I'm voting for McCain....

Hey, I can make biscuits.

I'll renounce Obama right now for pulled pork and biscuits.

Inneedofbuds said:

I'll renounce Obama right now for pulled pork and biscuits.

Click to expand...

<Dave grins> And rightfully so...She makes some damn fine homemade biscuits. Now, what sauce would you like on that Pulled Pork? I've got my vinegar-based, mustard-based, and tomato-based sauces just simmerin' away ready for dippin'.

VTXDave said:

<Dave grins> And rightfully so...She makes some damn fine homemade biscuits. Now, what sauce would you like on that Pulled Pork? I've got my vinegar-based, mustard-based, and tomato-based sauces just simmerin' away ready for dippin'.

Click to expand...

i'd say the vinegar-based but i'm more than willing to try all three.

ccodiane said:

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT



"Polls are used to shape public perception, not reflect it." Rush Limbaugh, today

Click to expand...

Once again, a vacuous post our darling girl, DIANE. So well thought out. You are a perfect example of manufactured consent taken to extremes. You are a victim of manufactured consent, but too naive and arrogant to even contemplate such a notion. And probably too naive to even read an article on this concept and comprehend it past the first two lines. Your posts indicate someone whose reading capabilities are nonexistent.

Now, shut up and listen to some others who have relevant comments to add to this extremely important topic. I don't think I give a damn about you, except that you are another human being on this planet, but let me tell you this: MY CHILDREN matter to me, a lot. This "course' that we've been "staying" is threatening MY CHILDREN. And they are too precious, too beautiful, too good to have their lives, their gift of life, stolen by money-hungry, out of control freaks--the ones whose nightmare we have been living for the last two administrations. So don't mess with me, girlfriend. I'll go to the ends of the earth and back for my children. Never mess with an angry mother bear.

There are a lot of good comments on this thread about the media (and thank you to all who commented on my post, seriously--more later, in better detail on that loaded, LOADED topic). Sea Maiden? I've seen your posts on the book thread. We've read a lot of the same books, so I know you and I are on the same page, at least in some areas. Thanks for the comment.

And Vi? Isn't it just plain old civilized to have a real conversation/debate on this topic? Without the god awful mud slinging? Thanks for your comment.

Now, back to the darling Diane's comment about polls? OH yeah? Really? Why don't you go google GALLUP and their sneaky ties to the religious, insane right? You know, the folks who vote in this democracy based solely on RELIGIOUS views? Gallup is a mind sculptor: part of the manufactured consent club. I know, sweetheart, that's over your head. Please, just back to high school, okay? This copy/paste of OTHER people's opinions shows only your sorely lacking intellectual capabilities. Really. Go read something, for heaven's sake. I mean, really READ for a change.

Gallup has some nasty ties.

If anyone is interested in honest polls, conducted with bona fide reliable METHODOLOGY, check out Pew. They are reliable. They are unbiased. Their methodology (which brings up the topics of validity and reliability, in the RESEARCH sense, not the way we throw those words around in conversation) is unsurpassed, to my knowledge.

Okay, I'm off to bed. But I will say this: this is a very important topic to me--our so-called liberal media. Just keep this tid bit in mind next time someone tells you that Britney did this or that, or that Lindsey Lohan is now gay, or that Paris got out of jail because she just freaked, etc, etc, etc. During the times of the Roman Empire, the powers that be used what they called "bread and circus" to keep the people/citizens distracted from what was really going on in their quest to conquer the world (sort of like, uh, I dunno, another empire . . . the USA?). Bread and circus. Keep feeding the common folks lots of bread, give it away! Keep putting on circuses to keep them entertained with purient and specious acts, and the commoners will just not notice WTF the powers that be were really up to.

Keep that thought in mind the next time you are forced to endure the assault on your mind when you're stuck in the check-out line at the local mainstream grocery store/market. Bread and circuses.

Distractions . . . from coffins, from vets who go off the deep end when they come home from being used as pawns in the quest for a world-wide empire by the powers that be NOW, here and now.

Bread and circuses.

John Denver had a song off his Aerie album years ago with this line: BLOW UP YOUR TV AND EAT A LOT OF PEACHES.

Excellent advice. Get rid of the television.

Night!

Sleep well, Diane. And then maybe READ something tomorrow, instead of copy/pasting. THINK, don't spew.

Vi wrote:

Of course, anyone who's political stance is on the left would have to have an open mind to read it.

Here's another good one that I often recommend on fascism and how America is sliding into it:

The Ominous Parallels By Leonard Peikoff


Anyway, looking forward to more input from you. Take care ...

Vi

Yeah, that. I read lots of them, even Ann Coulter and George I-Love-Reagan Will.

Re fascism and how we are sliding into it: we're in stage three, I believe, if I recall correctly. I've gotten to the point that sometimes seeing all the flags just freaks me out. And I came from a "nice" middle class background with republican parents.

I wonder if this will work, from photobucket, inserting into my post..

Eh, forget it. Tomorrow. I gotta go to bed!

Dont' forget to floss!

Looking forward to more of your input too.

Lets resurrect Ayn Rand and make her president!

ALL in gimme a Fuck YEA!

we just need a necromancer or maybe someone from the bohemian club.

Leilani whips out the bread and circuses! (It's an old one most people don't get, I recently had to explain it to a COLLEGE PROFESSOR.)

So, what do you think of Zogby? It's difficult with polls and pollsters, because often I really hate the way the questions are framed. And I'll tell them, I don't like how this question is framed. Their response? Just answer it the way it is. Mine? Fuck off, I can see when something is framed in such a way as to give it a particular spin. Most people can't, in my very honest opinion, but I can.
Maybe that's why I don't get so many calls from pollsters anymore...

Gravtronics said:

Lets resurrect Ayn Rand and make her president!

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one, Grav. The woman was a prophet. We are experiening the shrugging of Atlas as we speak.

The bureaucrats are in a panic ... we can readily see the fear all over their faces. They don't have a freaking clue as to what to do. They caused this mess with all of their socialist remedies, laws and regulations stiffling the private markets ... and now, as Rome is burning, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!

John Galt ... beam me up!

Vi

ViRedd said:

I'm with you on this one, Grav. The woman was a prophet. We are experiening the shrugging of Atlas as we speak.

The bureaucrats are in a panic ... we can readily see the fear all over their faces. They don't have a freaking clue as to what to do. They caused this mess with all of their socialist remedies, laws and regulations stiffling the private markets ... and now, as Rome is burning, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!

John Galt ... beam me up!

Vi

Click to expand...

Uhhhhh, it was the lack of rules that led to this debacle, the free market experiment gone wrong. Greed rules and the people are forced to pay for all that profit taking. When CEOs walked and are walking with 10s of millions of dollars while we the average citizen is struggling to make it, there is something wrong with the system, a system that let the free market rape and pillage and now want's us to pay for it all, with no oversight. How can anyone in their right mind say this is due to over regulation by the government???

medicineman said:

Uhhhhh, it was the lack of rules that led to this debacle, the free market experiment gone wrong. Greed rules and the people are forced to pay for all that profit taking. When CEOs walked and are walking with 10s of millions of dollars while we the average citizen is struggling to make it, there is something wrong with the system, a system that let the free market rape and pillage and now want's us to pay for it all, with no oversight. How can anyone in their right mind say this is due to over regulation by the government???

Click to expand...

Is Congress government? Is the Democrat Party in office, Government?

When you regulate the lending institutions to the point that those regulation REQUIRE them to loan to sub-prime borrowers, you will have a problem. When proposals to put into place oversight on these lending institutions are shot down by GOVERNMENT ... then you have problems CAUSED by GOVERNMENT ... and not the private sector.

Now, I have to leave. Its "make a living" time. I'll look for your answer when I get back. Until then ... take care.

Vi

Gravtronics said:

Lets resurrect Ayn Rand and make her president!

ALL in gimme a Fuck YEA!

we just need a necromancer or maybe someone from the bohemian club.

Click to expand...

Hi there. I'll sign up for the bohemian club, as a rep, okay? I can help out with the witchcraft/necromany, but I've not yet perfected my powers, sorry

Now, on Ayn Rand. She was brilliant in some ways. In other ways, a complete whack job. Her PHILOSOPHY regarding altruism, taxes, etc, all seem to make sense; however, when you contemplate it deeply--that taxes ought to be voluntary in a totally free society--and you consider where we are now, (and esp today, this year, right now) it simply will not work. It cannot work. It's a lovely thought (and I know Rand would want to smack me for using that term about her philosophy, because she was no softie, no warm-hearted fuzzy). But that's as far as it can go-- a lovely thought. For someone so tough, and she was tough, she sure did have her head up in the clouds regarding altruism, charity, taxes, and so forth. I'd call her a dreamer, but I don't want to insult John Lennon.

Why? Well, we Americans have been living under another urban myth--that we are the most generous people in the world. Untrue. Dollar for dollar (or whatever currency we're going to be using now that the dollar is junk), yes, Americans donate the most. Suppose we make a very simple analogy out of this. Let's say that pieces of quartz are the things donated; pieces of quartz are the currency. Say a natural disaster struck some place in Asia, right? The 300 million or so Americans would look really good with all the chunks of quartz that pour in to help out the people in Thailand. BUT, and this is very relevant to the discussion bringing in Rand here and elsewhere on this thread: per capita, for each individual, Americans are not the most generous. Yes, we as a nation do donate lots of quartz pieces, boatloads of it, but when we divvy up the chunks of quartz--per person--Americans are not the most generous.

Here's a link that I've checked out and given my own stamp of approval to, to demonstrate where we Americans rank as far as helping out with chunks of quartz:

Most Generous Countries

Notice that the US is #18 out of 20 western industrialized nations. Luxembourg is first on the list. We give more chunks of quartz than only Iceland and Italy. (And the bums me out, because I want to visit both places; you'd think that in Iceland, with their capital city having the most bars per square mile than anywhere else in the world, they'd be so wasted they'd be dropping chunks of quartz into every Salvation Army bucket in view . . . . what a drag. Italy? I'm so disappointed! What about how they're always saying Mange! Mange! Eat, have some more! Oh well, that's a different evening.)

So we are NOT the most generous people in the world. We're also not the most generous when it comes to governmental spending on foreign aid. Nor are we all that generous with our fellow citizens. We just think we are, and that allows so many of us to keep believing that we are such a good and moral nation, and that we have been unjustly persecuted by the rest of the world's people.

Back to Rand and altruism, taxes, etc. That is one reason, just one, that Rand's philosophy will not work. Yes, it's a great thought, and one that is almost biblical in nature: give what you can, and then some. Rand was a cynic, admittedly. And honestly, there are so many roads that can lead to cynicism that it's an easy valley to find oneself in (I battle it every other week myself), but for her to have postulated that voluntary altruism/taxes are the only way to keep a free society free seems very naive to me. And I might add that I'm being generous in that summation of Rand. She was not naive; she was a very intelligent, but cold, individual. Evidently, however, she had quite a bit of faith in the generosity of human beings, esp those living in what was once the most wealthy and freest society known to humankind. That she would have relied on voluntary donations is just plain dumb. It will not happen. We're cheapskates at heart, plain and simple.

Disclaimer: I am NOT talking each and every individual. I am talking about the people as a whole. I know that there are many extremely generous Americans, and I admire them greatly. I'm currently bitching myself out for not giving more than I do. I spend plenty on junk that I do not need.

Now, how about this direct quote from Rand regarding taxes and such? I'm quoting from THE AYN RAND LIBRARY, vol 4, THE AYN RAND LEXICON. This is an excerpt from a piece she wrote called "Government Financing In A Free Society, page 157):

In a fully free society, taxation--or to be exact, payment for governmental services--would be voluntary.[emphasis is rand's]. Since the proper services of a government--the police, the armed forces, the law courts--are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests [emphasis mine] directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary governmental financing--how to determine the best means of applying it in practice--is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law . . . . "

She goes on to say more, but basically keeps coming back to her basic notion that these services we as citizens need should be financed voluntarily.

Okay . . . so what would really happen? Way back when I was a kid, my mother collected antiques and decorated our home with some interesting pieces. Being the little bohemian kid that I was, I wanted to know what everything meant, where it came from, etc. On the wall in our kitchen hung a plaque with some symbol on it--too hard to describe and not necessary for the discussion. I asked my parents one day: What is that thing?

Answer: Back in the "olden days" if you did not pay for fire fighting services, and your home caught on fire, it would be left to burn down. If you didn't pay? Tough. The neighbors will all have a blast, watching your home burn to the ground because you did not--voluntarily--pay for fire protection. Maybe it was a bad crop year, or maybe you just didn't feel like allocating quartz for fire protection. Who knows?

This is the kind of stuff that would happen if Rand, or one of her ardent followers, was running this place (or rather a Randesque administration). We're seeing the same thing now with health care. People are being bled to death with the bills--and that's true if they even have health insurance in the first place. And we, the American people, stand on the sidelines, watching our fellow citizens go through almighty hell just trying to stay alive, and some of us say, "Well, you know, they CHOSE not to have insurance [or the right kind of insurance]."

Really? I don't think so.

Another disclaimer: I might be a flaming liberal, and I do admit that, but I am NOT advocating that we overlook personal responsibility.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on Ayn Rand's philosophy. Voluntary taxes? Uh, no. We won't have roads--way, way back in this thread Dank Dude asked Diane: Do you like to drive on bridges that are on the verge of collapsing? What a good point. Same with education. Do we want a bunch of uneducated children who will turn into adults running the show one day? I don't want people who have no inkling of this big, wide world running the show when I'm elderly and helpless. Anyone else?

The list is just about endless. Altruism is a good thing, yes--it's stupid to argue otherwise. Virtue is virtue. But we cannot rely upon it to run this gigantic machine. No way. See the New Testament for the story about the poor widow who gave all she had to someone who needed it, compared to the wealthy who gave more chunks of quartz, but less percentage-wise. And then think about the absolute misers who have more money than they could ever need. Who are trying to kid?

End of my book on Rand.

Sea Maiden? You had to explain bread and circuses to someone in academia? Geeze. Ten points for you, minus twenty for that person. Although, if this was someone in one of the "hard" sciences, I guess I could see how they could have spent most of their lives and reading time on topics like quarks and super novas. Hmmm. Tell more, if you would, please and thank you.

Vi, I'll have to get back to you on those links. I am guilty of not checking them out yet. I DO have an open mind, which is why I'm such a good liberal! My mind is always wide open.

ViRedd said:

Is Congress government? Is the Democrat Party in office, Government?

When you regulate the lending institutions to the point that those regulation REQUIRE them to loan to sub-prime borrowers, you will have a problem. When proposals to put into place oversight on these lending institutions are shot down by GOVERNMENT ... then you have problems CAUSED by GOVERNMENT ... and not the private sector.

Now, I have to leave. Its "make a living" time. I'll look for your answer when I get back. Until then ... take care.

Vi

Click to expand...

I think you both have good points.

Really? I don't think so.

Diane? You had to edit that post? Oh my, that is funny.

It's a school night. What were you doing up so late? Don't you have some remedial algebra to catch up on?

I'm not out to hurt your feelings. I just want you to STFU and let people who know how to do more than copy/paste have their say, without you interrupting with idiotic posts. You add nothing to this thread but inane little snippets . . . even one liners--that you have to EDIT. Please.

LMAO. You poor, poor thing. Ever heard that song by Shawn Colvin called GET OUT OF THIS HOUSE? Go back to high school? I noticed you posted some lyrics by Alanis way back on this thread. Now go google the lyrics from GET OUT OF THIS HOUSE.

Get off this thread until you can contribute something.

And don't stay up so late on school nights. First, second and third period classes will be wasted on you.

ccodiane said:

Really? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

tipsgnob said:

cc...momma says its bed time....

Click to expand...

tipsgnob said:

cc...momma says its bed time....

Click to expand...

That's r-i-g-h-t, Tigs. Some children are simply incorrigible, though, and this one appears so. I don't care if he flunks algebra. What's it matter to us? She just might be one of those people who, a few years from now, will be applying for financial aid to **try** to get an education. ha ha. I'd love to be a muse whispering in her ear at that time, "See? I told you. You do so approve of so-called liberal policies, like federal financial aid for education, now that YOU need it."

Enough of that crap.

I said that I would be back to elaborate a bit more on the myth of the liberal media. I've got a couple of links that have pertinent info, so I'm going to use those, with some of the more important points highlighted. I have, like, zero time today, but I did say this was important-and it is. I wish I had more time, because this issue is so important, but now i'm just repeating myself.

Here goes.

Pat Buchanan, who tends to be loquacious and has been for years, even dating back to his days as a staffer in the Nixon administration, got "caught" with this little snippet a few years ago. He knows the media are not liberal, and he IS a journalist, or at least he used to be.

Here's what he said about it, from just one link, but you can find this all over the Internet. To my knowledge, Buchanan has never rebutted this statement, which kind of says a lot.

First of all, a mini-bio on Buchanan, who he is, what he's been doing with his career, and which presidents he has worked with in the press/communications department:

Buchanan’s professional career began in 1962 when, at age 23, he became the youngest editorial writer for The St. Louis Globe Democrat. In 1966 he began his political career, when he signed on to be the first full-time staff member for Richard Nixon in what turned out to be Nixon’s comeback. Buchanan worked with Nixon during the 1966 and 1968 campaigns, as well as serving as special assistant to the president through the final days of Watergate. Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three American presidents — first Nixon, and then, in 1974, as special assistant to President Gerald Ford; and from 1985-87, he was White House Communications Director for President Ronald Reagan.

?Buchanan and Press? - Meet the faces of MSNBC - MSNBC.com

So if anyone was doubting what Buchanan had to say about the media being liberal, this man has heavy duty republican ties. Note also that Buchanan was with Nixon during the '68 campaign, which is when Nixon really went after the press with a vengeance because of his own difficulties with how he came off, particularly on television. Anyone can google quotes from Nixon regarding how persecuted he felt by the media.

Buchanan's remarks matter because of who he is and those for whom he has worked . . . in COMMUNICATION roles.

{NOTE: that link is from msNBC--see previous post of mine for who owns NBC. Then add in MS, and you've got a "news" outlet that is enjoying those tax deals with the feds.}

Here are Buchanan's own words.


"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. ... For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that."
Pat Buchanan

That link also a snippet from William Kristol.

"I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol


For anyone who does know who Kristol is, go see the Project For The New American Century. Kristol is also a biggie in the background of conservative politics.

And speaking of Project For The New American Century, check out who has signed this outrageous thing: Cheney, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, Donald We-Don't-Count-The-Dead Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Statement of Principles


Here's an excellent piece that explains, coherently and logically, how the media work. I was very glad to have found this link, because I used to have it bookmarked, but changed computers a while back and lost the link.

This article goes into good detail about how the number of owners of television stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines have been dwindling over the years. WHY is that a problem? When you have fewer and fewer owners of news outlets, there exists the potential to "massage" the news with more precision. Why massage the news? Because they can, and it will work to the best interests of these CORPORATISTS.

The U.S. has a liberal media

A few quotes from this article, which is kind of long.

The dangers of a media monopoly

Before reviewing the statistical evidence of the media monopoly, which is undisputed even by the media themselves, we should make certain of its dangers.

The incentives for buying media organizations have long been obvious to Wall Street, which has seen vicious competition break out to capture the remaining media markets. These incentives were articulated in 1986 by Christopher Shaw, a Wall Street expert who has handled over 120 media mergers. Shaw told investors that media buy-outs would give them two things: "profitability" and "influence." (4)

MY NOTE: THAT 'INFLUENCE' IS RELATED TO THE CONCEPT OF MANUFACTURED CONSENT. WHEN AN ENTITY BUYS A MEDIA OUTLET, THEY ARE BUYING THE AUDIENCE FIRST AND FOREMOST

There is nothing inherently wrong with either profitability or influence, of course -- it's just that in a monopoly, they would be abused. [MY NOTE: I AGREE; THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROFITABILITY.]Consider the abuse of profits. All the usual market failures would be present in a media monopoly: the captive market, the rise in prices, the drop in quality, and the exploitation of consumers.

But significantly more troubling is the monopolization of influence. [MY NOTE: AGAIN, THAT IS MANUFACTURED CONSENT] If one person controls all information, there are no opposing viewpoints so essential to keeping public and scientific debate honest. We profoundly condemn the monopoly of information by the state, as exemplified by Joseph Goebbels' "Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment." But this danger is no less evident if a single business takes over the control of all information in society. Then all information would come from a corporate point of view, silencing the voices of workers, consumers and other citizens who are affected by corporate behavior. Democracy is based on the assumption that opposing viewpoints can be heard. If corporations could somehow eliminate or control populist debate, then we will not have a true democracy.

The potential for abuse by corporate owners is obvious. Just one example was General Electric's earlier buyout of NBC News. General Electric is the 10th largest company in the United States. It is a major Defense contractor and an international player on the world market. It is sensitive to the needs of its clients, who come from all sectors of the economy. It is also a fact that GE has suffered many a scandal throughout its history. During the Great Depression, it cut the life of its light bulbs by one-third to drive up profits. It was convicted of an illegal agreement with a German arms company during World War II. It has been convicted of fraud, fixing bids, conspiracy and tax evasion. (5) In all these cases, control of a major media outlet would have given it undue influence, whether in the market or before Congress or the courts.

Furthermore, GE has played an active role in conservative politics. Shortly after the company acquired NBC, a GE executive announced that NBC should start a political action committee to contribute money to strengthen the company's influence in Washington. Failure to cooperate, the executive said, would raise questions about the employees' "dedication to the company." (6) Later the President of NBC News clarified that its news employees would be exempt from contributing, but this hardly removes the larger conflict of interest.

It should not be surprising that these parent companies, like most big businesses and all Defense contractors, are extremely conservative. They have agendas: they desire lower taxes, fewer lawsuits from the public, fewer environmental restraints, better public relations (a euphemism for less public exposure to scandals), higher profits and more effective lobbying power in Washington. Controlling public opinion would give them all these things. Ironically, it would not be necessary for a single winner to emerge from the take-over wars. Shaw maintains that by the year 2000, all U.S. media will be in the hands of six giant corporations. Most business analysts agree with him. (7) One can safely assume that they will all have the same business and political agenda.

There is a TON of information at this link, and it is all backed up with sources. This is not an opinion piece. It is a well reasoned, factual piece, with the proper citations to note where the information comes from. Yes, it is an older piece, but things have only gotten worse since the time this was published.

If you do have time to read the article, notice Gannet is mentioned. They own USA Today--along with a boatload of other newspapers. They've got a lot on the line as far as controlling opinion, lobbying to get what they want, and yes, keeping those sweet tax deals. Notice also the evidence in this article about how small town newspapers are becoming a thing of the past. True, even where I live, we have small town newspapers, but most are not where people are getting their "news." They are little, bitty Fish Head Gazettes, now often given away at no charge in grocery stores, banks, and so on. Some appear more like "real" newspapers, but they are still NOT what people are reading to get to the real news.

Notice also the information regarding cable television. Again, this is all related--these are businesses, first and foremost. Yes, there are some exceptions, but I don't have time to go into them. They were noted by Vi upthread, or at least some of them. Basically, here's how it goes. There are INDIVIDUAL journalists and pundits who cannot be put in the same box with Hannity, Buchanan, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. But they are beholden to their bosses for their jobs. True, some of them are even on the air, but start counting, for real, and you will come to the conclusion: this is a not a liberal media (specifically television).



This dwindling of information outlets also happened in Germany, starting in the 1930's in the lead up the Nazi regime. It is happening again today in Italy, where if memory serves me correctly, almost all the media outlets are owned by one man--and he either is, or was, president. This is some dangerous stuff. Anyone recall the scene from the movie Saving Private Ryan, when the guys are in a little village that has been torn apart and left in shambles and in the background you hear the Nazi propaganda on the radio: "The Statue Of Liberty is kaput!" What's the purpose of that? To keep molding minds and manipulating information. It was not so much uttered on the German radios to rally up hate for America, as much as it was to keep the people believing: WE ARE WINNING, and that was just not the case.

Some people will argue that there are FOUR, not three branches of the federal government, with the press being the fourth branch. It was certainly important enough to be mentioned in the constitutional amendments: FREE press. We're slipping here, and slipping badly. Our news is massaged in an attempt to mold our minds into going along with what these powers that be want us to think--a difference between thinking and knowing, too.


Here's what Joseph Goebbels had to say about propaganda. Who was Goebbels? Hitler's Minister Of Propaganda. At that time, the word propaganda had not yet taken on the negative connotation we have of it today. Goebbels job was pretty much like we in this country call White House Press Secretary.

"Repetition is the lynchpin of propaganda."
Joseph Goebbels

That quote is from the first link I provided, but you can find it all over the Internet. Goebbels said, and he knew what he was talking about.

So does Karl Rove. Remember Stephen Colbert and that hilarious tid bit from him? TRUTHINESS? As long as you just keep repeating something over and over again, people just think it's the truth. And why would they not?

Karl Rove knows this too.

BuzzFlash: Could Karl Rove have been as successfully politically as he’s been without television?

James Moore: No, absolutely not. Karl understands completely the value of that medium. In fact, he commented to one of our sources for Bush's Brain that he runs all of his campaigns as if people were watching television with the sound turned down. What you end up with, then, is image over substance. Consider the couple having dinner with their children at the kitchen table with the TV on across the room and the sound turned down. They look over and see a smiling President on board an aircraft carrier with "Mission Accomplished" behind him. They might think, "Oh, good. That problem’s over. We can get on with our lives." They tend to compartmentalize and put that away, trusting that if the President of the United States is saying something to them, he’s speaking the truth, and not that it’s the latest of a series of messages to sustain a fiction.



James Moore Explains Karl Rove, the Architect of Bush&#039;s Master Plan | BuzzFlash.org

DISCLAIMER: I have not read that entire article, and I don't have time. It does, however, contain the same info I have found in quotes from Rove regarding political advertising, etc, with the idea in mind that people are LOOKING at television with the sound off. I've seen that quote many times in my travels on this topic. And if you think about it . . . isn't it kind of true that so many people will have a television going almost continuously when they are at home? They're not so much watching as they are absorbing. Keep repeating the same thing, over and over again, keep blasting the same images over and over again, and this stuff will just sink into the subconscious mind. It's a good strategy, if we are talking about it without assigning a moral/ethical/safety value to it. It works, plain and simple.

If I've left out links, I apologize. I do not even have time to edit this post before I hit "submit" so if I've messed it up by not putting the links in the right place, or screwing up the formatting, I'll try to get to that later and fix them. I've got this stuff bookmarked.

Our media are not, for the most part, liberal. Individuals, some, yes. The whole machine? No way.

I'm glad there are ANY liberal media news-ish shows on TV or the radio anymore. Our media is almost totally saturated with right-wing crap these days. CNN seems like the most neutral news outlet. Fox is obviously way right. MSNBC is obviously a bit left in general, and a fair bit left with at least some shows. But on the radio in this area? It's ALL conservative talk radio, nothing but, so you basically only get one-sided spin and no way to hear the other side of the stories without going to a different form of media.

Radio is a powerful thing too. When I was in the Army, I worked for 4th Psyops during/after the invasion of Grenada, and we built a radio station that we operated with the intent of swaying peoples' perceptions of the U.S. That was secret at the time; we weren't allowed to discuss the fact that the radio station was a psyops operation with anyone. It worked great too: by the time we left the island in late '84, they were in love with Reagan and the U.S. (The natives were always amazed when I'd tell them that I hated Reagan myself, which I probably shouldn't have ever told them.) I'm not saying that was bad, or that what we did was wrong, just pointing out that swaying peoples' thinking via radio broadcasts is a fairly effective tactic, and it's now being used on We The People via our own domestic radio broadcasting.