NationStates Jolt Archive


President Bush starts setting up Ministry of Propaganda

Evil Woody Thoughts
05-03-2005, 22:22
A new Social Security war room inside the Treasury Department is pumping out information to sell President Bush's plan, much like any political campaign might do. It's part of a coordinated effort by the Bush administration.

The internal, taxpayer-funded campaigning is backed up by television advertisements, grass-roots organizing and lobbying from business and other groups that support the Bush plan.

more... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050305/ap_on_go_pr_wh/selling_social_security_5)

I thought using taxpayer money for propaganda purposes was ILLEGAL? Yet more evidence that the Bush administration is subverting the rule of law... :rolleyes:
Liskeinland
05-03-2005, 22:31
It's not the ministry of propaganda, it's the ministry of truth - or Minitru.
Potaria
05-03-2005, 22:33
more... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050305/ap_on_go_pr_wh/selling_social_security_5)

I thought using taxpayer money for propaganda purposes was ILLEGAL? Yet more evidence that the Bush administration is subverting the rule of law... :rolleyes:


That's dispicable and completely illegal.

President Bush fought the law... And he won.
Kervoskia
05-03-2005, 22:35
That's dispicable and completely illegal.

President Bush fought the law... And he won.
He is the law.
Nickmasykstan
05-03-2005, 22:37
No he isn't, Judge Dredd is.
Potaria
05-03-2005, 22:37
The law don't mean shit if you have the right friends
That's how this country's run

And don't forget the last part...

I fought the law and, I won
I AM the law so, I won

...Or so the Dead Kennedys version goes.
Relative Liberty
05-03-2005, 22:38
Preemptive strikes are against international and national (US that is) law. He got away with that and I think he's getting away with this.
Jordaxia
05-03-2005, 22:39
It's not the ministry of propaganda, it's the ministry of truth - or Minitru.

minitru? I take it it's next door to minipax, miniluv and miniplenty?
This is doubleplusgood!
Drunk commies
05-03-2005, 22:40
That's fucked up. In other Social Security news, I heard on the radio this morning that an ad that tries to link the AARP, American Association of Retired People, (who oppose the prez. Social Security plan) to gay marriage. The people airing the ad were also involved in that "swift boat" crap.
Sdaeriji
05-03-2005, 22:40
It's good to know my tax dollars are going towards such a worthy cause....
Kervoskia
05-03-2005, 22:41
This is doubleplusgood!
Doubleplusgood?
Arribastan
05-03-2005, 22:41
The law don't mean shit if you have the right friends
That's how this country's run

And don't forget the last part...

I fought the law and, I won
I AM the law so, I won

...Or so the Dead Kennedys version goes.
I was listening to that song when I read your post.
Creepy.
Jordaxia
05-03-2005, 22:42
Doubleplusgood?

Don't tell my you're still using "oldspeak"? We're on the 7th edition of newspeak here! Get with the times...

(Ingsoc forever!)
Arribastan
05-03-2005, 22:43
Doubleplusgood?
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.
Kervoskia
05-03-2005, 22:44
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.
Oh. Gotta love Orwell. Also, what the hell is new speak?
Potaria
05-03-2005, 22:46
I was listening to that song when I read your post.
Creepy.


I love that song. I'm replacing some lyrics to make it more suitable for Mr. Bush. I might post it soon.
Domici
05-03-2005, 22:47
That's fucked up. In other Social Security news, I heard on the radio this morning that an ad that tries to link the AARP, American Association of Retired People, (who oppose the prez. Social Security plan) to gay marriage. The people airing the ad were also involved in that "swift boat" crap.

Yup. Can't trust them old folks. Gay lovin' peaceniks. They need a good four years of military service to sort out their punk asses.
Jordaxia
05-03-2005, 22:47
Oh. Gotta love Orwell. Also, what the hell is new speak?

Newspeak is a condensed form of English that cuts out un-necessary words, variations on a single word. Why have excellent and superb and "ok" when good will suffice? and for varying extremes of good, we attach existing, necessary words to it. For example, excellent is erased from the language, and becomes doubleplusgood. Very good would become plusgood.
Kervoskia
05-03-2005, 22:48
Sounds efficient.
Jordaxia
05-03-2005, 22:49
Sounds efficient.
You should read the book. I'd explain my views on it, but if you decide to read the book, it could be seen as a spoiler, considering I'd need to detail what newspeak means in the novel.
Domici
05-03-2005, 22:52
Oh. Gotta love Orwell. Also, what the hell is new speak?

In 1984 the government controlled language so that people would have a very difficult time trying to think "wrong" thoughts. For example "free" would only mean "without." So you could be free of food, or free of parisites, but you could not be free in the abstract.

We see the same thing with neo-con spin doctors these days.
Pro-choice ->Abortionist
Privatized social security -> Personal Accounts
Warmongering, chest thumping, ignorant redneck ->conservative
Conservative -> liberal lefty commie facist
Liberal -> woman
Arribastan
05-03-2005, 22:53
You should read the book. I'd explain my views on it, but if you decide to read the book, it could be seen as a spoiler, considering I'd need to detail what newspeak means in the novel.
I have to write some 10-page paper this year, called an I-search, on the topic of my choosing. I chose George Orwell, his predictions, and how correct he was.
Domici
05-03-2005, 22:57
Newspeak is a condensed form of English that cuts out un-necessary words, variations on a single word. Why have excellent and superb and "ok" when good will suffice? and for varying extremes of good, we attach existing, necessary words to it. For example, excellent is erased from the language, and becomes doubleplusgood. Very good would become plusgood.

IngSoc doubleplusgood to oldspeak. Doubleplusunbig wordbook. Vocabulary A own one word for thing. That doubleplusgood.

Newspeak was also supposed to constantly evolve as more and more terms were caught under the same umbrella. So eventually the only word for "good" would have been IngSoc, the political party in control.

At that point it would be impossible to say something bad about the government because the only way you could verbalize the thought would be "IngSoc doubleplusunIngsoc" which is gibberish even when you understand that it means "the English Socialist party sucks."
Evil Woody Thoughts
05-03-2005, 22:59
That's fucked up. In other Social Security news, I heard on the radio this morning that an ad that tries to link the AARP, American Association of Retired People, (who oppose the prez. Social Security plan) to gay marriage. The people airing the ad were also involved in that "swift boat" crap.

Yeah, I read about that in the New York Times (generously provided by my university :D ) a few days ago. Sadly, I am unwilling to register on their website and provide them with everything they need to know to sell me up the river to identity thieves, so I cannot link to the online version of their article.

Perhaps someone with a NYT online registration can do a search and link to that article?

*resists urge to puke on computer after being reminded of this*
Jordaxia
05-03-2005, 23:04
IngSoc doubleplusgood to oldspeak. Doubleplusunbig wordbook. Vocabulary A own one word for thing. That doubleplusgood.


I tried to find a real newspeak dictionary once, and just ended up with a glossary of terms from 1984. Be good if there was a proper dictionary, but I'm not sure if he ever made a real one.
R00fletrain
05-03-2005, 23:05
That's fucked up. In other Social Security news, I heard on the radio this morning that an ad that tries to link the AARP, American Association of Retired People, (who oppose the prez. Social Security plan) to gay marriage. The people airing the ad were also involved in that "swift boat" crap.

Yep, I saw that on the Daily Show, and it's despicable. He's really crossed the line..this..time..
Neo-Anarchists
05-03-2005, 23:07
Perhaps someone with a NYT online registration can do a search and link to that article?
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink
If you can find it, you can use this to link to it, I think.
Evil Woody Thoughts
05-03-2005, 23:11
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink
If you can find it, you can use this to link to it, I think.

It won't let me do a keyword search for the article. It requires me to have the URL for the article when I'm registered from what I can make of it.
Straughn
06-03-2005, 00:10
Although i've known about this for a little while now ....
<BUMP>
Evil Woody Thoughts
06-03-2005, 00:23
Although i've known about this for a little while now ....
<BUMP>

I'm surprised that those who think any opposition to Bush=Blame America First Coalition haven't found this thread yet.
Armed Bookworms
06-03-2005, 00:44
Heh, this is why I had my dad opt me out of SocSec when I was 16. It solves a lot of problems. I just give 5% of my checks to a family friend and he invests it. :p
Straughn
06-03-2005, 00:50
I'm surprised that those who think any opposition to Bush=Blame America First Coalition haven't found this thread yet.
Keep bumping ....
Or, maybe start a puppet with a cool name that someone wants to argue with.
I just saw one called "BushRepublicanLiars" or something to that effect.
Evil Woody Thoughts
06-03-2005, 00:54
Keep bumping ....
Or, maybe start a puppet with a cool name that someone wants to argue with.
I just saw one called "BushRepublicanLiars" or something to that effect.

I already have a puppet with a name like that.

Teh Condiliar Empire :D
Evil Woody Thoughts
06-03-2005, 00:55
Heh, this is why I had my dad opt me out of SocSec when I was 16. It solves a lot of problems. I just give 5% of my checks to a family friend and he invests it. :p

You can do that? :eek:

*Shakes fist at being 19*

Oh, the fun of not being a trust fund baby, like Bush :(
Bushrepublican liars
06-03-2005, 00:56
more... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050305/ap_on_go_pr_wh/selling_social_security_5)

I thought using taxpayer money for propaganda purposes was ILLEGAL?

Not in the u(SS) or in states under Pinochet, Mussolini (Adolf to of course but I forget him here). Iran, US, China, Birma, Cuba and North Korea are the nations that use taxpayers money for propaganda. In the free world, people have their toughts about such regimes.
Neo-Anarchists
06-03-2005, 00:57
I just saw one called "BushRepublicanLiars" or something to that effect.
Hey, that one's in this thread by now.
Armed Bookworms
06-03-2005, 01:00
You can do that? :eek:

*Shakes fist at being 19*

Oh, the fun of not being a trust fund baby, like Bush :(
You can still do it, but however much you've put into it will be effectively lost.
Evil Woody Thoughts
06-03-2005, 01:05
You can still do it, but however much you've put into it will be effectively lost.

How? I've only put in a couple hundred so far (summer jobs).
Evil Woody Thoughts
06-03-2005, 22:52
teh üb3rbumpz0r
Caribbean Buccaneers
06-03-2005, 23:01
It's frequently said by gun supporters that they need their guns, for one, to defend against their government should they go a little power-mad. I'd like to know what they're waiting for...
Jamil
06-03-2005, 23:09
It's frequently said by gun supporters that they need their guns, for one, to defend against their government should they go a little power-mad. I'd like to know what they're waiting for...
Hehe, I'd like to see how the government handles terrorist attacks in the US commited by gun nuts.
Trammwerk
06-03-2005, 23:22
Propaganda has existed since the idea of government has existed, and it will continue to do so until the idea of government ceases to exist. To think that there is no propaganda in your own country, be it France, Britain, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, Sweden or whevever you're from is to not understand the very nature of language and culture.

All you can do as an individual human being is be aware of the facts of the matter and form your own opinion, as well as stay aware of the propaganda of others - the government, your enemies, your friends, the media, everything that can speak. It's hard to do, but not impossible.
The Antiquitous
06-03-2005, 23:35
Propaganda has existed since the idea of government has existed, and it will continue to do so until the idea of government ceases to exist.

too bad governemnt will never cease to exist :headbang:
Niccolo Medici
07-03-2005, 00:58
Would someone please defend this action, taken by the Bush administration? There has to be someone on this board who thinks that spending taxpayer dollars on government propaganda is a good thing.

There HAS to be someone who thinks this is good; why else would you all silently condone this action? Why do you not respond? I've seen people advocate the violent slaughter of innocents, the maiming and tourture of human beings on this board. Why now be silent?

Or is it possible that you just wanted to be tough when talking about the death and destruction, and really you understand that corruption is an EVIL that threatens to bring down the US? Perhaps you actually know that actions like these will destory our great nation, and that measures like this weaken all of us in the end?

Anyone?
Letila
07-03-2005, 01:13
Yet more evidence that the Bush administration is subverting the rule of law...

How can government subvert the rule of law? They make the law.
Potaria
07-03-2005, 01:17
But the President doesn't directly make the laws, nor does he pass them.
Evil Woody Thoughts
07-03-2005, 01:32
How can government subvert the rule of law? They make the law.

There's this little thing in the Constitution about separation of powers...

The law forbidding this would have been enacted by Congress. While the executive is charged with enforcing laws (and does not always do so), it is illegal to actually break an existing law passed by the Congress. I don't know what penalties the laws forbidding this sort of thing provide for, but it would theoretically be an impeachable offense. Not that Congress would actually have the balls to impeach or anything...

The day that the corrupt will of Men is allowed to rape the Constitution in such a manner is the day that the American Republic dies.

I will, however, grant that the "rule of law" is purely a theoretical concept.
Puppet States
07-03-2005, 02:08
more... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050305/ap_on_go_pr_wh/selling_social_security_5)

I thought using taxpayer money for propaganda purposes was ILLEGAL? Yet more evidence that the Bush administration is subverting the rule of law... :rolleyes:

Well, first off, the US does not have ministries... it has departments or agencies for the most part. At least get the terminology right. Second, the creation of such a group is not illegal. For years, the US Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Justice, the EPA, and recently, Homeland Security have run advertisements to sell their programs. In fact, many ads created by the "Ad Council" are government funded. If this is a "subversion" of the law, then it's been going on for decades and implicates more than just President Bush. But then again, why let something like the truth get in the way of your bush-bashing...
Evil Woody Thoughts
07-03-2005, 03:30
Well, first off, the US does not have ministries... it has departments or agencies for the most part. At least get the terminology right. Second, the creation of such a group is not illegal.

Meh. Semantics. "Department of Propaganda" if you want. Happy? :rolleyes:
(I chose the word 'Ministry' specifically to imply that this practice is un-American.)

For years, the US Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Justice, the EPA, and recently, Homeland Security have run advertisements to sell their programs. In fact, many ads created by the "Ad Council" are government funded. If this is a "subversion" of the law, then it's been going on for decades and implicates more than just President Bush. But then again, why let something like the truth get in the way of your bush-bashing...

OK, maybe my use of the words "starts setting up" in the thread title were misleading; apparently this has been going on for some time now.

Lawmakers express discontent over Bush propaganda about NCLB, charge "covert propaganda" (http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2005107954.html)

OK, so the issue is whether or not the sources (agencies) disseminating propaganda are disclosed or concealed. (http://www.house.gov/dingell/documents/pdfs/GAO_HHS.pdf) Scroll down to page 8 or so and start reading.

When this has been done in the past, the agencies producing the propaganda have always disclosed that they are in fact behind it. However, the same cannot always be said for the Bush administration, as the GAO report points out. Not that I would defend the practice, disclosure or not.

But if citizens know that, say, a report on critical gaps in the nation's healthcare system came from HHS, they might take it with a grain of salt. The biggest charge to be made is that the government is disseminating propaganda through "neutral" news channels to avoid citizen skepticism.
Upitatanium
07-03-2005, 04:21
Yeah, I read about that in the New York Times (generously provided by my university :D ) a few days ago. Sadly, I am unwilling to register on their website and provide them with everything they need to know to sell me up the river to identity thieves, so I cannot link to the online version of their article.

Perhaps someone with a NYT online registration can do a search and link to that article?

*resists urge to puke on computer after being reminded of this*

http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink.html

NEW YORK TIMES LINK GENERATOR! ACCESS THE NYT ARCHIVES WITHOUT REGISTERING!

Your welcome. :)
Potaria
07-03-2005, 04:22
Erm, isn't that illegal?
Evil Woody Thoughts
07-03-2005, 04:35
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink.html

NEW YORK TIMES LINK GENERATOR! ACCESS THE NYT ARCHIVES WITHOUT REGISTERING!

Your welcome. :)

Sadly, it doesn't let you do a keyword search for articles, which is what I needed. Someone else linked to that earlier, so I've already tried it.
Evil Woody Thoughts
07-03-2005, 04:37
Erm, isn't that illegal?

I thought so. Apparently allowed under certain narrowly defined circumstances as per the GAO report I linked to a couple of replies above this one, but the Bush administration even managed to exceed the limitations on it. I don't particulary care if it's legal or not; it's still unethical as hell, though not surprising. :rolleyes:
Interhard
07-03-2005, 04:38
Would someone please defend this action, taken by the Bush administration? There has to be someone on this board who thinks that spending taxpayer dollars on government propaganda is a good thing.

There HAS to be someone who thinks this is good; why else would you all silently condone this action? Why do you not respond? I've seen people advocate the violent slaughter of innocents, the maiming and tourture of human beings on this board. Why now be silent?

Or is it possible that you just wanted to be tough when talking about the death and destruction, and really you understand that corruption is an EVIL that threatens to bring down the US? Perhaps you actually know that actions like these will destory our great nation, and that measures like this weaken all of us in the end?

Anyone?

Calm down, Meryl Streep. People are not at you beck and call.

How exactly is this different from the government funding and pushing nutritional education in schools? Oh, its not being force fed to impressionable children.

They are both programs that the administration backed and ecided to push, using tax payer dollars.

Many people don't agree with it, but the same can be said about "four basic food groups" back in the 1940s or whenever that was introduced.
Bitchkitten
07-03-2005, 04:44
Bush+Cheney+Rove= Axis of Evil
Rice+Norton+Gonzales+Scalia+Axis of Evil= Satan's Minions :gundge:
Teh Demented Squirrels
07-03-2005, 05:24
Bush+Cheney+Rove= Axis of Evil
Rice+Norton+Gonzales+Scalia+Axis of Evil= Satan's Minions :gundge:

*throws acorns at the Axis of Evil and Satan's Minions* :D
Stroudiztan
07-03-2005, 05:32
minitru? I take it it's next door to minipax, miniluv and miniplenty?
This is doubleplusgood!
Call me when we get to miniskirt.
Gauthier
07-03-2005, 06:01
No he isn't, Judge Dredd is.

:D :D :D