Thanks, I'm new to the stack. So many trolls here. I'd love it if whoever sees them first, just lays on a easy reply - Troll. I do this on another stack, that trolls seem to like.
This way we all know to skip over them. They go away eventually, as does an itch if not scratched.
People think they're entitled to one's agreement, all too often. Fact is, no-one is even entitled to KNOW another's opinion if that other doesn't choose to broadcast it.
I sure hope you guys discuss the leaked emails between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein. It's so consequential that corporate news won't touch it. My guess it that you'll both claim to have no idea what emails are about or what they imply or what lies they expose if you broach the topic at all, but hope springs eternal!
Last week Walter mentioned looking at these events like a chess game, that is look ahead. I couldn't help thinking that originally (1930s?) the US took over frequency bands, because they needed to reserve certain bands for the military, aviation, and other reasons, including public broadcasting. Putting the rider in about using public airways a certain way was probably unconstitutional, but at that time they were probably thinking the First Amendment only applied to newspapers, public speakers and the like, but I think since then the interpretation has broadened.
We already have countries like Russia, China, Europe, etc. taking control of digital communication, in the name of control. What would prevent the US from doing the same thing, citing ownership of broadcast frequencies as a precedent for also controlling? The argument is, since the government owns the medium, they also have the right to control it, sidestepping the First Amendment. I think it's wrong, and why it's wrong to use the "special case" of broadcast frequencies as allowing government control over what they "own".
Say tuned for a new ATW.
Will Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn throw more gasoline on the Charlie Kirk fire by stoking the culture wars with more cherry-picked quotes?
- Will Kirn call Charlie Kirk’s shooting a ‘trans shooting’?
- Will Kirn double down on his censorship apologetics while Taibbi struggles to formulate a coherent position?
will Wright, Terrance and Karen troll the comments in a flaccid attempt to influence Matt's content?
Here's a free idea. Get your own show. Then you can cover whatever topics you want. Trying to guilt Matt and Walter isnt working out for you.
Thanks, I'm new to the stack. So many trolls here. I'd love it if whoever sees them first, just lays on a easy reply - Troll. I do this on another stack, that trolls seem to like.
This way we all know to skip over them. They go away eventually, as does an itch if not scratched.
People think they're entitled to one's agreement, all too often. Fact is, no-one is even entitled to KNOW another's opinion if that other doesn't choose to broadcast it.
You raise excellent points. I would just add that your uncritical acceptance of their partisan claptrap has worked out brilliantly for you.
Huzzah!
I love Walter's perspective, but I do wish he could let Matt finish a thought more often.
you'll probably be on when Trump n RFK announce the autism findings.
It's only going to be a baby-step today. Tylenol. But we all know, it's actually, the 80+ jabs poisoning our children.
I sure hope you guys discuss the leaked emails between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein. It's so consequential that corporate news won't touch it. My guess it that you'll both claim to have no idea what emails are about or what they imply or what lies they expose if you broach the topic at all, but hope springs eternal!
Can you link to a reputable article our source for these leaked emails?
what book are they on now?
Been busy and have not had time to listen
Ted Cruz is always weird.
Last week Walter mentioned looking at these events like a chess game, that is look ahead. I couldn't help thinking that originally (1930s?) the US took over frequency bands, because they needed to reserve certain bands for the military, aviation, and other reasons, including public broadcasting. Putting the rider in about using public airways a certain way was probably unconstitutional, but at that time they were probably thinking the First Amendment only applied to newspapers, public speakers and the like, but I think since then the interpretation has broadened.
We already have countries like Russia, China, Europe, etc. taking control of digital communication, in the name of control. What would prevent the US from doing the same thing, citing ownership of broadcast frequencies as a precedent for also controlling? The argument is, since the government owns the medium, they also have the right to control it, sidestepping the First Amendment. I think it's wrong, and why it's wrong to use the "special case" of broadcast frequencies as allowing government control over what they "own".
It's interesting to watch Matt Tiabbi being buffaloed by Kern on this issue.
Wow! You lost me with this one, Matt.