30 days of Propaganda.

[Superlative]

So what you're saying is that repeating something that doesn't agree with your political agenda is propaganda, but repeating anything you don't care about are a myriad of non sequiturs?

No double standard there.

Dont put words in my mouth.

I am simply showing that the President deliberately and excessively used key words, in groupings in a very large majority of his speeches.

Also known as Propaganda, but because you believe everything he says, you dont believe me.

I guess I have to say something 183 times for it to sink into your brain.

 

[Gunny]

Dont put words in my mouth.

I am simply showing that the President deliberately and excessively used key words, in groupings in a very large majority of his speeches.

Also known as Propaganda, but because you believe everything he says, you dont believe me.

I guess I have to say something 183 times for it to sink into your brain.

And I am showing that the media and/or anyone else with an agenda and media access do the exact same thing so it is hardly some novel concept dreamed up by Bush to brainwash the masses.

It's a favorite tactic in journalism that spilled over from newspapers to modern forms of media communications.

And I would never, EVER presume to put words in YOUR mouth. You always have more than enough on your own.

 

[Superlative]

And I am showing that the media and/or anyone else with an agenda and media access do the exact same thing so it is hardly some novel concept dreamed up by Bush to brainwash the masses.

It's a favorite tactic in journalism that spilled over from newspapers to modern forms of media communications.

And I would never, EVER presume to put words in YOUR mouth. You always have more than enough on your own.

In this we are in agreement.


These speeches were delivered by the President, withthe knowledge that they would be repeated by the media, not the other way around.

The president said these things first, and then the media rebroadcast them.

Who gets more concentrated press in a time of crisis than the President?

It IMO was and is a concious and deliberate effort by the GOP to get key words and phrases such as these, into the minds of the masses through heavy repetition, and grouping.

 

[Gunny]

In this we are in agreement.


These speeches were delivered by the President, withthe knowledge that they would be repeated by the media, not the other way around.

The president said these things first, and then the media rebroadcast them.

Who gets more concentrated press in a time of crisis than the President?

It IMO was and is a concious and deliberate effort by the GOP to get key words and phrases such as these, into the minds of the masses through heavy repetition, and grouping.

Anna Nicole Smith?

You can say it is a deliberate effort by the GOP if you like, but if you take a look at it, everything we do, see and say is based on saturation and repetition of key words and phrases.

At a lower level, some of us do the same thing right here on this board. Not pointing any fingers at anyone, but just how many times do we have to listen to the same, hackneyed and baseless accusations against President Bush? Until everyone believes them?

Or Fox News is conservative biased? Or CNN is liberal-biased?

It's all about doing one's best to see through the sell job. I'm not going to point a finger at Bush for selling his agenda. It's part of his job just as it was Clinton's.

If what's being sold stinks, THAT is what needs to be questioned.

 

[Superlative]

Anna Nicole Smith?

You can say it is a deliberate effort by the GOP if you like, but if you take a look at it, everything we do, see and say is based on saturation and repetition of key words and phrases.

At a lower level, some of us do the same thing right here on this board. Not pointing any fingers at anyone, but just how many times do we have to listen to the same, hackneyed and baseless accusations against President Bush? Until everyone believes them?

Or Fox News is conservative biased? Or CNN is liberal-biased?

It's all about doing one's best to see through the sell job. I'm not going to point a finger at Bush for selling his agenda. It's part of his job just as it was Clinton's.

If what's being sold stinks, THAT is what needs to be questioned.

The President never said Anna Nicole was a terrorist.

And you are correct that our MO as a society is repetition, its a fact of advertising, they have extensive research and testing that concludes, repetition sells. Brand recognition breeds brand loyalty, which makes money.

But this was not advertising, or people on this board pointing fingers,

it was the President of the United States, delivering prewritten specificly worded speeches, one in which he says the word terrorist 40+ times.

Two planes crashed into the WTC, and thousands were killed, dont you think it was excessive and unnecassary for the president to say the word terrorist 183 times in 30 days, knowing it would be heard and repeated?

You said yourself "I'm not going to point a finger at Bush for selling his agenda. It's part of his job just as it was Clinton's."

Do you feel that propagandic, repetitive methods were used to "Sell" this agenda?

The majority of the Nation had no idea who Iraqi's were, let alone where they are on a map, and thieir first introduction to them - From the President, was that they are "Evil Terrorists."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The President never said Anna Nicole was a terrorist.

And you are correct that our MO as a society is repetition, its a fact of advertising, they have extensive research and testing that concludes, repetition sells. Brand recognition breeds brand loyalty, which makes money.

But this was not advertising, or people on this board pointing fingers,

it was the President of the United States, delivering prewritten specificly worded speeches, one in which he says the word terrorist 40+ times.

Two planes crashed into the WTC, and thousands were killed, dont you think it was excessive and unnecassary for the president to say the word terrorist 183 times in 30 days, knowing it would be heard and repeated?

You said yourself "I'm not going to point a finger at Bush for selling his agenda. It's part of his job just as it was Clinton's."

Do you feel that propagandic, repetitive methods were used to "Sell" this agenda?

The majority of the Nation had no idea who Iraqi's were, let alone where they are on a map, and thieir first introduction to them - From the President, was that they are "Evil Terrorists."

Jumping again to Iraq from 9/11. Your own point was that Iraq was NOT mentioned in 2001. Now your claiming it was again. Talk about Propaganda.

 

[red states rule]

In this we are in agreement.


These speeches were delivered by the President, withthe knowledge that they would be repeated by the media, not the other way around.

The president said these things first, and then the media rebroadcast them.

Who gets more concentrated press in a time of crisis than the President?

It IMO was and is a concious and deliberate effort by the GOP to get key words and phrases such as these, into the minds of the masses through heavy repetition, and grouping.

No attacks in the US since 9-11 and libs still are not happy. Now White Flag Harry is going to bring back the surrender bill and Dems are openly sliming the top Generals

Yes, the left is showing where they stand on the war on terror. They do not care about that war - they are still fighting their war on Bush

 

[Gunny]

The President never said Anna Nicole was a terrorist.

And you are correct that our MO as a society is repetition, its a fact of advertising, they have extensive research and testing that concludes, repetition sells. Brand recognition breeds brand loyalty, which makes money.

But this was not advertising, or people on this board pointing fingers,

it was the President of the United States, delivering prewritten specificly worded speeches, one in which he says the word terrorist 40+ times.

Two planes crashed into the WTC, and thousands were killed, dont you think it was excessive and unnecassary for the president to say the word terrorist 183 times in 30 days, knowing it would be heard and repeated?

You said yourself "I'm not going to point a finger at Bush for selling his agenda. It's part of his job just as it was Clinton's."

Do you feel that propagandic, repetitive methods were used to "Sell" this agenda?

The majority of the Nation had no idea who Iraqi's were, let alone where they are on a map, and thieir first introduction to them - From the President, was that they are "Evil Terrorists."

Sorry, but no sale. You're trying to demonize something that you even agree is a fact of life in every other facet. It's only "nefarious" and/or "conspiratorial" because a Republican President chooses to use the tools society has taught him to use to get his message across.

 

[Superlative]

Jumping again to Iraq from 9/11. Your own point was that Iraq was NOT mentioned in 2001. Now your claiming it was again. Talk about Propaganda.

You my friend are splitting hairs, and doing it poorly I might add.

You cant say its not propaganda, so you toss in an ad hominem tu quoque (go look it up)

Within one year, the President had equated Iraq with Terrorism, and you know it, go and read post #33, and see what Mr Bush had to say.

Then deny it.

Sorry, but no sale. You're trying to demonize something that you even agree is a fact of life in every other facet. It's only "nefarious" and/or "conspiratorial" because a Republican President chooses to use the tools society has taught him to use to get his message across.

Yes, I think its Nefarious, and Conspiratorial, In every other Facet its called ADVERTISING.

Which is brainwashing for profit.

The President wasnt selling McDonalds, or Anna Nicole Smith, he was selling Fear.

He was selling the idea that Americans need to be afraid. and then more afraid.

Its one thing when a corporation utilizes the tactic, its called advertising, but when the Government does it, its called Propaganda.

Theyre not selling toilet paper, they are promoting fear. and gearing the population to act irrationally, persuading them to side with whatever future agenda the government chooses.

It wouldnt matter to me if Clinton did it, its still Propaganda, and you dont seem to mind it.

You can see advertrising for what it is, and you blatently acknowledge it, but you refuse to admit that when the GOVERNMENT does it, that its Propaganda.

Its indoctrination and persuasion through Propaganda.

 

[red states rule]

Read post #33, or just skim it, and pay close attention to the words the are in BOLD.

You think this is normal, and justified?

You dont think its excessive?

Im fear mongering?

Fear mongering - you mean like when Dems tell seniors Republicans want to take away your SS check or toss you out of nursing homes and into the street

Or Al Bore bellowing how Pres Bush's enviromental policies will kill people?

Or how Dems sneered Republicans want to starve school children (while at the same time libs rant how kids today are to fat)

 

[Gunny]

You my friend are splitting hairs, and doing it poorly I might add.

You cant say its not propaganda, so you toss in an ad hominem tu quoque (go look it up)

Within one year, the President had equated Iraq with Terrorism, and you know it, go and read post #33, and see what Mr Bush had to say.

Then deny it.



Yes, I think its Nefarious, and Conspiratorial, In every other Facet its called ADVERTISING.

Which is brainwashing for profit.

The President wasnt selling McDonalds, or Anna Nicole Smith, he was selling Fear.

He was selling the idea that Americans need to be afraid. and then more afraid.

Its one thing when a corporation utilizes the tactic, its called advertising, but when the Government does it, its called Propaganda.

Theyre not selling toilet paper, they are promoting fear. and gearing the population to act irrationally, persuading them to side with whatever future agenda the government chooses.

It wouldnt matter to me if Clinton did it, its still Propaganda, and you dont seem to mind it.

You can see advertrising for what it is, and you blatently acknowledge it, but you refuse to admit that when the GOVERNMENT does it, that its Propaganda.

Its indoctrination and persuasion through Propaganda.

I disagree. Addressing a threat is not selling fear nor trying to get a population to act irrationally. There is NO difference between Bush selling his agenda and Clinton selling his, or any other politician selling his/her agendas.

Irrational is trying to say that it is nefarious and conspiratorial only if Bush does it, but otherwise it's advertising.

I've seen this "selling fear" argument before. You can only be sold what you're willing to buy. And addressing a threat, being prepared to react to it, or taking action to circumvent int happening again is hardly being sold fear. It's called logical self-preservation.