Would it be wrong to assume there’s a 4th casing out there somewhrre with “delay” on it, so our shooter’s message would be “you do the first 3, we’ll do the 4th”?
I’m pretty sure NBC, and ABC news, as well as several articles, have mentioned the similarity to the book title. Plus, deny, defend, depose has a VERY different statement.
“Deny claims, defend legally, remove from power.” The insurance companies deny the claims, know they can avoid court because the insured can’t possibly afford lawyers when they get buried under medical debt, and the last one has multiple purposes. Remove the power of medical professionals in their care expertise, remove the power of the patient’s voice, and remove the insurance companies and executives from having this power.
However, I acknowledge that the media shills for the owner class, and I see where the suspicion that they would change the words to fit that agenda is very possible. Unfortunately, without seeing the bullets, we have no way to verify what the actual words are. The only way we get that is from NYPD’s evidence storage which would need a criminal case.
No. The meaning is clear. The media isn’t outright lying to you on this.
Generally they don’t outright lie. They may choose to cover some things more than others, or they may publish ridiculous opinion pieces, but the decent ones almost never outright lie.
Manufactured Consent isn’t lying. It’s selectively telling the truth either by omitting certain facts or reframing them. Here, it’s omitting what those words are referring to.
I disagree. There might be enough room for plausible deniability, but that’s by design. I do not trust the media enough not to take the side of the rich.
Deny, Defend, Depose
It actually is Delay, Deny, Defend. The media is purposefully changing it so people won’t find the book:
https://pdfupload.io/docs/0d380e9b
One is the title of the book, the other is the words he wrote on the shell casing.
Would it be wrong to assume there’s a 4th casing out there somewhrre with “delay” on it, so our shooter’s message would be “you do the first 3, we’ll do the 4th”?
Probably rolled into a gutter.
Yeah that would make sense.
I’m pretty sure NBC, and ABC news, as well as several articles, have mentioned the similarity to the book title. Plus, deny, defend, depose has a VERY different statement.
“Deny claims, defend legally, remove from power.” The insurance companies deny the claims, know they can avoid court because the insured can’t possibly afford lawyers when they get buried under medical debt, and the last one has multiple purposes. Remove the power of medical professionals in their care expertise, remove the power of the patient’s voice, and remove the insurance companies and executives from having this power.
However, I acknowledge that the media shills for the owner class, and I see where the suspicion that they would change the words to fit that agenda is very possible. Unfortunately, without seeing the bullets, we have no way to verify what the actual words are. The only way we get that is from NYPD’s evidence storage which would need a criminal case.
Manufacturing Consent…
No. The meaning is clear. The media isn’t outright lying to you on this.
Generally they don’t outright lie. They may choose to cover some things more than others, or they may publish ridiculous opinion pieces, but the decent ones almost never outright lie.
Manufactured Consent isn’t lying. It’s selectively telling the truth either by omitting certain facts or reframing them. Here, it’s omitting what those words are referring to.
The claim was lying.
No, they’re not. I’m not invalidating Chomsky. I’m saying that’s not this case in this particular instance.
I disagree. There might be enough room for plausible deniability, but that’s by design. I do not trust the media enough not to take the side of the rich.
I thought I saw those on an very early article but they’re all saying the other now. Be nice if we could find out what they really said.
Decompose.