"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."

I came across this quote while looking up quotes about democracy on Wikiquote. The full entry in Wikiquote goes like this:



When I read the quote, before seeing what it was referring to, I thought "wow, that sums up the Republicans and Rove perfectly".

A half-second later, when I read how it referred to the Reichstag fire and Hitler, I got serious chills.

:scared:

People asking why the FBI never changed the names of the 19 hijackers even after several were found to be alive. The answer is obvious. The hijackers were patsies. What difference does it make if the names aren't correct? The only thing that matters is that we believe they did it.

that is some definitely weird news.

to whom it comes as a surprise, because if DUers don't know about things like these, what about the rest?

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspect' alive in Morocco
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1558669.stm

14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x76270

As studied by Professor Lakoff in the last several years.

Here's a big example: it is Democrats in Congress who are blamed for Republican policies and failures. There are more attacks on Dems than on Republicans.

That's reframing. It has allowed Republicans to skate. The seed was planted by Rove, propagated by Greens who wish to divide Dems, and nurtured by Democrats who attack the Democrats in Congress.

I don't know if this has been discussed or not. If so, sorry for the dupe.

Here goes: For a lack of a better term, I call this the 'political abused child syndrome'.
It is my understanding that in an abusive family where one parent abuses a child and the other parent does little or
nothing to stop it, the child will curry favor with the abusive parent in order for the
abuse to stop. The child will then distance her/himself from the 'enabling' parent.
The child holds the enabling parent with contempt.

Here comes the political part: the abusive parents are the republicans (the abuses by the republicans are
many to count) and the enabling parents are the democrats i.e. they have not done enough
to fight for the majority of Americans to stop the abusive republicans.

Whether they realize it or not, the media frame the issues this way- why don't the
spineless democrats stand up to the republican bullies? I think this mindset is
transferred to the public and it angers voters. This theory can be transferred to
other political situations as well.

It's not a perfect theory, but I think it has some merit.

the democracies among the wartime allies, without a thorough analysis of evidence, for negligently permitting the systematic killing by axis military powers of civilians in occupied Europe for "illegal ancestry" or "illegal sexual orientation."

Little or nothing is said about the USSR's alleged role in this alleged negligence, even though the USSR a short time later became undisputed master of the section of Eastern Europe where much of the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians took place.

Apparently the personal responsibility of those who actually planned or carried out the killings is considered too obvious to merit as much mention or emphasis as, in other discussions, is bestowed on the praiseworthy role of the Prophet Muhammad in allegedly inspiring the invention of zero and the development of algebra.

in media companies?

Gee, the AFL-CIO could have its own cable network that could address the interests and needs of working families. Plenty of ad revenue there!

Don't individuals and families save for retirement other than by accumulating cash in a bank account?

towards retirement and if they all agree upon one particular media giant to invest in, then they could collectively own a billion dollars worth of shares in that one particular media giant.

Of course, if they started buying all at the same time, then they would provoke other investors to buy and then the stock would get more expensive.

However, over a period of a number of years, they could buy when the stock price is depressed. Of course, it does seem a bit silly to spend $10 on stock one year, none another year, $15 another year, $25 another year, and so on. In fact, one would have to invest with other people if one wished to personally spend, in one transaction, less than the cost of a single share of stock.

To do that, one would need to form some kind of formal or informal networks with others. However, that would involve personal responsibility and not simply accepting the already existing network that is a union and not simply accepting the decision of a union boss who after all knows better than you and needs to patronizingly make all decisions for you.

NBC is owned by GE, which has a market cap of $395 Billion
ABC is owned by Disney, with a market cap of $65 Billion

or was he able to get started with significantly less than one drop in the bucket?

If GE is the owner of NBC and you are concerned about the expensiveness of NBC, then shouldn't you be telling me the market cap of NBC before it was a subsidiary of another corporation?

I think it would be a lot more than they paid for it.

The power that gives them is of enormous value.
They would not sell to left-of-center interests for any price.

Just the ability to keep a very unpopular war going is worth
far more to them than they paid for the network.

something you don't try to buy the owner. You find something else to buy.

Of course, there are exceptions. I heard of a business owner who couldn't get insurance. So he bought the insurance company.

You'll almost certainly have to buy Disney to get ABC. A bargain at $65 billion.
CBS/Viacom is only $22 billion, but most of the stock is held by one person.
Of course Murdoch owns Fox outright, and you KNOW he's not selling.

So we're pretty much out of the picture as far as TV goes, for the forseeable future.

All we really have is the Internet, and it seems like we're preaching to the choir here.

Buy the creative talents of individual writers, directors, technicians, managers, etc. and you can attract niche audiences who are not currently being served.

Investing is not like buying lottery tickets. Investors are not restricted to simply buying and selling existing stocks and bonds. There is such thing as venture capital: investing in ventures that are not currently listed on the stock exchange.

Even corporate raiders -- not known for nurturing new ventures -- went beyond mere exchange of stock certificates. They sold off some sections of companies and liquidated other sections. So something real was happening besides exchange of cash for shares or exchange of shares for other shares.

best author i have had the pleasure to read. The other "proverbs for paranoids" are equally as true. Gravity's Rainbow is full of juicy little quotations like this one.

Senators and Representatives ask about this thing not knowing that, by definition, it only encompasses activities which are arguably conducted within the law.