long term.
The only one who can save the GOP is Bloomberg, a throw back to the
old style country club [read: sane] Republican Party. I'd jump ship
and vote for him if,
1. he got the nomination, and,
2. someone could convince me there was some advantage to the 2 party
system.
Neither of those will be likely by 2016.
Bret Cahill
BeamMeUpScotty
May 19, 2013, 11:02:56 AM5/19/13
to
On 5/19/2013 10:35 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> People may care about the IRS scandal...especially since the IRS
>>>> will be overseeing Obamacare.
>>
>>> Besides, its not like hyping Bengazi is going to stop Hillary in
>>> 2016. Unlike Obama who wants everyone to "be nice" the Clintons
>>> thrive on GOP scandal mongering. They love every minute of it because
>>> they know it's a loser, the white flag of defeat, for the GOP.
>>
>> You agree that the IRS scandal might be an issue to the voters?
>
> Probably not even assuming it's a scandal. For one thing about 80% of
> the public assumes that "everyone does it" which will discount most of
> its "scandal value."
Which scandals have dead people..... this is probably NOT just scandal
>>>> People may care about the IRS scandal...especially since the IRS
>>>> will be overseeing Obamacare.
>>
>>> Besides, its not like hyping Bengazi is going to stop Hillary in
>>> 2016. Unlike Obama who wants everyone to "be nice" the Clintons
>>> thrive on GOP scandal mongering. They love every minute of it because
>>> they know it's a loser, the white flag of defeat, for the GOP.
>>
>> You agree that the IRS scandal might be an issue to the voters?
>
> Probably not even assuming it's a scandal. For one thing about 80% of
> the public assumes that "everyone does it" which will discount most of
> its "scandal value."
but also Criminal negligence.
It NOT just simple stupidity like Most Liberal actions that are not
DIRECTLY connected to the Killing of Americans, this time people died
DIRECTLY and it wasn't unintended consequences.... the consequences of
this were well known while it was happening.
--
*Rumination*
#72 - What if your next abortion is the one fetus that would evolve into
a new human adult life that is immune to cancer? When is evolution NOT
really evolution.
BeamMeUpScotty
May 19, 2013, 11:05:56 AM5/19/13
to
--
*Rumination*
#52 - Socialism is a philosophy of mediocrity, a creed of intolerance,
and a feeling of malice towards the good fortune of others!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bret Cahill
May 19, 2013, 2:55:24 PM5/19/13
to
> > > > Say you're losing elections and have no hope of ever winning anything
> > > > ever again. =A0You decide to call everything under the sun "a
> > > > scandal" to end run the sovereignty of the people.
>
> > > > Is this really a good idea?
>
> > > > First of all, the general public won't be interested for long.
> > > > =A0Why? Because it isn't a pocketbook issue like tax hikes on the
>
> > > > Is this really a good idea?
>
> > > > First of all, the general public won't be interested for long.
> until their ratings slide just a little and the whole thing will quietly go
> away. Some other pseudo-scandal will arise, or another bomb will go off
The legacy media will just back to their tried and try political
hamberger helper: gush hyping culture wars.
Bret Cahill
0 new messages