• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

Tmy said:
Im just getting to the point. Whats propaganda is really just a matter of semantics. Sort of like calling Saddam the dictator of Iraq and General Masuraff the President of Pakistan. They are both. But depending on how you want to portray them depends of the title you use.
Click to expand...

Language is semantics. Propaganda is just a focused use of language to get a focused point across. What you are doing is creating a strawman of the effort (using semantics) in order to attack the message, whatever it may be.

That's like an Islamist saying a nation insulted their religion through one individual's cartoon.
 
RandFan said:
It is rhetorical I admit but it is delicious in irony and it does a great job of conveying my message.
Click to expand...

s320x320


What does my sig mean?
Click to expand...
 
Tmy said:
Im just getting to the point. Whats propaganda is really just a matter of semantics. Sort of like calling Saddam the dictator of Iraq and General Masuraff the President of Pakistan. They are both. But depending on how you want to portray them depends of the title you use.
Click to expand...
No, that is not the only usage of the word. You can stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly but that won't make the facts go away.
 
Please stick to the subject at hand.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
President Bush said:
You parsed Mephisto's (nonexistent) sig. It so happened I had actually quoted you in mine. Seems on topic to me.

What does my sig mean?
Click to expand...
The quote was in one of Mephisto's posts. I eroneously said it was a sig when it wasn't. I corrected this most egregious of errors and apologized. Mephisto has since accepted my apology. We are past that now. Whether or not it was a sig is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Can you respond in a meaningful way to what the President said or do you only want to troll? It would seem that the President's words would be relvent to your conceit. Your sig is not.

If you start another thread I'm sure it will be very funny, many will contribute and a great time will be had by all. You would not be trolling my thread and perhaps, if I'm feeling generous, I will answer your question.

As it is you are off topic.
 
RandFan said:
I love that line. I'm particularly proud of it. It is rhetorical I admit but it is delicious in irony and it does a great job of conveying my message.

:) I never thought I would say this but thanks Sock Puppet.
Click to expand...

RandFan, if you have evidence that President Bush is a sock puppet, bring it forward. Otherwise, please stop with the name calling.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Lisa Simpson said:
RandFan, if you have evidence that President Bush is a sock puppet, bring it forward. Otherwise, please stop with the name calling.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Click to expand...
:D Oh damn.

We'll let's be honest. President Bush is very different from other posters. He maintains a literary conceit for purposes of satire. He doesn't contribute in a substantive way to anything other than to mock President Bush. Which is fine with me. I don't care for him personally since he refuses to break character enough to allow his real personality to be confronted with some of his more absurd accusations.

Would someone of his ego truly want to sit out of the arguments? Possibly but I doubt it. In any event I do have some evidence. I'm not sure it would change anything though so I will keep it close to the vest. Besides I think he suspects that I know who he is and I'm certain I do. I'm fine to leave it at that.

In any event as someone who is committed to free speech there is no way in the world I would stop him even if I could confirm that he was a sock puppet and even if his posts weren't arguably quite appropriate AND significant in this particular forum, and they are.

So, I will no longer call him sock puppet. I'll think up something more appropriate. :)

Thank you Lisa
 
RandFan said:
In any event I do have some evidence. I'm not sure it would change anything though so I will keep it close to the vest. Besides I think he suspects that I know who he is and I'm certain I do.
....................

So, I will no longer call him sock puppet.
Click to expand...
But you do, in the same post? :) :confused:
 
Bjorn said:
But you do, in the same post? :) :confused:
Click to expand...
Sorry. Oh I wish I could take that back. Clearly I did. Knowing what I know now it was wrong.

Perhaps I should have thought better about it. Usually I look over my posts more carefully. Probably the liquor I'm drinking. People will have to decide for themselves. Error noted. Thanks. :)
 
RandFan said:
We've both had our say. How about if you have the decency to start another thread and stay on topic in this one? You can ask your questions there.
Click to expand...

050115_bush_vl.widec.jpg



The topic here is, of course, propaganda...


RandFan said:
President Bush is very different from other posters. He maintains a literary conceit for purposes of satire. He doesn't contribute in a substantive way to anything other than to mock President Bush. Which is fine with me. I don't care for him personally since he refuses to break character enough to allow his real personality to be confronted with some of his more absurd accusations.

Would someone of his ego truly want to sit out of the arguments? Possibly but I doubt it. In any event I do have some evidence. I'm not sure it would change anything though so I will keep it close to the vest. Besides I think he suspects that I know who he is and I'm certain I do.
Click to expand...

... and you wonder why the term has a bad name. I recommend not to employ it against someone and expect them to then keep quiet.
 
President Bush said:
The topic here is, of course, propaganda...

... and you wonder why the term has a bad name. I recommend not to employ it against someone and expect them to then keep quiet.
Click to expand...
Hey, he's on topic.

I don't think the term has a bad name. I'm not sure how that is logically possible. What name would that be? Or are you using a figure of speech? Well, I just think some people don't know the meaning of some words, particularly this word.

FWIW, I don't expect you to keep quiet. I don't want anyone to keep quiet. I would just hope that you could stay on topic.
 
In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda.
Click to expand...
I think GW meant in order to to get rid of propaganda (against his administration), move it out, catapult it. Bush is rather famous for using words in odd ways. He should have said counteract, not catapult.

It seems more likely he was complaining about the media blitz against him than he would be admitting propaganda. I believe it is just another example of Pres. Bush tripping over his own tongue, not proof of malice.

What it really shows is how some individual's minds are so clouded by hatred of Bush that they can no longer apply critical thinking to the topic.
 
peptoabysmal said:
What it really shows is how some individual's minds are so clouded by hatred of Bush that they can no longer apply critical thinking to the topic.
Click to expand...

Yes. Almost everything Bush has touched turned to
Edited by tim: 
shecky, please do not use "obscenities" on the forum.
. It must be because my mind is so clouded by hate. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom