Propaganda Machine

clirus · May 22, 2006

Anovah quote
So you're FOR censorship?

Response
Given a choice between a group of people living in New York, Boston and Hollywood controlling America or government censorship, I would choose censorship.

I can choose the government leaders by voting, I cannot choose the leaders of the Atheistic liberal news and entertainment industry. For all I know they may be Satan worshipers. What do you know about the people behind the pretty faces (usually women now) that appear on the TV and tell you they are going to present the news? Is it news or views? Or is it propaganda?

SallyNow · May 22, 2006

clirus said:
Anovah quote
So you're FOR censorship?

Response
Given a choice between a group of people living in New York, Boston and Hollywood controlling America or government censorship, I would choose censorship.

I can choose the government leaders by voting, I cannot choose the leaders of the Atheistic liberal news and entertainment industry. For all I know they may be Satan worshipers. What do you know about the people behind the pretty faces (usually women now) that appear on the TV and tell you they are going to present the news? Is it news or views? Or is it propaganda?

You want to vote for what news you get? Stop watching news. Stop buying products that advertise on the news. Stop buying the newspaper. Cancel your TV subscription.

Want censorship? Be prepared for censorship. When it comes to censorship, no one knows who's going to be next. It has unexpected results, unexpected tendencies. It's not some easy solution to bad ideas. The only solution to bad ideas is better ones. The only solution to lies is truth.

Please don't go making up accusations against hard-working journalists, researchers, camera crews, set designers, make-up people, props people, grips, lighting crews, printers, fact-checkers, graphics people, and all the others who work very hard and work very long hours to bring news to TV, print, and radio. They aren't evil. Most are working very hard to bring local, national, and world events to the public. They aren't trying to fufill some agenda, beyond making a good day's wage and taking part in an important aspect of any free society.

chalice_thunder · May 22, 2006

neverforsaken said:
Uh....no. I wish it were. Lets face it, the left would hate bush no matter what he did. End world hunger, cancer and war or whatever. They would still hate his guts. The reason why his popularity is down is because he is alienating the people who thought he was a conservative. I personally like to call him a donkey in elephants clothing. After the last election, which I voted for the very first time, for Bush or course, I felt so betrayed by a guy I thought was on our side. Since his reelection, he has spit in the face of those who supported him. We honor our troops and their sacrifice, but we see their deaths for the sake of an ungrateful nation. We see a president who spends like a teenage girl at the mall with her first credit card. A president who threatened to veto any action prolonging the completion of the dubai port deal. A president who is more concerned about making sure we allow corporations to sell out the american worker in exchange for cheap labor rather than fix the border. And I could go on and on. Despite no matter how much I want to believe that Bush's popularity problems is solely due to the liberal media, Bush gives them so much to work with.

Don't even try to slap a donkey label on him. He's your boy - you voted for him...and you should have known what you were getting into.

The Dems are now left to clean up his mess.

Billnew · May 22, 2006

Zoot said:
The media in the US is ridiculously right-wing.

TO DARN FUNNY.

Billnew · May 22, 2006

chalice_thunder said:
Don't even try to slap a donkey label on him. He's your boy - you voted for him...and you should have known what you were getting into.

The Dems are now left to clean up his mess.

The problem is, they haven't offered anything different.
They are against everything being done.

So I haven't seen anything to show me someone better to vote for. I will be voting against Voinovich in Ohio. But we need to flush the political toilet and get new people in there. Because the majority of the politicians are more concerned with their power and not the American people. Not Democrat, not Republican.

I am close to changing my party to Independant. Because one party is tax and spend and the other is borrow and spend.
Everyone accuses Bush of being pro-business, well all
politicians want their business to do well, so they keep their money coming.
Everyone in Washington is interested in bringing home money for their state, needed or not.
So play your little games of Democrats are better, or Republicans are better.
9-11 happened because Clinton and both Bush's failed.
The economy went bad, because Clinton failed it, and Bush had to pick it up, with Tax cuts, his failure was increasing spending along with cutting taxes.(we had more money come in since tax cuts, but not enough to pay for the spending)

Illegals have been flooding in our country for over 30 years(since I was able to understand what an ilegal was.) This is not a new "crisis".

Drug entitlements: definately a socialist entitlement.
Universal health care: another socialist entitlement.

It's time the people demand leadership from our parties,(because they make the rules, no third party will work.
neither side will allow a 3rd party.)
Until we realize the politicians aren't serving either side, they will continue to play both sides against the middle.

One side might win, but nothing will change.

Ahazmat · May 22, 2006

SallyNow said:
Ah...but lower wages mean that more people can get jobs!

Even if it means that the wages are so low that people can't get healthcare.

And have to take more sick-leave, loans, et al to pay for medical care.

And therefore can't actually work all that hard.

Meaning that it would be better if people got higher wages, or universal health care, or both.

Two things that probably aren't going to happen in the USA in the next two years.

Oh, yah, links: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55301-2004Sep27.html

From the USA embassy itself (read between the lines): http://usa.usembassy.de/society-health.htm

One more: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-08-30-health-care-crunch-survey_x.htm

Except that in the current USA situation lower wages often do not mean more jobs. They often just mean lower wages. The nation had good jobs that paid a family wage replaced by low paying jobs. Tracking the numbers is very enlightening.

Ahazmat · May 22, 2006

Billnew said:
The problem is, they haven't offered anything different.
They are against everything being done.

One side might win, but nothing will change.

We have a dandy parliamentary system and a figurehead chief executive. We might let you folks rejoin the commonwealth if you ask real nice.

Ahazmat · May 22, 2006

You can always refuse to buy the products sold by those private companies.

Ahazmat · May 22, 2006

SallyNow said:
You want to vote for what news you get? Stop watching news. Stop buying products that advertise on the news. Stop buying the newspaper. Cancel your TV subscription.

Want censorship? Be prepared for censorship. When it comes to censorship, no one knows who's going to be next. It has unexpected results, unexpected tendencies. It's not some easy solution to bad ideas. The only solution to bad ideas is better ones. The only solution to lies is truth.

Please don't go making up accusations against hard-working journalists, researchers, camera crews, set designers, make-up people, props people, grips, lighting crews, printers, fact-checkers, graphics people, and all the others who work very hard and work very long hours to bring news to TV, print, and radio. They aren't evil. Most are working very hard to bring local, national, and world events to the public. They aren't trying to fufill some agenda, beyond making a good day's wage and taking part in an important aspect of any free society.

Sally, you really must stop showing the superiority of the Canadian educational system.

tulc · May 22, 2006

I cannot choose the leaders of the Atheistic liberal news and entertainment industry.

Remember: "If you don't vote, you shouldn't complain!"
tulc(striking a blow for partipatory conspiracies!)

CaligulaNero · May 22, 2006

"Response
Given a choice between a group of people living in New York, Boston and Hollywood controlling America or government censorship, I would choose censorship."

How did Boston, a small provincial town, get top billing with NY and California?
Faux News? General Electric, war profiteer (aka NBC)? The media is concerned with $$$$ and it is hardly "liberal".
So you don't like the message coming out of NY and Hollywood (what in particular)? The alternative is to have Alabama's world view decide what we watch (even though it isn't reflective of our country)?

Thirst_For_Knowledge · May 22, 2006

CaligulaNero said:
How did Boston, a small provincial town, get top billing with NY and California?

Apparently Boston has an enormous gay population... something I really didn't know about untill recently. That's probably why Boston was thrown in there.

Anovah · May 22, 2006

clirus said:
Anovah quote
So you're FOR censorship?

Response
Given a choice between a group of people living in New York, Boston and Hollywood controlling America or government censorship, I would choose censorship.

I can choose the government leaders by voting, I cannot choose the leaders of the Atheistic liberal news and entertainment industry. For all I know they may be Satan worshipers. What do you know about the people behind the pretty faces (usually women now) that appear on the TV and tell you they are going to present the news? Is it news or views? Or is it propaganda?

Thanks for the response Clirus,

I strongly disagree with censorship, and I'd like to explain why and see what your thoughts might be.

First, don't you find this is in direct conflict with our 1st amendment. Do you favor amending the bill of rights to serve this purpose? Why do you think the first amendment was important in the first place (if at all).

The next obvious problem is that whoever is in power will control the censoring, so your proposal could have the exact opposite result depending on who is in power.

In essence, censorship is not a power we should hand over to anyone, no matter how much we agree or disagree with a point of view, because that power will inevitably be abused (if not already by it's very nature).

Also, preventing the free flow of ideas will promote ignorance and suggests the truth cannot stand on its own. A prominent republican, much smarter than I, said it well...
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime."
- Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

And if it's propaganda that concerns you, here's a good quote from Harold Evans..."Propaganda is persuading people to make up their minds while withholding some of the facts from them"

To summarize: the truth matters, and censorship hinders the search for truth.

Your thoughts?

Jetgirl · May 22, 2006

nvxplorer said:
I've got one of those Liberal Atheist Machines. They make a great pot of coffee!

I have a Conservative Atheist Machine. It puts in extra caffine.

tulc · May 22, 2006

I have a Conservative Atheist Machine. It puts in extra caffine.

Sign me up!!
tulc(make it two!)

nvxplorer · May 23, 2006

Jetgirl said:
I have a Conservative Atheist Machine. It puts in extra caffine.

I have one of those, too. It came with a rebate.

clirus · May 24, 2006

Anovah quote
I strongly disagree with censorship, and I'd like to explain why and see what your thoughts might be.

Response
How would you feel about establishing a set of standards and refusing publication to those who do not meet those standards? Would you call that censorship?

This is exactly what ChristianFourms does. Certain subjects and language are considered to be unacceptable and inappropriate. If you want to see true freedom of speech go to the PBS NOW forum. Just read the headers.

People tend to think of censorship as suppressing something that should have been told. However, not everything is fit to be printed. A prayer meeting can become a gossip group if the intent is malicious.

I believe censorship relative to moral issues and war matters to be essential.

Without moral censorship every form of depravity will be presented, especially if there is a dollar to be made. That moral depravity will lead to the destruction of society, and the rejection of Jesus Christ.

Censorship is essential in a war. Wars should not fought. There is nothing about a war that is good. All news stories about war are bad. A war can easily be used by the news media to make a president look bad. However, as the news media is playing politics, soldiers are dying because they do not have the full support of the people who sent them into battle. America has not won a war since WW II where there was total censorship. Either we have, "war with censorship" or no war at all. Wars are not won is six months. It usually takes a generation of people to change the attitude of the people.

Nathan Poe · May 24, 2006

clirus said:
Anovah quote
I strongly disagree with censorship, and I'd like to explain why and see what your thoughts might be.

Response
How would you feel about establishing a set of standards and refusing publication to those who do not meet those standards? Would you call that censorship?

This is exactly what ChristianFourms does. Certain subjects and language are considered to be unacceptable and inappropriate. If you want to see true freedom of speech go to the PBS NOW forum. Just read the headers.

People tend to think of censorship as suppressing something that should have been told. However, not everything is fit to be printed. A prayer meeting can become a gossip group if the intent is malicious.

And private individuals and corporations have the right to set those standards. Our government does not.

I believe censorship relative to moral issues and war matters to be essential.

Without moral censorship every form of depravity will be presented, especially if there is a dollar to be made. That moral depravity will lead to the destruction of society, and the rejection of Jesus Christ.

Well, that's your opinion. Aren't you glad nobody's censored it?

Censorship is essential in a war. Wars should not fought. There is nothing about a war that is good. All news stories about war are bad. A war can easily be used by the news media to make a president look bad. However, as the news media is playing politics, soldiers are dying because they do not have the full support of the people who sent them into battle. America has not won a war since WW II where there was total censorship. Either we have, "war with censorship" or no war at all. Wars are not won is six months. It usually takes a generation of people to change the attitude of the people.

But if a free press and a lack of censorship reminds our leaders of the consequences of war, and gives them pause before sending a batallion into combat unprepared, or dropping napalm on a village of civilians, I can't see how that is a bad thing.

What kind of wartime atrocities would prevail if the news was only allowed to print "Everything is just peachy" fluff stories? Would Abu Gharib have ever become public knowledge in a censored society? Would Guantanimo Bay?

Don't our citizens have a right to know what its government is doing around the world in their name?

And what incentives would our lawmakers have to limit such censorship in wartime -- or, for that matter, to limit their wars at all?

If a war gives our leaders carte blance to run amuck without accountability to the people, then why should they be interested in peace?

tulc · May 24, 2006

Censorship is essential in a war. Wars should not fought. There is nothing about a war that is good. All news stories about war are bad. A war can easily be used by the news media to make a president look bad. However, as the news media is playing politics, soldiers are dying because they do not have the full support of the people who sent them into battle. America has not won a war since WW II where there was total censorship. Either we have, "war with censorship" or no war at all. Wars are not won is six months. It usually takes a generation of people to change the attitude of the people.

Uhmm let me see if I have this right: war is bad, but what's worse is telling people how bad it is? Ahhh thought crime! Always good for a laugh! Giving up rights to make the President look better. What could be more noble.
tulc(who's the enemy this week?)

Nathan Poe · May 24, 2006

tulc said:
Uhmm let me see if I have this right: war is bad, but what's worse is telling people how bad it is? Ahhh thought crime! Always good for a laugh! Giving up rights to make the President look better. What could be more noble.

Didn't it occur to you that war wouldn't be so bad if our press was only allowed to tell people how good it was?

And don't you know that criticizing a wartime president -- especially a perpetual wartime president -- is treasonous here in One Nation Under Bush?

That's the whole rationale for censorship: Every time a US citizen criticizes Bush II, his administration, or his tactics, the terrorists win.

tulc(who's the enemy this week?)

My guess is it's us, Comrade.

Propaganda Machine

Well-Known Member

Blame it on the SOCK GNOMES!

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Ahazmat

Guest

Ahazmat

Guest

Ahazmat

Guest

Ahazmat

Guest

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Veteran

I Am A New Title

Senior Member

The cake is a lie.

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency