NationStates Jolt Archive

I was bored and decided to play on stumble along and found this site (http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/154/7922/lindorff.asp?wid=154&nid=7922), talking about things that that the corporate media doesn't report to us.


Bolded are things that seem most important to me.

The fact that most Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and want the president impeached, is testimony to the native intelligence and common sense of the citizens of this nation.

It sure isn't thanks to the quality of the news we're getting here in America.!

Here are some of the things you don't know if you just depend on the corporate media for your information:

1. Most Americans would like to see this president and vice president impeached and removed from office. Newsweek magazine published a scientific poll last October showing that 51 percent of us favor impeachment (including 29 percent of Republicans!), but the corporate media, which normally hasn't met a poll it won't publish, didn't publicize this one. And now, when the numbers supporting impeachment are surely even higher, you can't even pay a polling outfit to ask the question. No wonder most people who favor impeachment still think they're odd ducks.

2. There is a bill, filed in the House of Representatives on April 24 by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney. Since it was filed, it has gained six co-sponsors, including a member of the House Democratic leadership, Rep. Janice Shakowsky (D-IL). Most major media have ignored this important story completely. Most Americans also don't know that the Vermont State Senate voted overwhelmingly this spring to call on Congress to impeach the president.

3. The president has been declared a felon in federal court. Yet even after Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled last August that President Bush and the National Security Agency were committing serial Class A felonies and were violating both the First and Fourth Amendments by spying on Americans' communications without first obtaining warrants, Bush continued ordering the NSA to continue the patently illegal program for at least half a year. In reports on the spying program, the corporate media never mention that it has been declared a felonious activity by the federal court.

4. Fifteen Democratic Party state organizations have passed impeachment resolutions calling on Democrats in Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president. The most recent of these, the Democratic Party of Oklahoma, passed its resolution at the party's annual convention on May 19. Other Democratic Party conventions, in states from Nevada and California to Massachusetts and North Carolina, have passed similar resolutions. Most have been ignored by the corporate media even in their own states.

5. Bush's so-called "coalition of the willing" is not so willing and is not really much of a coalition either. When's the last time you've heard how many countries are on board with the US in the war and occupation of Iraq? The reality? Britain, the only significant contributor of combat troops besides the U.S., is pulling out, as did Italy and Spain, and many other countries, like Denmark, Lithuania and others, plan to be out of Iraq by August or at the latest December. One indication of the seriousness of situation: The Pentagon no longer lists the countries that are members of the "coalition." The only mainstream report I've seen laying this out this collapse in international support for Bush's war was in USA Today last February.

6. The Homeland Security Department last year awarded Halliburton $385 million in a no-bid contract to construct prison camps designed to hold tens of thousands of unspecified prisoners in the event of domestic unrest. Meanwhile, President Bush has signed a bill altering the insurrection act so that he can declare martial rule and order active duty troops to take charge anywhere in the domestic US in the event of "public disorder." No one in the corporate media has reported on these developments or asked the White House to explain what it's all about.

7. There is evidence that Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, was a patron of the Washington Madam whose client book of high-class call-girls is causing many in Washington political circles-mostly Republicans it appears, who apparently need to pay for their sex-to sweat. So far no mention of the Cheney angle in the corporate media, though they've been having fun with the broader story of a political sex scandal. No mention either of how a brave West Point cadet refused to shake Cheney's hand on stage when the vice president was handing out this year's diplomas at the Army's premiere academy.

8. Among the "worst of the worst" of the "evildoers" captured and held as "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo were children, some of them preteens and kids who were under 15 when captured and brought to Cuba-so many in fact that the military had to set up a special facility, called Camp Iguana, just for adolescent and pre-pubescent "fighters." The corporate media have barely reported on this atrocity (the New York Times ran only one article mentioning child captives, in June 2005). The only wider coverage of this outrage came recently when the government tried to prosecute one such alleged child "terrorist"-Omar Khadr-only to have the military judge in charge toss his case out because the government had misclassified him. Khadr, we learned, was captured in 2001 in Afghanistan at the ripe age of 15, making him one of the older child captives brought to and interrogated at Guantanamo. Under international law, the U.S. was supposed to treat this and other child soldiers as victims, not as war criminals. Khadr, a Canadian by birth, instead has spent five years doing hard time in US captivity.

9. Well-researched reports on the rampant theft of both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and on Republican plans for theft of the 2008 election, such as Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again, have gone unmentioned in the corporate media. Books on the subject, like Miller's and like Greg Palast's best selling Armed Madhouse, have never been reviewed.

10. And of course, there's my own book. The Case for Impeachment, despite its having sold over 20,000 copies in hardcover, and despite its having now come out in a mass-market paperback edition, in both cases printed by a mainstream publisher, St. Martin's Press, has not received a single review in the corporate media. In this, my co-author Barbara Olshansky and I are not alone. None of the books on the impeachable crimes of this administration, including one by Nixon-era impeachment panelist and former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, and one by Judiciary Chair Rep. John Conyers, has been reviewed by a mainstream media outlet.

What we're talking about here is a media blackout of important stories and news.

Thanks to the internet and to the grapevine, and thanks to their basic native intelligence, most Americans seem to understand that we're being lied to and cheated. What the media blackout of important news does manage to do, however, is keep us all thinking that we are in a minority in opposing things like illegal wars, a trampled Constitution, and stolen elections.

In fact, however, we're actually the majority.
Once we realize this, maybe we will have a movement, instead of a just nation of isolated cynics and complainers.




I think its about time that someone shows us how this anti-bush, anti-war, anti neo con movement is not just a small percent of the population, being lead by the "liberal scum". It is reassuring to hear that a majority of the nation is with us on this movement. Of course, its not really news to anyone that a great many people want things to change from how its been the last 7 1/2 years, but its just refreshing to hear it being said.

As far as the media is concerned, what can we do? I mean they only report the most negative of negative things, or stories that advert attention from the truth. Its hard to change multi-million dollar news corps. I would propose however, that we switch off the likes off CNN and other junk news stations, and raise funds to start a new, news broadcaster, one that brings stories to the people as they are. No sugar coating, no bending the truth. None of that. Something that is supported wholly by the people, made for the people.
What say you?

Frankly, if you're only relying on your tv or radio to 'get the facts' then you are engaging in wilful blindness.

So many of you know that there are some seriously, horrible, shady things being done in your name. But don't blame the media for the fact that many of you are willing to accept these things in the name of 'safety'.

In fact, the most outspoken supporters of these policies here on NS not only KNOW of these things, but actually feel they are all justified. Would it really matter if the media reported them more?

I'm not saying that Canuks would be any better were our situations reversed, mind you.

51% support impeachment... which is only marginally different from the number who voted against Bush.

Newsweek magazine published a scientific poll last October showing that 51 percent of us favor impeachment (including 29 percent of Republicans!), but the corporate media, which normally hasn't met a poll it won't publish, didn't publicize this one.

LOL Yes, the corporate media published a poll, and that proves the corporate media didn't publicize it. LOL

BBC?

I'm still waiting for a guy to blow up the whitehouse myself...

LOL Yes, the corporate media published a poll, and that proves the corporate media didn't publicize it. LOL

Ya, i did giggle at that. But that still doesn't make the point of the overall article any less significant.

BBC?

I'm still waiting for a guy to blow up the whitehouse myself...

What's he gonna call himself? Mann Focks?

http://bsalert.com/img-host/newsweek_covers.jpg

What's he gonna call himself? Mann Focks?

I was thinking batman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40068000/jpg/_40068042_batman150.jpg

I was thinking batman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40068000/jpg/_40068042_batman150.jpg

Be really funny if it was Adam West.

In other news, bears shit in the woods, the sky is blue and the grass is greener on the other side of the pasture.

what is this guy trying to prove?

I would propose however, that we switch off the likes off CNN and other junk news stations, and raise funds to start a new, news broadcaster, one that brings stories to the people as they are. No sugar coating, no bending the truth. None of that. Something that is supported wholly by the people, made for the people.
What say you?

great idea

however........

Would you be prepared to cope with the truth?

Headline story: The rescue effort/ flood protection failed in New Orleans because the democratic city government fekked up, the state democratic governor fekked up and the republicon president fekked up.

In other news FBI agents, aided by an dodgey wire tap, busted a group of men trying to buy large quanities of fertilizer and fuel oil.


In foriegn news, A British MI6 agent inflitrated a pakistani terrorist group that has planted bombs in India killing dozens of people, tommorrow he will be found dead thanks to this news station.

Do you really want the truth?
Or are you just after a 'down with Bush' news station?


el-presidente Boris

In other news, bears shit in the woods, the sky is blue and the grass is greener on the other side of the pasture.

As of late I've started to think that this kind of self-satisfied cynicism (with its cousin, 'Of course politicians are corupt/dishonest') is tantamount to making excuses for blind media and corrupt and dishonest politicians. It might be 'nothing new' or 'happening all the time,' but if we keep making their excuses for them why should it ever change?

Ya, i did giggle at that. But that still doesn't make the point of the overall article any less significant.

I stopped taking it serious at that point.

Quick run through:

1 is BS, as shown above.
2 was widely covered, by CNN among others, so BS again.
3 made the wikiepdia, which mans it ain't underreported.
4 is meh news.
5 is an opinion piece.
6 is laking any evidence.
7 is gossip, not news, and scurrilous gossip at that.
I've seen numerorous stories about 8 in the IHT, the international subsidiary of the NYT.
9 is BS opinion.
And 10 is pushing his book.

As of late I've started to think that this kind of self-satisfied cynicism (with its cousin, 'Of course politicians are corupt/dishonest') is tantamount to making excuses for blind media and corrupt and dishonest politicians. It might be 'nothing new' or 'happening all the time,' but if we keep making their excuses for them why should it ever change?

I'm not making excuses; I'm just saying should we really be surprised at the amount of existing corruption? Is it really news?

I think it would be news if any element of the government actually did something without public pressure that would benefit the nation as a whole.

what is this guy trying to prove?

He's out to make a buck.

And of course, there's my own book.

That's all you need to read in that whole list.

He's out to make a buck.



That's all you need to read in that whole list.

figures. should be shot for that book

I'm not making excuses; I'm just saying should we really be surprised at the amount of existing corruption? Is it really news?

I think it would be news if any element of the government actually did something without public pressure that would benefit the nation as a whole.

If all we do is shrug when we hear it, where is the pressure going to come from?

If all we do is shrug when we hear it, where is the pressure going to come from?

Until the people have real power, what can we do? The government generally doesn't listen to the public unless there is more than enough pressure (read: elections). We can try and do something but in the end, the elected officials just shit all over the public and treat us like morons instead of actually trying to do their job.

Of course, the other problem is many people become comfortable with the status quo even if they don't agree with anything and don't want to rock the boat because they have economic and social stability. It takes away a good portion of people who could help put pressure on the government.

We can try and fight for change but the government often does not listen because it has the power to ignore until it matters.

People may be outraged when it's time to vote but often a few well-placed words will change those sentiments and we're back in square one.

Until the people have real power, what can we do?
We're not going to get it by waiting quietly.
The government generally doesn't listen to the public unless there is more than enough pressure (read: elections). We can try and do something but in the end, the elected officials just shit all over the public and treat us like morons instead of actually trying to do their job.
This is true and it isn't. Public pressure has changed things and affected behavior, and not just during the election cycle. We surrendered our power, it wasn't taken.

Of course, the other problem is many people become comfortable with the status quo even if they don't agree with anything and don't want to rock the boat because they have economic and social stability. It takes away a good portion of people who could help put pressure on the government.

We can try and fight for change but the government often does not listen because it has the power to ignore until it matters.

People may be outraged when it's time to vote but often a few well-placed words will change those sentiments and we're back in square one.
When we're complacent about what's being said and done we allow those few well placed words to do their magic.

10 things the media DOESN'T tell you

Most of the points are USA minutiae, and the actually newsworthy ones (the children and people at Guantanamo, the failure of the "coalition") have been widely reported and have duly sullied the USA's reputation... well, if it can be further sullied. Why should the media be telling me this?

10 things the media DOESN'T tell you

Most of the points are USA minutiae, and the actually newsworthy ones (the children and people at Guantanamo, the failure of the "coalition") have been widely reported and have duly sullied the USA's reputation... well, if it can be further sullied. Why should the media be telling me this?

It shouldn't. It should be telling us, here in the US. The fat lazy slobs who don't bother reading up on this on their own and expect the talking heads on the news stations to tell them all they need to know.

It shouldn't. It should be telling us, here in the US. The fat lazy slobs who don't bother reading up on this on their own and expect the talking heads on the news stations to tell them all they need to know.

Don't you know? All threads must be directly relevant to Fass.

Don't you know? All threads must be directly relevant to Fass.

Well they aren't.

Don't you know? All threads must be directly relevant to Fass.

This is an international forum. This thread in its title is directed not at just the USA segment, but at all posters here, but when one clicks it, it is of virtually no consequence whatsoever to non-USA posters. I doubt you'd find it honest, or anything but conceded and self-centred, if I titled a thread "What the media don't tell you!" and had it be about something like Zanyar Adami's rantings on the spread of miljonsvenska among the socially sensitive bourgeoisie in Trollhättan, or a recount on the judicial preview activities of the justices in the Council on Legislation, for instance. Nor would you exactly be shocked that the media aren't telling you this...

It's really annoying when people say authors are "just out to get money." I mean, how do you know that? Often, when I tell people about the God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, the Assault on Reason, etc. (books by "liberal scum" or despicable "atheists") I am told that they are just out to make money. It is very frustrating to me when others make judgments like that without really knowing anything about the person. I mean, it certainly is possible, but are all authors really that corrupt? Somehow, I bet that when they read books that they like, matching their religious/political ideologies, they don't say the authors are just out to get money. Of course, authors need money, and they will probably get money from writing their books, but does that automatically mean that everything they say is fallacious and based on greed? It seems to me that it is more like those people have closed their minds off to something new or perhaps not matching their established take on certain issues.

This is an international forum. This thread in its title is directed not at just the USA segment, but at all posters here, but when one clicks it, it is of virtually no consequence whatsoever to non-USA posters. I doubt you'd find it honest, or anything but conceded and self-centred, if I titled a thread "What the media don't tell you!" and had it be about something like Zanyar Adami's rantings on the spread of miljonsvenska among the socially sensitive bourgeoisie in Trollhättan, or a recount on the judicial preview activities of the justices in the Council on Legislation, for instance. Nor would you exactly be shocked that the media aren't telling you this...
I either would have read it with interest to find out what is going on there and what the concerns of those people are like, or realized it was not something relevant to me and moved on, sans tizzy. EDIT: I should add, like I, and most other people here, do anytime a title seems relevant but the text proves not to be. Most of us tend not to take it personally. Of course, we're not also running around screaming "Look at me!" while pretending not to...

This is an international forum. This thread in its title is directed not at just the USA segment, but at all posters here, but when one clicks it, it is of virtually no consequence whatsoever to non-USA posters. I doubt you'd find it honest, or anything but conceded and self-centred, if I titled a thread "What the media don't tell you!" and had it be about something like Zanyar Adami's rantings on the spread of miljonsvenska among the socially sensitive bourgeoisie in Trollhättan, or a recount on the judicial preview activities of the justices in the Council on Legislation, for instance. Nor would you exactly be shocked that the media aren't telling you this...

While I agree with you, that some mention of US-orientation should probably have been made in the thread title, I wouldn't be particularly put off at this thread being centered around Swedish media, Indian media, or really any non-US media.

I suppose it's that I don't particularly give a shit about US/Swedish/Indian bashing at every opportunity.

It's really annoying when people say authors are "just out to get money." I mean, how do you know that? Often, when I tell people about the God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, the Assault on Reason, etc. (books by "liberal scum" or despicable "atheists") I am told that they are just out to make money. It is very frustrating to me when others make judgments like that without really knowing anything about the person. I mean, it certainly is possible, but are all authors really that corrupt? Somehow, I bet that when they read books that they like, matching their religious/political ideologies, they don't say the authors are just out to get money. Of course, authors need money, and they will probably get money from writing their books, but does that automatically mean that everything they say is fallacious and based on greed? It seems to me that it is more like those people have closed their minds off to something new or perhaps not matching their established take on certain issues.

Because books written for pure political reasons typically arent very good. Anybody with the determination to write a book SOLEY for the reasons of getting a political point across most likely isnt entirly mentally stable. See Mein Kampf.
Ever read it? Not exactly Grade A literature, even if you discount the subject matter.
In my experience, good books are written for two reasons. 1) Money. You have to write well or your book wont sell, and 2) Personal enjoyment. Some people like to write, publishing is merely a side benifit which brings in some cash. Most of the REALLY good authors I know of simply write for personal reasons, although Terry Pratchett DOES occasionally slip into the political realm (Jingo, Monstrous Regiment, etc.), but his books are still damned good.
*shrug*
Just my opinion of course, and there are exceptions to every rule.

I either would have read it with interest to find out what is going on there and what the concerns of those people are like, or realized it was not something relevant to me and moved on, sans tizzy. EDIT: I should add, like I, and most other people here, do anytime a title seems relevant but the text proves not to be. Most of us tend not to take it personally.

So, you bitch that I dared bitch? That makes you so much better. *pats*

Of course, we're not also running around screaming "Look at me!" while pretending not to...

Honey, who do you, of all people, think you're kidding? The irony of the "pretending not to" bit is so delicious, I may just have to stop and savour it.

There. Done.

So, you bitch that I dared bitch? That makes you so much better. *pats*
If that works for you, sure.



Honey, who do you, of all people, think you're kidding? The irony of the "pretending not to" bit is so delicious, I may just have to stop and savour it.

There. Done.
Okey dokey pokey.

It seems to be more of an article by a guy pushing his book, than an actual, valid opinion piece. Some of his points are awfully sketchy and easily falsifiable (number seven), some are irrelevant and random (numbers 2 & 4) and one is just him pushing his book (10).

Yes, Bush is a crummy President, but this article seems to be little more than agitprop to get a base fired up, to appeal to a left wing.

What left wing?

The sinister one.

Yes, Bush is a crummy President, but this article seems to be little more than agitprop to get a base fired up, to appeal to a left wing.

What left wing?

This is an international forum. This thread in its title is directed not at just the USA segment, but at all posters here, but when one clicks it, it is of virtually no consequence whatsoever to non-USA posters. I doubt you'd find it honest, or anything but conceded and self-centred, if I titled a thread "What the media don't tell you!" and had it be about something like Zanyar Adami's rantings on the spread of miljonsvenska among the socially sensitive bourgeoisie in Trollhättan, or a recount on the judicial preview activities of the justices in the Council on Legislation, for instance. Nor would you exactly be shocked that the media aren't telling you this...

Don't you know? The world revolves around the US.

Or something.

Don't you know? The world revolves around the US.

Or something.

Actually it revolves around a chewy center of nickle and iron. At least, if I recall my high school geology class corretly.
If thats not it, then it probobly revolves around love or something like that. That or the pedal power of a million immortal gerbils created as a freak science project of some very bored God or Godlike aliens who plan to spin Earth into a black hole and destroy the universe.

The ten things that *Fox News* DOESN'T tell you (but releases in in-house memos anyway)

*FIXED*

:D

Actually it revolves around a chewy center of nickle and iron. At least, if I recall my high school geology class corretly.
If thats not it, then it probobly revolves around love or something like that. That or the pedal power of a million immortal gerbils created as a freak science project of some very bored God or Godlike aliens who plan to spin Earth into a black hole and destroy the universe.

Actually, it revolves arond fat-bottomed girls.

BBC?

I'm still waiting for a guy to blow up the whitehouse myself...

Brits got the closest.

I didn't know anything about kids in Guantanamo or the impeachment stuff. Most people I know haven't either.

The sinister one.

Muhahaha!
Er, what?

#6 already existed in the form of Executive Orders; nothing has changed.We've all been fucked since Nixon, Roosevelt even.

I didn't know anything about kids in Guantanamo or the impeachment stuff. Most people I know haven't either.
Part of the "sinister" left-wing conspiracy to prevent you from knowing.

great idea

however........

Would you be prepared to cope with the truth?

lol, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but...

Headline story: The rescue effort/ flood protection failed in New Orleans because the democratic city government fekked up, the state democratic governor fekked up and the republicon president fekked up.

If that is accurate, then nothing the post you were responding to suggested that this wouldn't be covered.

In other news FBI agents, aided by an dodgey wire tap, busted a group of men trying to buy large quanities of fertilizer and fuel oil.

This is an extremely newsworthy story; any media organisation would jump at the chance to cover it- what is your point?

In foriegn news, A British MI6 agent inflitrated a pakistani terrorist group that has planted bombs in India killing dozens of people, tommorrow he will be found dead thanks to this news station.

Uh, what? That just makes no sense at all. It would never be released that there is an undercover agent in a specific terrorist group. Are you crazy? And even in the off chance that this was leaked to journalists they would be obliged by ethical standards as well as most likely embargo-type laws not to reveal this information. Besides, that there are undercover agents in the war on terror itself is not particularly newsworthy.

Do you really want the truth?
Or are you just after a 'down with Bush' news station?

I understand what you say here, but it is not relevant to the post you replied to, and the points you made have no value.

It's really annoying when people say authors are "just out to get money." I mean, how do you know that? Often, when I tell people about the God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, the Assault on Reason, etc. (books by "liberal scum" or despicable "atheists") I am told that they are just out to make money. It is very frustrating to me when others make judgments like that without really knowing anything about the person. I mean, it certainly is possible, but are all authors really that corrupt? Somehow, I bet that when they read books that they like, matching their religious/political ideologies, they don't say the authors are just out to get money. Of course, authors need money, and they will probably get money from writing their books, but does that automatically mean that everything they say is fallacious and based on greed? It seems to me that it is more like those people have closed their minds off to something new or perhaps not matching their established take on certain issues.

Ah, what a lovely fish you've given us. Thank you. I'll have this nice red herring for dinner.

Go back and read what I posted. It was about this being a case of an author pushing a book, not authors who are "just out to make a buck". Of course most authors are out to make a buck. But what makes this odious was that it was represented as being a news peice instead instead of an advertisement.

I didn't know anything about kids in Guantanamo or the impeachment stuff. Most people I know haven't either.

That just says you don't follow the news very well. As myself and others have pointed out, these stories have been rather widely published.

Actually, it revolves arond fat-bottomed girls.

Really? Fat bottomed girls?
No...no, I just dont see how that could work. Its obviously gerbils. Hamsters. Some sort of domestic rodent, in any case. Possibly even chinchillas.

6 is laking any evidence.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Halliburton+prison+camps&btnG=Google+Search

Really, there's A LOT of articles there.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Halliburton+prison+camps&btnG=Google+Search

Really, there's A LOT of articles there.

I haven't looked at all of them, but most of those are blogs. There might be a self-reference loop going on there. (Just doing the devil's advocate-thing, and it irritates me when the right uses one of these self-verifying loops as truth so I don't want to get caught in the same trap). I don't know GNN, but I don't see a recognizable source on that first page.

Now, again, I haven't looked at the links to see if they have co-oberating evidence that doesn't loop back on itself, and it does fit the premise of the OP that it is in fact not reported (I checked for news listings and again, nothing recognizable came up), but I want ot be careful of being our own confirmation on a story.

EDIT: Haha, the first news link is the OP article...

EDIT the IInd: And here we go (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198456,00.html), from FOX News, no less...(who of course don't think it's a problem...)

The contract, awarded in January to Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of defense contractor Halliburton Co., pays the company to establish and provide support for “temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs,” according to a Halliburton press release.

A contingency in the deal says construction would only begin after an "emergency" is declared. At that point, KBR would get a maximum of $385 million over five years to build the facilities, say officials at the Army Corps of Engineers, which is executing the contract for ICE. The contract, however, does not mean a massive construction project is underway, they say.

Interesting,
he contract is nearly identical to one held by KBR from 2000 to 2005, but the new one is expanded so that KBR would provide assistance in the wake of a national emergency, such as a “national disaster,” said Church. In this case, KBR could provide housing for government personnel assisting in relief efforts, he said.

“We have this contract sitting on the shelf, ready to do things, to have quick response capability,” said Church.
Where the fuck was that during Katrina?

Anyway, long article, haven't read all of it.

great idea

however........

Would you be prepared to cope with the truth?

Headline story: The rescue effort/ flood protection failed in New Orleans because the democratic city government fekked up, the state democratic governor fekked up and the republicon president fekked up.

In other news FBI agents, aided by an dodgey wire tap, busted a group of men trying to buy large quanities of fertilizer and fuel oil.


In foriegn news, A British MI6 agent inflitrated a pakistani terrorist group that has planted bombs in India killing dozens of people, tommorrow he will be found dead thanks to this news station.

Do you really want the truth?
Or are you just after a 'down with Bush' news station?


el-presidente Boris

Do I want the truth? You bet. Other Americans also need the truth. They need some ice-cold water to the face, seeing as how almost all my fellow countrymen have been blinded by Bush. But, truth be told, it's not entirely his fault. No...... I quote V from V for Vendetta: "If you're looking for the guilty party, you need only look into a mirror." We're too busy trying "not to offend", to "turn a blind eye to the EEEEEVIL of the world!". I'd rather know the whole truth, rather than some half-truth some reporter came up with while sitting at his desk. Do I want the truth sir? Hell yes. Do I expect it to be offered by the media in my lifetime? By NO means.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Halliburton+prison+camps&btnG=Google+Search

Really, there's A LOT of articles there.

Get back to me when you have reliable sources. So far, this one is nothing more than a rehash of the 1990s rigthy wing-nut UL that Clinton, FEMA, and Wal-mart were building concentration camps for when the UN, ZOG, and the NWO took over after Y2K. :rolleyes:

Good catch, Cannot think of a name.

1. I always get a laugh at, and immediately discount, statements which are backed up by ‘scientific’ polls. Trying to throw ‘scientific’ (it is scientific so you cannot contradict it!) into the statement tells me that the poll is likely highly biased and has an absurdly low statistical confidence value. On top of that, I love how being published by a major corporate new magazine is considered concealment by the media.

2. I remember hearing about this on NPR and read pieces about it in a couple of newspapers, so it is not being suppressed. It is also not exactly a riveting news story but is fairly ho-hum. So a couple of senators are calling for his impeachment, not exactly news unless it was coming from the party leadership.

3. Very misleading comment – a court did not convict the president of a felony. There has been a lot of coverage about the illegality of surveillance.

4. Same as number 2 – neither being concealed nor is it news. State Democrat party organizations clamoring for impeachment should not surprise anyone.

5. So what? After years of operations, international forces tire of being in Iraq. The real news story would be if other countries were pushing to get into Iraq. It would have to be a slow news day indeed for them to hear ‘In other news, Slovenia decided earlier today to withdraw its dozen soldiers from Iraq by the end of the year’. Besides, everyone leaving the US to take care of things happened in Korea – why should it surprise anyone that it happens in a very unpopular war?

6. This has at least a little credibility, but blows the issue out of proportion a bit. The detainment center is for large numbers of illegal immigrants or for mass arrests of rioters. Given the current legislation calling for detainment and deportation of illegal immigrants, facilities to handle tens of thousands of people are going to be needed. It also gives authority for federal action in the face of things like the Rodney King riots, the Seattle WTO riots, and probably most relevantly the lawlessness during the Katrina debacle, or similar problems. The US military was not legally able to help with Katrina, and this law allows them to do so. I feel that the wording does allow the potential for abuse, but fortunately I doubt there is much room for it to be used at this point in time – the danger lies in future events when everyone is not paying such close attention to presidential abuse of powers and this has been forgotten about.

7. Rumors that a politician has slept with a prostitute? If you look hard enough you can find a rumor about anyone doing anything – what is this so called evidence? I would say that just about every politician has used a prostitute – it would not be very smart of them to hit a bar to pick up a one night stand. Also, how does this relate to someone not wanting to shake his hand?

8. A 15 year old is just as capable of throwing a grenade as an 18 year old. People do not undergo some magical transformation on their 18th birthday that gives them the ability to use weapons. That being said, one of the reasons why some are at Guantanamo is because they have nowhere to send them – if the supposed home country refuses to take them back, I will guarantee you the US is not going to welcome them into the general population with open arms as refugees.

9. I would not describe the elections as ‘rampant theft’. Is it really surprising that out of the thousands of books that are published every year, major news outlets do not review every tinfoil hat conspiracy book that gets written?

10. Nobody is taking my book seriously! If it weren’t for some vast government conspiracy, every media outlet in the world would do nothing but proclaim how amazingly wonderful I am! It’s a conspiracy against me and my book!


Bottom line, anything here that is actually news worthy has been reported quite diligently by the major news outlets – if you expect MTV or Cartoon Network to provide you with your news, then of course you haven't hear any of this. Those of us that actually read the newspapers or watch/listen to legitimate news programs hear actual news. The vast majority of people who whine and cry that there is a conspiracy to cover up something tend to be the tinfoil hat type – funny how there can both be massive support for the authors viewpoint among the people, yet there is a conspiracy to conceal this which requires the involvement and support of an incredibly large part of the population to both carry out and keep the conspiracy hidden.

Good catch, Cannot think of a name.
You did see that I found a verification for the story, though, didn't you?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Halliburton+prison+camps&btnG=Google+Search

Really, there's A LOT of articles there.

The author of the article is misrepresenting number six. Six has an awful lot to do with the current problems facing our Customs and Border Protection Service, not with some evil Republican plot to take over America.

Currently, Congress has budgeted for 25,000 beds for immigration detentions (pre-hearing), but as this number is extremely insufficient, DHS has essentially mandated that local and county jails provide them with an extra 12,500 beds. This number remains insufficient. In fact, 37,500 is so insufficient, that Congress has provided for another 100,000 beds in the currently stalled immigration bill.

This is because the 37,500 beds the US is currently operating are entirely insufficient to detain crossers with felony records for the duration of their stay, let alone common crossers without felony convictions. These facilities are necessary to addressing this challenge.

Only whacky conspiracy theorists, like the OP, take this bit of information, mix it with the Halliburton and ignore nearly all of the other facts to draw the conclusion that they've come to. Poorly done job of thinking, poorly done job of thinking.

Oh, and not to mention the fact that on number three, there has been extensive media coverage.

figures. should be shot for that book

Yes, because all people expressing dissenting opinions should be shot. THAT's what this nation was founded on -- shooting those who dare to doubt. :rolleyes:

Do I want the truth? You bet. Other Americans also need the truth. They need some ice-cold water to the face, seeing as how almost all my fellow countrymen have been blinded by Bush. But, truth be told, it's not entirely his fault. No...... I quote V from V for Vendetta: "If you're looking for the guilty party, you need only look into a mirror." We're too busy trying "not to offend", to "turn a blind eye to the EEEEEVIL of the world!". I'd rather know the whole truth, rather than some half-truth some reporter came up with while sitting at his desk. Do I want the truth sir? Hell yes. Do I expect it to be offered by the media in my lifetime? By NO means.

If one's news outlet of choice isn't telling one the whole truth, it's because they don't think one wants to read it/hear it.

If an editor in chief has the choice between two stories to run, both of equal importance in his opinion. One story would be very popular among Yists, the other popular among Zists. His viewership is primarily Yists. He's going to run the Yist story and give it a lot more attention than the Zist one. Because that's what's going to make more money.

This is an international forum. This thread in its title is directed not at just the USA segment, but at all posters here, but when one clicks it, it is of virtually no consequence whatsoever to non-USA posters. I doubt you'd find it honest, or anything but conceded and self-centred, if I titled a thread "What the media don't tell you!" and had it be about something like Zanyar Adami's rantings on the spread of miljonsvenska among the socially sensitive bourgeoisie in Trollhättan, or a recount on the judicial preview activities of the justices in the Council on Legislation, for instance. Nor would you exactly be shocked that the media aren't telling you this...

So why bother replying? Just to see your own posts and point out that the OP forgot to mention that "the media" in question is the US media? Erudition and internationally-reasoned smugness are fine, but when they're not necessary? It just makes you look foolish and vain.

Frankly, if you're only relying on your tv or radio to 'get the facts' then you are engaging in wilful blindness.


True, but the unternet isn't the best place either. I think it takes a large colaboration. Then again even if every radio and TV station,paper,and wwebsite report something they may get the facts wrong.

You did see that I found a verification for the story, though, didn't you?

You sort of did for the bare bones. I still stand by my earlier statement that this is essentially a variation on on old UL.

So why bother replying? Just to see your own posts and point out that the OP forgot to mention that "the media" in question is the US media? Erudition and internationally-reasoned smugness are fine, but when they're not necessary? It just makes you look foolish and vain.

Thaaaaaat's Fass!