Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
With talk of 'Journalist Licenses' and the latest Facebook purge of Alternative Media sources, we are heading down a very dark path. Looks like Big Brother and his big Corporate Media partners, are beginning to force their 'Approved' Media on us.
Any Media Outlet not willing to toe the Government/Corporate Media line, will be purged. Shades of the old Soviet Union and China. It's a very disturbing time. Is there anything we can do to halt this march towards Totalitarianism?
This week, the alternative media purge was boldly advanced in a coordinated effort to silence people who dissent from establishment views.
It’s just one more step toward a monopoly on information by those who hate freedom. At this rate, they’ll soon have unquestioned access to the minds of more than 2 billion people. And this should terrify everyone who wants to be free to question the status quo and to seek a wide range of information.
Hundreds of alternative media site administrators logged onto Facebook to discover that their accounts had been removed. Soon after, many of these sites and their writers found that their Twitter accounts had also been suspended.
Popular pages like The AntiMedia (2.1 million fans), The Free Thought Project (3.1 million fans), Press for Truth (350K fans), Police the Police (1.9 million fans), Cop Block (1.7 million fans), and Punk Rock Libertarians (125K fans) are just a few of the ones which were unpublished.
Why were these alternative media accounts removed?
The reason given doesn’t really add up...
Why The Coordinated Alternative Media Purge Should Terrify Everyone
This trend is not coming from the current federal government that does not censor anybody. The purge is almost all leftwing motivated and only those sites that lean right of center are purged unless they would be offensive to ANYBODY regardless of political affiliations or ideological leanings,
Zuckerburg pretty much admitted it in his congressional hearing when he admitted that Facebook is based in an intensely liberal/leftist area and therefore his staff is heavily drawn from that demographic and they might be 'a little more aggressive' in judging a more conservative group as unacceptable.
In my opinion Facebook is a private entity and can run their business any way they choose. Should they become unacceptable to a large number of Americans, somebody will start a more equitable similar service to compete with them which would be a good thing.
Now should I be unable to access The Drudge Report, Real Clear Politics, and other sites that offer a good mix/balance of information, I will worry. And it may be if services like Google are judged to be a monopoly, they would need to be regulated in how they set their algorithms to favor certain sites over others in google searches. But right now I am not worried. If the Republicans lose the Congress and White House though, I will worry because the Democrats/leftists are very heavy into all manner of censorship.
GOOG is working on a special censored version of its search engine for the Chinese government. Anyone who thinks that censorship is limited to China is nuts. GOOG is definitely censoring non-Prog content in the U.S.
Yes. Sometimes they've so buried information I am looking for I have to go to another search engine to find it without going through dozens of pages of links. Most of our more progressive friends here pooh pooh that and insist that the links that do come up on the first page or two are the consensus of the country. Which is the purpose of censorship in the first place of course.
I switched to duckduckgo years ago. I don't trust GOOG.
With talk of 'Journalist Licenses' and the latest Facebook purge of Alternative Media sources, we are heading down a very dark path. Looks like Big Brother and his big Corporate Media partners, are beginning to force their 'Approved' Media on us.
Any Media Outlet not willing to toe the Government/Corporate Media line, will be purged. Shades of the old Soviet Union and China. It's a very disturbing time. Is there anything we can do to halt this march towards Totalitarianism?
This week, the alternative media purge was boldly advanced in a coordinated effort to silence people who dissent from establishment views.
It’s just one more step toward a monopoly on information by those who hate freedom. At this rate, they’ll soon have unquestioned access to the minds of more than 2 billion people. And this should terrify everyone who wants to be free to question the status quo and to seek a wide range of information.
Hundreds of alternative media site administrators logged onto Facebook to discover that their accounts had been removed. Soon after, many of these sites and their writers found that their Twitter accounts had also been suspended.
Popular pages like The AntiMedia (2.1 million fans), The Free Thought Project (3.1 million fans), Press for Truth (350K fans), Police the Police (1.9 million fans), Cop Block (1.7 million fans), and Punk Rock Libertarians (125K fans) are just a few of the ones which were unpublished.
Why were these alternative media accounts removed?
The reason given doesn’t really add up...
Why The Coordinated Alternative Media Purge Should Terrify Everyone
This trend is not coming from the current federal government that does not censor anybody. The purge is almost all leftwing motivated and only those sites that lean right of center are purged unless they would be offensive to ANYBODY regardless of political affiliations or ideological leanings,
Zuckerburg pretty much admitted it in his congressional hearing when he admitted that Facebook is based in an intensely liberal/leftist area and therefore his staff is heavily drawn from that demographic and they might be 'a little more aggressive' in judging a more conservative group as unacceptable.
In my opinion Facebook is a private entity and can run their business any way they choose. Should they become unacceptable to a large number of Americans, somebody will start a more equitable similar service to compete with them which would be a good thing.
Now should I be unable to access The Drudge Report, Real Clear Politics, and other sites that offer a good mix/balance of information, I will worry. And it may be if services like Google are judged to be a monopoly, they would need to be regulated in how they set their algorithms to favor certain sites over others in google searches. But right now I am not worried. If the Republicans lose the Congress and White House though, I will worry because the Democrats/leftists are very heavy into all manner of censorship.
GOOG is working on a special censored version of its search engine for the Chinese government. Anyone who thinks that censorship is limited to China is nuts. GOOG is definitely censoring non-Prog content in the U.S.
Yes. Sometimes they've so buried information I am looking for I have to go to another search engine to find it without going through dozens of pages of links. Most of our more progressive friends here pooh pooh that and insist that the links that do come up on the first page or two are the consensus of the country. Which is the purpose of censorship in the first place of course.
I switched to duckduckgo years ago. I don't trust GOOG.
I use Google for convenience. But if they don't quickly show me what I'm looking for, Duckduckgo often does find it fairly quickly. I used to use Copernic which was amazing in finding stuff Google tries really hard to hide, but dropped it when they started charging for their service. Their rates are really low though at about $10/year at the low end.
"Approved" or "Verified?" I'm not upset if it helps weed out the lying pieces of shit that float fake news here.Some semblance of sanity had to be established on social media. Since so many people rely solely or mostly on the internet and their favorite news feeds to get their news, it is important people know they're getting reliable information. And FB is under great pressure to "protect" its users, too, from having their personal information used by research and ad agencies.With talk of 'Journalist Licenses' and the latest Facebook purge of Alternative Media sources, we are heading down a very dark path. Looks like Big Brother and his big Corporate Media partners, are beginning to force their 'Approved' Media on us.
Any Media Outlet not willing to toe the Government/Corporate Media line, will be purged. Shades of the old Soviet Union and China. It's a very disturbing time. Is there anything we can do to halt this march towards Totalitarianism?
This week, the alternative media purge was boldly advanced in a coordinated effort to silence people who dissent from establishment views.
It’s just one more step toward a monopoly on information by those who hate freedom. At this rate, they’ll soon have unquestioned access to the minds of more than 2 billion people. And this should terrify everyone who wants to be free to question the status quo and to seek a wide range of information.
Hundreds of alternative media site administrators logged onto Facebook to discover that their accounts had been removed. Soon after, many of these sites and their writers found that their Twitter accounts had also been suspended.
Popular pages like The AntiMedia (2.1 million fans), The Free Thought Project (3.1 million fans), Press for Truth (350K fans), Police the Police (1.9 million fans), Cop Block (1.7 million fans), and Punk Rock Libertarians (125K fans) are just a few of the ones which were unpublished.
Why were these alternative media accounts removed?
The reason given doesn’t really add up...
Why The Coordinated Alternative Media Purge Should Terrify Everyone
Not what these purges are about. They're about limiting information. It's all about the Government/Corporate Media forcing Citizens to only have access to their 'Approved' Media. All Americans should be very disturbed by these purges.
This trend is not coming from the current federal government that does not censor anybody. The purge is almost all leftwing motivated and only those sites that lean right of center are purged unless they would be offensive to ANYBODY regardless of political affiliations or ideological leanings,
Zuckerburg pretty much admitted it in his congressional hearing when he admitted that Facebook is based in an intensely liberal/leftist area and therefore his staff is heavily drawn from that demographic and they might be 'a little more aggressive' in judging a more conservative group as unacceptable.
In my opinion Facebook is a private entity and can run their business any way they choose. Should they become unacceptable to a large number of Americans, somebody will start a more equitable similar service to compete with them which would be a good thing.
Now should I be unable to access The Drudge Report, Real Clear Politics, and other sites that offer a good mix/balance of information, I will worry. And it may be if services like Google are judged to be a monopoly, they would need to be regulated in how they set their algorithms to favor certain sites over others in google searches. But right now I am not worried. If the Republicans lose the Congress and White House though, I will worry because the Democrats/leftists are very heavy into all manner of censorship.
GOOG is working on a special censored version of its search engine for the Chinese government. Anyone who thinks that censorship is limited to China is nuts. GOOG is definitely censoring non-Prog content in the U.S.
Yes. Sometimes they've so buried information I am looking for I have to go to another search engine to find it without going through dozens of pages of links. Most of our more progressive friends here pooh pooh that and insist that the links that do come up on the first page or two are the consensus of the country. Which is the purpose of censorship in the first place of course.
I switched to duckduckgo years ago. I don't trust GOOG.
I use Google for convenience. But if they don't quickly show me what I'm looking for, Duckduckgo often does find it fairly quickly. I used to use Copernic which was amazing in finding stuff Google tries really hard to hide, but dropped it when they started charging for their service. Their rates are really low though at about $10/year at the low end.
Duckduckgo is just as convenient as GOOG, but without all the creepy censorship and surveillance.
Gee, there must be a list a mile long of sites they have shut down.
Got a list of those handy?
How did they do it? Did they deny them DNS Registration? Drone strike on their Servers?
Shutting sites would be the next phase. But for right now, Government's Corporate proxies are doing the job. They're making it much more difficult for people to access alternative media.
Yeah I see what you mean. Its tough to type www.infowars,com in a browser.
PayPal has now banned Infowars too. Cut off the funding, alternative media dies. The Government/Corporate Media knows that very well. This is a very dangerous ongoing coordinated purge.
PayPals is a privately owned company that is not required to do business with a CT media outlet that pushes vile CT's like Sandy Hook.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
Shutting sites would be the next phase. But for right now, Government's Corporate proxies are doing the job. They're making it much more difficult for people to access alternative media.
Yeah I see what you mean. Its tough to type www.infowars,com in a browser.
PayPal has now banned Infowars too. Cut off the funding, alternative media dies. The Government/Corporate Media knows that very well. This is a very dangerous ongoing coordinated purge.
PayPals is a privately owned company that is not required to do business with a CT media outlet that pushes vile CT's like Sandy Hook.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
PayPals can do what they want to. If stupid people what to give to wackos like Alex Jones or any Con Man, I'm sure they can find a way. I don't thinks it's political views that got Jones in trouble but his numerous outrageous lies.
Yeah I see what you mean. Its tough to type www.infowars,com in a browser.
PayPal has now banned Infowars too. Cut off the funding, alternative media dies. The Government/Corporate Media knows that very well. This is a very dangerous ongoing coordinated purge.
PayPals is a privately owned company that is not required to do business with a CT media outlet that pushes vile CT's like Sandy Hook.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
PayPals can do what they want to. If stupid people what to give to wackos like Alex Jones or any Con Man, I'm sure they can find a way. I don't thinks it's political views that got Jones in trouble but his numerous outrageous lies.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Infowars and, while they do come up with a lot of stuff that is 100% accurate, I do not use them as a source because they will too often skew information to create an impression that is not accurate. And they aren't always careful in their own research so they do put out more misinformation than I think acceptable.
But if that is the criteria for banning somebody, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many other sites should also be banned. But the left leaning folks skewing information or presenting it with dishonest bias are not unacceptable I guess.
PayPal has now banned Infowars too. Cut off the funding, alternative media dies. The Government/Corporate Media knows that very well. This is a very dangerous ongoing coordinated purge.
PayPals is a privately owned company that is not required to do business with a CT media outlet that pushes vile CT's like Sandy Hook.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
PayPals can do what they want to. If stupid people what to give to wackos like Alex Jones or any Con Man, I'm sure they can find a way. I don't thinks it's political views that got Jones in trouble but his numerous outrageous lies.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Infowars and, while they do come up with a lot of stuff that is 100% accurate, I do not use them as a source because they will too often skew information to create an impression that is not accurate. And they aren't always careful in their own research so they do put out more misinformation than I think acceptable.
But if that is the criteria for banning somebody, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many other sites should also be banned. But the left leaning folks skewing information or presenting it with dishonest bias are not unacceptable I guess.
Why did you leave FOX off the list of newsy folks who skewer information or present it with a dishonest bias?
Has Infowars renounced the Sandy Hook Story?
No? That, to me is not misinformation. It's not telling half the story to embellish the parts of the story that aid one side of the other. It's a despicable lie that has caused many families undue distress amd suffering on top of losing a child in such a horrific way.
r
PayPals is a privately owned company that is not required to do business with a CT media outlet that pushes vile CT's like Sandy Hook.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
PayPals can do what they want to. If stupid people what to give to wackos like Alex Jones or any Con Man, I'm sure they can find a way. I don't thinks it's political views that got Jones in trouble but his numerous outrageous lies.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Infowars and, while they do come up with a lot of stuff that is 100% accurate, I do not use them as a source because they will too often skew information to create an impression that is not accurate. And they aren't always careful in their own research so they do put out more misinformation than I think acceptable.
But if that is the criteria for banning somebody, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many other sites should also be banned. But the left leaning folks skewing information or presenting it with dishonest bias are not unacceptable I guess.
Why did you leave FOX off the list of newsy folks who skewer information or present it with a dishonest bias?
Has Infowars renounced the Sandy Hook Story?
No? That, to me is not misinformation. It's not telling half the story to embellish the parts of the story that aid one side of the other. It's a despicable lie that has caused many families undue distress amd suffering on top of losing a child in such a horrific way.
r
I didn't include Fox because they do a damn good job of presenting ALL sides to the story. The only reason the left hates Fox is that they do present ALL sides to the story and that allows people more information to arrive at an informed conclusion. That their editorial opinion more often comes down on a different side than the progressives/liberals/leftists/statists/Democrats does not make it a lie. And they do not engage in the politics of personal destruction that most of the other MSM does.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
PayPals can do what they want to. If stupid people what to give to wackos like Alex Jones or any Con Man, I'm sure they can find a way. I don't thinks it's political views that got Jones in trouble but his numerous outrageous lies.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Infowars and, while they do come up with a lot of stuff that is 100% accurate, I do not use them as a source because they will too often skew information to create an impression that is not accurate. And they aren't always careful in their own research so they do put out more misinformation than I think acceptable.
But if that is the criteria for banning somebody, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many other sites should also be banned. But the left leaning folks skewing information or presenting it with dishonest bias are not unacceptable I guess.
Why did you leave FOX off the list of newsy folks who skewer information or present it with a dishonest bias?
Has Infowars renounced the Sandy Hook Story?
No? That, to me is not misinformation. It's not telling half the story to embellish the parts of the story that aid one side of the other. It's a despicable lie that has caused many families undue distress amd suffering on top of losing a child in such a horrific way.
r
I didn't include Fox because they do a damn good job of presenting ALL sides to the story. The only reason the left hates Fox is that they do present ALL sides to the story and that allows people more information to arrive at an informed conclusion. That their editorial opinion more often comes down on a different side than the progressives/liberals/leftists/statists/Democrats does not make it a lie. And they do not engage in the politics of personal destruction that most of the other MSM does.
Yeah right. Fox was right there to tell all sides of the story when the meme "You didn't build that" was presented by the GOP that President Obama was talking about individual businesses and not the incredible infrastructure of roads, railways, and telecommunications we have build in America.
Not really. FOX is as bias as they come. In fact more so than any other outlet. Especially now in the age of Trumpybear.
PayPals can do what they want to. If stupid people what to give to wackos like Alex Jones or any Con Man, I'm sure they can find a way. I don't thinks it's political views that got Jones in trouble but his numerous outrageous lies.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Infowars and, while they do come up with a lot of stuff that is 100% accurate, I do not use them as a source because they will too often skew information to create an impression that is not accurate. And they aren't always careful in their own research so they do put out more misinformation than I think acceptable.
But if that is the criteria for banning somebody, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many other sites should also be banned. But the left leaning folks skewing information or presenting it with dishonest bias are not unacceptable I guess.
Why did you leave FOX off the list of newsy folks who skewer information or present it with a dishonest bias?
Has Infowars renounced the Sandy Hook Story?
No? That, to me is not misinformation. It's not telling half the story to embellish the parts of the story that aid one side of the other. It's a despicable lie that has caused many families undue distress amd suffering on top of losing a child in such a horrific way.
r
I didn't include Fox because they do a damn good job of presenting ALL sides to the story. The only reason the left hates Fox is that they do present ALL sides to the story and that allows people more information to arrive at an informed conclusion. That their editorial opinion more often comes down on a different side than the progressives/liberals/leftists/statists/Democrats does not make it a lie. And they do not engage in the politics of personal destruction that most of the other MSM does.
Yeah right. Fox was right there to tell all sides of the story when the meme "You didn't build that" was presented by the GOP that President Obama was talking about individual businesses and not the incredible infrastructure of roads, railways, and telecommunications we have build in America.
Not really. FOX is as bias as they come. In fact more so than any other outlet. Especially now in the age of Trumpybear.
Actually Fox WAS there for the 'you didn't build that' mini scandal and they DID present all sides to it including the fact that the President most likely was referring to the infrastructure and services that we all share when he said it. But the fact that he would not give business people credit for the risks they take and the initiative they put into it was and is fairly criticized.
I wish President Trump could get half as honest and fair analysis from the MSM as Fox gave President Obama.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Infowars and, while they do come up with a lot of stuff that is 100% accurate, I do not use them as a source because they will too often skew information to create an impression that is not accurate. And they aren't always careful in their own research so they do put out more misinformation than I think acceptable.
But if that is the criteria for banning somebody, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many other sites should also be banned. But the left leaning folks skewing information or presenting it with dishonest bias are not unacceptable I guess.
Why did you leave FOX off the list of newsy folks who skewer information or present it with a dishonest bias?
Has Infowars renounced the Sandy Hook Story?
No? That, to me is not misinformation. It's not telling half the story to embellish the parts of the story that aid one side of the other. It's a despicable lie that has caused many families undue distress amd suffering on top of losing a child in such a horrific way.
r
I didn't include Fox because they do a damn good job of presenting ALL sides to the story. The only reason the left hates Fox is that they do present ALL sides to the story and that allows people more information to arrive at an informed conclusion. That their editorial opinion more often comes down on a different side than the progressives/liberals/leftists/statists/Democrats does not make it a lie. And they do not engage in the politics of personal destruction that most of the other MSM does.
Yeah right. Fox was right there to tell all sides of the story when the meme "You didn't build that" was presented by the GOP that President Obama was talking about individual businesses and not the incredible infrastructure of roads, railways, and telecommunications we have build in America.
Not really. FOX is as bias as they come. In fact more so than any other outlet. Especially now in the age of Trumpybear.
Actually Fox WAS there for the 'you didn't build that' mini scandal and they DID present all sides to it including the fact that the President most likely was referring to the infrastructure and services that we all share when he said it. But the fact that he would not give business people credit for the risks they take and the initiative they put into it was and is fairly criticized.
I wish President Trump could get half as honest and fair analysis from the MSM as Fox gave President Obama.
Sure they did, or didn't?
Smart conservatives will delete Facebook and the like. The rest will continue to use it while whining about it. Which camp are you in?With talk of 'Journalist Licenses' and the latest Facebook purge of Alternative Media sources, we are heading down a very dark path. Looks like Big Brother and his big Corporate Media partners, are beginning to force their 'Approved' Media on us.
Any Media Outlet not willing to toe the Government/Corporate Media line, will be purged. Shades of the old Soviet Union and China. It's a very disturbing time. Is there anything we can do to halt this march towards Totalitarianism?
This week, the alternative media purge was boldly advanced in a coordinated effort to silence people who dissent from establishment views.
It’s just one more step toward a monopoly on information by those who hate freedom. At this rate, they’ll soon have unquestioned access to the minds of more than 2 billion people. And this should terrify everyone who wants to be free to question the status quo and to seek a wide range of information.
Hundreds of alternative media site administrators logged onto Facebook to discover that their accounts had been removed. Soon after, many of these sites and their writers found that their Twitter accounts had also been suspended.
Popular pages like The AntiMedia (2.1 million fans), The Free Thought Project (3.1 million fans), Press for Truth (350K fans), Police the Police (1.9 million fans), Cop Block (1.7 million fans), and Punk Rock Libertarians (125K fans) are just a few of the ones which were unpublished.
Why were these alternative media accounts removed?
The reason given doesn’t really add up...
Why The Coordinated Alternative Media Purge Should Terrify Everyone
Why did you leave FOX off the list of newsy folks who skewer information or present it with a dishonest bias?
Has Infowars renounced the Sandy Hook Story?
No? That, to me is not misinformation. It's not telling half the story to embellish the parts of the story that aid one side of the other. It's a despicable lie that has caused many families undue distress amd suffering on top of losing a child in such a horrific way.
r
I didn't include Fox because they do a damn good job of presenting ALL sides to the story. The only reason the left hates Fox is that they do present ALL sides to the story and that allows people more information to arrive at an informed conclusion. That their editorial opinion more often comes down on a different side than the progressives/liberals/leftists/statists/Democrats does not make it a lie. And they do not engage in the politics of personal destruction that most of the other MSM does.
Yeah right. Fox was right there to tell all sides of the story when the meme "You didn't build that" was presented by the GOP that President Obama was talking about individual businesses and not the incredible infrastructure of roads, railways, and telecommunications we have build in America.
Not really. FOX is as bias as they come. In fact more so than any other outlet. Especially now in the age of Trumpybear.
Actually Fox WAS there for the 'you didn't build that' mini scandal and they DID present all sides to it including the fact that the President most likely was referring to the infrastructure and services that we all share when he said it. But the fact that he would not give business people credit for the risks they take and the initiative they put into it was and is fairly criticized.
I wish President Trump could get half as honest and fair analysis from the MSM as Fox gave President Obama.
Sure they did, or didn't?
I am not going to comment on an edited tape that presents a tiny portion of the coverage. I listened to a LOT of debate on all that when it happened and I am very certain I did not misinterpret that coverage. Yes, his comment was insensitive and rather stupid actually, but he did get credit for probably not meaning it the way he said it. On Fox News. All did not agree with the 'probably' part but that is anybody's right. I wouldn't care if CNN, MSNBC et all don't accept that Trump doesn't mean it the way he says it sometimes, if only they would allow him the possibility of a different interpretation or allow another opinion to be expressed. The edited tapes that put together a montage of people saying one thing while others are saying something different but don't get included are just plain dishonest.
And yes, it is dishonest to leave out the qualifiers Obama said before the 'you didn't build that' line. But it is not dishonest to believe that Obama thinks nobody would succeed without government or that those who take the risks and put in their vision, time, and energy don't deserve the credit for the businesses they build. He doesn't allow that infrastructure very often follows and is made feasible by economic development and in fact is the way it should be done.
As for what people say, context is even more important than inflection or facial expression or body language, and all of that is usually necessary to accurately interpret the spoken word:
Exercise in the difference inflection makes:
- “I did not say he lost the keys.” (If not you, who said it?)
- “I did not SAY he lost the keys.” (Maybe you wrote it?)
- “I did not say HE lost the keys.” (I guess someone else lost the keys.)
- “I did not say he LOST the keys.” (Perhaps he gave them away?)
- “I did not say he lost the KEYS.” (Gee! I hope he didn’t lose the car!)
Gee, there must be a list a mile long of sites they have shut down.
Got a list of those handy?
How did they do it? Did they deny them DNS Registration? Drone strike on their Servers?
Shutting sites would be the next phase. But for right now, Government's Corporate proxies are doing the job. They're making it much more difficult for people to access alternative media.
Yeah I see what you mean. Its tough to type www.infowars,com in a browser.
PayPal has now banned Infowars too. Cut off the funding, alternative media dies. The Government/Corporate Media knows that very well. This is a very dangerous ongoing coordinated purge.
PayPals is a privately owned company that is not required to do business with a CT media outlet that pushes vile CT's like Sandy Hook.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
Yeah I see what you mean. Its tough to type www.infowars,com in a browser.
PayPal has now banned Infowars too. Cut off the funding, alternative media dies. The Government/Corporate Media knows that very well. This is a very dangerous ongoing coordinated purge.
PayPals is a privately owned company that is not required to do business with a CT media outlet that pushes vile CT's like Sandy Hook.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
PayPals can do what they want to. If stupid people what to give to wackos like Alex Jones or any Con Man, I'm sure they can find a way. I don't thinks it's political views that got Jones in trouble but his numerous outrageous lies.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Infowars and, while they do come up with a lot of stuff that is 100% accurate, I do not use them as a source because they will too often skew information to create an impression that is not accurate. And they aren't always careful in their own research so they do put out more misinformation than I think acceptable.
But if that is the criteria for banning somebody, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many other sites should also be banned. But the left leaning folks skewing information or presenting it with dishonest bias are not unacceptable I guess.
Smart conservatives will delete Facebook and the like. The rest will continue to use it while whining about it. Which camp are you in?With talk of 'Journalist Licenses' and the latest Facebook purge of Alternative Media sources, we are heading down a very dark path. Looks like Big Brother and his big Corporate Media partners, are beginning to force their 'Approved' Media on us.
Any Media Outlet not willing to toe the Government/Corporate Media line, will be purged. Shades of the old Soviet Union and China. It's a very disturbing time. Is there anything we can do to halt this march towards Totalitarianism?
This week, the alternative media purge was boldly advanced in a coordinated effort to silence people who dissent from establishment views.
It’s just one more step toward a monopoly on information by those who hate freedom. At this rate, they’ll soon have unquestioned access to the minds of more than 2 billion people. And this should terrify everyone who wants to be free to question the status quo and to seek a wide range of information.
Hundreds of alternative media site administrators logged onto Facebook to discover that their accounts had been removed. Soon after, many of these sites and their writers found that their Twitter accounts had also been suspended.
Popular pages like The AntiMedia (2.1 million fans), The Free Thought Project (3.1 million fans), Press for Truth (350K fans), Police the Police (1.9 million fans), Cop Block (1.7 million fans), and Punk Rock Libertarians (125K fans) are just a few of the ones which were unpublished.
Why were these alternative media accounts removed?
The reason given doesn’t really add up...
Why The Coordinated Alternative Media Purge Should Terrify Everyone
I deleted all that garbage years ago.
I didn't include Fox because they do a damn good job of presenting ALL sides to the story. The only reason the left hates Fox is that they do present ALL sides to the story and that allows people more information to arrive at an informed conclusion. That their editorial opinion more often comes down on a different side than the progressives/liberals/leftists/statists/Democrats does not make it a lie. And they do not engage in the politics of personal destruction that most of the other MSM does.
Yeah right. Fox was right there to tell all sides of the story when the meme "You didn't build that" was presented by the GOP that President Obama was talking about individual businesses and not the incredible infrastructure of roads, railways, and telecommunications we have build in America.
Not really. FOX is as bias as they come. In fact more so than any other outlet. Especially now in the age of Trumpybear.
Actually Fox WAS there for the 'you didn't build that' mini scandal and they DID present all sides to it including the fact that the President most likely was referring to the infrastructure and services that we all share when he said it. But the fact that he would not give business people credit for the risks they take and the initiative they put into it was and is fairly criticized.
I wish President Trump could get half as honest and fair analysis from the MSM as Fox gave President Obama.
Sure they did, or didn't?
I am not going to comment on an edited tape that presents a tiny portion of the coverage. I listened to a LOT of debate on all that when it happened and I am very certain I did not misinterpret that coverage. Yes, his comment was insensitive and rather stupid actually, but he did get credit for probably not meaning it the way he said it. On Fox News. All did not agree with the 'probably' part but that is anybody's right. I wouldn't care if CNN, MSNBC et all don't accept that Trump doesn't mean it the way he says it sometimes, if only they would allow him the possibility of a different interpretation or allow another opinion to be expressed. The edited tapes that put together a montage of people saying one thing while others are saying something different but don't get included are just plain dishonest.
And yes, it is dishonest to leave out the qualifiers Obama said before the 'you didn't build that' line. But it is not dishonest to believe that Obama thinks nobody would succeed without government or that those who take the risks and put in their vision, time, and energy don't deserve the credit for the businesses they build. He doesn't allow that infrastructure very often follows and is made feasible by economic development and in fact is the way it should be done.
As for what people say, context is even more important than inflection or facial expression or body language, and all of that is usually necessary to accurately interpret the spoken word:
Exercise in the difference inflection makes:
- “I did not say he lost the keys.” (If not you, who said it?)
- “I did not SAY he lost the keys.” (Maybe you wrote it?)
- “I did not say HE lost the keys.” (I guess someone else lost the keys.)
- “I did not say he LOST the keys.” (Perhaps he gave them away?)
- “I did not say he lost the KEYS.” (Gee! I hope he didn’t lose the car!)
Not one single qualifier here from Fox.
Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'
"President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”"
Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'
Let me just say that Fox is not fair or balanced, but just as bias, if not more so than the national networks you listed.
PayPal has now banned Infowars too. Cut off the funding, alternative media dies. The Government/Corporate Media knows that very well. This is a very dangerous ongoing coordinated purge.
PayPals is a privately owned company that is not required to do business with a CT media outlet that pushes vile CT's like Sandy Hook.
Actually I agree. But I suspect you would not be so supportive of Paypal if they did business with Infowars but refused to do business with MediaMatters or Code Pink or Black Lives Matter etc. because they disagreed with them.
It is one thing to exclude ALL politically motivated groups for whatever reason. Or to accept only political content that deals with ideas but that does not specifically support a political party or does not attack political parties or people. It is quite something else again to allow only one kind of ideological political content but not all.
PayPals can do what they want to. If stupid people what to give to wackos like Alex Jones or any Con Man, I'm sure they can find a way. I don't thinks it's political views that got Jones in trouble but his numerous outrageous lies.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Infowars and, while they do come up with a lot of stuff that is 100% accurate, I do not use them as a source because they will too often skew information to create an impression that is not accurate. And they aren't always careful in their own research so they do put out more misinformation than I think acceptable.
But if that is the criteria for banning somebody, then CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many other sites should also be banned. But the left leaning folks skewing information or presenting it with dishonest bias are not unacceptable I guess.
The reasons given for banning several Alternative Media sources, absolutely apply to big Corporate Media outlets like CNN, NBC, Wash Post, and NY Times. Why haven't they been banned?
