Left Wing Propaganda in the past 8 years - please list the examples

There was a thread earlier today stating that FAUX News was losing viewers and that American's seemed to be tiring of propaganda being fed to them on a daily basis. Several responders to that thread said that they were tired not only of right wing propaganda but also left wing propaganda and I'd like to know what Left Wing propaganda that they're referring to. Is it "global warming" "gay marriage" what? Let's hear about all this "Left Wing Propaganda" that has been spewed forth onto the American public.

:popcorn:

protect workers and the environment, renewable energy, tax breaks for people who really need them.

Ya know, the usual Commie agenda that most Americans strongly favor.

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: " use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

You may think of the individuals as liberals or progressives --- though they seem NOT to be ---

but what they are saying is R-W ---

I don't consider any of them to be "left wing". You can speculate why they said what they did but you'll never prove it. To me, the left wing of the political spectrum are people like Kucinich and McKinney who are willing to put it on the line for what they believe is right.

Should I put out a troll alert?

Say what you will about any of the others, and say what you will about this quote from Durbin which I'm sure was taken completely out of context, but don't try to lump Durbin in with Pelosi and the other spineless Dems. Dick Durbin is one of the good ones. He actually took it upon himself to read the NIE and to vote against the war based on his conclusions from it. Bear in mind also that this was 2002, when there was absolutely no "practical"/political advantage to doing so. He stuck his neck out to do what was right at a time when FAR too many did otherwise, and for that he deserves all the credit in the world.

the stuff from the kooks, like, that bush is a liar, and... bush isn't very smart, and... there were no WMDs....

FEAR FEAR FEAR......

Poor people don't really have all the money.

Bwahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahaha

how did that work out ?

Anytime an anchor man says what the temperature is or the score of a sporting event, that is an example of reality and therefore "left wing propaganda".

If I feel in my gut that it is 75 degrees, damnit, no weatherman is going to tell me it's 120.

Because our "facts" and their "propaganda" are the same. Vice versa.

Duke

I'm not sure if I'm getting a clear picture.

Any facts we present are considered "propaganda" by the Right.

Simple, really.

Duke

I would be willing to accept an argument from anyone, regardless of ideology, if it could be supported by evidence or made some logical sense.

but I'm intellectually honest enough to (a) know we have been wrong on some things, and (b) we are not the shining, everlasting beacon of truth. The other guy can occasionally be correct, too. It's just that recent history isn't on the Right's side.

Duke

I agree.

It's tough, though, being in this position and trying not to get a swelled head about it.

I think what you say in this post is true but It's just that recent history isn't on the Right's side. is something of an understatement.

The Right, in fact the Bush-centered Republic Party, has embraced a wholesale agenda of criminality, lying, and hypocrisy that is so bad, before 2000 one would have had to go to the old Soviet Union or a Third World country to find the like.

They have unbalanced our system so much that it is not so much Left and Right as it is Right and Wrong.

Once the Bushies crossed over into that zone of willful deceit and organized lying, we do ourselves a disservice to give them any benefit of any doubt, which they just perceive as Liberal Weakness and take advantage of it.

So yes, it tough not get get a swelled head. They were wrong about everything, we were right about everything, at least on Iraq and several other things.

But your point is well taken, and this third post elabrates and sums up what you were trying to say nicely. Other than disagreeing with you just a bit about the severity of the problem we face, I wholly agree otherwise.

n/t

and block the dissemination of contrary ideas.. When a party/group OUT of power try to publish/disseminate information, it's not technically propaganda, since they do not have to power ..

No definitions I've seen require, or ever refer to in power/out power as a prerequisite for being a propagandist.

Duke

Certainly, the people in power have more control of what information gets distributed; but once it does get distributed, it is powerful, and therefore could be regarded as propaganda, whether it comes from a powerful group or not.

expect real value in return, healthcare/education/rational security.

Money is not a real value; it's an abstract and arbitrary value, so it is not an adequate return on my investment of my personal capital, i.e. my body/mind/labor.

Your job is not a real value either, because no matter how well you do your job, your job can be taken away from you, so it also is not a fair economic return on my investment of body/mind/labor.

RW propagandists are trying to tell us that expecting real value in return for real value is LW Socialism and that speaking about our rights to healthcare/education/rational security is LW propaganda.

It is the source, in many ways, of Colbert's true remark, "Reality has a liberal bias."

If you aren't troll, Sergey, and I have no idea wheteher you are or not so please accpet my pologies if you are not, you should head on down to the Environment/Energy Forum. Just listen for awhile at first, but more importantly, scan and peruse the massive amount of data that is floating around down there.

Is it still possible that Global Warming will not be as severe as projected? Possible, scientifically, but growing less likely by the year as almost fully across-the-board, climate changes are coming much faster than expected.

But don't take my word for it. Scan E/E for a couple of weeks and look at the hard data yourself.

'Protectionism will improve our economic situation and provide long term stability'. A lot of people on the left like protectionism and hate globalization. I think it's a terrible and self-defeating policy. I'm also depressed by the economic nationalism that goes with it; it's depressing to hear the 'International Brotherhood of ' going on about protecting American workers at the expense of those overseas - surely they should be trying to either organize in those countries, or coordinating with their fellow unions in developed countries to reduce trade barriers on labor in order to produce a more level playing field.

In general, I believe that government regulation of business is a good thing because unbridled capitalism is like alcoholism or some other destructive pattern which focuses on very short term reward and discounts long term health and stability. On the other hand I can't agree with the idea that all business is somehow evil, or that markets are inherently bad, or that we would be better off nationalizing everything, or that charging people a fat fee for buying non-domestically produced goods and services will improve the economy all round. It's tempting to adopt such attitudes after almost 8 years of conservative mismanagement (or 14 if you include the republican Congress of the 90s). But I feel that many populist economic ideas championed by the left are equally destructive of value.

There's a lot of re-regulation I'd like to see under a Democratic administration, and indeed I think it's essential for our long-term economic viability...but I would not like to undermine our competitiveness or enterprise culture by over-doing things. I still think markets are the best tool for price discovery and matching supply to demand.

"or coordinating with their fellow unions in developed countries to reduce trade barriers on labor in order to produce a more level playing field."

The best thing we can do for other countries is make sure the US doesn't go beating them over the head with a hammer. Trade agreements hurt the workers over there way worse than here. I'd like it if folks were less nationalist in their rhetoric, but opposing "free trade" agreements is good for all workers, even if the motives are shaky.

Unions don't have the money to send people jet setting all over the world and putting them up in hotels. Strikes cost money: you have to provide thousands of people with catastrophic insurance and strike benefits of $200 a week. Not to mention lobbying. You also have to have basics on the picket lines, etc. You've got people in NYC working for locals making $21K--which is unlivable in itself.

I have my complaints about union leadership, but what you're suggesting is ridiculous. Unions aren't for-profit businesses.

I think you're confusing my suggestion that unions put effort into organizing abroad with the idea of them exporting a union bureaucracy. Letters, phone calls and emails are afforable to anyone. I was just pointing out that the irony of a union referring to itself as an international brotherhood (which many do) while simultaneously espousing economic nationalism.

I do not agree with your suggestion that free trade agreements universally hurt workers, but that's probably outside the scope of this thread.

There is absolutely no meaningful international labor organizating that can be done by letters, phone calls, and emails. Unions are about BODIES on a picket line and bodies that either do or don't show up for work. They're about showing up, not shooting the shit.

People in unions are risking their jobs, their health, and their safety to organize. In the so-called developing countries, you're risking your life. Some email of support or petition will not do jack shit. Almost all large corporations and even most large non-profits are brutal. Period. Coca Cola and Shell have killed labor activists.

It's not like corporations are standing around ignoring labor and labor is just standing around doing nothing (you know, like us lazy workin' people always do...) They spend billions to union bust. Some of the most frighting firms in this country are union busting firms. And that's not even the astroturfing campaigns like "the center for union facts."

If you've never been on strike, then you have no idea of what corporations do to striking workers. I do, and that's why my old union's case is being reviewed by the UN for human rights violations by my employer: which is a non-profit educational facility of all things.

Sure some folks do better with free trade. You get your 10 billionaires. Your 10,000 who move into the upper middle class. Your 500,000 who move into the middle class. And then there's the 28 million people who go from poor but surviving in the tight knit communities they've lived in for 500 years--to being homeless in a city 5 hours away because a multinational decided to buy three entire villages up.

A billion people live on less than a dollar a day.

But whatever.... emails and letters and phonecalls or something.

None of what you wrote is addressing my point about protectionism or my disagreement with some or the arguments made for it. I don't know whether you genuinely misunderstood the point I was trying make or you're just trying to swamp by introducing a mass of unrelated information and accusing me of ignorance about it. It is possible for people to have views different from yours without being ignorant, whether you like it or not; nor, in case you were wondering, do I have some big economic stake in the status quo.

Phrases such as "It's not like <...> labor is just standing around doing nothing (you know, like us lazy workin' people always do...)" amount to putting words in my mouth - I made no suggestion that working people are lazy or anything like it. Personally, I feel the use of such rhetorical devices is propagandistic itself, and I am not the sort of person who believes 'the end justifies the means'.

protectionism and then I called you out on your more laughable and arrogant solutions.

I directly commented on your own suggestions to what the labor movement should do. The MOVEMENT of a conversation is not a straw man argument. I specifically addressed your ideas on how labor should make an effort to go global instead of focusing solely on its the United States. When I noted that labor doesn't have the money to jet set around the world. You said labor can organize by email and phone calls. I told you that only someone thoroughly ignorant of union/capital relations would make such a comment.


Your initial argument was a straw man argument: You set up unions to be nationalist, short-sighted, organizations who--instead of being smart and organizing with workers overseas so that labor can flow across borders like capital does--they cling to a narrow protectionism.

I dismantled your argument:

1. making sure wages are strong here and that exploitative trade agreements are not signed protects workers both here and abroad.

2. unions don't have enough cash flow from members to create a co-ordinated, global attack on predatory multinationalism. Their member roles are being cut by almost a decade of right-wing rule. (Not that unions were doing so hot under the DLC either...)

You set up a straw man that's easy to knock down instead of addressing the real issues: "ignorant blue collar American nationalists have failed to see the global picture and cling to facile protectionism." When I tell you that the situation is more complex than you have made it out to be--you attack me for creating a straw man!!!

Not ONCE have you even provided an example of why your ideas are worth listening to: no evidence, no analysis, nothing. All your "argument" relies on is an air of superiority and reasonable-sounding rhetoric.

I'm done with you now. I have better things to do than waste my time.

I called your argument a straw man because you were 'dismantling' assertions I never made, but which you incorrectly imputed to me.

"You set up a straw man that's easy to knock down instead of addressing the real issues: "ignorant blue collar American nationalists have failed to see the global picture and cling to facile protectionism." When I tell you that the situation is more complex than you have made it out to be--you attack me for creating a straw man!!!"

I never said anything about ignorance of blue collar workers. I said that I thought protectionism was a terrible, self-defeating policy and said that I disliked the nationalism that often accompanies it. I did not set unions up as short-sighted, nationalist organizations, but I objected to short-sighted nationalist rhetoric when it's employed by unions. You're projecting a lot of stuff onto my statements and attributing it to me, and I think anyone who reads the rest of the thread can see that for themselves.

"Not ONCE have you even provided an example of why your ideas are worth listening to: no evidence, no analysis, nothing. All your "argument" relies on is an air of superiority and reasonable-sounding rhetoric."

Maybe if you hadn't started the conversation by attacking me and twisting my words you'd have got more out of it.

I think you and I are generally on the same page on this issue.

I see a lot of ignorance spouted, and while SOME DUers state these sentiments as you expressed them, they are not representative of this international movement that has a lot of support among people in all nations affected by such policies.

It's depressing to me that after expressing disagreement with a particular idea, several of the replies lead off with ad hominem attacks.

Or cheated on your spouse. Or didn't serve in the military. Those are ad hominem attacks.

You're being attacked for your ideas. That's fair game. You're right--it is incorrect to try to divine why you have the ideas you do. You may not simply be ignorant-- you could be motivated by greed, for example.

If you come to a Democratic site spouting "the market will correct itself" nonsense, expect criticism. And singling out labor as the source of its own problems, expect your ideas to be attacked.

Being polite and logical argumentation are two different things.

I said I don't care for a particular economic idea expressed in a certain way, and was told I didn't know anything about the anti-globalization movement. As it happens, I don't think there is anything nonsensical about the idea that the market will correct itself. I do not view 'the market' and 'capitalism' as interchangeable.

Nor did I single out labor as the source of its own problems, as you assert. Actually, my feeling was that labor is sometimes hoodwinked into going along with mercantilist policies which subvert their own economic interest, but you seem to have drawn other conclusions already.

First things first, you made assumptions such as saying that those who oppose Globalization AS PRACTICED today, were economic isolationists and/or protectionists. This simply isn't the case, some obviously are, but a large majority of the anti-globalization movement has been lead by fair-traders, people who WANT trade, but also want things such as respect for human rights to be included within any such trade agreements.

I wrote that I objected to protectionism, and I then suggested that many people who hate globalization espoused this (protectionist) view. If I had meant that everyone who objects to globalization was a protectionist I would have said that. The two statements are absolutely not equivalent. I am into the idea of fair trade myself, which is why I spent the whole second paragraph arguing against unregulated capitalism.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this. Please go back and look at what I actually wrote in the first place.

You know, silly shit like that.

I think Dan Quayle got a raw deal on the way he was portrayed in 1992, when he was only following a script with a typo on it. It was, to be honest, unfair, and it persists to this day.

But that was over ten years ago. And it probably had little to do with Poppy Bush's failure to win a second term.

Can't really think of any specific "left wing propaganda" riffs that've found their way into the Corporate Media, that are just flat-out baseless.

Sure it's nice.

If you're Iceland and there's enough thermal energy for millions of people, and there are oh, say, 100,000 of you.

not necessarily left wing, though many on the left swallowed the bullshit on that, and inadvertently spread the propaganda. You have to remember, hydrogen is big business friendly, requires lots of energy to make, so will be rare by default, and requires a large infrastructure, and is an energy carrier, rather than producer. This means that we would rely on the same companies for our transportation needs that we do now.

But if a driver has an accident and someone is killed, how do we react?

What if the driver was Laura Bush?
What if the driver was Ted Kennedy?

The views here are probably mirror images of those in FreeperLand.