Executive Power Run Amok

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@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?

Those sites can be closed. But their remains all the other websites out there, news articles, etc..  Our message can still get out, and the more technology progresses, the tougher it will be silence dissenting voices.  Unless we get the government involved.

Have you not been hearing about the various efforts to control the internet distribution of "fake news."

Now that is something completely different, and it seems to me you are much closer to advocating something like that than I am.  If the government is never given power to regulate media content -- which is something you want to give it because you think it will help us -- then it can't shut down "fake news".

You want to hand a loaded gun to the government, disarm the rest of use, and trust them to use it wisely.  I don't.

The government should never, ever, be given the power to regulate the content of political speech.  In any manner.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those sites can be closed. But their remains all the other websites out there, news articles, etc..  Our message can still get out, and the more technology progresses, the tougher it will be silence dissenting voices.  Unless we get the government involved.

  You skipped right over my "crux of the controversy"  question,  and went straight to what you have misremembered about what we had discussed weeks ago.    Can we take up the conversation with the main point I am asking about now rather than  you continuing to react against what you thought I was saying weeks ago?



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

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You skipped right over my "crux of the controversy"  question,  and went straight to what you have misremembered about what we had discussed weeks ago.    Can we take up the conversation with the main point I am asking about now rather than  you continuing to react against what you thought I was saying weeks ago?

Hmm.  I'm sensing some hostility here, which I don't quite understand.  I thought I was discussing this with you civilly, and in good faith.

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

I don't know why you're claiming that I didn't address this.  This was from my post to you earlier in this thread:

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 also ran down a long list of ways that conservatives still have to get their message out despite the refusal of some private outlets to disseminate our message.  And as long as Citizens United stays in force, we'll still have the ability to buy time.  Or even publish/disseminate directly.

You also pointed to Nazi Germany, and collaboration by some in the private sector and the government.  But that's ignoring how it was the state's monopoly on the use of force that truly ended dissent.  Whether it was brownshirts in the streets, or the Enabling Act of 1933, the ability of the government to suppress dissent was essential to stifling opposition views.  Having friendly media wasn't enough because there was always unfriendly media willing to print.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hmm.  I'm sensing some hostility here, which I don't quite understand.  I thought I was discussing this with you civilly, and in good faith.

It's not hostility,  I like you and consider you one of the most rational members of this site,  it is frustration.   We have a difference of opinion as to whether or not an "Elected board of Governors"  is the same thing as "Government",  but you have twice referred to this idea as "government control"   which I think is not the same thing that people normally regard as "government."  Is a board of regents the same as the government?   

 You also respond as if it is the only idea I have suggested,  and it isn't.   


Also I am frustrated that my central point isn't being addressed.   I think as a matter of consequence,  censorship by corporations with a monopoly on broadcasting are just as deadly as government censorship so far as the good of the people are concerned.   


In either case,  necessary information is being withheld from the people which prevents them from acting on the true state of affairs.   

I don't know why you're claiming that I didn't address this.  This was from my post to you earlier in this thread:

I also ran down a long list of ways that conservatives still have to get their message out despite the refusal of some private outlets to disseminate our message.  And as long as Citizens United stays in force, we'll still have the ability to buy time.  Or even publish/disseminate directly.

War is asymmetric.   A $100,000  torpedo is a good trade for a  100 million dollar ship.   A 25 cent bullet is a good trade for the life of a man.   What breaks a nation in a war is being unable to match the costs of fighting it with another nation.   


So too is it in political war.   You say we can buy our air time while the Democrats get theirs mostly for free.   It doesn't take a mathematician to see how this projection will work out in the long run.  The ratio of  Our Cost/their cost  approaches infinity.   


One thing I have to say about Trump is that he appears to have understood this.   He bought very little time compared to past campaigns and compared to Hillary's campaign.   He spoke around the media,  and used them to carry his message for free.   As a result,  he ran the most cost efficient campaign in memory.   


If we have to "buy"  add time to compete with their free propaganda,   we are going to go broke and probably lose anyway.   

[geronl]

If you own a TV network, you should be able to decide what you put on it (within decent limits, hopefully)

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's not hostility,  I like you and consider you one of the most rational members of this site,  it is frustration.   We have a difference of opinion as to whether or not an "Elected board of Governors"  is the same thing as "Government",  but you have twice referred to this idea as "government control"   which I think is not the same thing that people normally regard as "government."  Is a board of regents the same as the government?

A board of regents of a public university is an arm of the government, and therefore should be considered state action. 

Also I am frustrated that my central point isn't being addressed.   I think as a matter of consequence,  censorship by corporations with a monopoly on broadcasting are just as deadly as government censorship so far as the good of the people are concerned.

   

Our disagreement is in your predicate.  I do not believe that any corporations have a monopoly on broadcasting, nor to I believe that "broadcasting" is the only effect way to disseminate a political message.   As I've tried to say, I think there are nough other ways that conservatives have succeeded in getting out their message that the extreme "cure" of government regulation would risk more harm than good.

Perhaps some day there won't be any alternative channels to disseminate a message, and we truly will be shut out completely from public discourse.  But I really don't see us as being close to that yet.  In all honesty, it's probably easier to get out a political message now than it has been at any point in our nation's history.

[DiogenesLamp]

Our disagreement is in your predicate.  I do not believe that any corporations have a monopoly on broadcasting, nor to I believe that "broadcasting" is the only effect way to disseminate a political message. 

Well see there,  we have fundamental differences of perception.   I believe both things are effectively true.   

As I've tried to say, I think there are nough other ways that conservatives have succeeded in getting out their message that the extreme "cure" of government regulation would risk more harm than good.

I have suggested a lot of other things that don't equate to your characterization of "government",  but you keep homing in  on that one idea which you keep referring to as "government."   Let's put that discussion aside.   We can talk about the means to destroy censorship later.   If we don't conclude that "destroying censorship"  should be a goal,  the means of accomplishing it are irrelevant.   


Let us focus on the two points of dispute above.   

1. That corporations in bed with government and the party of government have a monopoly on broadcasting.

2.  That broadcasting is the only effective means to disseminate a political message. 


Actually,   let's focus on only one of these points.    If the second one isn't true,  then the first one doesn't matter,  so let us focus on that.   



How did Trump reach his constituency?   Was he not a Television star with whom the vast majority of the nation was somewhat familiar?   Would we have known of him and his accomplishments without Television?   

Would an unknown businessman have been able to do what Trump did,  all the while not using Television?   


I don't see it at all.  Television was absolutely crucial to Trump winning this election, as near as I can tell.   




Another point.  Every year advertisers spend billions of dollars on television advertising under the belief that advertising informs people and thereby convinces them to buy their  product.   

Is there a better advertising medium than Television? 


Suppose got free advertising for their cereal,  while had to pay millions for it.   


What do you suppose would happen to the market share of the two companies? 


The entire multi-billion dollar advertising industry is built on the theory that Television gets the message out better than any other method. 

[txradioguy]

The entire multi-billion dollar advertising industry is built on the theory that Television gets the message out better than any other method. 

It does. Radio is second and print is third in terms of best forms of getting advertising to the most people.

[corbe]

@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. 

   I suppose you are blind to all the info that is daily being washed from the internet about Trump's past, just as it was with obummer before, that censorship sword knows all victims, regardless of party affiliation.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You mean like how Trump is talking about his list of terror attacks he thinks didn't get the 'proper' level of coverage.  The President of the United States telling the press what level of coverage is appropriate for a type of news.

I've written Trump off as a bozo, at least as far as him shooting off his mouth goes. Trump's gonna be Trump and we all have to live with it.

[DiogenesLamp]

   I suppose you are blind to all the info that is daily being washed from the internet about Trump's past, just as it was with obummer before, that censorship sword knows all victims, regardless of party affiliation.

You are going to have to make your statement clearer if you want me to address it.   Right now I don't know what you are saying. 

[DiogenesLamp]

It does. Radio is second and print is third in terms of best forms of getting advertising to the most people.

And Subliminal advertising works at the subconscious level.  People watching "news"  programs and television shows often don't realize they are watching liberal propaganda.   

[corbe]

You are going to have to make your statement clearer if you want me to address it.   Right now I don't know what you are saying. 

   I'll admit I oftentimes don't articulate my thoughts very clearly, @DiogenesLamp

   The point I was trying to make is that there are some stories/images/videos I believe to have disappeared on the interwebz about the President's past behavior/statements etc...

    For example, a couple of weeks ago I searched all over for a picture I know I saw before or any picture of Trump and Schumer together back in the day when they were BFF's and everywhere together in the NY political scene, now NADA, it is censorship, but hey I don't own the Internet and it's not as Free as some would believe.

   I'll tighten the tin foil and practice on my run-on sentences some more, mekay?

[DiogenesLamp]

I've written Trump off as a bozo, at least as far as him shooting off his mouth goes. Trump's gonna be Trump and we all have to live with it.

I'm thinking more along the lines of "I, Claudius." 

[DiogenesLamp]

   I'll admit I oftentimes don't articulate my thoughts very clearly, @DiogenesLamp

   The point I was trying to make is that there are some stories/images/videos I believe to have disappeared on the interwebz about the President's past behavior/statements etc...

    For example, a couple of weeks ago I searched all over for a picture I know I saw before or any picture of Trump and Schumer together back in the day when they were BFF's and everywhere together in the NY political scene, now NADA, it is censorship, but hey I don't own the Internet and it's not as Free as some would believe.

   I'll tighten the tin foil and practice on my run-on sentences some more, mekay?

I have seen what I believe are similar examples of peculiar disappearance of information on the internet.   I'm with you on that being a real thing,  but an aspect of what you said that seems peculiar to me is that any of the liberal internet giants that control the flow of information would do Trump any favors.   

Why would any of these people help Trump?   I can understand them helping Obama,  but they hate Trump. 

[txradioguy]

And Subliminal advertising works at the subconscious level.  People watching "news"  programs and television shows often don't realize they are watching liberal propaganda.

WTF?? Subliminal messaging?  Looks like my crack about you still playing Atari was closed to home than I thought. 

You're clearly stuck in the 70's.

You are making broad assumptions about viewers that you have no basis in fact to make.

[INVAR]

I really don't get this.  Congress expressly gave to the President the power to limit/restrict immigration, and he's exercising it.  That's exactly what he's supposed to be doing.  It's a far cry from Obama refusing to enforce valid laws that were actually on the books, which is surely something Congress did not intend.

EXACTLY.

I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but in this case, he is correct and within his scope of Constitutional power to restrict immigration from nations and peoples hostile to ours.

[corbe]

I have seen what I believe are similar examples of peculiar disappearance of information on the internet.   I'm with you on that being a real thing,  but an aspect of what you said that seems peculiar to me is that any of the liberal internet giants that control the flow of information would do Trump any favors.   

Why would any of these people help Trump?   I can understand them helping Obama,  but they hate Trump. 

   @DiogenesLamp this is where I stretch the tinfoil tighter, and it's one point I was trying to allude to in the original post.
   It's not just the 6 corporations that 'own' the majority of the media in this Country, it's also the alphabet agencies of 'our' GOV, and they too, 'censor'.
   

[DiogenesLamp]

WTF?? Subliminal messaging?  Looks like my crack about you still playing Atari was closed to home than I thought. 

You're clearly stuck in the 70's.

You are making broad assumptions about viewers that you have no basis in fact to make.

You would be more interesting to discuss things with if you would leave off the snark.   Obviously from your response,  you do not "get"  what I meant.   Here,  let me give you a single example.  (Among many) 

[DiogenesLamp]

   @DiogenesLamp this is where I stretch the tinfoil tighter, and it's one point I was trying to allude to in the original post.
   It's not just the 6 corporations that 'own' the majority of the media in this Country, it's also the alphabet agencies of 'our' GOV, and they too, 'censor'.
   

I'll grant that I find that plausible,  but I wouldn't expect it to be to as great a degree as those people who host the web.   I can certainly see how they might talk to companies that have objectionable content (such as national security stuff)  and get them to remove it. 


I would be surprised if any evidence would reveal that they do such things for purely political reasons. 

[corbe]

I'll grant that I find that plausible,  but I wouldn't expect it to be to as great a degree as those people who host the web.   I can certainly see how they might talk to companies that have objectionable content (such as national security stuff)  and get them to remove it. 


I would be surprised if any evidence would reveal that they do such things for purely political reasons. 

  And that's where our paths diverse, @DiogenesLamp
  It is not a leap of imagination for me to believe that if any President wanted some embarrassing tidbit erased from the 'net' the NSA would/could have it done in under 10 minutes without anyone's knowledge except those of us that knew it existed before and there use to be a record of it, practically obummers entire life is an example.

[DiogenesLamp]

  And that's where our paths diverse, @DiogenesLamp
  It is not a leap of imagination for me to believe that if any President wanted some embarrassing tidbit erased from the 'net' the NSA would/could have it done in under 10 minutes without anyone's knowledge except those of us that knew it existed before and there use to be a record of it, practically obummers entire life is an example.

I'm open to the possibility,  but I don't think it is likely.    Of course i've been surprised before.

[txradioguy]

You would be more interesting to discuss things with if you would leave off the snark.   Obviously from your response,  you do not "get"  what I meant.   Here,  let me give you a single example.  (Among many) 

You would be more interesting to talk to you about if your head wasn't wrapped in several layers of tinfoil.

Your completely irrational and paranoid when it comes to this subject.

[DiogenesLamp]

You would be more interesting to talk to you about if your head wasn't wrapped in several layers of tinfoil.

Your completely irrational and paranoid when it comes to this subject.

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. 

[INVAR]

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

Private property Rights; Free Political Speech.