It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Voters: How You Were Suckered

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Here's a good article about how Rove's despicable re-election machine suckered all you Bush voters. It's pathetic.

For the record: Being a Christian and lifelong Republican, I voted for Bush in 2000, realized what a mistake that had been, and have been trying to the best of my ability to reveal the truth about him ever since. The spiritual stagnation and blindness in this country, not to mention the complete lack of independent thought is truly mind-boggling.




Bush: The Secret History of a Reelection
By Vincent Jauvert
Le Nouvel Observateur

Week of 20 January 2005

Traps, marketing, and dirty tricks... Today one of his team's strategists confesses: "In July 2004, we thought we were done for." And yet, in spite of the Iraqi disaster, in spite of abysmal deficits and social breakdown, Bush turned the situation around. And beat Kerry by 3.5 million votes. Vincent Jauvert describes the underbelly of a campaign as incredibly sophisticated as it was devoid of any scruples.
That Wednesday, August 4, 2004, John Kerry believed he was protected from any low blow. He had just been nominated by the Democratic convention and all the polls gave him the advantage. He could breathe for a few days. Relax his attention. The opposing side would not attack before September - not in full midsummer. So he thought.

But Bush's men are extremely skillful killers. They chose to strike August 4 precisely because no one expected it. And to strike where it would do the most harm. The surprise attack was a series of advertisements, financed underhandedly by a rich Texas real estate developer, a close friend of "W." There one saw suppositious Kerry comrades-in-arms from Vietnam. They are full of hatred. They utter cries of rage. They assert that the Senator from Massachusetts didn't deserve the prestigious decorations he received in 1971, that he is not the war hero America had respected for thirty years, but a liar and a coward. To hear them, Kerry had not saved his comrades as he claimed. He had, on the contrary, abandoned and betrayed them.

All that is nothing but a barefaced lie, a put-up, a pitch. So gross that Kerry didn't react right away. He hemmed and hawed. He waited for the maneuver to turn against its instigators. But his silence instilled a doubt among hesitant voters. The manipulators hit their mark. Their prey was wounded: mortally: in a few days, Kerry's odds fell. They never returned to their August 4 level. And Bush will remain at the head of America for four more years - to the despair of millions of Democrats and the rest of the planet.
www.truthout.org...




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
It gets better. Not only do these turkeys have to methodically manipulate the sheeple into supporting them, but they also feel the need to PAY writers to spread their gospel. Our media, as well as the vast majority of government representatives, are so bought off.



Bush Admin Paid Columnnists
To Back Govt Policies
By Alan Freeman
The Globe and Mail
1-27-5

WASHINGTON -- U.S. President George W. Bush vowed yesterday that his administration will stop paying newspaper columnists and pundits to back its policies after the second right-wing commentator in a month acknowledged receiving a contract from a government agency to help promote one of its policies.

"All our cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda," Mr. Bush told reporters. "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its two feet."

The President spoke a day after Maggie Gallagher, a conservative columnist and president of her own marriage institute, divulged that she had been paid $21,500 (U.S.) by the Health and Human Services Administration to promote Mr. Bush's $300-million marriage initiative.
www.rense.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
There should be some FCC regulations against that. Or maybe some Democrats in congress should launch a counter-attack.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Democrats to act boldly.
Most of them are compromised and can't or won't say a thing.

It's just pathetic. I guess these writers have never heard of ethical standards. Or maybe they're just money sluts. Either way, this just goes to show how worthless the mainstream is.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
So the Republican party (conservatives) believe in their message and philosophy so much that they feel the need to pay mainstream journalists to promote their views.. How feeble is that?! And to think I used to admire Armstrong Williams, for example. I wouldn't ask him to give me advice on a good restaurant these days.
Ethics mean nothing to today's GOP and their media sycophants. How pathetic.





Love for Sale
By Maureen Dowd
The New York Times

Thursday 27 January 2005

I'm herewith resigning as a member of the liberal media elite.

I'm joining up with the conservative media elite. They get paid better.

First comes news that Armstrong Williams got $240,000 from the Education Department to plug the No Child Left Behind Act.

The families of soldiers killed in Iraq get a paltry $12,000. But good publicity? Priceless.

Mr. Williams helped out the first President Bush and Clarence Thomas during the Anita Hill scandal. Mr. Williams, who served as Mr. Thomas's personal assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when the future Supreme Court justice was gutting policies that would help blacks, gleefully attacked Professor Hill, saying, "Sister has emotional problems," and telling The Wall Street Journal "there is a thin line between her sanity and insanity."
www.truthout.org...




'Cash for Commentary' is Business as Usual
by Sheldon Rampton

Conservative commentators Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus have been outed recently for taking money under the table to endorse Bush administration programs. These cases are only the tip of a much bigger iceberg, as you can tell from looking at the images I'm attaching here. I wrote about it three years ago in a story that described the work of conservative direct marketer Bruce Eberle, whose Omega List Company specializes in raising money using mail and e-mail.

On a section of the website that has subsequently been removed, Omega List was quite straightforward about the fact that it pays conservative commentators to endorse clients and their causes. A series of web pages featured conservative radio show host Blanquita Cullum explaining exactly how the system works and how other radio hosts could get in on the gravy. "You do what you do best!" she said. "Get on the air and talk to your listeners! Drive them to your website by conducting a daily survey or a contest on the topic of your choosing." Eberle's "polling wizard" software, installed on the site, would then capture the names of respondents so that they could be hit up for money. "What happens next is a cakewalk," Cullum continued. "Omega will call you with an opportunity to send an endorsement e-mail to your list . . . and receive a royalty for lending your name to a cause, organization or product you believe in. . . . Omega gives you their specialized software absolutely FREE and presents you with an opportunity to earn an extra $25,000 or more annually.
www.commondreams.org...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
And there's more.. seems Rummy and the boyz are on a roll w/their discontinued DISINFO program..





All the News That's Fit to Buy

Both sites carry news stories compiled from The Associated Press, Reuters and other news organizations. The Pentagon's role in these websites was first reported by CNN on Thursday.

The Balkans website also has articles and commentary by about 50 journalists who Kaufman said are paid by European Command through a private contractor, Anteon, an information technology company based in Fairfax, Virginia.

The websites are examples of what the military calls "information operations," or programs designed to influence public opinion by countering what the Pentagon considers to be misinformation or lies that circulate in the international news media. The Pentagon's use of the websites has raised questions about blurring the lines between legitimate news and what some would call government propaganda.
www.wired.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Here's another article on this from CNN:



Pentagon sites: Journalism or propaganda?
From Barbara Starr and Larry Shaughnessy
CNN

Saturday, February 5, 2005 Posted: 0804 GMT (1604 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Department of Defense plans to add more sites on the Internet to provide information to a global audience -- but critics question whether the Pentagon is violating President Bush's pledge not to pay journalists to promote his policies.

The Defense Department runs two Web sites overseas, one aimed at people in the Balkan region in Europe, the other for the Maghreb area of North Africa.

It is preparing another site, even as the Pentagon inspector general investigates whether the sites are appropriate.
edition.cnn.com...


We're now living inside the covers of Orwell's "1984." Pass the kool-aid.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
"The LIBERAL MEDIA IS EVIL!!!!" Oh wait, the media is owned by the Republicans, and the channels not owned by the republican party like how Fox News is owend by them, they just pay people to go on other news programs and spew forth Bush Propaganda.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
No good message has to be paid for. Only disseminated. Here's another good one on this subject.



The Propaganda President
George W. Bush does his best Kim Jong-il.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Thursday, Feb. 3, 2005, at 5:58 PM PT

If "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il of North Korea and George W. Bush ever meet, I suspect the two will bond like long-lost brothers. Both men are first-born sons of powerful fathers who partied like adolescents well into their adult lives, after which they submitted to their dynastic fates as heads of state.

Both avoid critical thought, preferring to surround themselves with yes men and apply propagandistic slogans to the onrushing complexities of justice, culture, economics, and foreign policy. Bush churns out buzz phrases with the best of them: He believes in "compassionate conservatism" and fancies himself part of the "army of compassion." He's the "reformer with results" who embraces the "culture of life." He shouts his paeans to "liberty" and "freedom" (a combined 27 times during last night's State of the Union speech, according to today's Washington Post) while reducing civil liberties at home.
slate.msn.com...


I find it interesting that none of Bush's ATS apologists have popped up here. It's like I've been saying: You cannot defend the indefensible.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
This is great ECK, I mean, this is like my gun grabbers post, everyone agrees because the opposition has no defense, they have no arguement that makes sense other then "Go to hell." The same people who want their president to declare war on every country that isn't our bitch have no spine.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
EastCoastKid dares,


I find it interesting that none of Bush's ATS apologists have popped up here.
Thats because most of us are neither naive enough or unaware that BOTH sides use writers to create the tons of materials that expouse their agendas. This is America, do you really think people work for FREE?
If you have text you need to use to get your message out, you hire a writer..BIG WHOOP!?! If you need a spokesperson to head up an idea, you hire a PR firm...OOOhhh gee this never happened before Bush got to office!!!

Im glad that for whatever reason you woke up from your haze after 2000, but for most of us this idea isnt new or shocking, heck its barely revealing unless your pre pubessent or just now starting to pay attention.

We also dont just blindly believe everything we read on the net, especially considering the BIAS evident in the sources used to prop up a thread like this....
rense.com, commondreams.org, truthout.org....geese
could you find some non-hippy beatnick sources for support?
Credibillity comes from using a BALANCE of info source material, not one sided and known slanted ones.

As a member of the mainstream media, you people really have no clue when you claim its liberal or conservative...obviously there are all kinds of slants and ownership issues...
BUT
ITS ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$$$.
You dont think that a conservative media group wouldnt run a liberal website or program if they could make $$$$ off of it? Dont fool yourself!!

They really dont care what garbage they feed the couch potato masses as long as it PAYS them to do so.


I see its still any thinly concocked excuse to "GET BUSH" with around here.
I wonder who's paying you for your obvious slant?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
What precisely ECK is wrong with propaganda?
Have you ever seen the "rivet rosie" posters from the 40's ?
That was propaganda intended to make US women feel good about doing thier husbands jobs while they were at war. Was that a bad thing?
What about "loose lips sink ships"?
Isnt that also propaganda?
The simple fact is that when it comes to propaganda no other world government have a problem putting it out to unify thier populace, it is considered to be ne3cessary in order to achieve anything, its what Sun Tzu refeered to as the vrtue of the "moral law" which causes a people to be in complete accord with the monarch.
Propaganda in and of itself is not inherently bad, and when being used to unify the nations populace behind a leader who has the most abitious plans for his presidency of any leader in my lifetime, I think its a good thing.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
EastCoastKid dares,


I find it interesting that none of Bush's ATS apologists have popped up here.
Thats because most of us are neither naive enough or unaware that BOTH sides use writers to create the tons of materials that expouse their agendas.


Would you please give us some examples?


Im glad that for whatever reason you woke up from your haze after 2000, but for most of us this idea isnt new or shocking, heck its barely revealing unless your pre pubessent or just now starting to pay attention.


You sure are angry. Why is that? Because folks are seeing just how UNETHICAL this behavior is in the media? So, just for the record.. you're proud of that, correct?

This is one reason why the mainstream media's credibility is in the toilet.

Btw, people get paid as journalists for media outlets. What we're talking about here is beyond that. Just so ya know.



We also dont just blindly believe everything we read on the net, especially considering the BIAS evident in the sources used to prop up a thread like this....
rense.com, commondreams.org, truthout.org....geese
could you find some non-hippy beatnick sources for support?


This pitiful defense is beyond old.
You're not even aware of that. You might want to start coming up with your own ideas.

Anyone with a brain who's ever visited those sites can see clearly they are COMPENDIUM sites. Do you know what that word means? Or should I give you the definition? Nevermind.. you can figure it out, if you're so inclined. You might want to, tho. You would then understand those sites are merely a collection of news gathered from around the country and world.. Oh yeah - I forgot! That's something BushCo. frowns upon... that means, it's not CONTROLLED.


As a member of the mainstream media, you people really have no clue


Newsflash! Do you actually believe you're the only one around here in mainstream news?

The media is not liberal. It's corporate. And that's worse.

As for not having a clue.. I write for a large news organisation, but do not have a journalism degree. No offense to my friends and co-workers, but all I can say is thank God. (My major was Political Science.) In that school they actually teach folks to think for themselves, to question everything, instead of being trained in groupthink and newsspeak. The institutionalization and regimentation of thought reminds me of training in the Army. So many J-school grads and interns exhibit an exceptional ability to look away from actual news than to examine it. Investigative reporting is near-dead. Sure they'll investigate issues that do not threaten corporate interests.. but when it comes to actually going after true corruption.. like the ridiculous 9-11 fiction and those who perpatrated it, they look away.

So, if that's what you're so proud of, then good for you!
Your ability to conform and turn tricks for the biggies will serve you well in the mainstream.

And you say it best..

ITS ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$$$.


How sad. And to think I got out of the Army b/c I was drawn to political journalism/analysis. I actually thought of it as just as important.. you know, exposing corruption. What was I thinking?!




I wonder who's paying you for your obvious slant?


My slant comes from my desire to expose truth, my experiences and years of watching politics and studying history.

No one pays me anything to promote my views here at ATS.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It has been a long philosophical debate whether even the truth needs rhetoric for people to accept it. Let's cover a few things:

The use of rhetoric devices and or people does not necessarily imply what is being put across is bad of false. Nor does it mean the group who originally put forth the idea is weak, or evil. The sad truth about any countries that run anything close to a democracy is that no matter what your idea is perfectly bad, or perfectly good, you must convince the people of it.

The media in America is a business. If it is good business to put a slant on the news, or appeal to a certain portions of the population, chances are policy will be set towards that way. In my opinion, if you are a seeker of truth, then working within the media is not necessarily the best place to go; the truth is not the primary objective of the business (although, it can certainly be secondary). For example, in order to have a lot of listeners (potential money), then you may need to have some truth. Just a side note: How many small town shops claim to have the world's best pie?


If republicans seem to be more successful at convincing the population about their motives (good or bad) than democrats, then the democrats are going to have a lot of trouble becoming a majority again. When speaking to many democrats, I have noticed that they compliment Bush on his campaign, and noted that Kerry's was lacking.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Exactly radardog the myth that the truth alone is enough to exite or unite the populace is exactly that, a myth.
As we say in my business
"son your momma probly told ya that if you can build a better mouse trap the world will beat a path to your door right? Well momma was wrong cause even if you manage to build a better mouse trap you're still gonna have to sell it door to door"



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Exactly radardog the myth that the truth alone is enough to exite or unite the populace is exactly that, a myth.


You're not big on truth, are you?


The folks would be very interested in the truth, if they were allowed to get near it. As it is, tho, the presstitutes, tv "news" monkeys and their wealthy benefactors do their best to stand in the way of it.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid



You're not big on truth, are you?


The folks would be very interested in the truth, if they were allowed to get near it. As it is, tho, the presstitutes, tv "news" monkeys and their wealthy benefactors do their best to stand in the way of it.


Actually ECK I am very big on truth, I just know that unless the truth is packaged, marketed, and sold right nobody listens to it.
We as a nation are so used to beng sold lies on a daily basis, ie "this product will make you thinner, this car will get you laid, this TV will make you more popular," by advertising and marketing that we dont pay attention to anything unless its being sold agressivly, doesn't matter if ts a new laundry detergent or the truth. If they aint selling it we dont want it cause after all nothing of value is free right?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Guess what MWM, we citizens do not need marketing monkeys to tell us what we need. If my clothes get dirty, I need laundry soap. If I'm hungry I need food. If I run out of beer, I know what kind I drink.

When I sit down to watch a favorite tv show, I ENDURE the ads b/c its the free market and I know what I'm getting into. But I DESPISE most commercials, nontheless. Especially the ones they play OVER AND OVER AND OVER in one hour. They add absolutely zero value to my life.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Really ECK?
How many ad Jingles can you remember off the top of tour head?
Lets try a little quz shall we?
finish these statements
wheres the ________?
I've fallen and I cant get ________?
Kills _____________? percent of germs
The one that coats is _______________?

Now ask yourself why do you remember these?
In a world where Brttney spears is hocking pepsi, Coca cola has a marketing budget bigger than the GDP of some european nations, and newspaper readership is in declne, the simple fact is that the average person doesn't even listen unless you got a hook.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
the simple fact is that the average person doesn't even listen unless you got a hook.


Who gives a f**k? I have better things to do than remember/hum stupid corporate jingles.
It's much more interesting to turn the tv off and listen to new CD's to review for publication. I make money. Stupid corporations lose money. I lovit.


Turn the tv off, people! Say NO to corporate brainwashing!





top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join