Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 11 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

      this . . is the inevitable result of MISINFOMATION as a political tool

      Listen. Its only 1:29

      “That the sun sets in the west is a FACT”

      “Our duty is to the truth”

      JBear, before you start talking by posting Greenwald (lol) you may not admit it here, but you must get his point. “Hunter Biden’s laptop” says you do

      The Internet is informatio

    • DCGoth

      Participant
      Post count: 1464

      Very good video. Quite accurate to my views of responsible media.

      I’d rather have a beer bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.


       

      • spartan

        Participant
        Post count: 874

        I agree with 100% of what he said. Now if he only implemented those standards into his reporting everything would be find and dandy. There are numerous examples of things being reported, misreported or denied as “fact” by the media, that I would have a very hard time leaving the determination of what is in fact, “fact”, and what is not to these “reporters”.

        To avoid going down a rabbit hole of recent politics, I will use the example of the Obama/Romney debate when the moderator Candy Crowley interjected herself into the debate with her “fact checking”. She contradicted Romney and stated categorically he was wrong. When in fact, he was correct.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

      Your example is 2012???

      Just today the GA governor intentionally omitted the bac aspects of the GA voting law and said it was easier to vote on GA then in NY

      Today. Head of a state.

      This was Holts point

      • spartan

        Participant
        Post count: 874

        You know, and I know, that if I went for something more recent we would disappear down the Trump rabbit hole. And it is a clear as day example so I used it.

        And I have no idea what you mean by “bac” so I cannot comment. Which means I’ll find it in 5 minutes.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3508

      I’m sorry but the truth really is often subjective. Anyone who says it isn’t is a Nazi…. yes I went there.

      In all seriousness. Be weary of Anyone telling you that they need to silence the liars to make things better.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

      You know, and I know, that if I went for something more recent we would disappear down the Trump rabbit hole. And it is a clear as day example so I used it.

      And I have no idea what you mean by “bac” so I cannot comment. Which means I’ll find it in 5 minutes.

      Your example is a 2012 ERROR versus an outright lie from yesterday

      Holts point: a lie and fact don’t deserve equal time.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

      @Jbear (and other Trumpers) not sure if you have an interest in actual serious discussion, but this is something you should comment on BECAUSE its proof of the world turned upside down by Trumpism

      Justice Thomas is universally accepted as the SCOTUS’s most conservative member (his wife is under fire for funding part of the insurrection) and he has a LONG . . very LONG track record of defending FREE SPEECH . .”in cases involving a wide variety of issues, including pornography, campaign contributions, political leafleting, religious speech, and commercial speech.” (Although, he has decision here has also supported curtailing first speech for unrepresented groups like minors)

      But here he is writing for himself alone as he often does (meaning, the rest of the court disagrees) but still suggesting that Facebook and Google should be regulated like the telegraph or telephone

      and if you go to the thread you will see people like Josh Hawley supporting his call

      so here’s the question:

      How can a Trump supporter (or voter) claim to be for “free markets” and “free speech” when they seem to support CURTAILING markets and speech when they don’t like it?

      Dr, Seuss was “cancel culture”, but speak out FOR racial equality like MLB did and we, the GOP, will actually tax you as a penalty

      Facebook and Twitter were Trump’s most favorite tools when they never held his lies in check. Once they did, so-called Trumpian conservative want to treat FB and Twitter like the telegraph?



      @Jbear
      ?



      @Spartan
      ?



      @Kermit56
      ?

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 874

      I have not read the whole opinion, but I admire Justice Thomas, but my initial response is:

      a. Twitter is a private company, not a Govt entity, therefore not subject to the 1st Amendment.

      b. This is pretty much, but maybe in different terms, what the Tech Giants have been arguing for years. They are a platform and are not responsible for what is written or said on it.

      OK, I just read it, and he is smart, very smart. Essentially what he has done, IMO, is fire a shot across the bows to the Tech Giants that he is sympathetic to a hearing that they ought to be treated as a public carrier if they continue to pick the winners and losers in who gets to speak and who does not. Especially when those decisions are being made by a very small number of people.

      Putting aside if you think the decisions were right or wrong, I get the feeling that he has seen what they did to Trump and thought who’s next?

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

      I have not read the whole opinion, but I admire Justice Thomas, but my initial response is:

      a. Twitter is a private company, not a Govt entity, therefore not subject to the 1st Amendment.

      b. This is pretty much, but maybe in different terms, what the Tech Giants have been arguing for years. They are a platform and are not responsible for what is written or said on it.

      OK, I just read it, and he is smart, very smart. Essentially what he has done, IMO, is fire a shot across the bows to the Tech Giants that he is sympathetic to a hearing that they ought to be treated as a public carrier if they continue to pick the winners and losers in who gets to speak and who does not. Especially when those decisions are being made by a very small number of people.

      Putting aside if you think the decisions were right or wrong, I get the feeling that he has seen what they did to Trump and thought who’s next?

      Missed the point

      How do you reconcile the position Thomas espouses with traditional conservative claims of free market and speech? He is advocating regulating them, most of you Trumpers could not criticize Texas for its disaster because that would be admitting the benefit of regulations. Most of you cried about free speech when Twitter banned Trump.

      How can you flip 180 degrees?

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

      FWIW, Thomas is considered to be a bit of a loon. Never wrote a majority opinion as far as I know. In fact, he is like the baker who thinks yeast is poison. Here’s the summary

      “ The truth is that Rehnquist and Roberts never trusted Thomas to write an opinion in a big case that could command a majority of even his conservative colleagues.

      Why was this? It is because Thomas is not a conservative but, rather, a radical—one whose entire career on the Court has been devoted to undermining the rules of precedent in favor of his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution. By his own account, Thomas is an extreme originalist, one who is guided exclusively by his own understanding of what the words of the Constitution mean rather than what the other hundred and eleven people who have served on the Court in its history have judged them to mean. His vision is more reactionary than that of any Justice who has served on the Court since the nineteen-thirties, and his views are closest to those of the Justices who struck down much of the New Deal during that era. Indeed, in a concurring opinion in 1995, Thomas basically embraced this antediluvian view of the Constitution, writing, “I am aware of no cases prior to the New Deal that characterized the power flowing from the Commerce Clause as sweepingly as does our substantial effects test. My review of the case law indicates that the substantial effects test is but an innovation of the 20th century. . . . At an appropriate juncture, I think we must modify our Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

      the troll outs himself?

      many other posts but nothing from @JBear on his most favorite topic?

      weird

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

      Not only did McConnell take the CORPORATE money he references for his own campaign, he’s taken in hundreds of million of corporate dark money for his two Super Pacs, one with Karl Rove

      another STERLING example of the falsity of GOP principles, “speech should be free . . unless you talk bad about me.”

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 1102

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.