| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2006 10:54:10 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Say what you will about Clinton's policies - the man was the ultimate politician. |
You got that right. I'd much rather listen to him talk than poor ol' GW. Bill has the gift of gab. You have to be born with his skills. Case in point. He attended a friends funeral. The guy who died in a plane crash in Europe. Cameras caught him walking with a person and they were joking and laughing up a storm as they left the church. You could see Clinton when he spotted the camera tracking him. In precisely .5 seconds he wiped the smile off his face, lowered his head, and actually managed to cry a tear. In those same .5 seconds Bill realized that while it's normal for people to both cry, and laugh at funerals, it might not look dignified for the President to do so. When I watched that it scared the hell out of me.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:01:29 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I believe the pro-choice side is just lazy. Why use birth control if you can simply eliminate the problem later if it develops? |
It's blanket statements such as these that show a total lack of respect and tolerance for something you know nothing about. No means of birth control is %100 effective. My last pregnancy should not have happened. And, I used birth control EVERY time. It put my life in severe danger. No, I didn't have an abortion. But, I spent 6 months in and out of hospitals. I had numerous close calls. And 7 years after giving birth, still suffer severe consequences.
|
And blanket statements by you about my respect and tolerance are uninformed. You didn't want to wait and find out if I oppose abortion. You ASSumed. I only oppose your abortions if I have to pay for them. Otherwise, have at it.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:23:33 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I believe the pro-choice side is just lazy. Why use birth control if you can simply eliminate the problem later if it develops? |
It's blanket statements such as these that show a total lack of respect and tolerance for something you know nothing about. No means of birth control is %100 effective. My last pregnancy should not have happened. And, I used birth control EVERY time. It put my life in severe danger. No, I didn't have an abortion. But, I spent 6 months in and out of hospitals. I had numerous close calls. And 7 years after giving birth, still suffer severe consequences.
|
And blanket statements by you about my respect and tolerance are uninformed. You didn't want to wait and find out if I oppose abortion. You ASSumed. I only oppose your abortions if I have to pay for them. Otherwise, have at it. |
I assumed nothing. You baldly stated that you feel, in your opinion, that laziness was to blame for abortion. I gave you instances where it isn't. In my own case, I was urged to have an abortion by my OB. Luckily, I had good insurance that payed for all the medical care I needed to get through the pregnancy. Others are not so lucky.
And again, based only on what you stated... If someone did not have the means and was told by their OB that they could die having the child, you would prefer that they die because your tax dollars would go to pay for the abortion. Trust me, that abortion is far cheaper on your tax dollars than the resulting medical care to try and bring that pregnancy to term. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:55:59 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
It is impossible to exist in a vacuum of ignorance. Anyone at any time has access to thousands of media sources from anywhere on the globe. This does not address the point, already raised by me somewhere back in this rant, that you are unable to verify the accuracy of any 'news' which you did not witness firsthand. Thus you assume one source or another is honest and accurate and, suprise suprise, those sources typically just happen to be pushing out the ideas you find agreeable to begin with. |
Letâs make a distinction between having access to thousands of media sources and actually utilizing those sources. It is possible to live in a vacuum of ignorance; especially when that ignorance is a conscious choice. Perhaps I should have used the term âselective ignoranceâ. Iâd like to turn your last statement around, since it better represents my viewpoint. The ideas you find agreeable to begin with just happen to change because the one source or another that you assumed were honest and accurate just happen to be pushing hatred, dishonesty and intolerance which goes against everything you stand for.
I credit Limbaugh with opening my eyes to the propaganda machine that is corporate media.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You are saying that people who support or supported Bush's 'disastrous' policies did so because they were fed disinformation. In one stroke you discount the motivations, beliefs, reasoned thinking, awareness of history and myriad other factors which many people drew on to decide wether or not they supported whatever policy (presumably Iraq) it is you find disastrous. |
I am saying that the people (in my circle) support or supported Bushâs disastrous policies because they were fed (and continue to be fed) disinformation cleverly disguised as all the information they needed to make decisions that were in synch with their motivations, beliefs, reasoned thinking, awareness of history etc. Coupled with the threat of being labeled âunpatrioticâ and a lack of time or wherewithal to investigate on their own, this propaganda was sufficient to get them on board with the policies.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Because you don't agree with the policies, you have already decided that anyone else who does is simply more ignorant about 'what is really going on' then people who don't even live in this country. Your family is constitued of fools. Your friends are just sentient enough to be able to lift fork to mouth. They all stumble about in a fog of naievity from which you have somehow freed yourself.
Sadly, you see your own country in the same light. A giant blundering idiot smashing about the world without plan or purpose. No awareness of what is really going on, no sense of the impending doom that is so obvious to enlightened folks such as yourself. |
Nice spin. If you donât work for Fox, you should seriously consider it. I see no reason to respond to this. Anyone interested in how I really feel will be able to gather that from what Iâve already said.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
This is an interesting frame of mind to be carrying around. You trust in news you can't verify (like your family and friends), but only because it comes from sources other than your own country. Sources in far off places that are economic, ideological, cultural and sometimes millitary competitors with your own country. Sources that absolutely have a vested interest in seeing their own interests move forward at the expense of those of their rivals. |
This is classic fear-mongering and blatant misrepresentation of what I said. Somehow youâve managed to portray me as someone who gets all of my information from foreign news services; all of which have intent to do us harm. Again, I think my previous posts on this speak for themselves.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What delivers people to slavery is not ignorance. There will always be ignorant people, people to look down on, people to piss on for not carrying around as mighty a thinking engine as your own. Ignorance just makes the rest of us look that much better. |
I think you are confusing ignorance with stupidity. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge; and the people I have mentioned have simply not dug deeper than the information they are given by our media. This fact I have learned through many conversations and observations. By no means do I consider them stupid; conned perhaps, but not stupid. Either way I go to great effort in avoiding the practice of âlooking down or pissing onâ people who do not share my ideas. Although, I must admit itâs very difficult when embroiled in such juvenile exchanges as this one. I have no interest in making myself look better; only in inspiring others to look beyond the façade and question everything.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What delivers people into slavery is complacency. If you are content to do nothing more than gripe about things and wish for change, then you are being led down the same road as everyone else. Not wanting to admit it does not mean it isn't happening. Bitching about the president of the US when every dollar you spend supports a system of global exploitation makes you every bit as guilty as him and every other political elite perpetuating this system of greed and injustice. If you are content to live a comfortable life wherein you can rant and rave at whatever crisis dujour is in the news, those in power are more than happy to let you do so. They do not fear you, and things will not change, because you are content to let them remain the same. |
Funny that we have such different approaches, because itâs pretty clear that you also have a good understanding of the NWO; and how we are close to losing our freedom. It is important that I make it clear that I take many steps toward living a sustainable life, preserving the environment and bringing attention to the charade that our politicians put on to keep us distracted. So keep up with your abrasive techniques and Iâll keep up with my attempts at logic and reason. Together we can change the world;)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 12:47:49 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
This is an interesting frame of mind to be carrying around. You trust in news you can't verify (like your family and friends), but only because it comes from sources other than your own country. Sources in far off places that are economic, ideological, cultural and sometimes millitary competitors with your own country. Sources that absolutely have a vested interest in seeing their own interests move forward at the expense of those of their rivals. |
This is classic fear-mongering |
Alright I'm going to respond to this one bit. The rest is just difference of opinion and in the larger scheme of things it's arguing about details that don't really matter anyway. I won't even rise to the bait of being tagged a Fox News spin artist.
What I said above is not fear mongering. Fear mongering has become the favorite stone to throw for 'the left' the same as un-patriotic has become the favorite stone to throw for 'the right'. What I have presented here is an easily falsifiable theory, so feel free to take a scientific approach to disproving it. All you have to do is point at one purely objective source of information whose sole reason to exist is to inform people of facts without shaping their opinions. I'm pretty sure that with millenia of historic examples to point at, what I said about the competitive nature of states and their dealings with the populations of their rivals is fact. The same applies on smaller scales to the people running CNN, Fox, Slate, Washington Post, LA Times, etc, etc, ad nauseum. But again, give me a single example and I will be happy to a) change my stance and b) start reading them myself. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:07:17 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
In what ways have the those who have denounced the actions of George Bush taken steps to counter him and effect policies of their own? |
What would you suggest??
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:15:36 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Elections are in a couple of weeks, folks. Just remember no matter which party you vote for, anything short of voting with a bullet is another vote cast for the status quo. And that's.... ok. |
What do you mean by this?
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:11:08 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
This is an interesting frame of mind to be carrying around. You trust in news you can't verify (like your family and friends), but only because it comes from sources other than your own country. Sources in far off places that are economic, ideological, cultural and sometimes millitary competitors with your own country. Sources that absolutely have a vested interest in seeing their own interests move forward at the expense of those of their rivals. |
This is classic fear-mongering |
Alright I'm going to respond to this one bit. The rest is just difference of opinion and in the larger scheme of things it's arguing about details that don't really matter anyway. I won't even rise to the bait of being tagged a Fox News spin artist.
What I said above is not fear mongering. Fear mongering has become the favorite stone to throw for 'the left' the same as un-patriotic has become the favorite stone to throw for 'the right'. What I have presented here is an easily falsifiable theory, so feel free to take a scientific approach to disproving it. All you have to do is point at one purely objective source of information whose sole reason to exist is to inform people of facts without shaping their opinions. I'm pretty sure that with millenia of historic examples to point at, what I said about the competitive nature of states and their dealings with the populations of their rivals is fact. The same applies on smaller scales to the people running CNN, Fox, Slate, Washington Post, LA Times, etc, etc, ad nauseum. But again, give me a single example and I will be happy to a) change my stance and b) start reading them myself. |
When I made the statement that I believe other countries have a right to criticize us and that foreigners have access to news that may not make it to the US airwaves, I had no idea it would draw such a response. Nor did I expect my words to be interpreted as they have been. My contention was, and remains to be that isolation of information is dangerous and seeing through someone else's perspective can be quite valuable. Never once did I suggest that anyone should get all of their information from a single source, no matter how much they trust it (quite the opposite, really) nor did I recommend relying solely on foreigners for our news. I simply suggested that foreigners may have a different perspective and that they are often more interested in the workings of our country than a great number of Americans.
It is impossible to prove something so subjective as a purely objective news source; even if I were foolish enough to believe that such a thing existed. I don't believe it's humanly possible to present information without tainting it with at least the slightest bit of an agenda. Now, that's not to say that all agendas are malicious. For example, my agenda is to persuade others to pay attention to what's happening; because there is a very nefarious plan that has been in play for the duration of most of our lifetimes (possibly all); and if we don't fight it we are contributing to the downfall of human life as we know it. The use of political parties and terrorist threats (AKA "fear mongering") are two of the ways these criminals are pitting us against each other.
The term "fear mongering" is most definitely a leftist phrase; and I hesitated to use it. Honestly, I was too tired and lazy to think of a more creative way to express my reaction to the accusations leveled against me. I was irritated by the repeated sentiment that sounded to me like "Foreigners have no right to criticize us and their information is useless, because they are all out to get us." To me this seems like a continuation of the play on our fears that has been deftly used by the government to convince us to relinquish our liberties. This especially raises my hackles because I can provide specific examples of the American press creating and perpetrating lies that would have gone unchecked if not for the vigilance of other foreign broadcasters.
And yes, the Fox spin artist remark was a cheap shot. I get a little testy when I'm accused of things I didn't say. I probably ought to work on that:)
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 21:48:24. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 05:18:23 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I simply suggested that foreigners may have a different perspective and that they are often more interested in the workings of our country than a great number of Americans. |
Listen to any BBC radio newscast and you'll hear as much or more about the actions of the Bush administration and the Congress as you will on any US newscast, and generally far more than you'll hear about the workings of Parliament from Katy Couric, et al ... |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 09:45:18 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I simply suggested that foreigners may have a different perspective and that they are often more interested in the workings of our country than a great number of Americans. |
Listen to any BBC radio newscast and you'll hear as much or more about the actions of the Bush administration and the Congress as you will on any US newscast, and generally far more than you'll hear about the workings of Parliament from Katy Couric, et al ... |
How about video documentaries?
Like this?
And this?
Here are the people who manipulated public opinion admitting that and explaining how they did it.
Compare that to what we get from Glen Beck in Iraq: The Real Story as promoted in this thread.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 09:59:04. |
|
|
|
11/04/2006 10:09:50 PM · #61 |
From PSYOP to MindWar:
The Psychology of Victory
by Colonel Paul E. Valley, Commander
with Major Michael A. Aquino, PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader
From the introduction (written recently):
âThe advantage of MindWar is that it conducts wars in nonlethal, noninjurious, and nondestructive ways. Essentially you overwhelm your enemy with argument. You seize control of all of the means by which his government and populace process information to make up their minds, and you adjust it so that those minds are made up as you desire. Everyone is happy, no one gets hurt or killed, and nothing is destroyed...
...While in the 1980s I had no reason to think that this paper had had any official effect upon U.S. PSYOP doctrine within or beyond the Army, it was with some fascination that I saw specific of its prescription applied during the first Gulf War, and recently even more obviously during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In both instances extreme PSYOP was directed both against the object of the attack and upon U.S. domestic public perception and opinion, in 2003 the extent of "embedding" journalists with military units to inevitably channel their perspectives and perceptions.
The impact of even these minor techniques of MindWar was remarkable. A psychological climate of inexorable U.S. victory was created and sustained in both the United States and Iraq, which accelerated that victory on the ground.
Somewhat less positively, the failure of MindWar in this instance to be guided by only the most rigorous priciples of truth and ethics has just as inexorably led to a substantial post-victory evaporation of that euphoric climate. Therin lies the Achilles' heel of MindWar. Invoking as it does the most intense emotions and commitments of its audiences, it must deliver the goods as they are judged by the target audiences. If the ethical values of those audiences are not respected - if MindWar is used only in the service of ulterior motives and objectives - the resulting "disintoxication" can be socially shattering...â
From the original paper(1980):
âSo let us begin with a simple name change. We shall rid ourselves of the self-conscious, almost "embarrassed" concept of "phsychological operations". In its place we shall create MindWar. The term is harsh and fear-inspiring, and so it should be: It is a term of attack and victory - not one of the rationalization and coaxing and conciliation. The enemy may be offended by it; that is quite all right as long as he is defeated by it. A definiton is offered:
MindWar is the deliberate, aggressive convincing of all participants in a war that we will win that war...
...Strategic MindWar must begin the moment war is considered to be inevitable. It must seek out attention of the enemy nation through every available medium, and it must strike at the nation's potential soldiers before they put on their uniforms. It is in their homes and their communities that they are most vulnerable to MindWar. Was the United States defeated in the jungles of Vietnam, or was it defeated in the streets of American cities?
To this end MindWar must be strategic in emphasis, with tactical applications playing a reinforcing , supplementary role. In its strategic context, MindWar must reach out to friends, enemies and neutrals alike across the globe - neither through primitive "battlefield" leaflets and loudspeakers of PSYOP nor through the weak, imprecise and narrow effort of psychotronics - but through the media possessed by the United States which have the capabilities to reach virtually all people on the face of the Earth.
These media are, of course, the electronic media - television and radio. State of the art developments in satellite communication, video recording techniques, and laser and optical transmission of broadcasts make possible a penetration fo the minds of the world such as would have been inconceivable just a few years ago...
...Under existing United States law, PSYOP units may not target American citizens. That prohibition is based upon the presumption that "propaganda" is necessarily a lie or at least a misleading half-truth, and that the government has no right to lie to the people. The Propaganda Ministry of Goebbels must not be a part of the American way of life.
Quite right, and so it must be axiomatic of MindWar that it always speaks the truth. Its power lies in its ability to focus recipients; attention on the truth of the future as well as that of the present. MindWar thus involves the stated promise of the truth that the United States has resolved to make real if it is not already so.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2006 12:52:29 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
...Under existing United States law, PSYOP units may not target American citizens. That prohibition is based upon the presumption that "propaganda" is necessarily a lie or at least a misleading half-truth, and that the government has no right to lie to the people. The Propaganda Ministry of Goebbels must not be a part of the American way of life. |
... or is it?
 |
|
|
|
11/05/2006 12:54:03 AM · #63 |
|
|
|
11/05/2006 01:18:38 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Godwin's Law! |
Oops, what a stupid thing to say ...
I don't see the "n-word" here, do you? |
|
|
|
11/05/2006 01:21:04 AM · #65 |
| No, I see no reference to Hitler or the Nazis. Damn, outwitted again by GeneralE. |
|
|
|
11/05/2006 01:35:04 AM · #66 |
In the spirit of posting ominous quotes
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.' - Stalin
"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force." - Hitler
"What luck for rulers, that men do not think." - Hitler
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
"The sky is falling" - Chicken Little |
|
|
|
11/05/2006 08:54:14 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.' - Stalin
"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force." - Hitler
"What luck for rulers, that men do not think." - Hitler
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
"The sky is falling" - Chicken Little |
.......and every statement true as hell.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2006 10:26:51 AM · #68 |
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - attributed to Ben Franklin
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." - Ben Franklin
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revoluntary change, is likely to be long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." - Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century (p. 51)
Another nursery rhyme:
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again." - Mother Goose
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 11:26:19 AM EDT.
