A word of warning

[undergroundpanther]

If you let other "people" convince you to let an important story drop(like vote fraud)(for fear of tin foil or fear of"reputation)It's a sign of perception management manipulation.Who has the right to tel;l anyone else what kind of story is not worth investigating and why believe people determined to undermine a story?
As the vote fraud story gets more damming,I see more people are told and repeat it is"discredited" Hmmm..I see important issues drop like stones in the threads bewcause of a few loud haraguing voices screaming shit about tin foil,to manage perceptions and engineeer social opinions of what in a situation is worth persuing and what is not.I think voter fraud is VERY important to persue.And we all know there are people who would rather sensd opeople on goose chases,discredit people before they get it out,discrect delude and create delimmas all so the story of vote fraud never fully breaks into public consiousness.

.
Read about an author who wrote a VALID story that made the CIA uncomfortable and how the MEDIA managed public perceptions of the whole idea of CIA involvement in the drug trade.(Iran-Contra).This story of perception management really does apply to the way the vote fraud isssue is being "managed" here on DU..Cointelpro style perception management bullshit going on ,on DU...I think so.Interesting...make comparisons and THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Read THIS:
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/vm,garywebb,12,014,04intothebuzzsaw.htm
Excerpt:

"The funny thing was, despite all the furor, the facts of the story never changed, except to become more damning. But the perception of them did, and in this case, that is really all that mattered. Once a story became "discredited," the rest of the media shied away from it. Dark Alliance was consigned to the dustbin of history, viewed as an Internet conspiracy theory that had been thoroughly disproved by more responsible news organizations.

Why did it occur? Primarily because the series presented dangerous ideas. It suggested that crimes of state had been committed. If the story was true, it meant the federal government bore some responsibility, however indirect, for the flood of crack that coursed through black neighborhoods in the 1980s. And that is something no government can ever admit to, particularly one that is busily promoting a multibillion-dollar-a-year War on Drugs.

But what of the press? Why did our free and independent media participate with the government's disinformation campaign? It had probably as many reasons as the CIA The Contra-drug story was something the top papers had dismissed as sheer fantasy only a few years earlier. They had not only been wrong, they had been terribly wrong, and their attitude had actively impeded efforts by citizens groups, journalists, and congressional investigators to bring the issue to national attention, at a time when its disclosure may have done some good. Many of the same reporters who declined to write about Contra drug trafficking in the 1980s -- or wrote dismissively about it -- were trotted out once again to do damage control."

[mia]

1. I get the drift of what you're saying and agree with you. eom

[peacetalksforall]

2. You are correct. It looks like the people are going to have to do the

work...nearly all our leaders are lying low. I hope it's because they are preparing.

I feel sorry for you people in Ohio who have the female representative who was written about yesterday on DU and who appeared on C-Span this morning with all kinds of attention paid to Ukraine. What a misguided woman she is. Talk about deflection, diversion, and disinformation and she is a Dem.

[peacetalksforall]

3. It looks like the CIA may still be alive and kicking with the

Webb 'suicide'.

Why do the citizens of the United States have to pay for government agencies who are partisan?

[VioletLake]

4. I can only marvel in awe at this thread.

:wow: