ADVERTISEMENT

The Power Of Propaganda

Ponca Dan

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2003
20,508
19,232
113
It seems the FBI has its own Ministry of Propaganda which is used to stifle one of our constitutionally protected rights, free speech. And it has worked marvelously over the years, so marvelously that our leftist friends will defend it to the end. @davidallen, for example, says those of us that are concerned about the existence of this governmental agency that betrays our rights just look “silly” to him.

Governments engage in propaganda because they know it works. They just point to an “enemy of the state” and weak-willed citizens line up like sheep to be “protected.”

But the propaganda doesn’t stop with the FBI’s anti-constitutional actions against speech. The propaganda of our “security apparatus” has developed over decades through administrations of both parties, and has convinced most Americans that we must be continuously involved in one war after another lest a foreign power take away the liberty our own government has already dissolved to a great deal. And we fall for it every time.

We are no longer a free society. We’ve become a society of terrified sheep that beg our governmental betters to take care of us.


 
  • Like
Reactions: LAY THE WOODY
You would think everyone would be concerned about even the slightest possibility the government was involved in the censoring of speech yet those on the left instead of being concerned are either defending it or ignoring it.
 
Here are some questions I have about all of this that perhaps @Ponca Dan or @2012Bearcat could take a moment away from their right-wing media consumption and answer.

(1) Who was President in 2020?

(2) Why did representatives from the FBI, the DHS, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence meet with social media representatives over concerns of foreign threats to influence our election prior to the 2020 election? Were these threats legitimate? And if they were, should not our government have taken them very seriously?

(3) Why did the DOJ and FBI under President Trump raise concerns about a foreign actor releasing misinformation about Hunter Biden?

(4) Why has Musk only allowed two journalists (of his own choosing) access to the Twitter files?

(5) Why did Musk not share these files with other media outlets when they requested access?

(6) Do we even know if Musk has shared all the files or just the ones he wants his two journalists to see?

(7) Why is Musk banning journalists from Twitter if all of this is about free speech?

(8) Can Musk and/or Twitter ban whoever they want? Can Twitter, and other social media outlets, regulate the content on their platforms?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Marocain Poke
Here are some questions I have about all of this that perhaps @Ponca Dan or @2012Bearcat could take a moment away from their right-wing media consumption and answer.

(1) Who was President in 2020?

(2) Why did representatives from the FBI, the DHS, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence meet with social media representatives over concerns of foreign threats to influence our election prior to the 2020 election? Were these threats legitimate? And if they were, should not our government have taken them very seriously?

(3) Why did the DOJ and FBI under President Trump raise concerns about a foreign actor releasing misinformation about Hunter Biden?

(4) Why has Musk only allowed two journalists (of his own choosing) access to the Twitter files?

(5) Why did Musk not share these files with other media outlets when they requested access?

(6) Do we even know if Musk has shared all the files or just the ones he wants his two journalists to see?

(7) Why is Musk banning journalists from Twitter if all of this is about free speech?

(8) Can Musk and/or Twitter ban whoever they want? Can Twitter, and other social media outlets, regulate the content on their platforms?

You first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAY THE WOODY
Here are some questions I have about all of this that perhaps @Ponca Dan or @2012Bearcat could take a moment away from their right-wing media consumption and answer.

(1) Who was President in 2020?

(2) Why did representatives from the FBI, the DHS, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence meet with social media representatives over concerns of foreign threats to influence our election prior to the 2020 election? Were these threats legitimate? And if they were, should not our government have taken them very seriously?

(3) Why did the DOJ and FBI under President Trump raise concerns about a foreign actor releasing misinformation about Hunter Biden?

(4) Why has Musk only allowed two journalists (of his own choosing) access to the Twitter files?

(5) Why did Musk not share these files with other media outlets when they requested access?

(6) Do we even know if Musk has shared all the files or just the ones he wants his two journalists to see?

(7) Why is Musk banning journalists from Twitter if all of this is about free speech?

(8) Can Musk and/or Twitter ban whoever they want? Can Twitter, and other social media outlets, regulate the content on their platforms?
You really don't know the answers to these questions? SMFH
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAY THE WOODY
I’d just like to know if you’re coming from a place of logic or ideologoy.
I just asked some questions. Why don't you provide some answers and let's see if you are coming from a place of logic or ideology?
 
Why run away from your own questions?
I'm not. I'm waiting on someone to answer them instead of all this deflection I'm getting.

Is it really that hard for you to simply answer them? How many more deflection posts are we going to get from you? So far you are at 6 posts.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Marocain Poke
I'm not. I'm waiting on someone to answer them instead of all this deflection I'm getting.

Is it really that hard for you to simply answer them? How many more deflection posts are we going to get from you? So far you are at 6 posts.

Just post the article you read and I’ll use that
 
Here are some questions I have about all of this that perhaps @Ponca Dan or @2012Bearcat could take a moment away from their right-wing media consumption and answer.

(1) Who was President in 2020?

(2) Why did representatives from the FBI, the DHS, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence meet with social media representatives over concerns of foreign threats to influence our election prior to the 2020 election? Were these threats legitimate? And if they were, should not our government have taken them very seriously?

(3) Why did the DOJ and FBI under President Trump raise concerns about a foreign actor releasing misinformation about Hunter Biden?

(4) Why has Musk only allowed two journalists (of his own choosing) access to the Twitter files?

(5) Why did Musk not share these files with other media outlets when they requested access?

(6) Do we even know if Musk has shared all the files or just the ones he wants his two journalists to see?

(7) Why is Musk banning journalists from Twitter if all of this is about free speech?

(8) Can Musk and/or Twitter ban whoever they want? Can Twitter, and other social media outlets, regulate the content on their platforms?
Your questions are a nuanced attempt at deflection from the point being made. Before I readdress the point being made by the OP let me remind you it was specifically maintained the security state's (and the FBI's) propaganda crosses both parties and their administrations. This is not a diatribe aainst one party or the other (no matter how hard you try to make it be), this is a diatribe against the undiluted incursion by agenicies of the state curbing our rights they are supposed to protect.

In response to your "questions" I would say I don't care if the private enterprises known as Twitter censored participants - as long as they were doing so as a private enterprise. When the FBI involves itself and begins demanding Twitter follow its "guidelines" it becomes an attack on our rights. And the exposure by the two reporters shows that in bright lights. It is appalling to me (but not surprising) that you defend authoritarianism as long is your side gets to be the authoritarian. The day will come when we no longer have any protected rights - you included - and you will look around and wonder what happened. What happened is you and people like you not only agreed with the slow infringement but cheered it on.
 
Last edited:
Just post the article you read and I’ll use that
I've read numerous articles on this topic, including the right-wing articles routinely posted on this board (including the one that started this thread).

With that said, you are now up to 7 posts. You shooting for 10? Let me know when you are done with your deflection game.
 
I've read numerous articles on this topic, including the right-wing articles routinely posted on this board (including the one that started this thread).

With that said, you are now up to 7 posts. You shooting for 10? Let me know when you are done with your deflection game.

It’s not productive to debate an ideologue.

Prove you aren’t or don’t, no skin off my nose.
 
Before I readdress the point being made by the OP let me remind you it was specifically maintained the security state's (and the FBI's) propaganda crosses both parties and their administrations. This is not a diatribe aainst one party or the other (no matter how hard you try to make it be), this is a diatribe against the undiluted incursion by agenicies of the state curbing our rights they are supposed to protect.
Ok.

Do you believe we as Americans and foreign actors have an unrestricted right to use social media however we or they see fit?

In response to your "questions" I would say I don't care if the private enterprises known as Twitter censored participants - as long as they were doing so as a private enterprise. When the FBI involves itself and begins demanding Twitter follow its "guidelines" it becomes an attack on our rights.
So you want no government intrusion as it relates to social media? The government can set absolutely no guidelines as to content on social media platforms?

It is appaling to me (but not surprising) that you defend authoritarianism as long is your side gets to be the authoritarian. The day will come when we no longer have any protected rights - you included - and you will look around and wonder what happened. What happened is you and people like you not only agreed with the slow infringement but cheered it on.
Dan, I'm simply asking questions in an attempt to understand your position more clearly.

And remember, you stated earlier in your post this isn't about sides. You stated this isn't a diatribe against one party or the other.
 
Ok.

Do you believe we as Americans and foreign actors have an unrestricted right to use social media however we or they see fit?


So you want no government intrusion as it relates to social media? The government can set absolutely no guidelines as to content on social media platforms?


Dan, I'm simply asking questions in an attempt to understand your position more clearly.

And remember, you stated earlier in your post this isn't about sides. You stated this isn't a diatribe against one party or the other.

Answer so we can compare your (and I’m using (your) as loosely as possible) view now compared to the previous six years.
 
Ok.

Do you believe we as Americans and foreign actors have an unrestricted right to use social media however we or they see fit?


So you want no government intrusion as it relates to social media? The government can set absolutely no guidelines as to content on social media platforms?


Dan, I'm simply asking questions in an attempt to understand your position more clearly.

And remember, you stated earlier in your post this isn't about sides. You stated this isn't a diatribe against one party or the other.
1) I believe we have an unrestricted right to use social medai however the owner of the particular social medium sees fit.

2) I want no government intrusion as it relates to social media. Intrusion for "legitimate" purposes always turns into intrusion for any reason the government says. I say leave it to the owners of the social media platforms to determine what they will allow.

3) Nonsense. You're doing everything in your power to make this about Donald Trump.
 
Last edited:
1) I believe we have an unrestricted right to use social medai however the owner of the particular social medium sees fit.

2) I want no government intrusion as it relates to social media. Intrusion for "legitimate" purposes always turns into intrusion for any reason the government says. I say leave it to the owners of the social media platforms to determine what they will allow.

3) Nonsense. You're doing everything in your power to make this about Donald Trump.
Thank you for your answers Dan. In response,

(1) I agree, which means we don't have an unrestricted right to use of social media. And neither does foreign actors.

(2) I disagree with your position on this. I believe there are areas involving social media where the government should play a role. Especially as it relates to national security. However, I also understand and agree with those who warn against excessive regulation and control. I believe we need a healthy balance and I also believe we are in the process of determining what that balance should be as a nation.

(3) No I'm not. Like you, I recognize this is an issue that involved the Trump administration as much as it now does the Biden administration. I agree with you that this issue isn't about one party over the other. However, numerous right-wingers on this board are trying their hardest to make this all about Biden while ignoring (or explaining away) what occurred under Trump. I will disagree with that hypocrisy, as should you, since you agree this isn't about one party over the other.
 
Thank you for your answers Dan. In response,

(1) I agree, which means we don't have an unrestricted right to use of social media. And neither does foreign actors.

(2) I disagree with your position on this. I believe there are areas involving social media where the government should play a role. Especially as it relates to national security. However, I also understand and agree with those who warn against excessive regulation and control. I believe we need a healthy balance and I also believe we are in the process of determining what that balance should be as a nation.

(3) No I'm not. Like you, I recognize this is an issue that involved the Trump administration as much as it now does the Biden administration. I agree with you that this issue isn't about one party over the other. However, numerous right-wingers on this board are trying their hardest to make this all about Biden while ignoring (or explaining away) what occurred under Trump. I will disagree with that hypocrisy, as should you, since you agree this isn't about one party over the other.
Your questions came as the second reply to the OP. The reply before yours made no mention of the Biden administration. You are the one that initiated partisanship into this discussion. This is not a partisan issue, it is something that should infuriate every American with a soul. The fact is most of the censorship - virtually all of it - was aimed at Republican, conservative, right-wing, voices as well as the *very few* traditional left wing intellectuals who were appalled by what they were seeing. The fact is the censorship was coordinated with agencies of the government who were violating their purpose for existence. The fact is those of you on the left, the ones being given free rein to espouse your opinions without fear of "official" rejection, were thrilled to see what was happening, and now are angry that Elon Musk appears to be levelling the playing field. There may be hypocisy from those you continually call right-wingers (as if it is an insult), but regarding this topic their hypocrisy pales in comparison to yours. What puzzles me the most is not knowing whether your are so blinded by your partisanship that you ignorantly don't see your hypocrisy, or you see it but in your partisan zeal you don't care, as long as your team wins you'll be as hypocritical as you need to be, even if it brings about the destruction of what's left of our liberty.
 
Your questions came as the second reply to the OP. The reply before yours made no mention of the Biden administration. You are the one that initiated partisanship into this discussion.
Really? Did you completely miss the second post on this thread, the one right after yours?
yet those on the left instead of being concerned are either defending it or ignoring it.
Partisanship.

This is not a partisan issue
Again, I agree.

There may be hypocisy from those you continually call right-wingers (as if it is an insult), but regarding this topic their hypocrisy pales in comparison to yours.
There is no "may" about it. It exists. You know it exists.

How am I being hypocritical on this issue? Have you seen me attack the Trump administration for what they were doing while defending the Biden administration on this issue? Have you seen me claim this is all about the Trump administration and not the Biden administration?

Nope, in fact, I've agreed with you that this issue crosses party lines. I do disagree with your position regarding government's role as it relates to social media and your overreaction as to what is occurring here. But I've clearly stated that position and I haven't argued against my own position. Even my position on content suggestion, which we haven't got into, applies to both sides.

So again, how am I being hypocritical on this issue?
 
Last edited:
Really? Did you completely miss the second post on this thread, the one right after yours?

Partisanship.


Again, I agree.


There is no "may" about it. It exists. You know it exists.

How am I being hypocritical on this issue? Have you seen me attack the Trump administration for what they were doing while defending the Biden administration on this issue? Have you seen me claim this is all about the Trump administration and not the Biden administration?

Nope, in fact, I've agreed with you that this issue crosses party lines. I do disagree with your position regarding government's role as it relates to social media and your overreaction as to what is occurring here. But I've clearly stated that position and I haven't argued against my own position. Even my position on content suggestion, which we haven't got into, applies to both sides.

So again, how am I being hypocritical on this issue?
The first reply, the one right after my post, indicted "those on the left," not the Biden administration. You followed with your typical "Trump did it, too, Trump was worse" mantra.

As for your hypocrisy on this matter there is no point in talking about it with you. Either you are ignorantly incapable of seeing it, or you see it, but follow Alinsky's rule to never back down, double down instead. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2012Bearcat
The first reply, the one right after my post, indicted "those on the left," not the Biden administration. You followed with your typical "Trump did it, too, Trump was worse" mantra.
"Those on the left" is a partisan statement. You claimed I initiated partisanship into this discussion, when I did not. That was done on the second post on this thread.

And I did not follow with "Trump did it, too, Trump was worse." I simply asked some questions. It is interesting though that is how you answered those questions in your head!🤣

As for your hypocrisy on this matter there is no point in talking about it with you. .
Don't go running away now. Back up your assertion for once. Or we could just apply the standard you love to apply, and conclude that you can't back up your assertion since you are now trying to retire from the conversation.

Again, how am I being hypocritical on this issue?
 
"Those on the left" is a partisan statement. You claimed I initiated partisanship into this discussion, when I did not. That was done on the second post on this thread.

And I did not follow with "Trump did it, too, Trump was worse." I simply asked some questions. It is interesting though that is how you answered those questions in your head!🤣


Don't go running away now. Back up your assertion for once. Or we could just apply the standard you love to apply, and conclude that you can't back up your assertion since you are now trying to retire from the conversation.

Again, how am I being hypocritical on this issue?
Partisan indicates party affiliation, party loyalty. There are people on the left - I post their links all the time - who do not identify with the Democrat Party. You do. You made it a partisan issue. What is interesting is you asked questions specifically designed to introduce political parties into the equation. The OP made no such claim, and neither did the first reply. You're the one that did that. And the fact you are arguing so hard to "disprove" what we all see is pure evidence of your hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2012Bearcat
Partisan indicates party affiliation, party loyalty.
No, partisan doesn't just indicate this. It also indicates a cause, person, or ideology. Inserting "leftists" into the conversation was inserting partisanship. Come on Dan, you can do better than this. Or maybe you can't.

Still waiting on you to explain how I'm being hypocritical on this issue. Can you not find anything over at newsbusters to help you?🤣🤣
 
No, partisan doesn't just indicate this. It also indicates a cause, person, or ideology. Inserting "leftists" into the conversation was inserting partisanship. Come on Dan, you can do better than this. Or maybe you can't.

Still waiting on you to explain how I'm being hypocritical on this issue. Can you not find anything over at newsbusters to help you?🤣🤣
Nice twist. Go from defense to offense. You're a raving hypocrite on this issue, you know it, I know it, anyone reading this thread can see it. But you wouldn't be you if you didn't stand your ground no matter how foolish you look. You're hypocritical on this issue because like most leftists you sat silently or cheered the censorship of those whose politics disagree with yours. And took greak glee in belittling those who complained as conspiracy nutjobs, or else you smugly looked them in the eye and challenged them to do something about it. Well, Musk did something about it, and the left reacted with hysteria. When the hysteria doesn't work you claim you've always been opposed to the censorship. You're a hypocrite, full stop.
 
The Goldbergs Running In Place GIF by ABC Network
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Medic007
You're hypocritical on this issue because like most leftists you sat silently or cheered the censorship of those whose politics disagree with yours. And took greak glee in belittling those who complained as conspiracy nutjobs, or else you smugly looked them in the eye and challenged them to do something about it. Well, Musk did something about it, and the left reacted with hysteria. When the hysteria doesn't work you claim you've always been opposed to the censorship. You're a hypocrite, full stop.
Talk about a convoluted attempt to back up your assertion lol! I've not done most of what you claim I've done in this nonsensical mess. Or at least I don't think I have. I'm still trying to make some sense out of this gibberish.🤣🤣

I'd ask you to translate this, but I know you won't. Maybe just start here. Show me on this thread where I'm being hypocritical. Is that possible for you to do?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Marocain Poke
You would think everyone would be concerned about even the slightest possibility the government was involved in the censoring of speech yet those on the left instead of being concerned are either defending it or ignoring it.
You would think. 👍
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT