Has Bill Clinton been recruited to help shut down dissent on talk radio?, page 1

Has Bill Clinton been recruited to help shut down dissent on talk radio?, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 19-4-2010 @ 08:47 AM by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

News Snippet:

"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.

"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."

Source

apnews.myway.com...

A separate but same themed article that doesn't include Clinton:

newsbusters.org...

I see this as a all too obvious sign of things to come.

If you listen to Clinton's interviews he already knows what peoples responses will be. He tries to negate them by in one sentence saying we should have dissent and in the next saying we shouldn't. They always follow this same pattern. I think blah blah blah blah " BUT " blah blah blah blah. Usually the second statement after the " BUT " is the exact opposite of what they said before the " BUT ". Rest assured, they will always quantify their statement with a " BUT ". That way they can have it both ways when they are called on it and they have wiggle room.

There is no evidence of Bill Clinton ever saying this about organizations or mouthpieces of organizations such as Code Pink, MoveOn.org, recreate68 or any of the other very numerous organizations that would attack Bush's agenda on a regular basis. Where was he then? If he feels so compelled to speak about this where is his consistency?

The reason is their message is not dissent. That is, it does not differ from his or Obama's own message and therefore does not not need controlling. Dissenting language from organizations like the tea party and the people backing them up apparently are being labeled "irresponsible" because it runs counter to their message and endangers their socialist agenda.

Is this the beginning of a campaign by the Obama administration to implement regulations on talk radio and blogs ( using Clinton as a tool ) in an attempt to squash dissenting language? What will that mean for posters on sites like ATS? Will there be thought police sent after people that are posting dissenting information and messages and charge them with not living up to the responsibility of supporting their beloved leaders agenda?

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 08:58 AM by andy1033

There trying to use mob rule to get people to shut up.

As far as i am concerned if your passive and not doing anything to anyone, you should be able to say what you want.

They just do not like people getting informed.

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 09:16 AM by MaxBlack

Bill Clinton's attempt to soften the rhetoric is a waste of time. Most know that OK city bombing was an inside job done with the support of the FBI. Anyone who actually thinks that Timothy McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb to blow up the OK federal building is deluded at best and is completely ignoring the many other bombs that were removed from inside the building by the ATF. ATF and FBI did not show up to work that morning and it was because they were told not to go to work.

Suspicious is the watchword and anyone who has not looked into OK city bombing since it occurred, needs to do some homework because it will once again show that the federal government was doing drills the morning of the bombing. How convenient huh?

Take some time and do some research and some reading. Here is a link to help you get the facts correct. Enjoy the link and enjoy the facts.

www.apfn.org...

Thanks for the posting.

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 09:18 AM by SaturnFX

Originally posted by andy1033
There trying to use mob rule to get people to shut up.

Yes and no, I see this as a call for moderates to shut up extremists within their own ideology...
Me being a liberal, I will yank aside one of our more insane numbers and talk sense into them...I reckon the moderate conservative also tries to tone down the insane from their party...and if on either side, the person is simply lost the plot, then its time to kick them to the curve verses try to get the whole philosophy painted by an extreme example

One thing about the extreme minority within any party or group...they are often the loudest...and become an easy target for any opposing group, party, or philosophy.

Moderate conservatives should go on record calling Limbaugh a idiot...and moderate liberals should call the ones chaining themselves to trees as a bunch of idiots.

Words do indeed have power..and we here on ATS often read between lines (even when there is nothing to read, we will find some sort of hidden message or code)...mix that with a slight mental illness and you got danger.

No law should ever diminish free speech...even for craptastic speech like westboro baptist church...but, it is the responsibility of the group to tame the group idiot so to speak. That is what I got from Clinton...and I agree with that.

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 09:21 AM by SaturnFX

Originally posted by MaxBlack
Bill Clinton's attempt to soften the rhetoric is a waste of time. Most know that OK city bombing was an inside job done with the support of the FBI

Well, thats the first time I heard of that one...but then again, I imagine, on ATS, there has never been anything ever done by people without the CIA being behind it all...

Maddow is releasing the McVeigh tapes tonight...will listen to the guy himself and see how he is weighing in on it all. Once your in prison and awaiting death, not much reason to "keep it all on the downlow"

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 09:26 AM by Moonsouljah

I like the OP's hypothesis. If true, it amount to a conspiracy and could very well be plausible. I'm sure Clinton is selective in what interviews he does and for what reasons. I know those expensive dinners his hosts are profitable but radio stuff might have an agenda behind them.

BTW- nice avatar- Vulgar display is a great album.

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 09:38 AM by butcherguy

reply to post by SaturnFX

I think our world would be really boring if we didn't have the nutjobs on either side of the political spectrum preaching their wingnut sermons to us.

Whether it be the right-wing religious nutballs or animal rights people on the left telling me I can't eat meat.

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 09:43 AM by SaturnFX

reply to post by butcherguy

Oh, I fully agree with that...
The Daily Show would simply fold.

I enjoy the insane rantings..but there is a difference between insane rantings and a call for violent overthrowing.

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 09:46 AM by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

reply to post by SaturnFX

Its convenient how anything can be said in the context of satire and its off limits to criticism.

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 12:44 PM by Alxandro

Wow, just WOW!
This proves once and for all the Tea Parties have been extremely succsessful and should no longer considered the "astroturf" movement.

This thing has establieshed strong roots and now appears to be a realized threat to Democrats that they are attempting to bring out their secret weapon known as Bill Clinton.

Extremely audacious of him to bring up Oklahoma City though.
Everyone knows that the Oklahoma City bombing was a direct result of the Clinton/Reno Waco fiasco.

reply posted on 19-4-2010 @ 06:00 PM by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

Originally posted by Alxandro
Wow, just WOW!
This proves once and for all the Tea Parties have been extremely succsessful and should no longer considered the "astroturf" movement.

This thing has establieshed strong roots and now appears to be a realized threat to Democrats that they are attempting to bring out their secret weapon known as Bill Clinton.

Extremely audacious of him to bring up Oklahoma City though.
Everyone knows that the Oklahoma City bombing was a direct result of the Clinton/Reno Waco fiasco.

I think people were right to call the government out for what they did to those people. Timothy McVeigh was a psycho and met a fitting end for what he did but other than that people were right for voicing their disapproval. I was pissed and shocked about what the government did as was everyone I knew. Such a poor decision to go in like that when the lives of children were at risk. As far as I'm concerned Clinton has blood on his hands for that one.

I think it shows poor character that he's using that incident to get his point across. Its also a bad example and not really a moral equivalent. There are no lives being lost right now and especially not at the hands of the government. If there are it certainly wont be from the right. Historically violent uprisings come from the left.

reply posted on 20-4-2010 @ 07:52 AM by butcherguy

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

But remember, Janet Reno's reason that she stated for doing what she did at Waco was "to protect the children".

Too bad the MSM couldn't show us the photos of the burned bodies of those children that she 'saved', instead of showing us photos of burned guns.

The guns, we should not forget were all returned to the compound before the federal assault, due to a previous court ruling finding them to be legally owned.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by butcherguy]

reply posted on 21-4-2010 @ 11:18 AM by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

The Clinton administration knew before hand about the fact that using tear gas on children is tantamount to torture. They figured that the parents would see their children suffering and then give up.

The FBI knew beforehand that adults in the compound had gas masks; the gas therefore would not put pressure on them. On whom, then? If the FBI knew that the adults had gas masks, but went ahead with the gas attack anyway, it is plain that this “pressure” was brought directly against the children because, as the FBI knew, they could not fit into adult– size gas masks. “Maternal feelings”, the FBI hoped, would be unleashed in the mothers by watching their children choking, gasping and blistering from the gas.

The plan Reno approved and took to President Clinton for approval contemplated the children choking in the gas unprotected for forty-eight hours if necessary, to produce the requisite “maternal feelings”. By taking aim at the children with potentially lethal gas, their mothers would be compelled, according to the FBI plan repeatedly defended by the Clinton administration afterwards as “rational” planning, to flee with them into the arms of those trying to gas them. [Emphasis added.]

More reason to turn our backs on this POS when he talks.

This man sickens me.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

Pages: ^^TOP^^