because we have been content to live a lie
Abuskedti
Posts: 1,917
our society is crumbling
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i believe you are looking for an "Amen"?
Well.
A FUCKING MEN
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i think he is drunk.
lol.
Usualy boo-skid-y is a bit more verbose, although equally elloquent.
this strikes me as little drunken fit of anger.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"correction phase".
shits about to be
IN TO THE WILD
yo!
:eek:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
agreed.
however, the sad part is the only crime MOST Americans are guilty of is
IGNORANCE.
Wallstreet is definately going to get theirs.
But,
the real deviants are the ones running this whole meltdown.
The ones auditing the Fed, the ones draining the IMF of its gold (so that the assholes who run the IMF can buy that gold on the cheap -- since they just flooded the marekt -- through their private firms), the ones working to essentialy abolish the SEC and transfer all its power over to the Fed withOUT the involvement of Congress --been done, btw. and WTF.
CONSOLIDATION.
point being, average American is suffering,
while the people who are bringing this upon us are profiting off of it.
profiting massively.
The fundamental misconception is that wealth is "destroyed" by "corrections" or market failures. It's not. It's just TRANSFERED. Away from you and me, and on towards our masters' hands.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
American's are ignorant because we parade "experts" into their livingrooms and don't hold them accountable for what they say. The first order of business is to reform the media.
We must regulate the media, and punish misinformation.
I have to agree with you on some level there.
I'm not sure about "regulate" the media,
but certainly hold them accountable by any standard of common law.
And this is what i mean by that statement.
Go watch The Corporation and get to the part about the two local affiliate Fox News employees who were fired for arguing with their boss about their story on Bovine Growth Hormone.
This is the case that brought us the FL court decision saying that not telling the truth in news (telling LIES) is NOT A CRIME. The actual decision before the court was if the two employees could seek Whistleblower status. However, to claim that status, one must be fired for refusing an order that violates the law. The judge dismissed the case by simply saying that Fox did not violate the law.
Well i have a BIG problem with that, and it is a problem predicated on the simple definition of the word "NEWS".
NEWS
1
a: a report of recent events
b: previously unknown information
INFORMATION
1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
[And we could keep going here, with a definition of knowledge, but for brevity i will spare ya!]
Now,
to misrepresent OPINIONS based on false\distorted information as FACT, and to misguide the public in to thinking that a news story rewritten 83 times by corporate lawyers for the party at the subject of the story (in this case Monsanto) is indeed NEWS ...
such actions are surely considered to fall under the basic definition of FALSE ADVERTISING.
Cutting this short, my point is that to allow such gross mistatements and misrepresentations to pass as "NEWS" requires that the LAW turn a blind eye to the basic definition of terms.
That means society has devolved so severly that WORDS no longer hold any intrinsic value relative to their explicit definitions.
I think the Bush administration has already pushed this point to an extreme with cases like "eminent danger" and "torture" and so forth, but to see it trickle down in to the very fabric of our basic constructs of law is deeply disturbing to me.
When one can not even get a judge to agree that the misrepresentation of scientificaly disproven propaganda as fact is a punishable offense, that is indeed a sad day.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you seem to be suggesting that the dictionary is legal and binding. There is no question that it is not news, but websters is not law
however, there are damages for slander.. if the lie causes damage, it should be repaid.
A simple example was when McDonalds tried to sue Oprah for falsely suggesting on air that American meat was dangerous to eat.
though in this particular case, perhaps there were no damages, but if there were.. Oprah's estate should be responsible to compensate for the loses. She reaps the benefits when she improves sales of certain products, she should pay if her slander decreases them
The legal system is a mess, and it is difficult for a citizen to sue the media for damages resulting from slander... however, if we had laws assigning responsibility - to include restitution, fines and prison based upon severity.. the media would change their tune, and wealth would filter away from Murdock and those like him.. and get in the hands of those skilled at telling the truth.
Edit: Thanks for that info.. I was not aware a court ruled that it is not illegal to lie on the news.
well, you are correct in the sense that Websters is not a LEGAL dictionary.
Although, in the absence of a LEGAL dictionary, i relied on a standard desk reference dictionary.
I'm willing to wager that a legal definition of the term "news" would have equally poor ramifications for such "false" "news".
The problem is the courts are far to often complicit with the corporations, or simply to afraid to stand up for the law they are sworn to protect.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm sorry you are living a lie. Why don't you stop?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'll decide...take the dive...
Take my time...not my life...
Wait for signs...believe in lies...
To get by...it's divine...whoa...
Oh, you know what it's like...
What a shit song.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
if you think that verse is speaking of politics..
but it is not
that is a lovely sentiment.. even if I have been unable to achieve it.