Azalin
-
Posts
7,848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Azalin
-
-
16 minutes ago, The Bills Blog said:
I was referring to the popular vote. I thought that was clear in the thread.
No, that wasn't clear at all. You could have been more specific.
-
4 hours ago, The Bills Blog said:
It's cute how so many old Republicans are in denial about what's coming. Only once in the past 30 years have the people of the United States chosen a Republican president. Soon, not even the great wall that is the electoral college will be able to protect them anymore.
30 years ago was 1989, the year that Bush 41 took office. In 2000 Bush 43 took office, winning again in 2004. 2016 saw Trump win the presidency. That's four times in the last 30 years that the people of the United States chose a Republican president.
-
39 minutes ago, ALF said:
Do you think they are working good enough ?
Yes, I do. Laws only work when people obey them. People who do not obey the law will ignore them regardless of how strict they become. Do you actually think that someone who is unhinged enough to commit mass murder will have second thoughts because the gun laws have been made more severe? Do you think that making gun ownership illegal in certain urban areas has done anything to curtail gun violence in those communities?
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, ALF said:
Trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands is just common sense.
I would imagine that's one reason that we have gun laws.
-
20 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
That voice sounds like the voice of a man who sips hot chocolate while lounging in his flannel onesie...
I listened to it with headphones & now have to go rinse the estrogen out of my ears.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, whatdrought said:
Some of the comments on that thread show just how far off the ***** cliff we’ve fallen as a society.
That's one major benefit of social media - the freedom to make a complete ass of yourself for everyone else to see. It saves us the trouble of even bothering to talk to them.
-
1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:
Hypothetically, is it possible to cover a complex news story without one side seeing bias? Even a reporter that sticks squarely to the facts have an inherent bias (because they're a human being) that may subconsciously seep through in their reporting.
Sure, people will have their biases, no argument there. I'm specifically referring to the growing perception that issues and events are defined by and expressed only through leftist v rightist sensibilities. A professional journalist should be able to report events from a neutral point of view, and the fact that we have (supposedly) conservative and liberal news outlets reflects both our society's desire for political tribalism and the media's willingness to perpetuate it.
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Conservatives have a major communication problem. We need to stop calling these outlets The Mainstream Media. They’re no longer close to being main stream. We need to start calling them Left Wing Media. You’ll only see things change when you use words that better define them.
This is exactly why I use the term "leftist" instead of "liberal" when describing the more radical elements in the press and the democrat party.
36 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:I often wonder what conservatives would complain about if all news networks did cover both sides equally.
I'm not sure how they'd react, but when exactly did we all accept the notion that there were different "sides" to news and information other than "truth" and "lies"?
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, ALF said:
I would like to see white supremacists go against antifa until they both disappear. Leave normal people alone.
This, absolutely.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:
great post!
bump
This is one of the lamest attempts at trolling I've ever seen.
And credit where credit is due - you don't hold a candle to Tiberius when it comes to trolling and you never will.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
This is a thread about gun violence.
I believe I just said that very thing, but you decided not to quote that part of my post.
-
19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
The major news outlets are no longer the original source for ANYTHING. All they do is grab stories from the internet blogs and spin them. Your age (I’m getting there too) is showing.
Considering this conversation is within the context of guns & mass shootings, are you really going to say that these events are presented by major news networks & print based off material gleaned from blogs?
There's still quite a bit of reporting done from the scene & and "as it happens". That's not to say that it isn't spun immediately, and I'm not denying the presence or impact of blogs. I just believe it to be inaccurate to say that major news outlets are no longer the original source for anything.
-
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:
I hate to break it to you but the young people who perpetuate this sort of terror do NOT watch ‘traditional media’.
No, but the original source is still the major news outlets.
Unless facebook has their own field reporters and I've somehow missed that?
-
47 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
The poignancy of things like this has a greater effect on me the older I get.
-
5
-
-
8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
It’s not caused by social media but the fire’s used social media as its fuel.
It seems to me that the traditional media outlets have been most responsible for generating the social outcry, with social media being the means in which that outrage is expressed.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BringBackOrton said:
I’m not making an appeal to constitutional protection. I realize in its current form, we have NO protection from corporate entities. That’s the reason I made the topic.
Tech is quickly becoming “non-optional.”
If you want to engage in the common online activities enjoyed by most Americans, you're going to have to accept the TOS outlined in their service agreements to do so. In most cases that means giving up name, address/email info, DOB, etc - and chances are that whoever you provide that information to plans to share or sell it to other online entities. I believe that is plenty of cause for concern, and people ought to be more discriminating in how they give that information up. However, I disagree with your casting the issue as one of a threat to our liberty, but instead view it as a threat to our privacy.
There are a handful of companies that offer services such as email and search engines that do not share your information with anyone, and most are free. As long as there are people concerned with preserving their privacy, there will be companies who will vie for your business.
-
1
-
-
We're all here for you, my friend.
-
3
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:
Tech can censor you. Tech can ostracize you. Tech can knowingly feed you disinformation. Tech can steal and mine your information, can see what you’re doing, can monitor your purchases.
It does all of these things now.
And those things are primarily privacy concerns, not infringements on our liberties.
Tech can censor you on their platforms. You have to use them for them to censor you. Whenever you set up a new email account with any of the providers, you must agree to their terms of service, where they tell you that your information may or may not be shared with third parties, depending on the company. Tech giants are pervasive in our culture to be sure, but they are still optional. Government is not optional, but their excesses are held in check by the constitution.
Constitutional protection does not apply to voluntary agreements made with corporate entities.
-
39 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
I certainly wasn't expecting the comfy chair...
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:
Is it documented as one?
Yes, it is.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You asked if tech was a bigger threat to our liberty than the government, and I voted no and gave an explanation as to why, going as far as to say that I believe them both to be a greater threat to our privacy. What can tech to to compromise your freedoms other than share data-mined information without your consent? And if indeed that is a valid concern, is that not a privacy issue?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:
Oooh here we go.
Should we start to consider privacy to be an inalienable right?
Do you believe it isn't?
-
22 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:
I recently switched auto insurance providers and I was offered a discount if I allowed them to monitor my driving, and inform me when I was going too fast or acting in an unsafe manner. If the agent wasn't a close relative I'd have walked out of the office.
22 hours ago, Chef Jim said:WTF?? Is this real? I’d not sign up for that even if my wife was the agent.
I've always assumed that feature works similar to the GPS technology the telecom company I work for uses to track technicians in the field and gather data on their driving habits. I can see why some people would want that option if it gets then a lower premium, but I don't personally care to have anyone tracking me, just on principle.
-
I would rephrase the question to are tech giants bigger threats to PRIVACY than the government? To be an actual threat to our liberty they would need to be working in cooperation with the government itself. The feds on the other hand already have the means to invade our privacy, and all they have to do is abuse the power we have given them.
-
My most sincere prayers for the child, as well as his family.
-
1
-
Molly Ivans Would Be Smiling About A Democratic Texas
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Indeed you did.