 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.233.8.3
Great documentary, clearly shows how corrupt and perverted the US government was, and at the moment is. Thinking because John was high profile and foriegg that was enough to get rid of him. Completely forgetting the first amendment, that applies to everyone, not just US citizens. Oddly, I played it right after Joe Scarborough demanded Rosy's head for her belief the US was partially to blame for 911. SAME trash thinking. The great part is the convoluted, "Sure Rosy has a right to say what she wants but they have be held accountable" Huh??? What is being held accountable; being fired?
Then Joe is saying they DON'T have the right to say without losing their job...nonsense.
Follow Ups:
Rosie's was good topic for serious inquiry. Maybe she's right. Maybe she's wrong. Maybe some expert can explain why she is dead wrong. Or absolutely right. MORE OPINIONS is what will lead us to truth, not threats to those who question the governments version of what happened.
I'm not sure whose thinking you find convoluted. To my mind, it's Rosy's. But, based on your reasoning, I guess you would also defend Joe McCarthy's right to brand people "communists" and ruin their lives?Rosy DESERVES to be fired. If we can't see that, then we have truly lost our way. People, particulary those on television, do have the right of free speech. But they have a duty and obligation, by virtue of using the "public's airwaves," to speak responsibly.
Free speech has it limits. Drug manufacturer's can't promote cures that their medicines can't deliver. Advertiser's cannot mislead or deceive the public. Rosy O'Donnell cannot go around pretending that things that are demonstrably FALSE are the gospel truth.
Whatever free speech means, even if it gives a person the license to completely disregard the simple groundrules of public discourse (like, for instance, knowing what the f___ you're talking about before you open your big mouth on national television), it certainly does not prevent ABC (is that the network?) from exercising it's own free speech and showing this moron the door.
You know, we have really come to a very sorry state of affairs when so many people in this country base their opinions and political decisions on mere heresay, and when newspapers and politicians are only too willing to exploit it for their own agendas. It makes me sick. And Rosy O'Donnell, and people like her, make me even sicker.
Whatever she said, so what? If its wrong, and I heard her go on about fire does not melt steel (burning jet fuel does!!), she should be allowed to say it without threat of loss of her job. Anything else is Naziism at its worst. And using code words about she "should be held accountable" is just doublespeak for censorship, punishment, and repression.
Are you saying that if Rosy O'Donnel is saying something patently false, let's say a week or two before a major election, on a media outlet that is parially owned by, let's say, George Soros, that this would be protected free speech?Free speech is meaningless -- unless it is founded on a high regard for thhe truth. Rosie could claim that George Bush is an alien from outer space plotting the destruction of the human race -- not too far beyond what she is already contending. Is this protected free speech? Yes, sadly. Does ABC have to provide her with a forum in which to unleash this sewage into current of civilized and reasoned political discourse? ABOLUTLEY NOT!
The thing I fear is the silent tolerace of these falsehoods by those in the mainstream media and politics, by those who see their advantage in letting these small fires burn because it suits their agenda. The scariest thing is that there are even those in Congress who are willing to purvey these falsehoods because, cynically, they know the American public, or at least a portion of it, is ignorant enough to put some credence in it.
This is nothing but another iteration of "the Big Lie," the basis of the rise of Nazziism.
Rosey, and other trash talking, non-thinkers like her, whether on the left or the right, need to be exposed and discredited. They can say whatever they like, but noone has an obligation of any kind to actually aid and abet their political psycho-babel -- not ABC, not anyone. In fact, we have a moral obligation to discredit them and oppose them. This is not repression or censorship, this is merely sweeping out the barn.
I enjoyed this documentary as well.The actions of the U.S. government . . . then as now . . . show the wide gulf between public policy and public opinion. Democracy just doesn't work.
but it can be hijacked by large corporations (Fox Noise) with $$, and presidents who take over the justice Department to stifle voting.
nt
Democracy as we know it is always referred back to ancient Greece, where the citizens came to the forum to debate and decide.
Whilst women stayed home and slaves did the work.
What do you mean, it doesn't work?
All these thousands of years later and it's still selling well...
When I say it doesn't work, then I need to provide some explanation, or at least qualification . . . I recognize that these debates probably rage on the "outside" board, but I've only been there once.Duilawyer pointed out that it can be hijacked. Well, if it is hijacked often and effectively, then how can it work? In between the hijackings? Then what is the dominant drift? Democracy between hijackings, or the hijackings themselves?
Yes, I've read a little Chomsky, but I'm certainly not a Chomsky-ite (I've read one of his books, and miscellaneous online posts). He was the one who first pointed out what I often felt--there is an enormous gap between public policy and public opinion.
Democracy might be a great theoretical system, but if it is working so well in the U.S., how do you explain the wide gulf between public policy and public opinion?
While examples are legion, the current situation in Iraq is a signal example. No reason to rehash how the administration fabricated information to justify the war. A hijacking?
And this is just the current situation. Same thing happened years ago in Vietnam--the boogeyman then was Communism, now it is militant Islam.
Is ". . . government the shadow cast on society by big business" (Dewey)?
Neither Republicans or Democrats represent the average U.S. citizen. Instead, they represent those with an agenda backed by money. Public policy is often determine by a select powerful small group, and not by "the rule of the people."
The facade of democratic governments is cracking, in my opinion.
One factor is perhaps that, to use the USA as an example, 300 million people do not have AN opinion. In smaller groups, agreement is easier to come to.
Communism was, as you say, the bogeyman, represented as being totalitarian and not acting in the interests of the masses. Capitalist democracy replaces the state with the massed corporations, but otherwise seems to act in a (un)fairly equivalent manner.
/
asdf
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
