lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 12, 2006 10:11:46 GMT -4
They aren't arrested because they are playing the game within the defined parameters to at least create the illusion there's a free press. They have never really reported or done anything that the government feels genuinely threatened by. Do they report the government's illegal wiretapping? They did report the wiretapping of course. They also reported lots of things the Bush administration didn't like such as: • No WMDs found in Iraq • Prisoner abuse in Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan • Bush pressured his advisors to blame Iraq for 9/11 • Joseph Wilson's letter to the NY Times (which sparked the "Plame Affair") • Friendly fire deaths You of course can use circular logic and say this was all part of the ploy to create an illusion of a free press They are in the news business not the history business. In any case I'm no fan of Bush but what relevance does his grandfather’s deeds (or was that great-grandfather’s?) have on him? JFK's grandfather wasn't exactly a saint and people tried to smear him with that too. Maybe that should have gotten more press but the bin Laden family is very big. Not even Moore was able to show a connection between Bush and Osama. Both cases above Bush's ties to the bin-Ladens and the Bush family’s ties to the Nazis have been reported in books published by mainstream publishing houses. Books have also come out about the Bush administration’s intelligence failures and push for a war in Iraq despite the evidence. But no one has taken action against them. Examples? The only cases I know about were concerning the illegal evesdropping where they can allege national security I agree however that the press isn't totally free in the US but I think it has more to do with ratings and fear of being perceived as “unpatriotic”. Dan Rather spoke about this in an interview on British TV. Also it has shown that the US press was far less likely than it counterparts in other countries to report negatively about the invasion of Iraqi, even CNN International broadcast stories NOT carried by the network in the US. This week I saw a British documentary series about terrorism that show the US’s involvement in state sponsored terrorism. It was produced by Discovery Channel – Europe and shown on Brazil’s Discovery Chanel, I seriously doubt it was (or will be) shown in the US.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 13, 2006 1:29:47 GMT -4
So what you're saying is that they are wanting to arrest a bunch of no bodies for saying the same things a bunch of famous and far more listened to people are?Dioes that make sense? When are all the 9/11 CT's getting arrested? Has Prof Jones been arrested yet? How about the rest of the ST911 group? See this is the problem. Why arrest a group of people for saying these things if no one knows who they are. If they are nameless people without the fame, then no one's going to be listening to them anyways, so arresting them for it just puts the spotlight on whatever you're trying to hide. Now I know Bush is stupid, but that stupid? As to the last question - thanks for the easy set-up, but I'll take a pass! My point is that if a "nobody" is arrested, then it would not hit the media spotlight to anywhere near the same level as if a Michael Moore, for example, is arrested. An article that reports the "nobody" being arrested would barely make the back pages of the NY Times, if it is even printed at all. An article that reports Moore being arrested would be on the front page of newspapers everywhere, and be a top story on the TV newscasts. And again, exactly what would Moore be charged with? (btw, don't take this as my being a Moore fan - I'm not)
|
|
|
Post by rustylander on Mar 13, 2006 1:39:26 GMT -4
People have already been disappearing for some time - "nobodies" that noone hears about or appears to miss...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 13, 2006 5:52:53 GMT -4
And again, exactly what would Moore be charged with?Well in theory, since a number of groups associated with terrorism in the middle east, such as Hamas, were involved in disturbting his latest work there, you could get him on supporting terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Mar 13, 2006 9:35:05 GMT -4
People have already been disappearing for some time - "nobodies" that noone hears about or appears to miss... If noone hears about them or misses them, how do you know they're gone? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Mar 13, 2006 11:06:18 GMT -4
People have already been disappearing for some time - "nobodies" that noone hears about or appears to miss... Like stargazer? Seriously, though, you need to work on this one. When governments liquidate people, they go after people who matter, not people who don't matter. Why would any government liquidate someone that nobody cares about? Edit - oops, looks like Phantom Wolf already made this point. Not that it had any effect at all...
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Mar 13, 2006 11:31:19 GMT -4
And by the way, it's not Bush, it's Fush. Are you seriously going to claim that the same person who pushed four major tax cuts and two major wars through the congress now can't get a stupid little deal for management of some ports approved? Open your eyes!
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 13, 2006 11:31:38 GMT -4
I guess asking Rusty to produce any evidence to back his claims is unrealistic.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 13, 2006 11:36:28 GMT -4
And by the way, it's not Bush, it's Fush. Are you seriously going to claim that the same person who pushed four major tax cuts and two major wars through the congress now can't get a stupid little deal for management of some ports approved? Open your eyes! Being a lame duck with a 34% approval rating definitely has its downside.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 13, 2006 20:56:03 GMT -4
Wow, you mean 34% of the US still likes him? No wonder there are so many that believe Sibral.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 14, 2006 4:29:32 GMT -4
I think it's either 3.4%, or more likely, 0.34%.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 14, 2006 4:31:55 GMT -4
And again, exactly what would Moore be charged with?Well in theory, since a number of groups associated with terrorism in the middle east, such as Hamas, were involved in disturbting his latest work there, you could get him on supporting terrorists. They could lock him up for being constantly annoying, and you'd get no complaints from me!
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 14, 2006 9:46:48 GMT -4
We're not talking about leask here. We're talking about reporters reporting on things that the government is doing illegally and against the constitution. They aren't arrested because they are playing the game within the defined parameters to at least create the illusion there's a free press. They have never really reported or done anything that the government feels genuinely threatened by. Do they report the government's illegal wiretapping? Do they report the Bush family's criminal history? Do they report the Bush links to the bin Laden family? NO THEY DON"T, BUT BUSH WANTS TO ARREST ANYONE WHO DARES TO DO SO AND WANTS TO LABEL THEM A TERRORIST AND UNPATRIOTIC. They want to arrest anyone who claims 911 was an inside job. Whether you agree or disagree with the 911 issue or any other conspiracies, don't you think they at least have the right to express these views? Bush wants to shut them down. This is what it's all about in the end, a step in that direction. Jones is hardly being shut up by the media, he was interviewed by Tucker Carlson on MSNBC www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/ and a local CBS affiliate kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html both of which put the stories on their websites and has appeared in various other news outlets* and has indicated HE wants to limit the number of interviews he does www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724. Also IIRC the LA Times, whose news service is used by most newspapers in the US, ran a few articles about 9/11 CTs * including these - deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_395972.html
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 14, 2006 9:49:46 GMT -4
I think it's either 3.4%, or more likely, 0.34%. That's where it should be but unfortunately PT Barnum was right. I was mistaken he popularity is ONLY down to 36% not 34%
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Mar 14, 2006 12:59:17 GMT -4
I think it's either 3.4%, or more likely, 0.34%. That's where it should be but unfortunately PT Barnum was right. I was mistaken he popularity is ONLY down to 36% not 34% Umm, if you're referring to "there's a sucker born every minute", that wasn't Barnum, it was his competitor David Hannum, www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.htmlBTW, did you know that if you adjust for changes in the US population and birth rate since 1870, it turns out that there are now approximately 2.3 suckers born every minute? This way to the egress!
|
|