I remember reading stories about this back during the 2000 campaign (and know of PR firms that routinely include "stealth participation in relevant BBS's" for corporate clients in product promos), but can't find any of the old news stories about it. (I recall one about a conservative group that was funding people in a "work part time from your home" way.) Can anybody help me with links to any documentation?
During the presidential campaign, I read that the Repugs had these boiler room operations to campaign via message boards. These were offices with multiple internet connections. I recall one such office was in Philadelphia, manned day and night. Repug campaigners would have multiple accounts that gave each of them many userids for access to very active message boards and political chat.
This included AOL. Using different userids and persona, they would inundate people with Repug campaign rhetoric. They hit hot buttons and tried to make people angry. You look at a message board and think that you are seeing ten people who really disagree with you but in reality it is only two people whose desks are three feet apart and they're grinning at each other.
So what has that to do with your discussion with this guy? When you keep talking to someone like this, and lurkers follow along the message sequence, you undo the damage of these message board campaigners. It's almost an exercise -- hear what he is saying, define the issue, answer the issue. And then the subject changes.
We have often felt frustration that we cannot do something more to advance our cause. Demonstrations are not held every day. Personal resources have limits and we cannot donate as much money or time as we would like to.
But, since the Bushies propagandized message boards curing the campaign, it is only reasonable to think they are doing it again now that they have to drum up support for Bush's oil war. The propagandists will not be working the hard right boards because those people are still pretty much with Bush. The flacks will be working boards where people waver and just need a little convincing to believe that the reason is terror not oil.
Posts: 1351 | Location: Portland, OR | Registered: 16 January 2006
A first step would be checking for sequential IP addresses.
Thom, I remember seeing a program on PBS (I think) about the marketing of "cool" that mentioned the same thing - boiler room chat room operations for the purpose of promoting certain products.
(Heh. Penguins.)
Let us call peace by its real name -- social justice.
Posts: 72 | Location: Headed West | Registered: 23 July 2003
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
Nanomaterials are already being used in sunscreens and tennis rackets. The oil industry saves an estimated $12 billion each year by using molecular sieves known as zeolites to extract gasoline from crude oil�.
In the future, nanotechnology coupled to biotechnology could produce a variety of beneficial products, from better sensors for agents of bioterrorism to custom-built medicines for fighting cancers. Nano-manufacturing processes could reduce waste from industrial production, and nanomaterials could be used to make power systems highly efficient. �
In other cases, the strategy will be to highjack public newsgroups, just as candidates often pack meetings with their own supporters. Even now, one or two people can take over a newsgroup and set its agenda by dominating the discussions, flaming opponents, and dragging every thread in the desired direction. A couple of dozen supporters should be able to dominate debate even more thoroughly None of this will be official, of course--just the natural behavior of ordinary citizens who happen to support the candidate.
quote:
Dirty tricks could get really dirty. Imagine a forged home page providing violent distortions of the candidate's position and record, or campaign ads that really come from the opposition. Such "black propaganda" would be hard to fight; publicizing the forgery would only draw more attention to its lies.
quote:
Despite these threats, politicians are likely to get into the medium for one reason: Other politicians. Hardware and software defenses will emerge to hold off the tricksters, and the first politicos to master the Net will enjoy a measurable advantage over latecomers. Mastery will come from recognition that this is not just electronic print or low-res TV, but a medium that can and should answer back. Net propaganda can't just hammer on voters who do nothing until election day. It has to provoke them into response after response, with each response helping to define the politician's next step. Many of those provocations will be inane, patronizing or downright vicious. But for once the voters' reactions may actually force the politicos to treat them like intelligent, informed citizens.
And for the politicians, that could be the Net's most frightening threat of all.
November 13, 2002 Washington D.C. - In eight tightly contested Senate races, online advertising banners were bought by Republican candidates on a collection of AOL Time Warner sites five days before Election Day. Six of those eight Republican candidates won their race.
One of the key findings of the Survey is that only half of the political communication leaders are aware of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform advantage regarding use of the Internet in political campaigns. For while the Campaign Finance Reform Act restricts the use of television and radio ads paid for with corporate or labor money 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before the general election, there are no restrictions on Internet advertising
quote:
In Arizona, online targeting was done using the local newspaper sites along with some broader sites for three state-wide races. Bill Caspare, DB Associates, said, "There is no doubt that these online campaigns had a discernable affect on the final results."
Was it the site and are the websites linked to bbs??
quote:
In total 10 Republican and Democratic Senate candidates purchased over 13 million Internet ad impressions on AOL TW. The online banners ran from Thursday night before the election through Monday night. Noteworthy are the races in Colorado where polls taken the Thursday before the election showed the Republican candidate for Senate down 44% to 53%. The Republican won the race with 51% of the vote. In Georgia where polls showed the GOP candidate at 49%, the Republican won the race with 53% of the vote.
Working through a company called E-advocates, which set up the Internet promotion, the association was looking to generate some "grassroots" opposition to Missouri Sen. Jim Talent's association health plan bill. To enter the sweepstakes, all you had to do was send a canned fax to your representative outlining the reasons he or she should vote it down.
Tipped off, Talent took to the floor of the Senate and leveled a broadside right at Blue Cross.
"I don't blame anybody who wants a shot at a $4,000 trip and participates in a sweepstakes in order to get it," Talent told his colleagues. "But I sure blame the people who have sponsored that Web site and are distorting the debate on this serious issue before the Senate." It was, he added, all part of Blue Cross' $4.3 million annual lobbying effort aimed primarily at squashing his bill.
quote:
Eager to influence lawmakers, health care groups of every stripe have been funneling ever larger sums into the campaign coffers of public representatives (see chart). But being able to show public support for their cause has lobbying groups scurrying to come up with new ways to goad a response from voters. And the PR tactics sometimes scare up as much or more attention as the arguments they try to make.
Dean has done other things to maximize his online fundraising punch, like reinvesting money into expanding donor lists and paying �bloggers� or professional Internet surfers to keep the enthusiasm up on his website.
WASHINGTON : Civil rights groups in the United States are accusing the Bush administration of engaging in Orwellian tactics, after a leading American newspaper revealed that the FBI has been spying extensively on the country's anti-war movement.
According to the New York Times, the 'Big Brother' is watching - in the form of FBI agents who are reportedly collecting data on America's anti-war movement in a bid to keep tabs on what the agency describes as anarchists and "extremist elements".
Advertisement
It is an intelligence gathering effort that is also utilising the resources of local police departments all over the country, said the report.
They have been urged to report any suspicious activity to the bureau's anti-terrorism squad, and many of them have done so.
Allan Lichtman, a professor of History at the American University, said: "If this report is true, I shudder for the future of this country."
"This country is great because we tolerate diversity, we tolerate dissent, we are a pluralistic country. We don't use the police as a means of controlling our politics," he said.
The move by the FBI appears to have been sparked in part by the violence four years ago at a World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle.
The city's police were almost over-run by anti-globalisation demonstrators who for the first time had organised in advance by using the Internet to their advantage.
Now, the Internet is in the FBI's sights.
The bureau is said to be monitoring Web pages that serve only to recruit protesters to attend lawful demonstrations against US government policies.
For many, the monitoring is an echo of a former time in Washington.
"The raw harsh unpleasant fact is that Communism is an issue," said Senator Joseph McCarthy on November 24, 1953.
It was exactly 50 years ago when Senator Joseph McCarthy engaged in a witch-hunt against Communists and others accused of "un-American" activities.
But today's FBI does have its defenders here.
The Heritage Foundation's Paul Rosenzweig said: "The FBI can appropriately investigate people who destroy property, injure people and potentially are terrorists cloaked in the mantle of protest groups, while at the same time, respecting First Amendment liberties. I think we can do both."
This isn't the first time the Bush administration has been accused of playing fast-and-loose with America's constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.
The American left has long been convinced that President George W Bush has used the attacks of September 11th as an excuse to crack down on freedoms in USA.
The latest report by the New York Times, coming at the start of the US presidential election campaign, could provide Mr Bush's Democratic Party opponents with an issue to turn on the White House. - CNA
The gift of up to $5 million immediately drew new attention to MoveOn.org, which has used the Internet to mobilize its 2.4 million members to sign online petitions, organize street demonstrations and donate money to run political advertisements. . Democrats have embraced it as a new model of political organization while Republicans have attacked it, saying it is a way to evade campaign finance laws. On Monday, the Republican National Committee complained to campaign finance watchdog groups that Soros's grants were questionable. . Ed Gillespie, the committee chairman, called on campaign finance groups like Common Cause to increase their scrutiny of organizations that are raising millions from big contributors like Soros. . The reaction from the public interest groups is "not exactly the blowing of the whistle by the referees that we have seen in the past," Gillespie said. . Since its founding in 1997 to protest Republican efforts to remove President Bill Clinton from office, MoveOn.org has grown into a bottom-up organization that has inserted itself into the political process in ways large and small, using just seven paid employees working out of their homes - only one of them in Washington. . This year alone, the group has mobilized hundreds of thousands of Americans to protest the invasion of Iraq, fight the Federal Communications Commission's stand on media deregulation, and lobby against judicial nominees. . Some political scientists say that MoveOn.org might foreshadow the next evolutionary change in U.S. politics, a shift away from one-way tools of influence like television commercials and talk radio to interactive dialogue, offering everyday people a voice in a process that once seemed beyond their reach. . The group's style and tactics have caught the eye of former Vice President Al Gore, who called Boyd out of the blue several months ago seeking a forum for what became his first major speech since he announced that he would not run for president in 2004. For that speech, and another on Nov. 9, both of which were highly critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war against Iraq, MoveOn.org members packed the auditoriums. . "I would personally like to give the MoveOn.org tutorial class to a host of my Republican colleagues," said Larry Purpuro, the managing director of Rightclick Strategies and the coordinator of the Republican Party's e.GOP Internet project in the 2000 election. . But for all of MoveOn.org's efforts, its record is mixed. Clinton was still impeached. The Bush administration still invaded Iraq. Governor Gray Davis of California, a Democrat, was still recalled. Republicans still pushed through the redrawing of Texas electoral districts to benefit their party. Only one of three candidates that the group supported in the 2000 and 2002 elections was elected. . "I think it remains to be seen what their impact is," Gillespie said. "We're doing a lot of the same things - using the Internet, sending out e-mails, reaching out. But the challenge for us, and them, is to translate it into voter registration and voting. It's too early to tell." . The New York Times Soros and Gore among fans of MoveOn
WASHINGTON When Wes Boyd walked into the New York offices of George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist, in September, he was not sure why he had been invited. . Soros quickly made it clear: He and another philanthropist, Peter Lewis, wanted to donate millions of dollars to MoveOn.org, the Internet group that Boyd and his wife founded five years ago. For Soros, already a generous contributor to Democratic Party causes, it was another way to meet his goal of defeating President George W. Bush, a Republican, next year. . "I like what they do and how they do it," Soros said. "They have been remarkably successful. I want to help them be even more successful." . The gift of up to $5 million immediately drew new attention to MoveOn.org, which has used the Internet to mobilize its 2.4 million members to sign online petitions, organize street demonstrations and donate money to run political advertisements. . Democrats have embraced it as a new model of political organization while Republicans have attacked it, saying it is a way to evade campaign finance laws. On Monday, the Republican National Committee complained to campaign finance watchdog groups that Soros's grants were questionable. .
That is so funny given the way the Republicans have been using the net to get around finance reform.
Allow Listeners to Come to the "Correct" Conclusion
Allow Others to Persuade Themselves
Always Remain Cool
Appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator
Appeal to Your Audience's Deepest Fears
Appear as Though You Are Not Trying to Persuade
Appear Humble
Appear Likeable
Appear to Present Both Sides of the Issue
Ask Questions That Suggest the "Correct Answer"
Ask, "Are You Better Off Now?"
Associate Your Opponent With Undesirable Individuals
Associate Your Opponent With Unseemly Activity
Attach Derogatory Labels to Your Opponent
Attack Individuals, Not Institutions
Be Aggressive
Be Entertaining
Be Informed
Be Overly Dramatic
Be Passionate
Be Prepared
Be Relentless
Be Ruthless
Be Thick Skinned
Blame Conservatives First
Blame the Media
Break Down Your Opponent's Attack
Build the Audience's Confidence
Bury Your Opponent With Accusations
Buy Yourself a Media Outlet
Call Your Opponent on the Tricks He Uses
Circulate Ideas as Rumors to Gauge Reaction
Claim Support From the Masses
Claim That Opponent Reaps What They Sow
Claim That the World You Want Already Exists
Claim That You Have Seen the Light
Claim That Your Opponent is Doing What You Are Doing
Claim That Your View is Simply "Common Sense"
Claim That Your Words Were Taken Out of Context
Claim to Be a Member of Your Audience
Claim to be a Moderate
Claim to Be the "Party of Freedom"
Claim Total Nonpartisanship
Communicate What "Everyone Knows"
Consolidate Your Gains
Contrast Your Message With a Similar But Inferior Product
Control the Agenda
Create a Pundit School
Create Dissonance, Offer Resolution
Create Granfalloons
Create Investigative Organizations
Create Irrelevant Associations to the Past
Create Rumors
Create the Perception That the Situation Has no Solution
Create Vivid Images
Define "Patriotism"
Define the Situation
Define Yourself as a Friend
Dehumanize the Enemy
Demand "Economic Patriotism"
Demand Sources and Reasoning
Deny, Deny, Deny
Destroy Your Opponent's Ability to Fight
Disallow Questioning of Your Message
Discount Your Opponent's Opinions
Discredit the Witness
Distort the Intent and Effect of Your Opponent's Plan
Distort Your Opponent's Positions
Distract the Audience
Distract With Technicalities
Do Everything in the Name of National Security
Don't Accept the Opposition's Argument
Don't Appear Radical
Don't Attack Those Who Are Undecided
Downplay Your Opponent's Counterattack
Establish Source Credibility
Execute a Multi-Pronged Attack
Expose Your Opponent's Ulterior Motive
Express Outrage
Feign Piousness
Fluster Your Opponent
Focus on Few Points
Frame the Debate
Gauge Lashback From Extreme Policy
Get Surrogates to do Your Dirty Work
Get the Information "Out There"
Get Them Started Saying Yes
Get To the Point
Get Your Foot in the Door
Groom Candidates Years in Advance
Have a Position on Every Issue
Have a Vision
Help Them Discover the Hypocrite Within
I Scratched Your Back, Now You Scratch Mine
If it's Not Good, Call It Good Anyway
Immunize Yourself Against Propaganda
Imply Falsehoods Without Actually Saying Them
Instill Guilt, Offer Resolution
Institute "Plausible Deniability"
Invoke The Constitution and the Founding Fathers
Keep the Message Simple
Kiss the Audience's Ass
Know Your Audience
Label All Adverse Rumors as Baseless
Look Your Best Always
Lure Them in Slowly
Maintain a Consistent Message For Yourself
Make an Issue Out of It
Make Elections a Popularity Contest
Make Issues Appear Black and White
Make People Feel That They Are Part of Something Important
Make Them Miss the Point
Make Yourself Look Good While Hurting Your Opponent
Master the Soundbite
Never Appear Anti-American
Never Appear to Take an Attack Seriously
Never Discuss Thing For Which You Were Called to Task
Never Let Your Opponent Win
Never Remind Them of Your Faults
Offer a Reason For Your Requests
Personalize the Issues
Play to the Audience's Knowledge Level
Play to the Audience's Prejudices
Position Your Opponent as Undesirable
Praise the Audience While Belittling Your Opponent
Present Personal Examples
Present Testimony From Irrelevant Sources
Print Accusation on Page 1, Retraction on Page D47
Promote Rumor as Fact
Quote Them Out of Context
Recruit Wannabes From the Opposition
Refer to Well-Placed Sources
Relentlessly Repeat Your Message
Rephrase Your Opponent's Position in the Most Unflattering Light
Say it Works Even if it Doesn't
Selectively Ignore Data
Set the Bar Low
Sidetrack the Debate With Irrelevant Facts
Cite Support From the Opposition
Speak on Behalf of Respected Entities
Spin Poll Data
Stay on Message No Matter What
Steal Their Thunder
Suffocate Undesirable Projects
Sum it Up For the Audience
Tag Opponent's Actions with Catchy Names
Take a Middle-of-the-Road Stance
Take the High Ground
Tell a Story
Treat Hearsay and Conjecture as Fact
Trumpet Trivial Differences
Undermine Unwanted Policy
Use "Perhaps-Therefore" Reasoning
Use "Terms of Confidence"
Use Glittering Generalities
Use Semantics to Draw Sympathy
Use Sweeping Generalizations
Use the "Weasel Word" to Turn Opinion Into Fact
Use Vibrant Images, Slogans and Symbols
Wag the Dog
Walk the Walk
Watch Out For the "Big Lie"
Wrap Yourself in the Flag
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
Good times tonight. Caught up with some old highschool friends. Got drunk. I'm really struggling to type here but it will be my last post of the evening.
Bill what's your avatar's caption? "Only look at me through smoked glass"?
Trish, i'm gonna have to break your last post into chapters and tackle it a bit at a time.
Listen guys, your the ones that need the boiler room operation. We're in the majority thank God. This is just a hobby for me. It's your election to steal. Good luck.
and good nite to you all. See you tomorrow!
joe
Posts: 2167 | Location: CA | Registered: 14 November 2003
Thanks so much, Trish. I wanted to talk about this on the show, and maybe even write a piece about it for common dreams, and you've provided me with a gold mine of info.
Thom
Posts: 1351 | Location: Portland, OR | Registered: 16 January 2006
I found a price list for public relations writers earlier this fall. Also, some very professional web sites describe their services in ways that suggest some paid friendships are developing on the bbs. Interesting topic.
But, since the Bushies propagandized message boards curing the campaign, it is only reasonable to think they are doing it again now that they have to drum up support for Bush's oil war. The propagandists will not be working the hard right boards because those people are still pretty much with Bush. The flacks will be working boards where people waver and just need a little convincing to believe that the reason is terror not oil.
Come off it - you guys shock easy. And this conversation has already happened on your ADHD board where one long term member (Kate) figures that she can spot a drug company sponcered poster with her eyes closed. And likewise, it is the people who could go either way that are often targeted - not the people who made up their minds one way or another.
But then again, you go to any political campaign and the group everyone targets is the "undecideds" - though not usually in quite as misrepresentative and underhanded way - though some of the "surveys" come close since they tend to phrase their questions in such a way that one finishes it with more support for the party of choice than they had when they started the survey (which is why they are asked which party they support and whether it is somewhat strongly and very strongly at both the beginning and end of the survey). The only shocking thing is that the Repugs, as you are calling them, are starting to fight the election early. What one should be looking into is whether any public funds are being used to fund these people.
Why the term "Repugs" - is it that they are repugnant or that they are vicious like the dog?
You have probably heard about this story a few years (the provincial election before the recent one this year) back when the Manitoba PCs used an actual TV newsreporter in their campaign commercials.
quote:
We also brought you a breaking news flash from the Manitoba election campaign. Or was it a propaganda piece? Premier Gary Filmon is running Tory TV commercials that look like local news updates. Are they trying to fool Manitoba voters, or is it a harmless gimmick? We talked with journalism instructor Duncan McMonagle, and CBC news reporter Vera-Lynn Kubinec about this latest twist to creative campaigning. The Manitoba NDP has countered with ads showing a frustrated reporter who can only find news of broken Tory election promises.
The argument at the time was that both the original PC ad and the NDP spoof of it would make people less likely to accept what journalists say as gospel - and debated whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. It is old but will include the link for proof purposes only. http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/newsworld/viewer.cgi?FILE=CM1...cbcmn-show.ssi&SC=CM
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
Repugs... both definitions fit in context to the policy and person.
And I still love that Canadian influence you have.
Repugs start earlier b/c they are the turtle ... slow and steady (and there is a sex joke in there I just know it!) For people who like slow and steady change (including changing the inference of conservativism) where they may not notice until it's too late (after voting) that their party affiliation elect has pulled the rug out from underneath their serf lives that used to pay well.
Now, Democrats (way other side extremist, NOW gang bangers as Rush Limpbone would call them) might show up appropriately late for a big entrance and be the Hare... Fast and Furious. To people needing immidiate changes (often infered radical) they affiliate to this partisan group. Although they might find the rug being pulled out from under them too. Mostly b/c the social aspect of this group as an enlarged heart disorder headed for cardiac failure. There isn't enough to around the circulatory system and atrophy is setting in. They want to put elders on life support at all costs as well as educate the conforming masses and feed the hungry etc. Not enough serf workers (lots of them on unemployment and using what is left of social programs b/c they can't afford private insurance or don't meet the requirements for the narrow margin single pay Medicaid [women, children,disabled] which wouldn't do them any good b/c of cuts where it isn't taken or their are waiting lines) or those serf "working" are too poor to tax anymore (reaching the lowest commone poverty denominator according to income.) This is why we can't raise the poverty line TOO much to inflationary indexes. It would be a two class party system in total practice not just numbers on paper.
Goofy when you mix politics with economics over here.
Social"anything" is an elitist buzz word meaning 'bad, greedy, lazy, pick pockets, higher taxes, bad, spank, plague.' So even FDR conservatives associate "social" with a negative. Ironic given his founding social programs needed and the wealth FOR THE COUNTRY by not allowing elite hording of paperpacks... made, owned and designed BY THE COLLECTIVE PEOPLE.
America in a sense has a dollar bill that is borrowed but claiming it is their own and wanting to tell others what it should be worth based on what they want to buy at the time regardless of cost.
Now pointing out elitism in America is also considered a taboo. You are piting people against one another... like the industry PRACTICE and evidence doesn't speak for itself. But, who in America takes time to educate themselves versus get drunk and watch Friends?
The reason protest groups are small is b/c drugs to change your moods of depression (hence what teh pharmacuticals could have done in the Depression Era... made a killing! Ba ba bum) without anxiety, depression, anger people are not motivated to protest or learn the truth about scoundrels.
Americans are like this:
Babies that demand formula to survive. They don't care if you have to nuke another country to get it... just do it and make it look good for entertainment (which is why the media shows good Bush and throws in some climatic antagonism on occasion.) They pacify their "play" time in front of television. They are not learning to walk cuz it might "hurt" them. And the components of the synthesized formula (The first real Genetically Modified Organism Food product) is making them fat. If they start comparing their surroundings and selves to other things they get scared, anxious and fearful. So, they return to the television and pop pills (maybe in liquid form...swallowing pills is too difficult.)
At some point they are declared mature (ripe) for political picking.
BTW, What happens if I only declare I have not picked a side (independent, as ALL Americans should be registered under) but really have a particular in mind? What happens if I'm only given TWO real bad extreme choices?
Damage control:
What happens if an extreme is picked to undo this mess made? (Specialized political task force, lol) What happens if the damage cannot be overcome b/c of control of the elitist that make money off of the sweat shops standard that keeps their wages low and workers dependent (b/c they stole the social programs as well?)
Sounds like the Depression Era to me. But, this one is on Prozac and the mommies have daycare isntead of leaving their babies with people that are vile. Women's liberation tells them it's okay to work and encouraged (back then a woman working was socially frowned upon - lack of resource NOT keeping a woman down... b/c she couldn't be honored as an important social provider to family.)
When women chose to help in WWII it was an issue of all our guys are dying. Industry found a cheaper work force labor from the war effort and not all the guys came home in one piece. By the time things got good it was the Cleaver days where the Beaver had both a Mom and school in his favor. But, interestingly an invisible "someone" started telling women they weren't fulfilled and had to keep impeccable homes filled with the Joneses stuff. Diet pills... the next GMO food product. And lets not forget the early days of valium on our social society. Everyone is dancing as fast as they can on speed and when they come off .... we have Prozac! Mom left the home to help Dad have a standard of living that was shown on television. Kids grew up thinking this was normal and acceptable. Eventually Fireside chats were replaced with the image of a peace sign on the hand and the quote, "I'm not a crook!" Maybe not Nixon ole buddy and pal.. but you were trying to cover up a scandal.
Somewhere we liberated our lives with recreational drugs and the Peace Corp and maybe one acid trip and toke over the line has confused these now ailing baby boomers in power.
Ushered in by Gerneration Xtreme everything bagged, tagged and labeled defective genetically and without cure... more drugs needed. Some insider trading dealing of gov't funding for some research and development in children. After all, there is no socially significant evidence that loosing a mother to a job will effect you adversely. And if it does it's b/c of your genetic predisposition and that propoganda of post partum blues that make bonding impossible.
Are men are emasculated to the point of needing Viagra... yes they are on the Magic Carpet Ride to the Highway to Hell now paved before them. No longer a cooperative effort of yore between man and woman but a competitive market of who can win the best wages... and if not, affirmatively act upon discrimination. After all, men created this world of working out of the home to supply resources for the family and country... by God damn we should make them pay.
Anyway, the only people having sex are those that are not working... not married b/c no one does that kind of work for too long anymore about half have given up on the family dream and have settled into the career and winner takes all.
Generation Xtreme is giving birth to immature Generation Y... why? Because no one knows they truth anymore. No one cares anymore and Goth is fashionable again.
But there is no sign of damage in the social fabric. There is no abuse of power, no corruption... just wagging tails and fingers chasing each other in circles.
There is no one to read the books of the past... the can't understand the big words the founders used and even if they did... they are waiting for the cliche and 3 minute spot on television summing up their pathetic lives. Having an attention span of no less than what the school requires and no greater than what overtime requires... well... that's are level of Tolerance.
We used to tell things by the social scale of race, creed, sexual orientation, age, and genetic sexual assignment by being a boy or a girl... but that's discriminating in the equal serfdome playing field of life as we've come to know it. And frankly Generation Y, I am out of reasons why this is good. I'm told not to be angry and hate those that abuse but be angry enough to support a world war on terrorism. Yes, I am terrified. I'm an anomaly myself... my personality only rates at 1-3% of the population and is defective to industries standard of acceptable behavior. My ideals are outdated. I can't create and innovate b/c I am caught up on this here wheel running and not going anywhere. I'm scared mostly b/c this world is going in a direction unpleasant where you may never see the greater good that has lead me this far.
But things are good... someone is still making money, someone is still buying something they can't afford food or luxury. And that has become the American ideal ... the American dream... the Material Girl is our icon. It's sad that no one is really hearing and seeing what she is doing that materialism has failed her.
Of course, we dont' dream anymore. So... dream is replaced with life... thus we perish... no dream, no vision just life.
American Life Lyrics
Artist(Band):Madonna (Print the Lyrics) American Life
Do I have to change my name? Will it get me far? Should I lose some weight? Am I gonna be a star?
I tried to be a boy, I tried to be a girl I tried to be a mess, I tried to be the best I guess I did it wrong, That's why I wrote this song This type of modern life - Is it for me? This type of modern life - Is it for free?
So I went to a bar, looking for sympathy A little company - I tried to find a friend It's more easily said, it's always been the same This type of modern life is not for me This type of modern life is not for free
Oh, American life (American life) I live the American dream (American dream) You are the best thing I've seen You are not just a dream (American life)
I tried to stay ahead, I tried to stay on top I tried to play the part, but somehow I forgot Just what I did it for and why I wanted more This type of modern life - Is it for me? This type of modern life - Is it for free?
Do I have to change my name? Will it get me far? Should I lose some weight? Am I gonna be a star?
Oh, American life (American life) I live the American dream (American dream) You are the best thing I've seen You are not just a dream (American life X2)
I tried to be a boy, I tried to be a girl tried to be a mess, tried to be the best tried to find a friend, tried to stay ahead I tried to stay on top ... **** it! Do I have to change my name? Will it get me far? Should I lose some weight? Am I gonna be a star? Oh,**** it!(X3)
I'm drinking a Soy latte, I get a double shotte, it goes through mt body, And you know I'm satisfied I drive my Mini Cooper And I'm feeling super-dooper Yo they tell I'm a trooper And you know I'm satisfied I do yoga and pilates And the room is full of hotties So I'm checking out the bodies And you know I'm satisfied I'm digging on the isotopes This metaphysic's shit is dope And if all this can give me hope You know I'm satisfied I got a lawyer and a manager An agent and a chef Three nannies, an assistant And a driver and a jet A trainer and a butler And a bodyguard or five A gardener and a stylist Do you think I'm satisfied? I'd like to express my extreme point of view I'm not Christian and I'm not a Jew I'm just living out the American dream And I just realised that nothing Is what it seems
Do I have to change my name Am I gonna be a star Do I have to change my name
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
Thom you are welcome. I couldn't find distinct reference to campaign posers on boards. Suffice it to say I think this board is create research material in itself on both this and the ADD forum how business contributes or deters a conversation between people and posers.
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
I was going to put this up anyway (a bit behind in everything).
TAKE PILL ADS WITH GRAIN OF SALT
By Gordon Guyatt
A newspaper article written by two doctors attacks screening for prostate cancer, saying that the evidence to support the practice is weak. A little later, an non-profit group called �Us too! International�, which describes itself as the world�s largest grassroots, independent, patient-focused charitable organization� speaks out. �Us too!� tells you that prostate cancer screening saves lives, and accuses the doctors who wrote the article of �journalist terrorist tactics�.
A state government is considering new laws that will limit the process that the government pays pharmaceutical companies for prescriptions in publicly supported programs. A television commercial paid for by an independent senior citizens group, �60 Plus�, tells you that the laws will threaten your health by limiting your access to the best medicines.
You are sitting at a bus shelter and notice an ad that shows a dejected-looking man idly playing with a teacup. The ad asks you to �Imagine Being Allergic to People. You blush, sweat, shake � even find it hard to breathe. That�s what social anxiety disorder feels like.� The poster tells you the Social Anxiety Disorder Coalition, a non-profit organization, has sponsored the ad.
If a non-profit consumers� group involvement made you more concerned about the criticisms of prostate screening, more worried about the drug restrictions, and more inclined to think of social anxiety disorder as a serious problem, you have lots of company. A 1999 investigation found that advocacy by independent groups influences consumers� perceptions. The investigation concluded that consumers �place a high level of trust in non-profit organizations; prefer products marketed in association with a non-profit organization, and believe that products marketed in association with a non-profit organization carry an endorsement by the non-profit organization.�
As it turns out, the non-profit organizations associated with these three campaigns are neither independent nor objective. Tax documents show that Us Too! International held $799,012 in net assets at the end of 2000. Drug company contributions accounted for 95 per cent of the group�s tax-deductible funding.
Another American seniors� group did not take kindly to �60 Plus� attacking legislation to limit payments to drug companies. AARP, an organization with 35 million members aged over 50, found �60 Plus� had received $575,000 from pharmaceutical-related firms in 2001.
In 1998, SmithKline, a multinational drug company, was about to obtain approval for one of its anti-depressant drugs. The specific indication was treatment for �social anxiety disorder� (SAD). To boost sales, SmithKline decided it needed to promote the disease as well as the drug.
The company hired a public relations firm, Cohn and Wolfe, to help it. The PR firm dreamed up the �imagine being allergic to people� ad that never mentioned SmithKline or its drug. The coalition was no grassroots alliance of patients, but a creation of Cohn & Wolf who handled all media inquiries on behalf of the group. Today, a recording that announces, �This program has been successfully concluded,� greets callers to the coalition�s hot line.
The campaign worked well. In the two years preceding the drug�s approval, fewer than 50 stories on SAD had appeared in the popular press. In May, 1999, the month when the drug gained approval, hundreds of stories about the illness appeared in publications and television news programs. SmithKline then launched ads showing how the drug could help SAD sufferers brave dinner parties and public speaking.
Using patient groups as a tool in campaigns to gain drug approval, funding and popularization has become standard industry practice. The industry supports patient groups that range from less well-known psychiatric conditions like social anxiety disorder or generalized anxiety disorder, to common conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, osteoporosis and diabetes. They rely on patient groups to supply quotes and compelling human stories for the media, and to pressure the regulators and politicians in charge of approval and funding decisions.
Some groups resist the temptation of drug money. Kathleen O�Grady, the director of communications for a non-profit public education group, the Canadian Women�s Health Network, regularly refuses offers from PR firms representing the pharmaceutical industry. Her refusal preserves her organization�s independence, but at the price of fewer dollars for public education.
Not many patient groups, however, can resist industry money and the influence that comes with that money. Pharmaceutical sponsorship has become so widespread that, unless non-profit organizations announce they that they are free of industry support, you should assume that the hidden hand of the industry is influencing their public campaigns. And judge the content with appropriate scepticism.
guyatt@mcmaster.ca
Winnipeg Free Press, Tuesday, November 25, 2003. Page A12.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
JoeSzynal errounosly stated: "We're in the majority thank God." Last time you weren't, and you should be thanking the Supreme Court, not a supreme being. The last three Democratic presidental candidates have won the majority of votes from those who voted. And that was with talk radio, Robertson, Farwell, and the other false prophets spewing forth their lies, distortions, and prapaganda. Pretty good showing for the people.
People in a religious war project attributes of the human ego into their concept of what God is so they can rationalize killing each other. It’s like two people arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.- Steve Andres Educate - Agitate - Motivate!
Posts: 622 | Location: Rio Rancho, NM | Registered: 26 August 2003
Spinning the Web by Sheldon Rampton http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/web.html On December 13, the same day that several committees of Congress and the U.S. Senate began investigating the accounting gimmicks that Enron used to defraud investors and mislead the public about its collapsing financial empire, the Wall Street Journal breathlessly heralded the launch of a new website that promises to expose hidden financial secrets--not the secrets of Wall Street, but of activist groups such as Action on Smoking and Health, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Activist groups, even though most receive non-profit status and must file with the IRS, have been reluctant to let anyone see their records," wrote columnist Kimberley A. Strassel. "But now, thanks to a new web site called ActivistCash.com, the average U.S. citizen can finally get the lowdown on the financial and organizational operations of many major activist groups in the country." Strassel never bothered to inquire where ActivistCash.com gets its own money. If she had (see our report in this issue), the trail would have taken her straight to the gaping coffers of Philip Morris, which provided all of the $900,000 in startup funding for the Guest Choice Network, the organization sponsoring ActivistCash.com. In addition to the tobacco industry, the Guest Choice Network (recently renamed the "Center for Consumer Freedom") gets its funding from large chain restaurants and taverns. Run by Washington lobbyist Rick Berman, these industries have a vested interest in attacking activist groups so that they can keep employee wages low, avoid paying health insurance, and drive up sales of their high-markup products: booze, soda pop, fatty foods and cigarettes. [SEE http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/web.html REST OF THE STORY] This from the same site: Flack Attack http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/index.htmlDuring the boom times of the dot-com 1990s, the Internet was hyped as a technology that would have profound and positive effects on human communication. The sobering effects of the current economic downturn have dulled the luster of this rhetoric, but the Internet remains an important terrain for both corporations and their activist critics. This issue of PR Watch looks at the perspectives of both sides as they continue to innovate new cyber-techniques for activism and for combatting activism. Companies fear that the Internet will "destabilize business and borders" by helping activists organize quickly, cheaply and internationally. They fear that the Internet may lead to too much democracy, overwhelming representative government and making it harder to "filter" information before it reaches the public. On the other hand, the Internet has opened new vistas to corporate PR specialists. Some PR firms now specialize in using the Internet to spy on activist groups so that they can figure out how to neutralize them early. The Internet is also an important organizing tool for right-wing political operatives such as Jack Bonner, Richard Viguerie and Bruce Eberle, as they experiment with new ways to raise money and mobilize their troops. Some flacks are aggressively mimicking activist tactics, such as lobbyist Rick Berman, whose Center for Consumer Freedom (www.consumerfreedom.com) pretends to be a "watchdog organization" exposing the "anti-consumer agenda" of environmental and health organizations. These scams are offensive in and of themselves, and they undermine the real democratic potential of the Internet, deliberately introducing noise in place of signal and confusion in place of communication. In order for the communications revolution to achieve its real potential, these efforts at spinning the web should be debunked and subjected to the healthy ridicule that they often deserve. This one is TV/internet love hate relationship: A Dumbed-Down Version of the Internet__ by David Burke. http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q2/dumbed.html Obviously, no one who criticizes television can unreservedly embrace the internet. One cathode ray tube can be as bad as another, and there are many users wasting their lives in chat rooms who should be out chatting with real people in their street or local bar. But the internet has, to some extent, managed to threaten television. It has put a glossy new front end on the old idea of human contact, and made people wonder why they should have to spend so much time watching commercials. It reminds them that they can do better than TV's lifestyle of risk-free entertainment�..Second, subversion. They bought, and continue to buy up, the internet portals, those search engines and home pages where people go first. These immediately became more TV-like and, as much as possible, promote the kind of leisure "surfing" that fits in with television. The portals now promote television brands and programs using the familiar words "Tonight only!" or "Don't miss it!"
People in a religious war project attributes of the human ego into their concept of what God is so they can rationalize killing each other. It’s like two people arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.- Steve Andres Educate - Agitate - Motivate!
Posts: 622 | Location: Rio Rancho, NM | Registered: 26 August 2003
Trish, your definition of Republican versus Democrat reminds me of what Hagrid said about Giants not being able to handle too much information at once and that when they get too much information they find that violence simplifies things - if you ever seen the Transcript for JK Rowlings interview on Hot Types (its still up) she admits that Vernon D'Ursley is a stereotypical Thatcherite conservative.
quote:
The reason protest groups are small is b/c drugs to change your moods of depression (hence what teh pharmacuticals could have done in the Depression Era... made a killing! Ba ba bum) without anxiety, depression, anger people are not motivated to protest or learn the truth about scoundrels.
Good point about drugs creating apathy. This book Thom recommended a while back - think it is called "Why We Get Sick" said that depression was beneficial and one of the reasons is because it is the body's way of indicating that changes are in order. Can't find the scrap so the numbers may be a bit off (but close) is that Canada uses 2% of the world's drugs while the US uses 40% (according to one sourse) to 54% (another sourse) of the world's prescription drugs. BTW - no one has answered the question I posted previously as to the differences between Pot and Prosaic.
Still trying to remember the name of the news personality who acted in the PC election commercials to make them look more like news stories than campaign adds, but when I do, I will post it.
quote:
Claim That You Have Seen the Light
Good strategy for the mentally light - reminds me of Scott Brison walking across the floor to the Liberals today. If this openly gay fiscally conservative MP stayed with the party, it would have gone along ways to show that the new marriage between the CA and the PCs were a tolerant party, but his defection makes them look even more intolerant. To appear as if you used to be a believer, but because disallusion over time makes what you used to believe in seem less credible. However, such a person could also be portrayed as a flavor of the week fruitcake - if you wish to sink to their level.
quote:
Don't Attack Those Who Are Undecided Praise the Audience While Belittling Your Opponent
There is many reasons for this, first these are the people whose minds you are trying to change and you are competing with people who hold opposite opinions for these people. It is also to look at many who seem to support the other view because they are new to this and haven't researched it very much as possible converts rather than tools of the enemy. Another reason for not attacking those who are either undecided or who have not yet declared their views is that if you are calling your enemy names or unpatriotic (the latter you can only get away with in the US) - these people may be hesitant to speak up incase they get branded with the same brush.
quote:
Associate Your Opponent With Undesirable Individuals, Associate Your Opponent With Unseemly Activity, Attach Derogatory Labels to Your Opponent, Attack Individuals, Not Institutions, Bury Your Opponent With Accusations
The opposite is to have a strategy to make it backfire if someone tries to do this with you. Think back to how the right winged talk shows handled the "Bush is a Moron" controversy, or how mentioning the fact that Bush is a draft dodger or that his grandfather supplied Hitler are portrayed as personal attacks. I guess this is what is meant as to when it is time to "Be Overly Dramatic." Mary Paris played that well when another Californian Governor candidate said that all she was doing there was shaking her boobs - she deflated him totally with a well placed "Your mean" and there was no comeback in the world that the person could have used to deflate that personal attack on his character.
quote:
Destroy Your Opponent's Ability to Fight
Ok - sounds like a challenge.
quote:
Express Outrage
Thom tends to over do that - which stick out like a sore thumb when he is talking about things that are unsurprising or that we have heard over and over again. Canadians being upset about US surprise is neither shocking nor surprising, for instance. Outrage makes one look like they are totally surprised by the news or that it was a totally unexpected revelation - which makes the person look uninformed no matter how informed they are. Outrage is easy to deflate with a simple "and that surprises you?"
quote:
Never Discuss Thing For Which You Were Called to Task
I personally find this one of their most annoying tactics, and when a person starts doing this, I tend to see them as a joke and treat them as one. If someone pulls this, I usually assume that they are full of s hit and not worth my attention.
quote:
Imply Falsehoods Without Actually Saying Them
This actually came up on the special two hour version of Life&Times on Jean Cretien (like A&E Biographies). Stephen Hartmann said that his staff searched for two years through old transcripts to see if they could find a quote where Cretien actually said that he would scrap the GST and could not find it - he complained against it, made it sound like he was going to scrap it, but never actually said the words.
quote:
Circulate Ideas as Rumors to Gauge Reaction Create Rumors Treat Hearsay and Conjecture as Fact Use Glittering Generalities Use Sweeping Generalizations Promote Rumor as Fact Relentlessly Repeat Your Message Claim That Your View is Simply "Common Sense" Communicate What "Everyone Knows"
This is basically the idea that if a person hears something often enough that they will start to take it for granted that it is true.
quote:
Disallow Questioning of Your Message
Dehumanize the Enemy Discount Your Opponent's Opinions Discredit the Witness
Basically the idea presented that anyone who questions your message is evil and the fact that they are questioning your message makes them evil so don't pay attention to them. You get images of devils, temptation and fires of hell here. You have to make it so that people are afraid of looking at their message - without increasing their levels of curriousity at the forbidden. Also, during war, the enemy is always dehumanized so that it makes them easier to kill. Likewise, the less human Americans appear to those in other countries, the easier it is for one to kill an American. I asked about derogatory terms Americans use to describe Canadian because these terms are a gage of public stereotypes and audience prejudices - what Americans "know" about Canadians determines how easy (or difficult) it would be to sell the American public on a war against Canada (we have oil too).
quote:
Play to the Audience's Prejudices
The down side of this policy is how to do it without appearing intollerant. The Canadian Alliance is having difficulties with this which was preventing it from streading into Ontario - one reason they want to merge with the PCs (besides preventing vote splitting) is that if the two could get together, it makes them look more tolerant. Their leader (before the merger) Stephen Harper was trying to present policies such as being against Charter protection for gays and gay marriage as being common sense. His fake outrage at being labled homophobic is funny. Scott Brison's defection is a great blow to that image.
quote:
Say it Works Even if it Doesn't
Are you talking about trickle down economics here?
quote:
Keep the Message Simple Make Issues Appear Black and White Selectively Ignore Data
This sounds like the theme of Order of the Phoenix - from Snape's explanation of occomency onwards - as the lie being what the truth looks like with important parts missing. See that definition of the lie being expanded on in book 6.
This one ties into so many of the above categories - from making people feeling that those who read the information are evil people (making anyone who had the desire to read it feel evil even if they didn't), to presenting the simplictic as a resolution to dissonance etc. It also ties into the idea of the disallusioned former supporter, that the only way you can redeam yourself is if you renounce loudly your former believes. This whole thing is anti-intellectual and anti-intellectuals require very careful handling because if you give them too much information they hide for cover.
quote:
Make People Feel That They Are Part of Something Important
This works best if people can only feel important if they are part of something important, like winners if they are on the winning side, strong if they are hanging around with violent people - or if a person is very innocent and naive. The problem if it is the latter is that a person who joins something and their expectations don't pan out become disillusioned and are easy prey for the opposite side who can exploit it. We must be realistc in our promises to others.
But then again, Trish, some of the strategies you listed are pretty much standard fair in debates and Question Periods:
quote:
Be Informed Break Down Your Opponent's Attack Call Your Opponent on the Tricks He Uses Never Appear to Take an Attack Seriously Distract With Technicalities Frame the Debate Define the Situation Contrast Your Message With a Similar But Inferior Product Distract the Audience Sidetrack the Debate With Irrelevant Facts Stay on Message No Matter What Sum it Up For the Audience Create Vivid Images Downplay Your Opponent's Counterattack Rephrase Your Opponent's Position in the Most Unflattering Light Don't Accept the Opposition's Argument Make Yourself Look Good While Hurting Your Opponent Claim That Your Words Were Taken Out of Context
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
your last post before this one, the really long one? There was not one positive thing in all those paragraphs.
I know i'm diverging hear, but i can't think of one person in mainstream america who can sit there and read ALL that and then say to themselves, ya know? this girls' just like me. our outlook is not that bleek, PLEASE TRUST ME ON THIS. i'm concerned for you becuase i want you to be able to influence people out there in the world outside of this board.
This is why we're in the majority right now. It's ALL about the positive message.
PlascicisRoy, that's right. I wasn't just talking about the presidency, but the house, the senate, and about 35 of the 50 state governorships. these are ALL elected positions. please tell me my statements are erroneous again.
joe
Posts: 2167 | Location: CA | Registered: 14 November 2003
That is mediocre America'a fault not mine. I can read novels and I read way more than any average moron out there. That's why I can write so much negative stuff that so many others should be pissed off about to refute proponents as yourself ascribe to!
How is that short and sweet?
Self-education using multiple resources... I couldn't do this before the Web. I would have had to shell out tons of money on direct sales of books, articles, periodicals or spend my life at a library with limited funds and resources. Or I could have spent thousands going to one particular college with limited time and narrow marginal views learning.
I skipped all that crap when I realized how valueable and important the WEB has become to educating a serf like myself instead of pacifying myself on booze and television.
I don't focus on a blurb in between ball games.
The bottom line... it takes money to be a good crook fooling a lot of mediocre people dittoheads. I'm proud to be the Unpatriotic Dittohead not fooled.
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
I was totally unaware that JK said that. Well, she did an awesome job! I don't make a good muggle and I shouldn't be drugged for not making a good muggle. Still learning how to play Quidditch and ride the broom stick.
Voldemort, the invisible hand?
Is too much information that causes people to become violent the same as overstimulation in babies?
How come novelty seeking is good to buy stuff but not good when you don't buy into what schools are dishing out?
Mass hysteria and confusion... not a good cocktail for democracy.
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
I think this issue comes down to beat 'em or join 'em. I'd take the approach that we beat them by taking on the ideas on the boards. Banning the obvious and trackable violators but in the end the lefties just need to keep thier ideas flowing and the truth will win out. It would be a waste of time to try and figure out and stop these types of things rather than doing it too - if the dems are not already.
What we want and we need has been confused.
Posts: 251 | Location: Milwaukee | Registered: 23 July 2003
Pretty funny, isn't it... when they can't respond to the litany of garbage made obvious, suddenly it's all about how we're sooooo negative, and they're so very 'sensitive' to negativity... What a load of CRAP! I get the same shit from my father--as soon as he has no answers, it's all about the need to be positive. Of course there's a truth to that, too... but it's all about context, here, folks... as opposed to 'beating me to the ignore'...! Go ahead--label me a negativist, unworthy of your time. Take that phony positivism, and stick it right up there with Trisha's righteous long list of doublespeak techniques, comerade! And, yes, I could use some more paying work--and I can demonstrate my proficiency and experience with BBoards... Hire me, please! I'd love to get paid for speaking my mind...
Posts: 5740 | Location: Exile | Registered: 24 March 2003
when they can't respond to the litany of garbage made obvious
it's just my nature to see the good. i see this litany of garbage made obvious and what i like to do is offer examples, usually based in personal experience, of how we can all deal with many of the grievences.
all you guys are doing is spewing the litany of garbage. and some of it is obvious. so what the hell are you gonna do about it? just complain? or offer solutions.
you're not gonna have your candidate, whoever that is, win in '04 by just showing a litany of garbage. people don't want to hear it without your proposals. that's what i try to do.
i've had this debate with Trisha several times.
in a nutshell, i'm trying to say:
1. if you don't like GW, vote for someone else, but don't throw your vote away by voting for the third party candidate, or else you forfit your legitamacy in future complaints about how the conservative stole the election. 2. if you don't like your job, find a new one and quit the old one, in that order. 3. if you hate Wal-Mart, shop at Kohls 4. if you hate 401k's, don't invest, but then don't tell Sawdust you think it's "funny" that he is investing 5. if you are not getting paid enough, train yourself some new skills and look for better paying work. i know each time i pick up a book about a different concentration of java programming and get my hands on that new coding style, my worth goes up x dollars. 6. if you are unhappy with the public school system, do like my parents did and send your kids to private. can't afford it? see point 5. 7. if you think one of your local business may be polluting the environment, call your state EPA board, they'll tear 'em to shreds before lunch 8. if your not satisfied with the opportunity in your state, do like i did and move to a different state 9. if you think Rush is satan, change the dial 10. if your just totally disgusted with the way our country operates, move to canada.
now i just spouted off some negatives there from the hip. maybe they don't all apply to many of you but the difference here is that they're coupled with solutions. solutions i find lacking in most of your posts. the solutions do however involve DOING something. if that's not your bag, then i cannot be of any help here.
joe
Posts: 2167 | Location: CA | Registered: 14 November 2003
We feel soooo much better now, all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing that it's your nature to see the good! Hey, what the hell, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength--it's all good! Yeah, right. We are doing something--we're talking about it. You might not like it, but that won't stop us. And, --surprise!--we're 'mainstream America' too, just as much as any of you status-quo Republicrats and die-hard Rush/Bush guys. That's the great thing about America, and about the only good reason not to move to Canada.
Posts: 5740 | Location: Exile | Registered: 24 March 2003
When someone is cooperatively walking hand in hand... it is in my nature to see good too. When I am protecting the inherent weakness of my children... I see lots of good. When my neighbors smile and collaborate for us all to be "winners" in this task of life living... I see more good than most.
But, when it comes to corporate crime and politicians I don't stick my head in the sand and call it seeing GOOD! I'm more rational, logical and positive about my own sense of value and honesty than to lie to myself.
Yes, Rush has taught lots of dittoheads well.. how to lie to themselves without admitting about lying to others. It's an artform. It's an artform to also only see good in this world and use it as an excuse to not take a stand against the bad. Psychologically they call it rationalizing and justifying. Lots of Germans did it when suspicious about Hitler robbed, stripped and killed millions. I suppose the 9/11 terrorist only saw good in attacking two buildings with civilians. And I suppose they consider it a "win" on how effective it was to bring down Americans to their way of living... in fear and hate.
Klause, Doublespeak? I don't know what to say to that! Ok, I DO know what to say... but I will restrain from saying it. Unless I just did it... again.
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
I think this issue comes down to beat 'em or join 'em. I'd take the approach that we beat them by taking on the ideas on the boards. Banning the obvious and trackable violators but in the end the lefties just need to keep thier ideas flowing and the truth will win out. It would be a waste of time to try and figure out and stop these types of things rather than doing it too - if the dems are not already.
Why would I take money for something I love to do, is public domain for access and is just me sharing? Why would I CHARGE someone to learn TRUTH??? I know some people do that.. I am not one of them. It's a fault that makes me not as well off as I could be and even gets me into trouble at times. But you know the old saying
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
I never stated Thom or anyone should regulate the notion of paid people on message boards. IN fact, I stated that is not the intention. This issue is knowing its there, what it looks like (paid or unpaid) and having an organizational and personal coping mechanism for it.
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
Why would I take money for something I love to do, is public domain for access and is just me sharing? Why would I CHARGE someone to learn TRUTH???
If it is the difference between being paid for what you hate doing and being paid for what you love doing. Put it this way, if Thom wasn't getting paid to do his radio show, he would have to take a job at Enron or something to pay for the privilege of being able to engage in this as a hobby.
And I am sorry that I came down hard on Thom for his American outtrage - but outrage is usually something that you use when you don't see something coming. Canadians were outraged at the treatment of Maher Arar because it was a bit worse that we expected it to be, and also because he gave the impression of a guy who would not hurt a fly. I think that the average Canadian figured that there would be some kind of economic fall out (punishment) for opposing the war (if you call officially being against the war but providing more military support than many countries who were officially for the war actually opposing the war). But it seems that Bush phoned our out-going Prime Minister yesterday to tell him not to worry - that Canada should not be on the list.
I will be watching Thom's show tomorrow, though, (usually do parts of it anyway) just to see whether he mentions our changing of the guard. And Trish, Arthur is like a minister of international affairs - or minister of muggle-wizard relations (or atleast, that is what he is trying to morph his post into). I don't think that he is ever present at the unofficial meetings, but makes all the official ones.
Trish - what I would like to see you do is write a piece comparing Bush to Umbridge (she looks like the woman in the old Drew Carey show). And while I was researching names and trying to find the original meaning of Fudge - lets say that I now know more british swears than I did before - all of them fitting a politicial of Fudge's stature in his relationship with is most presigious financial backer.
If Air Farse and 22 Minutes can crack jokes about Lucien Bouchard getting Flesh eating disease (the same thing that killed Jim Hensen of the Mupphets), then you can all, at least, see the humour in all this horror. (For the record, a seperatist politician and cell division - some similarity there - both want to divide up a single entity into two).
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
E: Some of the people that you satirize most in this book, the evil people, the Malfoys, they're very classist, they're racist against the Mudbloods. Is it fair to say that these are neo-Conservative or Thatcherite? (JK nods.) Is there a real political axe you're grinding there?
JK: I think in this book too, you fully understand� With Voldemort, I didn't want to create this cardboard cutout of a baddie, where you put a black hat on him and you say 'Right, now you shoot at that guy because he's bad.'
E: Like the Dursleys are more of a cutout bad people?
JK: Yes and no. You will meet Dursleys, in Britain. You will. I've barely exaggerated them. Yeah, Voldemort. In the second book, Chamber of Secrets, in fact he's exactly what I've said before. He takes what he perceives to be a defect in himself, in other words the non-purity of his blood, and he projects it onto others. It's like Hitler and the Arian ideal, to which he did not conform at all, himself. And so Voldemort is doing this also. He takes his own inferiority, and turns it back on other people and attempts to exterminate in them what he hates in himself.
I am surprised no one took the opportunity for pot shot... to pay Trisha NOT to post! LOL
Ok, that wasn't so funny dissing myself.... rubberband treatment to the wrist.
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
I'm pleased to see this topic under discussion. I've raised it once here (at least once) and once over at Born to Explore, ... don't have the energy to look up my old posts or my old notes, but I think it is fascinating. The internet morphs on a daily basis. Learning how to negotiate its waters is a compelling activity.
To morph or not to morph... THAT will be the converts question.
The world's not such a bad place when you get away from the Republican compound... I mean party. Damn, I keep slipping.
Speaking of morphing... the girl has hives all over her body. We have to use Benadryl. I'm out of ideas other than a reaction to a topical in gym or something at school. I itch just looking at her.
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
I think that the only problem with being paid is misrepresentation. If one says "Hey I have the best job in the world, I get to spend my days doing what I love, visiting message boards and spouting the message I believe in" then I don't see anything wrong with it. However, if someone presents themself as something that they are not, or by ommission or commission, then there is something wrong with it. We all have details of our lives which we feel are personal or embarrassing - so I am not calling for total disclosure - just that misrepresentation is well, for a lack of a better word, a bit sinful.
I have been open about my citisenship (Manitoban) and my political affiliations (meaning that I have paid for a membership in a political party). I have never claimed to be anything other than a Snarky Canadian who believes that Americans should know enough about the Canadian political situation to be able to understand how it will play into Canada US relations (actually it is quite simple really - you bend over, we kiss).
Today Jean Cretien drove up to Riddell Hall from 24 Sussex Drive (official PM residence) in a limo to summit his resignation to the Governor General (stand in for the Queen), and then walked away on foot to his Condo a few blocks away (new residence). Then Paul Martin was purified (sort of like the Goddess Athena renewing her virginity, but looking more like an American security check), and then both Paul Martin and his cabinet were sworn in. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/12/martin_cab031212
Pierre Pettigrew (Pierre is French for Peter) is now Health Minister, and, speaking of sweaky voices, Anne McLellan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Bill Graham is Minister of Foreign Affairs. Larry Flynt will be happy to hear that we now have another female Heritage Minister (Helene Chalifour Scherrer).
And, as soon as it is updated, all the contact information for every one of them will be available on line here (this is still being updated):
For an analogy - I predict that the relationship between Paul Martin and Jean Cretien is very much like the relationship between Lucius Malfoy and Jean Cretien. Why else would Lucius want his son to befriend Harry (which did not pan out) - he has been working his way slowly to the point where he could take over government and have things his way, and then Voldemort comes back on the scene to claim for himself the power Lucius covets.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
I know I state that I LOVE YOU... but I don't mean it in a Lesbian kind of way. So, you can take your lips off my ass and we can just smooch on the cheek!
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
Trish, I am so glad that I did not go further with my analogy of Canada-US relations - that there are two magor types of Canadian Prime Ministers in the History of Canada - based on whether or not they complain about how hairy the President's but is afterwards. Let me take this opportunity to give you this pre-Xmas hug - I think that I will leave your cheaks (both sets of them) alone.
BTW - I was wrong in my prediction. Scott Brison did not become Finance Minister but he did become the Parliamentary Secretary to the PM for US-Canada Relations. I would not see much disagreement between Brison and Bush on fiscal issues, but they there are other reasons that they may not be sitting together at meetings.
There is a Scott Brison thread on another board, and just to show you how heated things get. Language warning (words I can quote but not use my self).
quote:
Newbie quote:------------------------------- His new found friends make Spencer seem progressive. --------------------------------------
No they don't, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way.
There are scummy bigots in every party but only in the Canadian Alliance is there nothing else.
These neanderthals in the Liberal party don't set policy. In the Alliance they do.
Do you really not get it? I couldn't care less how bigoted some Liberals are in their private lives. What I care about is how they vote.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, if the Canadian Alliance had ever gotten rid of the stinking bigotry of its POLICY, they wouldn't have to find bigots in other parties to try to compare themselves favourably to?
Is the BEST you can ever aspire to as a campaign slogan "Vote Canadian Alliance. We're no more bigoted than Tom Wappel."
Give me an example of just ONE Canadian Alliance MP in favour of equal marriage.
Give me an example of just ONE Canadian Alliance MP in favour of pension and immigration rights.
Give me an example of just ONE Canadian Alliance MP in favour of equal employment rights.
When you can do that you'll be able to say "Not everyone in our caucus is a bigoted piece of shit."
But you can't. Because they are. Every last one of them.
scribblet So who sets the liberal policy then, if not the liberals?
Please quote the Alliance policy to which you refer. (stinking bigotry of policy)
And what immigration 'rights' are you referring to. As far as I can tell, their policy on immigration is that it should be tied to the economy.
I believe all of them are in favour of equal rights. Just because they are not in favour of redefining the word marriage, doesn't make them bigoted - half the liberal caucus doesn't want that either, that doesn't make them 'homophobic' are you heterophobic ?
And please, no swearing, its not necessary
Newbie
quote: ------------------------------- Originally posted by scribblet: And please, no swearing, its not necessary
If one says "Hey I have the best job in the world, I get to spend my days doing what I love, visiting message boards and spouting the message I believe in"
And then there are those of us doing it for FREE!!!!
Keep looking for answers. Keep sharing what you find. Knowledge is power. Let's empower our selves with truth!
I want everyone to give their self a pat on the back for me.
Because people with no hopes are easy to control ~ The Neverending Story
Posts: 5455 | Location: East Bay | Registered: 25 July 2001
And you bring up a good point Bonnie, the right only pays people because it is so hard for them to get people who are willing to do it for free.
So what do you think of our new Prime Minister Bonnie? Even if your opinion is tentatively based on todays CNN headlines and may change tomorrow please share it.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
I don't know yet. I haven't really been following that like I've been following the story of certain American states, (my state of Ohio included), in talks with Canada about importing less expensive Rx drugs from Canada -- despite the fact it's currently illegal to do so.
Pretty interesting stuff, I must say. I should probably start a thread on it.
Because people with no hopes are easy to control ~ The Neverending Story
Posts: 5455 | Location: East Bay | Registered: 25 July 2001
There used to be two, but someone deleted the other one for some reason. I know it doesn't exist any more because Lloyd Axworthy (his articles appear on Common Dreams and I know his history) made a few comments about Bush and big pharma and the search function does not turn up any thread with either Lloyd or Axworthy in it. I know I didn't delete it and I started it.
Bonnie,
I don't hear too much of internet Pharmacies from an American perspective - except Thom saying "Show me all the dead Canadians! Show me one dead Canadian!" while I sit there thinking of the safety record of Eli Lily and Novartis. But come to think of it, big pharma knows better than to take the bait and find that one dead Canadian - because it would be a Canadian who died from complications after taking one of THEIR drugs.
It would be a unique opportunity to see what the Ohio papers are saying about the issue. BTW (and this is important - Gary Doer used to be a union negotiater before taking over the leadership of the NDP and eventually becoming Premier. Even in opposition he was crafty - once he managed to defeat a bill that the government wanted passed even though he was in opposition and had less members in parliament to vote on it - he just switched things around and got them confused). As far as negotiating skills - think Chico and the Man.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
America Online Inaugurates Election Guide 2004 News Release Jan 22 2004 America Online Inc., last week announced the launch of its Election Guide 2004, providing voters with comprehensive multimedia coverage of local and national races, as well as platforms to express their political views. Through a wide range of audio, video, magazine and newspaper offerings from best-of-breed partners, the AOL Election Guide 2004 is designed to meet the needs of average voters, political junkies, the mildly interested and younger voters alike. In addition, AOL Latino is offering separate election coverage that addresses the issues that impact the daily lives of U.S. Hispanics and encourages member participation in the democratic process.
Combining voter resources with breaking news, analysis and commentary from a spectrum of world-class political sources, AOL's Election Guide 2004 offers on-demand content to AOL members at AOL Keyword: Elections. The majority of the content is also available online to the general public.
Story continued below advertisement
To further engage voters in the election process, the Election Guide 2004 features America Votes polls and a President Match tool that helps voters choose the right candidate for them. AOL members can express their support for their candidates of choice through campaign Buddy Icons and participate in such interactive features as online debates and a state-by-state Virtual Primary poll.
"AOL's Election Guide 2004 is more than an informational source -- it is an open forum where voters can create their own election experiences and campaign online for their candidates of choice," said Lewis D'Vorkin, AOL's editor in chief for News and Sports. "Whether they are armchair enthusiasts or hard-core campaign operatives, AOL members can follow alongside the candidates in nearly every step of the election process by reading up on and comparing their stances, getting insider perspectives, debating the issues with other voters and more."
Key elements of AOL's Election 2004 coverage include: President Match: Using an interactive quiz, voters can see which candidate best matches their views and requirements for president. Buddy Icons: AOL takes election bumper stickers online with the introduction of campaign button Buddy Icons. Members can voice their views and support their candidates of choice through online expressions. Your Elections: For presidential, congressional, state legislation and local races, voters can find information on the candidates and their views, as well as voter registration areas. Voters can get breaking news updates and analysis from the best names in news and politics, including ABC News' The Note, The Associated Press, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, NYTimes.com, USATODAY.com and Time. Working with ABC News, AOL will also offer video interviews by George Stephanopoulos, anchor of ABC News' Sunday morning program This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos also currently answers AOL members' questions about major news events and key political issues. A Polling Place Locator lets voters enter their ZIP code to help them find voting locations, driving directions and more. The Political Insider: The Election Guide 2004 brings voters the inside scoop on candidates and their fundraising efforts and compiles research and analysis from such nationally acclaimed political sources as Congressional Quarterly, Creators Syndicate and National Journal. "Informed Voices" commentators such as Mike McCurry, Scott Reed, Jonah Goldberg and Arianna Huffington also provide weekly columns, and 30- to 45-second exclusive audio analysis will be available from liberal, conservative and non-partisan perspectives. AOL's innovative "Lean Left" or "Lean Right" navigation helps members find the analyst whose opinion is most in sync with theirs. The Sideshow: For those interested in the lighter side of politics, The Sideshow serves up comedy, satire and cartoons related to government and the race for office. AOL for Broadband and dial-up users alike can enjoy video and audio from some of the best sources in the business, including Bill Maher's Real Time HBO series, Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and more. Younger Voters: To encourage election participation among young voters, AOL's Younger Voters area incorporates content from Rock the Vote to provide the younger audience with information on issues of interest. In addition to video and audio coverage of Rock the Vote events, young voters can access exclusive and on-demand audio commentary from celebrities.
AOL Latino To complement AOL's Election Guide 2004 coverage and address the growing U.S. Hispanic audience, AOL Latino's Tu Voz Es Tu Voto 2004 (Your Voice, Your Vote) election area provides comprehensive coverage of the primaries, political party conventions, state-to-state races and the presidential election. Through a variety of original programming and content from its leading partner network, Tu Voz Es Tu Voto 2004 offers a series of profiles of each candidate, voter registration information and more. Members can participate in the election process by submitting their questions for the candidates who will respond in AOL interviews, as well as voicing their opinions on message boards and poll areas.
Candidates Slow to Bring Political Advertising Dollars to the Web
The 2004 election campaigns are using the Internet more than ever for organizing, fund-raising and communicating with supporters -- but they haven't put big resources into online advertising. What will it take to get them to give up their TV mindset?
Mark Glaser Posted: 2004-02-09 The candidate is sitting in a conference room, surrounded by strategists and media consultants. A large screen lowers from the ceiling, and one consultant leans forward, telling the candidate, "This is the ad that's going to win us the election!" On the giant screen, the front page of Yahoo loads, and the candidate's streaming video ad plays to astounding applause.
Sound implausible? It is right now, as American political consultants remain skeptical of the Internet as a medium that can sway voters, and enthralled with the power of TV advertisements. The past successes of John McCain (R-Ariz.) and MoveOn.org in raising money online -- and the recent buzz created by Howard Dean's Internet efforts -- has made the Net a required stop for organizing and campaigning. But advertising? Not yet.
Separately, online advertising and political advertising -- mainly on TV -- are booming. Online advertising saw a rebound in 2003, according to Jupiter Research, which estimates the market grew 10 percent to $6.3 billion, while predicting a 21 percent rise to $7.6 billion in 2004. And political TV ads in federal, gubernatorial and judicial elections in 2000 cost a whopping $672 million, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, with congressional races alone increasing a third over '98 levels.
But candidates have been slow to take up online advertising so far, mainly due to their risk-averse nature and long experience with TV ads moving favorability polls. Michael Cornfield is research director for the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, and author of "Politics Moves Online" (Century Foundation Press), due out next month. He said he is not surprised that political ads have stalled in moving online, despite their advantages in targeting, customization, instant feedback and more.
"Most political campaigns have found it just too complicated to put an online ad buy into their budgets," Cornfield told me via e-mail. "They can buy a TV ad with a phone call; the rate card is in their hands; they have a rough sense of how many gross rating points they need to buy to assure that the ad gets seen. With online ads, in contrast, the absence of routines and rules of thumb plunges them into chaos. What do they want: branding or direct response? What type of ad should they commission and place: pop-up, banner, rich media?"
Democratic presidential candidates have so far dabbled in paid search ad buys and some minor targeted advertising on media sites, but most of the American public has likely not seen these ads. Jerome Armstrong, a blogger who's in charge of Howard Dean's online ad buys, told me that only 1 percent to 2 percent of Dean's ad buys were online so far.
Christine Mohan, spokeswoman for New York Times Digital -- including NYTimes.com and Boston.com -- said political ad revenues for the last quarter ending in December were "in the single digits" of percentage of all ads sold -- and flat from the Senate and House races advertised in the first quarter of 2002. And Slate.com, which prides itself on incisive political commentary, tallied less than 1 percent of revenues as political ads in December and January, according to publisher Cyrus Krohn.
Breakthrough possible?
Still, many online publishers believe that this year will be a breakthrough for online political ads as politicians finally understand the size and strength of the online audience -- and the possibility of finding swing voters in key states.
A recent Pew Internet study found that 24 percent of Internet users regularly learn news about the presidential campaign from the Internet, while 28 percent get election news from major portals, such as AOL, MSN and Yahoo. If these people are just bumping into political news online, why wouldn't ads in those places get their attention as well?
Jason Krebs, vice president of sales and marketing at NYTimes.com, said that consultants are starting to get the message about the power of online ads. Plus, he can point to one strong testimonial from a high-ranking official in New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration. "[He] did state that advertising on NYTimes.com, and our ability technically to target messages according to where the readers are coming from, was incredibly instrumental in his victory," Krebs told me. "We're proud of that."
NYTimes.com and other top sites with user registration have the ability to target ads based on ZIP Codes, age, gender and other demographic information. That means a candidate could reach women aged 35 to 45 in a particular district in the Bronx. "There were some people in different districts and burroughs that [the Bloomberg campaign] needed to reach a little more heavily with a slightly different message than others," Krebs said of the mayoral campaign two years ago. "We were able to offer that in a compelling form that was easy to deliver." However, he would not reveal how much was spent on online advertising by Bloomberg or the other candidates.
Another big advantage for the online medium is that it won't be subject to campaign finance limitations this year, which pertain to so-called "soft money" ads. These ads are banned from TV and radio in the last 60 days of the campaign. Many online publishers are expecting a big influx of ads during the time leading up to the November election.
Cliff Sloan, general counsel and vice president of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, said he was confident that 2004 would see an upswing in online political ads, and that he expected a surge of ads on the Net and on washingtonpost.com. Sloan wrote an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times making the case for candidates buying online ads.
"Consultants are hired to win, not to experiment, no matter how loud the drumbeat." -- Ray Strother, Democratic consultant
"Consultants are comfortable with the way they have done campaigns and are not eager to try something new," Sloan told me. "Corporate advertisers and their agencies similarly were skeptical two years ago. But in the end, they did not want to lose the advantage to their competitors. That's why, as with the use of other media, the gap between the political world and the corporate world will close in the months ahead. There's no other choice."
The case for inertia
Despite predictions that this could be a breakthrough year for online political advertising, other political veterans are not so sure. Krohn, the publisher of Slate, has a background in politics and worked in the first Bush White House for Vice President Dan Quayle. "I'm a little frustrated at the pace at which the political industry is adopting the medium," Krohn told me. "At this stage of the game, the belief is that the medium is only suited for one-way dialogue -- money coming in, and not marketing messages going out."
Krohn said that with each example of a candidate raising millions in cash online -- including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) pulling in a quarter million overnight after winning Iowa -- the perception of the Net as a cash cow becomes cemented in place. Consultants are so focused on winning the race in front of them, they have precious little time to test a new medium for their message.
"The traditional political consultant will never tell you this, but there may be a little fear of the medium," Krohn said. "They don't have experience with it. They're uncomfortable with it. The political community is probably more conservative than any other industry."
That theory bears out in my discussions with political consultants. Those who "get" the Net are having trouble winning over those who don't. The Dean campaign's Armstrong has had to struggle for attention within a campaign that made a name for itself thanks to the Net.
"I'm the only one that works on the Net [advertising] campaign," Armstrong told me. "A lot of times I have to farm out a volunteer to do the creative for the [online] ad. Campaigns are not evolutionary models. They're what works now and will get us through the next election. Institutional memory skips every four years, so there's a lag time on innovation. As far as big purchases that really make an impact -- we're not there. We're able to push the envelope to do some of this, but I don't have nearly the resources as the people doing television ads."
Armstrong said that Dean has been advertising on some media sites such as NYTimes.com, as well as doing paid links through Google AdSense -- where links run alongside relevant articles. However, the campaign is still focused on getting the most bang from the least amount of bucks. They are running a streaming video ad on AOL and CNN.com that's repurposed from a TV commercial. Armstrong, however, would not say how much the Dean campaign has spent on online advertising.
One old-school Democratic consultant, Ray Strother, has yet to be convinced. Strother helped mentor Clinton strategist James Carville and was a past president of the American Association of Political Consultants.
"Communications dollars are limited and must be spent carefully," Strother told me via e-mail. "We are beginning to dribble advertising onto the Web. However, there is no independent research yet that proves it works -- or with whom. Consultants are hired to win, not to experiment, no matter how loud the drumbeat. Contrary to what people think, people don't make their decisions on candidates in the same way they buy peas or even Fords. I am pro-Web and would love to put my candidates on it. But I can't gamble their lives on it."
Touch it, feel it
While Net advocates can tick off numbers on ad effectiveness, branding awareness, and the like, political consultants and candidates are more interested in something they can touch and feel. Strother noted that, "I have used the Web to advertise candidates and I have yet to have a person stop me in the airport to tell me how much they liked it. Not so with television and radio. The Web is just another medium. It is not magic. It is a tool."
Larry Purpuro founded the Rightclick Strategies consulting firm three years ago after leading the e.GOP Internet effort for the Republican National Committee, where he was also deputy chief of staff. Purpuro said that political consultants are extremely slow to try new things, but that the online publishers aren't making the sales any easier because "they don't know how to talk politics."
Purpuro told me that publishers need to create a physical way for clients to see the ads so that campaign managers and candidates and wives and volunteers can see how they work. "The difference with a TV spot is you can send a TV spot on a videocassette to a candidate and he can watch it in the privacy of his living room with his family, and they can all google over the 30-second bio piece," he said. "It's very difficult to present online ads. It sounds trivial, but they [need to] find a good way to capture them and show a whole lot of samples."
One other problem is that consultants spend millions on TV ads to get results in polls showing better favorability ratings for their candidates. They don't make the same connection to Net ads, even if these ads do it better at a cheaper cost.
Jonah Seiger is a longtime political consultant and visiting fellow with the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet. Seiger told me that consultants were caught up in a apples-to-oranges comparison between TV and the Internet for advertising.
"There's shorthand among media strategists and pollsters: 'Pump an extra thousand gross ratings points into a market, and we'll see an X percent bump in the unfavorable/favorable ratings,' " Seiger told me. "We don't have a similar lexicon yet for the Internet. There's a difference in the bottom line measure. With traditional media, there's an attitudinal measure, how public opinion has changed, but there's no direct response measure. Internet advertising from the very beginning was sold as a direct response medium. It creates somewhat of a trap."
Until there's a way to make political consultants comfortable with the Internet as an advertising vehicle, it will continue to languish as a back-room experiment. Or maybe all it would take is one bold, risk-taking candidate to finally push big money online and win. Then everyone else will follow like a herd of raging elephants and donkeys.
Michael Cornfield is research director for the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, and author of "Politics Moves Online" (Century Foundation Press), due out next month. He said he is not surprised that political ads have stalled in moving online, despite their advantages in targeting, customization, instant feedback and more.
September 5, 2003 Study: Internet Ripe for Political Advertising By Brian Morrissey
The Internet offers myriad opportunities for political candidates, including fundraising from supporters and advertising for new voters, according to a new study.
The survey, commissioned by the Online Publishers Association (OPA) in conjunction with the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey and Research Analysis, found that more than two out of three U.S. voters are likely to turn to the Internet to find information about a candidate.
The OPA poll, which questioned 642 people and has a margin of error around 4 percent, found voters from both parties eager to use a candidate's Web site for research: 68 percent of Republicans said they were very or somewhat likely to do so; 59 percent of Democrats responded that way; and 57 percent of independents said the same.
Of all voters, about 29 percent said political ads online would interest them to some degree. However, despite the frequent complaints about the blitz of political ads on TV, 73 percent of those polled disagreed that they would rather see Internet political pitches over those on the TV.
Still, the survey held out hope for the potential effectiveness of Web political ads: 60 percent said they were likely to notice a candidate's online ad and 39 percent said they would click on one.
"A lot of politically active people are on the Internet," said Michael Zimbalist, the OPA's executive director. "There are two things that politicians and candidates really need to take away: you can use this to energize your base and you can use this to reach swing voters."
The OPA, which represents the Web sites of the nation's top newspapers, sees great potential for grabbing a chunk of political ad spending. In the first five months of this year alone, with elections far away, political ad spending on TV topped $50 million, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMR. In 2004, the advertising industry is expected to thrive, thanks to both political spending and the Olympics.
National news sites, such as washingtonpost.com and NYTimes.com hope their politics-savvy audiences can help them win ad dollars currently earmarked for TV spots. The OPA found that 75 percent of visitors to national news sites said they were likely to research a candidate's position and 46 percent said they would click on a political ad.
"We're talking to campaigns and the political community, including the consultants and media buyers and the various people in campaigns, about the clearly established advantages of Internet advertising," said Cliff Sloan, vice president of business development at Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive. "This is one area where there's a tremendous gap between the corporate and the political worlds."
Sloan said the Internet ad industry needs to make the same case it makes to traditional advertisers for moving money from untargeted TV buys to targeted Web buys: The Internet offers a more qualified audience at a better price.
So far, Sloan said the uptake has been slow, other than a campaign for Democratic hopeful Howard Dean that ran on Newsweek's site in August. He said advertising would pick up as the campaign heats up this fall.
"We think there's about to be a real breakthrough and a development of really significant advertising on the Internet," Sloan said. "The reason is Internet advertising works."
So far in the presidential campaign, Dean has been widely hailed for his use of the Web for direct response. In addition to keeping a blog, his Web site has used MeetUp.com to organize numerous small gatherings of supporters and tap into fundraising opportunities.
The OPA survey confirmed the Internet's potential for reaching small groups of highly motivated supporters: 17 percent of voters said they would use the Web to volunteer for a campaign and 14 percent said they would donate online.
(Dean has also experienced the downside of using the Internet as a grass roots tool. Last month, his campaign acknowledged that it sent out unsolicited e-mail pitches through two contractors.)
Perhaps most importantly for improving his viability in the primaries, Dean has successfully raised money online. In the second quarter of the year, Dean reported he raised $3.5 million of his $7.5 million total through the Web
This issue of TNO includes three short articles by the editor. The first one prescribes a change in attitude for the field of computer science, from automating other people's lives to working with the people who have deep knowledge of the particular worlds where computers are used. The second reflects on the conflict between Republicans over the Communications Decency Act, which may be a model for many other such conflicts among conservatives down the road. And the third offers some first thoughts on the sense in which computer technology is increasingly "popular" -- that is, shaped by the collective action of ordinary people for their own purposes. Plus two short notes: one on electronic junk mail and another on conspiracy theories about the Oklahoma City bombing.
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party harshly condemned the telecommunications reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate yesterday because it contained sweeping new censorship laws aimed at electronic bulletin boards, commercial on-line services, and the Internet. "The Communications Decency Act is a case of 20th-century politicians using 19th-century laws to control 21st-century technology," charged Libertarian Party Chair Steve Dasbach.
The censorship amendment, sponsored by J. James Exon (D-NE) and Dan Coats (R-IN), passed the Senate on June 14th by an 84-16 vote. It banned so-called "obscene" material from computer on-line services, with fines up to $100,000 and prison terms of up to two years for violations.
With nearly $60 billion in advertising revenues at stake, measuring television viewership is a task that leaves little room for mistakes. That's why Nielsen Media Research, the firm that has had a monopoly on audience measurement since the 1950s, has often had to defend its measurement techniques to network and advertising executives.
Just this month, the company came under attack from television networks, minority groups and even lawmakers when a test of its electronic "people meters," newly installed in select New York homes, began reporting a sharp decrease in viewership for television shows that feature minorities. Because the current system -- a decades-old technique involving week-long diaries that are mailed to the homes -- had never yielded such a drastic swing, the critics contended that the new technique must somehow be unreliable.
I put this in here since so much of the internet is .com revenue off of "advertisement" for free stuff (webhosting, message boards etc.) and I wonder who is watching to see the profit on this and if/how that can be manipulated on various mediums like message boards... does this get into the political conversation.
[QUOTE] Translation: Future MP3 players, PCs and handheld computers will no longer let you make all the copies you want.
"A lack of security has enabled significant copyright piracy, which drains America's content industries to the tune of billions of dollars every year," Hollings, the powerful chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said in a statement on Thursday.
That's precisely why Hollings and the five senators who joined him want to embed copy-protection controls in all PCs and consumer electronic devices. Devices manufactured before the law takes effect can be resold legally.
Once known as the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, the newly named CBDTPA says that all "digital media devices" sold in the United States or shipped across state lines must include copy-protection mechanisms to be defined by the Federal Communications Commission.
"Digital media device" is defined in a breathtakingly broad way: Any hardware or software that reproduces, displays or "retrieves or accesses" any kind of copyrighted work.
Outcry from programmers already matches the protests heard during the era of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. And Silicon Valley lobbyists, who have objected to earlier versions of the CBDTPA, denounced it again on Thursday.
"We don't think this will help consumers use technology to enjoy movies or other content more," said Rhett Dawson, the president of the Information Technology Industry Council. "If it were enacted it could stand in the way of consumers enjoying the benefits of innovation by having the government make decisions that are best left to the marketplace."
Hollings' long-awaited introduction of his CBDTPA bill follows hearings before the Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees, which highlighted the sharp rift between Silicon Valley, which advocates a laissez faire approach, and the Hollywood firms lobbying Congress to step in to prevent piracy.
Joining Hollings as co-sponsors of the CBDTPA are one Republican and four Democrats: Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), John Breaux (D-Louisana) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California). At a hearing last week, Feinstein showed her colleagues a pirated movie that she said an aide had downloaded from a file-trading service.
The entertainment industry desperately wants this bill, a version of which Disney and News Corp. endorsed as far back as last summer. But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks snarled Congress' usual schedule, and only now has Capitol Hill's attention returned to online piracy
Posts: 2243 | Location: Idaho | Registered: 28 November 2003
I can't speak specifically about the incident you've sourced since I don't know of it.
However spoofing is standard practice these days. I used to work for an internet marketing company and they often considered spoofing in their plans for a marketing campaign for web-based products.
It goes slightly beyond simply going on AOL messageboards though and a typical spoofing campaign involves Usenet and relevent web-forums as it's main target of fake 'product' interest.
At another company I worked for they got one of the guys there to roam the internet and post numorously to generate interest in their website. That person would act as though he didn't work for the company in question and would always say something like "I was looking around the other day and found this site..".
The one thing I will say is that it's normally web-based products that this applies to.
Total normal marketing practice though. Just pick up a book on internet marketing and you'll find it in there.
Posts: 40 | Location: Here and There | Registered: 03 March 2004
"I was looking around the other day and found this site.."
a pick-up line, in a free and open Internet.
I'm wondering how much the spoofers understand about the potential for swathing out whole sections of the Internet, to achieve the marketing goal... Certainly the executives who are mapping out the master plan see this angle.
For example, there are the television ads for webmd that suggest, ... strongly suggest ... that people start their web searches there (at webmd), with the experts. I expect the experts at webmd don't connect with some of the non-mainstream thinking about mind and body. On a related note, in our drop-in clinic ... at the pay counter is a pile of leaflets, to plug into the approved medical information networks. Then, there's this whole issue brewing with DSL not being covered by FCC equal access rules ... I've linked some things that are being written about the DSL issue here.
It's very interesting to watch these issues percolate. At some level, I feel powerless to shift the tide.
"The hand that erases writes the true thing." ~Meister Eckhart
Posts: 8052 | Location: usa | Registered: 29 February 2004
Democrats, Republicans, whoever--- one and all are welcome to pay me to stop posting! I'd be more than happy to take your money, (if adequate), and give it to the Nader/Camejo campaign, in full. Hint: I value my time at $1.00 per minute...
Posts: 5740 | Location: Exile | Registered: 24 March 2003
"Why the term "Repugs" - is it that they are repugnant or that they are vicious like the dog?"
Pugs are nice little dogs. They should not be so reviled; but perhaps the reference relates to being a small-minded scrappy little group-think driven dog like most Republicans have become.
As I see it this has happened since the neoconservatives and the religioous right have captured their rank and file; the global corporate interests have bought their politicians and the Murdoch global media machine has become its active voice to promote the group-think of "The New World Democracy of George Bush as The Self Appointed Messiah of the Human Race!".
Oh, and Murdoch is greatly interested in keeping the democratic people's of the world away from the power to control corporate interests through democratic government. Remember, Murdoch is the one who said: "He who controls the media controls the money and the power of the world." And eveyone is well acquainted with the repugs at Fox News Channel! So, is that a good explanation for the term repugs? I don't know, nut it makes sense to me.
I feel sorry for these people who have come under such mind control. The republican party has really become more of a cult that is led by a religious leader these days than a politcal party. It is a sad stste of affirs in American politics that such a thing should happen. So, yes, I also find this whole situation repugnant. Perhaps both answers are right.
tom allen
Tom Allen<br />Oviedo, FL
Posts: 1 | Location: Orlando | Registered: 12 August 2004
At 8:26pm on Tuesday ,Aug 31, I posted a positive Kerry statement that challenged the conservatives talking point of why Kerry is " the most liberal senator ", within 4 minutes a so called casual observer of this message board posted a response, followed by another rebuttal within 24 minutes.
Posts: 133 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 07 October 2003
Moon what is your point? I had a point in your Water Cooler thread that you didn't want to rebut, instead come here and tug on Thom's sport coat like we're all in schoolyard and you just got hit with the dodgeball.
Posts: 2167 | Location: CA | Registered: 14 November 2003
Thom Over at Infidels.org it was pretty obvious they had some plants, then after years it seems they all just... quit! Possibly they decided an atheist board wasn't worth the bother. (Although the board usually has 50 to 100 people on it at any time.)
Personally I don't think they're accomplishing much that will further their cause. I mean the idea of confusing pretty straightforward issues may work on TV, etc. But it doesn't work as well online. (As we can see with "Joe" and "Camp").
If anything they hurt themselves because they give liberals someone to argue with. (Thus making for more discussion.) Plus they give liberals the opportunity to bring up facts over and over and over again. (Facts they otherwise wouldn't bother repeating.)
Personally I think having some plants is very important to the success of a discussion board. Otherwise not enough people post.
So Joe, don't let your boss see what I've wrote here. He might realize he's wasting his money on you.
you gotta point, Emp. I'm thinking it matters almost not at all, what inspires people to talk on the boards, because deep down somewhere in the borgosphere lies a human being. Sometimes I get to talk to him/it/her.
And that's a good thing.
Posts: 59 | Location: USA | Registered: 03 September 2004
If progressives need some time for debating, they can visit www.hannity.com. It's packed with those who have been "Hannitized" by the talk show host, Sean Hannity. I think it's important that the left practice outreach to people they don't agree with.
Posts: 633 | Location: Denver | Registered: 12 April 2003
I think Thom should post a new question. Paid to hack for information without the awareness of the owner and server.
Why come public with research when you can gleen it cheaper and without the public relations mess?
Food for thought.
We are honoring the soldiers by doing what WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to do and they cannot... question the authority, making it prove itself and making it accountable to all of us.
If progressives need some time for debating, they can visit www.hannity.com. It's packed with those who have been "Hannitized" by the talk show host, Sean Hannity.
Been there Preston, the average IQ there is well below 90. Those people have no origional thought and no conception of what's in store for this country on a long term basis.
They are sheep following the shepherd.
Trying to maintain an intelligent conversation with them is beyond irritating.
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
Been there Preston, the average IQ there is well below 90. Those people have no origional thought and no conception of what's in store for this country on a long term basis.
These people vote, Bill. If there are two ignorant votes to your one intelligent vote, guess whose policies are put in place?
I�m in full agreement with the intellectual capacities; they have a difficult time thinking beyond the immediate emotional response � and it scares them, this may be why they rage against �the Ivory Towers� and �intellectuals�.
I have a question to ponder: when speaking of intelligence quotient is the difference between understanding the same from 100 to 130 as it is from 70 to 100? If so, should not the language be geared accordingly?
------------------------------ "In a big country dreams stay with you like a lover's voice across the mountainside" - Big Country
Posts: 872 | Location: Western edge of the continent | Registered: 04 October 2003
Anyone have any links for $ for posting? Wow; this would be great easy money for anyone with a 3 digit IQ or above on a lib message board where the members get their talking points from that genious Howard Dean!
Posts: 1102 | Location: america | Registered: 06 September 2005
We only instill the fear of losing elections. Liberals instill the fear in all of us with the slight possibility that they may one day be in charge again. Very scary.
Posts: 1102 | Location: america | Registered: 06 September 2005
We only instill the fear of losing elections. Liberals instill the fear in all of us with the slight possibility that they may one day be in charge again. Very scary.
Thanks for clarifying your position, risingtide.
If you are frightened of the prospect of "Liberals" being in charge, why would you want them to be afraid of losing? Wouldn't you be less scared if they were complacent instead of frightened?
Please forgive my lack of historical knowledge. Can you tell me: when were "Liberals" in charge and what things they did that makes you scared of the prospect of them being "in charge".
Finally, I would like to know what definition of "Liberal" you are using.
Posts: 338 | Location: Colorado | Registered: 19 August 2004
Please forgive my lack of historical knowledge. Can you tell me: when were "Liberals" in charge and what things they did that makes you scared of the prospect of them being "in charge".
Were you alive or lucent during the early 1990s? Remember when they tried to socialize medicine?
Remember when they desimated the military?
Remember how they raised taxes on the poor?
Have you no memory?
A liberal majority would put our armed forces under the command of those who hate the military. For example, we'd have the likes of Kennedy, Durbin, Byrd, Biden and Hillary deciding our national security. We saw what that did for us on 9/11. Yes, 9/11 was Billy Bob's doing.
Posts: 1102 | Location: america | Registered: 06 September 2005
I was alive and lucent during the early 90s. However, I was also younger, very busy and extremely apolitical.
quote:
Remember when they tried to socialize medicine?
No. Could you tell me who tried to turn over our entire medical industry to the government? And what legislation was put forward to do this? I need a name, a date, and a reference to the legislation. That way I can have some concrete idea what you're afraid of.
On a related note: Do you think our socialized armed forces should be privatized?
quote:
Remember when they desimated the military?
I think you mean decimated. I'm sure you don't mean they executed every tenth member of our military. You are being figurative. Can you explain what you mean by "decimated". I need a name, a date, and and a reference to the legislation.
quote:
Remember how they raised taxes on the poor?
Give me a name, a date, and a reference to the legislation. That way I'll know whether I agree or disagree with it.
quote:
Have you no memory?
I have a horrible memory. I'm always having to look things up. So if you could give me names and dates it would be a big help to me. I'm just trying to understand the source of your fearfulness. Thanks for your help.
Posts: 338 | Location: Colorado | Registered: 19 August 2004
Hey, can anyone help me out with some verification? I'm still trying to figure out if the following is authentic. It's an excerpt from something called "The Bankers Manifesto of of 1892" and it was presented to the US Congress by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh sometime during his term in office. If this is in fact authentic it sure does explain a lot.
quote:
"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance.
The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.
At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation.
The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.
When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.
History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.
The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."
This is the part that gets me -- every time:
quote:
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.
IMNSHO - while this is a political issue, it is not "partisan". There is nothing truly tangable to fear from either side. What we should really be afraid of is just how easily we can be manipulated into hating and blaming others instead of seeing what is REALLY going on right smack under our noses.
But then I fully admit I could very well be wrong and all this childish, (bordering on infantile), partisan squabbling bull shit really is the correct way to handling things....
I mean an equal amount of pull to the left and push from the right is needed to create the kind of circularlly swirling vortex it takes to flush things straight down the drain.
And in my really not so humble opinion that is exactly where we're ALL going unless we wake up to the realities of what is going on and just how much our "personal" opinions are externally influenced by people who can only see how it is in their best interest to keep people under the influence of fear, learned helplessnes, and anger based blame.
But again, I could very well be wrong.
Because people with no hopes are easy to control ~ The Neverending Story
Posts: 5455 | Location: East Bay | Registered: 25 July 2001
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd.
Would you be talking about a 'save marriage' initiative?
Blaise Pascal Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Pensees
Posts: 2917 | Location: Sverige | Registered: 21 June 2005
Stuff like "save marriage" or "war on Christmas" and all that other propaganda nonsense that emotional charges people into feeling like they have a "cause".
People need to feel they have a "cause" so the doctors of spin create and then push those causes to meet this need and to keep people from taking up real/relivant causes.
Oh, I could go on and on about it. But I won't.
However, I will post the following Newsweek article because it addresses the same type of finely tuned and orchestrated propaganda BS we are discussing here.
Bonnie: "History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.
The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."
Fascinating read, Bonnie.
"The hand that erases writes the true thing." ~Meister Eckhart
Posts: 8052 | Location: usa | Registered: 29 February 2004
Bonnie, let me first start off by saying I do not put much stock in such conspiracy theories. But let me show some aspects of this post. First the passage seems to be exact in its entirety located: web page web page web page web page ,Note PDF.
But all fail to indicate how Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. recieved the letter, who wrote the letter, why the letter was written and what proof did Charles have to the authenticity. Congress has no restriction on what can be debated or even proof of an alegation. Unlike in our courts, there is no contempt of court or penalties for lying other than sensorship by other members.
So it appears Charles may have been the first to do a Rathergate or purposely perpetuated this hoax on other members because of his strong opposition to the establishment of the Federal Reserve banking system. web page
Lastly a couple of places for his quotes: web page
quote:
"This (Federal Reserve) Act establishes the most gigantic trust [monopoly] on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives did not make a humbug of Congress...The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government." - Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913
Why is it necessary to characterize Bonnie's quotes, Ron? Focusing on the sources, or lack of them, should do the job. Dazzle us with your brilliance, not your ad homs, ...
"The hand that erases writes the true thing." ~Meister Eckhart
Posts: 8052 | Location: usa | Registered: 29 February 2004
Hi, Kate. Could you clue me in on what you feel was an "ad homs". I felt I presented the information that was relevant to the quote and then came to a conclusion without personal attacks. But thank you I will take this as a compliment... "Dazzle us with your brilliance"
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Discussion Community 
