90 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, 7:12 PM, said:

Wait just a minute. To get information out costs very, very little right now. I can throw up a web site that provides as much information as I want for about $35 per year. Getting information to people who "want to know" is the cheapest it has ever been. It basically costs nothing. What costs a billion dollars is a massive propaganda campaign to influence the public. I'm fine with supporting the right of propagandists to do their work, but lets not obscure the issue with language. This is clearly not about the cost of "getting information to people who want it".

Did you know that the ribbon cutting for the New Day realty is scheduled for Thursday the 16th of February in Bend Oregon?I mean, it's on the web.

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, 8:19 PM, said:

And reach about 35 people. Unless you have a couple million to promote it.

So even if I don't argue this point the price has dropped from a billion down to 2 million.

Quote

You can't hide the fact that it still costs millions and millions of dollars to reach a national audience by calling that information 'propaganda'.

I can't think of a better example of propaganda than a modern political campaign. Can you? If what these guys do is not propaganda, what is?

Balloon guy, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, 8:32 PM, said:

Did you know that the ribbon cutting for the New Day realty is scheduled for Thursday the 16th of February in Bend Oregon?I mean, it's on the web.

He said getting information out to the people who want it.

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, 10:11 PM, said:

So even if I don't argue this point the price has dropped from a billion down to 2 million.

No, that's the price to get one website noticed by any measurable number of people. You also have to get in newspapers, on TV, on the radio, etc. And you have to hire staff for that. And lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers. And there is travel costs. And that's just one candidate. Total spending for all candidates plus the value of all media covering the candidates is well over a billion dollars.From Wiki:> One source reported that if the costs for both Democratic and Republican campaigns were added together (for the presidential primary election, general election, and the political conventions), the costs have more than doubled in only eight years ($448.9 million in 1996, $649.5 million in 2000, and $1.01 billion in 2004).Again, that's just the candidates spending, and doesn't count the value/cost of all the coverage nationwide and all the private individuals buying signs, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, 9:20 PM, said:

No, that's the price to get one website noticed by any measurable number of people. You also have to get in newspapers, on TV, on the radio, etc. And you have to hire staff for that. And lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers. And there is travel costs. And that's just one candidate. Total spending for all candidates plus the value of all media covering the candidates is well over a billion dollars.

No, to "get information to those who want it" you don't need to do any of that.

Quote

From Wiki:> One source reported that if the costs for both Democratic and Republican campaigns were added together (for the presidential primary election, general election, and the political conventions), the costs have more than doubled in only eight years ($448.9 million in 1996, $649.5 million in 2000, and $1.01 billion in 2004).Again, that's just the candidates spending, and doesn't count the value/cost of all the coverage nationwide and all the private individuals buying signs, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.

I'm aware of how much is spent on political campaigns. That's exactly the point, that a political campaign is about much more than providing information, which is actually very cheap.

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, 10:29 PM, said:

No, to "get information to those who want it" you don't need to do any of that. I'm aware of how much is spent on political campaigns. That's exactly the point, that a political campaign is about much more than providing information, which is actually very cheap.

You are making no sense any more. Try starting a national news network, and see how "cheap" it is. Try starting a national campaign, and see how cheap it s. These things are not cheap. I don't know if you think magic fairies spread information or what, but I can tell you, it's really a massive infrastructure that costs mountains of money. If it was cheap, anyone who wanted to just spend a few dollars and get their message out to everyone.

[vbnautilus]

There's just no way you are naive enough to believe that all that cost is about providing information. Providing information to billions of people who are seeking it is exceedingly cheap. What is expensive is controlling information. Controling what information is available is the goal of a propagandist and it is not an action that is friendly to free speech.

[Balloon guy]

VB, I think you GREATLY are exaggerating the number of people who want accurate information during an election cycle.Look at the recent Susan Komen whatever cancer thingy.They make an announcement that they are going to stop giving money to planned parenthood because they have a clear policy that they do not give money to any organization that is under a federal investigation. The money they gave to PP just went to them referring women at risk of cancer to appropriate doctors. PP doesn't do anything except abortion.Out comes the leftist propaganda wing screaming abortion rights.About people giving money to breast cancer research not being politically correct for daring to ignore their internal policies, a policy that makes perfect sense.All the information was out there, but the story was not understood, and the truth was drowned out by the PC garbage.

[Balloon guy]

VB, I think you GREATLY are exaggerating the number of people who want accurate information during an election cycle.Look at the recent Susan Komen whatever cancer thingy.They make an announcement that they are going to stop giving money to planned parenthood because they have a clear policy that they do not give money to any organization that is under a federal investigation. The money they gave to PP just went to them referring women at risk of cancer to appropriate doctors. PP doesn't do anything except abortion.Out comes the leftist propaganda wing screaming abortion rights.About people giving money to breast cancer research not being politically correct for daring to ignore their internal policies, a policy that makes perfect sense.All the information was out there, but the story was not understood, and the truth was drowned out by the PC garbage.

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, 10:43 PM, said:

There's just no way you are naive enough to believe that all that cost is about providing information. Providing information to billions of people who are seeking it is exceedingly cheap. What is expensive is controlling information. Controling what information is available is the goal of a propagandist and it is not an action that is friendly to free speech.

That makes no sense. Providing is controlling and vice versa, unless you believe in magical information fairies that provide equal justice to all.

[CaneBrain]

Balloon guy, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 1:18 AM, said:

PP doesn't do anything except abortion.

Not intended to be a factual statement.

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Saturday, February 4th, 2012, 11:18 PM, said:

VB, I think you GREATLY are exaggerating the number of people who want accurate information during an election cycle.

You must have gotten me all wrong since this is exactly what I was saying. Running a campaign has very little to do with getting information to people who want it. It has much more to do with controlling what kinds of information are available to people. For example, preventing your extramarital affair from becoming the story, or changing the conversation to be about swift boats instead of the policies.

hblask, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 6:58 AM, said:

That makes no sense. Providing is controlling and vice versa, unless you believe in magical information fairies that provide equal justice to all.

...I guess you're happy with the way the Chinese government "provides information to its citizens".

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 2:03 PM, said:

I guess you're happy with the way the Chinese government "provides information to its citizens".

??? That has nothing to do with the current conversation. Do you think you could reach every Chinese citizen for less than a billion dollars, even if you had total control of the economy?

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 2:22 PM, said:

??? That has nothing to do with the current conversation. Do you think you could reach every Chinese citizen for less than a billion dollars, even if you had total control of the economy?

I just have no idea what you are even saying any more. We must be living in different worlds.You don't see how political campaigns involve propaganda. You think they are just about telling people what they want to know. You see no difference between controlling the available information and making information available. If there's no difference why do we even have free speech laws?I'm just completely baffled.

[AmScray]

hblask, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 1:22 PM, said:

??? That has nothing to do with the current conversation. Do you think you could reach every Chinese citizen for less than a billion dollars, even if you had total control of the economy?

My mental-vision of you every time you post is this.It doesn't take a billion dollars to provide information to people who want it. It takes a website with some search optimized content. The people will find it and if its novel information, they will link to it, which in turn will rocket that entry to the top of google rankings. Does it take a billion dollars to tactically crowbar a 'message' down everyone's throats against competition who are in a spending race to do the same?Yes, irrespective of whether they believe that message or not.It does not take a billion dollars to furnish information, especially to people looking for it.

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 6:34 PM, said:

I just have no idea what you are even saying any more. We must be living in different worlds.You don't see how political campaigns involve propaganda. You think they are just about telling people what they want to know. You see no difference between controlling the available information and making information available. If there's no difference why do we even have free speech laws?I'm just completely baffled.

Wait, are you suggesting that bureaucrats put some 'propaganda test' on any information that comes out during election season? Would it apply to MSNBC? What about DailyKos.com? Who decides? On what basis?

[hblask]

AmScray, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 6:54 PM, said:

It doesn't take a billion dollars to provide information to people who want it. It takes a website with some search optimized content. The people will find it and if its novel information, they will link to it, which in turn will rocket that entry to the top of google rankings.

Prove it. Create a website that gets 25 million hits in the next 3 months that gets the information "hblask is an ideological twat". It should be easy and require virtually no money, right?

[hblask]

AmScray, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 6:54 PM, said:

Does it take a billion dollars to tactically crowbar a 'message' down everyone's throats against competition who are in a spending race to do the same?Yes, irrespective of whether they believe that message or not.

Since this is, of course, the topic at hand, I'm glad you agree with me while at the same time acting like you don't.

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 8:04 PM, said:

Prove it. Create a website that gets 25 million hits in the next 3 months that gets the information "hblask is an ideological twat". It should be easy and require virtually no money, right?

There are not 25 million people who want that information. Seriously, I don't think this is even controversial, I really don't get it.

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 9:18 PM, said:

There are not 25 million people who want that information. Seriously, I don't think this is even controversial, I really don't get it.

So you are saying that it takes a lot of money to get out information to uninterested people? So then why are you arguing with me?

[AmScray]

hblask, on Sunday, February 5th, 2012, 7:04 PM, said:

Prove it. Create a website that gets 25 million hits in the next 3 months that gets the information "hblask is an ideological twat". It should be easy and require virtually no money, right?

So, basically, what you're saying is that you have no understanding whatsoever of the internet.... ?I mean, like, literally nothing whatsoever?