Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rammer

The Most Ignored Stories By The Media

Recommended Posts

What are your 'Most Ignored Stories' by the Media???

They can be ignored, underreported, or flat out covered up.

(By the way, I'm an independant who has no respect for either party)

Here are some of mine in no particular order:

1) I'm still stunned after 5 years, that a respected man like Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill can publicly state on '60 Minutes' that Bush discussed attacking Iraq 8 months BEFORE 9/11...and yet everyone has ignored him.

2) Most dieticians, including 'Nutrition By Natalie'(Youtube), will tell you that soft drinks are the absolute WORST food that you can put into your body. Worse than hotdogs, doughnuts, or even french fries. This liquid candy is being covered up like cigarettes were in the 50's. Because it is such an incredible moneymaker and sponsor, Coke & Pepsi have managed to maintain a false image of healthy normalcy. It should be banned by the FDA, but the corruption at the FDA is a whole other story.

3) The Banksters story is just now coming to light in the media...barely. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley completely controlled oil prices last summer by false electronic manipulation(via Enron).

Former GOLDMAN SACHS employees head/headed:

The New York Stock Exchange(Niederauer)Wants to keep derivatives.

The World Bank(Zoellick)Ever wonder where that 'green' talk started?

The U.S. Treasury Department (Paulson/under Bush)This man is an idiot.

The White House chief of Staff(Bolten/under Bush)

Citigroup(Rubin)Left 01/09/09....where will he go?

Merrill Lynch(Thain)Ousted for his million dollar office bathroom.

Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs(Reuben Jeffery)

Commodity Futures Trading Commission head/Obama(Gary Gensler)Corruption is the motto at CFTC.

Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability-(Kashari)Controls TARP handouts.

Governor of New Jersey(Corzine)

Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board(Friedman)

Treasury Chief of Staff (Mark Patterson)So much for Obama's 'no lobbyists' talk.

President of the New York Fed(William Dudley)Just appointed.

4) Prior to 1980, Afghanistan hardly had any poppys. Then the CIA moved in and made Afghanistan the heroin capital of the world. 90% of the world's heroin & opium comes from Afghanistan thanks to the CIA. You won't believe what they do with dead soldier's bodies...you can read that yourself.

5) John Perkins wrote a book called 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'. It detailed the deceit of the World Bank, the CIA, and the 'Corporatocracy' of how the world works. We make loans to third world countries which they can't pay back, then we take over their natural resources.

First, the Economic Hitman(Perkins) makes an 'offer you can't refuse'.

If the leader can't be corrupted, he is killed by a Jackal(CIA).

If the leader can't be killed, the military is sent in(Iraq).

6) The 'Mass Media' is controlled by only a few conglomerate organizations: General Electric, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp., Walt Disney, CBS, Sony, and a few smaller companies. It's pretty obvious why you don't hear much about this.

7) UBS recently closed 19,000 American accounts in Switzerland, which the IRS said were illegally hiding funds. I'm sure you know about Swiss bank accounts. These 19,000 people are amongst the wealthiest people in the world. Not a peep from the mass media.

I'm sure you have many more ignored stories...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys really think that the media tells you everything going on? And that no one corrupt is withholding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rammer, if you can elaborate and show multiple independant links on JUST the last one , I will back you on all the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rammer, if you can elaborate and show multiple independant links on JUST the last one , I will back you on all the others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business...ref=todayspaper

http://www.newser.com/story/47468/ubs-clos...-irs-probe.html

----

The whole point of my post is that these stories are NOT covered like the Caylee Anthony case is.

The elite want you to be misdirected, entertained, and not paying attention to their frauds.

Disbelievers need to learn about Google & Youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you guys really think that the media tells you everything going on?

"The media" does report everything for the same reason that any other business doesn't do everything -- time and money constraints. People like to imagine "the media" as a single coordinated organization like the Army or the CIA, but it isn't. It's just a bunch of people just like you who are plugging away each day at their jobs and just want to go home and be with their kids. If "the media" was half as well financed and coordinated as the conspiracy theorists want to believe then it would be a much better place to work in than it really is.

There is no way that you or anyone else can know if "the media" is telling "everything" because it's not possible to consume "everything." With thousands of networks, tens of thousands of TV stations, hundreds of thousands of radio stations, and an equal number of newspapers around the world there is no way for any individual or group to accurately claim that "the media" isn't reporting on something. A more accurate statement would be "the media I watch hasn't reported..." or "this certain subset of mediums that I tune into at a particular time of the day hasn't reported..."

And that no one corrupt is withholding?

Lots of people withhold lots of things. I think the question is vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business...ref=todayspaper

http://www.newser.com/story/47468/ubs-clos...-irs-probe.html

----

The whole point of my post is that these stories are NOT covered like the Caylee Anthony case is.

The elite want you to be misdirected, entertained, and not paying attention to their frauds.

Disbelievers need to learn about Google & Youtube.

Media corporations care about what people will watch. They are not in the business of educating you and they are not in the business of providing oversight of government. They are in the business of selling advertisements. As a byproduct of selling advertisements, they entertain people. They don't care that you're entertained or that you take their news service so seriously that you'd be willing to propose some kind of conspiracy theory as to why they aren't engaging in journalism; they care that you see the ads.

There is no conspiracy; there is only someone that does not understand the difference between journalism and an effective vehicle for advertisements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business...ref=todayspaper

http://www.newser.com/story/47468/ubs-clos...-irs-probe.html

----

The whole point of my post is that these stories are NOT covered like the Caylee Anthony case is.

The elite want you to be misdirected, entertained, and not paying attention to their frauds.

Disbelievers need to learn about Google & Youtube.

So 19,000 out of 350 million upsets your delicate sensibilities ? Try combining the amount of people who will be getting a refund check this year and have NEVER paid taxes on ANYTHING, and then come cry to me about 19,000 who were smart enough to use USB until they caved. You should publish a link about the amount of clientel and credibility that USB is gonna lose because of this.

Like I said, I'll back you up that the stories are out there, on that I will agree.

I can't stand Nancy Grace either sometimes, but her coverage of a MISSING then MURDERED 3yr. old girl is less important to YOU, than a bunch of fatcats who hide money ? Your priorities are seriously out of whack pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't stand Nancy Grace either sometimes, but her coverage of a MISSING then MURDERED 3yr. old girl is less important to YOU, than a bunch of fatcats who hide money ? Your priorities are seriously out of whack pal.

I guess my priorities are out of whack. Three-year-old girls die every day and I don't care. If I (honestly) even cared one iota when three-year-old girls die or when parents murder their kids, I'd become completely non-functional. The death of children and crappy parents are a chronic condition of society; they're problems that can't be fixed. It is healthier not to care.

When law and law enforcement is so screwed up that people have to skirt the rules by actively hiding money, I care about that; the broader repercussions will affect many more people possibly including myself at some point in time. That merits my attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So 19,000 out of 350 million upsets your delicate sensibilities ? Try combining the amount of people who will be getting a refund check this year and have NEVER paid taxes on ANYTHING, and then come cry to me about 19,000 who were smart enough to use USB until they caved. You should publish a link about the amount of clientel and credibility that USB is gonna lose because of this.

Like I said, I'll back you up that the stories are out there, on that I will agree.

I can't stand Nancy Grace either sometimes, but her coverage of a MISSING then MURDERED 3yr. old girl is less important to YOU, than a bunch of fatcats who hide money ? Your priorities are seriously out of whack pal.

It's not USB, it's UBS.

These aren't 19,000 Joe Blows. These are 19,000 of the RICHEST Americans.

The article stated 'Prosecutors contend that UBS helped wealthy Americans hide about $18 billion, thereby evading taxes of $300 million each year.'

$18,000,000,000 divided by 19,000 = $947,368 average amount per account

From the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 'A child goes missing every 40 seconds in the U.S, over 2,100 per day.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The media" does report everything for the same reason that any other business doesn't do everything -- time and money constraints. People like to imagine "the media" as a single coordinated organization like the Army or the CIA, but it isn't. It's just a bunch of people just like you who are plugging away each day at their jobs and just want to go home and be with their kids. If "the media" was half as well financed and coordinated as the conspiracy theorists want to believe then it would be a much better place to work in than it really is.

There is no way that you or anyone else can know if "the media" is telling "everything" because it's not possible to consume "everything." With thousands of networks, tens of thousands of TV stations, hundreds of thousands of radio stations, and an equal number of newspapers around the world there is no way for any individual or group to accurately claim that "the media" isn't reporting on something. A more accurate statement would be "the media I watch hasn't reported..." or "this certain subset of mediums that I tune into at a particular time of the day hasn't reported..."

Lots of people withhold lots of things. I think the question is vague.

Rupert Murdoch, as an example, is the 47th richest person in America.

He owns News Corp...a fitting name. Murdoch owns everything from television(like FOX Broadcasting) to newspapers(like The Wall Street Journal & The New York Post) to magazines (like TVGuide) to even cyperspace(like Myspace). He not only owns American media, but worldwide media, too.

Here is just a partial list of his gigantic holdings:

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4world.htm

P.S. - Murdoch caught the 'Green' bug in May of 2007....and you've been deluged with Green bullcrap ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Media corporations care about what people will watch. They are not in the business of educating you and they are not in the business of providing oversight of government. They are in the business of selling advertisements. As a byproduct of selling advertisements, they entertain people. They don't care that you're entertained or that you take their news service so seriously that you'd be willing to propose some kind of conspiracy theory as to why they aren't engaging in journalism; they care that you see the ads.

There is no conspiracy; there is only someone that does not understand the difference between journalism and an effective vehicle for advertisements.

This pretty much sums it up. The "media" are not moral organizations out to make sure evil is thwarted and people are well-informed, they have to air the crap that people want to see - otherwise no one watches and they go out of business. Not what they need to see. And I think you (OP) would be very wrong to assume that people in general are smart enough to even understand the complicated issues that are being "hid" from them. They just don't care, they want to work 8-5, save up for going to Disneyworld every 3 years, and eat at Chili's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not USB, it's UBS.

These aren't 19,000 Joe Blows. These are 19,000 of the RICHEST Americans.

The article stated 'Prosecutors contend that UBS helped wealthy Americans hide about $18 billion, thereby evading taxes of $300 million each year.'

$18,000,000,000 divided by 19,000 = $947,368 average amount per account

From the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 'A child goes missing every 40 seconds in the U.S, over 2,100 per day.'

You and Niche are -------------- !!!

Edited by sevfiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one...

Did you know?: The United States is only 5% of the world's population, but we use 80% of the world's pharmaceutical drugs. You'd think we'd live longer, yet we are 41st on the world's longevity list.

Did you know?: Only two countries can directly advertise drugs to consumers...New Zealand and the United States. It's illegal everywhere else. In 2004, they spent more money on drug advertisements(4 billion)than they did on research and developement! Drugs are a racket. Drugs are poisonous.

And speak of the devil, look what came out this morning!:

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...0090204?sp=true

Always follow the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Media corporations care about what people will watch. They are not in the business of educating you and they are not in the business of providing oversight of government. They are in the business of selling advertisements. As a byproduct of selling advertisements, they entertain people. They don't care that you're entertained or that you take their news service so seriously that you'd be willing to propose some kind of conspiracy theory as to why they aren't engaging in journalism; they care that you see the ads.

There is no conspiracy; there is only someone that does not understand the difference between journalism and an effective vehicle for advertisements.

Thank you, Niche. I couldn't have said it better myself.

It wasn't always this way. Things started to go to Hell in the 80's due to two factors: Lack of government oversight, and Wall Street.

What happened was the large (and small) media companies, specifically broadcasters, lost their independence. NBC got bought by RCA. ABC got bought by Capital Cities. CBS got bought by Westinghouse. Suddenly the news managers in those organizations were told not to worry about what the viewers and listeners think of the content anymore. Their primary concern was keeping the stock price up so the big investment houses on Wall Street would be happy.

What made it worse was the Reagan-era philosophy (which continued through two Bush and one Clinton administration to this day) that the government should be hands-off when it comes to broadcast content. I'm not trying to make this political, but if the Obama administration wants to do one single thing that will have the most positive long-term impact on the nation, it would be to more closely monitor and regulate broadcasting. I'm not saying only Obama can do it. He just happens to be the person in the White House at this particular moment in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and Niche are -------------- !!!

:lol: I wish I knew what it was that sevfiv deleted.

For the record, I think that many of the stories that he has brought up are based on and report factual data, but that people read too far into them or automatically assume that the facts as they are are bad (which is ironic because he's the one complaining about poor journalism).

Examples.

Did you know?: The United States is only 5% of the world's population, but we use 80% of the world's pharmaceutical drugs. You'd think we'd live longer, yet we are 41st on the world's longevity list.

Americans also thoroughly enjoy a really unhealthy diet. My last seven meals were:

*1 Kroger-brand frozen pizza w/self-rising crust (which turned out to be awful, btw)

*1 whole casserole dish of Tuna Helper

*2 pcs fried fish and 12 hushpuppies from Long John Silvers

*1 ham and cheese sandwich slathered with mayo

*1 catfish steak drowned in salty fish sauce in clay pot, served with rice from Pho 20; followed up with a large Oreo Sonic Blast

*1 gargantuan t-bone steak, cooked rare, still bloody

*1 BLT with a fried egg on top of the bacon and a slice of melted cheese on top of the egg and with mayo on each slice of bread; 2 blueberry muffins on the side

I regret nothing. I can be quite a hedonist and I recognize that there are long-term consequences for that. And if I can treat those consequences with relatively expensive and perhaps questionably-effective drugs as opposed to invastive or time-consuming procedures or perhaps even by just changing my lifestyle, then even if those drugs may some unpleasant side effects, that's still preferable to the discomfort of a procedure or a change to my lifestyle. I'll probably shave off some number of years from my life and I'm OK with that because I will have enjoyed it.

And I'm perfectly OK with paying the high prices for American pharmaceuticals because if Americans didn't pay for it so that the world could mooch off of our advances, there'd be no pharmaceutical R&D at all.

EDIT: And I may be more aware of and open with what I'm doing to myself than most Americans would be willing to admit, but I think that most Americans have similar preferences.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you, Niche. I couldn't have said it better myself.

It wasn't always this way. Things started to go to Hell in the 80's due to two factors: Lack of government oversight, and Wall Street.

Hmm, seems I've heard these two culprits mentioned in some other catastrophes recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What made it worse was the Reagan-era philosophy (which continued through two Bush and one Clinton administration to this day) that the government should be hands-off when it comes to broadcast content. I'm not trying to make this political, but if the Obama administration wants to do one single thing that will have the most positive long-term impact on the nation, it would be to more closely monitor and regulate broadcasting. I'm not saying only Obama can do it. He just happens to be the person in the White House at this particular moment in time.

I tend to believe that it had much more to do with the introduction of Fox, multilingual broadcast networks, cable television, and finally the internet. As each new media was introduced and as the number of channels multiplied, each channel airing content aggressively aimed at undermining the dominance of the old three-network regime, the old regime had to change or die off.

There are huge differences between how firms act in a triopoly as opposed to how they act when the industry becomes mature and highly competitive. This same process happened in radio before that, and in newspapers before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, seems I've heard these two culprits mentioned in some other catastrophes recently.

The lack of government oversight and the massive (and mistaken) infusion of capital to telecommunications companies by Wall Street in the late 90's are what makes the internet as we know it today possible.

I'm actually kind of surprised to see that you would imply that government should be more hands-on with media. The old regime covered up quite a few skeletons in the government's closet back when. I would think that the prospect of more government influence over content has to be scary to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am less concerned with what they don't report and more concerned with the bias of the stories they do report.

That

And how news stations keep focus on one particular story for days, weeks, or months at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lack of government oversight and the massive (and mistaken) infusion of capital to telecommunications companies by Wall Street in the late 90's are what makes the internet as we know it today possible.

I'm actually kind of surprised to see that you would imply that government should be more hands-on with media. The old regime covered up quite a few skeletons in the government's closet back when. I would think that the prospect of more government influence over content has to be scary to you.

You would be correct. While I made light of the fact that lack of government oversight and Wall Street have received a lot of attention lately, the apparent implication that I endorse oversight of the media is wholly unintended. Even fact challenged blowhards like Rush Limbaugh should not be censored or regulated. That Limbaugh is on the air is not a problem. That 10 million people may listen to him in a given week, however, might be. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lack of government oversight and the massive (and mistaken) infusion of capital to telecommunications companies by Wall Street in the late 90's are what makes the internet as we know it today possible.

We're not talking about telecom companies and those that created the internet like Cisco, AT&T, MCI, Yahoo!, AOL, etc... We're talking about media companies as in content providers like ABC, CBS, Gannett, etc...

Oh, and I found another one of these, so I'm going to post it here.

web.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would be correct. While I made light of the fact that lack of government oversight and Wall Street have received a lot of attention lately, the apparent implication that I endorse oversight of the media is wholly unintended. Even fact challenged blowhards like Rush Limbaugh should not be censored or regulated. That Limbaugh is on the air is not a problem. That 10 million people may listen to him in a given week, however, might be. ;)

Exactly. I'm not suggesting that Rush or Al Franken or whomever be censored. What I am saying is that the government should reinstate and actually enforce rules that require broadcasters and other non-print media companies to actually serve the public and the communities they're licensed to. The companies should be concerned about losing their licenses if they don't fulfill this role. Right now they aren't, so the number one and two and three priorities are profit, not the public. They've been given a license to use a limited public resource, and so the public good should be in there somewhere.

Does this make broadcasting less profitable? Yes. Does it make broadcasting so unprofitable that it goes under? No. Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am saying is that the government should reinstate and actually enforce rules that require broadcasters and other non-print media companies to actually serve the public and the communities they're licensed to. The companies should be concerned about losing their licenses if they don't fulfill this role.

What does that mean, exactly, and how do you objectively measure when the community is served?

How many little league teams must a rap station sponsor to keep its license? Does the number of little league team sponsorships required decrease if the music is something deemed by the powers that be as more wholesome, like 1950's pop? What if the rap station sponsors just one little league team, and it is the one that the senator's son plays on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. I'm not suggesting that Rush or Al Franken or whomever be censored. What I am saying is that the government should reinstate and actually enforce rules that require broadcasters and other non-print media companies to actually serve the public and the communities they're licensed to. The companies should be concerned about losing their licenses if they don't fulfill this role. Right now they aren't, so the number one and two and three priorities are profit, not the public. They've been given a license to use a limited public resource, and so the public good should be in there somewhere.

Does this make broadcasting less profitable? Yes. Does it make broadcasting so unprofitable that it goes under? No. Not even close.

Editor - I cant help but guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie. I venture to guess that you voted for the messiah. - That aside - the left leaning side of the country is overwhelming - Starting in junior high, continuing with high school, college, law school, graduate school, you name it - nearly all the staff are heavily liberal. Then you get to the Newspapers & Magazines - all the "News" (in quotes b/c their bias is a joke) are also very left leaning. Then you move to the Television - ONLY fox news reports the other perspective, and it infuriates a huge portion of the nation. Is Fox biased to the Right? Yes - is it as far Right, as CNN/MSNBC or the others are LEFT - Not a chance. Then you get to the RADIO. The only medium in which Conservatives have a voice - and you want to implement restrictions?! Are you kidding me? If you dont like it - change the channel - its what 50% of the nation has to do in every other form of media. You didnt specifically call out talk radio - but it is the only conservative leaning media, so it can be extrapolated.

The Government should not regulate speech in any way shape of form. Regulation by government ensures ONE Thing - more Government, more control thereby securing that one parties continuous rein of power. Let us not forget - we are a capitalist society, even if you dont like it - the Government does not make ANY money - they spend ours. I for one, work to hard to give the government anything more than I have to. The more regulation the more money I lose to the government. I saw a report that for the first time in this great nations history the government now employs more people than the entire manufacturing industry. That means in plain dumb english more people are now being completely supported by fewer people. Sure the service industry (doctors, lawyers, resteraunt staff) still exist, but they too are living off of one thing - manufacturing - the ability to sell a product. So the entire country is now living off of a minority. Great.

bottom line - Regulation in any form that affects SPEECH is bad.

Edited by Marksmu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Editor - I cant help but guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie. I venture to guess that you voted for the messiah. -

bottom line - Regulation in any form that affects SPEECH is bad.

I love it when a poster guesses...and misses the entire side of the barn. Fact is marksmu, the editor generally falls on the other side of the spectrum from the messiah. I, however, voted for him. Since this thread has already experienced the China Syndrome, this is as good a place as any to point out the fallacy of political labels.

I saw a report that for the first time in this great nations history the government now employs more people than the entire manufacturing industry. That means in plain dumb english more people are now being completely supported by fewer people. Sure the service industry (doctors, lawyers, resteraunt staff) still exist, but they too are living off of one thing - manufacturing - the ability to sell a product. So the entire country is now living off of a minority. Great.

By the way, this is not the government's fault. At least, it is not the fault of the liberal government that you aim to smear with this fact. It is the "fault", if you want to call it that, of the "free market", that group of profiteers that pushed to move manufacturing offshore to poor countries where workers make subsistence wages. The US government, which should have been making it easier for manufacturing to stay in this country through programs like universal healthcare, instead made it easier to offshore those jobs. To use your phrase, it is easy to guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie, as you are too quick to blame the government for the actions of corporate profiteers, and way too quick to blame government for getting bigger, when bigger government might have kept many of the jobs you miss here in the states.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love it when a poster guesses...and misses the entire side of the barn. Fact is marksmu, the editor generally falls on the other side of the spectrum from the messiah. I, however, voted for him. Since this thread has already experienced the China Syndrome, this is as good a place as any to point out the fallacy of political labels.

By the way, this is not the government's fault. At least, it is not the fault of the liberal government that you aim to smear with this fact. It is the "fault", if you want to call it that, of the "free market", that group of profiteers that pushed to move manufacturing offshore to poor countries where workers make subsistence wages. The US government, which should have been making it easier for manufacturing to stay in this country through programs like universal healthcare, instead made it easier to offshore those jobs. To use your phrase, it is easy to guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie, as you are too quick to blame the government for the actions of corporate profiteers, and way too quick to blame government for getting bigger, when bigger government might have kept many of the jobs you miss here in the states.

First, I dont follow editors posts - In fact I just found the off topic, and way off topic threads. I usually hover in the heights, and home improvement sections. But since the election I am worked up.

I will not defend profiteers who took jobs offshore. I cant stand that aspect of this country and I cant stand the Fat cats who make insane salaries. Nobody is worth tens of millions/yr if your in a publicly traded company that must answer to stock holders. Privately held companies can do what they want in my opinion b.c they only hurt themselves when they lose. But at the same time a line worker at a GM plant does not deserve $25-$50/hr plus benefits, and a month off...thats insane. The unions are the reasons jobs were taken offshore. They never even looked over seas till the workers demanded that which the market wont bear. At a time when a company is failing the UAW proved that it didnt care about the hand that fed it. They refused to accept no raise, or increase in benefits. They force the hand. They are unreasonable and useless in todays world of attorneys and the ease of getting into court.

In my opinion - and its just my opinion - the government does not do anything better than the free market. The people who ruined these companies should all be prosecuted for their crimes, and rest assured they committed crimes. That would correct the market problems. People broke the law, and inflated numbers to raise stock prices at the expense of the companies all b/c they wanted to cash out options....A precedent of jail time for former millionaires will solve the problem going forward. It wont give back to those who lost, but the market corrects itself.

But universal health care does not work - it has never worked anywhere. Many countries have tried it, and all have failed. Canada's health care is a joke. Its another tax on those who work to benefit those who dont. I have a massive problem looking at my paycheck and realising that I pay more in taxes for programs I dont want or care about than many of my friends make.

If Im going to have to pay rediuclous taxes, I should get to choose where my taxes go. Support the government run initiatives that I actually care about. Parks, wildlife, homeless animals, etc...not to some poor mom, who gets pregnant over and over again to increase her welfare check, and put out thugs who just propogate the problem.

My two cents - actually a long rant, but I am sick of taxes and lazy people taking from me. In my mind Its stealing. I dont consume more health care, more roads, more bridges, more military, more of anything,...but I pay 10-50X more than those who do.

Edited by Marksmu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. I'm not suggesting that Rush or Al Franken or whomever be censored. What I am saying is that the government should reinstate and actually enforce rules that require broadcasters and other non-print media companies to actually serve the public and the communities they're licensed to. The companies should be concerned about losing their licenses if they don't fulfill this role. Right now they aren't, so the number one and two and three priorities are profit, not the public. They've been given a license to use a limited public resource, and so the public good should be in there somewhere.

Does this make broadcasting less profitable? Yes. Does it make broadcasting so unprofitable that it goes under? No. Not even close.

Dang, and I thought I was out on this thread, but here is editor bringing me back in. Dude, as someone who is /was actually IN media broadcasting, I would think that you of all people would be the last one to preach FOR big govt. regulation of what progam you choose to provide on said BOUGHT and PAID FOR license ? What if next, they want to censor YOUR/our HAIF forum here ? This really seems to be coming out of leftfield for you. First you got Niche not caring about innocent 3yr. olds being snuffed out, as it is just too taxing on his delicate sensibilities and would interupt with his long lonely canoe trips. And now you want govt. censorship ? What is this world coming too ? I think this must be two signs of the Apocalypse ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one:

The government's economic statistics are totally bogus.

Although the media will never report it, every economist knows about Shadowstats.com.

The real current economic numbers are:

Unemployment 18%

Inflation 8%

GDP -4%

The government became SO embarrassed by the M3(Money Supply) numbers, they stopped reporting it in 2006!!! Notice the massive escalation of currency being printed(M1) in 2008.

People also don't realize that the unemployed slide off the rolls after 6 months.

** Unemployment numbers ONLY include those collecting unemployment benefits !!! **

Theoretically, if everybody in America lost their job...you would eventually have an unemployment rate of 0%!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's another one:

The government's economic statistics are totally bogus.

Although the media will never report it, every economist knows about Shadowstats.com.

The real current economic numbers are:

Unemployment 18%

Inflation 8%

GDP -4%

The government became SO embarrassed by the M3(Money Supply) numbers, they stopped reporting it in 2006!!! Notice the massive escalation of currency being printed(M1) in 2008.

People also don't realize that the unemployed slide off the rolls after 6 months.

** Unemployment numbers ONLY include those collecting unemployment benefits !!! **

Theoretically, if everybody in America lost their job...you would eventually have an unemployment rate of 0%!!

Rammer is right on with this one. I gave up on MSM long ago for this kind of reporting. The interwebs are full to the brim with people who make it their daily business to point out the undereporting and discrepancies in 'official' economic data.

This is where I make my standard plug for the economics blog, The Big Picture:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First you got Niche not caring about innocent 3yr. olds being snuffed out, as it is just too taxing on his delicate sensibilities and would interupt with his long lonely canoe trips. And now you want govt. censorship ? What is this world coming too ? I think this must be two signs of the Apocalypse ???

Editor did not get me to not care about publicity surrounding the murder of random three-year-olds. I got that way all on my own, thank you very much.

And if you really must look for the gray cloud in every silver lining, well if anything my long lonely kayak trips are an escapist reaction to those elements of society that pay attention to Caylee in lieu of real news. Why don't you just go ahead an accuse me of that. I'll probably even agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Editor - I cant help but guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie. I venture to guess that you voted for the messiah. - That aside - the left leaning side of the country is overwhelming - Starting in junior high, continuing with high school, college, law school, graduate school, you name it - nearly all the staff are heavily liberal. Then you get to the Newspapers & Magazines - all the "News" (in quotes b/c their bias is a joke) are also very left leaning. Then you move to the Television - ONLY fox news reports the other perspective, and it infuriates a huge portion of the nation. Is Fox biased to the Right? Yes - is it as far Right, as CNN/MSNBC or the others are LEFT - Not a chance. Then you get to the RADIO. The only medium in which Conservatives have a voice - and you want to implement restrictions?! Are you kidding me? If you dont like it - change the channel - its what 50% of the nation has to do in every other form of media. You didnt specifically call out talk radio - but it is the only conservative leaning media, so it can be extrapolated.

The Government should not regulate speech in any way shape of form. Regulation by government ensures ONE Thing - more Government, more control thereby securing that one parties continuous rein of power. Let us not forget - we are a capitalist society, even if you dont like it - the Government does not make ANY money - they spend ours. I for one, work to hard to give the government anything more than I have to. The more regulation the more money I lose to the government. I saw a report that for the first time in this great nations history the government now employs more people than the entire manufacturing industry. That means in plain dumb english more people are now being completely supported by fewer people. Sure the service industry (doctors, lawyers, resteraunt staff) still exist, but they too are living off of one thing - manufacturing - the ability to sell a product. So the entire country is now living off of a minority. Great.

bottom line - Regulation in any form that affects SPEECH is bad.

Sorry , radio and television broadcasting are different. The frequency spectrum is limited . Just because I am fortunate enough to aquire and purchase a radio station doesn't give me a right to libel you ( ie. call you a racist or a communist,or simply make fun of you ) and you not have the right to respond . The Fairness Doctrine was not so much government regulation as government being a referee in the name of fair play .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry , radio and television broadcasting are different. The frequency spectrum is limited . Just because I am fortunate enough to aquire and purchase a radio station doesn't give me a right to libel you ( ie. call you a racist or a communist,or simply make fun of you ) and you not have the right to respond . The Fairness Doctrine was not so much government regulation as government being a referee in the name of fair play .

So JW, what you are saying is that it's just another battle between the haves, and the have nots. Ok, good point, but the havenots can and have tried, to buy their own airtime, and failed miserably. It should not be the function of Govt. to enforce "fairplay" when nobody wants to listen to the otherside, that is another form of Socialism. Vietnam had Hanoi Hannah blasting out on the Govt. sanctioned radio everyday to try and demoralize our soldiers, are you suggesting that we as Americans also be demoralized by these same tactics in our own country ?

Being a town crier has a limited range also, but you still have the right to free speech. As far as anyone being called a racist, or a communist, I will guarantee any conservative radio talk show host will WELCOME anyone they may have talked about ,disparagingly, onto their show, and do a whole segment with them, in order to let that person have a chance to defend themselves upon any charges made by said talk show host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fairness doctrine was designed for one reason - to stifle speech that the liberals could not control. They find a way to couch it in an otherwise legitimate way by declaring the frequencies in the air as limited. It is exactly the same way that the government has used the commerce clause to regulate just about anything that they want to.

Its a JOKE to actually believe the Fairness Doctrine is ANYTHING other than an attempt to quiet the conservative media b/c the conservative media has a strangle hold on talk radio.

Its sad to say but liberals can not succeed with talk radio b/c most of their positions are not defensible when met with common sense. They are ideological points. Wouldn't it be butterflies and rainbows if we all had free health care? SURE it would, but the quality would get so terrible, you would not want to use it. Wouldn't it be nice if we all made plenty of money?? Sure it would but then there would NO incentive to work.

Time and Time again - liberal talk fails b/c they will not let the opposing side call in and argue with them - b/c the opposing side is smarter and can make points the liberal host can not refute. What makes peopel listen to conservative talk radio is that it is normally common sense, its normally not what is heard on the TV, in Print, or on the "legitimate news sites" and they allow both sides to make their statements. Its great when the liberals call in to talk b/c they say one thing, they are refuted with a common sense, and correct answer, and then when asked to respond, they say your just a racist, or repeat the original statement.

Liberal radio will not ever work b/c they cannot defend their positions on the air. Period. The fairness doctrine is designed to stop further progression of the conservative movement. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or not being genuine.

Period.

Sorry , radio and television broadcasting are different. The frequency spectrum is limited . Just because I am fortunate enough to aquire and purchase a radio station doesn't give me a right to libel you ( ie. call you a racist or a communist,or simply make fun of you ) and you not have the right to respond . The Fairness Doctrine was not so much government regulation as government being a referee in the name of fair play .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fairness doctrine was designed for one reason - to stifle speech that the liberals could not control. They find a way to couch it in an otherwise legitimate way by declaring the frequencies in the air as limited. It is exactly the same way that the government has used the commerce clause to regulate just about anything that they want to.

Its a JOKE to actually believe the Fairness Doctrine is ANYTHING other than an attempt to quiet the conservative media b/c the conservative media has a strangle hold on talk radio.

Its sad to say but liberals can not succeed with talk radio b/c most of their positions are not defensible when met with common sense. They are ideological points. Wouldn't it be butterflies and rainbows if we all had free health care? SURE it would, but the quality would get so terrible, you would not want to use it. Wouldn't it be nice if we all made plenty of money?? Sure it would but then there would NO incentive to work.

Time and Time again - liberal talk fails b/c they will not let the opposing side call in and argue with them - b/c the opposing side is smarter and can make points the liberal host can not refute. What makes peopel listen to conservative talk radio is that it is normally common sense, its normally not what is heard on the TV, in Print, or on the "legitimate news sites" and they allow both sides to make their statements. Its great when the liberals call in to talk b/c they say one thing, they are refuted with a common sense, and correct answer, and then when asked to respond, they say your just a racist, or repeat the original statement.

Liberal radio will not ever work b/c they cannot defend their positions on the air. Period. The fairness doctrine is designed to stop further progression of the conservative movement. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or not being genuine.

Period.

I believe the conservative movement has done a fine job of stopping its further progrssion by itself, even without the Fairness Doctrine.

Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or not being genuine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the conservative movement has done a fine job of stopping its further progrssion by itself, even without the Fairness Doctrine.

Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or not being genuine.

I Can not argue that Bush was not a major setback - but I will argue that Bush was NOT a conservative. Bush was a very moderate, if not liberal republican. Though still technically a republican he broke ranks over several MAJOR issues which made him NOT a conservative. Not the least of which were immigration and fiscal responsibility, welfare, healthcare, etc.

About all he got right were conservative appointees to the Supreme Court and Taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to story #3.

It's beyond comprehension. After Goldman Sachs has been caught by '60 Minutes' controlling oil commodity prices...they continue to scheme unnoticed by the worthless media.

Let's go slow...in case anyone from the media may be watching.

Goldman Sachs was able to manipulate oil prices via a change in ICE rules.

In January 2006, ICE Futures in London began trading a futures contract for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil. ICE Futures also notified the CFTC(Commodity Futures Trading Commission) that it would be permitting traders in the United States to use ICE terminals in the United States to trade its new WTI contract on the ICE Futures London exchange. ICE Futures as well allowed traders in the United States to trade US gasoline and heating oil futures on the ICE Futures exchange in London. The CFTC is SUPPOSED to be an oversight agency.

So, who does Obama appoint to head the CFTC on December 18th? Gary Gensler, from GOLDMAN SACHS! He's a Robert Rubin underling! Gee, let's see which company had the second largest employee contributions to Obama's campaign? GOLDMAN SACHS....$955,223!!! Who had the largest holdings on 'long' oil contracts until midsummer when oil hit almost $150 per barrel? GOLDMAN SACHS! Who then switched to a 'short' position on oil contracts? GOLDMAN SACHS! Hello? Hello? Does ANYONE in the media have a brain besides '60 Minutes'? And THEY only got PART of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Can not argue that Bush was not a major setback - but I will argue that Bush was NOT a conservative. Bush was a very moderate, if not liberal republican. Though still technically a republican he broke ranks over several MAJOR issues which made him NOT a conservative. Not the least of which were immigration and fiscal responsibility, welfare, healthcare, etc.

About all he got right were conservative appointees to the Supreme Court and Taxes.

Oh , so if he didn't obey his marching orders from Rush, Hannity and Laura, he's not a REAL conservative .

Edited by J W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, who does Obama appoint to head the CFTC on December 18th? Gary Gensler, from GOLDMAN SACHS! He's a Robert Rubin underling! Gee, let's see which company had the second largest employee contributions to Obama's campaign? GOLDMAN SACHS....$955,223!!! Who had the largest holdings on 'long' oil contracts until midsummer when oil hit almost $150 per barrel? GOLDMAN SACHS! Who then switched to a 'short' position on oil contracts? GOLDMAN SACHS! Hello? Hello? Does ANYONE in the media have a brain besides '60 Minutes'? And THEY only got PART of the story.

So what? The guy is clearly very competent and is quite an operator. As long as compensation is properly structured so as to assure loyalty, these are the qualities you want for a political appointee.

It should not come as a shock that Goldman Sachs employees donated the most to Obama; their mission is profit by way of foresight and certainly there was a point at which Obama's candidacy was strong enough that Goldman folks no doubt backed Obama because he was certain to win (not necessarily because they liked his policy) and because donors always get favors.

As far as Goldman Sachs' changing oil positions, do you reckon that they might've actually just made some good investment decisions? Good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what? The guy is clearly very competent and is quite an operator. As long as compensation is properly structured so as to assure loyalty, these are the qualities you want for a political appointee.

It should not come as a shock that Goldman Sachs employees donated the most to Obama; their mission is profit by way of foresight and certainly there was a point at which Obama's candidacy was strong enough that Goldman folks no doubt backed Obama because he was certain to win (not necessarily because they liked his policy) and because donors always get favors.

As far as Goldman Sachs' changing oil positions, do you reckon that they might've actually just made some good investment decisions? Good for them.

It's easy to make good decisions when you completely CONTROL the price of the commodity!

Their arrogance is so extreme, they've even been 'pumping & dumping' their short position.

Buy oil ETFs like USO & DIG today!(Oil is currently only $35 per barrel)

And tear that poster of Tim Donaghy off your wall. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh , so if he didn't obey his marching orders from Rush, Hannity and Laura, he's not a REAL conservative .

I laughed so hard when I read this - because I was actually telling people at work about this discussion, and I said I cant wait for someone to say that. It was very predictable.

But no - he was not a REAL conservative b/c he completely disregarded CONSERVATIVE views. You cant say one thing and do another. Conservatives are by definition for responsible spending in government, and smaller government. GW, spent like a democrat, and actually enlarged the government. Conservatives are for controlled immigration, and GW was willing to grant amnesty to the people who are bankrupting our society by using resources without contributing to the pot.

Rush, Hannity, & Laura just happen to call him out on it. They are not the leaders of the conservative party - they are a more radical voice willing to cross their own party line to point something out.

None if it matters anyway - the new "stimulus" bill has just bankrputed this country for good. Now its just a matter of time till the Messiah tells us that the government needs money, and they "nationalize" 401K programs and you lose your retirement completly, but much like Social Security, they will "promise" you can have it all back with interest later. You dont know best what to do with YOUR money - they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's easy to make good decisions when you completely CONTROL the price of the commodity!

So you're asserting that Goldman Sachs exerted complete control over the price of oil from 2006 to present, and that the price of oil actually has nothing to do with changing global economic patterns of supply or demand? You're making the conspiracy theorists' foremost error and are confusing correlation with causation.

There are cases where it is plausible that a single trading operation could influence oil prices, but they could not keep it up for very long. The oil market is very deep. A study in contrast would be where Enron was able to corner the market on propane. They were able to do that only because propane is much more thinly traded.

Their arrogance is so extreme, they've even been 'pumping & dumping' their short position.

Irrespective of Goldman Sachs' actions, I've become increasingly long on oil over the last month and a half. Is that a signal that I am also extremely arrogant in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I laughed so hard when I read this - because I was actually telling people at work about this discussion, and I said I cant wait for someone to say that. It was very predictable.

But no - he was not a REAL conservative b/c he completely disregarded CONSERVATIVE views. You cant say one thing and do another. Conservatives are by definition for responsible spending in government, and smaller government. GW, spent like a democrat, and actually enlarged the government. Conservatives are for controlled immigration, and GW was willing to grant amnesty to the people who are bankrupting our society by using resources without contributing to the pot.

Rush, Hannity, & Laura just happen to call him out on it. They are not the leaders of the conservative party - they are a more radical voice willing to cross their own party line to point something out.

Depends on how you define "conservatism". The alignment between religion and business within the Republican party muddles any attempt at a concise and widely-accepted description of a so-called political philosophy.

None if it matters anyway - the new "stimulus" bill has just bankrputed this country for good. Now its just a matter of time till the Messiah tells us that the government needs money, and they "nationalize" 401K programs and you lose your retirement completly, but much like Social Security, they will "promise" you can have it all back with interest later. You dont know best what to do with YOUR money - they do.

I don't like it either, but I should point out that it is impossible for a nation to go bankrupt. I would also point out that even though I do not believe that the prospect of 40% of GDP being government spending is a wise course of action, we've done it before in our nation's history. The result is higher taxes, higher interest rates on debt, inflation, or some combination of those. Those things suck, yes. But that is not bankruptcy. Drop that useless device from your rhetoric and go read a frickin' economics textbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I laughed so hard when I read this - because I was actually telling people at work about this discussion, and I said I cant wait for someone to say that. It was very predictable.

But no - he was not a REAL conservative b/c he completely disregarded CONSERVATIVE views. You cant say one thing and do another. Conservatives are by definition for responsible spending in government, and smaller government. GW, spent like a democrat, and actually enlarged the government. Conservatives are for controlled immigration, and GW was willing to grant amnesty to the people who are bankrupting our society by using resources without contributing to the pot.

Rush, Hannity, & Laura just happen to call him out on it. They are not the leaders of the conservative party - they are a more radical voice willing to cross their own party line to point something out.

None if it matters anyway - the new "stimulus" bill has just bankrputed this country for good. Now its just a matter of time till the Messiah tells us that the government needs money, and they "nationalize" 401K programs and you lose your retirement completly, but much like Social Security, they will "promise" you can have it all back with interest later. You dont know best what to do with YOUR money - they do.

As Niche pointed out, you appear to confusing "Republican" with "Conservative". As presidents cannot spend without the approval of Congress, to blame Bush alone for doubling the National Debt without mentioning the GOP controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years that sent those spending bills for his signature is laughable. And lauding tax cuts as "conservative" is ludicrous. A fiscal conservative limits spending, but more importantly, a fiscal conservative PAYS HIS BILLS. This less taxes mantra that Republicans are chanting is not conservatism. It is a continuation of the easy credit, "buy now, pay later" policies that got the entire country in the situation it finds itself in today. More insidious, it is a refusal on the part of Republicans to provide a sound fiscal base on which the government sits. Republicans may think that less taxes starves entitlement programs, but it also starves infrastructure, the military, justice and other useful and necessary parts of government. And, by running up the deficit and collecting less taxes during economic expansion when people can afford to pay them, it lessens the ability of government to increase spending during recessions when it is needed.

It is probably best that you use your "conservative" argument on talk radio where no one will question you. Because over here in the real world, some of us still use a real definition of fiscal conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...