It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Media drum beat against Republican continues.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

You are all loopy to believe the last ADMIN did not try to kill dissent... You wanna talk and complain about it, but you are obviously clueless to how it has been. I suspect because your folks were the ones quelling the dissent.



Please answer Cio88's question:



Originally posted by Cio88
Go ahead, give me some examples. Show me when Bush actually came out and verbally lashed a private citizen for criticizing him. Show me where anyone in the media helped Bush in attacking not only citizens, but dissenting politicians?


I see a lot of "but you did it" posts on ATS lately and none of them can either prove what they say or offer a reason why it was not ok then (if it existed) and OK now.

PROVE that Bush verbally lashed a private citizen
or PROVE that the last ADMIN tried to kill dissent via the media.

You can't.

And why are valid points constantly avoided on ATS, its very frustrating to see people ignore something they can't defend and countyer with a different argument.

But at least it's telling..I'll know from your misdirection in your reply that you are less than genuine, then I can just ignre you.




posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gormly
 


If you look in to it, left wing websites offten accused bush of "squshing dissent" for ridiculous reasons. One popular one I find a lot is when Bush spoke at some veterans dinner and said, "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." That is the best they can come up with. Than we dont hear a peep from them when the president, congress and the media attacking anyone and everyone who criticizes. Since when is it ok for these entities to go after people who are exercising their constitutional rights?

Thats why its comical to be when Intrepid talks down to me as if he knows this country better. He obvious doesn't, if he thinks this is business as usual. It isn't.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Cio88]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gormly
PROVE that Bush verbally lashed a private citizen
or PROVE that the last ADMIN tried to kill dissent via the media.

You can't.

And why are valid points constantly avoided on ATS, its very frustrating to see people ignore something they can't defend and countyer with a different argument.


I answered that on the last page. He didn't do that. He just put policy in place without the medias help. See my link on the "Free speech zones". There's more but that should make the point of stifling people's speech.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



I answered that on the last page. He didn't do that. He just put policy in place without the medias help. See my link on the "Free speech zones". There's more but that should make the point of stifling people's speech.


No, you didn't answer it. You simply posted something that you thought demonstrated an example of whats going on now. It wasn't a relevant example.

Free Speech zones is not the same thing as the government attacking, ruining or prosecuting those who they disagree with politically. You cannot find an example of Bush or media doing that during his administration.

What we have now is a government and media working together to shape and control people's perspective. If that isn't a perfect recipe for tyranny, I don't know what is.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Cio88]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I commend you, sir, for your level-headed attempts to project the thought that one not entrenched in the game is more likely to see what is going on.

I agree that far too many of my countrymen are obstinate to become blinded to what is.

The game is played by both sides, and we are all created equal. I remember Nixon's enemy list, for example... the names have changed-the game has not.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



Nice edit. Another attack. The death knoll of a failed debate. Oh, and then the trump card. The "mod" thing. Guess what:

Mods are people too.(And they have opinions)


Wait, you're the one who was saying Americans (me) have close minds. Your opinion and an insult directed at me and than claim I'm the one insulting? I don't think that link you gave me says that mods can insult and justify it by saying its an opinion.

reply to post by pyrytyes
 



I agree that far too many of my countrymen are obstinate to become blinded to what is.


Yet if I turn around and claim hes wrong because he and his country men are close minded, I've done something wrong? Claiming whats going on now is no big deal, because Americans are close minded is a cop out and insulting. I'd dare say its a pretty hypocritical stance to take.

What about my argument isn't level headed?


I remember Nixon's enemy list, for example...


We as a country haven't heard to end of how evil Nixon was right up to present day. Whats your point? How does that make whats going on now ok?

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Cio88]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by gormly
PROVE that Bush verbally lashed a private citizen
or PROVE that the last ADMIN tried to kill dissent via the media.

You can't.

And why are valid points constantly avoided on ATS, its very frustrating to see people ignore something they can't defend and countyer with a different argument.


I answered that on the last page. He didn't do that. He just put policy in place without the medias help. See my link on the "Free speech zones". There's more but that should make the point of stifling people's speech.


exactly what I thought would happen.
Thanks for proving my beliefs, each time someone does it on ATS I feel less paranoid.


Nice redirection, it almost had me, but put all your posts side by side and see what you actually "answered".

Obama basically called out a private citizen and many in his party call for Rush's head and to stifle his right to free speech. NOTHING even close happened under Bush's Admin. and we aren't even past day 50 yet!
I am not a defender of Rush.. but seriously? Now we have Dems quoting Rush as the default stance on anyone not lock step with Obama.

Obama pointedly told Americans not to listen to a specifically pointed out private citizen!!

No one sees the issue here? No one on the left I mean?
What do you suppose would have happened if Bush had told people to not listen to the other blowhard Keith Olberman?

Seriously? The media would have ent NUTZ!

A lot of conservatives I know copped to idiot policies and called out the empty rhetoric of BushCo, but I have yet to see a single liberal do the same.

o me that was Obamas first mistake and no one even questions him about it? It's going to be a very long 4 years.


Originally posted by Cio88
How does that make whats going on now ok?
[edit on 13-2-2009 by Cio88]


Cio88, as you probably already know, our "side" will never win any argument with the left.
It is impossible to win an argument when the rules are different for one side.

When one side can define hatred and bigotry as simply not believing as they do, it'll be tough to get together on anything.
When one side can insult the other ad nauseam and justify it because they feel they are “in the right" it'll be tough to get together on anything.
When one side claims that it's damaging to America to run on a voice of "fear" and then when elected does the EXACT same thing it'll be tough to get together on anything.
When one said rails for years about freedom of speech and stifling of personal liberties for 8 years and then propose the "Fairness Doctrine" almost immediately upon election, it'll be tough to get together on anything.
When one side disingenuously quotes Ann Coulture and Rush Limbaugh as our only voice only opinion it'll be tough to get together on anything.


There are two sets of standards, one for liberals and one for the rest of us.
While in a lot of cases both sides are indeed the same coin, there seems to be a HUGE difference in "reality" standards between the two parties.


So we should not be surprised when we are the only ones to get our panties in a bunch when Obama calls out a private citizen and the reply from the other side is .. Silence.


[edit on 13-2-2009 by gormly]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
What a joke this thread is...

You guys are aware that "the media" is a category that includes Rush Limbaugh, as he's one of the biggest broadcast personalities in the country?

Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and all the other far-right hatemongers are also - guess what? - part of the media.

The diversionary argument that Obama has criticized Rush Limbaugh is simply that - a diversion.

He hasn't called for Limbaugh's arrest or removal, he just said (correctly) that his approach is bad for the country. Something fairly obvious outside Limbot circles.

As I said before, this is an attempt by the same idiots that spent the last few years calling anyone who disagreed with them "traitors" to now portray themselves as some kind of persecuted minority.

Pathetic



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cio88
 


"Yet if I turn around and claim hes wrong because he and his country men are close minded, I've done something wrong? Claiming whats going on now is no big deal, because Americans are close minded is a cop put and insulting. I'd dare say its a pretty hypocritical stance to take."

My comment was in no way directed at you...

Actually, I am in agreement with your thesis. The drumming that Bush took in MSM was unlike any I could recall since Nixon. Due primarily from an "unjust" war, as well as, a little thing called Watergate. We know the outcome there.

Bush is Teflon coated. Nothing sticks. He did not care what people thought, and as much said so.

The "praise" of the new president, the demonetization (apparently) of the republicans are means of "blinding" the common person...to whichever "side" you lean. Will I fall in step with the program, or have I been pushed to the "dark side".
The point being is that if one has things drummed into you long enough, and from many angles...one would tend to become blinded to the other options.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
What a joke this thread is...

You guys are aware that "the media" is a category that includes Rush Limbaugh, as he's one of the biggest broadcast personalities in the country?

Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and all the other far-right hatemongers are also - guess what? - part of the media.

The diversionary argument that Obama has criticized Rush Limbaugh is simply that - a diversion.

He hasn't called for Limbaugh's arrest or removal, he just said (correctly) that his approach is bad for the country. Something fairly obvious outside Limbot circles.

As I said before, this is an attempt by the same idiots that spent the last few years calling anyone who disagreed with them "traitors" to now portray themselves as some kind of persecuted minority.

Pathetic


I never called anyone a traitor, watch out how you paint with that brush.
You are doing exactly what we expected, we were talking about a specific call out by Obama, which was followed up predictably by our elected representatives and the "far left hatemongers" for "removal", "trial", "hearings" , "fairness doctrine"

No one ever asked for any of that during the BushCo regime....(except for Ann, but she doesn't count she does it for the book sales)

Nice try...

Pathetic Indeed



[edit on 13-2-2009 by gormly]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
reply to post by mental modulator
 




Well I say, where were you the last eight? HOW about FOX's campaign to deem decenting of the war unpatriotic, UNAMERICAN and terrorist lovers. Drum BEAT, thats rich...


First of all Fox isnt Bush. Second of all, Fox is a single network. You're right, they did paint Democrats as unpatriotic for their dissent against Bush. They were a single network against ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and PBS (not to mention print and internet media) that was brow beating Bush on a daily basis. The media was championing democrats for their dissent!

Given this fact, why are you now apologizing for all these same networks doing what they claimed was wrong when Fox did it? How can it be wrong one time, but ok when its being done on a much larger scale by the other side?

[edit on 13-2-2009 by Cio88]


FIRST of all your thread IS about the MEDIA, is it not?

SECOND the media did not champion dissent I recall Chris Mathews himself jumping on the band wagon for a long while so...

Third MIKE MALLOY is like the RUSH for LIBERALS -

Finally - I think Obama has made some dumbass choices and I think you CONS are crazy to think DEMS or OBAMA want to takes such a gamble.

I think there are points from both sides that are fair and valid.

Personally, I smell obstructionism and politicization of this thing, for if the GOP was concerned about finance they would have hauled the largest spending in history years back. So based upon that I smell a big giant rat, same as terrorists, he's and ARAB, UNPATRIOTIC, UNAMERICAN... Calling a new wolf everyday makes it hard to take heed anything GOP.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gormly

Originally posted by xmotex
What a joke this thread is...

You guys are aware that "the media" is a category that includes Rush Limbaugh, as he's one of the biggest broadcast personalities in the country?

Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and all the other far-right hatemongers are also - guess what? - part of the media.

The diversionary argument that Obama has criticized Rush Limbaugh is simply that - a diversion.

He hasn't called for Limbaugh's arrest or removal, he just said (correctly) that his approach is bad for the country. Something fairly obvious outside Limbot circles.

As I said before, this is an attempt by the same idiots that spent the last few years calling anyone who disagreed with them "traitors" to now portray themselves as some kind of persecuted minority.

Pathetic


I never called anyone a traitor, watch out how you paint with that brush.
You are doing exactly what we expected, we were talking about a specific call out by Obama, which was followed up predictably by our elected representatives and the "far left hatemongers" for "removal", "trial", "hearings" , "fairness doctrine"

No one ever asked for any of that during the BushCo regime....(except for Ann, but she doesn't count she does it for the book sales)

Nice try...

Pathetic Indeed



[edit on 13-2-2009 by gormly]


TRIALS and HEARINGS - yes

A criminal is a criminal - AFTER a trial...



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Bush didnt have to verbally attack a citizen, he had his mob to do so. He had his mob to call fellow americans who didnt agree with their government "anti-american".

Rush limbaugh spits out nothing but hate and he is known for spreading propaganda across the airwaves, just like fox news where the information was referenced from, just like anne coulter. I find it real hypocritical for your guys to go on about media bias and then reference information from media bias and defend the very individuals that are bias. It doesnt make sense.

The media was in the tank for Bush back in 2003. They knew that at that time the majority of the population unfortunatly supported this unconstitional war, so they had to appeal to that majority. The media doesnt care about ideology, it cares about what the majority supports or follows. Thats how they get their views.

This thread is incredibly hypocritical, and if the OP and his fellow posters refuses to see the reality of this then its evident they themselves are in the tank for the rightwing propaganderists.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 



The media was in the tank for Bush back in 2003. They knew that at that time the majority of the population unfortunatly supported this unconstitional war, so they had to appeal to that majority. The media doesnt care about ideology, it cares about what the majority supports or follows. Thats how they get their views.


I'm sorry, but that just inst true. The media went along with it, because at the time most information led us to believe the case for war. That is because of the previous 8 years, failed UNSCOM inspection and the Clinton administration's policy on Iraq. Al Gore and Bill Clinton were echoing Bush in the run up to war remember.


This thread is incredibly hypocritical, and if the OP and his fellow posters refuses to see the reality of this then its evident they themselves are in the tank for the rightwing propaganderists.


What is hypocritical? Me or you guys for dismissing whats going on, because you think Bush did the same thing? Isn't it just as likely you're in the tank for left wing propagandists?



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
there is a really easy way to explain this in one simple statement...
ROME IS BURNING!
I really don't mean to be rude but GET A CLUE PEOPLE! This has taken years to plan and due to the current chaos in the world its now going to take them a few months to bring it down on ALL of our heads.
The media is doing their job well and keeping people at each others throats! You are all watching a well planned out play nothing more. IF we don't stick together we are DONE!
They may end up with all of the money but we will always be on the outside trying to survive from this day forward. We need each other and we need to stop playing into their hands and figure out what we are going to do to SURVIVE what is on the horizon.
I am not directing this at any one person I am directing it AT ALL persons. You know I am right and if you would step out of the stadium of the play and look from the outside in' you would see this! You would know it is true and you would stop fighting with each other and start getting along to survive.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
The media went along with it, because at the time most information led us to believe the case for war. That is because of the previous 8 years, failed UNSCOM inspection and the Clinton administration's policy on Iraq. Al Gore and Bill Clinton were echoing Bush in the run up to war remember.


So you admit the media was in the tank for Bush and his war? That "information" that lead the Bushie administration to war was flawed from the day it came out of Bushes mouth and the day limbaugh promoted it.

-There were UN inspectors who confirmed no such weapons, most nations objected to Bushies reasoning for it.

-Following the invasion with the absense of any biological weapons the media was still in the tank for Bush, it was only by 2006 that the media began to turn on Bush, just like the population did. The Bushies themselves are the only ones that started this "liberal media" garbage.

-The war was unconstitutional.

-We are not the police of the world. The justification for going to war with Iraq could be the same for North Korea, Sudan, Pakistan etc but for some odd reason Iraq war singled out. This had little to do with biological weapons, and the war was evidently wrong.

-Clinton never declared war on Iraq, I dont care what you think he said, the man wasnt the one that waged an unconstitutional war. He wasnt the one that made that decision.


What is hypocritical? Me or you guys for dismissing whats going on, because you think Bush did the same thing?


I never dismissed any media bias of any kind. I am dismissing the partisan bickering in the OP. You talk to us about media bias then you reference Limbaugh and the "liberal media buster" website as evidence to this, and you dont think thats hypocritical?

The media will always be in the tank for one of the two parties, im not dismissing it and thats what many members have been trying to get through your skull. The media has been switching sides for years and years, the fact folks on the right such as yourself are only pointing that fact out now only shows partisanship.

If you really want to go about media bias, go on about how both sides having their media propaganda wars. Trying to point out one is like me blaming one wolf for killing the cows when there is two of them.


Isn't it just as likely you're in the tank for left wing propagandists?


No, because im not the one justifying media bias for one party and going on about the other. You know what that kinda sounds like "news busters".

[edit on 13-2-2009 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Cio88
They want 1 party rule and if this country doesn't see through it, we're in real trouble.


You've already got a "1 party rule". It has 2 faces though. Most people don't see that. THAT is the real trouble.


didn't seem to bother you from 2000 to 2006, the republicans just rammed everything thru then, but at least some democrats voted with them. i'm just glad some money is going to go to the middle class and poor for a change...republicans hate that.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by intrepid
You've already got a "1 party rule". It has 2 faces though. Most people don't see that. THAT is the real trouble.


didn't seem to bother you from 2000 to 2006, the republicans just rammed everything thru then, but at least some democrats voted with them.


Um, I think you need to reread that. I'm not talking about a party that owns all the branches of the government, well, not directly. I'm talking about there being no difference between the Republicans and/or Democrats that are in gov't. All bought and paid for.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_Guardian

Originally posted by Cio88
The media went along with it, because at the time most information led us to believe the case for war. That is because of the previous 8 years, failed UNSCOM inspection and the Clinton administration's policy on Iraq. Al Gore and Bill Clinton were echoing Bush in the run up to war remember.


So you admit the media was in the tank for Bush and his war? That "information" that lead the Bushie administration to war was flawed from the day it came out of Bushes mouth and the day limbaugh promoted it.



My favorite part is when ALL of the MSM(liberal biased media) hired on retired generals who would strategize the invasion on air - every night - night after night...

They would not question the motives for war, the need for war, no, they would promote it and suggest the "BEST WAY TO QUICKLY DECAPITATE THE REPUBLICAN GAURD".


LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS -PSSHHHH!

UNAMERICAN TERRORIST LOVING COMMIE PINKOS is not propaganda - IT IS GOP HEADLINES - day after day- after day - after day...

the BEATLES and ELVIS were also deemed SOCIALISTS

BOO HOO !



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Cio88
They want 1 party rule and if this country doesn't see through it, we're in real trouble.


You've already got a "1 party rule". It has 2 faces though. Most people don't see that. THAT is the real trouble.


didn't seem to bother you from 2000 to 2006, the republicans just rammed everything thru then, but at least some democrats voted with them. i'm just glad some money is going to go to the middle class and poor for a change...republicans hate that.


YA the 700 BILLION for TARP

OR BUSH'S record 1.35 TRILLION for "TAX CUTS" 2001

NO, these folks are mad that some of this is going to AMERICANS...

TARP went to anybody qualified, regardless of NATIONALITY. ALL RICH TO BEGIN WITH.

BUT helping unemployed, laid off and outsourced AMERICANS is HORRIBLE!

"ALL aboard the hypocrisy EXPRESS, non stop service from DC to the confederacy! ALLLL ABOARD!"



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join