SAJ-99
Well-known member
Is it a choice between more or less freedom or is it a choice about who gets what freedoms? You have pointed out that freedoms are constrained and limited all the time in the interest of getting some order in this mess.
More or Less Informed?
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Feel free to mix issues, it's the internet of course, but I haven't shared my views on such other topics.
Freedom is not anarchy. It is crazy that both the left and the right seem to wish for a strong arm govt to make everything work the way they think it should. History suggests that is a poor choice, but wow is it popular these days.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
We were talking about speech, not the wisdom of zoning, etc. I believe speech should be free of govt control - call me a kook I guess. Amazing how in 20 years such a fundamental right has become an evil to be regulated. The 1A is the entire point of a free country - all the rest is window dressing.
I wonder what TR would be saying about the open borders & multiculturalism of the left these days??
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." - Theodore Roosevelt
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,300
I'm pretty sure I included absolute. You know, no rules, laws whatsoever. That would be on the opposite end of a strong armed dictatorship.
I'm not for either end of the spectrum. But, you are the one saying you ALWAYS chose freedom. That implies few if any rules or laws.
The market has shown that the removal of sensible guidelines for broadcasting is needed because of how they operated.
Their right to lie to the American people does not supersede my rights.
Every other right is regulated. The first as much as any other. I would say that because the right of free speech is sacred, we must ensure those who can talk the loudest not simply drown all others out.
We seem to treat "freedom from regulation" as critical as individual freedoms. Those are not equal in any aspect. That's the quickest way to trade a master that answers to we, the people for a master that only answers to his board of directors.
I value my signature line, no doubt, though our border garbage goes heavy, HEAVY, into the political weeds type thread and this thread is more or less discussing whether today is more or less informed that pre internet.
On the topic of this thread;
I find it interesting, looking back at the corrupt nature of agenda driven "news" from our American civil war era political presidential advertising and "media" released info - it was so darn ugly it was a contributing factor for the most American lives lost of any war. An estimated 425 lives lost per day!
Misinformation Was a Problem During the Civil War, Too
While the platforms that help today’s untruths snowball and spread are often decidedly modern, the problem itself is nothing new
"Civil War-era newspapers rarely listed a reporter’s name on an article. In the 1800s, each newspaper was considered a collective voice and reporters contributed anonymously to that perspective. The lack of personal accountability made it easy for reporters to slip a fake article into the columns. Readers had no idea if the shocking piece had been written by one of their most trusted correspondents or a rascal or even a spy."
Interesting relation of information/misinformation. Were they more or less informed then vs today?
To each his/her own.
It really boils down to people who simply slurp what is offered and those who want the best info available to make informed decisions.
The reality is out there. The propaganda is ever present.
3855WIN
Well-known member
Here’s an example of how an organization can instantly reach out to the public in the internet age. They don’t need to wait around for a newspaper or tv station to pick up the story. Also, the message is THEIR message. Not filtered through traditional media.
3855WIN
Well-known member
Who defines what is a lie? The msm and intelligence community combined to debunk the Hunter laptop story. Turns out, it was his laptop. Of course, the intelligence community knew it was Hunters all along. Should our intelligence organizations be the definers of truth? They are the government , after all.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
The lie only has to be propagated long enough for the office of power to be attained and the attention span to expire. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the cognitive acuity obfuscation to be reborn. Probably a combo of money raised and choreographed ‘interviews’.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,300
This can apply to each candidate equally.
The radio interviews that Biden did with two black radio hosts were with 8 pre approved questions from the WH, and they could ask any 4 of them. Clearly that is lame in the extreme.
The interview with Biden last night did not assuage my concerns, at all. IMO, Biden's ego and diminished intellect make it so he can't see the obvious.
Trump is not hitting on every cylinder either. Hence all of the talk about electric boats and sharks, and dinner with Hannibal Lector. You can add in he has done enough shady things to cost a fortune in legal fees. It is only fitting than so many of his attorneys find themselves disbarred.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Please do not rely on Rudy Giuliani for the truth. I can’t figure out why anyone cares about Hunter’s laptop or the true size of the crowd at a Trump event. The only explanation is they need that to support some view they have and don’t want to change. People can be more informed, but they seek out irrelevant information and try to pretend it is relevant or straight lies because they don’t want to change and solving problems is hard. The media isn’t driving the narrative, it’s responding to it.
3855WIN
Well-known member
10% to the Big Guy from the Chinese isn’t irrelevant.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It is to me. I doubt it is true. If Republican Congressional investigations can’t come up with anything, I can assume there is nothing material. And it’s not like our relationship with China is getting better, so this hard to square the circle.
The Saudi’s put $2 in Jared Kushner real estate fund. Seems a little more suspicious if you are looking for potential areas of corruption. But honestly, I don’t even care about it that much. It doesn’t affect the real problems we have and the policy changes we need to agree on to move toward solutions.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
This is the first time it has been attributed as equal application, in the press or, by many, on this forum.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
You’re way smarter than that, the media is absolutely driving the narrative. They are absolutely an accomplice to having kept Joe in the basement. Smart people filter the Rudy obsequious fluff and look at the facts. The marionettes behind the curtains aren’t Rudies.
If Liittle Guy’s laptop wasn’t relevant why was a govt agency weaponized to perjure a false narrative?
Yessir, the fix ain’t easy when the fix is in.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
And most importantly, to quote Buzz…the buck stops at Penn Ave.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Ridiculous. The media gives us what we ask for because they make money on every click. If they were so smart, Joe would still be in the basement.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
There are two medias in the country today. The 90% that chase clicks and $$$ (think MSNBC & Fox) - and the 10% that has decided their role is to shape society in their own woke image (think NYTimes).
Similar threads
