rayban1 wrote:blatham wrote:"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
our friend Joey Goebbels again
Goebbels is absolutely correct but it's your slanderous, paranoid,conspiracy theory that Goebbels strategem is on the verge of being implemented in this country, that I have a problem with.
If Bush is as bad as your theory infers......he would have had Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd assassinated(with ample justification IMO), revoked the FCC license of the three major networks, and immediately ordered the FBI to lock the doors of the LATimes and the NYTimes. This of course would have been forewarned by a request to congress to declare war on Iraq, Syria and Iran....which of course he did not do for this very reason, followed by implementation of Marshall Law and revocation of Habeas corpus
It would have been fairly easy but IMO. this president actually hampered himself by not declaring war to avoid the appearance that your conspiracy theory suggests
rayban
There is no valid comparison between Bush and Goebbels or Bush and Naziism, or at least I don't think there is.
I'm still speaking about media. As Jefferson said, where a press loses its independence, liberty is at risk. Every administration wishes to control the press, whether by bullying or by making friends with reporters. They wish to control or influence the press simply so as to have an easier time of implementing their desired policies. But the press must avoid becoming a handmaid to the administration - any administration. If it does not, it then functions merely as a propaganda arm, such as Pravda.
You'll recall the O'Reilly quote I gave earlier, where he suggested that the Pope ought to get behind the Bush administration's policies (the Pope spoke against the war, for example). That's an error in thinking on O'Reilly's part. Bush certainly doesn't have to support the Pope's ideas and policies, we understand that clearly. And the Pope, being quite independent of government, has no obligation to support a government (otherwise there really wouldn't be freedom of religious belief and practice).
But that is the same independence which Jefferson is suggesting must be maintained by the press for the mainenance of liberty.
That does NOT mean a pure unthinking kneejerk opposition, but rather a thoughtful and fiesty voice that will not hesitate to speak in opposition to an administration. O'Reilly thinks that not only the Pope but the media also should 'get behind the president'. He's wrong. It must remain independent.