Boycott the newsmedia !

Lies. Lies. Big Lies. Little Lies. Gigantic Lies. Outrageous Lies. Whopping Lies.

Let's boycott the *&!!*#$#!@* newsmedia !

 

lemme guess,, its the jews..

 

It's true that the newsmedia are owned and controlled by a small group of wealthy zionist Jews .... but my objection goes BEYOND THAT because I would also tend to object just as vehemently if they were being controlled by any other exclusive interest group.

I'm sick and tired of the LIES and the SMEAR TACTICS and the VICIOUS LIES and the WHOPPING LIES and not to mention the INCESSANT GARBAGE that's being spewed out constantly by the newsmedia on a regular basis. Let's pay no heed to what the newsmedia says. We need to start thinking for ourselves instead of paying them $$$$ just to have them spew a load of disingenuous crap that's intended to confuse and to deceive us.

Now here's an idea for everybody to consider ...

Why not have a voter referendum to have the newsmedia nationalized ? If the referendum passes into law, the government can then seize control of the newspapers and the television stations. I mean ... if the government has no qualms about sending in the Marines and having them carry out a wholesale massacre of Arabs, why can't they send in the Marines in order to have them seize control of the airwaves and the newspapers ?

Yeah, I know that it's a dream ... but it doesn't hurt to dream.

 

Regarding tis thread in general: :beatdeadhorse5:

But, bare with me a moment...

Take this, emphasis added mine:

and this:

The point of a democracy is to keep the government from controlling such things.

If the government controls such things as is stated by the second quote then what we will have is bolded in the first quote.

I am calling shenanigans on this as outright propaganda against Jews. The post creates a story so as to not have the idea labeled as being against Jews but the idea being asked for would in reality be the fictitious nonsense that is being applied to the news regarding Jews.

Because the active troops (as opposed to the reserves who are at the behest of the individual states unless activated) are restricted from doing so by law. Allowing them to do so would put the power of the military to be used against the populace into the hands of a select few. That is worse than the made up stories about the media.

Sure, whatever...

I am still waiting on a response to my last objections that is even worth taking the time to respond to.

In the other thread, you supposedly had it figured out as to how this control worked but when the ideas were shot down the ways in which it was controlled kept changing to something new. That means things were being invented to cover mistakes or they would have been included in the reasoning to begin with.

So, go right on ahead posting delusions and weakly rationalizing them as some sort of truth.

*Yawn*

 

Democracy means "rule by the majority." If a voter referendum that seeks to nationalize the newsmedia was voted into law under the principle of majority rule, it would then be perfectly acceptable to have the government send in the Marines and to have them seize control of the airwaves and the newspapers. The government doesn't belong to a narrow ideological-financial interest. The government belongs to the CITIZENS who pay taxes and NOT to the profiteers who own and control the newsmedia. It would be an act of TRUE DEMOCRACY to have the government send in the Marines and to have them wrench control of the newsmedia out of the hands of those wealthy newsmedia magnates. It would be an act of TRUE DEMOCRACY to place all newsmedia assets right back into the hands of the public-at-large, which is where these assets rightfully belong. The airwaves are public property and nobody should be allowed to monopolize the airwaves. The newspapers are a different story. The newspapers are private property, but they should be seized and shut down IMO because they are operating against the public interest.

 

We've seen a non-stop campaign against Arabs in the newsmedia. The ethnic-based smear campaign against the Moslems has been going on for many years, and so it strikes me as being extremely unfair to insist on placing a "taboo" against having a pertinent discussion which centers on the ethnic bias of the very same people who own and control the newsmedia ... and who've been using that platform as a vehicle for smearing the Arabs and the Moslems !

It's considered "OK" when people talk about the Arabs ... and that's why it should also be considered "OK" for them to talk about Jews. No ethnic group should be placed beyond the pale of criticism. Nobody ever seems to object whenever the Zionists make use of their leverage in the newsmedia. Nobody ever seems to care whenever the Zionists use and misuse their power by waging a relentless war against entire populations of Arabs (which is constantly). Everybody's free to rant and to rave against the Arabs as much as they like, we can even murder them by the hundreds of thousands in their own lands, and yet it's expected that we apply a completely different set of standards to the one ethnic group which is the mortal enemy of the Arabs (i.e. the Zionist Jews), i.e. we'd better not dare to utter a single word about the Zionist Jews who are encouraging the public to slaughter the Arabs.

I never did care much for double-standards, but this is perhaps the WORST example of a double-standard that I can think of. In view of the rampant ethnic scapegoating of Arabs and Moslems which has become a virtual mundane routine, it just doesn't make any sense to place a "taboo" on pointing out the ethnic bias of the people who own and control the newsmedia.

 

The word is "Muslim". It comes from the same Arabic root word as "Islam", which is the religion followed by Muslims. They are not "Moslems" nor "Mohammedans". "Islam" means "surrender to God" ... a "Muslim" is "one who surrenders to God".

 

actually "moslem" is a common translation of the word and it is a acceptable spelling..

http://hnn.us/articles/524.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/moslem
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moslem
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Moslems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

 

A democracy also requires (at least in most conceptions) individuals to have rights. And as much as some people may not like it, people running businesses are still people, and as such have rights to their businesses. The same retards who call for nationalization of this-and-that also get in a huff any time someone is illegally searched - you can't have it both ways.

 

Yes but it sounds politically incorrect, and therefore must be wrong. Get with it, man!

 

oh right,,i get it..

well, someone forgot to tell these guys..

http://www.oz.net/~msarram/introduction.html

 

No, they must be frauds. Anyone who writes Moslem is outdated and racist.

 

I was taught in college many years ago that democracy simply means "rule by majority" and nothing more. It could also mean lots of other things, too, but I suppose that it would depend to a large extent on the ideology of the person who's reading things into the word "democracy."

The USA (as it was framed on paper by its founders) is actually a constitutional republic and not a democracy, but for all practical purposes it's a plutocracy, which means that the USA is ruled by moneyed interests.

In a plutocracy, the plutocrats (i.e. news-barons) are in possession of all the "rights" while the common man has almost no say whatsoever in the affairs of the governing bodies which are stealing taxes out of him. To call for a nationalization of the newmedia is therefore the same thing as calling for an end to the rule of money.

I agree that the news-barons have rights, but I don't agree that they should have a right to exert a stranglehold over the flow of public information. Definite restrictions should be placed on the "rights" of the news-barons. It's like having a driver's license. If you abuse your rights, you should forfeit them.

 

Thanks for the political science lesson. Your understanding of the terms is impeccable, but your comprehension of their practical application seems a bit flawed.

America was built to be a plutocracy, in that it is a nation where people work for money. Naturally those who work the hardest and make the most money have more of it to trade for what they want. How are we supposed to fault them for how they use it? It's not them who have a stranglehold on information: it's every person in America who trusts and uses their services.

 

People are working for money everywhere else on the planet, too, but if you can cite any historical data and/or references where it says that the USA was established during the latter part of the 18th century because the constitutional framers were bent on trying to create a plutocracy, then I sincerely hope that you're going to share that information with us.

 

Do the Jews own the BBC and ITN?

 

I would say that the public really has no choice BUT to get its information from the zionist-owned newsmedia, given that no viable competition exists. If people would only stop buying zionist-owned publications, they could drive the zionist-owned newsmedia out of business.

 

is rupert murdoch a jew?

 

Are there no independent newspapers in the whole if the United States? I find that a bit hard to believe.

 

Is Ted Turner a Jew?--NO. The ceos and owners of the companies that own most of the major media, tv/newspapers etc. are NOT Jewish---BigCityHillbilly, you're a broken record,really boring.