RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Musicmystery -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 9:41:15 PM)

quote:

I just figured that the same thing would apply in the US.


It does, but here, anything without a right-wing bias is considered left-wing propaganda.




TheHeretic -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 9:46:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Is the hair on your arms standing up yet?





Yep.  But then, I had it pretty easy for a good while, letting my anti-orwellian colleagues on the left handle the required noisemaking about this kind of stuff.  It's our turn now, and if a few "chicken little" accusations get flung this direction, I can take it.

We have an idealistic administration, without much experience actually running things.  These "neat ideas" are going to get run up the flagpoles, and pulled right back down again.  Maybe we'll even get a good scandal if they try to cover up an especially stupid one along the way.  That would help in '12.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:16:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

That would help in '12.

Only if a principled conservative magically appears, and decides to run, I think.

I'm not holding my breath. [sm=cactus.gif]

Firm




rulemylife -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:30:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

It is my understanding, based on my experience in Canada, that such public funding bodies (ours is called the Canada Council) must be operated at arm's length from the government in power. This is to prevent,not only impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety.

Personally I don't think that the NEA would allow itself to be used in such an openly partisan manner, but the appearance of such is as damaging as the actual fact of such. If those in the arts community believed that such a program of only funding "friendly" art was in place it would stifle the free rein of the artists to follow their muses wherever they might lead. As I said,in Canada we go to great lengths to not only prevent such a thing from happening,but also to prevent the perception of such a thing from occurring. I may be wrong, but I just figured that the same thing would apply in the US.



The question is who is creating the perception?




rulemylife -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:32:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


Yep.  But then, I had it pretty easy for a good while, letting my anti-orwellian colleagues on the left handle the required noisemaking about this kind of stuff.  It's our turn now, and if a few "chicken little" accusations get flung this direction, I can take it.

We have an idealistic administration, without much experience actually running things.  These "neat ideas" are going to get run up the flagpoles, and pulled right back down again.  Maybe we'll even get a good scandal if they try to cover up an especially stupid one along the way.  That would help in '12.


We sure don't want any of that idealism nonsense messing up the idyllic system we have.




DomKen -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:34:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gift4mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I'm not familiar with "propoganda". Sorry.

Firm

A spelling flame. How frightfully original. nice derail of your own thread though.


Didn't you quickly ridicule me in one of my posts for misspelling a word? [:-]


Not that I can find. So link it or a retraction is in order.




Arpig -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:37:22 PM)

quote:


The question is who is creating the perception?
Those in the NEA who are urging artists to create art that promotes the issues in contention.




TheHeretic -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:40:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I'm not holding my breath.



I can't say I blame you.  Nature abhors a vacuum, though.  I'm completely ok with seeing how the landscape looks after the mid-terms.  




FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:51:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:


The question is who is creating the perception?
Those in the NEA who are urging artists to create art that promotes the issues in contention.

Not only that ... the Administration itself is urging the NEA to urge artists ...

When does "urge" become "require"?

Firm




Arpig -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:53:04 PM)

Well my point is that it never actually has to in order for it to have the same effect.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/8/2009 10:58:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Well my point is that it never actually has to in order for it to have the same effect.

Exactly.

Damn Arpig. We need more liberals like you down here.

I'd give ya a job, so you can get your work visa. Then we can talk about citizenship and running for office. [:)]

Firm




Arpig -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/9/2009 5:43:40 AM)

 Thanks for the offer Firm, but I am pretty sure I would be unelectable down there...remember I consider Obama to be slightly right of centre.

Well that and I have a nasty habit of being honest, which sort of precludes a political career anywhere[:D]




rulemylife -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/9/2009 9:10:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:


The question is who is creating the perception?
Those in the NEA who are urging artists to create art that promotes the issues in contention.



Well, not trying to divert the issue, but does it strike you as somewhat funny that the same people who advocated denying funding for the NEA over artworks they found offensive (such as post #4) are the same now waving the flag in pseudo-support of the NEA when they can use the organization to target Obama?

Just the same Republican nonsense we had with Clinton.

Dredge up anything to discredit him, real or not.




Arpig -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/9/2009 9:23:01 AM)

Well, rml, your approach of dismissing any criticism as nothing but partisan mudslinging is dangerous in and of itself. If you won't even examine the criticism you will miss things that are being done that are wrong or need remedying. In this case it makes no difference who originated the criticism, if the claims are correct,then it was a misuse of the NEA.

And I might point out that I am the most vocal of those on here who are "waving the flag in pseudo-support of the NEA",and I have no desire to target Obama for anything,and I expend many thousands of keystrokes on here defencing him. Aswell I had nothing against the NEA funding Maplethorpe (that's the artist in question in post #4 I believe) or anybody else...that's what its there for, to fund art, not to fund art that the public (or administration in power at the time) likes.




Termyn8or -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/9/2009 9:44:30 AM)

FR

Why does it always come down to Obama/Bush ? This was going on way before even war bonds they used to sell. It is as old as civilisation itself nearly. If you take a really good look, how you percieve it is largely based upon whether you agree or not. Like an (uggh) evangelist. They don't see it as propoganda at all. They are "spreading the word".

Sometimes there are none so blind as those with 20/20 visual accuity.

T




SpinnerofTales -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/9/2009 4:03:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



Alinsky rule 5 and rule 12.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Let me assure you, Firm, that I did not write that letter saying "Oh, I am so glad I read Alinsky. Now I can use ridicule to freeze it, personalize it and polarize it."  And given the "people hurt faster than institutions" quotation, I will say that it is not nor ever was it my intention to hurt you in any way. If I have, please excuse me for playing this political debate game too roughly.

That said, let me move from your claim of Alinskyism to a far older concept. Truth is absolute and complete defense against defamation. For example:


quote:

Me:
Last time you put citations up on a subject, we found out that Obama was bipolar, that his friends were admitting that he actually wanted "government death panels" and that our president was planning on making every American sign a "loyalty oath".....not to mention coining the the charming phrase Obamunist.

Firm:
Utterly false.

Is this a lie on your part, a fabrication, or a lame attempt at hyperbole?

Back your claim up with a cite, please, or apologize like the man you claim to be.


Very well....let me back up my claim.
On page four of the Bill Mhar thread, you posted the following link to prove your assertion that the White House was sending "Union goons" to commit violence against the conservative counter protesters: http://oregonionvideo.blogspot.com/2009/05/seiu-obama-stimulus-corruption.html. While showing you the respect of checking your sources, I found the following "News Headlines" along the side: Now, let's see....we have the loyalty pledge, we have the Bipolar thing, and we have the term "Obamunist". Now what was it I said you accused of being lies? I believe it was that your chosen website to cite on your claim said that Obama was bi-polar. sought loyalty oaths and used the term "Obamunist". So far I seem to be three for three.

In the same posting listing your citations, you posted this link:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_2745790/mpage_6/key_seiu/tm.htm#2748484 


On inspection of this site's homepage, I found this headline
  • Obama’s Friends ‘Out’ the Death Panels
    by Jennifer Rubin
    These aren't links I made up. This isn't ridicule and mockery. This is simple rip and read. Given your challenge above, I would be tempted to challenge you to show any of these citations of the sort of reportage that these two sites provide false or "apologize like the man you claim to be".

    I could go on and on pointing out cut and paste examples of the caliber of sites you choose to cite as authorities but if these aren't enough to back up the fact that these aren't enough to point out a) that these sites said exactly what I claimed they did and b) that they do not lead to the level of credibility enjoyed even by such organizations as Fox News, nothing will.

    So let's get to the next topic of discussion:

    quote:


    Play ball, or go fish. I had believed that it was possible that you were a person with enough intelligence and honor to be able to discuss and debate, once you realized that I don't fall for your tricks. To me, this post is a watershed, in painting you as nothing more than a dyed-in-the-wool partisan


    Again let me quote you: 
    quote:

    Firm"But suppose that Bush and Cheney attempted something like this in order to "build support for important issues of the day, such as the fight against terrorist and the war in Iraq".

    Couldn't you just hear the screams all across the land, in almost every newspaper, and on every television station?

    DailyKos would have gone ballistic"?



  • I would suggest your seeming inability to bring up any subject without the twin themes of "Obama is bad" and "Bush/Cheny was so picked on by your liberals and the MSM (main stream media for those don't spend their time on sites claiming Obama is the anti-Christ) makes your charges of my being partisan at the very least a case of the pot calling the kettle "a cooking utensil of color"

  • As long as you continue to use as citations far right, agenda driven, conspiracy theory shouting sources that are not worth the time it takes to click them off the screen, I'm going to feel free to point them out. When I cite an article about, say, the conservatives trying to block healthcare reform purely to see Obama fail so they can regain power, look at my citations. If the associated content includes things like "Republicans make secret deal to allow Panamanian drug lords to sell legal heroin in public schools in exchange for promise to assassinate Obama", I will understand completely if someone does the same to me.
    .

    quote:

    Please prove me wrong.

    On anything.

    Firm


    Please review the above citations. You have been proved wrong. Truth is the best and absolute defense against charges of defamation.




  • FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/9/2009 7:05:20 PM)

    I never posted in the "Bill Mahr" thread, sorry.

    Your one link to a thread in the above post is to the "Astroturfing" thread.

    I've got several links on that thread.

    One of them is to an article on the pajamasmedia site, which is generally a conservative/libertarian site. I'm sure that there are all kinds of articles, stories and video's that I've not personally vetted or agreed with (nor necessarily disagree with, either).

    However, I don't read the entire New York times website, nor agree or disagree with everything posted there, although I've been known to link to it.

    Neither I nor anyone else that I know is particularly agreeable to being held accountable to everything written on the Internet simply because it is all linked in one way or another.

    No, you are doing nothing but continuing to deflect, demonize and ridicule.

    None of the stories that you originally claimed that I linked to, did I indeed link to. In fact, none of the stories you link to above were ever linked to by me.

    In other words, your words were false. Whether not they were (are) a lie depends on what's in your heart, and your intent.

    I'll let the public and God judge those.

    But as far as your ability to reason, and be accurate in your assessment's, that is very much not in question.

    Firm




    SpinnerofTales -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/9/2009 7:29:59 PM)

    quote:

    None of the stories that you originally claimed that I linked to, did I indeed link to. In fact, none of the stories you link to above were ever linked to by me.

    In other words, your words were false. Whether not they were (are) a lie depends on what's in your heart, and your intent.

    I'll let the public and God judge those. ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



    Come on now, Firm....I never claimed you linked to those articles and I have more faith in your intelligence than to claim I have. I have said clearly that those links were indicative of the reliability of those sites. The fact that they are filled with nonsense casts severe doubt on their validity in anything they say. I have also said that I would be equally dismissive of a liberal/progressive site that dealt in such sensationalistic fabrications. The only reason I don't cite any is that I don't frequent them. I also, by the way, avoid sites claiming bigfoot is real, pro wrestling is actually a sport and aliens walk among us with anal probes. Such sites may occasionally, and most probably by accident, print a word of truth, but I am not about to bet on it. I also refuse to believe the sites we are discussing are the best the republican/libertarian school of thought have to offer. If they are, they have a great deal more to worry about than my comments.

    Also, for whatever it is worth, I have always seen this much more as a criticism, and yes even a mockery, of your choice of websites than you as a person. In fact, I do not view what I say about anyone or any subject an attack on a person. I may disagree with their words, their ideas and their citations, but I have never believed that I could tell who a person was from posts on the political boards of a BDSM website.

    As for God judging me, I am an atheist so it's not a big concern. But, if I were to find myself, surprising me no end I assure you, before the throne of God and he said "You would have gotten into heaven....but I saw what you wrote in the politics board of Collarme.com." I would have to laugh all the way to eternal torment.

    Keep posting and have fun, Firm.....and be secure in the knowledge that in the political scheme of things, neither one of us matter. It all comes down to about 8% of the population who are independents and don't spend their time posting on political boards.




    FirmhandKY -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/20/2009 8:17:54 PM)

    FR:

    It seems like biggovernment.org's sister site bighollywood is getting ready to do another "Acorn bust":

    Pregame Report: The NEA Conference Call
    by Mike Flynn and John Nolte

    But, there is even a larger issue that hasn’t yet received much attention in the press. Among the Obama Administration officials on the call were Buffy Wicks, Office of Public Engagement and the lead White House official on the President’s Serve.Gov initiative to promote national service. Also on the call was Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for Serve.Gov. One of their main goals on the call, it seems, was to encourage artists to produce works that would reinforce the President’s call for service; specifically through the Serve.Gov web-portal.

    As Dana Loesch recently reported at Big Government, the Serve.Gov portal funnels citizens to volunteer or service projects connected with ACORN and other leftist groups. The taxpayer-funded website is evolving into a cyber-recruitment tool for the progressive movement.

    So what did happen on that call? Was the NEA coordinating with the White House to push their agenda on a group of artists eager for and reliant upon the NEA for grants, or is the NEA telling the truth that this call “was not a means to promote any legislative agenda”?

    Tomorrow at noon ET, explosive new information will answer that question and raise many others.


    ***



    I wonder if it will be as entertaining as the "kiddie prostitution ring" sting run on Acorn?

    Firm




    rulemylife -> RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? (9/20/2009 8:44:26 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


    Yep.  But then, I had it pretty easy for a good while, letting my anti-orwellian colleagues on the left handle the required noisemaking about this kind of stuff.  It's our turn now, and if a few "chicken little" accusations get flung this direction, I can take it.

    We have an idealistic administration, without much experience actually running things.  These "neat ideas" are going to get run up the flagpoles, and pulled right back down again.  Maybe we'll even get a good scandal if they try to cover up an especially stupid one along the way.  That would help in '12.


    That's the spirit.

    Let's not try to accomplish anything.

    Let's just hope for a "good scandal" to try and help the Republicans in '12.

    Let's hope for failure even if the country suffers for it.




    Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    6.347656E-02