Who has the main ownership of US mainstream medias?

[Orion]

Again, the Bilderberg Conference does not set policy for the people who attend it anymore than the U.N. sets policy for the member states, it is a near perfect analogy. The United Nations conducts closed door meetings all the time far more often than the Bilderberg "Group." The Bilderberg Group doesn't control anything, again the whole is not in control of the individual parts.

How do you know if it sets policy or not if the public doesn't have access?

Even if the UN has closed door meetings, any policy decisions go public and then democratic processes can kick in to modify those policies. What about the Bilderberg group? How do we know what they are planning?

When I elect my leaders, I want to know where they are at all times and what decisions they are making that affect my country. The Bilderberg group is an undemocratic organization where talks are held without anyone's knowledge, and who knows what kinds of decisions are made there. Just because they don't issue official policy doesn't mean they aren't making it.

Again, making a comment and assuming you are the more correct. Please get over this tendency already so we can have a real discussion.

 

[ricksfolly]

Thank you Johnny for the info.

May I know how many peoples they are? because someones believe that US main politics have been made just by afew but richest peoples.

I never travel US and mybe these are false. You live there and I'm interested in you idea.

Thanks.

Israel has hundreds of Lobbyists in Washington to represent their policies, and Lobbyists have a lot of influence on what happens or doesn't happen in Congress.

ricksfolly

 

[Tashah]

Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on just what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination, while right-wingers accuse the group of conspiring to impose a "New World Order" in the form of a socialist one-world government.[21]

The 2009 meeting participants in Greece included: Greek prime minister Kostas Karamanlis; Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen;[15] Sweden foreign minister Carl Bildt; U.S. State Department number two James Steinberg; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; World Bank president Robert Zoellick; European Commission head José Manuel Barroso; Queen Sofia of Spain; and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.[16]

Bilderberg Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just love a conspiracy where everyone who is anyone is involved :2razz:

 

[Apocalypse]

Sounds like the next Dan Brown book.

 

[Orion]

Bilderberg Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just love a conspiracy where everyone who is anyone is involved :2razz:

And I just love that people who are wary of this group are called "extremists" or "conspiracy theorists". Makes me wonder who wrote that Wiki entry, since, you know, it is publically accessible.

That seems to always be the cry when people point out that undemocratic organizations may potentially be undermining the governance of nations. Seems more like heavy denial to me.

 

[Tashah]

And I just love that people who are wary of this group are called "extremists" or "conspiracy theorists". Makes me wonder who wrote that Wiki entry, since, you know, it is publically accessible.

Conspiracy is just one aspect covered on that page. It's a lengthy primer with footnoted sources. Seems to be mainly a European construct and is headquartered in the Netherlands.

 

[Agent Ferris]

How do you know if it sets policy or not if the public doesn't have access?

Because they say they don't.

Even if the UN has closed door meetings, any policy decisions go public

How do you know? You have to take their word for it.

and then democratic processes can kick in to modify those policies. What about the Bilderberg group? How do we know what they are planning?

The same way we know that policy isn't being set in closed door meetings of the General Assembly we take them at their word.

When I elect my leaders, I want to know where they are at all times and what decisions they are making that affect my country. The Bilderberg group is an undemocratic organization where talks are held without anyone's knowledge, and who knows what kinds of decisions are made there. Just because they don't issue official policy doesn't mean they aren't making it.

The United Nations is an un-democratic organization where talks are held without anyone's knowledge the only way we know that they are not making official policy during these closed door policies is because we trust our leadership.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I did a little checking, and as of 2007 the estimated Jewish population in America was 5.1 million. The Muslim population estimates in America vary from 3 to 7 million depending on the source. According to Islamicpopulation.com, the Muslim population in America for 2008 was 6.2 million, which means there are actually more Muslims in America than there are Jews.

Even if you take the low estimate of 3 million Muslims, that still doesn't support your claim that there are 3 times as many Jews in America, than there are Muslims.

I generally go with Pew when it comes to American, religious statistics. Since the government doesn't ask it in the census, it's difficult to tell for certain.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf

 

[Gardener]

Ah. Gotta watch those (*ahem*) "Zionists" hiding in those "lower levels," eh?

Starting with the OP -- it's been a while since there's been an openly anti-Jew threat outside of the ME forum.

The European and conspiracy forums are regular Joo bashfests , too.

 

[Gardener]

You're from Iran? I didn't even know you guys could express political opinions down there. I'd sure be scared to sign up to DP if i where you. Just sayin'.

Don't worry. He's spreading antisemitism, so it's cool.

Now if he were trying to lobby for human rights, he might be in trouble, but doing what he's doing? Nah.

 

[Gardener]

How rapidly a claim that there is a jewish influence in the media turns into accusation of full blown anti-semitism. Nice. Im sure youre going to call someone a holocaust denier before this thread dies.

A person would have to be incredibly ignorant to not realize that this is one of THE classic antisemitic canards.

 

[Gardener]

So what? Do you have a problem with Jews? If so, just say so.

These things sure keep slithering in here in greater and greater numbers.

 

[Johnny]

Just because someone is against the Israeli/American foreign policy doesn't make them anti-semetic.

Not all Israelis are Jews. Not all Jews are Irsraelis.

But Judaism itself and Jewish people have nothing to do with it. People point the finger at the whole group. Just like saying all Mexicans are illegals. Or other stereotypes. Stems from ignorance.

But there are lobbyists for Israel but that's not a Jewish thing. It's a business and power thing.

A Muslim or Christian hating Jews is stupid when they all believe in the same god.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Israel has hundreds of Lobbyists in Washington to represent their policies, and Lobbyists have a lot of influence on what happens or doesn't happen in Congress.

ricksfolly

As if Arab oil money doesn't influence U.S. foreign policy far more than a lobbying group ever could.

 

[William Rea]

A person would have to be incredibly ignorant to not realize that this is one of THE classic antisemitic canards.

How is your judgement of people based upon this crass concept of "classic canards" any better than the prejudices that the antisemites are accused of. It is ridiculous to judge a person based upon the strength of your stereotype of what an antisemite might say.

I have read several threads on this now and you guys are very poor poker players; you play your antisemite card way too early and in that respect I sympathise with what SE102 is saying.

 

[Agent Ferris]

It's the Christain right that has more influence on how we interact with Israel than anything else.

Meh the Christian right had more influence under Bush because he himself was an Evangelical but most members of the right are not evangelicals and an evangelical belief system wouldn't play a huge roll in influencing their decisions. Only .9% of Americans consider themselves Evangelical born agains, I mean they're not even a huge voting block.

 

[Agent Ferris]

How is your judgement of people based upon this crass concept of "classic canards" any better than the prejudices that the antisemites are accused of. It is ridiculous to judge a person based upon the strength of your stereotype of what an antisemite might say.

I have read several threads on this now and you guys are very poor poker players; you play your antisemite card way too early and in that respect I sympathise with what SE102 is saying.

Well I played my facts and statistics card from my own empirical analysis of Jews representation in media control in this country, and you people are completely FOS. Not to mention that even if it were correct then what would that mean? Would it mean that Jews are somehow different than anyother American and would act in a different way then anyother American? The implications of this line of questioning are clearly anti-semitic and the suggestion that Jew control the media is classic anti-semitic propaganda.

 

[William Rea]

Well I played my facts and statistics card from my own empirical analysis of Jews representation in media control in this country, and you people are completely FOS. Not to mention that even if it were correct then what would that mean? Would it mean that Jews are somehow different than anyother American and would act in a different way then anyother American? The implications of this line of questioning are clearly anti-semitic and the suggestion that Jew control the media is classic anti-semitic propaganda.

Which people are FOS? Me? That was my first post and you concluded I am an antisemite? Kind of proves the point doesn't it.

I read your analysis and it was ok, you outlined your parameters and made a case, that's fair enough but I believe that when most people make this complaint their reference point is Hollywood which is not "The Media" in totality.

"The Media" is not disproportionally owned by Jews but it is owned by Capitalists and that is worse.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Which people are FOS? Me? That was my first post and you concluded I am an antisemite? Kind of proves the point doesn't it.

The people who claim that Jews control the media.

I read your analysis and it was ok, you outlined your parameters and made a case, that's fair enough but I believe that when most people make this complaint their reference point is Hollywood which is not "The Media" in totality.

Hollywood? Ya because foreign policy perception of the periphery nations is constructed by the lastest Michael Bay film. lol

"The Media" is not disproportionally owned by Jews but it is owned by Capitalists and that is worse.

Yes decentralized publically traded corporations in competition with one another has been horrible for freedom of the press as opposed to highly centralized media monopolies controlled by the state conglomerate. :roll:

 

[William Rea]

The people who claim that Jews control the media.

Hollywood? Ya because foreign policy perception of the periphery nations is constructed by the lastest Michael Bay film. lol

Yes decentralized publically traded corporations in competition with one another has been horrible for freedom of the press as opposed to highly centralized media monopolies controlled by the state conglomerate. :roll:

Ah, the good old eye roll, haven't seen one of those on a debate forum for some time.

OK, you've decided to try the vague route for your exit strategy. So we've gone from almost direct accusation that I am an antisemite to a general "The people who claim that Jews control the media.". You don't mind making an almost direct accusation of my antisemitism but you won't make an almost direct retraction. Again, it proves my point.

Exactly, the point I was making is that people that make the "Jews control the media" accusation normally point towards Hollywood. I wasn't making any judgement on how correct it was to do that; just pointing out the fact so, I will assume that your sarcasm is not to try to make some inane point about me. I'll insert a lovely little smiley face in here to indicate friendliness if it helps you.

You think that Capitalists run their media empires to preserve a free press? They run media empires to control the press and make more money from that control; that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good thing for democracy. In effect there is a Capitalist monopoly on the media which is no better than a State monopoly in my opinion.

 

[Gardener]

How is your judgement of people based upon this crass concept of "classic canards" any better than the prejudices that the antisemites are accused of. It is ridiculous to judge a person based upon the strength of your stereotype of what an antisemite might say.

I have read several threads on this now and you guys are very poor poker players; you play your antisemite card way too early and in that respect I sympathise with what SE102 is saying.

Then I would say that yours isn't necessarily just a matter of ignorance, but intent.

 

[William Rea]

Then I would say that yours isn't necessarily just a matter of ignorance, but intent.

Ignorance, no. I have seen more than enough people burnt at the stake and I don't want to cheapen the effect of the word by throwing it around liberally.

It certainly is intent and I intend to (and I do) judge people on a little more than a crass set of canards. Dogma is my enemy.

 

[Gardener]

Ignorance, no. I have seen more than enough people burnt at the stake and I don't want to cheapen the effect of the word by throwing it around liberally.

It certainly is intent and I intend to (and I do) judge people on a little more than a crass set of canards. Dogma is my enemy.

If dogma is your enemy, why are you petting it and why is it wagging its tail at you so happily?

You have made just 4 posts in this forum, and all 4 posts have been designed to reinforce the extremely dogmatic canard about undue Jewish influence. That says more about you than any of your disingenuous doubletalk.

 

[Harshaw]

Just because someone is against the Israeli/American foreign policy doesn't make them anti-semetic.

Not all Israelis are Jews. Not all Jews are Irsraelis.

But Judaism itself and Jewish people have nothing to do with it. People point the finger at the whole group. Just like saying all Mexicans are illegals. Or other stereotypes. Stems from ignorance.

But there are lobbyists for Israel but that's not a Jewish thing. It's a business and power thing.

A Muslim or Christian hating Jews is stupid when they all believe in the same god.

Why would someone bring up, in two posts, "proof" that Jews run the entertainment industry (without mentioning Israel or foreign policy at all, by the way) if not to imply there's something insidious about it?

Oh, I hear this kind of thing all the time. "Pssst -- B&H Photo Video is run by Jews."

"Yeah? So? What's your problem with Jews?"

"WHAT???? No, I don't have any problem with Jews. I just think you should know who you're dealing with -- that's all."

Those posts to which I responded are exactly the same kind of thing.

 

[Harshaw]

How rapidly a claim that there is a jewish influence in the media turns into accusation of full blown anti-semitism. Nice. Im sure youre going to call someone a holocaust denier before this thread dies.

Funny how this thread has turned out, innit?