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.

 

USA vs. the World

page: 16
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What does "Jeff Gannon” one reporter ,not working for any major news origination have to do with the other 30 reporters in the white house who belong to the major news stations we see on TV.
Your going to discredit the entire media in the U.S. because one man again not working for any big news organization was a fraud?


- No I didn't say that.

I gave Gannon as an obvious example.

As far as the paid shill element goes how about those commentators and journos being paid to promote Whitehouse policy in their articles who simply 'forgot' or 'didn't think it worth mentioning' that they were being paid by the Bush administration to do so, hmmmm?

In the UK that kind of thing would never be tollerated.


Also Sminkey, I don't know what you consider a liberal media maybe you want all TV personnel to be like John Stewart. I suppose to you that would be a fair and liberal media.


-

That might be funny if the US media today had anything like the range of view or anything like a track record of challenging the 'official view'.

Sadly since Bush came in there has been nothing short of a yes-man culture and the admin has yet to be seriously called on anything of substance. They accept almost anything they are told and when it is exposed as utterly false they say little or nothing.



And Sminkey do you even watch U.S. news stations?


- I have satellite TV so if I choose I can watch Fox, CNN, ABC, CNBC and BBC shows NBC.


If you don't then don't talk about how they report.


- WTF?!
Don't be silly Westy.

Do you personally see absolutely everything you comment upon or will you be happy with a variety of sources relaying the story to you along with what you come up with in your own investigations?

'Liberal media' in the US context is nothing less than a rather transparent and ridiculous propaganda tactic - for those who prefer not to think too hard about these things.

I notice you couldn't/wouldn't back this up -

According to you the only good media is one that always disagrees with the president and with the government, and never accepts anything they say.


[edit on 9-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
The bulk of the US media is definitely liberal in its bias. I knew this years ago before home computers. Short wave listening and eventually a ham radio license taught me what a heavy paper curtain was over America. I have no doubt that this is still going on even with the advent of home computers.. though the abilitiy to get outside information with home computers is greater. The media is also fickle..and intrested in their survival. They will coddle up to anyone and anything that will keep up thier ratings. I heavily disapprove of the sensationalism in the media. This is a common feature of European journalism. Tabloid Journalism ..I think it is called and the Media here has followed suit with the Europeans.
Furthermore...this media mentality you describe as right wing...was also going on under left wing administrations...this is obvious. The ability of the media to change colours for thier survival is sickening. It was obvious back with liberal administrations..that the media was playing the same game.
It is about media survival...not serving the public...this is obvious to me...and it is also a definition of politics. Wise up people.!!! No one is looking out for you ..except yourself...I dont trust the media or the politicians to look out for me. They are one and the same..no matter what administration is in office. They are both whores for thier survival....the media and politicians..they are both in the buisness of selling and trading souls..wise up ..people. Orangetom



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
If you don't trust or watch the news good for you, I don't take everything they say as the truth I simply intrepid it my way. I got to go... oh and be careful the bad man in anchor chairs are tying to brainwash you



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
be careful the bad man in anchor chairs are tying to brainwash you


- Don't try and get silly or cute about this Westy.

It is hardly baseless paranoia when the 'anchor' (or commentator) is shown to be in the pay of the administration to publicise policy in a positive manner and simply not gotten round to telling anyone thereby deceiving their readers/viewers into believeing their views were 'independant' and impartial.

Like I said, if that was shown to have happened in the UK the journo would never work in the serious media outlets again and there would be resignations from the ministers responsible for such an outrageous example of media manipulation.

Quite why you would want to defend or throw up smoke about this is beyond me.
I would lay cash money down that if it were the 'other lot' caught doing this you'd (like many of those - now - silent voices in the US media) be screaming blue murder.

Funny how Bush and Co. always get a 'bye' though, huh?



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Actually, I have heard media channels talk about the Gannon controversy, maybe you want the to talk about it all the time but the world is ever changing and news happens every second.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Actually, I have heard media channels talk about the Gannon controversy, maybe you want the to talk about it all the time


- Yeah, we have 24hr 'rolling news' where comment has taken the place of news.

....and what they choose to comment on, who comments on it and how much time they give it speaks volumes.....

....especially when you aren't told (and can have no clue because you aren't told) some of the commentators are being paid by the gov to promote the gov's agenda, ie propagandise for the state.

Still, if you can't see that and think it's all ok and part of what a truely 'free and independant media' is all about Westy you carry on.




but the world is ever changing and news happens every second.


- Oh FFS, what are you, a parrot for some by-line producing ad Co.?
That's just empty lame ad-speak marketing garbage.
The kind of idiotic vaccous nonsense that sounds good for the few seconds it's on TV but doesn't actually stand a moments serious examination.

Wake up.

It's true things, events, happen every second of the day but not every thing or event is actually news nor worthy of displacing the actual significant news just because it is the latest event to happen.

Jayzuss wept. Is there no hope for you guys?
Do you have to unquestioningly just soak up all the cr*p that is fired at you from the marketing people through TV?


[edit on 11-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Believe what you want, if your have a problem with the U.S. media then that's your choice.
I still don't see a connection between the government and the big news stations.




West Point, Out.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Believe what you want, if your have a problem with the U.S. media then that's your choice.


- It's not a matter of choices Westy, it's the tragedy of what is currently going on and what has been going on for some time now.


I still don't see a connection between the government and the big news stations.


- They got a dumbing down agenda at work all over the place and now the staggeringly outrageous FACT of paid commentators/journos (ie nothing less than state propagandists) promoting the government's agenda (and who refuse to tell the public they are in the pay of the administration untill forced to when exposed)......

.....and you can't (refuse to?) see it?!

*Shakes head*

It's practically willfull with some of you guys, right?
I guess you get what you deserve afterall; shame about those who didn't deserve it, huh?


[edit on 11-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Listen people know you point of view and they know mine. Since were are never going to agree on this we should just stop arguing.

And why are you using my name to sign off?



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Listen people know you point of view and they know mine. Since were are never going to agree on this we should just stop arguing.


- OK, I'll let it lie.


And why are you using my name to sign off?


- Daft mistake with the quotation now corrected, ok?



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

- OK, I'll let it lie.


Errr... Ok deal.


- Daft mistake with the quotation now corrected, ok?


I though it was a mistake, I was just trying to be sure.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I still don't see a connection between the government and the big news stations.


That's because you do not understand the effect of deregulation, the concentration of media ownership into such a small number of hands and the power that wields.

Either that, or you choose not to look into it so you might understand it. It's much safer (psychologically).

Several pages back the question was raised re: what alliances are forming against the USA. I ran across this brief, excellent essay by Republican commentator Charlie Reese. He very simply illuminates the ramifications of our actions on current forming alliances. Economic warfare is a powerful weapon at their disposal.



Don't Be Spun by the Spin

by Charley Reese

Let me put into perspective just how small a stick he carries. The European Union, in all but military power, is itself a superpower. It has more people than we do, and it has a larger gross domestic product. Its currency, the Euro, is very strong, and our currency, the dollar, is very weak.

Russia remains a military superpower, and its economy is growing faster than ours. It has recently undertaken an effort to modernize its nuclear strategic forces and even today has more than enough to blow us away. Furthermore, it recently signed a strategic defense agreement with China.

As to that part of the world, China and India, both with more than a billion people each, have rapidly growing economies. China, in particular, has undertaken a military buildup, and, of course, all three – Russia, India and China – are nuclear powers. If Bush ever looked past his immediate political goals, he might foresee a future tripartite alliance that would mean big trouble for America.

In short, we are not the world's only remaining superpower, as the Washington cliché says, and if Bush could see past his ego, he would recognize that. Our economy is shaky. Federal, corporate and private debt is in the trillions, and Japan and China could wreck our economy just by dumping the debt paper they hold on the market.

One should remember what Osama bin Laden said. He did not say he would conquer us and convert us all to Islam. He said he would bankrupt us.
www.antiwar.com...



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Here's another article written by Stanley Kober, a research fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. It regards the new entente: China, India and Russia.



Alliances and Counter-alliances in Asia
by Stanley Kober

Stanley Kober is a research fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.


During her recent trips abroad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice emphasized the need to strengthen U.S. alliances.

That policy is not unique to the Bush administration; previous administrations have also stressed the need to preserve and strengthen our alliances, even as opposing Cold War alliances disintegrated. But is this emphasis on alliances wise?

In his Farewell Address, President George Washington argued that alliances should be expedients to deal with threats and should not survive the disappearance of those threats. Allowing alliances to become permanent could foster the creation in the mind of the people of a permanent threat or enemy outside the alliance. In those circumstances, "the nation [i.e., the people], prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy."
www.cato.org...



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
WTF one country against one freaking continent?! Of curse they have more people but WTF does that have to do with anything?
And Russia's economy growing faster than ours
1/3 of Russia's population makes less than 1dollar a day
Also Russia's military is a shadow of what it used to be.

But I again don’t see how this has anything to do with the media unless ECK just wants to stir up another argument.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I'm not too interested in getting involved in this debate...but, I would say that europes leadership is slightly more conservative in nature than the US maybe coz not too much ranching goes on here, so I would suggest that the US would use the usual shoot kill aim tatics that they have since the civil war..If it was about special forces and tatics I would suggest that the Norad bunker would be a good place to hide...for a bit...



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
WTF one country against one freaking continent?! Of curse they have more people but WTF does that have to do with anything?
And Russia's economy growing faster than ours
1/3 of Russia's population makes less than 1dollar a day
Also Russia's military is a shadow of what it used to be.

But I again don’t see how this has anything to do with the media unless ECK just wants to stir up another argument.


america GDP - real growth rate: 3.1% (2003 est.)
russia GDP - real growth rate: 7.3% (2003 est.)
russia GDP - per capita purchasing power parity - $8,900 (2003 est.)

source cia world factbook



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Yes, currently Russia's economy is GROWING faster than the US, but then again Russia's economy is not really doing very well now, so that 7% Russian growth is still not as big as the 3% American growth.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But I again don’t see how this has anything to do with the media unless ECK just wants to stir up another argument.


Of course you don't. You see your own limited point of view and are incapable of considering anything outside of that.

On stirring up arguments, I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black. I've offered ideas of what may happen and links to information. What have you offered other than insults and inflammatory dialogue?



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
THe USA spends over $370 billion per annum on defense. Not likely anyone can touch us. CHina spends about $60 bill, Austalia a laughable $12 bill, Russia about $40. Basically everyone else's defense spendings are mouse farts to the US. We have enough of our own to hold off until we can concur SA, Mexico, and Canada. The US's greatest advantage in an all out war against the rest of the world is location. We lay between two countries who's militaries wouldn't fair much better against Montana's militia groups.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
If you think austrialias is "laughable" whats your opinion on your "greatests" ally's budget.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join