Should the Government Decide what a Newspaper Publishes?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PVS
first watch this clip:

(copy and paste this link to your browser)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bernie-Sanders-S.mov

then answer the question, as that jerkjob refused to: who should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be published?

...and if the government holds sway over the press, do they not have the ability to filter out any news which puts them in a bad light with the red rubber stamp "national security"? after all...by extention, any news which makes them look bad 'aids and comforts the enemy'....right?

botankus
No, they shouldn't decide for them, but people, you gotta be sensible enough to know that the main focus behind the media is financially driven, and not for the sake of your knowledge.

Alpha Centauri
Should they? No, because that's what it's supposed to be, a news paper. The news is supposed to be objective.

-AC

Shakyamunison
No.

But the gov. should put limits. We have freedom of speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

LethalFemme
This thread could and perhaps should be Would You Mind Living In Ignorance because, that's what would happen. People look to the news for the truth and an unbiased opinion on what's going on around the world.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by LethalFemme
This thread could and perhaps should be Would You Mind Living In Ignorance because, that's what would happen. People look to the news for the truth and an unbiased opinion on what's going on around the world.

Do you think we get that? I don't.

jaden101
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Should they? No, because that's what it's supposed to be, a news paper. The news is supposed to be objective.

-AC

but in fact that is never the case...all forms of media have interests...the Rupert Murdoch empire can pretty much decide the fate of elections in the UK by who it decided to back in the run up...

governments shouldn't be allowed to interfere with what is printed or broadcast although the media do need to be careful what they put into the public domain as the fake pictures printed in the UK's daily mirror are testament to

HellMaster93
Exactly. if the government controlled the news, it would become a complete dictatorship. Noone would have any freedom. You won't know what's happeneing so the governemnt can do anything, and therefore, they'd end up worse than those nazi bastards...

LethalFemme
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you think we get that? I don't.

Well of course we don't get the truth all the time. I don't know anyone who believes that. It's weird we all have our theories and many would probably already say that the government already does have limits for the paper but, to know without a shallow of a doubt that they did would be the ultimate in lies and betrayal and yet ironically would release the truth.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by LethalFemme
Well of course we don't get the truth all the time. I don't know anyone who believes that. It's weird we all have our theories and many would probably already say that the government already does have limits for the paper but, to know without a shallow of a doubt that they did would be the ultimate in lies and betrayal and yet ironically would release the truth.

It is a balancing act. big grin

LethalFemme
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is a balancing act. big grin

Kinda shows you the old saying "ignorance is bliss" is an old saying for a reason huh?

Bardock42
I like the fat guy...you can't have a war on a tactic...right on.

Well, nothing determines what is right to publish, but the person that publishes it....it's kind of a pretty basic right of freedom...we call it freedom of the press.

DarkC
Originally posted by PVS
first watch this clip:

(copy and paste this link to your browser)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bernie-Sanders-S.mov

then answer the question, as that jerkjob refused to: who should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be published?

...and if the government holds sway over the press, do they not have the ability to filter out any news which puts them in a bad light with the red rubber stamp "national security"? after all...by extention, any news which makes them look bad 'aids and comforts the enemy'....right?
Depends on what type of government it is.

Governments who control the newspapers are not generally regarded as a democracy. For example, Napoleon and other infamous dictators.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by jaden101
but in fact that is never the case...all forms of media have interests...the Rupert Murdoch empire can pretty much decide the fate of elections in the UK by who it decided to back in the run up...

governments shouldn't be allowed to interfere with what is printed or broadcast although the media do need to be careful what they put into the public domain as the fake pictures printed in the UK's daily mirror are testament to

Oh I agree, they do, but they shouldn't.

-AC

PVS
and have all dictators not cried out "national security" as a means of witholding information which puts them in a bad light? has "we are at war, so times are different" and "if you make us look bad, weak, and/or stupid you aid the enemy and are thus a traitor" not the preamble for a dictatorship?

what i mean is, when the government is allowed to draw the line, who governs where they draw it? people tout that the media conglomerate are controlled by the allmighty dollar....and they are just to say so. what i find confusing is the denial that our government is equally if not more controlled by money. the current administration is in the pocket of the medical/pharmacutical companies, as their campaign funds proves and their policy reflects.
also, the administration was caught red handed paying off the media to air what was basically a commercial endorsing their medicare bill, but presented in the form of an objective news broadcast. how can they be trusted to draw the line when they would obviously push it well into the realm of propaganda and mass ignorance?

LethalFemme
Originally posted by PVS
and have all dictators not cried out "national security" as a means of witholding information which puts them in a bad light? has "we are at war, so times are different" and "if you make us look bad, weak, and/or stupid you aid the enemy and are thus a traitor" not the preamble for a dictatorship?

what i mean is, when the government is allowed to draw the line, who governs where they draw it? people tout that the media conglomerate are controlled by the allmighty dollar....and they are just to say so. what i find confusing is the denial that our government is equally if not more controlled by money. the current administration is in the pocket of the medical/pharmacutical companies, as their campaign funds proves and their policy reflects.
also, the administration was caught red handed paying off the media to air what was basically a commercial endorsing their medicare bill, but presented in the form of an objective news broadcast. how can they be trusted to draw the line when they would obviously push it well into the realm of propaganda and mass ignorance?

I find it just completely insulting and yet admire the fact that they can lie to our faces as though it's second nature. But it's pretty much like I said we know the truth but, to go beyond the shadow of a doubt would hold it's own consequences.

Alliance
Currently in the US...I think the governemnt already has too much sway just by portraying media companies as "enemies/unpatriotic" and this biasest their coverage. Many still won't do big sotries on WMDs in Iraq etc. They are too afraid.

No direct control necessary.

Quiero Mota
NO.

Freedom of the press, First Amendment.

That's like asking : "Should the government take away free speech and our decision to worship whatever we want?"

Alliance
However, it doesnt stop them from doing it....loog at the Flag Burning amendment today in the Senate.

Imperial_Samura
Hmm.

We have separation of state and Church. I would like to see separation of state and media. I would like to see actual objectiveness in the news - not the fingermarks of big business and government influencing the slant and how things get reported (if at all.)

So no, the Government should have no influence over what a newspaper publishes. The paper should publish news based upon facts, and should not be cowed by glares from those in the Government and big business who might not want the light focused on them quite so much.

Mindship
Generally speaking: hell, no.

Alliance
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmm.

We have separation of state and Church. I would like to see separation of state and media. I would like to see actual objectiveness in the news - not the fingermarks of big business and government influencing the slant and how things get reported (if at all.)

So no, the Government should have no influence over what a newspaper publishes. The paper should publish news based upon facts, and should not be cowed by glares from those in the Government and big business who might not want the light focused on them quite so much.

As long as money is involved....there will be fingerprints. tis unavoidable and imo capitalism should not entirely be done away with.

Deano
the opinion on the true state of affairs within the media of John Swinton, a journalist on the New York Times, who is reported to have told his staff at his retirement dinner:

"There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Ya Krunk'd Floo
A corrupt media attempting to expose a corruption of freedom by f*cking with a corrupt government is like so fabulous, darling.

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No.

But the gov. should put limits. We have freedom of speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Bullshit. I hate that rule. If there's an actual fire, then what the hell.

Gay Guy
This is getting a bit stupid. It seems like the Bush Administration is getting a bit too totalitarian with their politics. I'm all for protecting national security, but the American people do have a right to know what they're doing, particularly if what they're doing could fall into the arena of breaking laws.

botankus
I'd like to see somebody force the newspaper to change the score in the paper when my team loses...that's really all I'd care to see in this regard.

PVS
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_ko_nyt_swift_leak_060628a_240x180.mov

must see - copy and paste link

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by PVS
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_ko_nyt_swift_leak_060628a_240x180.mov

must see - copy and paste link

That's perfect. Yet another example of how fuct the Bush administration is. However, when will all these misdeeds be dealt with?

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
As long as money is involved....there will be fingerprints. tis unavoidable and imo capitalism should not entirely be done away with.

Hmmm, but there is a difference between just fingerprints and media sources that are actually demonstrating a political agenda. I can accept such a thing in the more underground news papers that are tools in political statement, but when a mainstream media source claiming to be impartial in reporting only the facts starts warping and "selectively editing" in order to toe a political line, and bring people in line with that line, well, that should be unnaceptable.

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch have used their own money to invest in their publications and TV stations, so it really should be no surprise that they use them to further their own agenda and reinforce their own political beliefs.

It's just like us voicing our own opinions here, but they can do it in a much louder, influential and further-reaching way. I don't like it, but it's the nature of that unstoppable beast called Capitalism.

Alliance
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmmm, but there is a difference between just fingerprints and media sources that are actually demonstrating a political agenda. I can accept such a thing in the more underground news papers that are tools in political statement, but when a mainstream media source claiming to be impartial in reporting only the facts starts warping and "selectively editing" in order to toe a political line, and bring people in line with that line, well, that should be unnaceptable.
A valid point. A problem with undergrounds is that they rarely have the resources to be factual. But they have been historically important. I think a major problem in the US is that the media conforms to public polls. Watching the changing broadcasts of Gulf War II, they really didnt focus on negative until public opinon hit 50%, then it shifted towards more criticism of the policies than support. THis is bad, as I think the average American is pretty ignorat, especially in global affairs.

Darth Jello
I think there are no two worse culprits than Rupert Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon, the cult leader who owns the Washington Times.

Draco69
I DO think the government should have their own state-controlled newspaper/magazine in order to hear their side of the story alongside with our current private enterprise media. How much does the media filter out to make a more sensational headline? How much does the media lie about or make up to further their own agendas? The media has complete control over our information; what we hear, what we watch, what we know for that matter.

The purpose of a privately-owned media corporation is not to give news in an unbiased manner for the sake of journalism. No, it's simply to make as much money as possible. Drama, sensationalism, and gory headlines sell money better than dull headlines that aren't as fantastic as we would have it.

Which makes me wonder if the media does "trounce" the actual facts up a bit to make a faux controversy to sell more newspapers and get more ratings.

Is it too much too ask to have a newspaper that is solely sponsored by the government? True, it will be biased but the media is biased as well. But we will have the option of having two sources of information from both private and governmental interests.

PVS
Originally posted by Draco69
I DO think the government should have their own state-controlled newspaper/magazine in order to hear their side of the story alongside with our current private enterprise media. How much does the media filter out to make a more sensational headline? How much does the media lie about or make up to further their own agendas? The media has complete control over our information; what we hear, what we watch, what we know for that matter.

The purpose of a privately-owned media corporation is not to give news in an unbiased manner for the sake of journalism. No, it's simply to make as much money as possible. Drama, sensationalism, and gory headlines sell money better than dull headlines that aren't as fantastic as we would have it.

Which makes me wonder if the media does "trounce" the actual facts up a bit to make a faux controversy to sell more newspapers and get more ratings.

Is it too much too ask to have a newspaper that is solely sponsored by the government? True, it will be biased but the media is biased as well. But we will have the option of having two sources of information from both private and governmental interests.

www.whitehouse.gov

or if its tv you prefer, then foxnews

Draco69
Originally posted by PVS
www.whitehouse.gov

or if its tv you prefer, then foxnews

Well that's a start....

Not exactly what I was think of though...

Mei Amor
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
NO.

Freedom of the press, First Amendment.

That's like asking : "Should the government take away free speech and our decision to worship whatever we want?"

Mr Parker
Originally posted by PVS
first watch this clip:

(copy and paste this link to your browser)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bernie-Sanders-S.mov

then answer the question, as that jerkjob refused to: who should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be published?

...and if the government holds sway over the press, do they not have the ability to filter out any news which puts them in a bad light with the red rubber stamp "national security"? after all...by extention, any news which makes them look bad 'aids and comforts the enemy'....right?

Of course they shouldn't be allowed to.But the sad fact is they do and of course they sway over the press,and have the ability to filter out any news which puts them in a bad light.Like you said,they filter out news and don't allow people to print REAL news all in their little white lie they have of "Its because of national security." Financial Interests are what controls the media and like botankus said,its driven by Financial interests not in giving us pions knowledge.Thats why I highly recommend internet sites like rense.com and infowars.com because They do have an interest in giving us knowledge with REAL news.The mainstream media considers REAL news to be O.J.Simpson.Enough so that they plaster it on the front pages of newspapers for an entire year when thats such minor news that it SHOULD have been on the back page of a newspaper for one day and then that should have been it.They don't consider The Mena connection REAL news to cover on the front page of newspapers.How many here know about the Mena Arkansas Connection ,what its about? I bet not too many.Its REAL news but you wont see the mainstream media cover it.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No.

But the gov. should put limits. We have freedom of speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

correction.we are SUPPOSE to have freedom of speech but we dont.Are government has been taken over by big businesses and big corporations who control the government which is suppose to be controlled for the people,of the people and by the people like my forfathers here in the united states fought for but our constitution has been trashed by these people and has become a dictatership country now.we dont have any freddoms anymore.very few anyways and freedom of speech is not one of them.

Deano
Originally posted by Deano
the opinion on the true state of affairs within the media of John Swinton, a journalist on the New York Times, who is reported to have told his staff at his retirement dinner:

"There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

The Omega

misha
Originally posted by PVS
first watch this clip:

(copy and paste this link to your browser)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bernie-Sanders-S.mov

then answer the question, as that jerkjob refused to: who should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be published?

...and if the government holds sway over the press, do they not have the ability to filter out any news which puts them in a bad light with the red rubber stamp "national security"? after all...by extention, any news which makes them look bad 'aids and comforts the enemy'....right?

Have you ever heard of the fourth branch of the government? They say media is another part of the government, only publicising what they want us to hear, only publicising what will make them look good. It's pathetic really and no I don't think it should be done. But that's the way it is. It's quite scary really living in a world where the person running it has the right to kill you if they feel like it.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by misha
Have you ever heard of the fourth branch of the government? They say media is another part of the government, only publicising what they want us to hear, only publicising what will make them look good. It's pathetic really and no I don't think it should be done. But that's the way it is. It's quite scary really living in a world where the person running it has the right to kill you if they feel like it.

thats exactly the way it is.

The Black Ghost
Yeah- but since when has the media been on the government's side?
Not since Clinton, if even then! Actually, the media is almost always (notice-almost) detrimental to the way the government wants things said (and that doenst necessarily mean the government is trying to feed us propaganda).


There DOES need to be a limit to the press though- and it has absolutely nothing to do with taking away the freedom of speech bullcrap that I hear so much. Some stuff cannot be told- government intelligence *cough*NYT *ahem* (not to mention anything in particular...)

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Yeah- but since when has the media been on the government's side?
Not since Clinton, if even then! Actually, the media is almost always (notice-almost) detrimental to the way the government wants things said (and that doenst necessarily mean the government is trying to feed us propaganda).

Actually, in terms of US media, there appears to be more then one mainstream, popular media outlet that is far from critical of certain government policies. Or perhaps more correctly report from a more conservative viewpoint, thus slanting the news to greater benifit a political party that is more in line with such a stance.



Well, then there needs to be clearer guide lines as to what constitutes intelligence and state secrets - there seems, from an outside view point, to be times where "military secrets" become confused with "events or facts that might be damaging/embarrassing to the incumbent administration"

PVS
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Yeah- but since when has the media been on the government's side?
Not since Clinton, if even then!

and who told you that?
the media was in no way on clinton's side. he was hounded and harassed far more than any president, especially concerning the whole lewinski debachle.

Deano
fools

botankus
If the media was on the government's side, no one would ever read their little gossip diary, because no one wants to hear about how smoothly the world is running.

debbiejo
I would enter this thread, but I'm too scared............

Bardock42
Originally posted by debbiejo
I would enter this thread, but I'm too scared............

Look...the joke got lame the first time you used it.

debbiejo
sad

Bardock42
Oh shit, haha, I'm an idiot, I totally missed your point, nice one debbie thumb up

Mr Parker
Originally posted by PVS
and who told you that?
the media was in no way on clinton's side. he was hounded and harassed far more than any president, especially concerning the whole lewinski debachle.

yeah when i saw that post I was like WTF? the media was never on his side.at least not in the lewinski scandal debacle.they came down very hard on him on that.Of course the media was pretty much on his side in the Mena arkansas scandal where under the knowledge of Both Reagan and Bush during Reagans presidency,The CIA was smuggling weapons out of a small Mena arkansas airport in exchange for drugs being flown into the united states through Mena.This all went under the nose of Bill Clinton while he was governor of arkansas.It spanned through 3 presidents.None of this was investigated by the major media though.They totally ignored it.Thats why they did investigate the Monica Lewinsky scandal to try and take everybodys attention away from the REAL news of Clintons involvement in that.The media never covers REAL news.But when Clinton was running for president in 92,the Mena scandal kept surfacing through the efforts of independent investigaters.I talked all about this in detail on the conspiracy thread so if you want to see more about all that,just go to that thread.go to any library and check out the video The Clinton Chronicles.it documents all that stuff.

PVS
yup, just another right wing talking point pulled fresh from the colon.
thats the only way the myth of the bias liberal media can survive: by flatout lying.
they try to rewrite history to make the left seem devious and evil, like the classic villain in a black suit and tophat who plays with his handlebar mustache as he lets off an evil cackle. then we have the neocons, who are practically perfect in every way, but exclusively harassed by the media.
thats the only way they can think: 'me perfect, you evil'

Atlantis001

Mr Parker
Dude were already living in a dictatership.we have very few freedoms left anymore.

The Black Ghost
Well, then there needs to be clearer guide lines as to what constitutes intelligence and state secrets - there seems, from an outside view point, to be times where "military secrets" become confused with "events or facts that might be damaging/embarrassing to the incumbent administration"

Except when the government warns you ahead of time that it is government intelligence and you need to drop it and you publish it anyways... other than that, I agree. wink


Originally posted by PVS
and who told you that?
the media was in no way on clinton's side. he was hounded and harassed far more than any president, especially concerning the whole lewinski debachle.

Lemme change what I said and delete the word Clinton: The media is on the side people are most likely to like the media for liking. rolling on floor laughing

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude were already living in a dictatership.we have very few freedoms left anymore.


Be lucky you have freedom's buddy or else what you just said would have sent you to death row.

PVS
i dont understand what you just said...at all...but i would wager on it making more sense than your statement on clinton and the media stick out tongue

PVS
Originally posted by The Black Ghost

Be lucky you have freedom's buddy or else what you just said would have sent you to death row.

it wasnt luck that gave us our freedom, and it sure wont be bad luck that we lose it, especially through ignorance and giving credit to whatever power currently rules for that freedom, and even elevating them and our state to the status of infallability and operating in the name of god, as we see today...historically that is just the time that people lose their freedom. erm

hey i double posted eek! Happy Dance

Mr. Bacon
freedoms of speech and expression, so no

Mr Parker
Be lucky you have freedom's buddy or else what you just said would have sent you to death row.

There have been reports where Bush and Clinton have had people jailed because certain people spoke out in public against them.Thats some freedom of speech we have. roll eyes (sarcastic) The country has become a dictatership.

Soleran
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude were already living in a dictatership.we have very few freedoms left anymore.


lol surely you jest.

botankus
Originally posted by Mr Parker
There have been reports where Bush and Clinton have had people jailed because certain people spoke out in public against them..
Notice you don't see KharmaDog on here anymore. sad

Mr Parker
Hmmm he must be on vacation.He wouldnt be one of those people that got jailed though,he swallows all the garbage the mainstream media tells him. big grin

The Black Ghost
Posted by MrParker: "There have been reports where Bush and Clinton have had people jailed because certain people spoke out in public against them.Thats some freedom of speech we have. The country has become a dictatership."

Let me guess, this came from the same site that said Bush planted bombs in the WTC and that 9/11 was a hoax?

I have news for you, I dunno about Clinton but Bush certainly of all people didnt jail anyone for speaking out, unless they were being violent, then it was the police that probably jailed him- if it happened at all.

So bascially, you have no value for any freedoms anymore, like so many brainless idiot Americans today. We're all getting dumber by the minute. You never would get complaints like this back during WW2, back when people supported their nation instead of hating presidents because they were democratic or republican. If there was a WW3 right now, you know what people would do: complain, blame someone, stage a protest, and sadly the government would have to accept the stupidity of the people. America may be turning into a dictatorship- but a dictatorship controlled by the people and the media, NOT the government.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
You never would get complaints like this back during WW2, back when people supported their nation instead of hating presidents because they were democratic or republican.

You mean like herding Asian Americans into detention camps? Or segregated army units? Or African American units being forced to work in unsafe environments, loading highly explosive materials and being courtmarshalled and imprisioned for speaking out about the unsafe working conditions? Or even the suspention of elections! (Not that I think anyone but Roosevelt should have been President. But, there's a reason the 2 term law came into existance after that) Just because it's the future, doesn't mean that things have progressed for the better. But, as George Carlin said: "The Nazis may have lost the war, but fascism won it"

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
If there was a WW3 right now, you know what people would do: complain, blame someone, stage a protest, and sadly the government would have to accept the stupidity of the people. America may be turning into a dictatorship- but a dictatorship controlled by the people and the media, NOT the government.

A WW3? As in an "Axis of Evil" that we have to destroy? In your last paragraph, you say that there wasn't an ass load of protesting and rallies. But, I think when one compares the merrits of WW2 v. the current Iraq war, the reasons to go to war are pretty damned obvious. And people did protest WW2, hugely! There's a reason we didn't enter the war until early '42. The United States public was overwhelmingly isolationists. WW1 had just happened and there was little that American buisness, society or economy had to show for it. Much less we should mention the huge number of WW1 vets that were without healthcare. And, a dictatorship by the people is exactly what a democratic republic is...it's just too bad we don't have that here. As for the media? Well, we all know they're holding the cards. But, only the liberal media that beats up on poor Fox news and makes that vein on O'Rielly's neck pop out.

Long story short, the so called "liberal media", so named by the people who run it, aren't the problem. It's the politicians, who have to bow and scrape to the lobbyists of these huge corporations. (who actually run our country.) It's the politicians, democrat and republican alike, that have sliced this country up into voting districts to reassure their constant party line re-election percentages. It's the politicians that lump diversified topics on to one bill so that nothing ever gets done or passed because these bills address 15 different things that have nothing to do with one another. So if you want to point the finger at someone, don't point the finger at the people who exercise their rights of free speech and open elections. Point them at the 65% or more, of people who are too lazy to get off their ass and vote what they feel would serve them best. These politicians rely on the public not flexing their rights, which is why they can take them away and blame the American people for not noticing it sooner. It's like walking out of your office to get a drink and while you're gone someone comes in and takes your stapler...it might be a few minutes or a few hours, but when you notice it's gone you're left scratching your head saying to yourself, "damn, I know there was a stapler here a few minutes ago?"

Grimm22
Depends what you mean...

If you mean the US government paying Iraq newspapers to publish good articles over bad ones then no, because they are true.

If you mean a government censoring anything they dont like then hell no!

The Black Ghost
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You mean like herding Asian Americans into detention camps? Or segregated army units? Or African American units being forced to work in unsafe environments, loading highly explosive materials and being courtmarshalled and imprisioned for speaking out about the unsafe working conditions? Or even the suspention of elections! (Not that I think anyone but Roosevelt should have been President. But, there's a reason the 2 term law came into existance after that) Just because it's the future, doesn't mean that things have progressed for the better. But, as George Carlin said: "The Nazis may have lost the war, but fascism won it"


A WW3? As in an "Axis of Evil" that we have to destroy? In your last paragraph, you say that there wasn't an ass load of protesting and rallies. But, I think when one compares the merrits of WW2 v. the current Iraq war, the reasons to go to war are pretty damned obvious. And people did protest WW2, hugely! There's a reason we didn't enter the war until early '42. The United States public was overwhelmingly isolationists. WW1 had just happened and there was little that American buisness, society or economy had to show for it. Much less we should mention the huge number of WW1 vets that were without healthcare. And, a dictatorship by the people is exactly what a democratic republic is...it's just too bad we don't have that here. As for the media? Well, we all know they're holding the cards. But, only the liberal media that beats up on poor Fox news and makes that vein on O'Rielly's neck pop out.

Long story short, the so called "liberal media", so named by the people who run it, aren't the problem. It's the politicians, who have to bow and scrape to the lobbyists of these huge corporations. (who actually run our country.) It's the politicians, democrat and republican alike, that have sliced this country up into voting districts to reassure their constant party line re-election percentages. It's the politicians that lump diversified topics on to one bill so that nothing ever gets done or passed because these bills address 15 different things that have nothing to do with one another. So if you want to point the finger at someone, don't point the finger at the people who exercise their rights of free speech and open elections. Point them at the 65% or more, of people who are too lazy to get off their ass and vote what they feel would serve them best. These politicians rely on the public not flexing their rights, which is why they can take them away and blame the American people for not noticing it sooner. It's like walking out of your office to get a drink and while you're gone someone comes in and takes your stapler...it might be a few minutes or a few hours, but when you notice it's gone you're left scratching your head saying to yourself, "damn, I know there was a stapler here a few minutes ago?"

What I meant first was only that their was a sense of patriotism, during the war, and support for troops and things, everyone helping out (you know those old WWII movies, that likewise would likely never be seen today in half its strength. I just think that people have lost something in their way of thinking that we used to have... It took a terrorist attack (much like 12/7/41) to actually bring us together for once, and within years all that has been lost and people will actually go back and blame people other than those responsible for it happening, instead of supporting what is happening now. I just find that aggravating.

When I said WW3 I wasnt refering to the war on terror, happening everywhere, but hardly a world war. I was saying, if one really were to happen, one with just causes that were clear like WWII, I think the response would be much different. At first people might all join hands and stand up in columns but give it time and the media first, and then other people later, will start rapping on how the government is doing things wrong (no matter who is in office), it will be bad news after bad news, other people wont care at all, there will be people blaming politicians for not preventing it, etc... etc... That never happened in WWII, not at least on such a huge scale as things are today, dominated by the press. If there had been only about 1/3 of the casualties in Iraq, I bet no one would even cared about the war, they would have done what they are used to doing, not caring. But once they learned that the war people at first largely supported was actually taking hits, minor hits on a big scale, but some to say the least in the way of casualties, they realized that they were mad, and they had to take it out on someone. Guess who that should be? the government.



WHat I was trying to say is it isnt that people shouldnt have so many freedoms, but they take them for granted. We have EVERY freedom (and more) than we had back in the era of the World Wars, and more or less nobody complained back them about then. If someone had published military secrets back then like now, they would have been in jail, possibly for life, without a major case, and if there was one, people would have stoned the guy in the courtroom. Now people can get away with that, they can basically get away with anything because of the many freedoms that we have or have been added to make this country more free. Look at the trial for lots of murderers these days, why do they take so long and attract so much attention when the verdict is so obvious? Because they have to go over a thousand legal procedures that should really never have been went over at all. These people are evil, yet they still can create so many loopholes to escape through because of the many freedoms we have here. NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS! If this were a dictatorship and I was leader, I would have them all deported without trial. ( though I suppose there would be a reason for their complaining if it was a dictatorship but you know what I mean) wink

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
What I meant first was only that their was a sense of patriotism, during the war, and support for troops and things

Consider patriotism though. These days, if you raise any objection to what the current administration is doing, you're considered unpatriotic. You're lumped in with the terrorists. Again, one has to look at the justification of WW2 v. Iraq2. The justification was "Hitler has already invaded several of his neighbors, Japan is on the move and Italy is too....oh and they've all decided to work together" vs "Saddam *might* have WMDs. And you can't really consider "atrocities" committed against his own people, otherwise we'd be invading half the countries in Africa as well.

And no one who speaks out against this war is calling our troops baby killers. When soldiers came home from Vietnam, they were spit on...that was a shame. But it isn't happening today. If anything, people feel sorry for those troops. They've gone over there to fight and die for an unjust war.



Originally posted by The Black Ghost
everyone helping out

After 9/11 this country was totally on board, there would have been armies of Rosie the Riveters in the streets if they'd been called for. But what did the administration tell us to do? They said to go shopping. They didn't tell us to cut back on gas consumption, or to stop buying diamonds, or to car pool or any number of other things. They said go shopping.


Originally posted by The Black Ghost
people will actually go back and blame people other than those responsible for it happening

You mean, like blaming Saddam for 9/11 when it was really Osama bin Laden?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
When I said WW3 I wasnt refering to the war on terror, happening everywhere, but hardly a world war. I was saying, if one really were to happen, one with just causes that were clear like WWII, I think the response would be much different. At first people might all join hands and stand up in columns but give it time

I disagree. I think if there were a good reason, then we'd all get shit done the way we did in WW2.

As for the rest of your post, I can't really decipher what you mean. But I would invite you to research history a bit.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS!

Yes, they should. Especially when they're being subverted in the patriot act.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Grimm22

If you mean the US government paying Iraq newspapers to publish good articles over bad ones then no, because they are true.

But the bad articles are true to - technically they deserve as much print as the good ones. It is overly propagandised to selectively publish stories to make someone look good just because you want them to.



Yes, naughty citizens! I mean fancy feeling it is your democratic right to be unhappy about the way your government is subverting your rights. I mean, any body who doesn't totally agree and accept this is un-American. Because if you aren't with them, one is obviously against them. And so on and so on. (sarcasm, by the way)

The Black Ghost
Imperial Samurai : "Yes, naughty citizens! I mean fancy feeling it is your democratic right to be unhappy about the way your government is subverting your rights. I mean, any body who doesn't totally agree and accept this is un-American. Because if you aren't with them, one is obviously against them. And so on and so on."

-I would like a nice little list of you "subverted rights" right here- and dont say the patriot act like I can already see coming. And NO ONE ever said anything about completely agreeing with the government, you dont have to agree at all, as long as your reasons hold some logic, of which I have seen zero to none so far.

-You know, we ought to take democracy away just show arrogant people like you what it is really like to live in a dictatorship. O well, after we let China invade us you might find out. Im sorry, that would be communism...my bad. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Capt. Fantastic..:
"Consider patriotism though. These days, if you raise any objection to what the current administration is doing, you're considered unpatriotic."

-Yes, please explain this one... if this were so then why do so then 80% of America is included, that leaves 20% to say they are unpatriotic. So... not really. You are only unpatriotic if you dont support our troops and dont try to make reasonable change in government if you have something against it (I respect those people, no mater their views).
People these days are too lazy to do that though, they just complain.

"vs "Saddam *might* have WMDs. And you can't really consider "atrocities" committed against his own people, otherwise we'd be invading half the countries in Africa as well."

Read this: here and yes, chemical weapons count as WMDs, considering if you remember the Tokyo subway attack... and that was in smaller amounts than one canister of these 500! Yet even though they aint nukes, this never made the front page of most liberal newspapers, if the paper at all!

And it is perfectly just to attack a country if a dictator kills twenty thousand of his people and puts political rivals in meat grinders. Its called crimes against humanity, if you remember the holocaust.And those African places have it coming for them.

"After 9/11 this country was totally on board, there would have been armies of Rosie the Riveters in the streets if they'd been called for. But what did the administration tell us to do? They said to go shopping. They didn't tell us to cut back on gas consumption, or to stop buying diamonds, or to car pool or any number of other things. They said go shopping."


--And I will repost:
just think that people have lost something in their way of thinking that we used to have... It took a terrorist attack (much like 12/7/41) to actually bring us together for once, and within years all that has been lost and people will actually go back and blame people other than those responsible for it happening, instead of supporting what is happening now.

ANd I will add: we didnt need to do anything like that because we had no reason too, (though it might have been smart financially). The reason was because there is no reason to let an incident that causes terror spread terror, because if you recall, a lot of people were paranoid about going anywhere and doing anything becuase they were afraid of bombings. Thats what terrorism did to us, we needed it to end.

"You mean, like blaming Saddam for 9/11 when it was really Osama bin Laden?"

--Saddam was never blamed for 9/11 (at least not by the government), although he did have direct links to Al-queada. It was because he was connected to these terror groups that he actually was attacked, because he and his country were the second biggest rallying group for terrorists and he refused to do anything about it, which made him different than our so called middle eastern allies. Thats one reason we attacked, I wont go over any more, Im sure youve heard it already...

"I disagree. I think if there were a good reason, then we'd all get shit done the way we did in WW2.

As for the rest of your post, I can't really decipher what you mean. But I would invite you to research history a bit."

Hmm... Im sure we would. Not really. Fat, lazy America would sit around until we get some nukes shoved down our thoat and then say "where was the army, where was the government" MAYBE after that some of us might get smart. And Im not saying everyone is like that, but I would say more than 50% of the population could care less about standing up for this country if they had to, they would likely try to escape the country and hide under some new government while the rest of us stay back, now outnumbered and try our best to kick whats left of us into gear.

And about researching history, well I happen to be a historian (ironic isnt it) and I have had history college professors who have sometimes not known some of the things I have been telling them about. roll eyes (sarcastic) Not to brag or anything...

"Yes, they should. Especially when they're being subverted in the patriot act."

I would say that such a comment goes towards my "blame other people for your own problems" argument. Sure, things have to be changed with the act, but its new, and there werent people back in WWII (back to that good old history, isnt that funny) that protested delayed flights or having crazy nazis arrested. Lets face it, do terrorists deserve rights to freedom of speech, etc..? (A lot more when they arent even citizens of this country) If the answer is yes, then you are a good person who cares for other but perhaps allowed a dangerous extremist loose, because it has happened already if you followed up that one case back a year ago, although it was only a small box in the newspaper with little to no information in it (fancy that) Dont think they even mentioned a name...


-And dont comment on how I dont use quotes, Im too lazy.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.