Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo

Tucker Carlson: 'It is Spying' to monitor Your Political Opponents and Violate Their Privacy Rights.

Ouch!

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#21 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,700 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:58 AM

Domestic surveillance of American citizens by the NSA or any other governmental institution is against the law without the approval of a FISA warrant.  For a long and drawn out dialogue about this see the discussion that Mex and I carried on at Christmas time in 2006.   Warrantless surveillance was defended by the majority here under the guise of necessary for national defense to protect from the weapons of mass destruction that were anticipated to be launched by Sadaam Hussein.

Note:   it is DOMESTIC surveillance that requires a FISA warrant,   not foreign surveillance.  I argued ceasely ugainst Bush's domestic surveillance without a warrant. 

 

The argument died.

 

And now the shoe is on the other foot.   Republicans screaming for protection of privatcy.   The very protections they rode rough shod over with George W. Bush's blessing in 2006 under the excuse of extra legal powers in act of war.       Horseshit..

 

To Maui's point,  if the Media moved with one consort,  with one goal,  with one objective I would be much more afraid that the MSM could dictate the elections.   BUT the wild card in this theory is that all the MSM  will agree on a plan to dictate the terms of democracy to the Congress by brainwashing the media consumers.   This supposes that the aims of each member of the MSM is the same.  The fact is that ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,FOX  each compete for viewers and advertiserts.   Accordingly if any of these MSM members  lose advertising,  the lose viewers and lose influence.    While generally organized to be the conscience of government,  thMSM does not act  one unifying body because of the competition between its members.  Did it occur to anyone than in those instances that the MSM acts as one consort,  that what they agree on might be the right thing.



#22 MAUI

MAUI

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,036 posts
  • LocationMaui

Posted 05 April 2017 - 04:26 AM


To Maui's point,  if the Media moved with one consort,  with one goal,  with one objective I would be much more afraid that the MSM could dictate the elections.   BUT the wild card in this theory is that all the MSM  will agree on a plan to dictate the terms of democracy to the Congress by brainwashing the media consumers.   This supposes that the aims of each member of the MSM is the same.  The fact is that ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,FOX  each compete for viewers and advertiserts.   Accordingly if any of these MSM members  lose advertising,  the lose viewers and lose influence.    While generally organized to be the conscience of government,  thMSM does not act  one unifying body because of the competition between its members.  Did it occur to anyone than in those instances that the MSM acts as one consort,  that what they agree on might be the right thing.

 

The media IS in consort.., And to think that they spew the same shit because its the truth is beyond naive.., Big media is not about money or advertisement, its about power and they quit being the conscience of government a long time ago.., Those days are gone brother.., Its blatantly obvious to me, after watching the way things lined up this past year that what I've suspected about big propaganda is absolutely true.., They might have maintained a little cover and concealment if Hillary had won..,, but she didn't and they're balls out, anti Administration, 'neverTrump', the Russians are coming hysterical..,  They are a globalist, colluded power tool bent on influencing collective thought.., Any channel you turn on is espousing the same slant from the same source about the same shit.., If you don't think ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, USA TODAY, NYT, WaPo ain't playing in the same sandbox all you have to do is check the sources they quote.., It's a pipeline filled with the same shit directed to different outlets.., Its not about money.., Its about power.., They already have enough money..,

 

I guess its about acceptance.., If a person accepts what they report then they're less likely to question.., I choose not to accept their particular slant.., The history of what I've heard from this cabaal forces me to question everything..,

 

And let me ask you this Wilks.., If there is no big media collusion, how did the committees on Russian interference morph into the Trump/Russia collusion.., When its talked about its always the latter in the headline.., And after 5 months there' still nothing there.., Nothing (so far anyway).., And when the only law that we know for certain was broken, it's viewed as a distraction and not relevant to the 'true focus' of the investigation.., To me it's pretty easy to see where the distraction is, especially now that unfavorable things are being focused on the previous administration.., You watch how many media poncho liners come out to cover that shit up.., Fuck Big Media.., They're the real enemy in my opinion..,


  • West likes this

#23 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,700 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:10 PM

I do not agree. If there was one source for news and no other I would conclude that you are right. But there are multiple sources of news. Some like Breitbart are unabashedly partisan. Some claim to be balanced. The ones that are of most concern to me are the made up National Enquirer stories on Facebook. People read that stuff and believe it...like the story that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump for president.

Anyway multiple sources of news compete for the same advertising dollars. This is based on viewership ratings. Ideally a news organization does not want to slant news to one segment because it fractionalizes viewership which translates into less money.

We all have our favorites depending on our bias. Just human nature. But the fact that Trump has gotten off to a bad start is his self inflicted wound. Not the media's.

I make no secret that my paramount concern is Russian influence. All the rest of this is secondary. Trumps tweets and Susan Rice episode are a sideshow. Let it all come out. I will wait for the FBI investigation to be released before I make my conclusions.

#24 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,700 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:14 PM

All the rest of it is attempts to divert attention. If Susan Rice actions are a cause for concern, then include it in the investigation.

#25 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:26 PM

I would have to disagree.

The media keeps itself in check as one publication will have no qualms tearing down a competitor for clicks and views.

yeah, if only that were the case... but it isn't

 

they try to get the best ratings, but that doesn't mean they can't, or won't, continue to throw ravenous support to one side of the political spectrum while attacking the other side.

 

None of the other networks took advantage of CBS when Rather was caught lying and cheating to implicate Bush. No other networks took advantage of Williams horrific dishonesty, nor did they complain when he was welcomed with open arms at MSNBC. Still trying to find any network, other than fox, who complained when ABC was caught red-handed collaborating with hiLIARy during the primaries through the inside influence of Donna Brazile. 

 

Now that Susan Rice has been caught lying, it will also be squelched by the press... starting with ABC, because her husband is an editor in their news department.

 

I got problems with trump... but I got bigger problems with a press that operates in unison to destroy one side, and protect the other.

 

This is worse than Tass or Pravda.

 

Maui is right... there are no checks and balances. In fact, the founders expected the forth estate to operate as one of our checks on government. They aren't. In fact they are willing accomplices who have caused a terrible imbalance.


  • West likes this

#26 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:31 PM

yeah, if only that were the case... but it isn't

 

they try to get the best ratings, but that doesn't mean they can't, or won't, continue to throw ravenous support to one side of the political spectrum while attacking the other side.

 

None of the other networks took advantage of CBS when Rather was caught lying and cheating to implicate Bush. No other networks took advantage of Williams horrific dishonesty, nor did they complain when he was welcomed with open arms at MSNBC. Still trying to find any network, other than fox, who complained when ABC was caught red-handed collaborating with hiLIARy during the primaries through the inside influence of Donna Brazile. 

 

Now that Susan Rice has been caught lying, it will also be squelched by the press... starting with ABC, because her husband is an editor in their news department.

 

I got problems with trump... but I got bigger problems with a press that operates in unison to destroy one side, and protect the other.

 

This is worse than Tass or Pravda.

 

 

 

Maui is right... there are no checks and balances.

 

 

 Excactamundo.  I watched ABC last night. their biassed is sickening but they did a quick piece on Rice, a few quick highly organized snippets to make it seem like  there is nothing new/that she is as pure as the driven snow and its nothing but a diversion then on to another story.

 

 the idea that the competition between networks is in itself a Checks & Balance is  in a word...lunacy


  • ATLchief and mex like this

#27 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,625 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:32 PM

Here is a great description of news reporting today:

 

 

I am a huge Denzel fan, BTW.



#28 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:47 PM

All the rest of it is attempts to divert attention. If Susan Rice actions are a cause for concern, then include it in the investigation.

It should be a separate investigation.  Obama's administration spying on Trump has nothing to do with Russian influence.  In fact, I'm beginning to thing the whole "Russian collusion with Trump" was a smoke screen designed to deflect the felony release of unmasked Americans in classified intel.  Obama never thought Hillary would lose so there would never be an investigation even if Reps cried "foul".  When she did lose, they needed cover and what better than to accuse Trump of collusion?  I'm amazed that you would be more concerned by alleged (no evidence) contact between the Trump campaign and the Russians than you are about our government spying on political opponents, revealing their identities, and leaking damaging classified data to the press.  The latter seems a much greater threat to our freedoms and fair elections.  Using the IRS to punish political opponents is a greater threat.  



#29 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:58 PM

I do not agree. If there was one source for news and no other I would conclude that you are right. But there are multiple sources of news. Some like Breitbart are unabashedly partisan. Some claim to be balanced. The ones that are of most concern to me are the made up National Enquirer stories on Facebook. People read that stuff and believe it...like the story that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump for president.

Anyway multiple sources of news compete for the same advertising dollars. This is based on viewership ratings. Ideally a news organization does not want to slant news to one segment because it fractionalizes viewership which translates into less money.

We all have our favorites depending on our bias. Just human nature. But the fact that Trump has gotten off to a bad start is his self inflicted wound. Not the media's.

I make no secret that my paramount concern is Russian influence. All the rest of this is secondary. Trumps tweets and Susan Rice episode are a sideshow. Let it all come out. I will wait for the FBI investigation to be released before I make my conclusions.

There's very little competition in the print media.  Most of the non-local news in newspapers around the country are reprinted from the NYT or WaPo, maybe the LaTimes and of course, the liberal AP.  Few cities have multiple major papers anymore.  The TV news may compete for ad dollars, but they all spout a liberal agenda.  The exception is Fox and it's success is notable.  Like Limbaugh and his imitators, Fox found an under served market that wanted something other than the biased left news they were getting.  Biased right was a natural result.  I'd bet that if CBS started reporting in a balanced way, their ratings would skyrocket.  So why don't they?  Probably because the culture of liberalism is so entrenched that no one would dare propose such a move.  Can you imagine an editorial board meeting where someone speaks up and says, "Let's investigate and run with the story that Susan Rice did spy and lie?"   Neither can I.  Thank God for alternative sources.



#30 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:16 PM

It should be a separate investigation.  Obama's administration spying on Trump has nothing to do with Russian influence.  In fact, I'm beginning to thing the whole "Russian collusion with Trump" was a smoke screen designed to deflect the felony release of unmasked Americans in classified intel.  Obama never thought Hillary would lose so there would never be an investigation even if Reps cried "foul".  When she did lose, they needed cover and what better than to accuse Trump of collusion?  I'm amazed that you would be more concerned by alleged (no evidence) contact between the Trump campaign and the Russians than you are about our government spying on political opponents, revealing their identities, and leaking damaging classified data to the press.  The latter seems a much greater threat to our freedoms and fair elections.  Using the IRS to punish political opponents is a greater threat.  

if a democrat scandal goes down in the forest and there's no media willing to report it, does it make a sound?



#31 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,700 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:26 PM

[quote name="jetlord" post="88298" timestamp="1491403651"]It should be a separate investigation.  Obama's administration spying on Trump has nothing to do with Russian influence.  In fact, I'm beginning to thing the whole "Russian collusion with Trump" was a smoke screen designed to deflect the felony release of unmasked Americans in classified intel.  Obama never thought Hillary would lose so there would never be an investigation even if Reps cried "foul".  When she did lose, they needed cover and what better than to accuse Trump of collusion?  I'm amazed that you would be more concerned by alleged (no evidence) contact between the Trump campaign and the Russians than you are about our government spying on political opponents, revealing their identities, and leaking damaging classified data to the press.  The latter seems a much greater threat to our freedoms and fair elections.  Using the IRS to punish political opponents is a greater threat.
[/quote
I will put all my money on what the FBI concludes. Russian influence is my principal concern now and always. My fear is that it is ongoing. Circumstantial evidence a l ways comes out first. There hasn't been anything prima facie but the story is far from over.

#32 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:58 PM

Great thread.

 

Maui, you are the man.

 

Kudos.

 

w



#33 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,389 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 05:58 PM

 
I will put all my money on what the FBI concludes. Russian influence is my principal concern now and always. My fear is that it is ongoing. Circumstantial evidence a l ways comes out first. There hasn't been anything prima facie but the story is far from over.

Just to get the record clear, you really think Trump and the Russians is a bigger threat than an administration that would spy on political rivals and expose classified data to try to belittle them?  Amazing!



#34 xen

xen

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 06:10 PM

In fact, the founders expected the forth estate to operate as one of our checks on government. They aren't. In fact they are willing accomplices who have caused a terrible imbalance.


This is incorrect. Newspapers in America started out as extremely partisan affairs dedicated to espousing one candidate or viewpoint. Most were hatchet jobs and the crap they spewed was infinitely worse than what we see today. Consider, for instance, the infamous James Callendar or the charge that John Adams was a secret hermaphrodite. They were basically all the national enquirer.

That's why the sedition acts were such a big deal.

The concept of an impartial press is a rather recent invention, popularized by early tv networks who were trying to pull in every viewer possible and later enshrined by the feds with the fairness doctrine in 1949. It didn't last that long in the grand scheme of things and cable killed it dead. Frankly some would argue it was all an illusion anyway.
  • MAUI likes this

#35 MAUI

MAUI

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,036 posts
  • LocationMaui

Posted 05 April 2017 - 06:38 PM

Russia obviously meddled in out election.., It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.., Steps need to be taken to assure they cannot do this in the future.., Its imperative..,

 

What we do know so far from this investigation:

 

Nothing was done to alter vote counts..,

 

Nothing was done to alter the final outcome of the election.., Hillary and even her daughter admit this..,

 

As many rocks that have turned over all over the country, no proof of collusion between the Russians and Trump has surfaced.., The Dems say this could take years, go figure..,

 

The FBI is still in the midst of their investigation.., The results of this should prove interesting, though I doubt final no matter which side wins.., (Wins.., Interesting concept)

 

Super delegates and Podesta's collusion with the DNC effectively stonewalled Sander's election bid and gave Hillary the nomination.., In case anybody forgot..,

 

CNN newscasters gave Clinton copied of debate questions prior to the debate.., Collusion?.., DUH..,

 

In an election year, an opposition candidate's party's correspondence and conversations were listened in on by White House officials, names unmasked and leaked to the press by someone with access to that information..,

 

My conclusion:

 

Hillary Clinton and the DNC colluded to rig a presidential primary election, and once successful, Colluded with the previous administration to gain any compromising and negative data on their opponents to damage them in any way they could.., Had Clinton won, none of this would have been an issue.., Russia would have gotten a reprimand and she would have went back to selling them our uranium.., And a compliant media would have made sure this was just business as usual..,

 

But Trump won.., The greatest upset in American Political history and all the globalist hogs were left left looking at the pie and not able to touch it.., They were standing over it with their forks in their hand and had to sit back down and listen to their stomachs growl..,  So now the move is on to paint the legitimate and legal American Presidential election as having been stolen by a foreign power, to install a puppet buffoon in clown shoes for their own nefarious purposes.., And with the help of a lackey and compliant media machine, they'll keep repainting this wall until they can get enough of the duped to believe it..,


  • jetlord likes this

#36 MAUI

MAUI

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,036 posts
  • LocationMaui

Posted 05 April 2017 - 06:43 PM

The concept of an impartial press is a rather recent invention, popularized by early tv networks who were trying to pull in every viewer possible and later enshrined by the feds with the fairness doctrine in 1949. It didn't last that long in the grand scheme of things and cable killed it dead. Frankly some would argue it was all an illusion anyway.

 

Yep..,



#37 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 07:00 PM

Nailed it Maui....

 

My interesting question?

 

Is the MSM the driving force of Global Progressism or is it the DNC and the Far left in the Democratic party?

 

Who works for who?

 

w



#38 MAUI

MAUI

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,036 posts
  • LocationMaui

Posted 05 April 2017 - 07:29 PM

I see the DNC as the driving force of nothing.., Their only mission is to sit and stall anything from being accomplished..,

 

Big Media is the mouth of the globalist barking dog in my personal opinion.., Its why Big Media is not about advertising.., Its about open borders, currency manipulation and one world manipulated thought.., Its why Russia is the enemy and why why Radical Islam is not.., Russia is the wolf everyone hears in the night.., They are to be feared because they play the same global power game..,  Radical Islam is just the cute little coyote that dumps over the occasional trash can.., But a coyote will kill your dog a lot faster than a wolf will, and for no reason other than killing it..,

 

Good question tho..,


  • oldtimer likes this

#39 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,033 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 07:40 PM

I'll await others opinions, but suffice to say, we are aligned.

 

I love the wolf/coyote analogy.  Perfect.

 

w



#40 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts

Posted 05 April 2017 - 08:36 PM

I'll await others opinions, but suffice to say, we are aligned.

 

I love the wolf/coyote analogy.  Perfect.

 

w

 

Yep






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users