Lion's Daily Blurb - Wed., Thurs., Oct. 15-16

[Lion]

I must address an important issue before continuing on with this blurb. Someone commented this week that Lion (that's me) has no balls. The last time I checked I did have a set of them, else I would have to call myself a Lioness. No further explanation is needed. Anyhoot, a heads up that the last of the three Presidential debates are on TV Wednesday night. McCain and Obama will be going at it again, and hopefully this one won't put me to sleep like the last one did. I don't particularly favor any of them, but I am leaning towards McCain, despite the fact he is shown to be losing nationwide in the polls. I'm looking at picking the lesser of the two evils. I'm somewhat concerned about Obama's lack of experience. There's no doubt he has a certain flair for words when it comes to speech making, and trumps McCain in that department. But talk is cheap, and he's promising an awful lot to the American people. You either believe what he says or ya don't. I don't believe everything McCain says, but for me, Obama is even less believable. After the debate is over I'll comment on my thoughts. Ya'll can do the same if ya want. I know I've been kinda heavy with the politics lately, but it only happens every four years, so please bare with me till this thing is over and a new President of America is elected.

[GoMilton]

Finally, this has been something that has been on my mind for a long time. Thank you for finally clarifying.

I must address an important issue before continuing on with this blurb. Someone commented this week that Lion (that's me) has no balls. The last time I checked I did have a set of them, else I would have to call myself a Lioness.

[Statalyzer]

I knew that once the debates started, no matter what happened, Obama would start getting ahead in the polls. He's younger than McCain, he looks younger than he actually is, and he's a smoother talker, the kind of guy who's personality would make him a good salesman or customer service manager.

And younger, charming guys always are perceived to win televised debates, going back to the very first one ever, Kennedy vs Nixon.

[Korona]

:D

It's too bad that the election system makes it such a two horse race. I think proportional representation would really help restore people's faith in the system. I've never heard a compelling reason why it would be a bad thing.

[nilloC]

And younger, charming guys always are perceived to win televised debates, going back to the very first one ever, Kennedy vs Nixon.

True. Wanna compare further, which of those two guys (Kennedy or Nixon) would you rather have in office? The young'in or the elder? :p

Granted, they were both bastards.

EDIT: I'll also throw in I do not really have faith or trust either of them. TBH, I'm a big romanticist; thus I'll always find myself (even unintentionally) siding with the epic idealist. So as much as I truly do not like either candidate, I find myself siding with Obama's idealistic propositions.

It is important to mention that due to my idealistic nature I also feel a strong attraction to Josef Stalin, for several reasons. Surely not for what his ideals produced (ie, mass death) but more for what he wanted them to stand for.

[eLDiablo]

True. Wanna compare further, which of those two guys (Kennedy or Nixon) would you rather have in office? The young'in or the elder? :p

Granted, they were both bastards.

EDIT: I'll also throw in I do not really have faith or trust either of them. TBH, I'm a big romanticist; thus I'll always find myself (even unintentionally) siding with the epic idealist. So as much as I truly do not like either candidate, I find myself siding with Obama's idealistic propositions.

It is important to mention that due to my idealistic nature I also feel a strong attraction to Josef Stalin, for several reasons. Surely not for what his ideals produced (ie, mass death) but more for what he wanted them to stand for.

GTFO commie :p

[nilloC]

GTFO commie :p

Well I mean, when I bleed it is red.

****.

[truefeel]

Ah common, Lion. Is there really no other news then the financial crisis or the elections? :p

[Korona]

Yeah you missed the bombshell - Madonna broke up with Guy Ritchie!!!

[General Al Ramsey]

Wow, I can't believe someone would actually challenge your manhood. It would be one thing if you were getting your nails (claws) done and all, then I would say turn in your mancard. Since you are still riding the fence is not a case of a lack of anything. It just goes to show you how both of these candidates do not impress you. (They sure don't impress me)

If you were to listen to Obama's policies and ideas you would quickly go running to McCain. Obama is a socialist and he makes no bones about it. To think either one of these guys will be in the White House next January is kind of scary. No wonder both of these guys are outselling all the other Holloween masks. :hyper:

[Statalyzer]

It's too bad that the election system makes it such a two horse race.

The media makes it a two-horse race. The people voting make it a two-horse race. Pretty every state has several other candidates on the ballot. The system obviously doesn't help things, but in the end it really is the will of the masses that prevails. Not always what the masses say they want, but what their actions say that they want.

I think proportional representation would really help restore people's faith in the system. I've never heard a compelling reason why it would be a bad thing.

You can't really have proportional representation for a single position. You could have it for Congress, or your state legislature, or your city council, but not for the Presidency.

[nilloC]

Obama is a socialist and he makes no bones about it.

Okay, I don't want to start an argument or anything, but what's so bad about that? I've heard a number of people say that. So?

Our government is not entirely "capitalist/free market" anyways. It's like a capitalist/socialist whore economically.

Socialism in part argues a "class struggle" is occurring, something a lot of people aren't keen on. However if one is to deny that a large portion of wealth falls onto a small percentage of Americans, well... I feel that's a blind argument. There are bastardizations and interpretations of socialism (nearly anything that ends with an "ism" that is a political ideal likely falls into this category, specifically when discussing "isms" in Russia and the East :p).

I understand that some people don't like socialism. That's cool. But it isn't the 1950's anymore. The McCarthyism-like ideals that socialism = OHMAHGODDEVIL is outdated. "Socialism" in and of itself represents a broad spectrum of ideas mostly dealing with leftist thought (and some would argue far, far, right ideas as well). Throwing out the word "socialist" to describe a person in a harmful light is... Odd. And ineffective. And at times annoying to me.

I consider myself to have extremely socialist ideals. Hell, call me a Socialist. I'm really a socialist in the vein of Eugene V. Debs, anyways. If you haven't heard of him, go google him. Tell me you can't love the guy. He's the best thing to come out of Indiana, anyways. :p

Anyways, you can call me a socialist. Hell, I'll call myself a socialist. But does that really make me any worse of a person? If it does... Then that's really unfortunate.

EDIT: I did not mean this in the defense of Obama. So don't go there. I made this post in the defense of the word "socialism" and people tossing it around like it is a ball of AIDS.

[Korona]

When you are talking about the US federal government specifically, Socialism is scary. But in principal it's a fine thing.

[nilloC]

When you are talking about the US federal government specifically, Socialism is scary. But in principal it's a fine thing.

Agreed, but right now you can't say the Federal Government is 100% free market. In fact you could probably make the argument it hasn't really been free market for... A long time.

Someone can argue "Duh nilloC, the US government has never rode the "free market" boat completely, just like the US government isn't a true representative Democracy". But in doing that, you're justifying that the Fed does run on socialist ideals to a certain point... Thus, why is socialism so "scary" to some right now?

I need to get off my mini-soapbox. :p

[Derek]

Someone can argue "Duh nilloC, the US government has never rode the "free market" boat completely, just like the US government isn't a true representative Democracy". But in doing that, you're justifying that the Fed does run on socialist ideals to a certain point... Thus, why is socialism so "scary" to some right now?
You took the words right out of my mouth, and to answer the last question, because we don't need anymore socialism. An entirely free market is not ideal, thats generally agreed upon. But the government should have a bare minimum of influence. Now someone will probably want to reference the recent economic collapse, I'll point out that that was hardly the result of a "free market", the government did and continues to exert significant controls on the lending market via the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (note that the those aren't people's names, they're acronyms and the 'F' comes from "Federal"). The government essentially controls interest rates on loans via the interest rate charged by the Federal Reserve, and it used Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage banks to make risky loans by buying the high risk loans from them. So to say that the collapse was caused by a lack of regulation is incredibly short sighted. Additionally, Social Security is already a ticking time bomb, why are we trying to increase our spending on social programs, and just digging ourselves deeper? So limited government involvement is ok, but thats not excuse for socialism.

[Statalyzer]

Eugene V. Debs

Who won? :p

However if one is to deny that a large portion of wealth falls onto a small percentage of Americans, well...

The problem is that "Large" and "small" are vague terms, the utility of wealth is not anything close to linear, and just because one can look at statistics and divide into classes say nothing about whether people do or don't divide themselves into those classes or about whether they do or do not consider themselves in a struggle. A lot of people are in a struggle to "keep up with the Joneses" - but is that really a class struggle? Maybe, maybe not. And if it is, does that mean government should take away from the Joneses to help people keep up with them?

So, just as you have argue that just calling something socialist doesn't mean it's bad (which makes a lot more sense than liberals who try and argue that his ideas aren't socialist even when they are, thus unintentionally implicitly granting that socialism is bad), I'll argue that pointing out wealth differences doesn't automatically mean we need to redistribute wealth.

[General Al Ramsey]

You know what is wrong with "socialism" is that it makes people lazy. It was tried when the first settlers moved here. Every person in the camp was to grow their own food and then put it in a community warehouse (so to speak) where it was divided evenly between the people. This caused such a stir because some people who were able to work did not work as hard as some others but achieved the same reward. This penalizes the person who works hard. It is wrong for a government to tax or "steal" from one person to make the classes feel better.

Taxing the so-called "rich" only penalizes the ones who are successful. When you do this enough there is no incentive to achieve more. Hence everyone sits around and drinks Vodka, aka Russia.

[nilloC]

You took the words right out of my mouth, and to answer the last question, because we don't need anymore socialism.

And that's fine that it is your belief! If people that use Socialism as a scare-tactic word think that, then they should just say so. You know, instead of using it as a scare-tactic word. Really I'm not even aiming this rant at General Al, it's just that quite a few people I know throw the word around but don't quite understand it. They just think it sounds "Oooh scary!". Really, I don't think anyone on these boards does that. I hope? I'm not quoting the rest of your post because that's a good point, and I could "argue it" with my angle, but really... What's the use. :p

So, just as you have argue that just calling something socialist doesn't mean it's bad (which makes a lot more sense than liberals who try and argue that his ideas aren't socialist even when they are, thus unintentionally implicitly granting that socialism is bad), I'll argue that pointing out wealth differences doesn't automatically mean we need to redistribute wealth.

Ye raise a good point! The whole wealth distribution argument is a pretty large part of Socialism, but I don't think that gives others enough merit to call something or someone "socialist" to liken it to "terrorism" or some other grave act or belief.

I surely agree that quite a few of the topics on Obama's agenda can be labeled as "socialist". No biggie. It's just different strokes for different folks... If you (not saying YOU, Stat, just using it :p) don't agree with Socialism, that's fine! Just please, for my sanity, to equivocate the word into the context of something bad or "scary".

I'm not going to vote for McCain because I don't agree with his "conservative" (I know that he is somewhat moderate) ideas; not because he's a capitalist. Hence I feel that it is irrational to not like someone because they're "socialist", when really one just doesn't agree with their agenda.

Really now it's just getting down to semantics, so I apologize. Really I don't intend for this topic to be argumentative. I'm just being couth. :p

EDIT: AHHHHHH. I just read General Al's post. Currently I'm ripping my hair out. RIPPING. I can't leave a long reply because I need to leave to meet some folks up for food... But Al, if ever there were a post filled with historical generalizations and straight up inaccuracies ... PULLING MY HAIR OUT. Furthermore have you ever been to Russia? I was recently there for a month. "Socialism" is NOT the reason farmers sit around with Vodka and drink all day. It is a broken economy combined with years of Secretaries that were worthless and self-indulging. I'll say more later. HAIR COMING OUT OF HEAD.

[Gaucho8788]

Taxing the so-called "rich" only penalizes the ones who are successful. When you do this enough there is no incentive to achieve more. Hence everyone sits around and drinks Vodka, aka Russia.

Yes but just because somebody was "rich" doesn't mean they necessarily earned it. Though you are right about money redistribution causing those who actually work and earn the mass riches they have to not want to continue there work, BUT that is not at the heart and soul of socialism. Honestly there are socialism ideas that I do agree with, only thing that gets me is when people tend to focus on the ideas that they can make negative to turn peoples attention from the full truth.

EDIT: Calm down Nilloc. :p

[General Al Ramsey]

EDIT: AHHHHHH. I just read General Al's post. Currently I'm ripping my hair out. RIPPING. I can't leave a long reply because I need to leave to meet some folks up for food... But Al, if ever there were a post filled with historical generalizations and straight up inaccuracies ... PULLING MY HAIR OUT. Furthermore have you ever been to Russia? I was recently there for a month. "Socialism" is NOT the reason farmers sit around with Vodka and drink all day. It is a broken economy combined with years of Secretaries that were worthless and self-indulging. I'll say more later. HAIR COMING OUT OF HEAD.

Hey Nillo put your hair back in you will need it later! No I have never been to Russia but I would like to go, but your comments do beg the question. How did the economy get broken? Are the Russians now victims of a bad economic policy? We have Congress and the Senate who are also self indulgent and virtually worthless, yet our farmers bring produce to the market. If our farmers were dependent on a bureaucrat to get the produce to the market, it would not get there. It is not just Russia, other countries that have tried a socialist system have failed dramatically.

Put your hair back in!!!! :wave:

[nilloC]

Hey Nillo put your hair back in you will need it later! No I have never been to Russia but I would like to go, but your comments do beg the question. How did the economy get broken? Are the Russians now victims of a bad economic policy? We have Congress and the Senate who are also self indulgent and virtually worthless, yet our farmers bring produce to the market. If our farmers were dependent on a bureaucrat to get the produce to the market, it would not get there. It is not just Russia, other countries that have tried a socialist system have failed dramatically.

Put your smug :wave: away. It is not you that is making me rip my hair out, but rather your complete irrationality and misunderstanding of what you're talking about. Okay? I'm not annoyed as much as I am in disbelief.

Firstly.
You know what is wrong with "socialism" is that it makes people lazy.

Are you kidding me? Socialism is not any more responsible for making people lazy as capitalism is responsible for making people greedy. Surely you have people that take advantage of the system. But pawning socialism off as being entirely bad is reckless and just ridiculous. Do you understand what socialism actually encompasses? Just asking, because....

Taxing the so-called "rich" only penalizes the ones who are successful. When you do this enough there is no incentive to achieve more. Hence everyone sits around and drinks Vodka, aka Russia.

Where in socialist ideals is this inherent? Socialism is often correlated highly with the idea of "humanism", and I'm not even going to get into that. Your last sentence is what kills me. Your ideas of "socialism" and "Russia" are completely off. Completely. Would you like me to give you a Russian history lesson? I'd be glad to. But it'd be very lengthy. So I'll have an abbreviated go.

Saying Russia failed because of socialism is a heavily flawed statement. The only ties that socialism has with Russia is the idea of Marxism. When the Russian Revolution occurred, there were several groups vying for power. Some were like terrorist cells. Surprisingly, the Bolsheviki party arose out of this. Its leader was Lenin. Lenin constituted his own idea of what Russia should be, historically labeled "Leninism". Leninism was quite left, with one exception. His idea for the NEP, which was a highly conservative and capitalistic venture. Lenin wanted to tax the **** out of everyone, and then have the central Russian commisar host free market prices and stocks, simply to compete with the West. Well, Lenin died. And a bastard named Stalin took over. Stalin hated the NEP and abolished it. His ideals shall henceforth be called Stalinism. He basically stole from everyone except government officials; rich, poor, it made no difference. Hence the grain deprivations of the 1930's occurred, which were responsible for more death than Hitler's anti-Semitic campaign. Far from socialist. He did this to prepare for the war in the West that "everyone" (or mostly) in Europe knew was going to occur... World War II. After Stalin, there was the on-again off-again Khrushchev, who followed no real doctrine except "bury the west". It is argued that no Secretary one changed policy much since Khrushchev.

Clear on that? Russia =/= socialist nation. Shock, right? Neither does Cuba. Neither does any other left leaning country you can think of. Some Scandinavian countries may come close, but not to what you believe socialism is.

By blindly labeling things as "socialist" and expecting them to be deemed "unacceptable" is heavily flawed. Socialism is taken advantage of just as capitalism is. Did Hitler run a "socialist" country? No? Did Saddam Hussein run a socialist country? No? Oh surprise, they were more rooted in Western thought. Marxist ideas were rooted out, a threat to national security.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I feel some (or maybe many) Americans have the idea of "Socialism" ****ed up. As I said earlier, they lob it around like some horrible term. In reality, it is not. Russia did not fail because of an economy that was originally based on socialism. It failed because of the bastardization of the idea of sticking up for the farmers; it failed because of incompetent, paranoid, leaders who would rather 3,000,000 Ukrainians die than their country be taken by foreigners; it failed because of tyranny.

To label anything fails simply because of a black or white cause is bull****. And this black or white, bull**** idealization that is floating around America is lethal, and it is sickening.

If you have any further questions Al, ask them. But by god, read about socialism before you tote off acting to know what it actually is, and that it is a "dangerous" idea, or whatever you believe it is.

Edit: Sorry if I went overboard, but I'm sick of people attributing the failure of every other country other than America to socialism. It is sickening how one word can be twisted into an idea that is so ridiculously inane, especially when the derivation of the original word is so ****ing incorrect.

[Statalyzer]

A lot of Europe comes pretty close to socialism. Russia had a fair amount of socialist policies but they were run under an evil dictator who would have ruined his country no matter what system they purported to have.

Socialism really isn't incompatible with capitalism, although it is incompatible with laissez-faire capitalism. Communism is incompatible with capitalism but it goes a lot farther than socialism does.

[Thumper]

lion, you have no balls. if you had balls you would ban kraznyoktaybr

[Lion]

lion, you have no balls. if you had balls you would ban kraznyoktaybr

I like kraznyoktaybr!

Anyhoot, anyone seen the debate Wednesday night? I thought it was a dead draw, with no one coming out the clear winner. McCain did try to be on the offensive this time around, but when opportunities arose and he had Obama on the ropes, he left him go. McCain pressed Obama on issues such as his association with William Ayers, the 60's radical, and ACORN but didn't take it far enough to do any good. I will say that Obama kept his composure throughout the debate, and did look Presidential. He does have a gift of talking very eloquently. But talk alone does not qualify him to be President of the United States. I just don't trust him. Dunno why...a country hick feeling I have I guess.

Joe the Plummer was the star of the show. This Ohio plummer was mentioned 20 times by the candidates.

Anyhoot, McCain has less than three weeks to close the voter gaps. This race is not over yet, but McCain needs a small miracle come November. He's been counted out in the past and has come back, so we'll see.

[eLDiablo]

lion, you have no balls. if you had balls you would ban kraznyoktaybr
So much for you ever being accepted on this forum.

[truefeel]

Well, as the subject will not be changed...

check this out

http://www.nfsplanet.com/images/news/burnout_obama.jpg

I dunno about the link burnout paradise- obama, but this kind of election propaganda is a bit too much of the good IMHO.

This image is real, btw. No fake.

[eLDiablo]

Election propaganda?

Are you ****ing stupid? The campaign paid for advertising in a video game just as corporations have been doing for several years now. Young people play video games and young people are stupid and gullible when it comes to politics.

Its advertising, just because its advertising for a politician doesn't make it propaganda. Especially since the definition of propaganda includes the words "widely spread".

Email chain letters, are propaganda.

[truefeel]

Election propaganda?

Are you ****ing stupid? The campaign paid for advertising in a video game just as corporations have been doing for several years now. Young people play video games and young people are stupid and gullible when it comes to politics.

Its advertising, just because its advertising for a politician doesn't make it propaganda. Especially since the definition of propaganda includes the words "widely spread".

Email chain letters, are propaganda.

Why the hell this personal attack ? I might had used the wrong words (I did intended advertising, but tought propaganda would be more suited for politics), but you knew damn well what I ment. Tjeez, show some maturity man.

I also checked the definition: propaganda is influeing people to get people behind someone's back. It includes any means possible to do it. I think that my example fits perfectly in this. In the past propaganda ment the difinition you think it is, but is grown out of that.

[Statalyzer]

Why the hell this personal attack ?

Does that really need to be asked? It's L we're talking about here.

[eLDiablo]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

6 dictionary results for: propaganda
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=propaganda&ia=luna) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda#sharethis) prop·a·gan·da http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

2.the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

3.the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

4.Roman Catholic Church. a.a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions. b.a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.

5.Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.
[Origin: 1710–20; < NL, short for congregātiō dé propāgandā fidé congregation for propagating the faith; propāgandā, abl. sing. fem. gerundive of propāgāre; see propagate (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propagate)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]


Again, not all advertising is propaganda, and just because it's politics doesn't make it propaganda.

Propaganda is not a synonym for advertisement.




Complexity of language is one of the things that separates us from animals, appreciate it and don't take it for granted.
and asking you if you were stupid hardly constitutes a personal attack.

[eLDiablo]

I also checked the definition: propaganda is influeing people to get people behind someone's back. It includes any means possible to do it. I think that my example fits perfectly in this. In the past propaganda ment the difinition you think it is, but is grown out of that.

Propaganda is inlfluencing people to gain support?

Propaganda is not a verb.

[truefeel]

copy-pasted from wikipedia:
Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29) providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie) by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition) narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.Now yours might be a better source, but look:

1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
That's a very wide definition, which can be interpreted in many ways.

You are blowing this up alot :p.

Propaganda is influencing people to gain support?

Propaganda is not a verb. I know. My english as a dutch speaking person is not all too great. My bad if that confuses you.

And yes, if the article at wikipedia is right (I know wiki ain't as neutral as a dictionary, but I don't think such things can be influenced alot by personal opinions) then propaganda does influences ( or better, is used to influence ) people.

and asking you if you were stupid hardly constitutes a personal attack.lol, nah. It's me. I have a problem to interpret such things across the internet. In real life I would had noticed it how you really ment it b/c of body language. I did found it rather odd how you reacted on it; if I was in your place I wouldn't care about it, but meh you probably can't help it to be mister perfecto :p.

Dang, with all this editing you are going to mis pieces of my post. wait a few minutes between each post if you want to react on every piece (of crap maybe :p) I writted.

[eLDiablo]

copy-pasted from wikipedia:
Now yours might be a better source, but look:

That's a very wide definition, which can be interpreted in many ways.


And yes, if the article at wikipedia is right (I know wiki ain't as neutral as a dictionary, but I don't think such things can be influenced alot by personal opinions) then propaganda does influences ( or better, is used to influence ) people.

Ah, but in your own definition from wikipedia it states that propaganda typically lies by omission. Selectively producing facts in and out of context wherein it provides the most damning or beautiful views of a person or idea.

The billboard in the game does none of that. It merely says vote for change. Change, being a democrat instead of a republican. Or LiekOMGaBlackGUyNOWaiZ!1! depending on how informed a voter you are.




:p

[truefeel]

I aint gonna say "you win", you old twart :p.

Besides, many people would make that mistake. Like advertising is in meaning that different then propaganda, if you don't take it strictly.

[eLDiablo]

I aint gonna say "you win", you old twart :p.



I'm used to that by now.;)

[Thumper]

I like kraznyoktaybr!

me too. but this proves "somehow" that balls are not in pants.

So much for you ever being accepted on this forum.

yeah im real worried about being accepted. anyhow, whats up eldiablo? cant take a little fun-poking? am i really that bad?

[Korona]

""1.information, ideas, or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.""

The billboard says to go and vote, and that voting for change means voting for Obama. That is information linked to a powerful idea designed to boost Obama and boost or feed off the ObamaChange brand that has been built up over the last year. Realistically of course, McCain would introduce a lot of changes too.

truefeel is right, it is propaganda in the classic sense. The term was actually used widely until it became associated with Nazism. Now people take it to mean systematic lying and suppression of truth by government but it is a subtler and more insidious concept. Most adverts are non-political propaganda.

[eLDiablo]

""1.information, ideas, or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.""

The billboard says to go and vote, and that voting for change means voting for Obama. That is information linked to a powerful idea designed to boost Obama and boost or feed off the ObamaChange brand that has been built up over the last year.

truefeel is right, it is propaganda in the classic sense. The term was actually used widely until it became associated with Nazism. Now people take it to mean systematic lying and suppression of truth by government but it is a subtler and more insidious concept. Most adverts are propaganda.
You seem to be missing a very key word in that definition.

""1.information, ideas, or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.""

One video game.

Coca-cola commercials are better qualified as propaganda than this is. Burnout may be popular but it hardly reaches a wide section of the American voting public.

[Mpdabunny]

Did I seriously read read "socialism isn't all that bad"? ! ? *dies laughing* Give me a break, in a socialist government no one has any reason to work hard, because they'll never get ahead. Seriously, who is gonna go to college for eight years to be a doctor, when you're gonna get the same crappy life everyone else has? The way things are people work hard to get ahead, to move to those higher income brackets, then nut jobs like Obama want to steal their money and give it to a lot of undeserving people (though some might honestly need it, but a lot don't).

As for this entire election, I'm fed up. The other day I was watching TV and saw 32 freaking Obama commercials. This is to the point of utter stupidity, aside from how annoying it is, how much money is this man wasting? Maybe Mr. Socialism should take some of that money and give it to charity. Damn hypocrite. So help me god, if I see his face one more time...

Anyway, if Obama wins, and drives all the wealthy successful business owners that provide jobs out of the U.S., and all that's left is a bunch of people unwilling to work for their own money, then you'll see socialism for the giant "crap sandwich" it is. :nuts:

As for the ads in video games... it's funny when a liberal sees America's Army the video game, and they call it indoctrination, but that big Obama billboard in a video game is just a legit "ad".

[Gaucho8788]

You are an ignorant pile of **** aren't you? Do you even know the true definition of "Socialism"? Or are you just throwing it around, in the same sense that nilloC was saying people often do? Here's the actual dictionary definition for ya: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole".

Socialism, in the truest sense, is equality on the basis of the whole community, instead of just the individual person. Only thing is is that because of human tendency's that can quickly turn into Communism, which was more closely associated to Russian policies than pure Socialism, and Totalitarianism. Read up on something before you start preaching about it.

[nilloC]

I must spread rep around before I give it to Gaucho again.

Gaucho, you basically summed up what my response would've been, only in a much more humane manner. Thank you. :p

[truefeel]

You seem to be missing a very key word in that definition.

""1.information, ideas, or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.""

One video game.

Coca-cola commercials are better qualified as propaganda than this is. Burnout may be popular but it hardly reaches a wide section of the American voting public.

Well, not that I'm against you, but I'm sure that same billboard is in other games (in nfs games it's confirmed to be). So it's not one video game, but alot more, not to mention that billboard would also be in real life.

Not that this propaganda-avertising definition crap interests me that much...

[eLDiablo]

Well, not that I'm against you, but I'm sure that same billboard is in other games (in nfs games it's confirmed to be). So it's not one video game, but alot more, not to mention that billboard would also be in real life.

Has it been confirmed in other games already? I'd only heard burnout.

Frankly the battle of semantics could go on forever, it was korona who'd decided to continue it. If you take political advertising as a whole then yes its propaganda, but one small piece in and of itself couldn't be defined as propaganda as, again wide distribution is a key component of the idea of propaganda. Though the gaming demographics are growing, they still hardly constitute a wide distribution of the American voting public. Though the idea may reach nonAmericans and minors, they don't matter in the American electoral process.

[truefeel]

go to this site (http://www.nfsplanet.com/en/) and look at the post NFS PS: Obama In-Game Advertising:

But this campain is not limited to Burnout Paradise - Obama is also advertising in Need for Speed ProStreet, Madden 09, Nascar 09 und NHL 09. Quite innovative, considering that election campaigns are mostly conservative.
Yes, I know they call it advertising in that post, though that's 4 more games. I think you would get with 5 (popular) games a rather large audience (but still only fairly small to the total of voters, I agree). It could be even more then 5 games.

but one small piece in and of itself couldn't be defined as propaganda as, again wide distribution is a key component of the idea of propaganda. Though the gaming demographics are growing, they still hardly constitute a wide distribution of the American voting public. Though the idea may reach nonAmericans and minors, they don't matter in the American electoral process.

Ok, I can agree on that. I'm rather saying now that the line between advertising and propaganda is very thin in the discussion we have. I also think you will find the image on the billboard not only in videogames, but also in real life.

[eLDiablo]

go to this site (http://www.nfsplanet.com/en/) and look at the post NFS PS: Obama In-Game Advertising:

Yes, I know they call it advertising in that post, though that's 4 more games. I think you would get with 5 (popular) games a rather large audience. It could be even more then 5 games.

Well, there you go. Now it's a much larger demographic and could be propaganda; I still wonder how many 18+ will see it... more so or even be paying enough attention while gaming to catch it.

It'll all be moot in a less than a month though.

[truefeel]

Yeh, well... who notices the billboards while driving in real life.

[Mpdabunny]

Wow, maybe you should look it up again and read all the listed definitions. LOL

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Hmm that applies to currency too. So when the government controls the money one man earns and forcibly chooses an amount of said money to "distribute" it to another, it is. doh :squint: Hate to break it to you but a large majority of Mr. Obama's "tax cuts" are welfare payments under the term "tax cuts" they aren't even paying taxes, the government is paying them. Redistributing wealth is socialism. It's not the extreme example of Socialism, but that would be more communism, than socialism. Must be nice to blindly ignore the definitions you don't see fit when you wanna attack someone. :wtf:

I wont stoop to your level and throw around names, because this stupid argument isn't worth it. K thanks :D