Do the NEOCONS own the talk radio propaganda market?

Question

I swear these NEOCON "truth" warriors can't say 3 words without bashing the Democrats. Bush has failed more than any President in American history and they waste their whole show bash, bash, bash, Democrats. The propaganda is the worst I've ever seen. Too bad so many people don't understand the meaning of the word. I think webster has PROPAGANDA: SEE FOX NEWS.

Answer 1

It does seem as though there are more conservative propagandists than liberals.

Either way, it's all whining, lies, and half-truths. The goal of both sides is to "divide and conquer". It's a pretty well established military tactic and is very successful. In the last few decades, the pundits on both sides have gotten a lot of people to believe that there are only two ideologies, and that people who believe in the wrong ideology are at least ignorant, at most traitors.

The common element is hatred. Taking advantage of this emotion where it exists, creating it where it does not, and fueling it are the best ways to divide people and get at least half of them on your side.

Of course, you also have to make your opponents appear to be the ones who are hate-filled. Once that transference is accomplished, your own loyalists won't even notice that they're directing that very emotion at their opponents. Just look around the internet at the glut of "political commentaries" which are really just expressions of anger and intolerance from both sides.

It's working like a charm.

But it leaves a very important, unanswered question. Sometimes the "divide and conquer" strategy is used by one side or the other to gain power. Sometimes, though, it's used by an external power to weaken a country by dividing it. Once the country is weakened in this matter, the external party can begin to assert itself in some way - politically, militarily, economically, or some combination thereof.

If the latter possiblity is happening here, the unanswered question is: who or what is that third power?

Sometimes "thinking outside the box" this way can be a little frightening. In this case it lends ominous meaning to the likes of what our political leaders and pundits from both sides are really doing.

If what the pundits say is done only to solidify power bases, rather than deliver meaning to their messages, what happens next? There has to be an ulterior motive. No one who advocates imprisoning all drug addicts, while he himself is a drug addict and walks free with the help of a judge of the opposite idealogy, is really pursuing the agenda he says he is. He's up to something else. So are the ones on the opposite side of that imaginary fence.

What's also very disturbing is that both sides have to motivate Christians of one type or another to be intolerant, sometimes even hateful, towards someone. It's working.

Even on Christians, it's working. How many Christians have been convinced that believers of a different politcal ideology are damned by God? How many of them express that belief in angry Internet postings?

The pundits even have these Christians believing that they can do what only Jesus can do: decide who is and who is not going to Hell.

PS: I noticed that one responder played the traitor card by accusing you of trying to restrict his access to information broadcast by the pundits of his ideology.

You never actually did this. All you did was complain about the apparent prevalence of conservative pundits.

He even invoked the First Amendment, which protects your right to complain in this manner, as though you were violating it somehow.

You never did this, either.

Then, he told you to move to Cuba. The traitor card, face up. And all you did was express an opposition to his ideology.

There it is, in action again. Divide and conquer, using hatred as the fuel. A false accusation, followed by a suggestion that you'd prefer living in a Communist government.

Amazing how blind hatred can make someone to his/her own intolerant, hateful behaviour.

Another responder even said something about "Getting" Al Francken. So much for that First Amendment, and trying to restrict access to the info expressed by the wrong ideology.

Their pundits have these people doing exactly what they complain about. Ever hear the expression "Lovely nose ring you're wearing these days?"

Answer 2

You must be new to the news-information-propaganda era. As I recall the CNN (the Clinton News Network) put a lot of pro dem spin on the issues. And do the neo-cons own the airwaves? Not entirely (but we're working on getting Al Franken).

Answer 3

I see Fox news putting both democrats and republicans, conservatives and Liberals on their shows giving both views, both sides. Try watching the show idiot. I am an independent that usually votes conservative. I voted for three Democrats in the last state election, and three republicans. I have alot of respect for Alan Colmes and have his book (the liberal on Hannity and Colmes) even tho I disagree with him alot. O'reilly has liberals on his show almost every day telling their side. I see as much bashing by liberals as conservatives. Does strike me that Liberals complain about it more. Free speech remember it is for both sides!

Answer 4

Why can't you liberals just change the channel to CBS instead of trying to restrict what info and opinions I have access to?

Here it is again. Read it!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Don't like it? Move to Cuba.

Answer 5

cheese head you got yours sponsored by Sornos so quit crying
Telling the truth is not bashing dumbicrats.Before getting on a soap box in national politics go clean up your terrorist in the University
your home site is for perverts.you need to get help

Answer 6

your right how do you think the packer are going to do this year A.J. an Ohio state guy