Comments on: Conspiracy or Censorship?

By: GlazednConfused

GlazednConfused — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:31:53 +0000

Yes, but “ownership” is overrated – and by “regulated”, you must mean the MAJOR media outlets and obviously very loosely. So I get your point, and I think I’ve made mine.

By: Thraxxus

Thraxxus — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:57:35 +0000

Minus the fact of course that our media is actually REGULATED by the government. See to have a station you actually have to apply for one – so say you attack the government outright, as some radio stations have in the past, there is quite the possibility that your licensing may be harder to get.

Also take a look at how many media outlets in the United States are owned by Rupert Murdoch. I’m just saying – Most of American Media is actually owned by a Non American – didja know that?

By: GlazednConfused

GlazednConfused — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:57:14 +0000

It would be very beneficial for a 24 hour news network to expose government corruption. They would milk it to death for ratings. Look how they are milking this Cramer vs. Stewart event – and the NAU/Amero plot would be 100 times greater. There would be Pulitzers involved. That’s the bottom line – the pros far outweigh the cons of pissing off the government.

By: guybehindtheguy

guybehindtheguy — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:49:52 +0000

GlazednConfused, we share much of the same logic; however, I fail to see where it proves your point. Please explain further.

I believe you are making quite a leap from Media is big business to exposing government corruption will make money and win prestige.

You almost need a whiteboard to sort this stuff out.

By: GlazednConfused

GlazednConfused — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:42:31 +0000

Again, I hate to repeat myself but: Lou Dobbs and one guy on ANY station saying “Google it!” is insufficient evidence for me to believe this impending doom. Anything from a questionable source over three years old is also insufficient. Do not blame me for wanting verified sources. Something this big that’s been in process for so long MUST have been mentioned in a published work by now. But no, all I see are vague conspiracy ramblings. You guys can keep bringing the NAU and the Amero up, but I will keep asking “where’s the cream filling?”.

As for the media, I understand it is big business. That is why I depend on many sources for my information. In this technological day and age, it is very difficult to keep anything a secret. That is the bottom-line.

Which proves my point: don’t you think there would be a lot of money and prestige in a major media source blowing the cover off the NAU and Amero shenanigans? Any politician even looks at another woman and the media is on him like a pit bull.

By: guybehindtheguy

guybehindtheguy — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:26:29 +0000

In the broadest sense – why do we consider our reality (what we see) as truth while we consider a conspiracy (what we don’t see) as false?

As an individual – only you have the ability to make up your mind. It is important to question.

Regarding media – Anyone of us can argue, “believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.” Mainstream media is big business. To what agenda they serve? Um – I think money and seemingly more apparent in the past 5 years – politics. Although I think it has always been that way – I am I guess old enough to see it for what it is now.

For this argument to go any further one would need to be open to the premise that media is big business.

By: Thraxxus

Thraxxus — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:22:23 +0000

I can’t speak to why people do cover it. I find it ironic that you say that CNN and CNBC are not good news sources but Huffington post is. Again, I am not sure I understand your concept of a good news source.

By: GlazednConfused

GlazednConfused — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:16:09 +0000

Does the media not cover it because it is bogus? You would think even the fringe “respectable” bloggers would have some kind of recent legit proof. HiffingtonPost? Daily Show? Salon? Someone? You’re telling me they aren’t covering it because it is out in the open? Hell, there are a half-dozen 24-hour news channels, and they will run anything ad infinitum.

By: Thraxxus

Thraxxus — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:34:12 +0000

I think he was saying there is no conspiracy – at least that is how I read it – as conspiracies are things held in private. What is going on right now isn’t in private – its right out there in the open – it is just that the American Media doesn’t cover it.

By: GlazednConfused

GlazednConfused — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:06:38 +0000

OK Charlie, help me out here. Are you saying that BB has a right to express our conspiracy theories? Well no one is going to argue with that. However, I believe we should be more like Ghost Hunters – seek to discredit as much as possible before announcing the truth. Otherwise, we are just another crazy man on the street with a sign that says “The end of the dollar is coming – long live the Amero!”.