These Make Sense if The MSM is Your ONLY Newsource...

Criticism of President Bush.

The popularity of presidential candidates Barack Obama and Ron Paul.

The anti-war movement.

What other things make sense ONLY because of the way the main stream media (MSM) covers news?

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

It's hilarious how some people IGNORE the VALIDITY of criticism about President Bush by attacking the messenger.

Oh my. The MSM is talking about Bush screwing up.
Obviously that couldn't be because Bush IS screwing up.
The fact that REPEATED polls put his popularity in the toilet are meaningless.



"Ron Paul" is basically an internet super-star. Favored by some loud voices, but that's about it.
For you to talk about the "popularity of presidential candidate Barack Obama" like it's nonsense just epitomizes how out of touch you are with reality.
The $$$$ he is taking in with donations?
How well he is doing against Hillary?

PROOF that he is a popular contender.


Again, an issue supported by a MAJORITY of Americans.
But if you can blame it on MSM, obviously you can ignore what's going wrong.

I'll even take it a step further...

What myths do people believe in though they're not true and the MSM hangs on to the myths?...

Here's a list of public falsehoods portrayed (or at least never tackled) by the MSM and we see pop up from time to time in discussions...

* The Supreme Court decided to give Bush the 2000 election

* Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Reps because he had oral sex

* The "Mission Accomplished" banner during Bush's speech on the aircraft carrier meant the whole war was over and Bush thought everything from here on out was flowers and handshakes

* The whole Iraq war was all about WMDs

* Nothing good has come from the surge

* Karl Rove is guilty (doesn't matter what the accusation is...he's guilty dammit!)

* Global warming is manmade and every scientist backs it

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Great list!

Here's a few more things that came to mind.

* Our adoption of the media's sense of values.

WE HAVE ADOPTED THE MEDIA'S VALUES?

The MEDIA are the ones who can't say certain things because it would offend certain people or groups who the media depends on attracting as viewers or listeners or readers. The MEDIA is who would lose by offending the enemies of freedom. But the American people have accepted the media's guidelines and limitations about what can or can't be said and we have internalized those limitations and made them our own. In effect, the media has become our parents and pastors and teachers and arbiters of taste, style, fashion, ethics, mores and what is acceptable socially and politically, at least.

And that is the fault of the media for not pointing out the difference to us between what is their limitation and why and what our limits should be and why. And they keep us in the dark out of a sense of self interest that doesn't necessarily serve the American people all that well.

And it is also OUR fault for not recognizing it.

* The media's reluctance to validly criticize Islamism.

The American people are almost completely uninformed of the existence of Islamist activity and infiltration in America. In a world without any MSM, people would look at their nation in a different way and the evidence that exists to indicate internal Jihadist activity would be much more well known and people would take greater care to become aware of the threat. But because the MSM dare not offend and is too ignorant and pig headed to learn about the nature and goals of Jihad they think that by saying nothing about Islamists they are being enlightened.

We are at the mercy of our media and they are intentionally ignoring Islamism because it's in THEIR interests to do so, but their reluctance to talk about it is not in our interest. And they are not telling us any of this. Because they don't want to lose market share or credibility or advertisers and ad revenue, they don't report negatively on Islamism in America and they don't let us know that they are tip toeing around the subject out of a political correctness.

*Another thing that makes sense only if the MSM is your only news source is the opposition to the government's efforts to keep us safe.

Because they don't understand Jihad and won't bother to learn about it the media presents the government's efforts to keep us safe as infringements on our liberties rather than safeguards, stop loss limiters, to the dangers that come from our intellectual sloth.

Islamists are Muslims but not all Muslims are Islamists.

Islamists are like chess masters and they will outsmart us if we allow them to move without recognizing and countering their moves. They are going to create power centers by increasing the Muslim populations of certain areas and then demanding they be ruled by Islamic judges and Islamic law. The Americans will agree.

And city by city, county by county, state by state, voila.

It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of being defeated or not and making the right moves early on to prevent their getting the advantage.

It's not a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of recognizing the differences between those who want freedom and those who are the enemies of freedom.

We may not be able to test each Muslim to know their heart, but we can and must prevent the Islamists among them from being able to do what they need to do to achieve their goals.

Things like the Patriot Act are crucial to the government's ability to keep us safe and prevent needless discrimination against innocent Muslims.

Yet the media presents the bill as a danger to our freedoms.

This only makes sense if the MSM is your only news source.

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

There is also an issue of desired "impartiality" as well.
Plus, a news report should JUST inform, and let the viewer derive his own conclusion.


So you're telling us that you think our news media should tell us "what our limits should be and why"???
That's just disturbing.

The NEWS should be INFORMATIVE.


And boringly enough, you have repeatedly failed to give any proof of your claims.
Islam makes up about 1% of our population.
Hardly "infiltration".

We have ONE Muslim in Congress. The very first one.
Hardly "infiltration".

How the heck are we being "infiltrated"?
Does the take-over start by driving our taxi-cabs and running our 7-11s?

Over and over again, all you do is make claims with NO proof, and NO attempt to provide proof.


You are inflammatory, but without a reflection on reality.
I KNOW I have seen several stories about how Muslims were "offended" regarding pictoral representations of "Mohammed" that were not intended to be offended.
I was informed from the MSM regarding WHY Muslims found them offensive, and I quickly arrived at the conclusion that Muslims were being unreasonable.
The MSM also interviewed other people who explained why they thought it was unreasonable.

Your claims are so full of b.s.

There are two reasons why the President has been reluctant to tell us everything about his decision to invade Iraq. One reason might be said to embarrass or hurt him personally, in some way. The other reason might be said to hurt this nation's interests in some way.

You and the media have just ASSUMED that the only reason just has to be because he was acting in some ignoble manner and against the interests of the American people.

Why can't he have been acting wisely and decisively to minimize death and destruction and promote the greater interests of peace and stability?

He could have been doing just that. But you are so brainwashed that you can't even IMAGINE there being any other reason than the one you have been sold and now have made your own.

You are a tool of those who hate America.

When a prison convict is exonerated with DNA evidence years after his trial what would you say then? I mean, in a poll of the 12 jurors, (a popularity poll in a certain way) the convicted man's 'ratings' were in the toilet.

But all those 12 pollsters were wrong.

You would just throw the innocent man back in prison, I guess.

The obviousness of it is lost on you. Paul's popularity is based on the MEDIA'S reluctance to imagine or promote any good reasons for the president 's decision to invade. In a way it is no one's "fault" really. The President would not do anything that would help himself but hurt America. So, he has had to stay silent and just accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, while folks like you mindlessly attack him out of fashion and passion to attack.

If it weren't for the media's attacks on the President neither Paul not Obama would be NEARLY as popular as they are or were or will become, because the American people would look at someone who was against the war from the beginning as being WRONG from the beginning. And anyone who looked at 9/11 as OUR FAULT and who would allow Iran to annex Iraq by immediately pulling our forces out of Iraq would be laughed at by even the looniest of Paul's current bearers.

It is only because the media has taken an active role in harping on the TAIL side of the coin regarding the rationale for invasion that either one of these guys has gotten past square one in the presidential sweepstakes.

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

These are more from PUNDITS than anything I have seen in MSM.


A popular complaint by pundits.
As far as MSM, the only thing I heard was that the court split was also along political lines. The conservatives sided towards Bush. Liberals sided towards Gore.


Pundit talk.



When we were BEING SOLD on war with Iraq, that's what I heard about.
Over and Over and Over again.
THAT is what the BUSH ADMINISTRATION was telling us through the MSM.

The fact that THEIR OWN MESSAGE bites them in the ass later is not the fault of the MSM.


Pundits.
I have actually heard a couple of MSM talk about progress with the surge.


Again, pundits.


Pundits.

The two should not be confused, any more than I would confuse Rush Limbaugh with "news".

Quite frankly, the president DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to start a war for non-disclosed reasons.
Your attitude on this issue is ridiculously anti-democratic.
It's arrogant, and egalitarian.


Based on experience.
His reaction to 9/11? Stunned ignorance.
"You're doing a heck of a job brownie".


And again I ask, BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE???
You talk about "assuming", but you ignore the evidence AGAINST your assumption as you complain about others "assuming" a conclusion that you don't like.
That is not consistent with YOUR assumptions.


And there it is ladies and gentlemen.
The inevitable mindless and meaningless retort that I "hate America".

I criticize George Bush, so I must "hate America".

Quite frankly, anybody that thinks like that shows their capacity to put THEIR POLITICS ABOVE their country's best interests.


It's not worth it.
(I don't know how many times that has to be said before it sinks in.)

We have spent $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ dollars, and projected TRILLIONS before we are done.
We have spent American blood.
We are paying at the pumps.
All this for some argument that WAS NEVER RAISED to the American people, and NO SUBSTANTIATION of the claim has ever been offered.

How DARE you compare DNA PROOF of innocence to YOUR scenario that you have NEVER EVER TRIED to offer any evidence for...


It's boring how some people think that the media "made" people against the war.
It's also mindless.

But, people like you blame the Jews for everything.
Whoops. Scratch that. The "media" is your punching bag, isn't it.



Quite frankly, this is the defense of somebody who attacks the MOTIVES of the person making the argument because he CANNOT DISCUSS the argument itself.

Quite frankly, there are some things I agree with the president on. We do need retirement reform. I am very pissed at the Democrats for torpedoing that out of political spite.

With that said, NONE of my attacks are "mindless".
They are all based on issues you DO NOT DARE to step into the ring on.

Yes, he does. If he didn't he'd be at home now or in jail. But they weren't non-disclosed reasons.

You don't think the good people of Louisiana would have elected a REPUBLICAN governor if they still believed the Republican President and the GOP appointed "Brownie" had done a bad job after Katrina. You are woefully ignorant. Pitifully ignorant. Brownie did a good job.

Based on no more and no less than you have to pursue the critical agenda against him.

You meant to tell me that the Iranian creation of a caliphate isn't worth it?

Or are you saying that preventing a regional or global holy war wasn't worth it?

Again, you are looking at the ass end of this. If GWB hadn't taken the action he did, we'd all be lucky to only have a disruption in the oil deliveries...a disruption that hasn't happened despite the best efforts of our enemies.

Higher prices?

Count your blessings, you fucking ingrate.

And if, as I said, he COULDN'T divulge the info lest it damage America's interests, then what? Only children need to have things spelled out at the expense of the greater good. You would rather be told everything so you could have your curiosity satisfied rather than keeping the enemy from knowing our secrets.


Your feigned outrage is noted.


You are an *****. The media influence the nation's perceptions. If they had publicized the real reasons and you were satisfied that we had good reasons to invade but the enemy was able to use that information to harm us, would THAT make you happy???

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.