From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 24 2005 - 20:59:55 GMT
Hi Platt,
Yes, half a PA superbowl it looks like. I think the Patriots look like the
better team. I'll be rooting for the Eagles, but I am impressed with the
Patriots dynasty. They are *the* team, it seems. I just wish they would revert
to their old uniforms (the Giants and the Jets did, thankfully), the new "USFL"
reject logos are unappealing to me.
> I guess you don't think a president caught in a blatant lie, "I did not
> have sex with that woman..." is newsworthy, and that undeniable truth is a
> "smear." If so, that's a pretty far out view of journalism.
In retrospect we know Clinton lied. At the time all we had endless media
attacks. Did you justify it (before you knew that he absolutely lied) because
Clinton was a "liberal"?
> I'll be happy to change my mind if you can present evidence from credible
> sources that Bush knew that Saddam did not have WMD at the time of the
> liberation.
Impossible to do, since you only accept the conservative media as "credible
sources".
> > On the contrary, I was very critical of many of Clinton's decisions while
> > in office. Why do you find it impossible to be critical of Bush?
>
> I don't find it impossible at all. I think he's failed to protect the U.S.
> border and am upset by his expansion of the federal government into
> education.
Permit me an "a-ha!" moment to hear you admit the conservatives government is
expansive! Woo hoo!!
> > > In other words, people are too stupid to recognize when they are being
> > > manipulated? The election showed that most people weren't fooled by
> > > leftist propaganda that Bush lied about WMD.
>
> > Um, no, Platt. The election showed that despite most people admitting they
> > were fooled by the conservative media about WMDs, they expressed fear over
> > being invaded and so voted for Bush anyways. Bush made people afraid with
> > (for example) the swift boat lies implying a vote for Kerry meant emminent
> > terrorist attacks on US soil. People voted for Bush because Bush made them
> > fear. This is what all the polls revealed. (Add "fear of gays" to that as
> > well).
>
> Well, if you keep thinking that was the reason for Kerry's losing the
> election, you can expect many more Democrat defeats. I pray that the Dems
> will choose Dean to be their party leader.
I "think" that, because that's what people reported. And, to ground that in
personal experience, nearly everyone I know who has voted for Bush has told me
personally some variant of "if Bush was not re-elected, the terrorists would
attack the U.S. again". Those that want to use the federal government to
enforce "christian" lifesytles have their own agenda, to be sure.
> > Would you agree or disagree with this statment:
> >
> > When the left convinces people something is "true", it is because of
> > leftist deceptive propaganda. When the right convinces people something is
> > "true", it is because an informed citizenry objectively reasoned based on
> > truthful journalism.
> >
> > Or, if you prefer:
> >
> > Does the "left" use deceptive propaganda? Yes or no.
> > Does the "right" use deceptive propaganda? Yes or no.
>
> I guess if all depends on your standards of truth, a deep philosophical
> subject which you may want to start in a new thread.
Interesting evasion. Please take a moment to reconsider answering.
> > Sound eerily familiar???
>
> Not really. Are you saying criticism of academics is a sign of a Nazi?
This was not simply "criticism of academics", it was rhetorical dismissal of
academics who did not promote the administration, it was part of a propaganda
campaign designed to discredit people's faith in the academy, and further
establish one outlet of information as the sole "outlet of truth". The same
verbal game is being played by the conservative media today. Does that make
them National Socialists? No. It makes them good propagandaists.
> > or
> > http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm
> > "The positive national discipline of the German press would never have been
> > possible without the compete elimination of the influence of the
> > liberal-Jewish press. That happened only because of the years-long work of
> > our propaganda. Today particularism in Germany is something of the past.
> > The fact that it was eliminated by a strong central idea of the Reich is no
> > accident, rather it depended on psychological foundations that were
> > established by our propaganda."
> >
> > Hmmmmm............
>
> Yes, hmmmm, indeed. The speech was made in 1934 after the Nazis came to
> power, and Goebbels is bragging about how they did it. Why you would
> believe him after all your railing against propaganda?
Because its been corrobated, academically and historically. But tell me why I
should bother to report other souces, since you only accept as credible that
which comes out of conservative media think-tanks? Limbaugh did not write a
history of Nazi Germany (William Shirer did, and he corrobates Goebbles
description of the takeover of the popular media). And if Limbaugh, O'Reilly,
the MRC or Rove are not on the credits list, you'll simply dismiss it.
A very comfortable, cognitive position to be in.
But you did mention "stupid people" last time, as my intent to how people fall
victim to propaganda, and I'd like to ask you this:
Hypothetically, you are able to travel back in time to 1934. You are on the
streets of Berlin. How would you convince people, or could you at all, that
they were victims of propaganda? And, would you make the claim that at that
time, everyone in Germany was "stupid"?
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 24 2005 - 21:03:45 GMT