Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:16 AM

PCIntern (13,852 posts)

So will someone please explain to me, because I'm not that bright,

why the MSM continually refers to that whatever-it-was by Wayne LaPeedonmyleg, as a "Press Conference"? There were no questions allowed, so thus, no "conference". The fact that the press was there but not allowed to speak, speaks volumes in its own right. This is a form of contemporaneous revisionist history. It was a speech, and I'll avoid the comparisons to other lunatic speeches, so as not to invoke Godwin's Law.

I don't get it...whatever 'it' is...

9 replies, 641 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

9 replies	Author	Time	Post
So will someone please explain to me, because I'm not that bright, (Original post)	PCIntern	Jan 2013	OP
Because that's what NRA called it...	brooklynite	Jan 2013	#1
It should have been called propaganda terrorism, like BinLaden and not allowed on American TV	graham4anything	Jan 2013	#2
you continue to frighten me	SQUEE	Jan 2013	#3
You can't yell fire in a theatre or mention things going into an airport/plane.	graham4anything	Jan 2013	#4
Oh, for chrissake	dairydog91	Jan 2013	#5
The media aren't afraid. They're awaiting orders.	Octafish	Jan 2013	#6
Octafish...	PCIntern	Jan 2013	#8
My bad, Doc.	Octafish	Jan 2013	#9
New world order: Townhalls now: Invitation only??? You can come armed	kickysnana	Jan 2013	#7

Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:18 AM

brooklynite (12,866 posts)

1. Because that's what NRA called it...

Most press outlets made it clear that no questions were entertained.

Reply to this post

Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:22 AM

graham4anything (9,179 posts)

2. It should have been called propaganda terrorism, like BinLaden and not allowed on American TV

til the message was looked into for code words

Reply to this post

Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:43 AM

SQUEE (521 posts)

3. you continue to frighten me

With your complete disdain for all forms of freedom and love of the PTB.
I for one do not want Keith, John or Rachel to be prescreened for "propriety". Let them talk, and attack thier lies, mis/dis info and exagerations. Free speech is most important for unpopular speech.

Reply to this post

Response to SQUEE (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:54 AM

graham4anything (9,179 posts)

4. You can't yell fire in a theatre or mention things going into an airport/plane.

Reply to this post

Response to graham4anything (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:10 PM

dairydog91 (765 posts)

5. Oh, for chrissake

Trying to fit the NRA press conference into the narrow band of speech that is currently unprotected by the First Amendment is just goofy.

Reply to this post

Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:11 PM

Octafish (33,430 posts)

6. The media aren't afraid. They're awaiting orders.

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:34 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Once ready, they'll plug the new paradigm into the pipeline.

EXCERPT...

Although the propaganda model was generally well received on the Left, some complained of an allegedly pessimistic thrust and implication of hopeless odds to be overcome. A closely related objection was its inapplicability to local conflicts where the possibility of effective resistance was greater. But the propaganda model does not suggest that local and even larger victories are impossible, especially where the elites are divided or have limited interest in an issue. For example, coverage of issues like gun control, school prayer, and abortion rights may well receive more varied treatment than, say, global trade, taxation, and economic policy. Moreover, well organized campaigns by labor, human rights, or environmental organizations fighting against abusive local businesses can sometimes elicit positive media coverage. In fact, we would like to think that the propaganda model even suggests where and how activists can best deploy their efforts to influence mainstream media coverage of issues.

Reply to this post

Response to Octafish (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:28 PM

PCIntern (13,852 posts)

8. Octafish...

you well know how it is around here...the subject of the OP quickly switches to Nazis rather than the issue at hand...

Reply to this post

Response to PCIntern (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:39 PM

Octafish (33,430 posts)

9. My bad, Doc.

This is part of the message that got missed by ABCNNBCBSFauxNoiseNutworks for the past 12 years:

The NRA Brags That They'll Work Out Of President GW Bush's Oval Office

by John Mintz
Washington Post, Thursday, May 4, 2000

The National Rifle Association's second-ranking officer boasted at a closed meeting of NRA members earlier this year that if Republican nominee George W. Bush wins in November, "we'll have . . . a president where we work out of their office."

First Vice President Kayne Robinson, who is in line to succeed NRA President Charlton Heston, added that the NRA enjoys "unbelievably friendly relations" with the Texas governor. Robinson, who is also chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, made the comments Feb. 17 before 300 members in Los Angeles. He also described 2000 as "a critical election" in which Bush's success would ensure "a Supreme Court that will back us to the hilt."

SNIP...

Gun control groups say Bush has rarely strayed from NRA orthodoxy and for years has aggressively promoted its political platform. The NRA said it is proud of its ties to Bush.

SNIP...

At the Los Angeles meeting, LaPierre expressed confidence that the GOP-led Congress will do what the NRA wants--even though the group briefly stumbled last year. In the aftermath of last year's Columbine High School massacre, in which 12 students and a teacher were shot dead, the Senate humbled the NRA by voting to close a loophole under which firearms purchases at gun shows are exempt from background checks. Gore cast the crucial 51st vote, and gun control forces were exultant.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/050400-01.htm

Sorry about that. It's a natural reaction, on my part.

Reply to this post

Response to PCIntern (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:39 PM

kickysnana (3,172 posts)

7. New world order: Townhalls now: Invitation only??? You can come armed

but are not allowed in if you have slogans on your Tshirt.

So very, very wrong.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)