I'm tied of being called a conspiracy theorist...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by transplant99+Sep 20 2004, 12:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (transplant99 @ Sep 20 2004, 12:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FanningTheFlames@Sep 20 2004, 08:22 AM
The elites! The incredibly powerful throughout history. Only way that differs from a standard history book is that conspiracy theory assumes a secret organisation that binds them in common purpose. Some theories hold more weight (the Neo-cons IMO) than others (the Bohemian Grove). I don't think we'll ever know the answer one way or the other about these things unless there is a completely independent investigation into the question.

Ahhh...the old Illuminati theory. I figured that's what you meant in the first post.

Yup...this is the SINGLE biggest conspiracy theory ever presented to mankind IMO.

I googled for a website....lots of em. This one i remember reading in print sometime back. Fear-mongering taken to another level.

No offense, but I find it highly amusing more than anything.

You've ALL been brainwashed [/b][/quote]
Now THAT is a conspiracy theory!!!

Multi-layers, requiring not only the complicity of thousands but also GENERATIONS OF THOUSANDS.

Does it get any better than that!!??

You also have to like a conspiracy website that would have such a magnificant plot laid out in such glittering detail and would also contain an explanation of the sidebar Cellphone Tower Plot.

http://educate-yourself.org/dc/dclatestonm...ys25may02.shtml

And I love it that the entire site is titled: "Educate Yourself, The Freedom Of Knowledge, The Power of Thought."

This is great stuff. Keep it coming.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Lol, my argument gets buried among MORE conspiracy theory nonsense.

That's gotta be one of the stupidest sites ever! I love how it goes into Satanism in the end, like it was ever a real religion.

Hello, the ideas of Satanic cults were created by the church in order to put down pagan religions and excercise control thousands of (or rather one thousand and several hundred) years ago. (And even witch hunts not to long ago) The only people who actually believe in Satan are people who believe in Judeo/Christianity, the Satan figurehead simply doesn't exist in other religions and mythologies. The only people who 'worship' the 'dark lord' are a few misguided kids and a section of LeVay's followers (The Church of Satan) who OPENLY ADMIT that there is no Satan, just interesting thoeries of individualism to model ones life after.

Satanic cults are a long serving boogyman. Of all the reasons this website and it's authors are out to lunch, this is the largest.

[Daradon]

Oh except for the underground cities housing people and aliens. That stuff is 100% true! I seen em you know!

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 20 2004, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 20 2004, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Touche.

My favourite quote about standard media practice is as follows, from fan favourite Noam Chomsky. Here's the gist of the excerpt:

What is presented to us daily in 5 minute snippets is taken as fact. We know what it is, we know how it got their. Mass media has to present it to us in that way, as they have a business to run.

Now imagine if I came on TV and said to you that the American government was quietly supporting an Indonesian government that has inflicted genocide in East Timor. Would the time allotted in a "full of clout and honesty" news network allow me the time to even establish my point (or the location of East Timor, in that case) before I could provide evidence that this was happening? Highly unlikely, so pundits like this are dismissed.

The whole objective of news networks is to sell enough advertising to sell the news their people want to hear. Same goes for newspapers. The whole basis for that model isn't consistent with fair and balanced reporting, in any medium.

Considering Chomsky is clearly used as a filter of news by his legions of young proteges, his comment is hilarious.

Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh attempt to marginalize the mainstream media in the same fashion as Chomsky, even though the parties are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

The left and right sell the same thing. "Believe me. Don't believe them because they're not telling you the real truth. Only I can tell you the real truth."

There are people who are right in the thick of the debate on the off-topic board who believe the mainstream media is a Republican party mouthpiece and there are people in the thick of the debate here who believe the mainstream media is out to get GW Bush in this election campaign.

Which side is right? Probably neither.

The reason the half hour "network news" is diminishing in popularity, if not marginalized, is the success of cable news in providing more in-depth analysis, whether you agree with the points of view expressed or not. That in turn wouldn't be happening if the public weren't interested and, in the words of Chomsky, willing to pay for it. Which they appear to be doing in increasing numbers, defeating Chomsky's argument.

As a sidebar, the Sunday New York Times is available in most news stands across the USA. It weighs about 10 pounds and costs about $5 or so. Lots of depth in that puppy if you have the arms to carry it home!! I guess Chomsky's never picked one up. Its just one example.

I presented this link on where people are getting their campaign information, the changing pattern, in another thread. Here it is again.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=200

And the second link with a commentary:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5520569/

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
The big difference between Chomsky and Limbaugh is that Chomsky theorizes. Limbaugh says his opinion (spouts). Very different to publish a book with meticulous footnoting of source than to simply ramble on. That's the difference.

I don't see the "in-depth" reporting you speak of on the cable networks (well, I live in Japan but haven't my whole life). They are still businesses that have to sell ads. Places like BBC do a much better job of presenting international information precisely because they don't have to sell anything more than their reputation.

As for the Sunday New York Times, yup, that's a mighty big paper. We can agree on that.

[transplant99]

The big difference between Chomsky and Limbaugh is that Chomsky theorizes. Limbaugh says his opinion (spouts).

"The 'corporatization of America' during the past century [has been] an attack on democracy."

"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations."

" The U.S. will not permit constructive programs in its own domains, so it must ensure that they are destroyed elsewhere to terminate " the threat of a good example".

" The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people. "

"I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom."

"Democracy requires dissolution of private power. As long as there is private control over the economic system, talk about democracy is a joke. You can't even talk about democracy until you have democratic control of industry, commerce, banking, everything..."

The 'conservatives' who are calling for an end to school lunches for hungry children are also demanding an increase in the budget for the Pentagon, which was established in the late 1940s in its current form because - as the business press was kind enough to tell us - high tech industry cannot survive in a "pure, competitive, unsubsidized, 'free enterprise' economy," and the government must be its "saviour."

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American president would have to be hanged."

ALL of the above are Chomsky "opinions"...not backed up with "meticulous footnoting of source"

Chomsky and Limbaugh are the same thing.

[Bingo]

Lanny ... leave me out of it. Lord knows I've stayed out of these insane strings that just seem to go on and on every second day with very little ever getting acomplished.

I read or see every source I can get my hands on. Fox News is one of them, yes, but not the only one.

I know it makes things a little more tidy in your argumentative little world if you can just eliminate someone else's views off the top like that but give it up.

BTW ... I was looking at news ratings the fast few weeks, did you know that Fox News in prime time hours are getting as much as five times the viewership of CNN and MSNBC? If this is a luny right wing station, why do so many Amercians watch it? I thought the vote was split down the middle?

I've said it 100 times ... the internet is a vast place. We can both source almost anything with 10 links but that doesn't make it any more true. Most of these splinter sites have serious agendas, if you wish to ignore them, feel free, but from where I sit it appears you're losing it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Sep 21 2004, 01:18 PM
BTW ... I was looking at news ratings the fast few weeks, did you know that Fox News in prime time hours are getting as much as five times the viewership of CNN and MSNBC? If this is a luny right wing station, why do so many Amercians watch it? I thought the vote was split down the middle?

Because Fox tells the people what they want to hear. Plain and simple. They expound about how well the war is going and what a great job that Bush is doing and that the economic outlook is all peaches and cream. They LIE but the people watching drink it in because its what they want to hear and wish were reality. Thinking in that same vein, Al Jazeera is the most watched news station in the Middle East. Does that make them right? Popularity hardly means you're right. It just means you're telling the people what they wish to hear.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 21 2004, 09:29 AM
Because Fox tells the people what they want to hear. Plain and simple. They expound about how well the war is going and what a great job that Bush is doing and that the economic outlook is all peaches and cream. They LIE but the people watching drink it in because its what they want to hear and wish were reality. Thinking in that same vein, Al Jazeera is the most watched news station in the Middle East. Does that make them right? Popularity hardly means you're right. It just means you're telling the people what they wish to hear.

I'm glad it's plain and simple to you ... I hope you don't mind if I have a different view on plain and simple.

The country is divided ... really, really divided. That would mean a good 47-53% of Americans are looking for pro Bush media, the other half is looking for drive bys on the man on a daily basis.

Fox sells because 1) they're a heck of a lot more entertaining and 2) they are more fair when compared to the other major news sources in the U.S. right now.

It's an easy point to make this week with Rather-gate, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency when it comes to what one outlet will touch and what they let go. Many wouldn't touch the Swift Boat thing, but would jump on the Bush memos ... both were garbage.

You're Al Jazeera example doesn't work because they're not divided. A site that is pro Muslim anti American works in the region because a strong majority of it's citizens feel the same way.

Fox ... dividied country, runaway ratings, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Logic dicatates that.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 21 2004, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 21 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Sep 21 2004, 01:18 PM
BTW ... I was looking at news ratings the fast few weeks, did you know that Fox News in prime time hours are getting as much as five times the viewership of CNN and MSNBC? If this is a luny right wing station, why do so many Amercians watch it? I thought the vote was split down the middle?

Because Fox tells the people what they want to hear. Plain and simple. They expound about how well the war is going and what a great job that Bush is doing and that the economic outlook is all peaches and cream. They LIE but the people watching drink it in because its what they want to hear and wish were reality. Thinking in that same vein, Al Jazeera is the most watched news station in the Middle East. Does that make them right? Popularity hardly means you're right. It just means you're telling the people what they wish to hear. [/b][/quote]
Bingo doesn't get FOX as a television source in Canada, although their website is freely available.

FOX will never be accused of having a left wing bias just as CBC News will never be accused of a right ring bias.

When a source is accused of bias by both sides, you've got a good indicator they're probably treating things reasonably fairly.

Still, as much as I dislike CBC and as much as I agree that FOX is slanted, I know I can watch either outlet exclusively and still get the basic facts on most issues, at least enough to formulate an opinion.

As an example, on the FOXnews.com site right now are links with Jacques Chirac declaring the USA is impeding the war on poverty.

"However strong the Americans may be, in the long term, you cannot successfully oppose a position taken by 110 countries," Chirac told a news conference. "You can't oppose that forever."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132972,00.html

There is also a story on FOX of Kofi Annan saying the rule of law is being flouted throughout the world and naming prison scandals and civilian massacres in Iraq.

The lead story at CBCNews right now is not the Bush speech but rather the Annan speech.

The same facts.

Where outlets like CBC and Fox fail is not on basic news but rather in employing only left or right wing commentators, versus a mix for balance.

You can count on Bill O'Reilly coming back at Chirac and Annan on FOX with no one in support. Similarly, on a CBC or BBC news report tonight, I'm sure we'll see the furrowed brows of disbelief as they gather left wing experts to examine the Bush talk at the UN.

I watch BBC quite a bit, never FOX and rarely CBC.

As I noted in a previous post, an observation being made more frequently is that people are gravitating towards outlets that provide opinions they agree with, versus sourcing conflicting views to offer a choice.

Frankly, I don't think its necessarily the basic facts of the news that are different in these places - the mainstream - but rather the commentators employed to interpret it.

Its sort of like buying conspiracy books to confirm what you're already paranoid about.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

'FOX will never be accused of having a left wing bias just as CBC News will never be accused of a right ring bias.'

See, the problem I have with staements like these is that they are all about perspective.

CBC might not be accused of having a right wing bias in Alberta or the U.S. (or in our U.S. centralized arguments) but what about the rest of the western world?

As I mention in a previous post coming down on a O'Reilly argument, the U.S. thinks we are socialist and even many people here in Canada who would wish to emulate their government, but in reality, Canada is very middle spectrum.

The Aussies I probably would argue the CBC as being right. So might the French or the Italians.

The British might be SLIGHTY right of us, but I don't think it would be a HUGE difference. I really enjoy the BBC broadcasts too. They may bemore tied to the U.S. and Bush right now because of the committments their Prime Minister made, but don't forget they had the LARGEST anti-Iraq war protests in the world by a fair margin, perhaps showing the populaces true feelings.

We define left and right based on the direction of the elephant in our bed. But I hardly think that is a good point of reference for the world.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 21 2004, 04:40 PM
'FOX will never be accused of having a left wing bias just as CBC News will never be accused of a right ring bias.'

See, the problem I have with staements like these is that they are all about perspective.

CBC might not be accused of having a right wing bias in Alberta or the U.S. (or in our U.S. centralized arguments) but what about the rest of the western world?

As I mention in a previous post coming down on a O'Reilly argument, the U.S. thinks we are socialist and even many people here in Canada who would wish to emulate their government, but in reality, Canada is very middle spectrum.

The Aussies I probably would argue the CBC as being right. So might the French or the Italians.

The British might be SLIGHTY right of us, but I don't think it would be a HUGE difference. I really enjoy the BBC broadcasts too. They may bemore tied to the U.S. and Bush right now because of the committments their Prime Minister made, but don't forget they had the LARGEST anti-Iraq war protests in the world by a fair margin, perhaps showing the populaces true feelings.

We define left and right based on the direction of the elephant in our bed. But I hardly think that is a good point of reference for the world.

Well then your task for today is to go ahead and try to find ANYPLACE in the known UNIVERSE via Google where CBC has been accused of having a right wing bias.

Maybe you can find a New Democrat with that charge but I'm doubtful.

Similarly, its pretty hard to find anyplace that accuses FOX of being part of the Liberal Media Monopoly!!

That's a shame on both of them. A pox on both!!

And you are relating this to my "perspective," indicating a bias on my part, when in fact I've actually picked two from opposite ends of the spectrum for illustration.

As I said, if I were an owner of a newspaper or other news outlet, I'd probably want to be charged with bias by all sides simply as a matter of pride and dignity.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

This from Nils Ling, former employee of the CBC (some show called MainStreet).

"The people who work at CBC - unlike their bosses in Toronto - have a passion for reporting the news. They do it with a minimum of bias (and before the roars begin, may I point out a curious, but universally true fact: Conservatives always accuse CBC of having a left-wing bias; New Democrats always accuse CBC of having a right-wing bias; Liberals always accuse CBC of having an anti-Liberal bias. Always.)"

http://truthsandhalftruths.typepad.com/tru...ding_the_c.html

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 21 2004, 06:50 PM
This from Nils Ling, former employee of the CBC (some show called MainStreet).

"The people who work at CBC - unlike their bosses in Toronto - have a passion for reporting the news. They do it with a minimum of bias (and before the roars begin, may I point out a curious, but universally true fact: Conservatives always accuse CBC of having a left-wing bias; New Democrats always accuse CBC of having a right-wing bias; Liberals always accuse CBC of having an anti-Liberal bias. Always.)"

http://truthsandhalftruths.typepad.com/tru...ding_the_c.html

Don't shoot the messenger.

I actually saw that before you posted it.

He offers no evidence of his claim. CBC itself says it gets accused of right wing bias all the time and FOX makes the same claim about being accused of left wing bias.

Aside from insiders and their mysterious claims, however, neither can produce evidence to that effect and certainly there appear to be no outside organizations or groups that publicly say that.

Cowperson

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 21 2004, 10:12 AM
As I said, if I were an owner of a newspaper or other news outlet, I'd probably want to be charged with bias by all sides simply as a matter of pride and dignity.

Your paper would fail. As much as I would like to read your paper, you wouldn't have anybody to pay for advertising; corporations want somebody with an agenda to advertise in...specifically, an agenda that harmonizes with their own.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 21 2004, 04:59 AM
ALL of the above are Chomsky "opinions"...not backed up with "meticulous footnoting of source"

Chomsky and Limbaugh are the same thing.

You're going to have to explain how those are "opinions".

If Chomsky was footnoting his conclusions, no-one would read him, as it meant someone's said it before. You footnote your premises, not your conclusions.

[Daradon]

' Well then your task for today is to go ahead and try to find ANYPLACE in the known UNIVERSE via Google where CBC has been accused of having a right wing bias. '

All I know is that in other 'western' countries I have stayed in or visited, when discussing politics, our Canadian policies come off a little more on the right end of the discussions I have with the locals. Sure we are left of the States, but we're right of a whole bunch of other countries. Even our 'leftish' CBC broadcasts might seem a little right in the spectrum that they know in their countries.

I don't disagree that CBC is more left of center (at least in context to our political spectrum) in it's reporting, it's just absoulte statements like 'always' and 'never' get me going a little. This is how debates get out of control. I was just pointing out that what one nation thinks is left, another nation might think is right, in a braoder spectrum with their own values used as a benchmark.

Your dare or homework assignment though is a little loaded. There obviously aren't as many countries that talk about, and write about Canada as the United States. The number of people in the world outside of Canada that have seen a CBC broadcast, or much less care to write about it, is probably pretty negligable, especially when compared to the number that have seen a Fox news broadcast.

None the less, I will see what I can find.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Five-hole+Sep 22 2004, 01:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Five-hole @ Sep 22 2004, 01:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 21 2004, 10:12 AM
As I said, if I were an owner of a newspaper or other news outlet, I'd probably want to be charged with bias by all sides simply as a matter of pride and dignity.

Your paper would fail. As much as I would like to read your paper, you wouldn't have anybody to pay for advertising; corporations want somebody with an agenda to advertise in...specifically, an agenda that harmonizes with their own. [/b][/quote]
Somebody's swallowed the Chomsky prattle hook, line and sinker.

As one example, picking a company at random, do you see Ford ads in all newspapers across North America? Does Ford advertise on virtually all television stations?

What would be the primary (I can think of off the top of my head) reason Ford wouldn't use a typical middle of the road media outlet, whether its the New York Times or a weekly community paper in Baldbuttprairie, South Dakota, to advertise its products?

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 22 2004, 02:20 AM
I don't disagree that CBC is more left of center (at least in context to our political spectrum) in it's reporting, it's just absoulte statements like 'always' and 'never' get me going a little. This is how debates get out of control.

Your dare or homework assignment though is a little loaded. There obviously aren't as many countries that talk about, and write about Canada as the United States. The number of people in the world outside of Canada that have seen a CBC broadcast, or much less care to write about it, is probably pretty negligable, especially when compared to the number that have seen a Fox news broadcast.

None the less, I will see what I can find.

Or it's how they end.

More often than not in posts you'll see me very deliberately use qualifiers like "might" or "that could mean," etc, etc.,

So, when I use "never" I'm not sweating too hard about what might be coming back.

In a similar debate last year, I saw an article that mentioned a survey of CBC radio employees found 70% voted NDP.

Your dare or homework assignment though is a little loaded. There obviously aren't as many countries that talk about, and write about Canada as the United States. The number of people in the world outside of Canada that have seen a CBC broadcast, or much less care to write about it, is probably pretty negligable, especially when compared to the number that have seen a Fox news broadcast.

I understand your point completely. You're the guy who threw the "world" into the mix so, feeling expansive today, I threw the "universe" in for fun.

I'm still confident the much-commented-on Peter Mansbridge silly grin on election night a month or so ago will stand me in good stead.

Cowperson

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 20 2004, 02:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 20 2004, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Ahhh...the old Illuminati theory. I figured that's what you meant in the first post.

Yup...this is the SINGLE biggest conspiracy theory ever presented to mankind IMO.

I googled for a website....lots of em. This one i remember reading in print sometime back. Fear-mongering taken to another level.

No offense, but I find it highly amusing more than anything.

You've ALL been brainwashed

Now THAT is a conspiracy theory!!!

Multi-layers, requiring not only the complicity of thousands but also GENERATIONS OF THOUSANDS.

Does it get any better than that!!??

You also have to like a conspiracy website that would have such a magnificant plot laid out in such glittering detail and would also contain an explanation of the sidebar Cellphone Tower Plot.

http://educate-yourself.org/dc/dclatestonm...ys25may02.shtml

And I love it that the entire site is titled: "Educate Yourself, The Freedom Of Knowledge, The Power of Thought."

This is great stuff. Keep it coming.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Well it can get much better.

Considering current US president and his rival in presidential race are both members of Skull and Bones society at Yale University, which was founded as American branch of the Illuminati.

Not to mention former US president Bill Clinton received scholarship from the Rhodes Scholarships, where the founder, Cecil Rhodes was a Freemason/Illuminati himself. Not to mention several US founding fathers were Freemasons/Illuminati too.

Not to mention, Russel Davenport, editor of your favorite Fortune Magazine, and who created Fortune 500 list is Illuminati too.

It can only get better

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Sep 28 2004, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Sep 28 2004, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Now THAT is a conspiracy theory!!!

Multi-layers, requiring not only the complicity of thousands but also GENERATIONS OF THOUSANDS.

Does it get any better than that!!??

You also have to like a conspiracy website that would have such a magnificant plot laid out in such glittering detail and would also contain an explanation of the sidebar Cellphone Tower Plot.

http://educate-yourself.org/dc/dclatestonm...ys25may02.shtml

And I love it that the entire site is titled: "Educate Yourself, The Freedom Of Knowledge, The Power of Thought."

This is great stuff. Keep it coming.

Cowperson

Well it can get much better.

Considering current US president and his rival in presidential race are both members of Skull and Bones society at Yale University, which was founded as American branch of the Illuminati.

Not to mention former US president Bill Clinton received scholarship from the Rhodes Scholarships, where the founder, Cecil Rhodes was a Freemason/Illuminati himself. Not to mention several US founding fathers were Freemasons/Illuminati too.

Not to mention, Russel Davenport, editor of your favorite Fortune Magazine, and who created Fortune 500 list is Illuminati too.

It can only get better [/b][/quote]
To be clear, the "targets of the Illuminati and the Committee of the 300."

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/300.htm

But . . . . any conspiracy theory has its skeptics:

http://skepdic.com/illuminati.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Illuminati

http://www.pfo.org/illumint.htm

Cowperson