Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Thanks, LVMT; yup, propaganda is the word, alright.

Posted By: sm - Starcat on 2006-08-11
In Reply to: Welcome back! You are definitely not alone ...sm - LVMT

You just wonder how much more damage will be done before more people see through it.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

He did that alright...(sm)

But that's what I see as a problem....inflaming the public.  The only thing that does is cause even more division -- like we need that right now.


Oh, alright
can he wait till winter, though?
Someone is gullible alright. nt
.
Oh, it was thoughtful alright............
not much intelligence involved though. All the run around speeches he gives for those who refuse to see it, just are nothing more than he says one thing and completely intends to do another. It's not that hard to hear for those of us who aren't falling for that Obama love fest you have going.


Oh, I get it alright and it's becoming more clear by
--
To LVMT

I just saw this for the first time today.  If you haven't seen it, I'd definitely recommend it because I think you might find it interesting.


http://freepressinternational.com/FPI/nfblog/mit-engineer-breaks-down-wtc-controlled-demolition


LOL! Thanks, LVMT.
I had missed that one.  Amazing.  Seven guys who study the BIBLE and don't have enough money between them to buy a Happy Meal.  Softball team would be a start, no?  LOL!
Alright then...count all the glaciers why don't cha...nm
5
He's losing his bearings alright...
I sincerely think that melanoma has affected his brain. He used to be a maverick, especially when he ran against GWB in 2000. Now he's just old, real old. Think it's time for him to retire.
I notice that all of a sudden it is alright
Boy, some of us really got trampled for using Hussein during the campaign, but I guess since he is using his whole name for the inauguration, it's okay for all his worshippers to say it now! ! !............
I find it perfectly alright to say
I am white and I know how it works. White folks say a couple is "engaged" if the girl gets pregnant. Black folks say they are staying somewhere but do not go as far as to say they are engaged.
Thanks for the link, LVMT;
alone in wondering about the timing of all of this....just like when the terror alerts disappeared after the election. Fear in all its forms(including eternal damnation) has always been useful in pacifying/controlling/manipulating the masses, no?
Worked for me; thanks, LVMT

Thanks for the link, LVMT (nm)
x
I'm a HATER, alright. I hate the ol' boy's club

Pretty scary stuff alright.

This was from a link below.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/06/news/newsmakers/emanuel_easton.fortune/?postversion=2008110613


It'd make an impression alright - by showing them
nm
Thanks for the nice words, LVMT.

But do yourself a favor.  Don't say anything nice to me or about me on this board.  If you do, you will be immediately hated and attacked, as well.  I don't want to see anyone else have to deal with their crap.  Life is just too short and they are just sooooooooooo not worth it.


Link is missing LVMT...nm

Hope you get up to speed soon LVMT... nm

Good luck, LVMT
All jobs take a while to get used to.  I'm sure you'll do very well in a very short time.  Hope you come back soon.
Look LVMT, you look up all the little definitions you want. You are still wrong. sm
Very very wrong.  Christopher Hitchens is hardly a neoconservative.  Neither am I and neither are most of the other conservative posters here. 
I'm sorry LVMT........ credit should have gone to you for posting! My bad! nm
x
You cannot type it word for word, just provide a link.
.
Please refer to LVMT post on neoconservatism

You will have to scroll down a bit to find it.  It kind of got lost in the debris of all the other posts.  I think it is a very valuable piece of information and addresses a topic that gets brought up frequently by the posters on the other board and is something I was unclear about until I read this.


Thanks for your research!!


It is waste alright! You dont spend taxpayer money
nm
Oh so true, LVMT. Love the way you put that...El Duce the Moose!

Just had to let you know you gave me a big laugh which we all need these days.  Also, since I'm on here, you are also exactly right about Colbert.  As in the movie A Few Good Men,  they can't handle the truth!  It is what it is! 


I agree. Great article. Thanks, LVMT for posting it.
To m:  LOL.  No problem.  It's very easy to do on this board. 
LVMT, I love it! Forgot how good that scene was! nm...
//
Wow, newbie Jackie is with the PROGRAM!!! Alright! Already calling people liars. sm
What a gooooooooood little liberal you are!  HIGH FIVE!
I remember the debate. And of course this is not word for word, I NEVER said...sm
*because I'm not.* This is a LIE that I got tired of arguing with them about then. Unless you are confusing me with an old poster that went under the moniker Demo.
Sambo thinks last word=best word...
su
Nah, propaganda?
They're just on a roll for stupid remarks. Check out the Repug from Iowa's dignified, intelligent line of thinking. What a jerk; obviously King prefers anemic blonde bimbos who spew out the same garbage he does.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726435

Iowa Congressman Apologizes for Rude Helen Thomas Reference

By E&P Staff

Published: June 22, 2006 2:00 AM ET

NEW YORK Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, apologized to Helen Thomas on Wednesday for disparaging comments he made about the veteran White House correspondent.

Last Saturday, Rep. King, while discussing the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at the state Republican convention, said, What occurred to me that morning is something that I imagine a lot of you have thought about and he's probably figured it out by now. There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he's at and if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas.

The remark drew wide laughter and applause.

A spokeswoman for the two-term congressman said King has apologized to Thomas, 85, now writing a column for Hearst newspapers.

King is running for re-election this fall.

Joyce Schulte, King's Democratic opponent in November, said
Mean-spirited remarks are beneath the dignity of any self respecting congressperson, and remarks about another person's appearance are even lower. I hesitate to even use Helen Thomas' name in the same document with so vile a wretch as al-Zarqawi. But I want her and the world to know that Iowans are not insensitive buffoons who make fun at someone else's expense.




because it is propaganda

due to the upcoming election.


 


Propaganda goes on. n/m
x
That is taken from the PROPAGANDA

link, which I already explained, and when you click on the red "require" link, it takes you directly to OBAMA'S PLAN, which does NOT SAY THAT.  The original link IS A LIE.


It was cleverly worded, intended to promote the propaganda that's attractive to predisposed Obama haters, who apparently are known to NOT click on the "supporting" link which, in this case, DOES NOT support their assertion.  I agree it worked with some, and that's sad.


Watch that propaganda now!
It's simply not true that Cindy Sheehan had "nothing but praise" for Bush and has now done a 360-degree turn. It's Drudge and Limbaugh nonsense with quotes taken out of context and spun to try and seem....what? It's nothing if not illogical. Aren't those intent on smearing her loudly proclaiming that she has been anti-Bush and anti-war since long before her son was killed? Then why would she fall all over herself praising him AFTER her son was killed? It makes no sense at all, but the attackers aren't really big on making sense apparently. They just throw all the garbage at the wall and see what might stick, that's how they operate.

What I really don't get is what the attackers are meaning to say. Even if it were true that Ms. Sheehan "did a 360" - point please? So what? So perhaps she was trying to make the best of a bad bad situation and least be respectful toward the president in consideration of his meeting with her and other family members - but since then, as she says herself, we have had the Downing Street proof, we have learned there were no WMDs at the time we invaded, we have learned all sorts of unbelievably horrible things - why SHOULDN'T anyone let those things change their views?

Now she just wants to know what this "noble" cause is that the President keeps referring to, and she wants to ask him to stop using the dead to justify making more unnecessary dead. But oh no, she must have an AGENDA! - well seems like that's it, isn't it? She wants to know and she wants him to look her in the eye and explain himself. And why shouldn't he? Or more precisely, why can't he seem to be able to do it? If he is sincere in his beliefs and committed to the cause, considering he's such a straight-talking nice guy, what's the problem? What is the big deal? It could all be over with in an hour. Why won't he just do it?
I agree. Probably over-the-top propaganda. sm
The more she hawks that film, the less interest I have in viewing it. I'm guessing it has more creative editing and special effects than a Hollywood movie, with plenty of lies and misinformation thrown in for good measure.

I like to find objective sources of information whenever possible, and that sure ain't gonna come from sam on this topic, IMO.
propaganda when convenient to you.
nm
Why do you say its racist propaganda
I just watched the video and there is nothing racist or of any propaganda. Whoever made the video took actual clips of Obama talking and talked about Obama's ideologies and mentors. Nothing racist involved. Is it your just upset because the truth about Obama is coming out and you dont want anyone to know what he is like?
That's pure propaganda

Right down to the music that is being played in the background.  Anyone can take bits and pieces of articles and flash them on the screen.  Those aren't facts. 


The democrates did not cause the financial crisis. Here are some real facts:


Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration. 


The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country.  It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican adminstration EXCEPT the top 1%. 


While Nixon and Ford were in office interest rates for mortgages had ballooned to 11%-13% and many people in this country could not afford to buy a home.  Carter brought those rates down so that more people in this country could afford to buy homes. 


What caused this mess is not the people who were extended credit.  Here is part of what caused it:  Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time.  Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. First-time home buyers were especially targeted.  A lot of them didn't understand what they were getting into because it was misrepresented to them.  They didn't know, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalities.  Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and they were unable to refinance.  Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford.  As homeowners lost their homes the banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices were no longer able to collect on those loans.  But the banks (and the CEOs) that initated those loans walked away with a great deal of money. 


It was because of greed.  And the deregulation that the republicans passed allowed it to happen. 


 


More Republican propaganda s/m

If you had been alive or old enough to remember, things like this were not that uncommon.  The hippie cult was rampant, especially in California and most of them were drug crazed, LSD I believe was the drug of choice, haven't heard of that in years..  The Viet Nam War was even more controversial than the Iraq War.  Soldiers came home from Viet Nam and were spit on by these kinds of radicals.  It was on the news daily.  Anyone else remember?  These people now have grandsons and granddaughters in Iraq and I can tell you first hand that at least some of them regret what they did and said in the 60s.


Now, considering this was back in the 60s and there is absolutely no proof that Obama was best buds with Ayers in the first place, why not let it go?  Apparently Ayers is a respected professor today.  How many of you who are of a ripe old age like myself would like to be judged on what you did when you were in your 20s?  I wouldn't.


 


Propaganda can be destructive to us ALL


by: Robert Parry, Consortium News


photo
Republican Whip Eric Cantor meets with his staffers. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)




    Today's Republicans are thumbing through Newt Gingrich's worn playbook of 1993 looking for tips on how to blunt President Barack Obama's political momentum and flip it to their advantage. In doing so, they also appear to have dug in to what might be called the secret appendix.

    The official history of what happened during Bill Clinton's difficult first two years - which ended in a sweeping Republican congressional victory in 1994 - focuses on the GOP's united resistance to his economic plan and Hillary Clinton's failed health care reform. But there was a darker side to the political damage inflicted on the early Clinton administration.


    Republicans and their right-wing allies disseminated what - in a covert operation - would be called "black propaganda." Some exaggerated minor scandals, like the Travel Office firings and Clinton's Whitewater real-estate deal, while other key figures on the Right, such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, spread ugly conspiracy rumors linking Clinton to "mysterious deaths" and cocaine smuggling.


    Sometimes, these multiplying "Clinton scandals" built on themselves with the help of their constant repetition in both the right-wing and mainstream news media. For instance, overheated accusations about some personnel changes at the White House Travel Office pushed deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster into a deep depression.


    Then, on July 30, 1993, a distraught Foster went to Fort Marcy Park along the Potomac River and shot himself. The Right quickly transformed the tragedy into a new front in the anti-Clinton psychological warfare, with Foster's death giving rise to a cottage industry for conspiracy theorists and a new way to raise doubts about Clinton.


    Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, among others, popularized the notion that Foster may have been killed elsewhere, with his body then transported to Fort Marcy Park. Repeated official investigations confirmed the obvious facts of Foster's suicide but could not quell the conspiracy rumors. [For the fullest account of the Foster case, see Dan Moldea's A Washington Tragedy.]


    The "mystery" around Foster's death also bolstered the "mysterious deaths" list, which mostly contained names of people who had only tangential connections to Clinton. The effectiveness of the list was the sheer volume of the names, creating the illusion that Clinton must be a murderer even though there was no real evidence implicating Clinton in any of the deaths.


    As the list was blast-faxed far and wide, one of my right-wing sources called me up about the list and said, "even if only a few of these are real, that's one helluva story." I responded that if the President of the United States had murdered just one person that would be "one helluva story," but that there was no evidence that Clinton was behind any of the deaths.


    Other dark Clinton "mysteries" were spread through videos, like "The Clinton Chronicles" that Falwell hawked on his "Old-Time Gospel Hour" television show. Plus, salacious tales about the personal lives of the Clintons were popularized via right-wing magazines, such as The American Spectator, and the rapidly expanding world of right-wing talk radio.


    The Right also generated broader conspiracy theories about "black helicopters" threatening patriotic Americans with a United Nations takeover. The paranoia fed the rise of a "militia movement" of angry white men who dressed up in fatigues and went into the woods for paramilitary training.


    By fall 1994, Clinton's stumbling performance in office and the public doubts created by the black propaganda opened the way for a stunning Republican victory. Recognizing the influence of talk radio in spreading the Clinton smears, House Republicans made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of the GOP caucus.


    However, the forces that the anti-Clinton psy-war campaign set in motion had unintended consequences. In the months after the Republicans gained control of Congress, one pro-militia extremist, Timothy McVeigh, took the madness to the next step and blew up the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Clinton Coup d'Etat?"]


    Reprising the Smears


    Now, 16 years since the start of Clinton's presidency, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are again on the outside of Washington power and are back studying the lessons of 1993-94. Only a month into Obama's presidency, there are some striking similarities in the two historical moments.


    In both cases, the Democrats inherited recessions and huge budget deficits from Republican presidents named Bush. In both cases, congressional Republicans rallied against the economic package of the new President hoping to strangle the young Democratic administrations in their cradles.


    And, as congressional Republicans worked on a more overt political level, their media allies and other operatives were getting busy at subterranean depths, reviving attack lines from the campaigns to sow doubts about the two Democratic presidents - and trying to whip up the right-wing base into a near revolutionary fervor.


    So far at least, the Republicans are experiencing less success against Barack Obama than they did against Bill Clinton. According to opinion polls, Obama remains widely popular with an American public that favors his more activist agenda for reviving the American economy and confronting systemic problems like energy, health care and education.


    Though Republicans scored points inside the Beltway with their opposition to Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill - and their complaints that Obama "failed" in his bipartisan outreach to them - the GOP tactics appear to have backfired with the American people.


    Gauging public opinion one month into Obama's presidency, polls found that most Americans faulted the Republicans for rebuffing Obama's gestures of bipartisanship, and a New York Times/CBS News poll discovered that a majority said Obama "should pursue the priorities he campaigned on … rather than seek middle ground with Republicans." [NYT, Feb. 24, 2009]


    But the Republicans seem incapable of coming up with any other strategy than to seek Obama's destruction, much as they torpedoed Clinton. The three moderate Republican senators who supported the stimulus package - Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter - were widely denounced by the right-wing media as "traitors."


    Indeed, the Republican Party arguably has become captive to the angry right-wing media that the GOP conservatives did so much to help create in the late 1970s, after the Vietnam War defeat and Richard Nixon's Watergate debacle.


    This Right-Wing Machine proved useful in protecting Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal; undermining Clinton in the 1990s; dirtying up AL Gore in 2000; and wrapping George W. Bush in the protective garb of a full-scale cult of personality after 9/11.


    But the machine wore down in its defense of Bush's multitude of disasters and ultimately could not generate enough suspicions about Obama to elect John McCain. Still, it remains a potent force in the country and particularly among the Republican "base."


    It is also a machine that can run only on the high-octane fuel of anger and hate. If it tried to down-shift to a more responsible approach to politics, it would stall out, losing its core audience of angry white men who feel deeply aggrieved by their loss of status.


    In turn, Republican leaders can't disown the right-wing media infrastructure that has advanced their interests for so long. In the first month of Obama's presidency, the congressional Republicans fell in line behind Rush Limbaugh's openly declared desire for Obama to fail.


    Now, the Republicans may see little choice but to bet on the ability of their Right-Wing Machine to continue spreading doubts and hysteria about Obama.


    More books and DVDs can be expected soon, recycling the 2008 campaign's rumor-mongering on Obama - that he wasn't born in the United States, that he's a secret Muslim, that he's in league with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, etc.


    Rumbling Insurrection


    Much like the Clinton-era militia movement's fear of "black helicopters," there already are rumblings about the need for an armed uprising to thwart Obama's alleged "communist" agenda.


    Ironically, right-wingers who defended George W. Bush when he mounted a radical assault on the Constitution - seeking to establish an imperial presidency while eliminating habeas corpus and other key freedoms - are suddenly seeing threats to the Constitution from Obama.


    Fox News, in particular, has been floating the idea of armed rebellion. On Feb. 20 - the one-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration - Glenn Beck hosted a special program called "War Room" that "war-gamed" various scenarios including the overthrow of an oppressive U.S. government when "bubba" militias rise up and gain the support of the American military.


    The segment featured former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, retired U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong, and Gerald Celente, a prognosticator who began pitching the idea of an armed rebellion on Fox News shortly after Obama's election last November.


    "This is going to be violent," said Celente, founder of Trends Research Institute. "People can't afford it [taxes] anymore. The cities are going to look like Dodge City. They're going to be uncontrollable. You're going to have gangs in control. Motorcycle marauders. You're not going to have enough police or federales - just like Mexico - to control the situation."


    Beck envisioned the uprising - theoretically set in 2014 - starting "because people have been so disenfranchised" leading to a "bubba effect" touched off by federal agents from the ATF or FBI arresting some rancher in Texas or Arizona who has taken the law into his own hands in defending his property.


    "That's totally possible," ex-Sgt. Strong said. "You've got people who are going to do the right thing to truly protect the interests of the United States, to include their own. … Your second and third orders of effect are going to be your bubbas hunkering down and being anti-government."


    Beck, who was a longtime fixture on CNN's Headline News before moving to Fox, then expanded on the justification for the bubba uprising against a federal government that was "coming in and disenfranchising people over and over and over again - and having the people say please listen to us."


    According to Beck, these oppressed Americans "know the Constitution. They know the writings of the Founders and they feel that the government - or they will in this scenario and I think we're on this road - the government has betrayed the Constitution. So they will see themselves as people who are standing up for the Constitution."


    Beck then turned to ex-CIA officer Scheuer and asked, "So how do you defuse this, Michael, or how long even do we have before this becomes a crazy real scenario?"


    "I don't think you'd want to defuse it, Glenn," Scheuer responded. "The Second Amendment is … at base not about hunting or about a militia, but about resisting tyranny. The Founders were very concerned about allowing individual citizens weaponry to defend themselves as a last resort against a tyrannical government."


    As the discussion edged toward advocacy of violent revolution, Beck sought to reel it back in a bit.


    "Don't get me wrong," the host said. "I am against the government. And I think they've just been horrible. I do think they are betraying the principles of our Founders every day they're in office. But I have to tell you this scenario scares the living daylights out of me because it is shaking nitroglycerine."


    Beck then got back to the point: "Do the soldiers come in and do they round up people or do they fight with the people for the Constitution? What does the Army, what does the military do?"


    Scheuer answered: "I don't think the military is ever going to shoot on the American people, sir. I think the military - of all people - read the Constitution every year, right through."


    Beck then suggested that Obama's stimulus package might lead to this back-door federal tyranny.


    "We just had in our stimulus package a way for if your governor says no to the money, the legislature can go around the governor and go right to the Feds," Beck said. "It's this kind of thing that would make the federal government say, ‘You know what? We can call up the National Guard. We don't need your governor to do it.'"


    Such insurrectionist musings on Fox News are not likely to be taken seriously by most people. Indeed, many Americans may find it amusing that Fox has developed a heartfelt concern about disenfranchising voters after its enthusiastic embrace of Bush's undemocratic "election" in 2000 or that Fox now feels a sudden reverence for the Constitution after eight years of defendin Bush as he trampled it.


    But this sort of Fox chatter runs the risk of feeding the well-nursed grievances of angry white "bubbas" and possibly inspiring a new Timothy McVeigh.


    More significantly, today's Republican leaders - finding themselves with little new to offer - appear to have turned to the well-worn pages of this earlier GOP playbook to choose the same game plan that set the nation on a dangerous and destructive course 16 years ago, a course that only now, finally, may be playing out.


    -------


    Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.


»


Propaganda - whatever spin they need
We also have socialized K-12 schools and libraries; how is it that big business missed that chance for profit?  Never turned me into a Bolshevik.  But somehow, if we had free health care, it would corrupt us completely.
NOT propaganda - FACT
But I rather doubt people like yourself are interested in distinguishing between the two..

As to independent thought? when is the last time (or the first!) that you ever tried to follow up on a concept that you initially REJECT?

You can't slam the other side if you never consider it's point of view.

Fortunately some of us stopped being robots a long time ago and do our own research...
propaganda - see message

Could those of you who label some posts as having a less than credible news source share your techniques for finding and recognizing purely factual unbiased news and also how you keep from adding your own perspective in order to relay such incredibly unalloyed information to us? 


Well, that's nasty propaganda at work...
...and they use it because it *does* work, unfortunately.

But hey - Jesus and his closest followers were never a majority of anything. They weren't the powerful, or those in control of the Temple, or those who lived in luxury in the lap of Rome. Those who were in control hated them and considered them pesky liberals. So I guess Democratic Christians stand in pretty good historical company.
This video is propaganda. Repeat...
nm
And the others are propaganda machines for libs...
to each his own, as you say.
Propaganda works well on dimwits but not well enough
su
Your Catholic propaganda belongs on the
*