Warrior Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 15 hours ago, SeaShells21 said: No races, no colors, no genders, no religions. What kind of society would that be? One that can look at each other as an individual based on their merits vs being divided into groups and being judged as a collective. Much easier to control the people once they are divided and pitted against each other. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTerrapin Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTerrapin Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted February 27 Author Report Share Posted February 27 7 hours ago, Warrior said: One that can look at each other as an individual based on their merits vs being divided into groups and being judged as a collective. Much easier to control the people once they are divided and pitted against each other. Drone Clone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted February 27 Author Report Share Posted February 27 On 2/26/2023 at 5:01 PM, Belly Bob said: I think the idea is to organize ourselves into a society that promotes human goods that transcend race, sex, gender, etc. But that's hard to do when so many want to make equity the only good worthy of pursuit and then categorize each individual in society as privileged or oppressed according to his or her (or their) race, sex, gender, etc. Where would you suggest the starting point be? If we are not all on equal footing, we can't achieve together. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 33 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said: Drone Clone. Got you right where they want you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 23 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said: Why would you suggest the starting point be? If we are not all on equal footing, we can't achieve together. "equality of opportunity" is the most equal footing you will find from any government. if you don't like the "place you were born in" then blame your mom... PS: government's role vs an individual's role... ...each can only do so much. BTW: and stop using words like "achieve"... ...when that is not yer philosophy or yer goal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted February 27 Author Report Share Posted February 27 1 hour ago, Troll said: "equality of opportunity" is the most equal footing you will find from any government. if you don't like the "place you were born in" then blame your mom... PS: government's role vs an individual's role... ...each can only do so much. BTW: and stop using words like "achieve"... ...when that is not yer philosophy or yer goal. We are not talking about government. We are talking society. You can't conflate the two and their roles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted February 27 Author Report Share Posted February 27 1 hour ago, Troll said: "equality of opportunity" is the most equal footing you will find from any government. if you don't like the "place you were born in" then blame your mom... PS: government's role vs an individual's role... ...each can only do so much. BTW: and stop using words like "achieve"... ...when that is not yer philosophy or yer goal. You are not in position to tell anyone what words to use. If they are lacking from your vocabulary due to a decreased need for the word, understand that others may be bearers of another thought process, different from that of yours. Limit yourself to what you know. Live by that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 39 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said: We are not talking about government. We are talking society. You can't conflate the two and their roles. "society" is not going to hand you (or anyone) anything... so you look to the government for assistance (and ignore self). it is you, who are conflating the two... PS: Hope this helps. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 2 hours ago, Troll said: "society" is not going to hand you (or anyone) anything... so you look to the government for assistance (and ignore self). it is you, who are conflating the two... PS: Hope this helps. 👍 No, it is you as I seek nothing from government. Your projection is noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 On 2/23/2023 at 5:24 PM, World Citizen said: No, it is not. It could not be any more different. Those 3 are like autism. Fox news is the Special Olympics. It is on a whole different level. Now they are admitting they are lying to a certain segment because that segment is not smart enough to handle the Truth. These are those people from the horse's mouth. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT HIS PEOPLE FROM 68% TO THE NINETIES. HIS PEOPLE . WELL THEY ARE SO BATSHEET CRAZY THAT HE COULD DO THIS. HIS WORDS ABOUT THEIR NUTTINESS AND WHO THE HELL IS THIS THEY? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 9 hours ago, DevilDog said: Those 3 are like autism. Fox news is the Special Olympics. It is on a whole different level. Now they are admitting they are lying to a certain segment because that segment is not smart enough to handle the Truth. These are those people from the horse's mouth. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT HIS PEOPLE FROM 68% TO THE NINETIES. HIS PEOPLE . WELL THEY ARE SO BATSHEET CRAZY THAT HE COULD DO THIS. HIS WORDS ABOUT THEIR NUTTINESS AND WHO THE HELL IS THIS THEY? Truth is the hammer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, Wildcat Will said: Truth is the hammer. must be why fools avoid it so much... 💩 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 This has a lot to do as to why America is so divided...1/2 the country has been sold the BIG lie by their major/only source of "news" just so Fox could keep their audience and ratings = $$$...Fox news has zero credibility...they are an official propaganda channel for people who don't mind being played for ratings....😪 Rupert Murdoch admits he knew Fox News hosts endorsed false election fraud claims, deposition shows 3k Stephen Battaglio Mon, February 27, 2023 at 5:29 PM EST Lachlan Murdoch, left, and Rupert Murdoch at the U.S. Open in New York in 2018. (Adrian Edwards / GC Images) New court documents show that Rupert Murdoch and his top lieutenants at Fox News were aware that former President Trump's claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election were false, but agreed to give them continued coverage in an effort to keep unhappy viewers from fleeing. The stunning revelations based on deposition testimony were in a brief filed Monday in a Delaware state court by Dominion Voting Systems, the latest salvo in the company's $1.6-billion defamation suit against the conservative news network. The testimony by Murdoch and others at the company will add powerful evidence to what many 1st Amendment attorneys have said is among the strongest cases they have seen against a media organization. Dominion needs to prove that Fox News was reckless in knowingly spreading false information to show that the network acted with malice. Fox News has maintained that its coverage and commentary of Trump's false allegations were newsworthy and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment. In his depositions, Murdoch acknowledged that he had the power to keep Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell from appearing on Fox News, where they spread misinformation about election fraud and falsely accused Dominion of using its machines to manipulate votes. But he chose not to exercise that power, even though behind the scenes he and others were aware that Trump's legal team was spreading lies and even questioned their sanity, according to the deposition. When asked as to whether he could have said to Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott and the network's hosts, "stop putting Rudy Giuliani on the air,” Murdoch replied, "I could have. But I didn't." Murdoch acknowledged that he was mindful of antagonizing Trump-supporting Fox News viewers who were angry over the result of the election. Fox News was the first network on election night to call Arizona for Joe Biden. Trump “had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid,” Murdoch said in his testimony. The filing also reveals that Fox Corp. board member Paul Ryan warned the Murdochs “that Fox News should not be spreading conspiracy theories,” according to testimony from the former Republican speaker of the House. “We are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where [Trump] has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to de-legitimize the election," Ryan told the Murdochs. "I see this as a key inflection point for Fox, where the right thing and the smart business thing to do line up nicely.” In a statement, Fox News said Dominion is taking "an extreme, unsupported view of defamation law that would prevent journalists from basic reporting and their efforts to publicly smear Fox for covering and commenting on allegations by a sitting President of the United States should be recognized for what it is: a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.” The filing provides an extraordinary glimpse into the operations of Fox News, where network executives intensely debated how to debunk Trump's false claims without agitating viewers, some of whom were flocking to upstart conservative network Newsmax, which was far more sympathetic to the falsehoods. Murdoch's son Lachlan, Fox Corp.'s chief executive, testified that he would lie awake at night worrying about Fox News ratings. On Jan. 5, Murdoch and Scott discussed whether hosts Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham should say some version of “The election is over and Joe Biden won.” Murdoch said he believed those words “would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election was stolen.” Scott told Murdoch that “privately they are all there,” but “we need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers.” No statement was made that night, and the next day, Jan. 6, Trump-supporting rioters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop the electoral vote count. Dominion filed a motion for summary judgment on Feb. 16 that outlined how Fox News anchors and executives privately dismissed the claims of voter fraud and found no evidence to support them, but continued to give a platform on their programs to Trump lawyers and surrogates who presented wildly false allegations. Fox News anchors and executives privately described Powell and Giuliani as “nuts” and “crazy,” even as they continued to give them airtime. They even criticized their own anchors, including Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro, who they believed were influenced by Trump advocates touting conspiracy theories. Those included unfounded claims that Dominion was a key player in a rigged election by manipulating vote counts and suggestions that it was owned and controlled by the Venezuelan government. As the case moves forward, the inner workings at Fox News are being exposed through texts, emails and deposition testimony, presenting a picture of an operation panicked over how Trump supporters in its audience would abandon the network. A hearing on the motions is scheduled for March 21. If the case goes to trial, it would begin in mid-April. Fox News filed a brief Monday in opposition to Dominion that cited deposition testimony by Murdoch that he is not directly involved in making editorial decisions on the network and that Scott was responsible. "I appointed Ms. Scott to the job ... and I delegate everything to her,” Murdoch testified. The brief also said that just because a number of executives and anchors disbelieved Trump's fraud claims does not mean it was defamatory to report on them. "Dominion cannot establish actual malice by relying upon skepticism of persons at Fox News who were not responsible for the allegedly defamatory statements," the brief said. "It is hardly unusual that some people in a newsroom (with the diverse political viewpoints one would expect) will disbelieve the allegations and hope that they ultimately prove false, while others will keep an open mind in hopes that they prove true." In a statement, Dominion said the company "is a strong believer in the 1st Amendment and its protections. As long-settled law makes clear, the 1st Amendment does not shield broadcasters that knowingly or recklessly spread lies.” 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 23 hours ago, OldTerrapin said: I heard his voice and tone while reading it…true legend! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 3 hours ago, Troll said: must be why fools avoid it so much... 💩 You should know nail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 28 Report Share Posted February 28 2 hours ago, Wildcat Will said: You should know nail. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 2 hours ago, Troll said: So being the nail AND not understanding. You are so winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, Wildcat Will said: So being the nail AND not understanding. You are so winning. A (truth) hammer and nail can do some good work together, kind of like a team... if they can't shore something up... ...it's probably just the rotted wood. 👍 PS: ...or an ignorant fool. 💩 BTW: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 9 hours ago, Troll said: A (truth) hammer and nail can do some good work together, kind of like a team... if they can't shore something up... ...it's probably just the rotted wood. 👍 PS: ...or an ignorant fool. 💩 BTW: The hammer of truth is crushing the lying nail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 On 2/27/2023 at 3:24 PM, Wildcat Will said: Where would you suggest the starting point be? If we are not all on equal footing, we can't achieve together. ↳ I'd start by pointing out that we'll never be on equal footing. We come out of the womb with differing abilities. We soon develop different drives. The goal of a liberal society should be to guarantee that everyone of roughly the same ability who applies roughly the same effort should have roughly the same chance of securing competitive goods. The idea that a society should strive for equality of outcomes ignores basic facts about human nature. Moreover, we've seen in recent history several earnest attempts at organizing society around the goal of securing equal outcomes, and in every case, it turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 13 hours ago, Wildcat Will said: The hammer of truth is crushing the ignorant fool. fify 👌 PS: rotted wood... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 3 hours ago, Belly Bob said: I'd start by pointing out that we'll never be on equal footing. We come out of the womb with differing abilities. We soon develop different drives. The goal of a liberal society should be to guarantee that everyone of roughly the same ability who applies roughly the same effort should have roughly the same chance of securing competitive goods. The idea that a society should strive for equality of outcomes ignores basic facts about human nature. Moreover, we've seen in recent history several earnest attempts at organizing society around the goal of securing equal outcomes, and in every case, it turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. BB, your post makes too much sense for many on this board. You can’t govern equal outcomes only equal opportunities. I would argue there isn’t a greater nation in the world than ours when it comes to equal opportunities. Now it’s up to the individual to produce the outcome they desire or fail to achieve. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.