Kerry, In Speech, Accuses White House of Suppressing Dissent

When I read that comment about my ATNNS submission, I only had to shake my head. And then, I had to take a long look at Skippy once again and think of how to refute this.

I only have to say this.

A topic is what one makes of it, for sure. But, instead of focusing on the main issue about "dissent", people are prone to attack Kerry for the message instead of thinking how unique it is for a politician to utter such words.

What other politician, right or left, has currently commented on this? Anyone off the top of your head?

And for those who are attacking this thread as "partisan politics as usual", they do have the choice to talk solely about dissent and nothing else. And in the same vein, they also have the choice not to participate at all.

Or else, surround themselves in a "puff piece" which congratulates the conservative voice instead of challenging themselves on whether they truly believe dissent is equally practiced in this country.

I am gratified by the people who did post their feelings about the issue of dissent because they are specifically worried that are rights to free speech are being toyed with. And I would certainly hope that more people would still continue on this part of the discussion because the issue of criticism against government is something that is to be cherished and valued in America. Praise is something also to be considered priceless. I'm beginning to wonder whether we have an ability to speak about government at all.

However, to waste time on attacking Kerry for his ability to say it is worthless. Instead, we should be more focused on the implications of what he said and whether it is true that people are not able to express dissent against the war.

I specifically challenge those who are prone to say "Kerry basher", "Democrat" or "liberal" to simply post their feelings regarding dissent in general without using those two words. I also challenge you to question yourself whether you would be first to defend the right to speak for anyone--even if they discuss issues you find contrary to your political beliefs.

I bet you can't do it. Even if it pains you.





[edit on 11-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by jsobecky

from goose
I don't agree with our government informing the mexican government of where these minutemen are if the minutemen are on US soil. At the same time I do not agree with the minutemen abusing any of these immigrants either. And that has to be stopped. Being allowed to abuse an immigrant is not dissent, it is a criminal action against another human being.

Of course you have proof that the Minutemen are abusing immigrants, don't you? I must have missed seeing those facts. Would you mind re-posting them please?

Thanks.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by jsobecky]

The article you yourself supplied, implies this, below you will find the first paragraph of the article you supplied with the link.

www.foxnews.com...
The U.S. Border Patrol is alerting the Mexican government to the locations of civilian border patrol groups when the organizations help detain suspected illegal immigrants or use violence against them, according to a published report.

semperfortis, isn't it interesting that you didn't go for an unbiased source to say that the media is "left wing". You went exactly for the Media Research Center which terms itself as a "conservative media watch-dog group". Therefore, your argument is slanted as mediamatter.org points out:

MRC studies that "prove" media's "liberal bias" collapse under scrutiny
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has documented, the news media have granted conservatives more opportunities than liberals to speak in a wide variety of network news forums. On NBC, Meet the Press consistently features imbalanced panels that favor conservatives; interviews on the Today show in April featured three times as many conservatives as liberals; and 19 Chris Matthews Show panels skewed right in 2004, while only 7 skewed left. In the 15 weeks following the 2004 presidential election, the CBS Evening News featured 65 clips of Democratic officials or commentators representing progressive organizations and 83 clips of Republican officials or commentators representing conservative organizations, not including President Bush; and on January 19, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer acknowledged that CBS' Face the Nation hosted more Republican than Democrat guests since the presidential election. Media Matters has noted imbalances in cable news coverage of political events as well, including the 2004 presidential debates and the inauguration.

The MRC highlighted a few examples of imbalanced labeling, presumably those that it considered most egregious, but even these examples show how faulty its logic is. To demonstrate the "imbalanced approach," Noyes wrote: "On the April 26 Today, Katie Couric introduced a debate segment by branding just one side: 'Dee Dee Myers was President Clinton's first White House press secretary, and Tucker Carlson is a conservative commentator and host for MSNBC.' Were we supposed to believe Myers is non-ideological?" Apparently, the MRC believes that by labeling Myers by her affiliation with the Clinton administration, NBC was trying to keep Myers's ideology a secret. Of course, former officials of both Republican and Democratic administrations appear on television all the time, and are nearly always identified with the administration they served in, not as "conservatives" or "liberals."

And the Pew Research Center For The People and the Press had an interesting take on "liberal bias" in the media:

Strong Opposition to Media Cross-Ownership Emerges
The Fox News audience is decidedly more Republican, and more politically conservative, than the audiences for network news and CNN, as well as the public as a whole. Four-in-ten Fox News viewers (41%) identify themselves as Republicans compared with 32% of network news viewers, 29% of the CNN audience, and 30% of Americans overall.

These differences are reflected in contrasting attitudes toward the media and politics. Two-thirds of Fox News viewers (66%) see the press as liberal compared with 54% of network news viewers and fewer than half (47%) of CNN viewers. The Fox News audience also is more likely to prefer pro-American coverage of the war on terrorism. Four-in-ten Fox News viewers say it is better that coverage be pro-American than neutral, compared with 32% of CNN viewers, 26% of network news viewers and 29% of the public. Still, a majority of Fox News viewers (54%) prefer neutral coverage of the war on terrorism.

Politically, Fox News viewers express much stronger support for President Bush and his policies and are more likely to have a negative view of former President Clinton than are viewers of other news outlets. Nearly three-quarters of Fox News viewers (74%) approve of the president's job performance compared with 60% of the public and roughly the same percentage of CNN and network news viewers (63%, 61% respectively). People who get most of their news from Fox News also are more likely to approve of Bush's efforts on the economy and support the war in Iraq than the general public or viewers of other news outlets.

So, the "liberal bias" of the media is a "myth" cooked up and served to the public. All the while, FOX news and the rest entertain the views of conservative dignitaries and pundits on television. So why are you so mad at the media? You should be happy.



[edit on 11-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by bodebliss

George Bush senior has continued to support organizations heavy in Nazi influence

Oh My God!!!!!!!!
He supported NASA???

ceci

Not so fast -- the study actually proves nothing of the sort. Iindeed, it proves nothing at all -- the MRC has cooked the books in a way that even an Arthur Andersen accountant would blush to own up to.

For one thing, the MRC study didn't actually look at political labeling as such, but merely the uses of the terms conservative and liberal in their political senses. That means that they included not just phrases like "conservative Senator Jesse Helms" but sentences like "Hard-core conservatives have created a new verb, ‘Borked,’ after 1987 Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork." But the latter are obviously irrelevant to the claims made by Goldberg and others. After all, if the media merely said things like "conservatives did such-and-such" more often than "liberals did such-and-such," it wouldn't suggest a liberal bias -- not unless, in the familiar paranoid style, you assume that anyone who is talking about you must be saying something bad. (By that same logic, you could argue that the fact that the press mentions Sharon more than Arafat demonstrates its anti-Israel bias.)

Well I expect better from you ceci. Posting from an obvously and proven BIASED source to prove I was wrong about BIAS.

Is MRC simply too dim to understand this? Not likely. In fact the MRC has used proportional counts in other studies , when it seemed convenient to do so. And they were well aware of both my study and Boyd's, which appropriately used proportional counts. (To his credit, Boyd himself has pointed out the limitations of the MRC method and agrees with these criticisms.) So they knew what the correct procedure was, but didn't want to use it. Or what's equally likely, they actually did the right sort of analysis and then decided not to report it, since it didn't produce the results they were after.

Originally posted by goose

Originally posted by jsobecky
Of course you have proof that the Minutemen are abusing immigrants, don't you? I must have missed seeing those facts. Would you mind re-posting them please?

Thanks.

The article you yourself supplied, implies this, below you will find the first paragraph of the article you supplied with the link.

www.foxnews.com...
The U.S. Border Patrol is alerting the Mexican government to the locations of civilian border patrol groups when the organizations help detain suspected illegal immigrants or use violence against them, according to a published report.

I'm sorry, goose, but that still is not proof. Implying doesn't constitute proof.

An auto insurance company can cancel your policy because of moving traffic violations or driving under the influence or because of failure to pay your premium or because of a host of other reasons.

If Joe Blow's policy is cancelled, you cannot "imply" it was done because he was driving under the influence. Well, I guess you could "imply" so, but you would be wrong.

Don't worry about Kerry being a factor in 08' . This will be Hillary's for the taking. The same voting machine manufacturers who secured GW's win in 04' will do the same for her in 08'. She is perfect in the eyes of the NWO. She's the wife of one of the biggest NWO shills ever to walk the planet. She's divisive. She's a power whore who will gladly do all she's asked and more.

Originally posted by ceci2006
That's also false: neither of them own Heinz. Public records show Heinz Kerry isn't an officer of the company, isn't on the company's board of directors, and isn't even close to being the largest shareholder.

Well Chaney is not a CEO of haliburton yet he makes money off them.

The same goes for Kerrys wife, you admit she is not the largest shareholder yet she owns stock so the statement was true.

Don't you just hate it when you shoot yourself in the foot?

In addition I noticed you did not mention her big mouth, why is that? Because you know darned well she did put her foot in her mouth more then once I might add. Furthermore her choice of attire stinks, not what I would call first lady material.

As for the others dismissing Kerry as a runner, hang it up because Hillary said she has no plans on running on more then one occasion, I might add, the very same goes for Condi Rice she too has made it clear she has not intentions of running.

The only way I can see those two running would be if they were drafted at their
convention.

As I said heaven help us if Kerry runs, we are going to need all the help we can get.

[edit on 5/11/2006 by shots]

As I said heaven help us if Kerry runs, we are going to need all the help we can get

You can say that after watching that loser George Bush stumble around in a drunken haze for 6 years

"Bush is a jinx" to anything and everything he touches

Yes I am well aware that imply does not mean that it is for real but there are plenty of reports of abuse even though there have been no charges made as of yet.

Also the border patrol is disputing the report that they are giving the mexican gov. and reports of where the minutemen are.
kvoa.com...

bbsnews.net...

Since April 1, armed private individuals under the so-called "Minuteman project" have come to Arizona for the purported purpose of spotting and reporting individuals who the Minutemen claim are violating federal immigration law. In fact, there have been growing reports and allegations of abuse of immigrants as a result of the Minutemen’s activities. Increasingly, it appears that private citizens near the Arizona border are engaging in illegal treatment of immigrants

[edit on 11-5-2006 by goose]

Also the border patrol is disputing the report that they are giving the mexican gov. and reports of where the minutemen are.

I'm well aware that they are now denying the allegations. Listen carefully to what they admit to really sharing with the Mexican gov't, and why they do it. You can see right through their lies.

Yes I agree they almost contradict their own denial with their explanation of what they do and why they do it.

semperfortis, since you are not satisfied with those sources. How about these?

The Center for Media and Democracy reported on the fact that the Bush Administration has spent more money on PR than the previous Administration. And from their interpretation of the GAO report, I suddenly believe that there is bias in the media above any simple political ideology. And this is from a non-partisan source.

The Devil Is in the Lack of Details: The Defense Department's Media Contracts

Although they've done their best to keep their spinning from public scrutiny, several major incidents have exposed the Bush administration's manipulation of news media: The "sell job" for the invasion of Iraq. Payola pundits Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus. Stooge "reporter" Jeff Gannon / James Guckert. Video news releases determined to be covert propaganda by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO). During the second Clinton term (calendar years 1997 through the end of 2000), government PR contracts averaged $32 million per year. Over the first Bush term (calendar years 2001 through 2004), PR spending averaged $62.5 million annually. From fiscal year 2003 to mid-fiscal year 2005, an average of $78.8 million went to private PR firms per year --from just seven federal departments.

It goes on to say, what types of things that the GAO found the Bush Administration doing to boost support for the war. This could, in fact, explain why we have the problem of "political blindness" today.

According to the House committee data, the Defense Department, Army and Navy are almost reticent in their PR activities, together spending $10.8 million from 2001 through 2004. However, the GAO paints a very different picture of the big media spenders. The Pentagon is the media fiend, according to the GAO report, responsible for $1.1 billion of the $1.6 billion in federal media contracts over 30 months. This discrepancy is mostly due to the GAO's inclusion of all media contracts — not just for PR, but also for advertising, media buys, website development, press releases and the like. But several big-ticket Pentagon media contracts listed in the GAO report that read like classic PR jobs are "missing firm data" — and therefore not classified according to contractor type. These include training Army Public Affairs Officers, developing "briefing products and input documents," and conducting "message development" and "news story development."
[...]
The Bush administration has also eroded once-sacrosanct prohibitions against exposing domestic audiences to propaganda intended for foreign audiences. In December 2005, the Pentagon's inspector general ruled that news websites run by U.S. military regional commands in Southeastern Europe and North Africa do not violate U.S. law — though their content is readily available to U.S. web surfers. In January 2006, the National Security Archive declassified the Defense Department's 2003 "Information Operations Roadmap." The heavily-redacted document admits, "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa." However, the roadmap asserts that propagandizing U.S. audiences is permissible, as long as that was not the government's intent.

And again, before your use that "bias card", here is the Center of Media and Democracy's description of itself:

Center for Media and Democracy

The nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy works to strengthen democracy by promoting media that are "of, by and for the people." Our projects include PR Watch, a quarterly investigative journal; five books by CMD staff; Spin of the Day, which offers daily reporting on spin and propaganda in the news; and SourceWatch, a wiki-based investigative journalism resource to which anyone, including you, can contribute.

So, in the first part...the government is implicated in creating "propraganda to get their message out. Feeling had? Well, there's a little more that I dug up that I will put up in future posts.


[edit on 12-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Another interesting tidbit I dug up on the question of media bias is this article from Business Week. Hardly a liberal periodical. Isn't it quite interesting that they reported in December 2005 that a columnist was found to be paid by Jack Abramoff? Still wondering where you are getting your news from?

Op-Eds for Sale

A senior fellow at the Cato Institute resigned from the libertarian think tank on Dec. 15 after admitting that he had accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing op-ed articles favorable to the positions of some of Abramoff's clients. Doug Bandow, who writes a syndicated column for Copley News Service, told BusinessWeek Online that he had accepted money from Abramoff for writing between 12 and 24 articles over a period of years, beginning in the mid '90s. "It was a lapse of judgment on my part, and I take full responsibility for it," Bandow said from a California hospital, where he's recovering from recent knee surgery.

After receiving BusinessWeek Online's inquiries about the possibility of payments, Cato Communications Director Jamie Dettmer said the think-tank determined that Bandow "engaged in what we consider to be inappropriate behavior and he considers to be a lapse in judgment" and accepted his resignation. "Cato has an excellent reputation for integrity, and we're zealous in guarding that," Dettmer said.

Bandow has written more than 150 editorials and columns over the past five years, each identifying his Cato affiliation. His syndicated column for Copley News Service is featured in several hundred newspapers across the country. Bandow's biography on the Cato Institute Web site says he has also appeared as a commentator on all the major television broadcast networks and the cable news channels.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting released a Study about NPR and their slant toward conservative voices in 2004. Here is what they said:

How Public is Public Radio?

Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition , 6/26/03).

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR ’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each [...]all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials.

And again, I ask, why are you so perturbed by the media? They represent your views. They feature your favorite pundits, politicians and dignitaries. You should be jumping for joy.






[edit on 12-5-2006 by ceci2006]

As for shots:

Fine. You think that Teresa Heinz Kerry has a "big mouth". Whatever. I just find it funny that men often think that way of a woman who speaks her mind, whether she tells the press, "to shove it" or not.

But no. You probably prefer that demure sort of woman. The Laura Bush and Condoleezza Rice sort that quietly stand by their "man" (because Dr. Rice did refer to Mr. Bush as her "husband".) and do the Master's bidding. Sigh....they don't use their big mouths quite that much. Instead, they are rendered flaccid because their politics dictate they should be.

Originally posted by ceci2006
As for shots:

Fine. You think that Teresa Heinz Kerry has a "big mouth". Whatever. I just find it funny that men often think that way of a woman who speaks her mind, whether she tells the press, "to shove it" or not.

But no. You probably prefer that demure sort of woman. The Laura Bush and Condoleezza Rice sort that quietly stand by their "man" (because Dr. Rice did refer to Mr. Bush as her "husband".) and do the Master's bidding. Sigh....they don't use their big mouths quite that much. Instead, they are rendered flaccid because their politics dictate they should be.

And here I thought we were having an intellectual debate. Now that it has apparently degraded to what type of women I like, not sure how to respond that wont sound like something off the school yard.

Assumptions made about ones "preferences" though are a wonderful way to respond to your postings. (The last 3)
Regardless of who I perfer, or dislike (women) you can not post anything here that I can not refute with a similar, and equally substantiated source from the net. I regret having participated in that sort of back and forth which denies us the chance to express our views and simply "surf" the net.
The fact is simple. Just because you and the "source" says it is unbiased....well.....
Dan Rather said he was too, and we all found out he was a liar and fabricated a story to further HIS political agenda. They all say they are "unbiased" , "No Spin" etc. I was hoping for objective points of view. expressed equally on here in regards to the topic. Not clips from the National Inquirer, CBS, FOX or actually anyone that spends half their time espousing how "Unbiased" they are.
I will admit that in all of my studies, wanderings and conversations, you are the first person to not readily admit the major news orgs. are VERY left wing biased.
But that is what makes the world go round.

Kerry's speech implied that dissent is being stifled in the United States. I simply do not see it. I see papers full of dissent, not to mention the internet, sites like ATS are full of dissent, myself amongst them on certain issues.

I don't see people being disappeared or vanishing out of their houses. It's all very well and good to make the accusations of dissent being stifled as Senator Kerry does in his speech, he however, should at least make an attempt to prove such. Just saying it, doesn't make it so. King Canute proved that.

I regularly listen to NPR, I absoulutely adore classical music, and they have nothing but dissent on their broadcasts, and the gov't pays for them in large part.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by seagull]

semperfortis, I was not referring to your comments. I was referring to the comments shots made when asking why I tended to forget that Mrs. Heinz Kerry had a "big mouth". She did say, "shove it" to the press, amongst other things. But he referred to her having "shot" her mouth off.

But if you prefer the silent, demure type of lady that waits on and coddles to "Daddy", whatever floats your boat.

Back to our debate: I did post new sources which focus upon the NPR, as well as how Abramoff paid commentators to speak on the behalf of his clients. Not to mention, how the Pew study pegs the audiences for FOX. Those were all unbiased sources. No mediamatters.org involved. I'm more interested in that.

However, what makes you think that the Center for Media and Democracy left wing? Why do you think Business Week is left wing? And why do you think the Pew Center for People and the Press left wing? Did you even read their reports? Or are you just simply jumping to the conclusion that anything I post about the statistics of the media is wrong because it isn't the Media Research Center?

I'm waiting for your rebuttal with your own type of studies. But instead, you spend more time putting me down. Yes, of course, we were having an intellectual conversation, or trying to anyway. But, I tend to think that this exercise is futile. Because when a conservative person uses "intellectual" it is usually a code word that their "propaganda" from the right wing has fully taken effect. And that they do not have an open-enough mind to consider other points of view...unless Rush Limbaugh said it.

All you do is just regurgitate the same thing because the right wing "echo machine" told you to.

But you can change my mind. Post your sources instead of resorting to the "Dan Rather" card.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by ceci2006]

ceci.
I just got warned for over quoting on another thread, so I have to be careful.

Why is it that wen I disagree with you, I AM ATTACKING YOU?
When you disagree with me, it is free speech?
When I disagree I am "putting you down."
When you refer to our choice of women, accuse us of "code words", "Intellectual following" and compare us to Limbaugh." So that is alright?

Here is why I do not trust your sources.

TextThe website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation."[1]. It is funded by organisations, described by ActivistCash as 'leftwing', such as the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology.CMD Financials.

The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

www.activistcash.com...

semperfortis, still no dice. I knew right up first not to trust any source that mentions any entity they are covering "liberal" in a derogatory way. I'm just putting up two excepts so that people see what I mean.

This comes from the site when describing the Center for Media and Democracy:

Center for Media & Democracy

As the liberal Village Voice commented in April 2001, “These guys come from the far side of liberal.” Seen through this dynamic duo's socialist lens, society’s major problems are capitalism in general and corporations in particular. If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it. Unless, of course, that food is vegetarian, organic, certified fair-trade, shade-grown, biodynamic, or biotech-free — in which case, the sky’s the limit!

Now I see which side their bread is buttered on as they describe themselves. So much for being pro-business:

Activist Cash

ActivistCash.com, a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, provides the public and media with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of their exorbitant funding.

Despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agendas. We've analyzed over 500,000 pages of IRS records to bring you a comprehensive snapshot of where their money comes from, tracking more than $800 million to date.