"Anonymous sources" =/= "Fake news"

originally posted by: DJW001

You are the one who is confused. You are the one arguing for censorship, not me.

Sell that to Alex Jones or anybody else you don't care for. The hypocrisy is deafening. Where have I argued for censorship? I DO argue that govt sponsored propaganda has no place in a free press. Thanks Obama. CNN =

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Does that describe the corporate MSM to you?

Roughly, yes. No-one is perfect. Of course, you're still not answering the question. One corollary of the First Amendment is that free speech will be abused. It is up to the individual to spot the abuses, not the government's job to prevent them. Otherwise, the press ceases to be free, right?

originally posted by: Sillyolme

I know that those of us on the left will never get the star or flag count of the teaming masses here.

I look at it the way I did when I made the honor roll for the first time and some kids said I was a nerd.
I had to accept there were fewer members in the club I was in.

I have no comment.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ah. I see that you are having comprehension problems. You have asserted that I, personally, have labored to do these things. Please show where I, personally, have done that on these boards.

Is it time to make Infowars non grata?

There you labored to have them banned from the site.

There are other threads (including off topic in some of my own threads) where you pushed on.

I havent been paying too close attention for some months, but there was about a 6 month period that whenever a damning IW story would get going you'd come in derailing the thread for literally pages on end.

In one thread it was even clear you had called in the staff trying to shut the thread down. There were witnesses, in this very thread they'll remember I'm sure of it.

And that's just a quick summary of the IW example.

Deep in the comments of my It Came From The Internet piece are 'all' the threads linked in from the FAKE NEWS insanity era, up until the completion of that piece. Within those links are multiple threads where you were in there full tilt pushing the FAKE NEWS censor everybody that's anti DNC anti globalist anti war propaganda etc.

Like I already said, you want people to find faith in your 'journalistic integrity' you had better first start with intellectual honesty (or honesty n general), a good place to start would be by owning up to what you've done around here. Even if the site pages would 'forget', I wouldn't.

a reply to: The GUT

Sell that to Alex Jones or anybody else you don't care for.

Can you provide an example other than the exception I made for Alex Jones? IgnoranceIsntBliss can't and he's way more obsessive than you are.

The hypocrisy is deafening.

This is not the Mud Pit.

Where have I argued for censorship?

Here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I assume you are going to be the one to decide what is "weaponized propaganda" when you come to power.

I DO argue that govt sponsored propaganda has no place in a free press.

In that case, it is not truly free, it is constrained.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Does that describe the corporate MSM to you?

Roughly, yes. No-one is perfect. Of course, you're still not answering the question. One corollary of the First Amendment is that free speech will be abused. It is up to the individual to spot the abuses, not the government's job to prevent them. Otherwise, the press ceases to be free, right?

Oh but its okay for them to push government / MILITARY propaganda as a profession.

Dont act like you dont get it by now.

But GAWD forbid such practices are forced to end. That's be tyrannical!!!!!

a reply to: DJW001

Yes I can.

You've labelled globalresearch.ca as literal russian propaganda agents, in thread after thread you've done it even after I had soundly defeated that position multiple times.

originally posted by: DJW001

Can you provide an example other than the exception I made for Alex Jones? IgnoranceIsntBliss can't and he's way more obsessive than you are.

We only need ONE. Can you point out one from me?

In that case, it is not truly free, it is constrained.

I rest my case. I'm glad you admitted we have something less than a free press these days. Why are you arguing for more of the same?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Wow. You produced one example of my suggesting that a cult be charged for advertising on ATS, and that is grounds for calling me an advocate of censorship? That, and vague recollections that maybe I have said disparaging things about InfoWars elsewhere? Let me make this perfectly clear yet again: InfoWars has every right to publish its psychotic garbage. Everyone has the right to go there and read it, and if they are stupid or paranoid they have the right to believe it. You, on the other hand, are constantly advocating censoring eliminating the ability of everyone you disagree with or whom you do not believe to persuade the public.

I am willing to accept the right of InfoWars to publish on the internet and broadcast on the radio. If their service provider charges them for bandwidth, that is their right. If the radio stations insist InfoWars find paid sponsors, that is their right. If Alex Jones' show gets cancelled because of poor ratings or no sponsors, that is not censorship.

Why are you unwilling to accept that businesses can pay broadcasters to persuade the public that toothpaste makes them sexier? Only idiots are persuaded as easily as ad men want their clients to believe.

Wow that non grata thread...

Speechless.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DJW001

Yes I can.

You've labelled globalresearch.ca as literal russian propaganda agents, in thread after thread you've done it even after I had soundly defeated that position multiple times.

That's because they literally are:

toinformistoinfluence.com...

ETA: Now... where did you soundly defeat that position even once?

a reply to: The GUT

I rest my case. I'm glad you admitted we have something less than a free press these days. Why are you arguing for more of the same?

I am arguing for an even freer press. But don't worry, Trump will roll back net neutrality and your service provider will figure out which web sites you can be allowed to read.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Wow that non grata thread...

Speechless.

What about it? Do you think that ATS does not have the right to charge for advertising?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Wow. You produced one example of my suggesting that a cult be charged for advertising on ATS, and that is grounds for calling me an advocate of censorship? That, and vague recollections that maybe I have said disparaging things about InfoWars elsewhere? Let me make this perfectly clear yet again: InfoWars has every right to publish its psychotic garbage. Everyone has the right to go there and read it, and if they are stupid or paranoid they have the right to believe it. You, on the other hand, are constantly advocating censoring eliminating the ability of everyone you disagree with or whom you do not believe to persuade the public.

I am willing to accept the right of InfoWars to publish on the internet and broadcast on the radio. If their service provider charges them for bandwidth, that is their right. If the radio stations insist InfoWars find paid sponsors, that is their right. If Alex Jones' show gets cancelled because of poor ratings or no sponsors, that is not censorship.

Why are you unwilling to accept that businesses can pay broadcasters to persuade the public that toothpaste makes them sexier? Only idiots are persuaded as easily as ad men want their clients to believe.

You wanted them banned. You figured out a little technical argument to push your agenda of 'oh they're getting free advertising here staff you should ban them for it'. The staff told you NO. And you've still pushed on ever since at times every single IW thread to go up you'd show up derailing the threads to kingdom come.

Just doing your civic duty to protect a free and independent source (whom you hate their perspectives) from being part of the discussion in our little world here.

And what political party, etc, ISNT a cult???

Jeezus!

I would like to thank everyone who has personally attacked me for bumping this thread. Once again, a piece designed simply to inform has unleashed a hailstorm of incoherent anger. See you all later.

a reply to: DJW001

Dude, your premise ya that's a 'part' of journalism. But in this day and age the MSM is completely weaponized propaganda (of multiple forms), constant, and like never before "anonymous source said" is used about daily now to push total bogus BS.

These are unprecidented times for the "free press", so appealing to some yesteryear sense of 'how it should be', while trying to prop up all the BS that's spun against us everyday (as PSYOP is literal WARFARE being perpetrated against US) is something dastardly. Especially if you're in the know of things.

a reply to: DJW001

I clicked on the thread you were complaining about and I did not see any advertisers. I see members expressing their right to free speech. I also see you trying to censor their right to free speech. I also see you here in this thread, advocating for the same thing you were against in that thread.

Seems like you are for free speech, as long as you like what you're hearing.

originally posted by: DJW001

I am arguing for an even freer press. But don't worry, Trump will roll back net neutrality and your service provider will figure out which web sites you can be allowed to read.

How are you arguing for a freer press? I don't see it. Until you address the propaganda and "constrained" free press, you sound like a walking ad for a govt subsidized/controlled MSM.

As per net neutrality, yes, they are building on their success in the MSM. Now the net!! I'm guessing you'll be telling us pretty soon how rolling back net neutrality is actually good for us. I mean it goes right along with your argument that providers/businesses have the right to censor what they want. Think they'll let Alex on?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DJW001

Yes I can.

You've labelled globalresearch.ca as literal russian propaganda agents, in thread after thread you've done it even after I had soundly defeated that position multiple times.

That's because they literally are:

toinformistoinfluence.com...

ETA: Now... where did you soundly defeat that position even once?

That page doesnt prove a damn thing. Instead, for merely being critical of the militaristic war propaganda outlets that they are, they are therefore an arm of the Russian propaganda apparatus.

Talk about a smear campaign.

Meanwhile they've been around for long before Russia was even the big show in modern geopolitics, being criticial of war propaganda in general.

ZOMG!!!

Now that Russian interests are all mingled up with current Western IMPERIALIST war fronts oh of course anyone critical of the evils on this side are therefore Russian state agents!! YEYEAH!!!

You forgot to include the link to propornot.com in your little 'expose' there.

Nevermind that the very same criteria your source (and every other one I've seen you post on this matter) also lumps in every other antiwar website that is critical of US/NATO foreign policy.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

But you are in no way attempting to silence me or shout me down? It would be funny if only you had some self knowledge. Ciao.