kobe wrote:Inconsequential, and also a total lie.
So inconsequential, you needed to respond, eh?
kobe wrote:The Democratic Party started the war. So please spare me the liberal partisan rhetoric.
Nixon and McCarthy were right. The Democrats were infiltrated by the Communist Party. Kennedy and Johnson weren't commies, but Alger Hiss certainly was. The other commie tactic of getting into universities started paying off by 1968, as the first wave of baby boomers were able to vote in national elections. The media was funded by advertising dollars, and purchasers were only looking at circulation, not the ideology of the broadcasters. As for the Democrats, when you go from Jack Kennedy to George McGovern in a decade, you're obviously not the same party anymore.
kobe wrote:OP, this illustrates my point that narrative is more powerful than objectivity. Clearly he is still spouting the same false story and the same propaganda that was found to be false a decade ago, furthermore juxtaposing two countries that have fought wars against each other- wars funded by the US Government- as if they were in any way connected.
It wasn't "found to be false," which is an alliterative phrase I might add. Obama pulled troops out of Iraq, and he had ISIS almost overnight. He didn't believe they were real--calling them a JV (junior varsity) team, and juxtaposed the JV team to Kobe Bryant, a legendary professional, whose name you presumably use as your moniker. What Obama said or didn't say isn't all that relevant, but rather that he didn't take threats seriously and didn't want others to do so either.
kobe wrote:Yes, all narratives are propaganda. Just like the one you're peddling right here. Do you see how comparing Obama to Chamberlain is only a propaganda device? How comparing the Mullahs to Hitler is a propaganda device?
Obama and Chamberlain have a similar political philosophy with respect to the use of force and appeasement. Otherwise, they differ markedly. Hitler and the Mullahs differ substantially in both their political outlook and their capabilities, but they both benefited mightily from the naivete of their adversaries self-critical and obsequious disposition as well as false bravado. For example, Chamberlain pledged to defend Poland, which essentially required Britain to declare war. Obama put a "red line" in the sand with respect to Syria, but he caved. As I've said before, a realist will judge you according to your capabilities, and in that assessment isn't just your material ability to fight, but your moral will to do so. See, while the state yammers on about Snowden, the greater damage was Bradley Manning and the email server, because it gave the enemy deep insight not just into what the US government as an entity thinks, but how they think as well as their attitude and disposition.
Rich wrote:Why didn't the Americans get off their fat arses to defend Czechoslovakia?
It was not in America's strategic interest.
Decky wrote:Churchill often gets a hell of a lot of credit for using Chamberlain's army as if Chamberlain had nothing to do with it existing and people operate on this bizarre assumption it would have been better for Chamberlain to declare war when Britain had nothing to fight with.
Declaring war was decided by Hitler for all intents and purposes. Chamberlain left office handing the scuttle at Dunkirk to Churchill. It wasn't exactly a success.
UnusuallyUsual wrote:I mean in general, do you believe that even in countries with "freedom of the press" guaranteed by law, and with corporations running the media as opposed to governments, do you believe there is still large chunks of propaganda involved in their coverage?
In all sincerity, irrespective of her policy views, I believe that the idea that Hillary Clinton is even a contender for the presidency given her gross incompetence is evidence that our entire political system has been captured by private interests. When I hear people complain about Citizens United and the Koch brothers, what I hear is people who don't want the Democratic Party's machine challenged. See, if it came to my attention that under my watch, Bradley Manning leaked tons of classified communications to wikileaks, but I continued to maintain my own secretive but insecure email server, and then learned what that meant to the country strategically, I personally wouldn't pledge myself to try to secure the White House simply because I don't think I could serve my country. I think Hillary Clinton gets that, but she's not interested in serving her country. She's interested in power. She doesn't give two shits about the United States.
Frankly, I think the Republican field is a comedy. The Democrats have found a way to make as many Republicans run as possible. Most of these people know they have no hope in hell of winning, but they are probably being paid to run simply to fragment the Republican field. They not only don't serve their country, they don't serve their party either. So someone like Carly Fiorina clearly has no hope of winning, and putting her own money into the mix is clearly a waste of her time and money. So she must be getting paid off in some way, because people aren't that delusional. For example, I'm not running for president, because I already know I would not likely be elected to the local city council.
UnusuallyUsual wrote:In particular of course I refer to coverage of "foreign" events, and especially those involving potential (or even actual) conflict with the host nation. (I.e., I would say the USA media and British media, being the most war-like countries currently, have media systems which are the worst offenders in this regard)
They are, but they are maintaining the current world order, and that requires military force. In order for the population to accept that idea, they have to be prepped with the moral rationale of why they should sacrifice their sons in a military campaign and pay the taxes necessary to fund that campaign.
However, my entire thread on ISIS executing homosexual men is essentially about the non-coverage of it. They think that ISIS feeds on their coverage. So when ISIS kills Christians, they fan the flames with coverage. When ISIS kills homosexuals, they bury the story. Yet, when a local flower shop or pizza shop doesn't want to cater to homosexual weddings, the media tries to stir up national outrage. Yet, ISIS throwing homosexuals off the tops of buildings and stoned to death if they live is amazingly not covered. It's all propaganda. Not just what's covered, but what isn't covered.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden