Swamp Yankee
-
Posts
151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Swamp Yankee
-
"Nepotism/favoritism is required in an authoritative government, because it reduces the risk of a coup by filling key positions with those who are loyal to those in power. Helped lead to the downfall of the USSR (party loyalty over talent). Of course, none of that would ever happen in the US, right?" Hmmm, I seem to recall some names....Ivanka, Eric, Jr, Cuck-shner.... Oh wait, maybe they were selected based on their policy experience.
-
Forgot the (sts). Let's change the subject. I should have just wrote it out: British Broadcasting Corporation. Funny story: there's a restaurant chain in New England called British Beer Company. Great place for a first date, "I'll take you to BBC"
-
Fox and MSNBC are just mirror images of each other. Same level of partisan BS except one is an acid and the other a base (dim recollection of HS chem) Although I find it interesting that when Fox momentarily pointed out a lack of evidence for election fraud they were immediately branded as unworthy "fake news!" by Trump and many of his supporters. Network news is becoming irrelevant. I also browse BBC frequently. In terms of #consumers, Fox+Newsmax+OAN+talk radio = CNN+MSNBC+networks. The difference is demographics. Conservative viewers tend to be older, liberal younger. My biggest pet peeve is that the mainstream outlets like Fox and MSNBC reduce everything to 30 sec soundbites. They're taking us for ADHD simpletons. The wildcard is the podcast world, which is becoming more and more popular. Decent mix of left and right viewpoints.
-
Ah yes, tax advantages for big companies. Who supports those?
-
I agree Twitter has bias. Facebook much less so. Regardless.... The mainstream media includes Fox, Newsmax, OAN, talk radio, Wash Times, among others. Plenty of exposure for both the left and right. Don't pretend it's 1992 with the NY Times and networks controlling the news. You can make a stronger case for Fox being an extension of the RNC. You can also post on Fox news comments all day - no one is stopping you - except when Fox decides to pause occasionally due to super hot and heavy openly racist comments. Or go to 4chan if you want. If someone decides Facebook is their primary news source, that's on them. No one is forcing them to read "articles" about Bernie or QAnon while posting cat pics no one cares about. Plenty of other outlets. Try BBC (sts) for example.
-
Reminds me of Ricky Gervais comments during the Golden Globes where he lambasted Tim Cook @ Apple and the other electronic media folk. Something to the effect of 'you say you're woke, but if ISIS started a streaming service you'd call your agent.'
-
True. Amazing how a board member at a small company can send you on a wild goose chase due to some pet project.
-
So what body enforces what tech companies are allowed to do with their own platforms? The federal government? No thanks. But let's just say it is the government. As a result, companies will lose some of their ability to manage their businesses and thus financial outcomes. Does the government now need to subsidize them as a result? That doesn't sounds great either. What's the penalty if the company refuses to comply? Social media has monopolies for sure, just like any industry. In automobiles, didn't stop Elon Musk re: Tesla. Granted, most of us aren't incredible genius polymaths willing to work 100 hrs/wk (and get thousands of others to do so as well). Didn't stop Uber, etc. I guess I'm enough of an optimistic, perhaps naive, capitalist to think that innovation and persistence eventually breaks through all monopolies.
-
I agree with most of what you said. The initial incident that brought Weinstein to awareness was a classic example of liberal college ridiculousness. Overall, I enjoy listening to folks like Rogan, Harris, Weinsteins, and Peterson. The long-form discussion on the IDW has transformed media and shows that the average citizen is capable of in-depth, nuanced thought. The simpleminded Fox News and MSNBC 30-sec soundbites are frankly insulting to all of us. However, I do think that once some of the supposed moderates and liberals get a taste of IDW attention, they maintain their iconoclast image by railing against the left and NEVER criticizing the right. The IDW audience skews right and hey, there are books to sell and podcasts listenerships to grow. However, you'd think they'd have at least something to criticize.... The left is not always wrong and the right is not always right. I disagree that the left doesn't want to engage in terms of considering the other side's arguments. For example, Sam Harris is much more willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint. Ben Shapiro just goes on the attack in order to win the argument. There's a difference between defending your position at all costs vs. listening to understand and arrive at the best possible solution. The former is for war and court cases. The latter helps shape the best mutual results in a shared society. On a separate note, I now have a child at one of those "elite northeast liberal colleges". While that initially made me groan and gave me agita, I've seen that most of the kids just play at being liberals for a few years. Once they graduate, 75% head off to Wall Street, med school, or law school. It's funny.
-
I seem to remember a great deal of social media and news coverage regarding complaints about BLM, Kathy Griffin, and Hunter Biden. Lots of coverage of the details and the reaction from the right. Not sure what media you consume. Even if social media exerts bias on what does and doesn't get posted on their platforms, there are many other currently-available avenues to communicate via the internet. Also, I mentioned in another post that if you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy you can start your own social media platform. You're not beholden to anyone. Go for it! You are absolutely right! My oath was to defend the constitution, not a flag, political party or specific person. It is a really complicated situation. You've got the issue of a private company having the ability to control its destiny. You've got public accommodation laws to prevent things like minorities not being able to get mortgages. Then you've got the issue of very partisan people like a Hawley, Schumer, McConnell, or Pelosi having a direct say in what a private company can or can't discuss. If I had the answers, I wouldn't be doing this. On a related topic: Fox, Newsmax, talk radio and other right leaning news outlets ARE part of mainstream media. They have global reach and huge, growing viewer/readership. The tired old "liberal mainstream media" whining is obsolete.
-
Well stated. That's the rub that it seems like no one can get past. 'Free speech only applies to things I agree with'. Many of those complaining about Twitter's decision with Trump likely supported removal of artwork considered offensive to Christianity. In fact, I know two people with this perspective, who can't (or aren't willing) to note the inconsistency. And there are equal examples from the opposite political perspective. You also bring up a good point. For years, and maybe still now, minorities were refused mortgages to keep them out of the suburbs. All those nice moms didn't want their little darlings sharing classrooms with brown people. So the reality is free speech has its limits, particularly where it impedes someone else's liberty.
-
Coming in late to this topic. My experience is that persistence and persuasiveness can sometimes result in waivers that others tell you are impossible. 30+ years ago I got my color vision waivered for an AFROTC pilot slot. It took some doing, especially pre-interwebs. I discovered that the Navy was evaluating the then-new Farnsworth Lantern (aka FALANT) as a screening tool better tied to the real world than color plates. I called up the lab, asked alot of questions, and explained my situation. After a couple of calls, I was able to set up a visit. I took the test and "passed" according to the criteria at the time. I got to know the lead Navy researcher and it turned out that he had a colleague at Wright-Patt who was pushing for FALANT on the USAF side. I met and asked him to write a letter to Brooks. I also made sure I volunteered for every ROTC activity to get on the Detachment Commander's good side. He also wrote a letter of support. It took several months after graduation to get it sorted out. Anyways, I got the waiver, went to UPT @ Laughlin and never looked back. It was a great lesson for life in general.
-
Good point. To some extent, I think the right uses the 2nd Amendment and the left uses abortion as scare tactics. For example, the left used the newly right-leaning SCOTUS to scare their base that the Roe v Wade will be overturned. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were nominated more for their pro-large business support than morality perspectives. Abortion is probably #19 on Gorsuch's priorities, after "lunch at Occidental". On the 2A, any democrat outside a big northeast or west coast city knows that it is a reality. In fact, I was even able to get a carry permit in (the people's republic of) Boston. I did have to interview with a city detective, shoot at the police range, and then wait four weeks. The latter was a PITA but the interview and shooting didn't bother me too much. In fact, the police were pretty cool about it - let me try a Glock and AR.
-
Understood. However, since Weinsteins' content is consistently 95%+ complaining about democrats and agreeing with conservative positions then perhaps they aren't democrats as they claim. My cynical side thinks that Brett and Eric, as well as Tulsi and Rogan are not liberal (classical or otherwise). They may say so to help maximize their audience, but then why are they always sympathetic to the right? They should just state that they are conservatives and own it. Out of curiosity, as a moderate, what DO you support on the democratic side? How about the republican side? I hate that there are "sides" but it's just a reality under the current political structure. I consider myself a left-leaning moderate, working in tech for the past 20 yrs after transitioning to the Guard. By Massachusetts standards, I'm a conservative. By USAF standards, I'm a raging liberal. Individual liberty (including 2nd Amendment), strong military/diplomacy ("...provide for the common defense..."), broad individual liberty, limited-use safety net ("...promote the general welfare..."). As a developed country, we should be able to provide healthcare not tied to employment. Investment in public education as it is a key means to beat China with whom we are at economic war.
-
I agree. In concept I like self-checkout. However, it's always a PITA at Home Depot with large items like lumber and the scanning gun not working. Then you've got to wait for the single employee trying to reset all the other self-checkout stations with problems. Room for technological improvement.
-
That is very true. Anyone can develop a social media platform. If you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy to build a great platform, you'll succeed. If not, well, thems the breaks in the free-market innovation economy.
-
Rogan had a great discussion with Ira Glasser, former Exec Director of the ACLU, on this very topic. My synopsis of Glasser's commentary: - Double standards are of course problematic. - However, there are existing legitimate restrictions on free speech (the proverbial yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, or openly inciting violence). Upon request, the government adjudicates these via the legal system. FWIW, Glasser's thinks Trump did incite the Jan 6th events, but that would need to be decided via the impeachment process. - The key point: Other restrictions resulting from less cut-and-dried issues (e.g. political rhetoric) are probably best handled by private companies. Not perfect, but way better than the government, who has a poor record in that regard. Do you really want people like Trump, Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell having legal means to compel who can say what on private platforms? If so, is the government (particularly conservatives) willing to subsidize these private companies since they are restricting their ability to manage their businesses? - Specifically regarding Trump: Unlike most of us, he can step up to a podium and immediately say whatever he wants to the world. So to claim that no Twitter access affects his ability to communicate is disingenuous. Interested in learning other perspectives from those who listened to the podcast.
-
I listened to this podcast. I don't agree that Eric W and Glenn B are on opposite sides. Weinstein is one of several IDW folks who claim to be liberal yet spend nearly all of their time railing against the left as well as being very sympathetic to the right. Of course, it is perfectly fine (and often intellectually honest/rigorous) to critique one's own side. However, virtually ALL of the Weinstein bros content is critique of the left and tacit support of the right. They rarely mention or defend their supposedly liberal positions. Similar, in a way, to Tulsi Gabbard. Something's just not right with that. Their liberal/left-leaning claims just don't ring true. Again, I think it's great to question all perspectives; however, I very rarely see that from the right except in very brief passing (i.e. 'Trump's a little controversial, BUT, the left is really bad, blah, blah, blah).
-
Public accommodation laws are a fine line. I'm guessing many of us would disagree with redlining practices in which black people were denied mortgages and real estate in order to keep them out of certain areas. On the other hand, convicts with violent records or those with severe mental illness probably shouldn't have firearms. In general, products (virtual and physical) should be available to as many as possible without restriction. Where there are restrictions, they need to be applied consistently. As much as I dislike Trump as a person and many of his policies, banning him on Twitter seems inconsistent.
-
That's not a press conference in which the President himself needs to directly respond to questions. It is a scripted speech. As we've seen, it is nearly impossible for Trump to answer questions logically. He instead tends to hurl pejoratives and non-sequiturs. That's the point being made by some folks on this thread. The above was shown on CNN, MSNBC, as well as Fox and Newsmax.
-
The media and I guess much of the populace has the attention span of a fruit fly.
-
Agreed on the impeachment debates. Ultimately a waste of time. No way will it get 2/3 of the Senate. Trump will go back to Mar-a-Lago saying, 'See? They tried again! Tremendous hoax! I'm the best President in history and did nothing wrong!' That would be a gross mischaracterization on Trump's part, but he won't care. Same thing as the Russian investigation. Somehow Trump was able to spin it as a 'hoax'. Which was also a mischaracterization given that there were 34 indictments, 7 guilty pleas, and 5 prison terms. Regardless, his base bought it just as they will in this second impeachment.
-
My point isn't about evidence that will prove a court case or allow military action. It's about Tulsi's honest or willful ignorance of a broad agreement that Assad is a bad guy. Her statements ignore that agreement as well as suggest that there is no evidence and that the claims of Assad's war crimes are fabricated. She should acknowledge that at a minimum, there are legitimate suspicions about his culpability. That's why she clearly comes off as an apologist. And yeah, I've had to deal with bad/incomplete intel. Anyways, I might be splitting hairs. The horse is so dead at this point it's glue.
-
A press conference is unfiltered. Yes, the media poses the questions, but that's never stopped a President from ignoring those questions and saying what they want. The media's subsequent positive or negative interpretation of a press conference, Twitter post or pre-recorded statement is what's filtered/biased/etc.
-
Too bad Trump missed a chance to rub Angela's shoulders like W did. Then again, she is way above the Jeffrey Epstein-approved age range.
