Anger Deflection Theory - Casey Anthony Trial/News, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 7-7-2011 @ 07:09 AM by mtmind

Less than a handful of individuals control the major news agencies in this country.
To focus the country on one story is easy, and they did that with this trial.
Since 2008 we have forclosed, lost jobs, lost wages, had the government bailout eveyone but us.
People were getting ANGRY! Now in one fell swoop, they deflected an entire countries anger at some woman and away from the government.
3 years of Anger released, pot no longer boiling....

That is an impressive task, and they did it easily.

They could use stories like this every 2 or 3 years.

mtmind

reply posted on 7-7-2011 @ 07:15 AM by TheUniverse

reply to post by mtmind

That is possible a possible supposition; that, that could have been their plan all along

I made some very bad comments that i regret regarding her verdict because i suppose i was caught up in the anxiety and personally believe she did it.. (But that's for another thread)

I think i regret making those comments now ( i was caught up in the moment and acted rashly)that i said them and realise you could be right.

Also If i may add i just have a hard time believing she was innocent when she partied for a month after her child went missing(Murdered most likely, Or accidental death but i highly doubt it)

Also especially because of the contrived nanny story and all the lies she created to mis-lead Police purportedly until the body was decomposed and/or to try and rid her of being charged with suspected murder of Caylee Anthony.( Pin it on some random person or the purported nanny, Father, Brother,Etc.)

I see your point though now that me and many others were mislead we are taking out all our rage and anger over this case when it may be covering up something more pertinent.

edit on 7-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-7-2011 @ 07:33 AM by mtmind

reply to post by TheUniverse

You are probably correct that she is guilty.
Someone asked why this trial is so important and it got me thinking.
I heard so many people say, "I would have convicted her!" "I would have ripped her head off!"
Very emotional stuff.

So much anger over something so far away from our lives...
Of course if she did it she is a monster. But the reactions still seem "Enlarged"
Like the country boiled over, and this woman's "story" relased the pressure.

Now the government can compromise to pay the debt, reduce our services and yet keep the taxes the same or raise them :-)

But that is another theory! lol

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 02:20 AM by NthOther

Of course it's a diversion. The practice of manipulating public discourse, diverting it one way or the other to call attention to an issue or to distract people from it, has been perfected by the corporate-state-media syndicate.

But I'm less worried about what they're doing than I am the fact that they're able to do it so easily; that the majority of people don't see media saturation for what it is, and are consistently drawn into (or outright consumed by) these vicarious experiences by some sadistic curiosity.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 03:16 PM by Sphota

reply to post by NthOther

What else are you left with to talk about at the bars, watercooler, in the car, etc.

It's sick. If I try to bring up the economy with anybody - you know, like in a real meaningful conversation - I'm left with all the facts, the other person knows so much about Casey Anthony or some other stupid topic, and as a result, any discussion about the economy or politics or the wars is consistently one sided. I have facts and opinions based on those facts and the other person (whoever he or she might be, given the context) is apathetic, ignorant or only knows two or three talking-points.

What's the result?

The other person wants to talk about Casey Anthony (and similar trumped up issues) and I have not followed out of total disinterest in the trivial and banal nature of the subject matter. The conversation is one-sided as I do not and cannot carry my end of it.

I want to talk about meaningful issues to our lives and the other person is totally unknowing, unaware or undereducated on them, it becomes a one-sided conversation and I end up sounding preachy or wildly conspiratorial - yes! Conspiratorial because I quote people and cite reports on issues that sound crazy only because the other person has been locked in one prime-time, distracting bubble after another.

Suffice it to say, I do not make a good conversation partner at a sports bar.

Pages: ^^TOP^^