The Big Cat Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Link Can somebody please explain to me how the investigated can release THEIR OWN version of the investigation to pre-empt the investigators? From what I understand, the "report" was produced by a PR firm just hours after it was announced that the Alaskan Supreme Court denied the "halt." So, my question is, if we have PR Firms propogating their own take on a legitimate investigation- WHAT'S THE POINT OF THE INVESTIGATION!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Link Can somebody please explain to me how the investigated can release THEIR OWN version of the investigation to pre-empt the investigators? From what I understand, the "report" was produced by a PR firm just hours after it was announced that the Alaskan Supreme Court denied the "halt." So, my question is, if we have PR Firms propogating their own take on a legitimate investigation- WHAT'S THE POINT OF THE INVESTIGATION!? :-) They learned that if you lie, keep lying and lie some more, people will buy it because they'll reason that NO-ONE could be ballsy enough to lie so baldly. That's GOP 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 :-) They learned that if you lie, keep lying and lie some more, people will buy it because they'll reason that NO-ONE could be ballsy enough to lie so baldly. That's GOP 101. Well, that would be the sharp, divisive explantion that doesn't get anyone anywhere. Seems to me pre-empting an investigation like this should be illegal because it floods the public conscious with untruths. I also think that lying in stump speeches/commercials (something BOTH candidates are responsible for (in varying degrees)) should be illegal and should disqualify a candidate from the race. Anyone catch the Thursday Weekend Update where "Brokaw" said "TIME'S UP!" each time a candidate spoke and then they ACTUALLY SHUT UP? Where was this during the real debate? Why have a moderator if he's going to get muted by the people he's supposed to wield authority over!? Seems to me NOBODY has any accountability anymore. I'm sick of this "nice-guy" "I don't want to be the diick that pulls the alarm" ball-less-ness, career first attitude that allows these goons to make us Joe Regulars look like a bunch of schmucks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Well, that would be the sharp, divisive explantion that doesn't get anyone anywhere. Seems to me pre-empting an investigation like this should be illegal because it floods the public conscious with untruths. I also think that lying in stump speeches/commercials (something BOTH candidates are responsible for (in varying degrees)) should be illegal and should disqualify a candidate from the race. Anyone catch the Thursday Weekend Update where "Brokaw" said "TIME'S UP!" each time a candidate spoke and then they ACTUALLY SHUT UP? Where was this during the real debate? Why have a moderator if he's going to get muted by the people he's supposed to wield authority over!? Seems to me NOBODY has any accountability anymore. I'm sick of this "nice-guy" "I don't want to be the diick that pulls the alarm" ball-less-ness, career first attitude that allows these goons to make us Joe Regulars look like a bunch of schmucks!! I don't think it should be illegal, but the media should expose it for the fraud that it is. Of course, they will be accused of being the liberal media if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 I don't think it should be illegal, but the media should expose it for the fraud that it is. Of course, they will be accused of being the liberal media if they do. Why not make it illegal? There are bearacratic hoops that need to be jumped through in order to release "official" information- i.e. a state sponsored investigation- why not protect that information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts