Executive Power Run Amok

[DiogenesLamp]

I asked:

Why is government Censorship intolerable yet censorship by their corporate allies who are in bed with them acceptable? 

You responded:

Private property Rights; Free Political Speech.

Those are slogans that do not address the threat to democracy and civil society which censorship posses. 


Slaves used to be private property rights.  Inciting a riot used to be a free speech right.   We now recognize these "rights"  went too far. 


We have to be mature in our understanding of how these rights fit into the rest of the system of natural law.   They don't exist as independent Islands,  they exist as part of the framework,  and it is that natural law framework that is threatened by allowing censorship,  regardless of how and under what pretext it is achieved.   

[DiogenesLamp]

To txradioguy:

That's one theory.  My theory is that you don't actually understand what I posted above.  Of course you could disprove my theory easily by explaining what I posted above.

That's what I thought. 

[driftdiver]

Private property Rights; Free Political Speech.

@INVAR
@DiogenesLamp

Corporations are run by people, people with agendas, goals, strengths and weaknesses.   Corporations by themselves don't make decisions; the people running them do.  When it comes to Big business those people frequently conspire together with other big business and with government to further their mutual agenda.   The common shareholder has little to no input and the majority of ownership is institutional or by major investors.

Our capitalist system & freedom is being destroyed from within by globalists and naivete.    People will fight to defend the rights of a multi-national corporation to say and do what it wants under the guide of "property rights" & "free speech".  Meanwhile the people in control of those multi-national organizations are fighting to destroy our freedoms and even our existence as a nation.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I wish people would wake up.

[txradioguy]

That's one theory.  My theory is that you don't actually understand what I posted above.  Of course you could disprove my theory easily by explaining what I posted above.

I understand completely what you posted above.

But there is no explaining anything to someone so entrenched in hand wringing hysterical lunacy as you are.

You will never look at this subject with a clear eye or mind.

No bit of factual evidence will convince you...you're too entrenched in your subliminal messaging censorship voodoo.

People smarter than me on this thread have explained to you that there is no Governmental censorship...that news outlets are free to cover whatever news story they want however they want...it's up to thinking people to decide if they believe it or not.

You read that and just wrap the tinfoil tighter.

I and others have pointed out the hypocrisy of your theory by how you completely ignore the propaganda machine that is Drudge Report and Fox News.

Again why is it ok for one side to do this and bad for the other side?

If you want to go and see fake news...check out the Drudge smear thread where Breitbart and Drudge falsely tar every Republican who isn't named Trump for allegedly taking Soros money....when they didn't.

[DiogenesLamp]

@INVAR
@DiogenesLamp

Corporations are run by people, people with agendas, goals, strengths and weaknesses.   Corporations by themselves don't make decisions; the people running them do.  When it comes to Big business those people frequently conspire together with other big business and with government to further their mutual agenda.   The common shareholder has little to no input and the majority of ownership is institutional or by major investors.

Our capitalist system & freedom is being destroyed from within by globalists and naivete.    People will fight to defend the rights of a multi-national corporation to say and do what it wants under the guide of "property rights" & "free speech".  Meanwhile the people in control of those multi-national organizations are fighting to destroy our freedoms and even our existence as a nation.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I wish people would wake up.

You have accurately summarized what I am seeing.   Yes,  people need to wake up.   People with the wealth and power that some of these organizations have can use *their* rights to infringe yours. 


How can *you*  have free speech rights when *they*  control all access to the channels of communication?   


Sure,  you can rant into the wilderness,  but that won't have any political impact.   The ability to have a political impact is THE ENTIRE POINT of the first amendment.

[DiogenesLamp]

I understand completely what you posted above.

Well I see you say so.   I don't see you demonstrate so.   

[driftdiver]

I understand completely what you posted above.

But there is no explaining anything to someone so entrenched in hand wringing hysterical lunacy as you are.

You will never look at this subject with a clear eye or mind.

No bit of factual evidence will convince you...you're too entrenched in your subliminal messaging censorship voodoo.

People smarter than me on this thread have explained to you that there is no Governmental censorship...that news outlets are free to cover whatever news story they want however they want...it's up to thinking people to decide if they believe it or not.

You read that and just wrap the tinfoil tighter.

I and others have pointed out the hypocrisy of your theory by how you completely ignore the propaganda machine that is Drudge Report and Fox News.

Again why is it ok for one side to do this and bad for the other side?

If you want to go and see fake news...check out the Drudge smear thread where Breitbart and Drudge falsely tar every Republican who isn't named Trump for allegedly taking Soros money....when they didn't.

@txradioguy

When Sotomayor was nominated for the Supreme Court most of the media came out singing her accolades.  Hannity put together a montage of what they were saying.   He had about 20 different media sources all saying the same thing.   They all used the words "life experience" and how great hers was.  The actual language was almost identical from every media source.

Now perhaps there wasn't a Govt official standing behind them saying "you must say this", but someone wrote the script and handed it out.   That someone was probably their boss, who had another boss and on up the chain to someone who got a call from someone asking them to push an agenda.

We also KNOW that some journalists have admitted to calling the White House for approval before publishing stories.

So perhaps that doesn't meet the definition of Government censorship but its not what most people think of as a Free Press.

[DiogenesLamp]

@txradioguy


So perhaps that doesn't meet the definition of Government censorship but its not what most people think of as a Free Press.

I saw another example of ridiculous Press manipulation earlier today.   I generally watch "Good Morning America"  every morning,  and they would not stop talking about how Elizabeth Warren was shut down by a Senate vote invoking "Rule 19"  which is the rule that states Senators cannot attack the character of other Senators on the Senate floor. 


The media described invoking this rule as "Archaic"  and "seldom Used"  and implied that the Senate dragged this thing out of the distant past to shut down the words of "Corretta Scott King"  whom Warren was reading at the time.   


The reason the rule was "seldom used" is because every freaking one of those Senators knows that attacking the Character of other Senators is absolutely forbidden,  and has always been absolutely forbidden.   


It took a kook bat like Elizabeth Warren to finally break the well understood taboo and thereby trigger the uncommon invocation of the rule against attacking the character of a fellow Senator. 


The media made certain not to clarify any of this.   They wanted to make it look like a Senate Republicans were engaged in a partisan abuse of  the rules so as to silencer her freedom of speech,  and to prevent Martin Luther King's widows letter from being heard.    (A letter accusing Sessions of things back in 1983 which all turned out not to be true,  but the media didn't mention that either.)   




All part of the effort to undermine and de-legitimize Republican control of the House, Senate,  and Executive. 

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

When Sotomayor was nominated for the Supreme Court most of the media came out singing her accolades.  Hannity put together a montage of what they were saying.   He had about 20 different media sources all saying the same thing.   They all used the words "life experience" and how great hers was.  The actual language was almost identical from every media source.

Now perhaps there wasn't a Govt official standing behind them saying "you must say this", but someone wrote the script and handed it out.   That someone was probably their boss, who had another boss and on up the chain to someone who got a call from someone asking them to push an agenda.

We also KNOW that some journalists have admitted to calling the White House for approval before publishing stories.

So perhaps that doesn't meet the definition of Government censorship but its not what most people think of as a Free Press.

Here's my rub with that...it happens to a certain extent with every President no matter the letter by their name.  It always has since this country was founded.

It's common practice for a reporter to give the WH a heads up about a particular piece they are running to a) not let them get caught by surprise about it's being published and b) to see if maybe they'd like to add a quote or an official statement from a WH official if not the President himself.

It's also common practice for a press secretary to dialogue with reporters to try and shape how they write a particular story.

The only real difference between the two parties is the Dems flat out don't try to hide what they are doing. 

The problem myself and others have with the hysterical hand wringing is that 1) it's being made to sound as if the media here is run by the state like in Russia...it's not.  If you want to see a perfect example of what government controlled media looks like....watch Sputnik or RT...THAT is a textbook definition of state controlled media and censorship. 2) the person running around screaming about a vast government/media conspiracy won't listen to reason and won't look at the facts...they are too busy still looking for a skull airbrushed into a piece of ice in a Cutty Sark print ad.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's what I thought.   You are trying to pigeonhole the issue into the category of "conspiracy"  because that is the convenient catch all to discredit an idea. 

 I'm thinking that your understanding of things is not sufficient to discuss complex subjects with you.   


You like your answers to be simple,  like "Conspiracy."   


The fact that all the Universities are bastions of left wing power is not a "conspiracy".   It is a natural consequence of the nature of the left and the nature of Universities.   (Also the fact that the US Government underwrites most of the cost to pay for these very expensive institutions.)   


Invoking "Conspiracy"  is about the understanding level of Dale Gribble. 

[driftdiver]

Here's my rub with that...it happens to a certain extent with every President no matter the letter by their name.  It always has since this country was founded.

It's common practice for a reporter to give the WH a heads up about a particular piece they are running to a) not let them get caught by surprise about it's being published and b) to see if maybe they'd like to add a quote or an official statement from a WH official if not the President himself.

It's also common practice for a press secretary to dialogue with reporters to try and shape how they write a particular story.

The only real difference between the two parties is the Dems flat out don't try to hide what they are doing. 

The problem myself and others have with the hysterical hand wringing is that 1) it's being made to sound as if the media here is run by the state like in Russia...it's not.  If you want to see a perfect example of what government controlled media looks like....watch Sputnik or RT...THAT is a textbook definition of state controlled media and censorship. 2) the person running around screaming about a vast government/media conspiracy won't listen to reason and won't look at the facts...they are too busy still looking for a skull airbrushed into a piece of ice in a Cutty Sark print ad.

@txradioguy

Yes it has happened throughout history.   IMO its different now because of technology and its being used to push the globalist agenda.   People in Obamas administration had close family members in VP positions at ABC.     People go back and forth between govt jobs and media jobs.   Close friendships, business interests and outright corruption on both sides.

The progressives/communists/globalists are using our system to destroy us.  They've been teaching their agenda in the schools for decades so most of those in powerful positions are well indoctrinated.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

Yes it has happened throughout history.   IMO its different now because of technology and its being used to push the globalist agenda.   People in Obamas administration had close family members in VP positions at ABC.     People go back and forth between govt jobs and media jobs.   Close friendships, business interests and outright corruption on both sides.

The progressives/communists/globalists are using our system to destroy us.  They've been teaching their agenda in the schools for decades so most of those in powerful positions are well indoctrinated.

Agreed.  And until the majority of this country decides the Constitution is important again they will continue to do so.

They've been doing this for decades and it will take decades to undo.

But people running around like chicken little proclaiming doom and gloom while wrapping their tinfoil tighter and tighter or screaming "fake news" at every article that comes out that doesn't put a certain political candidate in a glowing light won't solve things.

It's a serious issue that needs a serious approach.

[INVAR]

I asked: Why is government Censorship intolerable yet censorship by their corporate allies who are in bed with them acceptable? 

You responded: Private property Rights; Free Political Speech.

Those are slogans that do not address the threat to democracy and civil society which censorship posses.

Why do self-identifying Conservatives need reminding of late that we are a Republic - NOT a democracy?

Second... Private property Rights and Free Political Speech are just SLOGANS?

Excuse yourself sir, but private property rights and free political speech are some of THE foundational compacts of this former civil society. 

Thirdly, if a private company and/or individual chooses to censor it's product and service they have that inherent right as afforded them by the compact of the civil society that safeguards their private property and liberty to exercise their politics and religion.  Only the power of Government to censor and control news and information is a threat to liberty.  Nothing is stopping an alternative to news and information in this day and age EXCEPT government interference and licensing.

You are simply advocating the same exact thing the Democrat Marxist Left is advocating in terms of using the power of government to squash and surpress information and speech you do not like, just from a different perspective - but the advocation of tyranny it still is.

[INVAR]

When it comes to Big business those people frequently conspire together with other big business and with government to further their mutual agenda.

We used to understand that as Fascism.  Now, as long as it is OUR party and guy on the throne doing it - it is okay.  And we will scream bloody murder when it's the other despot on the throne is doing it - and THEN we will scream 'fascism!'.

It seems EVERYONE wants the government to license and decide what is "legitimate" news and press, and who it is exactly is afforded the protection of 1st Amendment Rights.  The Left wants this, and so do a majority of the Trump folks screaming 'fake news!".

In days past, we saw lots of fake news at the supermarket checkout lane, and we simply chuckled at it and recognized it was just bovine excrement for entertainment, or to persuade the gullible into believing in Bullpuckey - but none of us were insecure enough to want government to label, restrict or employ any action to limit such tabloid trash.  We simply recognized it as tabloid trash.

But today - you have a population fulfilling II Thessalonians 2:11 and Isaiah 30:10 , a people who WANT to be lied to, a people who only want to hear what tickles their ears and sates their own views, while seeking to silence anything that they do not like.

Our capitalist system & freedom is being destroyed from within by globalists and naivete.

It was destroyed in total by a people who allowed themselves to become wholly ignorant of what our foundations and heritage was, and decided to make government their Provider, Arbiter, and Fairness Maker in order to feed their own selfish desires.

People will fight to defend the rights of a multi-national corporation to say and do what it wants under the guide of "property rights" & "free speech". 

Once those are abolished, taking away yours will be a piece of cake - because you know... PRECEDENT.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why do self-identifying Conservatives need reminding of late that we are a Republic - NOT a democracy?

Stop. Just stop.   We don't need an infantile discussion about which word is appropriate.  We are a "Democratic Republic"  and the word "Democracy"  is often used in this context.   Your point is childishly  trivial,  and you shouldn't have wasted both of our time by going down this path. 

It's like nitpicking over spelling.  It does nothing whatsoever to address the real issue. 

Second... Private property Rights and Free Political Speech are just SLOGANS?

In the context in which you are using the terms,  *YES*!   They are nothing but slogans that people like to toss out to "Virtue Signal"  about how much they love America and it's founding principles blah blah blah  ad infinitum.   


The *REAL*  issue of why these rights exist in this country and the purpose which they are intended to serve is just ignored.   Stop arguing with slogans and address the salient point.   


"Freedom of Speech" within the context of the Founders meaning is not possible when all access to the means of speaking to the public are in the hands of a cartel which won't allow dissenting speech access.    They have set themselves up as the gatekeepers of speech to the public,  and if they don't consent,  you don't get to talk to the public.   


Now you can make the childish argument that so long as you can address small crowds of individuals,  this is "free speech",   but considering the impact this will have on the voting public is virtually zero,   it does not meet the function for which the founders envisioned "free speech"  serving.   


Sure,  so long as all are constrained to address the public with printing presses and stump speeches,   this sort of "speech"  is at least equal,  and since at the time there was no better way to do it,  it was acceptable,  but now that technology has made this methodology completely worthless compared to mass communications,    the purpose of "free speech"  can only be served by reestablishing equality between the two sides in a dispute.   



The founders NEVER envisioned a system where one side had such a massive advantage in addressing the public.    The rights they guaranteed were never meant to create such a situation,  but they could not see so far into the future that they could envision such a thing.   



If the evolution of our second amendment rights could replace flintlocks with modern rifles,  and if the printing presses of the day would evolve into the television system of today,   then how can a system in which only one side may possess and use television serve the interest of the first amendment?   

Did they have monopoly licenses on printing presses back then?   


Just as anyone in that era could own and operate a printing press,   should the day come in which anyone can start broadcasting their message on any channel,  that will be the day that you can say we all have equal speech in the Television broadcast system. 


Till then we have the suppression of speech,  not "freedom of speech."

[INVAR]

We don't need an infantile discussion about which word is appropriate. 

Apparently, we do.  Words mean things - and the fact that improper use of the term has created the reality via perception that America is a pure Democracy.

In the context in which you are using the terms,  *YES*!   They are nothing but slogans that people like to toss out to "Virtue Signal"  about how much they love America and it's founding principles blah blah blah  ad infinitum. 

Interesting.   Not long ago, it used to be just Leftists who bash anyone who holds our foundational principles dear, and then castigates them as just 'virtue warriors' trying to make themselves appear patriotic.  Now it is self-identifying Conservatives and Republicans who engage in that same behavior.

"Freedom of Speech" within the context of the Founders meaning is not possible when all access to the means of speaking to the public are in the hands of a cartel which won't allow dissenting speech access.   

Ever hear of the internet?  A blog?  Youtube?  Facebook? FaceTime?  Forum Boards?  Podcasts? Twitter?

It's HORSESHIITE to insist that there is no access to dissent or speak when there are MORE outlets that exist to day to speak one's mind and engage in political speech than there ever was in our history.

Just because some monolithic Fascist Media outlets want to go back to their monopoly and the Trump people want to label anything not in total obeisance to Trump as "fake News" is simply the same zeitgeist that wants to empower government to impose "Equal time" and/or quash dissenting opinions.

They have set themselves up as the gatekeepers of speech to the public,  and if they don't consent,  you don't get to talk to the public.   

More Horseshiite.  I'm speaking to the public right now.  Trump uses Twitter to bypass the "gatekeepers" as you reference them.

Now you can make the childish argument that so long as you can address small crowds of individuals,  this is "free speech",   but considering the impact this will have on the voting public is virtually zero,   it does not meet the function for which the founders envisioned "free speech"  serving.....now that technology has made this methodology completely worthless compared to mass communications,    the purpose of "free speech"  can only be served by reestablishing equality between the two sides in a dispute.  The founders NEVER envisioned a system where one side had such a massive advantage in addressing the public.    The rights they guaranteed were never meant to create such a situation,  but they could not see so far into the future that they could envision such a thing.   

That entire argument is as stupid, idiotic and moronic as the imbeciles who insist that the Founders never envisioned machine guns and  bazookas in the hands of regular people and therefore the Second Amendment needs to be repealed or redefined.  "It's not fair that the neighbor's have full-auto MP4s and all I have is a shotgun" - so we need government to limit access and possession of anything deemed not fair.

Government CANNOT establish "equality".  Attempts to do so is nothing less than imposing TYRANNY.

If the evolution of our second amendment rights could replace flintlocks with modern rifles,  and if the printing presses of the day would evolve into the television system of today,   then how can a system in which only one side may possess and use television serve the interest of the first amendment? 

Are you truly going to go there?

You did. 

And you're going to lecture me on childishness?

Just as anyone in that era could own and operate a printing press,   should the day come in which anyone can start broadcasting their message on any channel,  that will be the day that you can say we all have equal speech in the Television broadcast system.

You ever hear of YOUTUBE?  More people view YOUTUBE videos than broadcast TV.  And it is always accessible, not broadcast and into the archive ether. 

CRTV and other streaming-based choices are springing up almost weekly.  The old broadcast media dinosaur is DYING and they want their monopoly back,  and it's sickening that Trump supporters that pass themselves off as Conservatives are advocating the need to impose 'fairness' on a broadcast industry simply because they do not like their bias.

You're advocating government meddling with PRIVATE property and industry to impose FAIRNESS. 

Which is exactly what the Left does. 

Till then we have the suppression of speech,  not "freedom of speech."

You have no clue what you are taking about, and sound like a Leftist moron.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is now a Herculean task to demonstrate the fallacy of everything you said,  and most especially if it has to be done in terms you can understand.   


You and I are most definitely not on the same scale of understanding or perception.   You live in a simplistic world of easily digestible ideas that don't accurately reflect the real world. 


"YouTube"  (Which Google Censors)   being an equalizer for ABC News?    CBS News?  NBC News? CNN?   And so on?   


You play with model rockets and pretend you have an ICBM.   


I don't believe you are serious enough to argue with. 

[INVAR]

You live in a simplistic world of easily digestible ideas that don't accurately reflect the real world. 
I don't believe you are serious enough to argue with.

Spoken exactly as a liberal Leftist would rebut what I replied.  Why in in the world are you emulating their debate tactics?

It is now a Herculean task to demonstrate the fallacy of everything you said

Right.  Because in your worldview, government CAN impose fairness and equality and anyone calling that tyranny is engaging in fallacy?

Gotcha.