From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 14:51:04 GMT
Arlo,
Platt:
> >At least you admit there have been ad hominem attacks on me, a
> >conservative. As for your O'Reilly charge, can you furnish some examples?
Arlo:
> I don't archive O'Reily's broadcasts, but here is something you can do. Go
> to Google, type in "liberal" and "asshole" (or your choice of "ad hominem"
> attack). Search either "web" or "groups". If you can't find any evidence
> doing this that "conservatives" engage in "ad hominem" attacks just as
> vociferously as "liberals", then let me know.
Your suggestion is irrelevant to the charge that the main stream media has
a liberal bias.
> >Tactics enunciated by Goebbels used by Rove? How about telling us what
> >those tactics are and how, when, and where Rove used them? Compared to
> >Michael Moore, Goebbels was an amateur.
> As I've said, propaganda serves any master. But several things undertaken
> by the conservative media, in regards to manipulating language, stand out.
> One is the redefining of "patriotism" as "blind obedience to government".
> Following 9/11, any criticisms to the Bush Dynasty was met with villifying
> rebuttals of "traitor" (as evidenced most strongly in Ann Coulter's books).
I have no problem calling those who give aid and comfort to terrorists who
are dedicated to killing Americans, Britons, Dutchmen and other upholders
of intellectual level rights "traitors."
> Second was the near ubiqutous acceptance of the existence of WMD's in Iraq
> as justification for invasion, followed by a masterful media blitz of how
> this really didn't matter after-the-fact.
Surely you know that the intelligence agencies of many countries believed
WMD's existed.The U.S., Britain and their allies acted on the best
information they had at the time. Further, the existence of WMD's was
never offered as the only reason to overthrow Saddam's tyranny. His breach
of the peace treaty he signed after the Gulf war and violation of UN
resolutions were reasons enough.
> "Intelligent Design" is also a
> masterful stroke of rhetorical propaganda, as is the deceptive use of
> "faith-based" to replace "religious" in government edicts.
Guess you didn't noticed that leftist Hillary Clinton came out in favor of
"fath-based" government initiatives, saying "There is no contradiction
between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our
constitutional principles."
>Your recently
> cited MRC, nothing more than a conservative propaganda machine, was
> designed to provide a seemingly "objective" face to media research, while
> delibertately skewing or falsifying (as Ant, Mark and others has already
> demonstrated) reports to promote conservative rhetoric.
It's a sign of propaganda on your part to make broad accusations without
any objective evidence.
> Rupert Murdoch's
> blatantly false "fair and balanced" is another masterful use of
> manipulative language.
You see what I mean?
> Indeed, the entire myth of liberal media bias
> follows a Goebbelian trajectory, which condemned "mass media" for its
> "Jewish" bias, and promoted the Ministry as the only "fair" outlet for
> news. The Ministry, then of course, only promoted the party, and anything
> reported in the "mainstream media" was dismissed as "jew bias". Doesn't
> this sound eerily, and possibly coincidentally, familiar?
No. In Hitler's Germany there was no mainstream media, only Nazi media.
> Rove as also repeatedly championed the use of "talking points", a
> long-standing political tactic to be sure, but one used very heavily by
> conservatives under Rove. About this Goebbels said, "Propaganda must
> therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. The most brilliant
> propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental
> principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few
> points and repeat them over and over." To this end Goebbels also made clear
> that once "stuck", these talking points were immune to later review.
> Indeed, the whole talking point "liberal media" is a skillful move to
> manipulate discourse.
Both sides use propaganda techniques that were well known long before the
Nazis. The latest talking points from the leftists is to paint the current
administration as suffering from "hubris" Before that it was that Bush
lacked "gravitas." And, of course, we repeatedly hear "stupid" applied to
him and those who voted for him.
> >If it was as bad as you say, how come the Congress overwhelmingly passed
> >the Patriot Act and the courts haven't thrown it out?
> Well, the courts have thrown out many elements of PA1, but with more
> conservatives appointed to the bench, it is likely that future reviews will
> likely pass. Already, the technology industry is bracing for a revision of
> battles it one during Bush's first term, that will likely be renamed and
> slipped into other bills. As for congress, please, these are the same
> people who voted to rename "french fries" as "freedom fries".
Your belittling of representatives voted into power by a democratic
process is frightening, indicating you have a better idea for governing
than the checks and balances provided by the three branches. If so, what
might that be?
Platt
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 -
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 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 16:03:54 GMT