Rage

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
You guys have forgotten this fact:

Feb 27 at a private lunch in NC, Sen Burr tells his suck-boys that this is as contagious as 1918 flu.

"There's one thing that I can tell you about this: It is much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history,"
All the congressional leadership knew about this, the democrats spoke out franticly and the publicans remained silent or supported bullshit. Trump committed 2nd degree mass murder as did some red state governors, with Trump it can be proved using the Woodward recordings. The republicans aided and abetted mass murder, they sold out their voters over fear of a fucking mean tweet from the great leader. Human life is sold cheaply by the thousands in Trump's America. He turned America into a bankrupt Hellhole of a graveyard in just 4 very short humiliating years, 4 more years would finish you and threaten my county's security and economy.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
You said journalists are morally exempt from reporting life saving information to the public in a timely manner for sundry personal reasons.

I'm not trying to disagree with your opinion on that or change your mind, just trying to understand it a bit by prying in a discussion forum.

Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?
Is he a journalist anymore? I thought he was just a writer these days.

Also I think you are putting words into my mouth, which is yet another troll tactic.
 

22elar

Well-Known Member
Is he a journalist anymore? I thought he was just a writer these days.

Also I think you are putting words into my mouth, which is yet another troll tactic.
Would it matter really when its such a dire matter of life and death? I dont have a personal opinion of Bob Woodward either way, but wouldnt it have been super awesome if he came out 8 months ago with trumps little confession about c19 in the interest of saving lives? I cant think of any reason not to honestly but got a LOT of backlash for daring pose that scenario and it's truly baffling.

I've tried to paraphrase what you and others by saying "I'm hearing" this or "your saying" that in the interest of time for sure. I'm pretty sure its accurate, I looked back for reference.

Notice I haven't thrown out a "you're hearing" this or "your kind" that because one, its distasteful and two I have no psychic ability to know what you're individually thinking unless you type it in a post.
 

MickFoster

Well-Known Member
I don't agree, he has accelerated history, every struggle has these periods, the more intense the struggle the more far reaching the change. I think Donald is leading the republicans over a cliff and screaming on fire into the abyss, new laws and reforms are coming and the SCOTUS will be expanded if required as can the lower courts, word is they are short by lots of seats. I think the GOP could lose so badly federally and in the states that constitutional change might be possible by 2022. If the democrats win enough senate seats they can investigate and impeach Kavanagh for perjury, in fact impeachment is a political act, not a legal one and they could impeach other conservative justices too. The democrats will have total power for a decade after this debacle and demographic changes will drive old Dixie down for good.

The USA has 20 years or more of catching up to do with other western democracies in terms of legal reform. H.R.-1 will remove many of the republicans advantages, but the real test will be taking FOX news off the air permanently and breaking up or regulating facebook. You must kill the information ecosystem that fuels and supports this bullshit.
I agree 100% with everything you have said, except the last 1-1/2 sentences.
I believe in freedom of speech.......... whether I agree with the opinion or even if I know it's a lie. Freedom is for everyone........even the assholes.
Attempting to eliminate FOX news, or any social network that voices a different opinion than mine makes us like them and we become what we were trying to prevent.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I agree 100% with everything you have said, except the last 1-1/2 sentences.
I believe in freedom of speech.......... whether I agree with the opinion or even if I know it's a lie. Freedom is for everyone........even the assholes.
Attempting to do anything like this makes us like them and we become what we were trying to prevent.
Fox news broke existing regulations and law, they behaved and are behaving as a public menace, spreading Russian disinformation and deliberately spreading disinformation about covid. They are not suppose to be a propaganda arm of the RNC and Trump, their responsibility lies with the public, or so says the law. Foxnews killed as many people as Trump and if it is proven with a fair investigation and FCC hearing they should lose their license.

As for face book, they are subject to antitrust laws and should be along with many others, they meet the criteria established over a century ago. Also established a over a century ago is the precedent that you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. Facebook reaches and influences more Americans than all the broadcasters combined and they take Russian money for ads that interfere in the election, they need to be regulated by the FCC. Only social media platforms over a certain size would be subject to regulation. America just needs facts and truth, everybody can have their own opinion based on them, alternative hate fueled realities are a political disaster for America.

In a democracy the public needs factual information to make decisions, the quality of our decisions is dependent on the quality of the information we have to work with
 
Last edited:

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Would it matter really when its such a dire matter of life and death? I dont have a personal opinion of Bob Woodward either way, but wouldnt it have been super awesome if he came out 8 months ago with trumps little confession about c19 in the interest of saving lives? I cant think of any reason not to honestly but got a LOT of backlash for daring pose that scenario and it's truly baffling.
I don't think it is a bad question or that it doesn't require actual thoughtful discussion. I am saying we knew all of it in a timely fashion through actual news sources, we just didn't have Trump's own words being thrown back at him, but that doesn't mean that we didn't have actual information saying the same thing. Woodward wouldn't have actually added any secret information. Unless I am wrong, have you looked at what was said and when it was taped by Woodward? I haven't looked at all his tapes yet and looked at when we knew what (using AP).

I've tried to paraphrase what you and others by saying "I'm hearing" this or "your saying" that in the interest of time for sure. I'm pretty sure its accurate, I looked back for reference.

Notice I haven't thrown out a "you're hearing" this or "your kind" that because one, its distasteful and two I have no psychic ability to know what you're individually thinking unless you type it in a post.
It is hard to tune out all the noise online and have actual conversations. Please don't lump me in with 'you and others', I try really hard to accept people as being real and not troll. Usually when I try to joke around is when I am being a troll and know it is time to disengage from the nonsense. Trolls are endless, it is impossible to keep up.
 

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
Pretty sure The Constitution specifically mentions the press for exactly this reason.
you didn't answer my hypothetical ?:

the DOTUS sweared to this
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 

MickFoster

Well-Known Member
Fox news broke existing regulations and law, they behaved and are behaving as a public menace, spreading Russian disinformation and deliberately spreading disinformation about covid. They are not suppose to be a propaganda arm of the RNC and Trump, their responsibility lies with the public, or so says the law. Foxnews killed as many people as Trump and if it is proven with a fair investigation and FCC hearing they should lose their license.

As for face book, they are subject to antitrust laws and should be along with many others, they meet the criteria established over a century ago. Also established a over a century ago is the precedent that you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. Facebook reaches and influences more American than all the broadcasters combined and they take Russian money for ads that interfere in the election, they need to be regulated by the FCC. Only social media platforms over a certain size would be subject to regulation. America just needs facts and truth, everybody can have their own opinion based on them, alternative hate fueled realities are a political disaster for America.

In a democracy the public needs factual information to make decisions, the quality of our decisions is dependent on the quality of the information we have to work with
I agree, and if any laws or regulations are broken, the company or persons should be penalized according to their offense.
However, I believe anyone has the right to say what they like as long as it doesn't break any laws or regulations.......or endanger lives.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Pretty sure The Constitution specifically mentions the press for exactly this reason.
Tell that to old walrus face.

https://apnews.com/article/f6926cad6adc85a7249d881ab93c0965
Screen Shot 2020-09-26 at 6.19.23 PM.png
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration sued former national security adviser John Bolton on Tuesday to delay the publication of a book that the White House says contains classified information and that is expected to paint an unfavorable portrait of the president’s foreign policy decision-making.

The civil lawsuit in Washington’s federal court follows warnings from President Donald Trump that Bolton could face a “criminal problem” if he doesn’t halt plans to publish the book, which is scheduled for release next week.

The complaint is the latest salvo in a contentious relationship between Trump and the hawkish Bolton, who was abruptly forced from the White House last September after repeated disagreements on national security matters. It moves their rift into court, where a judge will be asked to decide whether Bolton short-circuited proper procedures to get his book on the market — something his lawyer and publisher have strongly denied.

His publisher, Simon & Schuster, called the lawsuit “nothing more than the latest in a long running series of efforts by the administration to quash publication of a book it deems unflattering to the president.” It said in a statement Tuesday evening that Bolton had worked with White House officials to address their concerns, and that it “fully supports his First Amendment right” to tell his story.

Similarly, Bolton’s attorney, Chuck Cooper, has said Bolton worked for months with classification specialists to avoid releasing classified material. He has accused the White House of using national security information as a pretext to censor Bolton.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department administration contends that the former adviser did not complete a pre-publication review to ensure that the manuscript did not contain classified material. It requests that a federal court order Bolton to “instruct or request” that his publisher further delay publication of the book to allow for a completion of the national security review process and to “retrieve and dispose” of existing copies in a manner acceptable to the government.

The Justice Department also is seeking to prevent Bolton from profiting off the book, particularly if he “refuses to complete the prepublication review process and obtain the required prior written authorization before proceeding with publishing the book.”

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argues that Bolton’s job meant he “regularly came into possession of some of the most sensitive classified information that exists in the U.S. government.” Officials said Bolton’s manuscript was more than 500 pages and was “rife with classified information, which he proposed to release to the world.”

“The United States is not seeking to censor any legitimate aspect of Defendant’s manuscript; it merely seeks an order requiring Defendant to complete the prepublication review process and to take all steps necessary to ensure that only a manuscript that has been officially authorized through that process — and is thus free of classified information — is disseminated publicly,” the lawsuit says.

Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” was supposed to be released in March. Its release date was twice delayed and it is now set to be released next week by Simon & Schuster.

“Bolton covers an array of topics — chaos in the White House, sure, but also assessments of major players, the president’s inconsistent, scattershot decision-making process, and his dealings with allies and enemies alike, from China, Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, Iran, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany,” according to the publisher.

“I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by reelection calculations,” Bolton writes in the book, according to a news release from the publisher.

The book has been highly anticipated for months, especially after news broke during Trump’s impeachment trial that the manuscript offered a vivid account of the president’s efforts to freeze military aid to Ukraine until the country assisted with investigations into Trump’s political rival Joe Biden. Those allegations formed the crux of the impeachment case, which ended in February with the president’s acquittal in the Senate.

Cooper did not immediately return an email seeking comment on the lawsuit Tuesday. He has previously said that he sent Bolton’s manuscript to White House classification specialist Ellen Knight in late December and that Knight and Bolton spent nearly four months going through the book multiple times, “often line by line.”

According to the lawsuit, Knight completed her review in late April and determined that the manuscript draft did not contain classified information.

But early the next month, Michael Ellis, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, began an additional review of the manuscript and found classified information in it, the lawsuit says. The review was still ongoing earlier this month when media reports revealed that Bolton intended to move forward with his book.

In a statement Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union said the lawsuit is “doomed to fail.” Ben Wizner, the director of the organization’s speech, privacy and technology project, said the Supreme Court had rejected a half-century ago the Nixon administration’s efforts to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and said it is well-established that prior restraints on publication are unconstitutional.

“As usual, the government’s threats have nothing to do with safeguarding national security, and everything to do with avoiding scandal and embarrassment,” Wizner said.
When that didn't work Trump is threatening shenanigans about him getting charges pressed.

 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I agree, and if any laws or regulations are broken, the company or persons should be penalized according to their offense.
However, I believe anyone has the right to say what they like as long as it doesn't break any laws or regulations.......or endanger lives.
True, but it might be made illegal to call it news, news meets professional journalistic standards and practices, journalism is a profession and academic study. Opinions are like assholes, but if you use public media (airwaves or internet) facts should matter, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not your own facts. We in Canada are subject to the same issues, only we worry about Russian disinformation coming from unregulated American social media, and corrupt broadcasters, so do other modern multicultural societies.

People believe bullshit because it is feed to them by the spoonful, you don't have a difference of political opinion in a America, you have a cold civil war against the constitution. This war is fueled by race hate and fostered with disinformation by enemies both foreign and domestic, in fact they are allied together against the constitution. It's not even about Trump anymore, he made it about the constitution with his disqualifying remarks about no peaceful transfer of power.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
At last, a scientific explanation of what happened to Texas and why they elect Louie Gohmert types. Don't drink the water or you might end up a Trumper.


Texas residents warned of tap water tainted with brain-eating microbe
  • Communities around Houston are potentially contaminated
  • Naegleria fowleri enters body through nose, travels to brain
 

22elar

Well-Known Member
you didn't answer my hypothetical ?:

the DOTUS sweared to this
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I already agreed with that premise, I will again if you wish.
 
Top