Hold Your Heads Up

[The Luke]

You should scroll up and re-read.  My point is only that the article is filled with propaganda.  Not that some of the points in the article aren't true or bad.

Those small details seed the reader's mind with falsities before those primary points are made.  No need for it.

...you claimed there were several instances of propaganda, but referenced only the troglodytes comment and the title of the piece.

Then you rescinded using the title as an instance of propaganda, yet asserted that the troglodyte comment was illogical/untrue so long as the phrase "Troglodytes on the right..." is replaced with the phrase "All republicans...".

Now you concede that the troglodyte comment (your only example) is NOT propaganda... but that the article is still full of propaganda?


But... doesn't that mean that you can't find ANY instances of propaganda in this propaganda laden propaganda article that you object to?

Ozmo... is the truth propaganda?



The Luke

[OzmO]

...you claimed there were several instances of propaganda, but referenced only the troglodytes comment and the title of the piece.

Then you rescinded using the title as an instance of propaganda, yet asserted that the troglodyte comment was illogical/untrue so long as the phrase "Troglodytes on the right..." is replaced with the phrase "All republicans...".

Now you concede that the troglodyte comment (your only example) is NOT propaganda... but that the article is still full of propaganda?


But... doesn't that mean that you can't find ANY instances of propaganda in this propaganda laden propaganda article that you object to?

Ozmo... is the truth propaganda?



The Luke

When did i say the Troglodyte statement is NOT propaganda?

What are you talking about?


I could find more instances I'm sure.  I only started with the first 2 i saw.  6 sentences into the article.

[Decker]

Liberals include republicans and democrats.

Liberals have brought this to the table:

women’s rights,civil rights, Voting Rights Act, regulation of banks and stock brokerage firms, a minimum wage, Child Labor Act, regulation of the stock exchanges, labor rights - collective bargaining, National Parks and monuments -Death Valley, Everglades, Blue Ridge, Boulder Dam, Bull Run, Mount Rushmore, Cape Cod, Tennessee Valley Authority, Rural electrification, the GI Bill providing education to thousands upon thousands of veterans, Housing loans for vets, FHA housing loans, The SBA (Small Business Administration), Unemployment insurance, Medicare, Peace Corp, Social Security, National Endowment for the Arts, & LEGAL ALCOHOL!

http://sonofbillbrasky.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/liberal-accomplishments/

Needless to say, it was the rightwing that opposed all of the above.

Child labor builds character!

[The Luke]

When did i say the Troglodyte statement is NOT propaganda?
What are you talking about?

...here you go:

I get what you are saying regarding  "Troglodytes" and it is correct.  But, people who read it won't interpret it that way.  They will conclude conservatives ridicule evolution.

...you agreed with my contention that the statement is not propaganda, after I explained your error.

I could find more instances I'm sure.  I only started with the first 2 i saw.  6 sentences into the article.

....you didn't find a first one. You cited the title and the troglodyte comment, now you concede neither could objectively be considered propaganda.

This brings us back to my original point... dismissal does NOT constitute debate...


Ozmo, is the truth propaganda?


The Luke

[OzmO]

...here you go:...you agreed with my contention that the statement is not propaganda, after I explained your error.

....you didn't find a first one. You cited the title and the troglodyte comment, now you concede neither could objectively be considered propaganda.

I agreed that your contention based on direct English & grammar was correct NOT that it wasn't propaganda.

How do you conclude that i agreed it was not propaganda?

You also likened Stalin, to make a point, which was singular to Troglodytes which identifies a group of people such as conservatives.

Notice the writer did not write:  "A" Troglodyte.  He wrote "Troglodytes"

I understand if English is your second language... but I suspect your political views clouded your reading of this piece.   

The article is filled with fact i suppose (only because i don't want to take the time to check them out, so I'll assume they are), but it is filled with what can be classified as propaganda based on the definition.

[The Luke]

I agreed that your contention based on direct English & grammar was correct NOT that it wasn't propaganda.

How do you contend that i agreed it was not propaganda?

...this is nonsense.

You also likened Stalin, to make a point, which was singular to Troglodytes which identifies a group of people such as conservatives.

...no I didn't, you have poor reading comprehension.

Notice the writer did not write:  "A" Troglodyte.  He wrote "Troglodytes"

I understand if English is your second language... but I suspect your political views clouded your reading of this piece.   

...no-sequitur.

The article is filled with fact i suppose (only because i don't want to take to check them out, so I'll assume they are), but it is filled with what can be classified as propaganda based on the definition.

...if it is true, (as you concede), then how is it propaganda?

If it is propaganda... then why can't you identify any propaganda within the article?

How did you get to be a moderator on the Political Board with such poor comprehension?


The Luke

[OzmO]

...this is nonsense.
...no I didn't, you have poor reading comprehension.
...no-sequitur.
...if it is true, (as you concede), then how is it propaganda?

If it is propaganda... then why can't you identify any propaganda within the article?

How did you get to be a moderator on the Political Board with such poor comprehension?


The Luke

I'm at the point where I'm repeating myself.  Why bother saying the same thing over and over again to show how it's propaganda?  I provided the accepted definitions and supported my arguments.  It's pretty straight forward.  You obviously have a lacking in understanding implied meaning as it relates persuasive sentences while at the same time have some knowledge in english grammar even though you don't seem to understand plural, singular and difference between types of nouns.  You also don't seem to be able, which is similar to what i just said, to understand the difference between what is being said and what a person is saying.  English is obviously your second language.

It took 3 posts before you could even address my original contention about the first 6 sentences.  You went on and on about Fox news and the title.  This is more evidence of either an inability to comprehend english or a stubbornness to see the article for what it REALLY is.   You are after all liberal.  And it seems, you are one who is not at all objective to anything outside you ideology which in my book makes something on the level of what many liberals complain about in conservatives. 

So now you have regressed into attacking my position as a moderator on the political board.  Do you even know what moderators are for on the boards, at least this one?  I doubt it.  New evidence of your character which is now slipping close to Ad-hom attacks. 

I had hoped you'd be a person i could have had a conversation with, without slipping into name calling or attacks.  You didn't have to agree with my assessment.  You didn't have to disagree and act like a jackass about it either.

But it's all good, because i now know what the "The Luke" is all about.

PS:  Are conservatives or republicans: 

1.   a prehistoric cave dweller?
2.   a person of degraded, primitive, or brutal character?
3.   a person living in seclusion?
4.   a person unacquainted with affairs of the world?
5.   an animal living underground?
6.     all the above?
 

[The Luke]

Facts are facts Ozmo.

You contend the article is propaganda, yet can't identify one instance of propaganda (well, not an instance you haven't then recanted when confronted).

Claiming the phrase "Troglodytes on the right..." constitutes propaganda if you substitute it for the phrase "Everyone on the right..." is patently ridiculous. That's not what the article says, that is YOUR prejudiced false inference.

Claiming...

I get what you are saying regarding  "Troglodytes" and it is correct.  But, people who read it won't interpret it that way.  They will conclude conservatives ridicule evolution.

...is equally ridiculous.
In effect you are insisting that the article is propaganda because those who misinterpret the way you chose to could interpret it that way... that's weak, and obviously a desperate backpedal from your original argument because you CANNOT cite any propaganda in the article (there isn't any).


Facts are facts... there are no lies or factual errors in any of the assertion in the article...

...and by definition, the truth can not be propaganda.



Am I the only one reading who is horrified by Ozmo's nonsensical arguments?

I make clear points and he rebuffs me with non-sequitur misunderstandings of MY grammar and syntax? WTF?


The Luke

[Benny B]

Am I the only one reading who is horrified by Ozmo's nonsensical arguments?

No, you are not alone. 

[headhuntersix]

There's so much of it he doesn't know whether to shit or go blind.

[OzmO]

Facts are facts Ozmo.

You contend the article is propaganda, yet can't identify one instance of propaganda (well, not an instance you haven't then recanted when confronted).

Claiming the phrase "Troglodytes on the right..." constitutes propaganda if you substitute it for the phrase "Everyone on the right..." is patently ridiculous. That's not what the article says, that is YOUR prejudiced false inference.

Claiming......is equally ridiculous.
In effect you are insisting that the article is propaganda because those who misinterpret the way you chose to could interpret it that way... that's weak, and obviously a desperate backpedal from your original argument because you CANNOT cite any propaganda in the article (there isn't any).


Facts are facts... there are no lies or factual errors in any of the assertion in the article...

...and by definition, the truth can not be propaganda.



Am I the only one reading who is horrified by Ozmo's nonsensical arguments?

I make clear points and he rebuffs me with non-sequitur misunderstandings of MY grammar and syntax? WTF?


The Luke

Yawn.

[The Luke]

Yawn.

...some excellent points Ozmo.


The Luke

[24KT]

Am I the only one reading who is horrified by Ozmo's nonsensical arguments?

I make clear points and he rebuffs me with non-sequitur misunderstandings of MY grammar and syntax? WTF?


The Luke

No Luke, you're not the only one.
I think OzmO misinterpreted the term "troglodytes on the right" as meaning "ALL on the right are troglodytes".

I don't think that was the author's intent, and I understood his comment to mean exactly what he wrote "troglodytes on the right". Perhaps if the author had included a sentence about how the voices of rational thinking conservatives was being drowned out by the army of troglodytes on the right, OzmO might have had a clearer understanding of what was infact said.

[OzmO]

No Luke, you're not the only one.
I think OzmO misinterpreted the term "troglodytes on the right" as meaning "ALL on the right are troglodytes".

I don't think that was the author's intent, and I understood his comment to mean exactly what he wrote "troglodytes on the right". Perhaps if the author had included a sentence about how the voices of rational thinking conservatives was being drowned out by the army of troglodytes on the right, OzmO might have had a clearer understanding of what was infact said.

Jag it's not about what the sentence says in black and white with the exception of likening some or all of conservatives as cave men.  It's about what the sentence implies in context with the sentences before and after it. 

Surely you understand the difference don't you? 

if you want pure fact, Decker's post is much closer to it.

[24KT]

Jag it's not about what the sentence says in black and white with the exception of likening some or all of conservatives as cave men.  It's about what the sentence implies in context with the sentences before and after it. 

Surely you understand the difference don't you? 

if you want pure fact, Decker's post is much closer to it.

Wise men make decisions based on solid fact, ...not assumption or nebulous subjective interpretations. 

[OzmO]

Wise men make decisions based on solid fact, ...not assumption or nebulous subjective interpretations. 

Since when do the masses act like wise men?   

Additionally, since when do wise men fail to recognized BS?