Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

Amazing, isn't it?

Interesting post Jook.

Sadly you'll never convince some people they are being lied to. The so called "news" is telling them exactly what they want to hear so why should they question it? All of the MSM "news" networks are owned and operated by super rich democrats who have donated big money to the democrat party, the Clinton Foundation or both. What happens when someone donates $100,000 to a political party? They are going to protect that investment. George Stephanopolis (SP?) was going to be moderator of one of the first debates in the Republican primaries. Then it was publicized that he was one of Clinton's top aides when he was in office and had donated something like $100,000 or $150,000 to their foundation, had been close friends with the Clintons for years, and he was yanked. The people who picked him for moderator knew he was a Clinton operative, they just hoped we wouldn't find out. I seem to remember an article stating that Bryan Williams, NBC anchor put on leave for 6 months after being caught lying, donated to them too. He's back now but on MSNBC. Why wasn't he fired altogether and banned from TV?

One thing you have to realize. Most average folks at home watch the 5 o'clock news. About 20 minutes of whatever propaganda the MSM wants to feed them, then they're off to see what the Kardashians are up to this week. Very few of them spend hours at a time searching through articles by independent or alternative journalists online to find out how much of it is actually true. There is plenty to find, but you have to look for it.

The traditional news outlets have been brainwashing people for years, training them to believe every word they say is carved in stone, they are beyond reproach, it's the NEWS so it has to be true. Horse feathers. Look at the Media Research Center website, they have some of it debunked, but only a portion. They can only do so much...there are others, you just have to poke around a bit.

I knew the news was not telling us the truth long ago, I just didn't know how bad it had gotten. I didn't know they had lowered themselves to outright lies. I started realizing it when the government shut down in 2013. The first announcement I saw was on a local station, the woman said the government had been shut down about a half hour earlier when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked a vote on the budget bill passed by the House. Nothing else. Nothing about how long it might last, nothing, just that quick notice.

So I switched to CNN. within 15 minutes I saw the people on CNN claiming Ted Cruz and the Republicans had shut the government down. HUH? Cruz is a Senator. He didn't get a chance to vote on or even debate the budget bill, so how the hell did he shut the government down? They ignored that fact and kept pushing the idea that he was guilty as charged. He did filibuster against it before the house voted on it, and said he wouldn't avoid a shut down, but he himself didn't do it. CNN also didn't notice that distinction. Republicans even accused Cruz. Of course they did, he was the perfect scapegoat, and they hate Cruz because he rocked their little boat. As a side note, Trump flipped it over and threw the paddles away. That's why they hate Trump.

The video posted above is pretty good, informative, but I'm not a fan of the snarky, sarcastic delivery. The content is solid, I could do without the attitude. That's why I don't like Steve Malzberg of Newsmax. He tries to bring out the truth, has his head in the right place, but his delivery sucks. I'm not much of a fan of Newsmax any more since they pulled the plug on Dennis Michael Lynch while he was in the middle of his opening remarks, because he refused to let them hand him a script to read from. It's really sad, since they had some good people working there, and were firmly anti Clinton, and tried to stick to the facts, rather than propaganda. But how can I trust any of them, when I know they are being handed a script and forced to read from it? Then, the network can push whatever agenda they want, without regard for the truth.

Fox ran an article when the Republican primaries first started, only 3 or 4 in the race, not including Trump yet. Two of them had held rallies, Cruz and Rubio I think, and 4 of the biggest newspapers in the country had run articles about their speeches. They showed the headlines, and gave a quick synopsis of the articles, then showed video clips of what these two candidates actually said. The newspaper articles were total fabrications, outright lies. Nothing even close to what they actually said. These are newspapers that have circulations of millions per day, one of them 7 million a day. That's a lot of folks reading pure lies.

And nobody else in the "news" even noticed, except Fox and Newsmax.

That brings up a big problem. Very few of the ordinary people in this country really look any further than what they see on the 5PM news or read in the paper. Many of them are so dishonest it's criminal, or should be. But people have been brainwashed all their lives to believe the news media is totally honest, wouldn't tell a lie of you stuck a gun up their nose. WRONG.

The one bright spot on the horizon is the Internet. Independent journalists can now set up blogs and websites and at least try to tell people what they can find out of the truth, but you have to look for it and sort out the truth from the propaganda. Look up Sharyl Atkisson. I'm not sure I spelled her name right. She was once employed by CBS. She did some investigating, did the math and figured out Obamacare could not work. She aired a story one night that was not the usual praise of Obama, her publisher called her into his office and told her no more stories that cast Obama in a negative light. She told him she was just publishing the truth, he ordered her to not air any more stories that were negative about Obama. She quit not long after. Not long after that, she was doing research on Benghazi and Fast and Furious, typing up her notes at home, and noticed much of what she had just typed was suddenly being deleted. She stopped and took a video. Nobody touching the laptop, much of her text being deleted as she watched. She sent the laptop to a friend in IT, he told her it had been hacked and the software used was only available to government agencies like FBI and CIA. They also found a second fiber optic line installed at her house that the phone company knew nothing about. He also found highly classified documents well hidden on her computer, in a location most people would never even think to look. She knew nothing about that either. Somebody with a lot of pull was setting her up.

If the so called news was actually willing to tell us the truth, chances are Obama would never have been elected the first time, not a chance he would have been elected again. Truth is, they are his cheerleaders. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC are all owned by democrats and have made large donations to the democratic party. They are not allowed to make donations to individual candidates, just the party. Some have donated to the Clinton foundation too and we're talking at least $50,000 at a time. Nobody makes that kind of donation without expecting something in return, or protecting that investment by protecting their candidate.

All you have to do is look at the overall election coverage. The media scrutinizes every word Trump says, and rigth now, today, you see almost nothing about the Wikileaks dump of Clinton emails and Wall Street speeches. When Hillary passed out on 9-11, CNN aired an edited clip, cut short just after she bobbled the first time, and said she "stumbled". Not a word about her actually passing out and being loaded into the van like a sack of potatoes.

Trump gropes woman. Trump didn't pay taxes for 20 years. Trump insults gold star family. (where did that term suddenly come from?)

Nothing about Hillary's explosive temper, throwing vases and ashtrays at Bill, blacking his eye, cursing secret service agents, demanding people not even look at her, screaming and cursing at campaign workers and white house employees until they are unable to work...

Then we have the recent campaign to make it look like Russia is behind all the hacks and email dumps. I'm not buying that. Why would Putin want to help put Trump in the white house? Trump would be an adversary who actually has a backbone, while. Putin probably has enough on Hillary without hacking a thing to blackmail her to hell and back. I'm willing to bet he would get along with Trump, he may be a ruthless dictator but he respects a person with a backbone. He might still be an adversary, but like any good chess player, he respects a good opponent. He probably doesn't want Trump in office, he has little leverage on a person with no political baggage. So why would he dig up dirt on Hillary to influence our election? She is his best bet not Trump. He already knows he can walk all over her.

We don't have a news media any more, we have a propaganda machine.

JookeyMan ... excellent Thread ... just like Glen said. I agree with you about Corbett. The biggest one to me is the fallacy and disinfo that the "Government" represents the "people" and are "elected" by them. The campaigns of the Political Filth ranks rather highly as well. The amounts of money spent and the atrocity and horror has reached new levels ... all based upon deciet, LIES and Evil.

Jook - I agree with you there, Fox does sensationalize everything they can get their hands on. Remember the old adage, if it bleeds, it leads.

That's trued of all of them, I never did like it. Make it a "big story", drag it out as long as it makes a dollar, move on to the next one. TV and print media do this, TV probably more than print, the papers can't show movin' pichers...They all try to keep the latest atrocity going as long as they can, and rarely do we see any of the good, or positive going on in the world. A cop is caught on video playing basketball with a couple of local teenagers, it gets a few plays for a day and it's gone. A thug resists arrest, gets shot and they show it for a week or more, interview everyone in sight, debate and analyze from here to Sunday and try to figure out anything they can to keep it going for another day if it might still make a buck.

Elections are even worse, they go on for months, and all of them can get every "expert" in the known universe to give his or her opinion 57 times, and we still don't know the truth. now we have the serious political bias to deal with, and around 75% of the people don't trust the press any more. All the news outlets except Fox, Newsmax and One America News are owned and operated by Democrats and have made large contributions to the Democrat party. If you don't think a billionaire who owns a news network is not as corrupt and dishonest as the politicians he financially supports, think again. CNN for example, is commonly called the Clinton News Network, and for a reason. One of their anchors was videotaped saying "we've done all we can to help Hillary".

I didn't read my previous post again, but I think I noted other examples above. The bias in the news is so bad I have to spend hours every day digging up the actual story and trying to separate truth from propaganda. Fortunately I know where not to look...

I'm hoping this may change, but it might take some time. Nobody has had the backbone to stand up to them until very recently, when Trump started calling them out when they ran deceptive or outright untrue stories about politics like the one I described above. Same for politicians, he's been hitting them since day one, and some changes in that area might just happen. Both will take time, and more than just this one person speaking out.

Greta - I liked her too, the story I heard was she was cut with no warning, didn't even get a chance to say bye to her viewers. She had given her resignation if I remember correctly. She was one of the more objective ones, which are few and far between. Most are so deep in the trench with Democrats it's useless to bother watching them, I know I won't get the truth.

The obvious bias in the past couple of presidential debates is a good example. The first one, Trump was interrupted numerous times, I think over 40, Hillary only 7. He got every tough question Lester Holt could think up, Hillary got all softballs. I noticed Holt let Hillary go overtime without a word several times, and cut Trump off soon as he could. Until Trump called him on it. Same Sunday night. And nothing about several issues the people are concerned about, and he knew it. Sunday night it was basically a 3 on 1 debate, and Trump still held his own. But a lot of people liked it when he called out the moderators for stopping him and letting Hillary drone on. People are waking up and noticing it. That gives me a little hope. Now they are saying Hillary is way out in front...so why did the Luntz focus group, all undecided, walk in leaning about half and half, and leave decided 3 to one for Trump? The polls are rigged. Reuters has already been caught rigging a poll, when Trump is getting the kind of rally attendance he is and Hillary is getting very little, I can't believe she is in the lead as well as they claim she is.

But the traditional news won't tell you that. They aren't telling you Hillary did the same thing Trump did, used the exact same tax code section to defer almost $700,000 in losses in 2015, and they are letting her and other Democrats say Trump definitely did avoid paying taxes for almost 20 years, when nobody knows that for sure. They also aren't telling you trump draws 10,000 people or more at his rallies consistently, with thousands outside, while Hillary can't fill a basketball court. In at least one case I saw a faked picture of her rally. The one featured by the "news" showed a completely different background and a horde of people, cell phone shots from the same event show a half empty hall with no red and white background.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I've seen videos that show what makes me seriously question whether the scene shown by the news is completely faked. People following Hillary with cell phones, taking video, but you can plainly see Hillary is definitely NOT there in their phone screen. But you see her walking across the stage and their phones following her. Items missing in the background as well, or a completely different one. I have no proof, but have seen plenty to make me seriously question it. I don't know what did happen, but I do know those people were not getting video of Hillary at that particular location. But she was there in the background on the news camera.

And that's still just the tip of the iceberg. I think it goes a lot deeper than that, and I don't trust Fox either, I double check everything I can online. One or two of their people are good, most are no better than the traditional Democrat controlled press. I'm disappointed I can't get One America News, they seem to have a good reputation so far. The rest cannot be trusted at all. A couple of years ago I was pretty sure Fox was solid, now I'm losing respect for them too.

It's not getting any better so far, we'll have to see down the road...

OK Jook, I'll try to add to your conversation in a bit more detail.
I do not have the time or eloquence of PALEOPETE. I am grateful for his well thought out posts.

I have been accused of only getting info from FOX NEWS. So far from the truth. My circle of clients, friends, is large. That is including all the positive and and negative info that gets spread around here.

I saw something on FOX NEWS that made me do a double take. It was a morning show. I don't even know if anyone else even saw it or mentioned it. I had to check if I was crazy.

THEY POSTED AN IMAGE OF A REVERSE STATUE OF LIBERTY!!!!!! HUH?

You may not believe me, your choice. I'm just trying to add to your discussion...