Hey pedro, when did you stop beating your wife?

And Paul, as usual, doesn’t bother to answer the simple question. And for good reason….his answer in either the affirmative or the negative, will collapse the house of cards he has built.

Propaganda has no impact on a democratic society but it is strictly verbotten to refer to an American politician as a Nazi. Why is that Jay? But gosh, why do I even ask? How can you argue with someone who is willing to make an assertion but won t back it up with any facts: “I won’t name any because you ll dispute it,” says Jay. Brilliant.

And Bush is not simply trying to foster support for his policies. He is trying to shut down dissent againstthose policies. Big difference. The fact that dissent still exists does not diminish in anyway the dishonesty of Bush’s campaign to shut it down. Look at pedro’s typically idiotic response:

“you completely ignored the implicit question in the opening paragraph of your monologue& Do democrats support the war effort? ”

That isn’t a response to anything I’ve laid out here. It is a classic example of BUsh’s propaganda in action: Rather than respond in kind to legitimate questions about the legality of the spying program, pedro questions my and democrats patriotism. Nice.

Why is it necessary to respond to any questions about these programs in such a way? Because the president is trying to foster an environment in this country where it is perfectably acceptable for the executive branch to arrest or spy on anyone it wants without warrants, without due process, without trial or any oversight whatsoever. That’s a dangerous thing you’d have to admit, Jay. Right? Or do you even really understand what’s at stake here? Probably not, otherwise you’d never hold out Roger Pilon as a voice of reason. Let me ask you, did you even watch the debate?

This is hilarious. Frame criticizes the administration and supporters for not wanting to debate the legality of a program that Frame has already deemed to be illegal. Again, what is the point of having a debate if you’ve already reached a conclusion?

And Jay you have yet to take up the challenge of pointing out that portion of Pilon s argument you found persuasive. Do you have trouble putting ideas into your own words?)

This from the man who says, “The program is illegal because so and so said it was”, provides and link and then as I have pointed out before, resorts to appealing to authority to claim victory. You’re the one who cannot explain why the program is illegal. Why? Because you don’t know. You’re merely parroting the point of view of a person that supports your conclusion. It’s evidence of a weak and lazy mind.

BUt back to the propaganda question, all propaganda has a negative effect on a democratic society that is supposed to be founded on the free flow of ideas and information.

Oh please. The purpose of propaganda is to influence opinion. It’s information presented in a way that stokes emotion. However, the notion that it has an effect on a democratic society is bullshit. The rest of your ‘argument’ is bullshit as well and it’s finally time to shed the light on your nonsense.

First of all, you’re a democratic suck-ass, ok? Everything Democratic is good. Everything Republican is bad. When I saw that you asked for examples of propaganda on the part of the Clinton administration, I knew immediately it was pointless effort to even name one time when they engaged in such activity. All politicians and all parties engage in propaganda, especially those in power. But you obviously don’t believe the Clinton administration did because you asked for examples. I won’t name any because you’ll dispute it. The Democratic efforts accusing Republicans of wanting to “starve” children wasn’t propaganda to you. You probably believe it to be true. Why? Because you’re a suck-ass.

Secondly, the comparing the Bush administration to Goebbels is beyond the pale when considering the intent of their efforts. For Bush and co. it is to foster acceptance of certain policies and yes, in part to instill emotions in the public for them to act (ie vote). Again, this is nothing new as most politicians do it. Goebbels on the other hand had one purpose in mind: to foster an environment that made it not only possible but acceptable to kill Jews.

Third, your comparison falls short precisely because we do live in a democratic society. Contrary to what you dolts on the left believe, Bush does not control the media. The free flow and exchange of ideas and dissenting views exist. Blogs, radio, magazines, newspapers, television, film, etc. It all exists and is used by those opposed to President Bush and his policies to present a different point of view. The Nazis in Germany had a stranglehold on all the media. They controlled everything that was read and heard. It was not a democratic society. As such, your claims that Bush is engaging in fascistic propaganda is truly absurd.

Later suck-ass.

Do democrats support the war effort?

Here we have a classic example of a victim of propaganda struggling to reconcile his world view with reality. Did I say that the recent phone trolling operation violated the Constitution? No. I did say that the BUsh administration has been, as per Oliver’s original accusation, distorting the language in a manner that would have made Goebbell’s proud. What the administration is doing is illegal but rather than actually have a debate abot the legality of the program they have attempted to paint anyone who even questions the legality of the program as soft on terror if not an out right traitor. Naturally, the administration leaves direct assertions of the latter more serious charges to its ever willing minions who gladly spread the message without a second thought. Hell, I sat through the entirety of Roger Pilon’s argument for the legality of the warrantless wiretapping and I’m astonished that anyone takes the argument seriously. He literally began the debate by suggesting that nothing is really lost when the government eavesdrops on Americans so there’s really nothing to complain about. I doubt the founding fathers would have agreed. (And Jay you have yet to take up the challenge of pointing out that portion of Pilon’s argument you found persuasive. Do you have trouble putting ideas into your own words?)

BUt back to the propaganda question, all propaganda has a negative effect on a democratic society that is supposed to be founded on the free flow of ideas and information. The power of propaganda is its ability to interrupt, impede and shutdown that exchange of ideas typically through powerful emotional appeals backed up by manipulated images, distorted facts and/or outright lies. Michael Moore and Karl Rove are both propagandists. The Bush administration engages in strain of propaganda straight from the Nazi playbook with its deeply emotional appeals to huamn fear and in an attempt to erase the differences between the interests of the nation and the interests of the Republican party and Bush himself. To critcize Bush, the administration’s propaganda goes, is to criticize the very nation itself — inspire of the fact that the Bush administration is violating the laws of the land and, the the extent that the President is supposed to faithfully execute the law and not break it, the Constitution itself.

Is it legitimate to compare the practices of an American politician to Nazi practices? Of course it is if they are, indeed, similar to Nazis practices. None of you dipshits has even come close to making a case that Bush is not engaged in a fascistic propaganda campaign as Oliver asserted. Hell, all Save can do is repeat, in toto, the very sentiments that Bush wants him to repeat: To question Bush is question the war effort and thus call into question ones own loyalty to the country. Guys, that isn’t an argument that Bush isn’t engaged in fascistic propaganda, it’s fascistic propaganda in action. Idiots.

Cripes, just say it already: It’s ok for Democrats to compare Republicans to Nazis but not for Republicans to do the same.

That’s if you can untwist yourself after turning into a human pretzel.

“It s not Bush s fault that Democrats don t support the effort. In fact, that s why it exists in the first place.”

Beautiful, positively poetic….

This administration has been especially aggressive at wrapping itself in military imagery and symbolism

Reporting for Duty, anyone?

Oh, and your link chides Gonzales because his actions, while not violating the Constitution, violate (in their opinion) some statutes. Funny, I thought when in doubt, the Constitution wins.

Were talking about directing propaganda at the American people not to help the war effort but to help protect the interests of a single political party.

It is designed to help the war effort. It’s not Bush’s fault that Democrats don’t support the effort. In fact, that’s why it exists in the first place.

Bzzzt. Wrongo there Jay. Were talking about directing propaganda at the American people not to help the war effort but to help protect the interests of a single political party. To the extent that FDR and the Dems did the same thing during WWII your damn straight you could make that comparison and I wouldn’t hesitate to criticize it as such. Got any examples? And Hollywood did indeed produce a lot of propaganda films for the government that you could put right alongside Axis films in terms of their aesthetic qualities if not their actual content (Hollywood was none to kind to the Japanese in a lot of this material but never produced anything like Jud Suss). One difference is that many of the most egregious examples of propaganda were intended solely for US military consumption for the troops only. Big difference. The most of famous of these films, Frank Capra’s Why We Fight series was originally intended for US soldiers and later shown to the public in edited form. Have you ever watched these films? Capra wanted to make them as a direct response to Triumph of the Will and borrowed heavily from Riefenstahl and Goebbells techniques not to mention Soviet montage editing. So again, they were definitely fascistic in their form if not their content. Such is the nature of the beast. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize the Bush administration for making this beast a central part of its public relations machine often in the place of any actual policies. The effectiveness of that machine does not preclude criticism of its methods and intents. I note that Bush’s approval rating was once at 90 percent. Please engligten us on the similar tactics used by Clinton.

Frame’s defense of the comparison falls way short in this era. Why? Aren’t Bush’s approval numbers in the tank? If the administration were so easily able to affect change the way Frame claims they do, he’d have overwhelming support from the majority of the public. What the Bush administration is doing is no different than what the Clinton administration often did, but I would bet that if anybody compared that administration to Nazis, Frame would be shrieking like a stuck pig and we’d feel the spittle of outrage.

As such, Frame’s justification is a bunch of bullshit.

Oliver was talking about propaganda regarding allegedly illegal surveillance by the government, the other guy was talking a movie, made by private citizens regarding a well established (whether you agree or not, there is an overwhelming consensus) scientific position. One is similar to totalitarian regimes (nazis included), one is not at all similar.
My point is not all propaganda is the same, some is more like nazis than others.

And Save, the Nazis invented neither roads nor propaganda but they perfected and were particularly good at propaganda in the age of mass media. Watch Triumph of the Will and you will never again look at public military spectacles with posing politicians (be it a Kennedy or a Bush) the same way again. This administration has been especially aggressive at wrapping itself in military imagery and symbolism to deliberately blur the lines between the armed forces of this country, the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Ever major network covered that charade on the aircraft carrier. They were tools of the Bush administration’s propaganda machine.

In Oliver’s example,cited by Jay, the media was and is still complicit in feeding the Bush administration ‘s distortions of its spying program to the public. The Bush administration was and is engaged in a deliberate program of obfuscation and propaganda directly at the American people and its political critics. They are not merely expressing an opinion or haveing a debate. They are circumventing debate by waging a war on the very terms being used in that debate and they are using the media to do it.

Example:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/24/gonzales-misleading-legal-analysis/

You guys have yet actually debate the specifics of the Bush administration s propaganda machine. You just keep repeating: You can t call them facistic or compare them to Nazi tactics because of the Holocaust.

Well first off, the Nazis were successful in getting the press to toe the party line. I don’t see ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WaPo falling all over themselves to praise Bush to the heavens. In fact, it’s the polar opposite.

Second of all, the reason it worked in Germany was because the only press allowed was the state-run press. Until the White House liquidates the Associated Press, the comparison isn’t warranted.

And to say someone is using “Nazi” tactics, those tactics really should be specific to Nazis. They built a lot of roads too. Does that mean someone a Nazi for supporting the Highway bill?

The problem here is that you (and the left in general) have twisted the meaning of the word ‘propaganda’ to mean ‘someone in power publicly expressing an opinion’. Bush and the Admin are well within their right to higlight specific stories to the detriment of others. It’s called the bully pulpit, and at least 42 other administrations have used it before. (Well, maybe not WH Harrison. Wanker.)

What else do you call a guy who flies around in a private jet claiming that the sky is falling because of internal combustion engine exhaust? well, ok, he is a hypocrite too….

Save, I never said Bush was running a facistic regime, I said his administration deploys Nazi propaganda tactics.

I also never said that the NAzis weren’t targeting Jews from the beginning or that Bush is intending to gas people. What I said was that the Nazis were engaged a multi-faceted, far-reaching campaign to transform the nature and face of German culture and that when an American politian or political party begins using tactics that resemble one of those facets it’s entirely justifiable to call it what it is.

In the post you cited from Oliver, Oliver compared the Bush administration’s tactics of obfuscating the truth to Goebbels’ tactics. From the Wikipedia post that Oliver linked to:

“The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth.”

From the mouth of George Bush:

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

Okay, now you want to say that Bush misspoke? Fine. But look at the Bush administration’s whole approach to policy matters. It isn’t about making rational arguments it’s about repeating bullshit over and over and over again until people stop asking questions. They’ve even paid journalists and pundits at home and abroad to repeat the party line. You guys have yet actually debate the specifics of the Bush administration’s propaganda machine. You just keep repeating: You can’t call them facistic or compare them to Nazi tactics because of the Holocaust.

You keep conflating Nazi content with Nazi tactics in order to preclude any discussion of the seriousness of Bush’s propaganda efforts.