Fair enough. Ignore the last part of my post... but my point about propaganda still stands.
I don't disagree with your use of propoganda, but as I said it depends on how people use it.
SOME people use Propoganda as something that means literally that its being put out and sponsored by said group. If someone said "Rush Limbaugh is spreading propoganda about the GOP's purposes" then yeah...I'd agree, Rush Limbaugh generally spreads information, ideas, and rumors in hopes of helping Republicans. If someone said "Rush Limbaugh is a propogandist of the GOP" I'd generally disagree, because that tends to mean they're implying he's somehow paid or in cohorts with the GOP in some kind of official way.
Its much the same thing with Fox. Fox likely broadcasts propoganda, perhaps more than some other news sources. I wouldn't say that's a flawed argument. However people who claim Fox is the "propoganda arm of the GOP" would be making an asinine accusation and point in that case.
Which was my whole point with your use of Propoganda. Some use the literal definition, others mean it as a more direct relationship between those speaking it and those it benefits.
Considering Beck, Hannity, Rush and the likes are neither liberals nor even close to CENTER, I find it very hard to believe that they could possibly understand liberals or Democrats let alone their "true intentions".
So being someone that claims to be a moderate, you could never understand someone that is not moderate nor their intentions?
I think this is a rather naive way to think, to believe that one must BE something to have a grasp of understanding about it.
For example I am against Social Security and Medicare but I realize they do have a purpose in our current system. I don't like how people are taking my tax money and giving it to old people... but I am willing to pay my share to benefit the society I live in. I don't expect that I will need these programs when I retire, however I realize that not everyone is as lucky as I am; some people need these programs in order to survive and not put an unsustainable burden on their kids when they can't take care of themselves anymore.
This is not a moderate, this is not a centrist, this is a Democrat who isn't so staunch in his ideology that he can't question WHY things are done but ultimately agrees with them being done.
Nothing in there is conservative, nothing in there is centrist and having "right and left" leaning views. You think there should be Social Security, you think there should be Medicare, you think people should be taxed to give that money to someone else, and think that the government should dictate your "fair share" that you can give up to help others.
Just because you don't mindlessly go along with your ideology and the end result doesn't make you centrist or a "moderate"...perhaps a moderate liberal on the scale of liberalism but not a strict "moderate" as its so often used.
If you think Abortion is murder and its a bad thing...but you are fine with government funding abortion and making it legal for a variety of justifications you're not "centrist". If you think in general we should have a small military and not be world police, but terrorists are really dangerous and we have to act before they get us so you support the pre-emptive attacks on other countries who harbor terrorist, that isn't "moderate" just because you give it some thought to the contrary before hand.
