Obama creating an art propaganda machine?

[alphatarget1]

Obama Youth!!!!

 

[novasatori]

So sandorski you wouldn't mind if bush suggested the NEA to only support Pro Iraq War, Pro Patriot Act artists then, right?

I think propaganda is obviously a bit of an overstatement, but it doesn't have to step that far to be unacceptable IMO for a gov't agency spending tax payers money to be influenced by political ideologies, it should be on merit, plain and simple.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Art propaganda machine not found.

The NEA can choose what it wants to fund, and funding art promoting public service is totally legit. Nothing in that article showed that just because they mentioned two pieces of art from the campaign that elicited a sincere cultural response (which is a simple factual statement) that they wanted more 'pro obama artwork'.

Your friend sounds like one of those hyperpartisans who has filled in a lot of blanks with his mind, quite a few more than he should have.

He watches Glenn Beck, watches Fox news most often, is in the military, and I have yet to see one thing that isn't "OMG OBAMA IS GOING TO (insert whatever that is going to be the end of the nation here)!!!!!" from him.

So the next question is why did you waste perfectly good internet space posting this nonesense??

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: novasatori
So sandorski you wouldn't mind if bush suggested the NEA to only support Pro Iraq War, Pro Patriot Act artists then, right?

I think propaganda is obviously a bit of an overstatement, but it doesn't have to step that far to be unacceptable IMO for a gov't agency spending tax payers money to be influenced by political ideologies, it should be on merit, plain and simple.

Actually the government can and does legally promote political goals (policies) on a regular basis. Smokey Bear, mentioned above, is obvious propaganda designed to promote a specific policy goal.

What the government is not supposed to do is use the taxpayers' money to promote specific politicians. This is why some folks were pissed off when the the President's Budget submittals to Congress started sporting a certain President's likeness on every other page. The line had been crossed between promoting a policy and promoting a politician.

So if the art is supposed to promote a policy such as increasing volunteerism or increasing military recruitment or encouraging energy conservation, that is acceptable. If the art is supposed to promote Obama the politician than that is unacceptable.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama Youth!!!!

Heil Obama!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama Youth!!!!

Heil Obama!

thats getting old...crawl back under the rock you came from

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: novasatori
So sandorski you wouldn't mind if bush suggested the NEA to only support Pro Iraq War, Pro Patriot Act artists then, right?

I think propaganda is obviously a bit of an overstatement, but it doesn't have to step that far to be unacceptable IMO for a gov't agency spending tax payers money to be influenced by political ideologies, it should be on merit, plain and simple.

Those are not equivalent comparisons. What's so Political about promoting Volunteering?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: novasatori
So sandorski you wouldn't mind if bush suggested the NEA to only support Pro Iraq War, Pro Patriot Act artists then, right?

I think propaganda is obviously a bit of an overstatement, but it doesn't have to step that far to be unacceptable IMO for a gov't agency spending tax payers money to be influenced by political ideologies, it should be on merit, plain and simple.

What's funny is that the Bush administration spent plenty on the Iraq War propaganda, just not through the NEA (and remember the 'Mission Accomplished carrier landing'?)

This has been going on for a long time - were the posters the government put out in WWII unacceptable propaganda, or is it acceptable if the war opposition is low?

Was Wilson ok to hire thousands of speech givers to travel America arguing for the war?

Sounds like a double standard - the right has an axe to grind with the NEA.

While I've already said they may or may not have crossed the line in this case, sometimes 'public issues' and 'politics' overlap.

Would art about the natural beauty in America be off limits if there are any bills about national parks or anti-pollution measures?

One other factor - while I'm against the politicization of the NEA's funding, I have some sympathy for the government trying to battle massive corporate propaganda budgets.

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought he was creating a oligarchy, I just can't keep track.

 

[monovillage]

It isn't about volunteering, if it had been they wouldn't have used the NEA. The NEA funds art, not political propaganda masquerading as art. This is a misuse of funds and it's a misuse of funds for political purposes that will have a negative effect on funding for the arts long into the future.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: monovillage
It isn't about volunteering, if it had been they wouldn't have used the NEA. The NEA funds art, not political propaganda masquerading as art. This is a misuse of funds and it's a misuse of funds for political purposes that will have a negative effect on funding for the arts long into the future.

lolwut?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama Youth!!!!

Heil Obama!

 

[Patranus]

Should listen to the audio tapes. They are pretty outlandish...

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I think it would be VERY inappropriate -- borderline illegal -- to use taxpayer dollars to fund "advertising" for any particular political agenda or policy, including "volunteering."

Does this really seem like an appropriate use of our tax money to you? Really?!

Smokie the Bear. Illegal?

Smokie the Bear is an icon created BY our National Parks Services that is used to promote safety IN our National Parks -- he is NOT used to push or "advertise" national-level policies or agendas that have nothing at all to do with national parks.

Please explain to me what "volunteerism" and healthcare have to do with art, or the promotion thereof.

This isn't the NEA promoting itself, or its members' art projects. This is the NEA being asked/tasked to promote Obama's domestic agenda using tax-payer money.

I think you're smart enough to understand the difference... no?

Also, I'd like to see someone answer novasatori's question:

How would you have felt if Bush had used the NEA to only support artists who created works in favor of the Iraq War or Patriot Act?

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: novasatori
So sandorski you wouldn't mind if bush suggested the NEA to only support Pro Iraq War, Pro Patriot Act artists then, right?

I think propaganda is obviously a bit of an overstatement, but it doesn't have to step that far to be unacceptable IMO for a gov't agency spending tax payers money to be influenced by political ideologies, it should be on merit, plain and simple.

What's funny is that the Bush administration spent plenty on the Iraq War propaganda, just not through the NEA (and remember the 'Mission Accomplished carrier landing'?)

This has been going on for a long time - were the posters the government put out in WWII unacceptable propaganda, or is it acceptable if the war opposition is low?

Was Wilson ok to hire thousands of speech givers to travel America arguing for the war?

Sounds like a double standard - the right has an axe to grind with the NEA.

While I've already said they may or may not have crossed the line in this case, sometimes 'public issues' and 'politics' overlap.

Would art about the natural beauty in America be off limits if there are any bills about national parks or anti-pollution measures?

One other factor - while I'm against the politicization of the NEA's funding, I have some sympathy for the government trying to battle massive corporate propaganda budgets.

I don't know if you're saying I'm a righty because I disagree with this, but I think its inappropriate if it is bush or obama, here is a small excerpt for you on the NEA.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that offers support and funding for projects exhibiting artistic excellence.

Its not a talent pool to be abused by any presidency and its not funded for that IMO.
Art is definitely not about what is being done here.

As a tax payer I strongly disapprove, not like it really matters though.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: novasatori

I don't know if you're saying I'm a righty because I disagree with this, but I think its inappropriate if it is bush or obama, here is a small excerpt for you on the NEA.

No, it's not a right-wing position to oppose the politization of the NEA. If the NEA steps over political lines, I already mentioned I'm against that, as are you.

As a tax payer I strongly disapprove, not like it really matters though.

First, check the facts enough to confirm if you think that a line was crossed. If you do, contact your Congressman - and possibly the NEA and/or White House.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama Youth!!!!

Heil Obama!

Text

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama Youth!!!!

Heil Obama!

Text

What's your point posting that garbage?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama Youth!!!!

Heil Obama!

Text

What's your point posting that garbage?

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to talk to you per your fascinating PM. Please contact my secretary if you have additional questions.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Obama Youth!!!!

Heil Obama!

Text

Hey, you two should join, might learn something useful.

Seriously, this is the Right today. One conspiracy theory after another. Good luck in 2012, the moderates love this stuff.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: novasatori
So sandorski you wouldn't mind if bush suggested the NEA to only support Pro Iraq War, Pro Patriot Act artists then, right?

I think propaganda is obviously a bit of an overstatement, but it doesn't have to step that far to be unacceptable IMO for a gov't agency spending tax payers money to be influenced by political ideologies, it should be on merit, plain and simple.

What's funny is that the Bush administration spent plenty on the Iraq War propaganda, just not through the NEA (and remember the 'Mission Accomplished carrier landing'?)

This has been going on for a long time - were the posters the government put out in WWII unacceptable propaganda, or is it acceptable if the war opposition is low?

Was Wilson ok to hire thousands of speech givers to travel America arguing for the war?

Sounds like a double standard - the right has an axe to grind with the NEA.

While I've already said they may or may not have crossed the line in this case, sometimes 'public issues' and 'politics' overlap.

Would art about the natural beauty in America be off limits if there are any bills about national parks or anti-pollution measures?

One other factor - while I'm against the politicization of the NEA's funding, I have some sympathy for the government trying to battle massive corporate propaganda budgets.

I don't know if you're saying I'm a righty because I disagree with this, but I think its inappropriate if it is bush or obama, here is a small excerpt for you on the NEA.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that offers support and funding for projects exhibiting artistic excellence.

Its not a talent pool to be abused by any presidency and its not funded for that IMO.
Art is definitely not about what is being done here.

As a tax payer I strongly disapprove, not like it really matters though.

Better come to terms that people are going to try to shout you down with labels such as "Righty", and "Racist" if you don't chug the Kool-Aid.

I get it all the time on this board and I love it, because I dispise "righties", and "lefties" and for several P&N posters that is all they can muster is some political name calling.

Until the masses come to the conclusion that a select few "Dems" or "Repubs" are using the rest of use as their indentured servants, we are going to keep fighting with each other while they sit back and reap the rewards. IMHO,the indivduals that worry about being a "righty" or lefty" do not care what's best for America. They stir up some politically fights, and when us idiots aren't looking, they grab whatever they can from the cookie jar.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I think it would be VERY inappropriate -- borderline illegal -- to use taxpayer dollars to fund "advertising" for any particular political agenda or policy, including "volunteering."

Does this really seem like an appropriate use of our tax money to you? Really?!

Smokie the Bear. Illegal?

Smokie the Bear is an icon created BY our National Parks Services that is used to promote safety IN our National Parks -- he is NOT used to push or "advertise" national-level policies or agendas that have nothing at all to do with national parks.

Please explain to me what "volunteerism" and healthcare have to do with art, or the promotion thereof.

This isn't the NEA promoting itself, or its members' art projects. This is the NEA being asked/tasked to promote Obama's domestic agenda using tax-payer money.

I think you're smart enough to understand the difference... no?

Also, I'd like to see someone answer novasatori's question:

How would you have felt if Bush had used the NEA to only support artists who created works in favor of the Iraq War or Patriot Act?

Ok, seems we're getting closer. No longer "Political" now "Domestic Agenda". There's a huge difference between the 2 terms. Smokie the Bear is part of a Domestic Agenda/Re-Elect Obama is a Political Agenda

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I think it would be VERY inappropriate -- borderline illegal -- to use taxpayer dollars to fund "advertising" for any particular political agenda or policy, including "volunteering."

Does this really seem like an appropriate use of our tax money to you? Really?!

Smokie the Bear. Illegal?

Smokie the Bear is an icon created BY our National Parks Services that is used to promote safety IN our National Parks -- he is NOT used to push or "advertise" national-level policies or agendas that have nothing at all to do with national parks.

Please explain to me what "volunteerism" and healthcare have to do with art, or the promotion thereof.

This isn't the NEA promoting itself, or its members' art projects. This is the NEA being asked/tasked to promote Obama's domestic agenda using tax-payer money.

I think you're smart enough to understand the difference... no?

Also, I'd like to see someone answer novasatori's question:

How would you have felt if Bush had used the NEA to only support artists who created works in favor of the Iraq War or Patriot Act?

Ok, seems we're getting closer. No longer "Political" now "Domestic Agenda". There's a huge difference between the 2 terms. Smokie the Bear is part of a Domestic Agenda/Re-Elect Obama is a Political Agenda

Trust me, we're still miles apart on this issue. The word "political" still very much applies to this NEA situation; and, Dr. Semantico, I did not mean to imply any difference between the two terms at all.

You missed my point and you didn't answer my question. Shocker.

 

[XZeroII]

The next election is only 3.5 years away...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I think it would be VERY inappropriate -- borderline illegal -- to use taxpayer dollars to fund "advertising" for any particular political agenda or policy, including "volunteering."

Does this really seem like an appropriate use of our tax money to you? Really?!

Smokie the Bear. Illegal?

Smokie the Bear is an icon created BY our National Parks Services that is used to promote safety IN our National Parks -- he is NOT used to push or "advertise" national-level policies or agendas that have nothing at all to do with national parks.

Please explain to me what "volunteerism" and healthcare have to do with art, or the promotion thereof.

This isn't the NEA promoting itself, or its members' art projects. This is the NEA being asked/tasked to promote Obama's domestic agenda using tax-payer money.

I think you're smart enough to understand the difference... no?

Also, I'd like to see someone answer novasatori's question:

How would you have felt if Bush had used the NEA to only support artists who created works in favor of the Iraq War or Patriot Act?

Ok, seems we're getting closer. No longer "Political" now "Domestic Agenda". There's a huge difference between the 2 terms. Smokie the Bear is part of a Domestic Agenda/Re-Elect Obama is a Political Agenda

Trust me, we're still miles apart on this issue. The word "political" still very much applies to this NEA situation; and, Dr. Semantico, I did not mean to imply any difference between the two terms at all.

You missed my point and you didn't answer my question. Shocker.

Your question is dumb. Is the NEA being asked to *only* support Artists involved in the Advertising Campaign?