Executive Power Run Amok

[txradioguy]

Well see there, you trivialize it.   Instead of seeing it accurately for the threat it is  (D@mn near electing a corrupt psychotic hate witch)   you characterize it as "writing mean stories about Donny."


   You are missing the forest for the trees.

And you're ignoring the obvious.  Guess that makes us even.

[DiogenesLamp]

I prefer to leave them in their stupor....it serves as a nice contrast in here.   For comedy relief, etc..

Thinkers vs. Haters.   Just like on the street.

Makes me think I stumbled onto a "Mother Jones"  website.   

[MOD3]

Makes me think I stumbled onto a "Mother Jones"  website.   

Not unless someone here forgot to pay the bill and suddenly www.gopbriefingroom.com is being redirected to www.motherjones.com

Can't be that, @mystery-ak says we're paid up to the hosting company.

Guess it's just your imagination.

Now knock it off.

[XenaLee]

This is what I mean when I talk about seeing further.   We have censorship now.   Virtually the entire media world is controlled by Liberal Democrats in New York and Los Angeles.   


They CENSOR now!   This has been demonstrated so many times by various organizations that I wouldn't think I would have to point out the proof of it to any member of a supposed conservative forum.   


The media does *MORE*  damage by censoring news than they do by making up fake stories or histrionically hyping trivial stories to make them appear worse.   


We have state controlled media.  We have state controlled media Censoring news and information right now!   

Pardon  me for butting in here....but..... (lol)....

Censorship....or the concept of.... usually comes from government.  We have no government-ordered censorship of the media.  The leftist media endulges in self-censorship, however.  They, like Pravda of the communist Soviet Union days, only report news that furthers their leftist agenda.  So when you say "We have state-controlled media." (state-controlled indicating government-controlled)....that is an incorrect statement.

Just sayin....

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In other words, you neither know the argument nor how to counter it.

 

[Oceander]

I prefer to leave them in their stupor....it serves as a nice contrast in here.   For comedy relief, etc..

Thinkers vs. Haters.   Just like on the street.

Well, since your posts make it abundantly clear that you don't belong to the former, ....

[DiogenesLamp]

Pardon  me for butting in here....but..... (lol)....

Censorship....or the concept of.... usually comes from government.  We have no government-ordered censorship of the media.  The leftist media endulges in self-censorship, however.  They, like Pravda of the communist Soviet Union days, only report news that furthers their leftist agenda.  So when you say "We have state-controlled media." (state-controlled indicating government-controlled)....that is an incorrect statement.

Just sayin....

The media is censoring news that does not fit their preferred narrative.   Where censorship comes from is irrelevant.  The consequences of censorship are just as bad coming from private media companies as it would be coming directly from the government.   


I will further point out that the monopoly which the "private"  media companies use to freeze out different opinions and damaging information is the licensing system created by the government.   


If you don't own one of these government supplied licenses,  you don't get to broadcast.   If you don't broadcast,  you don't reach the vast majority of people.   


Don't get hung up on artificial lines.   The Deep State and the Media owners are heavily in bed with each other.   It may not be the "official"  government doing the censoring,  but it certainly is the elite class of cronies and influence peddlers who are doing it. 

[txradioguy]

The media is censoring news that does not fit their preferred narrative.   Where censorship comes from is irrelevant.  The consequences of censorship are just as bad coming from private media companies as it would be coming directly from the government.   


I will further point out that the monopoly which the "private"  media companies use to freeze out different opinions and damaging information is the licensing system created by the government.   


If you don't own one of these government supplied licenses,  you don't get to broadcast.   If you don't broadcast,  you don't reach the vast majority of people.   


Don't get hung up on artificial lines.   The Deep State and the Media owners are heavily in bed with each other.   It may not be the "official"  government doing the censoring,  but it certainly is the elite class of cronies and influence peddlers who are doing it.

And what about when this censorship comes from a news source you agree with?

[XenaLee]

The media is censoring news that does not fit their preferred narrative.   Where censorship comes from is irrelevant.  The consequences of censorship are just as bad coming from private media companies as it would be coming directly from the government.   


I will further point out that the monopoly which the "private"  media companies use to freeze out different opinions and damaging information is the licensing system created by the government.   


If you don't own one of these government supplied licenses,  you don't get to broadcast.   If you don't broadcast,  you don't reach the vast majority of people.   


Don't get hung up on artificial lines.   The Deep State and the Media owners are heavily in bed with each other.   It may not be the "official"  government doing the censoring,  but it certainly is the elite class of cronies and influence peddlers who are doing it.

I'm not hung up.  But you might be.   

It's the radical left (sure, they're elitists too) doing the censoring.  But no, it is NOT state-controlled (ie government) or sponsored.

That was my point. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not hung up.  But you might be.   

It's the radical left (sure, they're elitists too) doing the censoring.  But no, it is NOT state-controlled (ie government) or sponsored.

That was my point.

Suppose a private industry was controlling all access to guns.   Would it matter to the outcome that it wasn't the government doing it?   


Why does it make a difference who is doing it?   Shouldn't the issue of concern be that it is being done, not who is doing it?   It is the same threat to civil society no matter how it is accomplished. 

[txradioguy]

Suppose a private industry was controlling all access to guns.   Would it matter to the outcome that it wasn't the government doing it?   

Gun manufacturers already determine how many of what model they are going to make each year.

Thsn is essentially controlling access.

Why does it make a difference who is doing it?   Shouldn't the issue of concern be that it is being done, not who is doing it?   It is the same threat to civil society no matter how it is accomplished.

It makes a difference because you're giving one group of propagandists a pass while condemning another.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The media is censoring news that does not fit their preferred narrative.   Where censorship comes from is irrelevant.

The source of the "censorship" is everything.  The difference is that "censorship" by a private party amounts to the private entity not publishing views with which it disagrees.  Censorship by the government amounts to the government saying that nobody may publish views with which it disagrees.

I will further point out that the monopoly which the "private"  media companies use to freeze out different opinions and damaging information is the licensing system created by the government. 

What licensing system is that?  Broadcast media is dying anyway, and unlicensed cable news is more and more powerful all the time.  The internet permits the free distribution of information, and that too is unlicensed.  Broadcast radio is licensed, but with the removal of the Fairness Doctrine, political content is unregulated.  And conservatives have almost a de facto monopoly there after Air America crashed and burned.  Newspapers and newmagazines are not licensed either.

If you don't own one of these government supplied licenses,  you don't get to broadcast.   If you don't broadcast,  you don't reach the vast majority of people.

Drudge Report.  Discuss.

Look, the problem with what you're saying is that the only solution is to give the government actual power over all of that.  The cure is much, much worse than the disease.

[libertybele]

What specific Executive power is Trump using that constitutes "running amok"?  I truly don't understand how he's not acting directly under the auspices of delegated Congressional authority in terms of immigration.  People may not like what he's doing, or may think it is dumb.  But I just don't see him taking power that isn't is.

Exactly.   

[DiogenesLamp]

The source of the "censorship" is everything.  The difference is that "censorship" by a private party amounts to the private entity not publishing views with which it disagrees.  Censorship by the government amounts to the government saying that nobody may publish views with which it disagrees.

To the best interests of the public,  what difference does it make who is censoring their news?  They are still being deprived of essential information which they need to make informed decisions.   


I think we need to get down to a more fundamental understanding of the purpose of the first amendment in a Republic.    I believe it was accurately summed up by Benjamin Franklin. 

Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.

If truth and error do not have fair play,  then how are the public supposed to make good decisions?   If all they are permitted to hear is error,  (fake news)   then how can a Democratic Republic function?   

What licensing system is that?  Broadcast media is dying anyway, and unlicensed cable news is more and more powerful all the time. 

The broadcasting licenses built the empire upon which the current media system imposes it's will.  Call it "fruit of a poisoned tree"  if you are familiar with the reference.   

Broadcast radio is licensed, but with the removal of the Fairness Doctrine, political content is unregulated.  And conservatives have almost a de facto monopoly there after Air America crashed and burned. 

 

And what portion of the population obtains most of their information in this manner?  Is it significant compared to the numbers that get their information from the boob tube?  The needs of the nation are that the people be informed with as accurate of information as possible.   




 

Drudge Report.  Discuss.

Rush Limbaugh used to say that his tiny radio show "balanced"  the left wing media.   That was a joke.   It wasn't intended to be taken seriously.   If you think "Drudge"  and any other websites balances the trillion dollars in media assets the other side has,   you are not looking at the problem accurately.   

Look, the problem with what you're saying is that the only solution is to give the government actual power over all of that.  The cure is much, much worse than the disease.

I haven't said that at all in this thread.   You are trying to apply a previous discussion in which I asked for ideas on how to deal with a liberal monopoly, to this thread.   You also conflated my idea of a "board of governors"  to "The Government"   when in fact that is not the same thing at all. 


I am saying that allowing censorship of information is detrimental to the best interests of the nation,  regardless of who is responsible for censoring this information.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So who do we blame for making it worse when the democrats retake the white house?

What are you saying?  The Dems made the precedent so we should be scared by following a precedent as it will be worse?  Do not follow your reasoning.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In other words, you neither know the argument nor how to counter it.

Negative.  Source of information means Everything.

You are one of those who happen to believe that you believe a story from Pravda equally with a story from the WSJ?

Then do I have a nice piece of waterfront in Tempe for you to consider buying....

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not sure how to ping someone to a thread,   but I would like to notify Maj. Bill Martin of my attempt to engage in further discussion on this matter. 



After having thought about it for awhile,  I have tried to condense my point into as clear and concise a manner as I am able. 


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

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

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

To ping someone it's @ and username like @Weird Tolkienish Figure .


To answer your question, censorship by corporations is more tolerable because there are alternatives where you can find that information if you want to. If government commits censorship, that's pretty much it.

[txradioguy]

Negative.  Source of information means Everything.

You are one of those who happen to believe that you believe a story from Pravda equally with a story from the WSJ?

Then do I have a nice piece of waterfront in Tempe for you to consider buying....

Ummm you just proved what @HonestJohn was saying is correct.  Your response does nothing to address what he said.

[DiogenesLamp]

@Maj. Bill Martin

To ping someone it's @ and username like @Weird Tolkienish Figure .


To answer your question, censorship by corporations is more tolerable because there are alternatives where you can find that information if you want to. If government commits censorship, that's pretty much it.

You mean you can currently.  What makes you think that teeny tiny door stays open?  Have you not been seeing what Google and Fascist book and Twitter have been doing?   Have you not been hearing about the various efforts to control the internet distribution of "fake news."   


In the Nazi state,  there was huge collaboration between corporate entities and the government.   The lines were blurred.  One became tantamount to the other. 


My point is that censorship is a threat to the nation no matter how it is accomplished.   The danger to the Republic remains the same if it is imposed by government,  or by corporate monopoly.   


And given enough time,  the two entities become the same thing. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Maj. Bill Martin



You mean you can currently.  What makes you think that teeny tiny door stays open?  Have you not been seeing what Google and Fascist book and Twitter have been doing?   Have you not been hearing about the various efforts to control the internet distribution of "fake news."   


In the Nazi state,  there was huge collaboration between corporate entities and the government.   The lines were blurred.  One became tantamount to the other. 


My point is that censorship is a threat to the nation no matter how it is accomplished.   The danger to the Republic remains the same if it is imposed by government,  or by corporate monopoly.   


And given enough time,  the two entities become the same thing.

What are you going to do, compel news organizations to cover things they don't want to cover?

[DiogenesLamp]

What are you going to do, compel news organizations to cover things they don't want to cover?

I have been soliciting suggestions as to what to do about it for quite awhile.   I've thought of all sorts of ideas,   but the ideas I have come up with are irrelevant if we can't decide that something needs to be done about censorship.   


So long as we are okay with corporate/government censorship,  it doesn't matter about the ideas to fight it. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Ummm you just proved what @HonestJohn was saying is correct.  Your response does nothing to address what he said.

Cycles of logic wherein the end meets the source is your strong suit.  Keep at it.

[Bigun]

What are you going to do, compel news organizations to cover things they don't want to cover?

Seems to me they have two choices.  They can cover the news!  ALL of it!  or they can stop calling themselves a NEWS organizations! 

The TRUTH is that most of them stopped being NEWS organizations long ago and became propaganda organizations instead!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Seems to me they have two choices.  They can cover the news!  ALL of it!  or they can stop calling themselves a NEWS organizations! 

The TRUTH is that most of them stopped being NEWS organizations long ago and became propaganda organizations instead!

Yeah but that wasn't what Diogenes was talking about.