Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

51
sikacz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:55 pm
highdesert wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 12:56 pm It's a slow news cycle so the feeding frenzy continues on both sides. I'm avoiding news articles on the subject, they won't get my clicks. There was an article in the LA Times the day after the verdict about Hollywood's reaction to it. Who the fuck cares about what some multimillionaires in Hollywood think about the verdict, their opinion makes about as much sense as asking MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, Cawthorn, Alex Jones or the other right wing wackos.
Agree and also avoiding the clicks. Sadly, our legal system doesn't treat justice equally among all people. I don't care to think on this one anymore, but as YT pointed out there are those in prison that ought not to be.

Yes and not just in prison but also on death row. Our judicial system is imperfect, no one should face capital punishment.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

52
featureless wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:24 pm
FrontSight wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:13 pm I would maybe be willing to buy that bullshit story if he didn't immediately run to the two most high profile white supremacists in the US. No, he's a racist for sure. Actions speak WAY louder than words.
At 18, would you have resisted the invitation? Not that I disagree, I just don't know. And it really doesn't matter if I do. Here's hoping Arbery gets justice today. Because that one really does matter.
A toxic former president that tried to overthrow the government in a coup? Yeah, even at 18 I had the sense God gave a goose. Cryin' Kyle needs to raise cash for the civil suits that will probably amount to millions of dollars and One-Pump Trump is just desperate to keep his flabby mug in the news.
"Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians." Geoffrey Boothroyd

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

53
highdesert wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:12 am
Yes, the media whether they've declared for one side or not, their reporting shows how they are aligned. Gone are the days when reporters put their opinions aside and just reported the facts, it's now an infotainment world and opinions are news.
^^^^^THIS!^^^^^

The "Media" (24 hour cable newz, social media etc...), stokes division and makes a profit doing it, which will destroy the US from within if not checked going forward.

Simple really, huge fines for broadcasting provable BS, and I mean "HUGE" fines, bankruptcy causing sized fines.

Once you hit the profit motive in the mouth, maybe they'd gain some responsibility for what they broadcast...

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

54
DJD100 wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:36 am
highdesert wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:12 am
Yes, the media whether they've declared for one side or not, their reporting shows how they are aligned. Gone are the days when reporters put their opinions aside and just reported the facts, it's now an infotainment world and opinions are news.
^^^^^THIS!^^^^^

The "Media" (24 hour cable newz, social media etc...), stokes division and makes a profit doing it, which will destroy the US from within if not checked going forward.

Simple really, huge fines for broadcasting provable BS, and I mean "HUGE" fines, bankruptcy causing sized fines.

Once you hit the profit motive in the mouth, maybe they'd gain some responsibility for what they broadcast...
Thing called First Amendment, the above will never happen...people have been broadcasting lies for as long as there have been people there to listen. Unfortunately, lying isn't against the law, when 'broadcasted'.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

57
Just reinstate the FCC Fairness Doctrine that Ronnie Raygun and his minions discarded. Only include the Internet in it this time and enforce it. Problem solved.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

59
Oldschool wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:16 am And how do we govern internet content created and hosted outside the US?
IP address, DNS filters on the main pipes coming into the country. When I worked at an ISP and later I got my Cisco Certification I learned how a router can be programmed to filter and block content. Schools do it all the time. Also content created and hosted outside the US is not covered by the first amendment.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

61
F4FEver wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:15 am
DJD100 wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:36 am
highdesert wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:12 am
Yes, the media whether they've declared for one side or not, their reporting shows how they are aligned. Gone are the days when reporters put their opinions aside and just reported the facts, it's now an infotainment world and opinions are news.
^^^^^THIS!^^^^^

The "Media" (24 hour cable newz, social media etc...), stokes division and makes a profit doing it, which will destroy the US from within if not checked going forward.

Simple really, huge fines for broadcasting provable BS, and I mean "HUGE" fines, bankruptcy causing sized fines.

Once you hit the profit motive in the mouth, maybe they'd gain some responsibility for what they broadcast...
Thing called First Amendment, the above will never happen...people have been broadcasting lies for as long as there have been people there to listen. Unfortunately, lying isn't against the law, when 'broadcasted'.
It should be via the available mechanisms, i.e. the courts.

There should be broadcast accountability courts, where whackos like TFG/Carlson and Feax Newz, should be financially punished for something IF they continue to broadcast total untruths repeatedly, and especially after their BS has been proven wrong in courts of law and they haven't recanted etc. Note that the same laws should apply to all media.

Freedom of Speech is one thing, freedom to lie and stoke sedition/division is something else entirely, and look at the bright side, a large percentage of politicians would immediately be liable LOL!

The above would be a natural filter etc, and now more then ever we need a filter on mass broadcasting, or the whole ship is going down (due to the fact that a large percentage of US citizens are remarkably uneducated/stupid!).

Sure, it's a slippery slope which would need to be managed, but the problem now is the internet gives every whacko global reach where before they'd only have a local reach unless the networks or papers picked them up, and the vintage "journalists" typically attempted to fact check their presentations as much as possible, and quickly recanted when they got something wrong. In addition, the Clinton/Bush II led consolidation of the nation's media has left the messaging to a wealthy few with predictable results.

Heck, you're right though, ain't going to happen, so...

...the US is toast?
Last edited by DJD100 on Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

63
FrontSight wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:29 pm What would our media world look like if we still had the fairness doctrine?
Much better. but there would only be a few media networks and OAN, Newsman and Faux News would not be one of them.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

64
Well anyone these days that does not carry some self defense mechanism is a fool protest or not. It's dangerous, always has been since the beginning.

So just hatchets and knives should only be allowed to protests maybe. “Not the glittering weapon fights the fight, but rather the hero's heart.” – ... MS
Take the Boston Tea Party for instance. Dressed like native Americans Reports from the time describe the participants as dressed as Mohawks or Narragansett Indians. The disguise was more symbolic in nature; they knew they would be recognized as non-Indians. The act of wearing “Indian Dress” was to express through symbolism to the world that the American colonists identified themselves as “Americans” and no longer considered themselves British subjects. They were not dressed as Indians in the classic sense with headdresses and full authentic regalia; rather they wore wool blankets matchcoat style, painted their faces with soot, and employed other modes of dress commonly known at the time as “Indian dress” which had been adopted by soldiers during the French and Indian War. Boston Tea Party participant George Hewes dictated his account of the Boston Tea Party many years after the event and described his “Indian dress” as the following: “It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin’s wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.”
"The Worst Monsters are the ones we create. We are the monsters"

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

65
FrontSight wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:14 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:01 pm I'm not in favor of another gun law. If states where open carry is legal did, then there would be law suits challenging them. In a way I think it would be easier to just ban them when a city, county or state declares a state of emergency, but again that would have to be narrowly tailored to the type of event not giving any politician carte blanche. Permitted events and civil unrest yes, but a natural disaster maybe not.

National Guard (weekend warriors) aren't generally trained as peace officers or armed, some units are MPs though. Yes, civil authority broke down in Kenosha.
I'm not just talking Kenosha...I'm talking the past 1.5 years. Armed militias, even left leaning ones are a REALLY bad idea.

And yeah the National Guard are not trained in law enforcement...none of the Army really is. But they can stand opposed to an armed militia; that they are qualified for.

Anytime there's an armed militia in the street, there should be armed National Guard standing right in front of them. Trust me those "weekend warriors" would go through the Gravy Seals like a hot knife through butter.

Armed Militias are only an issue if they are not following the rule of law and are creating problems *Coughs* The NFAC*coughs*

Re: Rittenhouse - The disturbing part.

66
Ridge83 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:40 am
FrontSight wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:14 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:01 pm I'm not in favor of another gun law. If states where open carry is legal did, then there would be law suits challenging them. In a way I think it would be easier to just ban them when a city, county or state declares a state of emergency, but again that would have to be narrowly tailored to the type of event not giving any politician carte blanche. Permitted events and civil unrest yes, but a natural disaster maybe not.

National Guard (weekend warriors) aren't generally trained as peace officers or armed, some units are MPs though. Yes, civil authority broke down in Kenosha.
I'm not just talking Kenosha...I'm talking the past 1.5 years. Armed militias, even left leaning ones are a REALLY bad idea.

And yeah the National Guard are not trained in law enforcement...none of the Army really is. But they can stand opposed to an armed militia; that they are qualified for.

Anytime there's an armed militia in the street, there should be armed National Guard standing right in front of them. Trust me those "weekend warriors" would go through the Gravy Seals like a hot knife through butter.

Armed Militias are only an issue if they are not following the rule of law and are creating problems *Coughs* The NFAC*coughs*

They call themselves a militia, but they are just a group not always organized and not always believing the same things. They think they're protecting the country but this is not the colonial period with the British, French and Indians threatening, to outsiders it's just cosplay.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 0 guests

cron