Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for the Dark Web, I would not call it "this generation's short wave radio receiver." If anything, it's more the equivalent of the cell phones that criminals smuggle into prisons via their rectums in order to continue their underground criminal activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994
Oh, that's cute. The fact is, the Dark Web is not illegal. Yet.
Don't you think you're going a bit far conflating Free Speech with criminal activity? Don't you think it would just be easier and better for America if the tech oligarchs stop curtailing free speech?
"Besides drug and arms trafficking, child porn is sadly among the most popular content on the darknet."
Watch: "Dark Web: How Pedophiles use the Dark Web to build a Community."
Video produced by Duetsche Welle, a German public broadcast service -- only one of many sources one may find for reporting on the criminal activities that run unchecked through the Dark Web.
Is this the "free speech" that you're so vigorously defending? Because I view this as the criminal activity that runs free and unchecked through the Dark Web. I'll take the so-called "tech oligarchs" over your tech degenerates.
Without having to search, I can remember people quoting MLK's statement that "Riots are the voices of the unheard", which was vindication, if not praise (Didn't Kamala herself repeat that?).
The hypocrisy has been absolutely deafening this summer. Tens of thousands of BLM rioters do what, eight billion in damage across the country and cause dozens of deaths, even blinding Federal Agents in Portland, and it's "mostly peaceful protesting". But maybe a couple of hundred people enter Congress, kill one cop (totally uncalled for, find and hang the murderer with my blessing), and do what, maybe a million bucks of damage, and it's "A coup, an attack on Democracy, unprecedented in the scope of violence, etc. etc. etc.?" I'm certainly not defending what happened on 06 Jan., it was terrible. But the False Equivalency is so rampant as to be laughable, it's like I'm listening to Baghdad Bob all over again.
But the flip side is that for people who get most of their news from conservative media, they are convinced that cities like Portland and Minneapolis are smoking ruins patrolled by roving gangs of thugs like in a dystopian disaster film. That's not the truth, either.
And the intent of protests matter. Did people gather in support of human rights, or for insurrection? Focusing solely on property damage misses the point.
Which is why I asked for examples from the mainstream media. In my experience, no legitimate news organizations praised destructive protests, but that is what the conservative media claims that the liberal media is doing. Many people who only look at Fox or Breitbart or NewsMax don't actually do their homework.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 01-26-2021 at 05:26 PM..
"Besides drug and arms trafficking, child porn is sadly among the most popular content on the darknet."
Watch: "Dark Web: How Pedophiles use the Dark Web to build a Community."
Video produced by Duetsche Welle, a German public broadcast service -- only one of many sources one may find for reporting on the criminal activities that run unchecked through the Dark Web.
Is this the "free speech" that you're so vigorously defending? Because I view this as the criminal activity that runs free and unchecked through the Dark Web. I'll take the so-called "tech oligarchs" over your tech degenerates.
Quote:
Oh, that's cute. The fact is, the Dark Web is not illegal. Yet.
Actually, the part of it Rachel NY showed a shot of,is illegal. There are limits to free speech, don't forget.
BTW the handful of Texas oil millionaires he talked about would have been Democrats in 1954. Look it up; Texas was a Democrat state then (LBJ was a Senator from Texas).
It seems the Texas Oil men Eisenhower mentioned, H L Hunt, Roy Cullen, Clint Murchison, Sid W Richardson were the wealthiest and most powerful in Texas. They had been affiliated with the Democrats prior to the late 1940's. But by that time changed their politics to Republican to
cozy up to J Edgar Hoover, Sen Joe McCarthy, and Eisenhower.
Texas may have been Democrat leaning but it doesn't mean that there weren't Republicans in the state or people who would flip flop and change parties to benefit their needs.
Hunt held much of Libyan oil resources and gained most of the oil resources in eastern Texas. Quite wealthy and powerful. Sid W Richardson was nearly a Billionaire at that same time. But they changed over to right wing Republican politics believing their wealth would be safer with Republican policies/policy making. These men were born toward the beginning of the century and made much of their money in the post WW1 era only to see it dwindle. So they wanted clout to protect it and dismantling social programs that benefited the much less affluent seemed to be the avenue to protecting themselves.
Others in the group weren't as wealthy but saw the opportunity to become so by joining in league with them.
Eisenhower thought they were stupid as messing with Social Security would be the death knell for the Republican Party.
Last edited by Jewel City Joe; 01-26-2021 at 06:54 PM..
Texas may have been Democrat leaning but it doesn't mean that there weren't Republicans in the state or people who would flip flop and change parties to benefit their needs.
It was the parties that did a slow policy flip-flop between 1912 and 1990. Up until 1900, the Republican Party was the Progressive Party...they even called themselves that, and their social progress platform was practically the same as the Democratic Party platform today. Gender equality, racial equality, labor rights, prison reform, social justice...all those were policies of the Republican Party up to 1912, and the Democratic Party was staunchly against all that.
The change began when Teddy Roosevelt pulled his social Progressives out of the Republican Party as they began to clash with the wealthy business class end of the party. That party split allowed the regressive Democratic Party to gain power for a while, but even then the Democratic Party was also splitting along geographic lines, north and south.
During the Great Depression, which pit economic classes clearly against each other, social Progressives began to invade the Democratic Party. As the Civil Rights era began in the 50s, social conservatives began to migrate into the Republican Party. Their migration was very slow, however, because most of the old "Dixiecrats" would rather die than openly join the Party of Lincoln, even though they agreed with the new Republican conservative policies.
So over the course of the 60s and 70s...they did die out. And their children joined the Republican Party.
IMO, the 24/7 'biased opinions' in the name of "news," has become a serious danger to our society. It follows the old adage, "If you repeat something enough, people will believe it." The media pretense that they are trustworthy, ... has long-ago been sold to the highest bidder.
One might say, "If you believe everything you hear on the "news," internet or TV, you deserve to be deceived. But, How is one to find 'truth' today when the public is bombarded with 360-degrees of opinions spouted by "news sources" 24/7? Of course I believe in 'freedom of the press' and 'freedom of speech,' but, not when it is sold to the highest bidder a 'political weapon' or for advertising and financial gain.
There used to be a "Truth in Advertising" law" which has fallen by the wayside. If America doesn't wake-up and demand a minimum public truth standard from its "news" (ie; verifiable by proof and reliable sources), the voice of America will be entirely spoken and 'owned' by big money interests.
It's not censorship or free speech, when it places limits on the 'freedom' to yell "FIRE" in a crowded auditorium. For example, when "free speech" (and "freedom of the press"), completely justified burning, vandalizing and looting in the streets ... as it did this past year!
I totally agree with what you wrote above.
I am a "Free Speech" advocate but what has happened recently, where Fox News serves as the Office of Propaganda for the Republicans, spreading outright lies (such as the election was stolen), has made me wonder if outright lying via a TV network needs to be stopped.
Fox News was encouraging if not directly causing, an Insurrection by Domestic Terrorists (yes the Proud Boys have been designated as Domestic Terrorists - the same Proud Boys Trump told to "stand by" and then gave the signal to head to the Capitol and have a "wild time" and "save our country").
It seems to me that an FCC Licensed TV network should not be allowed to just lie and lie over and over without being censured for that lying. (There was NO election fraud, yet they kept saying there was, long after dozens of Republican and Democratic judges said there was no evidence of fraud.)
So it's a tough issue. I am for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. But as the OP mentioned, yelling "Fire" in a theater where there is none is not covered by Freedom of Speech.
I think what Fox News and Limbaugh and even the Republican Senators, attorneys and Trump himself, were doing is more akin to yelling Fire in a crowded theater than it is to Free Speech.
They all need to be held accountable for the Insurrection and if Fox news can be shown to have caused the insurrection then they should have their license taken away or at least severely warned and/or fined.
You haven't answered the mail. fleetiebelle asked for "examples of the mainstream media praising looting and rioting."
I didn't say that the mainstream media did, because they are obviously too smart for that. I said that they were "vindicating" it by printing reports of people using MLK's quote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...yd/5282486002/
I never heard that quote before this summer. If it wasn't being played over and over on Mainstream Media, I still never would have heard it, I'm not exactly an MLK historian.
And, they definitely "whitewashed" the rioting by downplaying it, a good example was the (CNN?) reporter stating what was going on in Minneapolis was a "mostly peaceful" protest while a large building behind him was in flames.
Finally, if the media, during an interview, quotes someone who is praising the looting, do they have an obligation to disavow the views of the person they are interviewing? Because they sure didn't when they interviewed the young BLM supporter in Chicago who was openly praising the looting that was going on downtown, I believe she called it "reparations". Should be easy to Google if you're interested.
I didn't say that the mainstream media did, because they are obviously too smart for that. I said that they were "vindicating" it by printing reports of people using MLK's quote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...yd/5282486002/
I never heard that quote before this summer. If it wasn't being played over and over on Mainstream Media, I still never would have heard it, I'm not exactly an MLK historian.
And, they definitely "whitewashed" the rioting by downplaying it, a good example was the (CNN?) reporter stating what was going on in Minneapolis was a "mostly peaceful" protest while a large building behind him was in flames.
Finally, if the media, during an interview, quotes someone who is praising the looting, do they have an obligation to disavow the views of the person they are interviewing? Because they sure didn't when they interviewed the young BLM supporter in Chicago who was openly praising the looting that was going on downtown, I believe she called it "reparations". Should be easy to Google if you're interested.
No, to the above in bold.
Reporters should not be editorializing the news upon which they are reporting. Therefore, they should neither praise nor condemn -- they should only report what they are seeing. Period.
I didn't say that the mainstream media did, because they are obviously too smart for that. I said that they were "vindicating" it by printing reports of people using MLK's quote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...yd/5282486002/
I never heard that quote before this summer. If it wasn't being played over and over on Mainstream Media, I still never would have heard it, I'm not exactly an MLK historian.
And, they definitely "whitewashed" the rioting by downplaying it, a good example was the (CNN?) reporter stating what was going on in Minneapolis was a "mostly peaceful" protest while a large building behind him was in flames.
Finally, if the media, during an interview, quotes someone who is praising the looting, do they have an obligation to disavow the views of the person they are interviewing? Because they sure didn't when they interviewed the young BLM supporter in Chicago who was openly praising the looting that was going on downtown, I believe she called it "reparations". Should be easy to Google if you're interested.
But the looting in Minneapolis was started by the extreme Right, according to Minneapolis police. It was a figure called "umbrella man" who wrote something like "Free stuff" or "Looting here" on the windows of an Auto Zone store, and smashed some of the windows. Police studied videos of this figure exhaustively after the events, and were able eventually to identify him as a participant in a White Supremacist movement that FBI had been following on Facebook and Twitter all year. They issued a call all over social media to go to Minneapolis for the protests, to cause mayhem. "Umbrella man" was identified as part of an extremist movement of "accellerationists", whose agenda is to spark a second civil war.
That group, or movement, were the people the FBI warned the Minneapolis mayor and the MN Governor about, before the protests began, in terms of elements intent on violence.
Quote:
Police say the masked, umbrella-wielding man who smashed windows at a Minneapolis auto parts store two days after George Floyd's death has ties to a white supremacist group and specifically sought to inflame racial tensions.
According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minneapolis police arson investigator Erika Christensen wrote in a search warrant affidavit filed this week that the man's actions created a hostile atmosphere and sparked a series of events that turned previously peaceful protests chaotic. She said she believed his "sole aim was to incite violence."
Reporters should not be editorializing the news upon which they are reporting. Therefore, they should neither praise nor condemn -- they should only report what they are seeing. Period.
Repeated for emphasis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
