So what rights are you radicalized enough to give up?

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
So which rights are you guys giving up? Why is the direction of this thread being guided into puppet vs orange?
Orange is the new puppet.

In the following link that I included to justify my statement, I present to you facts based reporting, something you might want to learn more about.


They present several reasons why Trump flipped regarding Tik Tok. All of which are valid. But they led that list with the main reason. Trump needs money and a major shareholder of Tik Tok just gave his campaign a huge donation. There are other reasons but we can all connect the dots. Orange is the new Puppet.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus

So what you really meant to ask is "Can you link to journalism, that I approve of, that substantiates your claim that Biden is a (whose) puppet?"
Yes. I disapprove of sources that are merchants of the neoliberal ideology and the propaganda surrounding it and concealing its illiberal, indeed fascist intentions.

Such as anything Murdoch or anything listed by Media Bias/Fact Check as being far right — and inevitably scored poorly on factuality.

That site is a useful tool to filter out many of the voices of fascism, which have become loud and numerous of late.

My preferred news sources are AP and Reuters. They are not beholden to a national or corporate interest, score Center politically and High for factuality and the absence of disinformation. Text journalism minus the manipulative nuance of videos.
 

ooof-da

Well-Known Member
No altering quotes and no ad hominem attacks.
can you please explain what you mean by that first part about altering quotes? Like if I were to have edited your quote in this response by deleting “and no ad hominem attacks” and only left “No altering quotes” part when I responded right now I am violating a rule? I just want to understand because I do that sometimes and will stop if that is the case.

thx
 

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
can you please explain what you mean by that first part about altering quotes?
Absolutely, I'm not referring to our partial quote ability. I'm referring to changing out words to misrepresent what a person said like this:
I think wind and rain sucks
You never said any of that and there was no annotation I was changing something out as a joke between friends. Now if you go into their quote and fix it, "FIFY" we denote that in the post for example:
can you please show an example of quotes?
FIFY
(this is culturally what we've done forever)

Anyway we do not want others attributing their words to someone else since you can potentially be held legally accountable for your words. So they should be your own.
 
Last edited:

ooof-da

Well-Known Member
Absolutely, I'm not referring to our partial quote ability. I'm referring to changing out words to misrepresent what a person said like this:

You never said any of that and there was no annotation I was changing something out as a joke between friends. Now if you go into their quote and fix it, "FIFY" we denote that in the post for example:

FIFY
(this is culturally what we've done forever)

Anyway we do not want others attributing their words to someone else since you can potentially be held legally accountable for your words. So they should be your own.
Thx for the clarification
 

Timezone

Well-Known Member
can you please explain what you mean by that first part about altering quotes? Like if I were to have edited your quote in this response by deleting “and no ad hominem attacks” and only left “No altering quotes” part when I responded right now I am violating a rule? I just want to understand because I do that sometimes and will stop if that is the case.
Good question above. I just highlighted this part of your post and "quoted" it, which seems to be part of how this software works. Some clarity on this is probably needed. I guess the ad hominem would be me saying "See dude. You said you're guilty of violating rules in your own words".
I may have caused part of that as I posted a reply to someone and must have placed my response within the quoted reply. That was not the intention, but obviously the cause of the "altered quote" part.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I may have caused part of that as I posted a reply to someone and must have placed my response within the quoted reply. That was not the intention, but obviously the cause of the "altered quote" part.
Hung quotes happen, and they don’t signal malice.

Replacing someone’s content with something someone did not say is different. At best it sets up a strawman.
 

Timezone

Well-Known Member
My preferred news sources are AP and Reuters. They are not beholden to a national or corporate interest
LOL No. they're not "beholden", just real committed to The Trusted News Initiative. Some come to America to escape these types of organizations that portray to be the sole judges of truth.
 

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
I may have caused part of that as I posted a reply to someone and must have placed my response within the quoted reply. That was not the intention, but obviously the cause of the "altered quote" part.
You did and gave me a teaching opportunity, thanks.
Hung quotes happen, and they don’t signal malice.

Replacing someone’s content with something someone did not say is different. At best it sets up a strawman.
Let's not jump to conclusions or pile onto a mod's actions, thanks.

Now let's return to our regularly scheduled political disagreements. Thank you all for your patience.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
LOL No. they're not "beholden", just real committed to The Trusted News Initiative. Some come to America to escape these types of organizations that portray to be the sole judges of truth.
The Fox "News" outlet you cited recently paid a billion or so to a firm they defamed with false stories in order to keep their ratings up. AP and Reuters have very good records of facts based reporting that stands up to scrutiny. Whenever I read a story that makes points that I either disagree with or agree with, I check other sources and look for facts in those reports that can be verified as true. Given your own statements, I don't see how you justify your statements other than citing unreliable sources. Furthermore, the one citation you gave, while true, did not back your claim that Biden is a puppet. That report from Fox just said that Biden's staff ended a campaign event without giving the press time for a question and answer session with Biden.

So, help me out. I don't understand your disdain for trusted news services and how you decide when a report can be trusted. I also don't understand why you thought the Fox story proved your point that Biden is a puppet.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
So which rights are you guys giving up? Why is the direction of this thread being guided into puppet vs orange?
Im not a girl, or living in a state that is trying to cut my voting rights, so so far havnt had to give up any rights really.

I would be willing to give up some ability to go out and buy guns without guardrails or having to buy insurance in order to slow the rate of mass shootings though. I would also give up some pretend online rights that foreign nations don't have to follow keeping our government blind to the attack happening to our citizens.


Sure, this is from yesterday, he wants to know if he is allowed to take questions.


There's lots more instances where he states that he's not allowed to take questions or is going to get into trouble for taking questions. This has gotten worst over time and was some what amusing yesterday. If you need help finding them, let me know.
idk man, coming form someone who gets sucked into every conversation as I have been trying to leave family events delaying my exit for hours in some cases, I can appreciate having handlers trying to keep him on schedule.

Pointing to examples that show this, and not taking in the totality of what we have seen him do is just basically cherry picking a narrative of him being a puppet. I would question why right wing propaganda entities like Fox News is cherry picking information for their viewers to be able to nod along to while thier highly paid trolls tell them what to think about it though.

WOW! Where do you go for that. I think what you believe as "journalism" died when Obama signed the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. This allowed main stream media the freedom to lie to us. If you want to know more, start your research with the Smith–Mundt Act of 1948... but I digress.
So I am missing something I guess, how did this bill make it so that (wait, guess we should also nail down what you mean by 'main stream media' since technically Crayloa sells something like 5 billion crayons a year as is 'media', so it could mean anything to you) they have the freedom to lie to us?

I was curious whose bill it was, turns out it was a Republican (who also had worked with Obama and the Russian arms control deal). So I am willing to be skeptical.

I googled the event yesterday. This happened to pop up along with others. I blindly chose the first. I do not normally watch FOX as I do not have cable. It's a video. You don't like the source. Okay. Tell me what sources you trust, and I will find the same instance from those sources.
You ever wonder why those type of hits are what pop up for you to see?

AP news Reuters are really the way to go.

https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-7064410002
Screen Shot 2024-03-17 at 10.28.41 AM.png
CLAIM: Former President Barack Obama signed a law in 2012 allowing government propaganda in the U.S., and making it “perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people.”

AP’S ASSESSMENT:
False.
In 2013, Obama signed legislation that changed the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act. The amendment made it possible for some materials created by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the nation’s foreign broadcasting agency, to be disseminated in the U.S.

THE FACTS:
A post circulating on Facebook with a photo of Obama falsely states he repealed a ban on government propaganda in the U.S. when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act in 2013. The amendment did not repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, but rather lifted some restrictions on the domestic dissemination of government-funded media.

The change essentially eased restrictions for Americans who want to access government-funded media content, allowing media produced by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, to be made available to Americans “upon request.”

That was not possible before the law was changed. “Even upon request, if I wanted to get it through FOIA, for instance, they couldn’t do it. The amendment changed that,” said Gabe Rottman, director of the Reporters Committee’s Technology and Press Freedom Project.

Under the previous law, the agency’s content, including radio broadcasts from Voice of America, were banned from dissemination in the U.S. However, Americans were still able to access much of the content online.

“There was essentially a de facto ban on the domestic dissemination of materials originating from the State Department,” said Weston Sager, an attorney who published a paper on the change in law.

Under the new law, it is still against the law for government-funded media to create programming and market their content to U.S. audiences.

Versions of the claim accusing Obama of legalizing propaganda have circulated on Twitter and Facebook since around the time the law was passed. The meme attempts to link Obama to the spread of misinformation.

During consideration of the bill, critics voiced concern that lifting the restrictions could result in information designed to influence foreign audiences being used against American citizens. Proponents countered that the ban made it difficult for Americans to access and evaluate this content.

The U.S. government created the agency now known as the U.S. Agency for Global Media during World War II to broadcast American-centric programming to foreign audiences. With an $805 million annual operating budget, agency oversees five media networks that reach millions of viewers and listeners abroad.

“When it was first passed in 1948, the ban wasn’t even about protecting the public from propaganda,” Emily Metzgar, professor at The Media School at Indiana University, told The Associated Press. “The ban was about protecting a nascent broadcast industry in the United States in the early post-war years… . But these restrictions became framed as something that was about preventing the poison within those agencies from being distributed to the American public.”

.... Glad I decided to check them after I posted the bill above. Answered a lot of the questions I would have had.[/QUOTE]
 

eddiefromthecrunch

Active Member
He had an extramarital affair with a young, barely legal intern, and then he lied about it under oath. I held the man in extremely high regard. Then I didn’t.
Over a blow job? I don't think I would have done that but it was still only a blow job. Probably the most expensive blow job of all time at that. I'm only glad he didn't inhale, if he had, it could have led to even more blow jobs or maybe even worse. Since Bill and I weren't sexually involved at the time it didn't seem to bother me
 

DeadHeadX

Well-Known Member
Over a blow job? I don't think I would have done that but it was still only a blow job. Probably the most expensive blow job of all time at that. I'm only glad he didn't inhale, if he had, it could have led to even more blow jobs or maybe even worse. Since Bill and I weren't sexually involved at the time it didn't seem to bother me
Honestly, it’s not the blowjob or even the cheating, and I understand the act in itself was a small thing on any political scale, but it opened my eyes to other truths I had ignored and myths I had bought into. I felt quite liberated as soon as I no longer felt pressure to fall in line with any political party.

More concerning to me in the Clinton incident was a man taking advantage of his position of leadership and mentorship over a young and impressionable person to get sexual favors. I fire that dude if he works for me, no questions asked. I’m also big on owning your errors. He lied and lied and lied. Sure it was only a blowjob, but it also revealed his character, which was clearly quite poor.
 
Top