'If George W. Bush were to [start a war], his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others.'

What kind of analogy is this exactly?

on the contrary, i am 'exactly pleased by the positive results of Bush's campaign in the Middle East.'

i'm just... uh... having a difficult time recalling them.

I think the point of the analogy is that even 'If George W. Bush were to [raise the minium wage to $50/hr, guarantee 23rd century medical care to everyone in the world, endorse gay marriage, stop all forms of pollution, elminate AIDS, destroy every gun, educate every person to the phd level, provide 200% retirement benefits and pay for it by taxing the rich for 100% of every thing they owned], [democrats]would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others.' because they are senseless fuks

Which is interesting only because it's true -- not because it's relevant or special.

Conversely, if George W Bush were to triple the infectiouss diseases in Africa, if he were to single-handedly start the collapse of the third world back into neolithy, if he were to thoroughly undermine all the quasi-socialist let's-help-each-other-out programs that Americans have come to rely upon, if he were to cause the death of hundreds of thousands more of our citizens and cost many more their civil liberties, why then, Republicans would still continue to cheer him and approve of his every whim and call Democrats sissy whiners -- not because it's actually gradeschool, but because he's a god-fearin compassionate neo-conservative or whatever, and because, goddamnit, he sure looks good (sic) in a picture-frame holding a football stuck for no apparent reason next to a picture of Ronald Reagan.

And, apparently, for no other reasons at all.

Read: they're all senseless fuks. Hypocrisy and bias is nothing the Democrats have cornered the market on.

Vasudeva, allow me to disagree.

If George W Bush were to actually triple the infectiouss diseases in Africa, if he were to single-handedly start the collapse of the third world back into neolithy, if he were to thoroughly undermine all the quasi-socialist let's-help-each-other-out programs that Americans have come to rely upon, if he were to cause the death of hundreds of thousands more of our citizens and cost many more their civil liberties, why then, Republicans would cheer him on ONLY because it's gradeschool, and they would dress their own stupidity up withh all that 'god-fearin compassionate neo-conservative or whatever, and because, goddamnit, he sure looks good (sic) in a picture-frame holding a football stuck for no apparent reason next to a picture of Ronald Reagan' bullshit.

And I'll agree here:

Read: they're all senseless fuks. Hypocrisy and bias is nothing the Democrats have cornered the market on.

Because if the next pinko-politically correct-nannystatist Democrat President were to increase defense spending, eliminate social programs, protect religion from atheism, repeal every gun control measure, and cut the taxes of everybody in half, and bail out every corporate failure, Republicans would denounce him just as enthusiasticly because they also are sensless fuks.

loki, i know you're baiting, but i think you're failing to separate the method from the result. do the ends really justify the means? it's pointless to speculate on hypothetical results, but i think everyone could appreciate the good while still condemning the impropriety of it all.

after all, there was this dude who made germany a pretty powerful nation in the 30's.

I just knew this following nugget of mine would be useful:

LOki says:'What I like the very, very most about Bush is that he makes people angry. And it is my hope that people will get so angry that they begin to analyze its actual source. Hopefully they will discover that it DOES NOT reside with the fact that Bush resembles a chimp, but rather that every administration since Roosevelt has considered subjugation (rather than liberty) to be an essential tool to achieve 'the greater good.''

You see Mundhra, I am fully aware of the 'means' that achieve whatever 'ends.' I'm stating any asshoel who claims that Bush is a degenerate fuk and then produces John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore or some other dyed-in-the-wool, one-of-two-parties, degerate fuk candidate as 'a change of pace' needs to get their principles examined.

I honestly don't give a fuk that the political bag is full of elephant shit, or donkey shit.

Right now, democrats are all holding their noses and pointing at Bush, while flies are still buzzing around them, and all I smell is shit from both sides.

So, fuk-NO to the anti-Bush whiners. You fukers made this asshoel possible. I don't blame anyone that voted Bush into the presidency; I blame the Democrats who insisted that all things Republican were wrong, and adopted bullshit platform points for the sole purpose of 'not being like them.' I blame Democrats for resisting actual reforms, not because they are wrong, but because a Republican will get credit. I blame them for fighting agianst 'Republicans' or 'Conservatives' rather than what's wrong.

You say, 'LOki, the republicans do the same shit.' I won't disagree. You can say 'The Republicans fought against what was 'Democrat' or 'Liberal rather than what was wrong. I won't disagree with that either. It's just that the Democrats lost this time and I just won't use it as an excuse for letting the same bullshit ride all the way through the next Democrat administration.

The Democrats and liberals do NOT have a fuking better plan, and never had. Until they do, I'll defend this fuk to the bitter end. I'll wait for a candidate with respect for idividual liberty, sense, and the courage to dismantle our system of political entitlement achieved by government mandated slavery.

As far as I can tell, each election has been about which slave master will be the kindest to us--which one will give us the hot table scraps from the meal we provided. Everyone is focused on, and argues about which ass-rapist uses the most lotion and the gentlest thrust. Well fuk you in your stupid ass then.

You might dig being a slave, as long as master is liberal with the grease. You might rather be bitched by a donkey dick than an elephant dick. I have a different point of view. I don't want to be a slave or a bitch. Maybe, just maybe, one day you won't want to be a slave or a bitch either. Until then, I fugure it makes just as much sense to defend this Bush guy until all you stupid fukers make him a king--a full blown despot--so that you're all fuking sick of being told what to do every minute, that what you work for is not yours, and that the greater good is much, much more important than your good. Then maybe, everyone will want a real change.

LOki: As far as I can tell, each election has been about which slave master will be the kindest to us--which one will give us the hot table scraps from the meal we provided. Everyone is focused on, and argues about which ass-rapist uses the most lotion and the gentlest thrust.

Classic. UP THE IRONS.

And I have a puppy

I wouldn't defend either of them and the whole shtick should go to hell--but the slave mentality is what wins! The meek shall inherit the earth!

BaahBAAHBAAH!

Before you go about derailing the 'merican belief system, maybe it would be better to take on the superstition mode of social control?

Vote Anarchist!

I'm happy to be fine with your rant, and even ignore the fact that I've heard it from The New Republic and others before, until I get to this bit:

I'll defend this fuk to the bitter end. I'll wait

I think defending this fuk, or any other fuk, is antithetical to the development and implementation of 'a better plan'. Better to systematically and brutally destroy each fuk in turn until they get the clue, no?

Sitting around and yelling POOPOO at any and all opposition seems to me to be a simple way to pigeonhole a big and diverse group of people as 'whining fat nanny whatevers that just don't like bush', a tactic that is no different than those used by Tom Delay or Barney Fwank, or Miss Applebottom's third grade class. It makes big long ranting arguments easier to frame, I guess, but accomplishes what exactly?

Once I entertained the notion that maybe the office of the presidency (as opposed to the president himself) should be shown a little respect , since it belongs to the people and all. Well fuk that. The rules of this shitball game were drawn up long ago by sweaty reptile men, and the fourth estate (HA) are crooked referees. I say release the fuking hounds, and breed more, until the carnage gets so ridiculous that even Gunther Trailerpark can't take any more.

fnord

And this is why Voltaire wanted a good king instead of thousands of people thinking that they know better than their fellow man what they want and what their fellow man wanted too. We believe in liberities and what not, but only as long as their our liberities and beliefs, not theirs.

And thats why governments, no matter what type of governments, always seem to fail. The Roman Republican failed because of corruption, communism failed because it's a perfect in ideal but flawed in implementation. Democracy will fail once people stop listening to others and respecting their opinion in the matter, and it seems that we are on the downward spiral towards that. One man or one group, even two or three or four or five is not enough to rule this many people. People are different and individual and, for the most part, could care less what you want.

Utopia means no place, and that is indeed where we will find it.

(Though I probably just missed the whole theme of the debate, but fuck it)

The ignorant, when frightened, tend to cling to the least logical, most angry path possible. This is the root of mob mentality. It helps to have a self-rightous, superficial, image based leader to oppress those who disagree.

Self-righteous? Check.

Superficial? Super-check.

Image-based? Check!

LET'S INSTALL ME AS NEW LEADER OF THE 'FREE' ( SIC) WORLD! CRUSH ALL WHO OPPOSE US!

vas: Classic. UP THE IRONS.

AGREED!

vlad: I think defending this fuk, or any other fuk, is antithetical to the development and implementation of 'a better plan'.

hey, man, i don't like being a slave, but i'll legitimize this guy and wait until someone comes up with something.

LOki: ...the greater good is much, much more important than your good. Then maybe, everyone will want a real change.

EVERYONE doesn't want a real change. EVERYONE doesn't care about the greater good. EVERYONE is too busy being comfortable with their head up their ass buying shit made in china from companies that destroy small business owners. maybe gas problems will give people a kick in the ass, but don't bet on it. instead of making a real (as in our livelihoods depend on it) push for alternatives, we'll wait for 'a fuking better plan' while we invade countries for crude (sweet crude).

SOMEONE FUCKED UP HIS TAGS :(

yeah, we got more war than oil

Vladdo says: 'I think defending this fuk, or any other fuk, is antithetical to the development and implementation of 'a better plan'. '

No it's not.

I think I have a better plan--or at least a better foundation of princples for a plan.

Vladdo says: 'Better to systematically and brutally destroy each fuk in turn until they get the clue, no?'

Nope. Everyone focuses on destroying the fuk, rather than the fuk's fuked-up principles. Take WJC, for instance. What brought him down? Not falling asleep while the economy was going diabetic from eating cotton candy, not for ridiculously insisting that all of our spies be altruistic soccer moms, not his fatuous wicked-cool-looking-gun ban, not even his ill-informed suggestion that Saddam Hussein had to brought down by force becuse of his WMD,... no, it was a BJ in the oval office that ultimately punked him. Today, he's not really considered to be a self-serving con-man, he's just hen-pecked.

Vladdo says: ' ...be a simple way to pigeonhole a big and diverse group of people as 'whining fat nanny whatevers that just don't like bush',... '

HAHAHAHA! Yet despite how 'big and diverse' they all are, they still fit into that pigeonhole with plenty enough room for all the 'whining fat nanny whatevers' that don't like the not-Bush.

What does calling these 'whining fat nanny whatevers' what they are, for what they are accomplish? It denies them the sanctimonious notions that they are actually against the fundamental mechanism governing what each administration does; that they want change; that doing anything, particularly voting for bullshit governing principles dressed in a donkey suit, is better than keeping those bullshit principles dressed up in an elephant suit.

I'm saying 'FUK YOU!' to all your feckless candidates with MTV charisma, international approval, and better hair--I've already got a clueless chimp with entertaining speech mannerisms; I'm up to my armpits in government irresponsibility, incompetence and injustice, and I am happy that it now looks the part. Thank you very much.

Mofo says: 'And this is why Voltaire wanted a good king instead of thousands of people thinking that they know better than their fellow man what they want and what their fellow man wanted too. We believe in liberities and what not, but only as long as their our liberities and beliefs, not theirs.'

Bravo, sir! Bravo! your indoctrination was clearly successful! Choose your master carefully!

Mofo says: 'The Roman Republican failed because of corruption,...'

Right. Corruption was founding principle of the Roman empire.

Mofo says: '... communism failed because it's a perfect in ideal but flawed in implementation.'

Wrong. Communism failed because it's ideal was principally flawed. No matter how well it was implemented, communism was destined to fail.

Mofo says: 'Democracy will fail once people stop listening to others and respecting their opinion in the matter...'

No. Democracy reflects the principles of the electorate. Democracies fail when the electorate decide that it is appropriate to vote themselves special priviledges, entitlements and gifts, rather than earn them.

mundhra says: 'EVERYONE doesn't want a real change. '

TESTIFY!

mundhra says: 'EVERYONE doesn't care about the greater good. '

I know I sure don't.

mundhra says: 'EVERYONE is too busy being comfortable with their head up their ass buying shit made in china from companies that destroy small business owners.'

HAHAHA! You're going all craxy!

I watched this all on crossfire. This just doesn't have commercials.

HAHAHA! You're going all craxy!

;)

LOki: Democracies fail when the electorate decide that it is appropriate to vote themselves special priviledges, entitlements and gifts, rather than earn them.

that will all stop just as soon as pulled pork sammiches fly out of my fuking asshole.

On the original point: ''If George W. Bush were to [start a war], his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others.'

Remember that George Bush I had a fair amount of bi-partisan support. Nobody had gigantic problems with his policies. NATO was pretty much with it. It seems like people are always denouncing Bush on the same grounds because he continues to act on the same grounds. There haven't really been much in the way of policy changes, unlike when his dad hiked taxes. There is a reason why 80% of the world dislikes Bush. Yes democrats are always going to be bitching. With a strong administration like this one in power, you can bet any opposition party would be bitching. If we were in a third world party, they'd probably be arming themselves.

Ha Ha! LOki feels all empowered by blatant republican propaganda:
'Bush is holding Sharon to his commitments , and everyone who is at all rational on these issues now sees the Israeli prime minister as a man of his word...'

Dude, if you think the Bush agenda has much to do with freedom or democracy (unless he specifically means democracy with no paper trail) in the middle-east you're the biggest sucker of 'em all.
Hook, line and sinker. Read up on how utterly dependant the US is on foreign energy then consider, comparatively, how important freedom is to Bush in some sandy part of the world.

Are you going to argue the Iraq war has nothing to do with oil? No, you'll concede that there are American economic intrests there, and they are a factor in why Iraq was (and Iran will be) invaded. How much of a factor is that? Gimme a percentage, a ratio. Proportionalize it fom me, how important is freedom (or democracy or terrorism or whatever) compared to the US foriegn energy dependency. 90/10? 50/50? 70/30?

Whatever you decide, you'll see the new republican article has no mention of this situation. How could such a comprehensive overview of GWB's gifts overlook defending the American way of life? (in any proportion)
Answer: It presents selected facets of selected issues to fire up the belief set of those who would 'defend this fuk to the bitter end' while you ' wait for a candidate with respect for idividual liberty, sense, and the courage to dismantle our system of political entitlement '. Just like you're supposed to.

I swear I smelled this retardedness coming months ago.

cockroach says: 'Dude, if you think the Bush agenda has much to do with freedom or democracy (unless he specifically means democracy with no paper trail) in the middle-east you're the biggest sucker of 'em all.'

HAHAHAHAHA! Your little pink panties are showing!

cockroach says: 'Are you going to argue the Iraq war has nothing to do with oil?'

I never have, and I don't know why I'd start now, just for you to make your ridiculous point.

cockroach says: No, you'll concede that there are American economic intrests there, and they are a factor in why Iraq was (and Iran will be) invaded.'

No amount of your wishful thinking will make this come true.

cockroach says: 'Answer: It presents selected facets of selected issues to fire up the belief set of those who would 'defend this fuk to the bitter end' while you ' wait for a candidate with respect for idividual liberty, sense, and the courage to dismantle our system of political entitlement '. Just like you're supposed to.'

Perfectly stated donkey-dick meat-puppet! This poorly concieved attack upon my defence of Bush makes you the prime illustration of the point I'm making! Now you buy me drinks! See you (or your money) at BBP5!

HAHAHAHAHA! Your little pink panties are showing!

^ Oh, good point LOki! My pink panties clearly demonstrate GWBs good intentions and exonerates your defense of him.

I am however, confused by your statement that 'No amount of your wishful thinking will make this come true.' - do you mean America has no economic intrests in Iraq, or that you'll never acknowledge them?

Lastely, the point that I'm making here is that the article is primarily propaganda, and you are reacting to the article exactly the way the author of the article wants you to react. By citing convenient accuracies over objective realities he got you to pick up the repulican banner and shake it at anyone that thinks Bush has done more damage than good. One might say, you are the donkey-dick meat-puppet, for you continue be the prime illustration of the point I'm making.

Cockroach, go back and carefully read everything. Until then:

cockroach says: 'By citing convenient accuracies over objective realities he got you to pick up the repulican banner and shake it at anyone that thinks Bush has done more damage than good.

I AM TEH WINNAR!!!!!!

You're buying pal!

Discussions are only discussions if points are acknowledged, considered and then expanded or contradicted. Starting one with pre-packaged opinions and finding wonderfully cocky ways to shoot through people's words is very fun, but not a discussion. Its more of intellectual shit-throwing. But then again, that is what the internet is for.

You build a wobbly tower of little blocks, and they are destined to fall down. JENGA!!

TNR is PNAC. They are heavily affiliated through a number of people. PNAC is full of Rumsfelds and Wolfowitz's. You don't trust the administration to tell the truth, so don't expect their coziest buddies to tell it either.

Acheron: 'misbegotten apologies for cockroach's dialectic failures'

You are right, but Loki is not at fault here. Cockroach has, not surprisingly, totally ignored the actual points mr mischief made and instead deflected the argument to an irrelevant straw man that he concocted.

I'm not going go jump in here; in principle, I respect Loki's position, and mostly agree. My vote last year (the first time I've voted for a major party candidate) was indeed, I am ashamed to say, anti-Bush. If the equation really is a choice between two equal flavors of slavery or a probably-futile fight for personal liberty -- the fight is the principled and desirable choice. If the choice is between, say, X years of slavery followed by freedom (Kerry); X years of slavery followed by execution (Bush); or that futile fight... Well, this time pragmatism won out over principles, and both lost.

AcheronDCS says: 'Discussions are only discussions if points are acknowledged, considered and then expanded or contradicted.'

TESTIFY! Prior to aknowledgement, it is useful to grasp the point.

AcheronDCS says: 'Starting one with pre-packaged opinions and finding wonderfully cocky ways to shoot through people's words is very fun, but not a discussion.'

And it makes a great desert topping.

AcheronDCS says: 'You build a wobbly tower of little blocks, and they are destined to fall down. JENGA!!'

The man with one ass cheek farts silently.

AcheronDCS says: 'TNR is PNAC.'

Do you mean Project for the New American Century, or The Century Foundation/Century Institute?

I am once again stung.

And for some reason I comepletely confused TNR with the Weekly Standard. So now, actually, they are not PNAC. I was utterly wrong. But it is unusal that TNR is actually considered a liberal publication, when they are really a weird blend of neo-liberal conservative.

I've re-read the article and the comments.

The article, is indeed a fine specimine of propaganda. LOki's rant was primed if not triggered by the article. Notwithstanding the substance of your discussion it's hilarious that LOki, of all people, would be so manipulated by contrived pro-government arguments.

Can't you feel the irony?

cockroach says: 'I've re-read the article and the comments.'

I honestly can't believe that you have, because then you say:

cockroach says: '... it's hilarious that LOki, of all people, would be so manipulated by contrived pro-government arguments.'

Sureley if you read my comments, you would have taken note of:

LOki says: 'Because if the next pinko-politically correct-nannystatist Democrat President were to increase defense spending, eliminate social programs, protect religion from atheism, repeal every gun control measure, and cut the taxes of everybody in half, and bail out every corporate failure, Republicans would denounce him just as enthusiasticly because they also are sensless fuks.'

Clearly, I'm being manipulated here.

LOki says: 'What I like the very, very most about Bush is that he makes people angry. And it is my hope that people will get so angry that they begin to analyze its actual source. Hopefully they will discover that it DOES NOT reside with the fact that Bush resembles a chimp, but rather that every administration since Roosevelt has considered subjugation (rather than liberty) to be an essential tool to achieve 'the greater good.'

Illustrating that I'm obviously pro-government,

LOki says: 'You say, 'LOki, the republicans do the same shit.' I won't disagree. You can say 'The Republicans fought against what was 'Democrat' or 'Liberal' rather than what was wrong. I won't disagree with that either.'

..and Pro-Republican government,

LOki says: 'I'm saying 'FUK YOU!' to all your feckless candidates with MTV charisma, international approval, and better hair--I've already got a clueless chimp with entertaining speech mannerisms; I'm up to my armpits in government irresponsibility, incompetence and injustice, and I am happy that it now looks the part. Thank you very much.'

... and pro-Bush.

cockroach, WTF?

I suspect (and I may be wrong) that the real statement that bugs you is this one:

LOki says: 'I honestly don't give a fuk that the political bag is full of elephant shit, or donkey shit.'

This will take a bit of explaining, and my explaination, rests on an important assumption: that you mis-apply the rejection of 'the ends justify the means.'

There are several correllaries of that rejection, that many folks operate under, which suffer from logical fallacies.

One of which is 'the ends do not justify the means.' In other words, no matter how good the result, the means of achieving it remain un-justified. The fact of the matter is that the ends often (but not neccessarily) are the sole justification of the means.

Another of them is 'the means justify the ends.' In other words, 'as long as we are trying to do good, it never matters how much harm is done.' If this principle were valid, there would no basis for medical malpractice, ever.

Another, and the one I suspect you (and many others) are stuck on is, 'if the means are unjust, the ends are unjustifiable.' In other words, if the methods of achieving a result are bad, then the results, no matter how good, are bad. There were a bunch of folks who wanted masses of medical data destroyed on this principle because it was collected by Nazis, and the data was human experimentation performed on Jews.

Ending the despotism of Saddam Hussein. Democracy in Iraq. The growth of democratic principles throughout the Middle East. The erosion of Syria's hold on Lebanon. The collapse of 'Palestininan' influence. All bad? Just bad? Or Bad because you don't agree with the methodology. Or just bad because you don't like Bush?

quoted from the article: '[Liberals] are not exactly pleased by the positive results of Bush's campaign in the Middle East. They deny and resent and begrudge and snipe. They are trapped in the politics of churlishness.'

Yep. That pretty much describes what it is.

quoted from the article: 'It is simply stupid, empirically and philosophically, to deny that all or any of this would have happened without the deeply unpopular but historically grand initiative of Bush.'

No shit. Did Carter make better progress? Nope. Reagan? Nope. Bush Sr.? Nope. Clinton? Nope. Was that due to the fautly princples and methods in their plans? Yep.

Does this make Bush a Genius? Nope. Does this make everything else he's done right? Nope. Does this make him a real swell guy? Nope.

I'm just not afraid to point out that he's getting some good things done.

The churlish don't possess the intellectual courage to do likewise, and the consequence is that getting good things done no longer becomes the point of their mission, but rather getting the guy thet prefer for doing the wrong things.

So cockroach, maybe you (and many others) misuderstand me. I won't defend Bush's bad things as good, but I won't let the good things be undermined by having them characterized as bad just because I don't believe he's a good president. Furthermore, I clearly don't buy the principles of the Republican Party. Nor do I buy the principles of the Democrat Party. Mostly because they have the exact same governing principle of subjugation and enslavement.

Or maybe, cockroach, you don't misunderstand me, and Your precise bitch with me is that you agree with and embrace that governing principle that I despise so vehemently.

In which case, YOU MUST STILL BUY ME DRINKS!

LOL! Calm down dude, this propaganda has you wound up too tight.
Look, just because I'm laughing at you now doesn’t mean I think you're wrong. I generally applaud your stance, although we do differ on some points.

In fact, it's because I know you are so not pro government, pro republican, pro Bush that this is funny to me.
Perhaps 'manipulated' and/or 'empowered' were the wrong words for me to use. Inspired? Excited? Motivated?

I think that you think, that because I took the time to illustrate that the evidence in the article was biased I was being 'churlish'. (Ironic in itself that such a slanted article would accuse others of denial.) Instead, I was simply demonstrating that the sum is wrong if the equation is incomplete, (much like the truism that cigarettes are ultimately bad for you despite the factual argument that they can help you stay slim or loose weight). Once exposed as propaganda, how can I resist teasing anyone that recycles its ammunition as though in support of it?

Come on, don’t be churlish yourself, show me you have the ‘intellectual courage’ to admit that the article is highly biased and designed to disgrace democrats and elevate republicans, which by posting, quoting in your own defense and defending against critics constitutes an incidental endorsement of republican convictions despite your stated hatred for those ‘senseless fuks’, yet also, just as they would want you to, that is, convincingly.

AND, if ever we do meet I certainly will buy you a drink for you have made me LAFF!

As long as you buy the drinks, I'll nod at you like you're some sage zen master of political machination. But while I'm nodding and smiling at you, consider that the following will be nestled neatly in the back of my mind:

cockroach says:
'Ha Ha! LOki feels all empowered by blatant republican propaganda:...'

Lastely, the point that I'm making here is that the article is primarily propaganda,...'

'The article, is indeed a fine specimine of propaganda.'

'LOL! Calm down dude, this propaganda has you wound up too tight.

cockroach has an interesting perspective on 'propaganda.'

If Rush Limbaugh or Ari Fleischer authored the above linked article, and/or it was published by The Insider or National, Review, I think it would be pretty fair to characterize the piece as propaganda. Since it would then be Republicans/Conservatives selling their successes in an effort to advance their wider aggendas; and that is how this LOki perceives what 'propaganda' is.

What is interesting about the above article is that it was written by Martin Peretz, an advisor to Al Gore, a prominent liberal, and well known Democrat; and published inThe New Republic which has never been seriously considered to be a centrist publication, let alone right wing. Founded by 'Progressives' (eheh!) no one has ever mistaken it to be an instrument of the Republican Party.

That's not to say that the publication and its staff have not expereinced any idological shift what-so-ever--it just that it's not 'Republican' by any measure.

Nor is it to say that The New Republic remains fully awash in love from the Democrats and Liberals who TNR regularly (and often accurately) characterize as pussies without 'serious intellectual underpinnings.'

Then again, when I call all my white friends 'crackers,' I don't become less white myself.

So cockroach, I have suspicions about what you consider to be 'propaganda.'

I have to wonder if, for you, it is ever acceptable (or possible for that matter) for anyone to ingenuously assert that Bush, or Republicans, or Conservatives have done something good.

And if it's not, that's fine with me, as long as you buy me drinks.

'sage zen master of political machination'? no.
However, I do have an Hon. B.A. in Mass Communications, another in Psychology and I'll tell you this; It's absolutely correct to say Bush, etc. have done good things. The most effective propaganda technique (and hence the most widely used) is to cite accurate facts. It is simply a matter of focusing our attention on some thing(s) while others are left unsaid, left out, avoided or overlooked in all the spotlighting of what we are supposed to look at/talk about.

Way back in 1964 Jacques Ellul, in his book Propaganda notes; 'It is the emergence of mass media which makes possible the use of propaganda techniques on a societal scale. The orchestration of press, radio and television to create a continuous, lasting and total environment renders the influence of propaganda virtually unnoticed precisely because it creates a constant environment. Mass media provides the essential link between the individual and the demands of the technological society.'

Well today, mass media saturates our world more than ever. It's slicker than ever. It hits harder and faster and it's crafted and calculated to keep your attention long enough for you to form an opinion, whatever it happens to be. So we have enough constant noise going on that most don't realize how frequently we are getting the mushroom treatment - kept in the dark and feed shit.

So, yes, I go by a loose definition of propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person -is one of many I could propose.

You'll get your drinks when I meet you, nodding and smiling, in person. Which won't be at BBP5, I've already made my excuses ;)

cockroach says:
'The most effective propaganda technique (and hence the most widely used) is to cite accurate facts. It is simply a matter of focusing our attention on some thing(s) while others are left unsaid, left out, avoided or overlooked in all the spotlighting of what we are supposed to look at/talk about.'

'Well today, mass media saturates our world more than ever. It's slicker than ever. It hits harder and faster and it's crafted and calculated to keep your attention long enough for you to form an opinion, whatever it happens to be.'

This is an interestingpoint. I suppose it explains my incredulosity at the craxy bristling I observe from certain company.

I'm not terribly well connected to 'the Media.' Really not connected much at all to any broadcast media. Which, I think , has the curious effect of me being ignorant of the big message that gets unending rotation and repetition.

Speaking as what you would call a 'progressive' the New Republic is definitely considered middle of the road neo-liberal and hawkish. They fully supported the war on iraq and are extremely pro-nafta This is true of the editor especially, as well as the majority of the content, non-withstanding various contributers.

They endorsed LIEBERMAN in 2004. If you know what kind of democrat lieberman is (besides joo) you know what kind of journal NR is.

Progressive magazines would be: The American Prospect, Village Voice, The Nation, Z-Mag, Mother Jones and those guys. The New Republic is a centrist neo-liberal journal, definitely. Not to say that they have a lot more democrats than repubs and libertarians in their ranks, they are definitely democratic. But Democrat-obviously-doesn't mean progressive, especially today.

AcheronDCS said:
'But Democrat-obviously-doesn't mean progressive, especially today.'

It certainly does not.

What kind of progressive are you?
Democrofascist?
Welfare-statist?
Anti-corporate?
Trade-buster?
Eco-warrior?
Equalizer?
Regulator?

This website is not an endorsement of the world wide web.