Thread: A Word about Projection

It's a good thing that liberals don't use propaganda.

They're the first ones to use Godwin's Law!

Originally Posted by DOMS

It's a good thing that liberals don't use propaganda.

They're the first ones to use Godwin's Law!

It's not that propaganda isn't used by liberals. The argument you pose itself is propaganda--'they all do it' is bandwagon propaganda! No they don't. If you loosely define prop. as advertising then yes (mere 'puffing'). If you define it as an insidious systematic method of deceiving and controlling the population, then no, the democrats don't do that.

I define it as the insidious variety. The aristocrats have wealth and power and wish to augment and grow those things. They buy influence, create think tanks, and have little or no regard for the democratic process. They will do and say almost anything to protect their own interests--look at WWII when some of the true bluebloods were doing business w/ the Nazis.

Just look at who is president to understand that the aristocracy thrives in this country. Bush is not qualified to be president. At least his republican predecessors--Bush I and Reagan had the balls to face tough questions from the press and generally face the heat of criticism. GWB is a coward. He can't take criticism. He's fucked the US on battling terrorism, Katrina, the economy. You name it, he's screwed it up.

Who wants a medal of freedom?

Originally Posted by Decker

It's not that propaganda isn't used by liberals. The argument you pose itself is propaganda--'they all do it' is bandwagon propaganda! No they don't. If you loosely define prop. as advertising then yes (mere 'puffing'). If you define it as an insidious systematic method of deceiving and controlling the population, then no, the democrats don't do that.

I define it as the insidious variety. The aristocrats have wealth and power and wish to augment and grow those things. They buy influence, create think tanks, and have little or no regard for the democratic process. They will do and say almost anything to protect their own interests--look at WWII when some of the true bluebloods were doing business w/ the Nazis.

Just look at who is president to understand that the aristocracy thrives in this country. Bush is not qualified to be president. At least his republican predecessors--Bush I and Reagan had the balls to face tough questions from the press and generally face the heat of criticism. GWB is a coward. He can't take criticism. He's fucked the US on battling terrorism, Katrina, the economy. You name it, he's screwed it up.

Who wants a medal of freedom?

Pointing out that liberal enjoy the benefits of propaganda as much as anyone is not propaganda in itself. The reason that I brought it up is that liberals always try to come from the moral high ground, "Look, you're doing something that we would never do, so stop doing it.", when, in fact, they are. They want others to relinquish advantages or tactics that they will not give up. This is commonly referred to a hypocrisy.


All of the things you (correctly) accuse conservatives of also applies to liberals. Where is your angst for them? Perhaps is only wrong for conservatives to do these thing because "they're the other guys?"

Do you think that John Kerry is not part of the aristocracy?

As for Bush, he's a monumental fuck up that transcends any political designation.

Ann Coulter is a brilliant woman, and I have already ordered her book. I do not agree with many of her conclusions, but I think she is one of the most intelligent women in history.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Pointing out that liberal enjoy the benefits of propaganda as much as anyone is not propaganda in itself. The reason that I brought it up is that liberals always try to come from the moral high ground, "Look, you're doing something that we would never do, so stop doing it.", when, in fact, they are. They want others to relinquish advantages or tactics that they will not give up. This is commonly referred to a hypocrisy.


All of the things you (correctly) accuse conservatives of also applies to liberals. Where is your angst for them? Perhaps is only wrong for conservatives to do these thing because "they're the other guys?"

Do you think that John Kerry is not part of the aristocracy?

As for Bush, he's a monumental fuck up that transcends any political designation.

John Kerry, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts are/were aristocracy with a sense of noblesse oblige. I find that very different than what modern conservatives do--you know: tax cuts pay for themselves, welfare = loafer, deregulation etc. These democrats you mention either throw a bone to the low/mid class (Kennedy/Kerry) or act outright contrary to their own interests in favor of the democratic essence of our country (FDR).

They don't turn to the Heritage Foundation for talking points about how to screw the average american out of his/her meager earnings/savings.

I don't think that pointing out obvious propaganda--Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bush--is preaching from the moral high ground. We could go over individual examples of propaganda to make a point, but I think I did that already with Coulter.

Just b/c democrats aren't into propaganda to the degree of republicans doesn't absolve them of ethically responsible governance. But like I said, it's the difference between mere puffing and insidious deception.

BTW Decker, you are absolutly worng if you think that the democratic party doesn't use the exact same tactics that the republicans do. The only difference is that the republicians are better at it.

Originally Posted by Decker

Just b/c democrats aren't into propaganda to the degree of republicans...

But they are. They've fooled you into thinking that they're "for the people." How insidious is that?

Originally Posted by DOMS

But they are. They've fooled you into thinking that they're "for the people." How insidious is that?

Throwing a bone to the people, such as minimum wage, welfare, subsidized loans for college, targeted tax cuts, saving SS, EITC and a whole host of other identifiable pieces of legislation is not fooling me.

Could be wrong though. I did think that Indy was going to win the Superbowl last year. Talk about bandwagoning.

Originally Posted by Decker

Throwing a bone to the people, such as minimum wage, welfare, subsidized loans for college, targeted tax cuts, saving SS, EITC and a whole host of other identifiable pieces of legislation is not fooling me.

Then why do you appear to be so rabidly against the conservatives and not the liberals, when the liberals aren't any better?

Originally Posted by KelJu

BTW Decker, you are absolutly worng if you think that the democratic party doesn't use the exact same tactics that the republicans do. The only difference is that the republicians are better at it.

The last presidential election was interesting. Bush lied his ass off about privatization of SS to make it popular. Kerry pretty much told the truth about it and was criticized as offering the same old same old.

Do both sides engage in puffing (sounds ghey) propaganda? I'm sure they do. But look no further than any supply-side "economist" to find out what degree of deception the modern conservative will sink in service to his or her aristocratic class/corporate master.

In short, they don't use the exact same propaganda tactics. If they do, please point them out. I gave you some examples why there's a difference.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Then why do you appear to be so rabidly against the conservatives and not the liberals, when the liberals aren't any better?

The liberals are better. That's my point. I stand a better chance of seeing some real change in government with the "liberals"/democrats than I do with republicans.

I'll liken it to my overall view that the federal government must be kept big and strong until the laws change and the corporate power that dominates our political process is diminished. Then we should devolve the size and power of the fed giving more latitude to the states.

The liberal democrats are useful to me in taking steps toward the above. The republicans are not.

Originally Posted by Decker

The liberals are better.

Bwahahahahahahaahahaha...

I know I'm usually more verbose when we argue, but...

Bwahahahahhahahahahaha...

Originally Posted by DOMS

Bwahahahahahahaahahaha...

I know I'm usually more verbose when we argue, but...

Bwahahahahhahahahahaha...

How did you know about that?

Originally Posted by BigDyl

How did you know about that?

You only ever say three things and you went and fucked that up.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Bwahahahahahahaahahaha...

I know I'm usually more verbose when we argue, but...

Bwahahahahhahahahahaha...

You set me up. You, you....you're no gentleman.

He tried to choke me. You saw it!

Anyways, I'm merely stating that my longterm goal of resting control of our government from corporations and ceding it back to the people will never happen under a republican administration. Never. You gotta work with what you got.

Originally Posted by Decker

You set me up. You, you....you're no gentleman.

He tried to choke me. You saw it!

True Story, you just need some ninjitsu lessons from the emo ninja.

Originally Posted by Decker

You set me up. You, you....you're no gentleman.

He tried to choke me. You saw it!

Anyways, I'm merely stating that my longterm goal of resting control of our government from corporations and ceding it back to the people will never happen under a republican administration. Never. You gotta work with what you got.

What is really comes down to is: which party better serves you own interests and not a quest for the "better party."

Financially speaking, I've been upwardly mobile for years and intend to be in the upper class within eight years (I have a plan written out). I'm for a party that is less likely to give my money away to welfare families. Plus, I like the idea of a party that is more likely to kill our enemies and less likely to blow up an aspirin factory.