Propaganda in movies and media

[2020hindsight]

I found this definition of propaganda ....
And I just wonder if people can recall (even read current examples of ) classic propaganda events / news relases etc.

I guess the Nazis would have been amongst the first to perfect this stuff. Since then it has been copied by the Communists - and of course our own politicians (imo).

But this definition of propaganda was given during questioning of Ayn Rand at the House of Representatives' Committee on Un-American Activities (commonly known as the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC1) on October 20, 1947 - a few years before McCarthy, but similar.

Next post I'll add some cross-examination. I'm not saying she's entirely wrong . But she sure as hell comes to the subject with her own prejudices.

I mean, I wonder if Ayn would give the Russians credit that they lost 23,000,000 people during WWII - compared to USA's 420,000. (i.e. 55 Russians died for each US death).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

And that a lot of Americans were almost certainly not aware of that fact then (or now for that matter)

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html

Stripling: Did you at the request of Mr. Smith, the investigator for this committee, view the picture Song of Russia?

Rand: Yes.

...Stripling: In Hollywood?

Rand: Yes.

Stripling: Would you give the committee a break-down of your summary of the picture relating to either propaganda or an untruthful account or distorted account of conditions in Russia?

Rand: Yes.

First of all I would like to define what we mean by propaganda. We have all been talking about it, but nobody --

Stripling: Could you talk into the microphone?

Rand: Can you hear me now? Nobody has stated just what they mean by propaganda. Now, I use the term to mean that Communist propaganda is anything which gives a good impression of communism as a way of life. Anything that sells people the idea that life in Russia is good and that people are free and happy would be Communist propaganda. Am I not correct? I mean, would that be a fair statement to make -- that that would be Communist propaganda?

Now, here is what the picture Song of Russia contains. It starts with an American conductor, played by Robert Taylor,14 giving a concert in America for Russian war relief. He starts playing the American national anthem and the national anthem dissolves into a Russian mob, with the sickle and hammer on a red flag very prominent above their heads. I am sorry, but that made me sick. That is something which I do not see how native Americans permit, and I am only a naturalized American. That was a terrible touch of propaganda.

so the USA wouldn't do something like that?

As a writer, I can tell you just exactly what it suggests to the people. It suggests literally and technically that it is quite all right for the American national anthem to dissolve into the Soviet. The term here is more than just technical. It really was symbolically intended, and it worked out that way. The anthem continues, played by a Soviet band. That is the beginning of the picture.

....... The picture then goes into a scene of Moscow, supposedly. I don't know where the studio got its shots, but I have never seen anything like it in Russia. First you see Moscow buildings -- big, prosperous-looking, .....

..... The streets are clean and prosperous-looking. There are no food lines anywhere. You see shots of the marble subway -- the famous Russian subway out of which they make such propaganda capital. There is a marble statue of Stalin thrown in. There is a park where you see happy little children in white blouses running around.

...... Then they attend a luxurious dance. I don't know where they got the idea of the clothes and the settings that they used at the ball and --

Stripling: Is that a ballroom scene?

Rand: Yes; the ballroom -- where they dance. It was an exaggeration even for this country. I have never seen anybody wearing such clothes and dancing to such exotic music when I was there. Of course, it didn't say whose ballroom it is or how they get there. But there they are -- free and dancing very happily.

.... the time I saw it, which was in 1926, was the best time since the Russian revolution. At that time conditions were a little better than they have become since.

......The Russian villages are something -- so miserable and so filthy. They were even before the revolution.

btw Ayn - if things were tough before the revolution, Do you think perhaps that's why they had the revolution?

Now, here is the life in the Soviet village as presented in Song of Russia. You see the happy peasants. ....

Now, here comes the crucial point of the picture. In the midst of this concert, .... you see a scene on the border of the U.S.S.R. You have a very lovely modernistic sign saying "U.S.S.R." I would just like to remind you that that is the border where probably thousands of people have died trying to escape out of this lovely paradise. It shows the U.S.S.R. sign, and there is a border guard standing. He is listening to the concert. Then there is a scene inside kind of a guardhouse where the guards are listening to the same concert, the beautiful Tschaikowsky music, and they are playing chess.

so at least she credits them with knowing something about music - and chess I guess -

Suddenly there is a Nazi attack on them. The poor, sweet Russians were unprepared.
....
Now, then, the heroine decides that she wants to stay in Russia. Taylor would like to take her out of the country, but she says no, her place is here, she has to fight the war. Here is the line, as nearly exact as I could mark it while watching the picture:

"I have a great responsibility to my family, to my village, and to the way I have lived."

....
Now, here is what I cannot understand at all: if the excuse that has been given here is that we had to produce the picture in wartime, just how can it help the war effort? If it is to deceive the American people, if it were to present to the American people a better picture of Russia than it really is, then that sort of an attitude is nothing but the theory of the Nazi elite -- that a choice group of intellectual or other leaders will tell the people lies for their own good. That I don't think is the American way of giving people information. We do not have to deceive the people at any time, in war or peace.

"that a choice group of .. leaders will tell the people lies " - you're kidding!!
...

My whole point about the picture is this: I fully believe Mr. Mayer when he says that he did not make a Communist picture. To do him justice, I can tell you I noticed, by watching the picture, where there was an effort to cut propaganda out. I believe he tried to cut propaganda out of the picture, but the terrible thing is the carelessness with ideas, not realizing that the mere presentation of that kind of happy existence in a country of slavery and horror is terrible because it is propaganda. You are telling people that it is all right to live in a totalitarian state.
.....

Stripling: That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

 

[2020hindsight]

Suddenly there is a Nazi attack on them. The poor, sweet Russians were unprepared.

Hate to say it Ayn, but (ignoring your emotive propaganda adjectives) that's exactly what DID happen.

As I read somewhere, Barbarossa (the attack on Russia) happened June 1941
"When war came, Stalin and his colleagues were in the unusual position of being both unsurprised and unprepared... The Soviet formations were taken catastrophically by surprise. ,,,, At Kiev alone , 500,000 prisoners were taken" etc

Meanwhile here's that cross-eamination of Ayn Rand on the matter ....

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html

Stripling: That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thomas: Mr. Wood.

Rep. John S. Wood23: I gather, then, from your analysis of this picture your personal criticism of it is that it overplayed the conditions that existed in Russia at the time the picture was made; is that correct?

Rand: Did you say overplayed?

Wood: Yes.

Rand: Well, the story portrayed the people --

Wood: It portrayed the people of Russia in a better economic and social position than they occupied?

Rand: That is right.

Wood: And it would also leave the impression in the average mind that they were better able to resist the aggression of the German Army than they were in fact able to resist?

Rand: Well, that was not in the picture. So far as the Russian war was concerned, not very much was shown about it.

Wood: Well, you recall, I presume -- it is a matter of history -- going back to the middle of the First World War when Russia was also our ally against the same enemy that we were fighting at this time and they were knocked out of the war. When the remnants of their forces turned against us, it prolonged the First World War a considerable time, didn't it?24

Rand: I don't believe so.

Wood: You don't?

Rand: No.

Wood: Do you think, then, that it was to our advantage or to our disadvantage to keep Russia in this war, at the time this picture was made?

Rand: That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Wood: Well --

Rand: But if you want me to answer, I can answer, but it will take me a long time to say what I think, as to whether we should or should not have had Russia on our side in the war. I can, but how much time will you give me?

Wood: Well, do you say that it would have prolonged the war, so far as we were concerned, if they had been knocked out of it at that time?

Rand: I can't answer that yes or no, unless you give me time for a long speech on it.

Wood: Well, there is a pretty strong probability that we wouldn't have won it at all, isn't there?

Rand: I don't know, because on the other hand I think we could have used the lend-lease supplies that we sent there to much better advantage ourselves ... etc

Sheesh - like arguing with my mother in law !
(PS don;t tell her I said that

 

[2020hindsight]

Finally I should have said the movie was made in 1944.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036378/

I found this comment on that link ....

I really cannot comment on its artistic value so many years later, however, as a young person (with my Father overseas) during that point in history, it was something to see to bring closer the effects and personality of war. The one poignant thing about the movie that I still remember clearly was the playing of Tchaikovsky's very famous Piano Concerto #1 in B-Flat. It was my first real introduction to classical music. If nothing else, I am thankful for the film bringing this to me, for it and classical music have played an enormous part in my life ever since! It led me to study music and have been professionally involved in music all my working life. My thanks go to "Song Of Russia" and Tchaikovsky

At least someone found it a positive

 

[juw177]

I don't understand your thread. Are you trying to point out the times in history when propaganda was in full effect? And that it was all started by Nazi Germany?

Then I say that all our movies and media that are portraying the Third Reich as unique and the worse crime in human history (while other crimes are played down or censored) is Zionist propaganda.

There is propaganda every place and time where there is a powerful elite with a motive. The situation now is, countries not a part of the "free world" have their views controlled by their government. Countries that are part of the "free world" have their views controlled by the (exponentially more powerful) Hollywood, giant corporate media outlets and consumer advertising.

 

[2020hindsight]

juw, I just thought we could have a thread where alleged propaganda could be discussed. - hell might even make us more aware of tainted articles...

Also movies / articles which appear to tell it straight (Charlie Wilson's War) where we really should have supported the Mujahadeen when the Russians left - and probably avoided the entire Taliban / Afghanistan problem ..

- so enlightening when you see a movie that tells it straight ( eg the Russian movie "Burnt By the Sun", Academy Award for Best Foreign Movie, 1994)

- the movies where the US military so happily cooperate (because they are pro-war) (Top Gun)

- the ones where they don't (because they aren't)

- the idiosyncrasies where it is fashionable to support the Mujahadeen one day, (Rambo III), but not the next

- those movies / press articles which take on the establishment

- and those which suck up to it

and possibly make the observation that so many announcements from the powers-that-be - the White House etc - have very little in common with the truth - and/or so obviously and heavily biased, or appear intended to steer the minds of a public who would have to be pretty gullible to swallow half of it etc .

 

[juw177]

Though I have seen Burnt by the Sun I am not much of an expert on foreign stuff. Had the Soviets won the cold war, the movie would be completely different.

Also movies / articles which appear to tell it straight

Many excellent US made documentaries and indy media sites. I can think of very few from the mainstream.

Buffalo Soldiers may be of interest, though not very heavy:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252299/

Jarhead
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418763/

- the movies where the US military so happily cooperate (because they are pro-war) (Top Gun)

99% of them. There is always a hero in the military.

- those movies / press articles which take on the establishment

I find that many movies give an impression that it is "taking on the establishment" when they are actually diverting attention from the more serious issues. They tend to simplify the issues into black and white and downplay the reality in favor of the drama.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

2020 would this include Hanoi Jane, Jane Fonda , posing on a Vietnamese artillery gun during the Vietnam war?

Great propoganda at the time for a ruthless regime, which subsequently came back to bite her.

I don't have a link

gg

 

[2020hindsight]

At the time I guess she believed what she was doing
- she just happened to be ahead of her time, since these days everyone has come to better understand the Vietnam situation.

The "Domino theory" (which we all believed at the time - indoctrinated as we were) was completely false obviously.

By propaganda, I'd probably put this first youtube as "right up there" - this bloke trying to rewrite history - where others have admitted killing JFK. (see Flint, second youtube).

O'Reilly's Guest Certain Oswald Killed Kennedy Alone

Jim Garrison on the JFK assassination

 

[stockGURU]

The left and the right are equally capable of propaganda. Both sides buy into the propaganda of their own side and embrace it as the unquestionable truth.

To balance this thread a little here is some left wing propaganda exposed:

The stranded polar bears hoax:



Al Gore's Global Warming Swindle:




Bowling for Truth: A comprehensive expose of Michael Moore's lies and distortions in Bowling For Columbine: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

 

[2020hindsight]

1.The stranded polar bears hoax:

2. Al Gore's Global Warming Swindle:

3. Bowling for Truth: .. Michael Moore's lies and distortions in Bowling For Columbine: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Well sg, I'd disagree with you on the first two and probably the third (btw, I take it you agree that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone - that you agree that the CIA was involved etc).

1. gee that alleged polar bear hoax thing is all about the authenticity of a photograph !(?) - and it is therefore a hoax if you claim that the polar bear is indeed threatened.(?) - talk about crazy logic!

btw , this youtube is a bit more up to date - posted a couple of days ago. Polar Bears placed on endangered species etc - polar ice melting much faster than models predict etc.

Polar Bears On Thin Ice (CBS News)

2. GW Swindle etc. There are several threads already on this one - basically the Great Global Warming Swindle is itself a swindle.

and I could probably find a youtube of your featured Professor Ball proclaiming that smoking wasn't dangerous as well.

The latest NewScientist explains that temperature and CO2 are mutually dependent.

3. Moore: Your link mentions that his doco is "fiction" - heck that's not even original, - since the word "fiction" is used several times in Moore's acceptance speech at the Oscars for best Documentary.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." They are protected by Academy rules limiting the documentary competition to nonfiction.

Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false, etc

.

Meanwhile here is Moore accepting that Oscar...

Michael Moore Wins The Oscar For Bowling For Columbine

Moore : "We like non fiction, and we live in fictitious times
we live in the time when we have fictitious election results
that elect a fictitious President
we live in a time where we have a man sending us to war
for fictitious reasons
whether it's the fiction of ducktape
or the fiction of orange alerts
we are against this war Mr Bush
shame on you
and any time you've got the pope and 66 against you
your time is up
thanks you very much."

PS For mine Fahrenheit 9/11 should be compulsory viewing for kids.

 

[stockGURU]

2020, I'm completely uninterested in your opinion of the propaganda, I'm just pointing it out. I thought that's what this thread was about - pointing out propaganda in the media?

With that in mind I have a few comments:

1. The first video is not just about the authenticity of a photo. It is about how global warming zealots will lie and misrepresent the facts to try and convince others of the "truth" of their dogma. That is what propaganda is: presenting a particular point of view at the expense of other points of view, or misrepresenting the facts to push a particular point of view. Global warming zealots are gulity of this and this is one example. The photo is not evidence of global warming. It never was. It is a photo of a ploar bear on some ice in the Canadian summer. The polar bear was not stranded, it wasn't in danger and it wasn't far from land, and yet that it how the global warming zealots spun it for their own ends. In other words, it was used as propaganda.

2. The second video is another example of global warming zealots misrepresenting the scientific evidence to push their dogma. It demonstrates quite clearly that the topic of global warming has long ceased to be a scientific debate and has degenerated into a political debate on both sides of the fence.

3. I'm glad that you agree that Moore's film is both propaganda and fiction. That was my point. My understanding is that was the point of this thread.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Propoganda often includes a deliberate lie, but the picture is so arresting that an immediate impact is made.

A picture of Jane Fonda's bus on her last bus tour of the US.

This could be an example of right wing propoganda, but I'm a libertarian just off to the right of the Dalai Lama god bless his soul, so its ok to post it.

From this site

http://www.freakingnews.com/Jane-Fonda-Pictures---719.asp

gg

 

[2020hindsight]

2020, I'm completely uninterested in your opinion of the propaganda, I'm just pointing it out. I thought that's what this thread was about - pointing out propaganda in the media?

With that in mind I have a few comments:

1. The first video is not just about the authenticity of a photo. It is about how global warming zealots will lie and misrepresent the facts to try and convince others of the "truth" of their dogma.

2. The second video is another example of global warming zealots misrepresenting the scientific evidence to push their dogma. It demonstrates quite clearly that the topic of global warming has long ceased to be a scientific debate and has degenerated into a political debate on both sides of the fence.

3. I'm glad that you agree that Moore's film is both propaganda and fiction. That was my point. My understanding is that was the point of this thread.

sg
well you're right, there's no way we can resolve all these topics on one thread ....but

1. I'll agree that that photo might have been used out of context - whether or not the accompanying documentary was correct - as long as you agree that the polar bear is threatened.

2. GW - we ain;t gonna solve here. You claim GW is the work of con-artists. I claim that Ball and co are con-artists. The video is full of errors imo (too big a topic to handle here, and largely already covered elsewhere - not sure with any agreement however lol). (Gore and) IPCC won a Nobel Peace Prize let's not forget.

3. hey - pretty cheap attempt to misquote me there. I didn't agree that Moore's article was propaganda or fiction. I simply said the critic you quoted apparently copied Moore's use of the word fiction (since he used it in his victory speech). Personally I haven't seen Moore's doco. Just that I really liked Fahrenheit 9/11, and I'm presuming that BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE was similar (at least as far as Bush's winning the presidency in dubious circumstances).

Certainly electoral hassles in the allegedly democratic USA have a habit of getting pretty "messy round the edges" - people disenfranchised, mistakes by mechanical voting machines etc. 2000 and 2004 everything seemed to go Bush's way incidentally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jan/12/uselections2000.usa
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411220005
http://www.ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm

THE MACHINES

There are five voting systems used in Florida's 67 counties:
punch cards (24 counties),
optical scan central tabulation (16 counties),
optical scan precinct tabulation (25 counties),
paper ballot (one county), and
machine lever (one county).[4]

....The Governor's Select Task Force on Election Procedure, Standards and Technology stated in its March 1, 2001, report that error? or spoilage??rates in Florida?s November 7 general election varied widely by type of voting system. The report concluded:

In statewide or national elections, when different kinds of voting systems with different error rates are used, every voter does NOT have the same chance to have his or her vote counted accurately.[12]

PS hopefully they'll sort out these voting machines before Novemnber 2008

 

[Superfly]

At the time I guess she believed what she was doing
- she just happened to be ahead of her time, since these days everyone has come to better understand the Vietnam situation.

Ahead of her time !! .. disgraceful



> Never Forget! Hanoi Hanna--Jane Fonda!
>
>
> HONORING A TRAITOR
>
> This is for all the kids born in the 70's that do not remember
> this, and didn't have to bear the burden, that our fathers,
> mothers, and older brothers and sisters had to bear. Jane
Fonda
> is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century."
> Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others
> have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of
> our country but specific men who served and sacrificed during
> Vietnam.
>
> The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name
> is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1968, the former
Commandant
> of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison-the
> "Hanoi Hilton." Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell,
> cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to
> describe for a visiting American "Peace Activist" the "lenient
> and humane treatment" he'd received. He spat at Ms. Fonda,was
> clubbed, and dragged away.
>
> During the subsequent beating, he fell forward upon the camp
> Commandant's feet, which sent that officer berserk. In '78,the
> AF Col. still suffered from double vision (which permanently
> ended his flying days) from the Vietnamese Col.'s frenzied
> application of a wooden baton. From 1963-65, Col. Larry
> Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the
> "Hilton"- the first three of which he was "missing in action".
> His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group,
> too, got the cleaned, fed, clothed routine in preparation for
a
> "peace delegation" visit.
>
> They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the
> world that they still survived. Each man secreted a tiny
piece
> of paper, with his SSN on it, in the palm of his hand. When
> paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line,
> shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets
> like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you
> grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent
> captors?" Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed
her
> their sliver of paper.
>
> She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the
> line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked
> disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and
> handed him the little pile of papers. Three men died from the
> subsequent beatings. Col. Carrigan was almost number four but
> he survived, which is the only reason we know about her
actions
> that day.
>
> I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and
> was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South
> Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months
> in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and
> one year in a "black box" in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese
> captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female
missionary,
> a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom
I
> buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.
>
> At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal
> weight is 170 lbs.) We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."
>
> When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp
communist
> political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane
> Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the
real
> treatment we POWs received different from the treatment
> purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda,
> as "humane and lenient." Because of this, I spent three days
on
> a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a large
> amount of steel placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo
> cane till my arms dipped.
>
> I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of
> hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be
> willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me.
>
> This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as part
> of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..."100 years of
> great women" should never include a traitor whose hands are
> covered with the blood of so many patriots. There are few
> things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's
> participation in blatant treason, is one of them.
>
> Please take the time to forward to as many people as you
> possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and
she
> needs to know that we will never forget.
>

 

[stockGURU]

2020, you seem to be missing the point again.

This thread is not about who's propaganda is right... is it? That is an unwinnable argument. You will never convince the left that they are wrong and you will never convince the right that they are wrong. My understanding was that this thread was to point out propaganda in the media. Propaganda is used heavily and consistently on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

What I posted above was examples of how the left use propaganda for their own ends. I don't see how you can deny that global warming zealots used an innocent photo as propaganda when that video systematically dismantles their tactics and agenda. Did you even watch it? Whether or not polar bears are threatened is irrelevent in the context of this thread, which is about propaganda. My point was that the left are just as happy to manipulate the facts for their own ends as the right is. What they did with that photo is evidence of that.

I sincerely hope that you are not taking the line of: "The other side uses propaganda, my side uses the facts and the truth!"

That takes me back to high school as an idealistic teenager but in reality bears no resemblance to the real world.

 

[2020hindsight]

Propoganda often includes a deliberate lie, but the picture is so arresting that an immediate impact is made.

A picture of Jane Fonda's bus on her last bus tour of the US.

This could be an example of right wing propoganda, but I'm a libertarian just off to the right of the Dalai Lama god bless his soul, so its ok to post it.

From this site

http://www.freakingnews.com/Jane-Fonda-Pictures---719.asp

well I sure as hell agree that a graveyard is no place for a demonstration - or a bus for that matter .

and the blokes who came back from Vietnam were treated abominably. By everyone - in cluding the Govt .
(Normie Rowe complaining on the news last Thusday that he couldn't make Vet Affairs understand he was emotionally damaged by the experience. - as I posted on the "Tunes" thread at the time )

 

[Superfly]

Jane Fonda... "ahead of her time"....

Does your statement mean that you support what Jane Fonda did 20/20..????

 

[2020hindsight]

I sincerely hope that you are not taking the line of: "The other side uses propaganda, my side uses the facts and the truth!".

No I'm using the line that, on a technicality you are correct, that one piece of evidence can be shown to be wrongly used or whatever - different season whatever -

but a judge would continue to hear the case ( imo) that the polar bear was threatened, thassall.

I think the alleged propaganda in this example is inconsequential, and/or trivial, and doesn't change the arguement at all.

Did I watch it? - the youtube? yes. Do I recall Monica Attard saying it at the time? yes.
PS I wonder if she still holds that opinion?

 

[stockGURU]

I give up.

2020 I finally understand why so many people on this forum find debating with you to be like debating with a brick wall, only more irritating. You are so entrenched in your leftist dogma you have blinkers on the size of an 18 wheelers mudflaps.

You take threads off topic and you consistently miss the point.

After me clearly saying that the point of this thread is not about arguing about whose propaganda is right, that is all you do. You not only excuse leftist propaganda but you try and deny it outright.

This thread is not about the polar bear or Michael Moore it is about PROPAGANDA.. and yes, the left use it just as much as the right. The fact you wont admit that speaks volumes about your one eyed view of the world.

I'm outta here.

 

[Superfly]

20/20...

Do you or do you not support the actions of Jane Fonda during the Vietnam war ???????

There maybe some arguement about what Fonda did in Vietnam... but what is clear just what a traitorous person she is....

Do you support her actions ??