The ultimate example of propaganda, deception, and manipulation by the media in the UK.
-
link.[^] They cut into the old lady brown was talking to, forcing people who have not yet seen the video in full to believe that the old lady had anti-muslim sentiments, and she didn't like the brown muslims. And when Brown replied they spoke over him and said all kinds of things to make Brown look better. Even in the ad to the right, they are giving Brown a boost.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
So Sky News - owner Rupert Murdoch, who backs Cameron, whose Sun newspaper backs Cameron, whose Times newspaper backs Cameron - is boosting Brown?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They cut into the old lady brown was talking to
The commentator 'cuts in' because the clip is merely part of a montage providing the visual background to a commentary on how the media, including long time Labour supporters, are moving away from Labour because of Brown's leadership. How does that make Brown look better?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
forcing people who have not yet seen the video in full to believe that the old lady had anti-muslim sentiments
Believe me, you would have to have been comatose not to have seen or heard that video in Britain. And why would people be forced (forced?) to believe that she had anti-muslim sentiments, when she quite clearly refers to 'all these Eastern Europeans what [sic] are coming in'? BTW: My advert to the right of the clip was for Ebay Outlet, Clothes you Love, direct from the Brands you Love. [Edit: Now the advert is for SKY Bet. Bet on the result of the General Election 2010: Who will win the most seats? Will it be a hung parliament? Who gets Your vote?. And, oooh, it shows a Big Brown in front of a Diddy David and a Nano Nick. I must admit, that has forced me to change my mind. To hell with their policies, and having formed an opinion on each of them over several years (months in the case of Cleggie), I am now going to vote Labour just because Brown looks bigger than the other two. ]
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
modified on Sunday, May 2, 2010 4:37 AM
-
link.[^] They cut into the old lady brown was talking to, forcing people who have not yet seen the video in full to believe that the old lady had anti-muslim sentiments, and she didn't like the brown muslims. And when Brown replied they spoke over him and said all kinds of things to make Brown look better. Even in the ad to the right, they are giving Brown a boost.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Not much point saying to you "Don't believe everything the media throws at you", otherwise you would take the offerings of Uncle Alex with a very large shovelful of salt. Gordon Brown has been the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister for some 13 years. Just because he has a PhD doesn't make him immune from making a fool of himself, he did rather well putting his foot into his mouth last Wednesday. And the pensioner in question wasn't putting an anti-muslim question to him. She asked a number of questions of which one was on EU immigration. Even if Gordon Brown was competent as Chancellor and PM, which I believe he isn't, 13 years of the same tired policies is far too long, and continuing those kind of policies for potentially another 5 years is not on. So it is time for a change in any case. As a hung parliament is looking as most possible, interesting times will be had by all in the UK which could conclude later this year (or early next year) with another General Election. And Henize, if you don't understand the term "hung parliament" and its implementation in UK political life, go visit the BBC news website where your further education in this particular subject is assured.
-
Not much point saying to you "Don't believe everything the media throws at you", otherwise you would take the offerings of Uncle Alex with a very large shovelful of salt. Gordon Brown has been the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister for some 13 years. Just because he has a PhD doesn't make him immune from making a fool of himself, he did rather well putting his foot into his mouth last Wednesday. And the pensioner in question wasn't putting an anti-muslim question to him. She asked a number of questions of which one was on EU immigration. Even if Gordon Brown was competent as Chancellor and PM, which I believe he isn't, 13 years of the same tired policies is far too long, and continuing those kind of policies for potentially another 5 years is not on. So it is time for a change in any case. As a hung parliament is looking as most possible, interesting times will be had by all in the UK which could conclude later this year (or early next year) with another General Election. And Henize, if you don't understand the term "hung parliament" and its implementation in UK political life, go visit the BBC news website where your further education in this particular subject is assured.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Just because he has a PhD doesn't make him immune from making a fool of himsel
It doesn't stop him from taking your country down the path to ruin either.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Just because he has a PhD doesn't make him immune from making a fool of himsel
It doesn't stop him from taking your country down the path to ruin either.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They cut into the old lady brown was talking to, forcing people who have not yet seen the video in full to believe that the old lady had anti-muslim sentiments, and she didn't like the brown muslims. And when Brown replied they spoke over him and said all kinds of things to make Brown look better. Even in the ad to the right, they are giving Brown a boost.
Why would people be forced to believe that the old lady had anti-muslim sentiments? Where in your link does it imply that? What 'all kinds of things' did they say to make Brown look better? How does the ad for Sky Bet give Brown a boost? Why would an anti-Brown pro-Cameron media site boost Brown?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It doesn't stop him from taking your country down the path to ruin either.
Our problem was that our politicians, since Thatcher, have been suckered into the US 'light touch' (i.e. bugger all) regulation of the Financial Sector; foolish, when that sector is a major source of your country's income.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Just because he has a PhD doesn't make him immune from making a fool of himsel
It doesn't stop him from taking your country down the path to ruin either.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the path to ruin
Can sometimes be clad in fools gold. Britain, just like the United States no longer has large scale manufacturing industries, much preferring to import cheaper products from the Far East. This does very little in providing relief from higher unemployment. Pre-Thatcher, our level of unemployment was manageable. Since Thatcher, including the here and now, with a higher reliance on service industries - in particular the financial services industry - there is this gap between the have's and have-not's, and those in the have-not's are often those who are unemployed living in depressed areas of the country where manufacturing industries used to call home. And movement of people from one region to another is not a viable reality. Without enforceable Statutory Instruments, and over-reliance on, the banking and financial industries, they will continue to remain a threat to economic stability and economic success. This does not mean that all is well with Capitalism. Capitalism has this knack of causing issues. Within a few years of the start of the Industrial Revolution, Britain suffered its first recession (a world first) and Capitalism was the fault then as it was in other recessionary periods.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the path to ruin
Can sometimes be clad in fools gold. Britain, just like the United States no longer has large scale manufacturing industries, much preferring to import cheaper products from the Far East. This does very little in providing relief from higher unemployment. Pre-Thatcher, our level of unemployment was manageable. Since Thatcher, including the here and now, with a higher reliance on service industries - in particular the financial services industry - there is this gap between the have's and have-not's, and those in the have-not's are often those who are unemployed living in depressed areas of the country where manufacturing industries used to call home. And movement of people from one region to another is not a viable reality. Without enforceable Statutory Instruments, and over-reliance on, the banking and financial industries, they will continue to remain a threat to economic stability and economic success. This does not mean that all is well with Capitalism. Capitalism has this knack of causing issues. Within a few years of the start of the Industrial Revolution, Britain suffered its first recession (a world first) and Capitalism was the fault then as it was in other recessionary periods.
You always blame people's desire to get the most out of their money, taking advantage of regulations and legal leverage in the markets. Nobody has the mental capacity to realize that it was the government's intervention in the markets that is the root cause of the problems.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You always blame people's desire to get the most out of their money, taking advantage of regulations and legal leverage in the markets. Nobody has the mental capacity to realize that it was the government's intervention in the markets that is the root cause of the problems.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
As painful as it was, and will continue to be, for Government intervention into the Banking industry, it was a necessity. Without which, the supply of money would be halted. The possibilities that businesses and industry could not function was so high on the agenda that it became an over-riding requirement. Without the banks, society dies - why? because money is the life-blood. Besides that, ordinary people have savings in these financial institutions and that must also be protected by some Government Insurance Scheme. People have desires. Why shouldn't they. I'm pretty sure that your dad said something similar to "I want you and future generations not to struggle as much as I did or as my parents did". That should tell you that your wishful future should be better than your past, or your parents past. But with this desire comes responsibility. The responsibility to do the right thing. And oft is a necessity for the right thing to be made a legal requirement - an enforceable Statutory Instrument. So, the Government intervention you disapprove of. How much vitriol would you have for government if the wholesale supply of money was stopped, perhaps indefinitely. To re-capitalize and to take-over failing banks was the right thing to do. Main Street as well as Wall Street would benefit otherwise Main Street would become a desert of aimlessly wandering individuals where continued existence of such individuals might be accomplished by the many and varied form of criminality, just because of the need to keep body and soul together.
-
As painful as it was, and will continue to be, for Government intervention into the Banking industry, it was a necessity. Without which, the supply of money would be halted. The possibilities that businesses and industry could not function was so high on the agenda that it became an over-riding requirement. Without the banks, society dies - why? because money is the life-blood. Besides that, ordinary people have savings in these financial institutions and that must also be protected by some Government Insurance Scheme. People have desires. Why shouldn't they. I'm pretty sure that your dad said something similar to "I want you and future generations not to struggle as much as I did or as my parents did". That should tell you that your wishful future should be better than your past, or your parents past. But with this desire comes responsibility. The responsibility to do the right thing. And oft is a necessity for the right thing to be made a legal requirement - an enforceable Statutory Instrument. So, the Government intervention you disapprove of. How much vitriol would you have for government if the wholesale supply of money was stopped, perhaps indefinitely. To re-capitalize and to take-over failing banks was the right thing to do. Main Street as well as Wall Street would benefit otherwise Main Street would become a desert of aimlessly wandering individuals where continued existence of such individuals might be accomplished by the many and varied form of criminality, just because of the need to keep body and soul together.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As painful as it was, and will continue to be, for Government intervention into the Banking industry, it was a necessity. Without which, the supply of money would be halted.
The supply of money would be halted? You mean your central bank wouldn't devalue your currency? That would be a blessing, not a curse.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As painful as it was, and will continue to be, for Government intervention into the Banking industry, it was a necessity. Without which, the supply of money would be halted.
The supply of money would be halted? You mean your central bank wouldn't devalue your currency? That would be a blessing, not a curse.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
The central bank isn't the issue. The issue is your Main Street banks. People, businesses and industry bank at your local Main Street bank. If that bank goes bust and no intervention takes place, people, businesses and industry also fail. So you want a total shutdown? Is that what you mean by "a blessing" ????
-
The central bank isn't the issue. The issue is your Main Street banks. People, businesses and industry bank at your local Main Street bank. If that bank goes bust and no intervention takes place, people, businesses and industry also fail. So you want a total shutdown? Is that what you mean by "a blessing" ????
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
f that bank goes bust and no intervention takes place, people, businesses and industry also fail.
And that is the sole motivator for the bank owners, managers, and employees to not let the bank go bust. In your system, the banks know that they can get easy money from the central bank to take large risks, and act reckless with it, because they can always get more if things go bad.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
f that bank goes bust and no intervention takes place, people, businesses and industry also fail.
And that is the sole motivator for the bank owners, managers, and employees to not let the bank go bust. In your system, the banks know that they can get easy money from the central bank to take large risks, and act reckless with it, because they can always get more if things go bad.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In your system, the banks know that they can get easy money from the central bank to take large risks, and act reckless with it, because they can always get more if things go bad.
Thus the need for credible enforceable regulation.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In your system, the banks know that they can get easy money from the central bank to take large risks, and act reckless with it, because they can always get more if things go bad.
Thus the need for credible enforceable regulation.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thus the need for credible enforceable regulation.
It is a flawed system. The central bank model causes complications in the market, which the government tries to control with force, and that causes more problems, and the governments answer is even more regulation. Centrally planned economies do not work, history proves that. The real regulation comes from a free market. Each person has a responsibility to his/her own self, property, and business. These people have to make decisions based on their environment, a free market encourages savings, investment, innovation, low prices, high wages, efficiency, and survivability. When the government interferes, the system looses stability and people become dependent on the government. Eventually the country becomes bankrupt, inflation skyrockets, people are deprived, and social unrest follows.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thus the need for credible enforceable regulation.
It is a flawed system. The central bank model causes complications in the market, which the government tries to control with force, and that causes more problems, and the governments answer is even more regulation. Centrally planned economies do not work, history proves that. The real regulation comes from a free market. Each person has a responsibility to his/her own self, property, and business. These people have to make decisions based on their environment, a free market encourages savings, investment, innovation, low prices, high wages, efficiency, and survivability. When the government interferes, the system looses stability and people become dependent on the government. Eventually the country becomes bankrupt, inflation skyrockets, people are deprived, and social unrest follows.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Eventually the country becomes bankrupt, inflation skyrockets, people are deprived, and social unrest follows.
That is what unfettered capitalism does. Why don't you read the message postings from Ian and others in the various other threads below. They have gone into chapter and verse of the benefits and liabilities of the financial systems. You would be well versed to re-read what they have had to say.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Eventually the country becomes bankrupt, inflation skyrockets, people are deprived, and social unrest follows.
That is what unfettered capitalism does. Why don't you read the message postings from Ian and others in the various other threads below. They have gone into chapter and verse of the benefits and liabilities of the financial systems. You would be well versed to re-read what they have had to say.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is what unfettered capitalism does.
Really? We both live in countries with hardcore Keynesian socialist economies, and we are both practically bankrupt, economies are in crisis, inflation is soaring, corruption is rampant, and people are getting really angry.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is what unfettered capitalism does.
Really? We both live in countries with hardcore Keynesian socialist economies, and we are both practically bankrupt, economies are in crisis, inflation is soaring, corruption is rampant, and people are getting really angry.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
people are getting really angry
Not really, well, not in Britain. We in Britain are concerned. Not angry - yet. But that could all change if draconian policies are introduced to address our mammoth "black hole". I'll keep you posted on that ...
-
You always blame people's desire to get the most out of their money, taking advantage of regulations and legal leverage in the markets. Nobody has the mental capacity to realize that it was the government's intervention in the markets that is the root cause of the problems.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You always blame people's desire to get the most out of their money, taking advantage of regulations and legal leverage in the markets. Nobody has the mental capacity to realize that it was the government's intervention in the markets that is the root cause of the problems.
Great. You've had your misinformed whinge. Now, back to your original post. Where is the propaganda, deception, and manipulation in the video you linked to?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
f that bank goes bust and no intervention takes place, people, businesses and industry also fail.
And that is the sole motivator for the bank owners, managers, and employees to not let the bank go bust. In your system, the banks know that they can get easy money from the central bank to take large risks, and act reckless with it, because they can always get more if things go bad.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
you are so far the the truth. A Bank goes under it effects soo many things, you can't get any financial products such as overdrafts, credit cards etc. business can't borrow money for what ever reasons, someone looses their job! as Richard stated, one bank fails so many others business and perople do. When the business fail people loose their jobs, the government can't collect taxes to fund departments etc.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
And that is the sole motivator for the bank owners, managers, and employees to not let the bank go bust. In your system, the banks know that they can get easy money from the central bank to take large risks, and act reckless with it, because they can always get more if things go bad.
Yes our central bank lent money to the other banks, BUT they didn't get it for free and why should they. please research before spouting un research crap
Marc Clifton wrote:
That has nothing to do with VB. - Oh crap. I just defended VB!
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is what unfettered capitalism does.
Really? We both live in countries with hardcore Keynesian socialist economies, and we are both practically bankrupt, economies are in crisis, inflation is soaring, corruption is rampant, and people are getting really angry.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Keynesian socialist economies
You can have a capitalist economy accumulating reserves during times of plenty to enable temporary deficit spending in a recession. That would be Keynesian. But the USA has been continuously in debt[^] for years, and that's not Keynesian. The USA is a banana republic[^]: Profits Privatized and Debts Socialized - Check Devalued Paper Currency - Check Politicians Use Time in Office to Maximize Their Own Gains - Check Corruption Remains Unchecked, Politicians Are Only for Show - Check
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
link.[^] They cut into the old lady brown was talking to, forcing people who have not yet seen the video in full to believe that the old lady had anti-muslim sentiments, and she didn't like the brown muslims. And when Brown replied they spoke over him and said all kinds of things to make Brown look better. Even in the ad to the right, they are giving Brown a boost.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is what unfettered capitalism does.
Really? We both live in countries with hardcore Keynesian socialist economies, and we are both practically bankrupt, economies are in crisis, inflation is soaring, corruption is rampant, and people are getting really angry.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
