Posted on 09/03/2018 3:39:07 AM PDT by Prolixus
What I wanted was Kim Komando would be noble and declare her show would continue to be apolitical. Instead, I was propagandized by her anti-Trump rant.
Do enemies, foreign or domestic, have First Amendment rights to propagandize us?
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech [from one’s lips to another’s ears]. It does not guarantee massive Globalist organizations a right to force their opinions on us.
who?
Is she Korean?
If corporations are defrauding investors by making false claims, that’s one thing. Fedzilla certainly has an interest there. But government censors. Companies do not.
If customers get fed up, the market will respond.
Interesting thing in Facebook’s and Twitter’s cases is why institutionAL investors aren’t having a cow...Fedzilla might want to have a look there.
My "new" computer is only ten years old so doesn't have a floppy disk drive. CD drives are going the way of the buggy whip too. Kids don't even have computers, they walk around with a thing in their hands. In a few years those will be replaced by a micro implant where their biological brain was before it atrophied.
Google collects more personal metadata on individuals that use Android phones and Google Maps than NSA does before anyone remembered that it did.
Unlike NSA, Google sells the data ... what data? When you began and stopped walking; when you set an alarm and for how long; when you entered and exited a vehicle; when you called and its duration; what sites you visited, duration an activity; which news items appear and which do not ... and so on all of which goes to the highest bidder.
In the end the millionaire had to pay me several thousand dollars and is,if I'm not mistaken,still under investigation by the SEC thanks,at least partially,to info that *I* gave them.
And Kim Kommando took his side.
Given my personally experience with her I'd be stunned if she did anything *but* side with The Swamp.
Can you post the transcript?
I disagree that her comments were libertarian. Libertarian comments would try to analyze this situation. For example, are the rights of non-Globalist Americans being suppressed?
My guess is she found newer technology such as AI, robotics, and cloud computing too difficult to learn and she has now turned to “politics.”
If corporations are defrauding investors by making false claims, that’s one thing. Fedzilla certainly has an interest there.
—
... it’s not just “making false claims,” it’s also failing, by omission, to make any claim at all. If Facebook / Twitter / YouTube declared themselves as leftist propaganda outlets - then, fine (not to mention the TV networks). It’s that they function as this without making that clear that I find unacceptable.
You’re spot on , DR. Why peeps touch anything google is beyond me. I would think 63M US consumers with money to spend would get google/facebook’s attention.
The problem is - google, twitter, facebook et al are NOT pro first amendment.
I don’t know why people like her don’t get that.
Saturday I saw someone on a discussion board say “they are revoking passports” and went to google to see what’s up. The first three pages are links and articles referring to the WaPo article. I saw references to a state department response. After a half hour I finally found the State Department statement - on Heather Nauert’s twitter account. Never did find it on google.
the year with the most passport revocations was 2015, and it goes back to a change made in 2011 that vetted birth certificates better than in the past. Yes, both under Obama.
Pushing agendas is not pro first amendment. It’s propaganda.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Bears repeating. She married a popular long-time conservative radio host here in Phoenix and probably is libertarian. Syndicated radio programs can be very lucrative, but 100M is a bit high.
I did not hear either of her comments, but in the reading of them, and knowing her via her show, I interpreted her comments exactly as you described, Dusty. I don't believe she deserves a smear.
Perhaps she is like the well known actors who think their talent lends itself to political opinions more important than the opinions of lesser known people.
She must be up for contract renewal.
I used to hear her one minute comment at the end of the Show that Barry Young fronted (her husband) on KFYI. Haven’t heard her since then and haven’t heard any commentary from Barry Young about Trump since Young retired. I suspect they are both anti-Trump. I once called in to the show to complain about the SCOTUS saying that the Obamacare ‘fine’ could be interpreted as a tax, as even Kagan (who definitely should have recused herself) had argued it WASN’T A TAX. Young said that the SCOTUS could interpret the word any way they wanted. Period. Not supportive of The People. He reiterated that Roberts had said ‘the SCOTUS is not the place for The People to get a remedy from the person they elected’ (paraphrased). I hate John Roberts.......a ‘Conservative’ in sheep’s clothing.
*** Based on FR comments at the time XP was crap, so I skipped it. ***
Not that it matters much anymore, but Windows XP was a decent, if insecure, operating system. If you kept it up to date with the latest Service Packs and regular updates in between, you had a pretty good system. It ran well on almost every computer out there.
Vista stunk because Microsoft loaded it down so much overhead that it couldn’t reliably run on the bargain laptops and desktops that Dell (and others) were pumping out like hot cakes. Windows 7 was considered by most to be pretty good. 8 was another Vista. So basically Microsoft puts out 1 passable O/S followed by 1 or 2 crappy ones. Your rolling the dice with Microsoft if you are an early adopter of their OS products.
Sure,unless the government is working WITH google and facebook to take out it’s political opposition ...that’s where some might have a issue?
Post 11 has a link to the transcript.
“...and if Google is doing so (suppressing free speech), it’s not a problem because Google is a private company and not “the government” thus not a problem”
People on our side have to be VERY CAREFUL about accepting this rationale, as this is something that the Left will always throw at us, since they like to hit us in our ‘weak’ areas, one of them being the defense of private enterprise.
In this case, the thing to do is TURN IT AROUND and ask whether it would have been ok for AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc. to shut off their telephone and Internet service to the Obama campaign a few months before the 2008 election - thereby crippling his campaign, because they felt that Obama was unqualified to become president (after all, his only time in federal office was less than 4 years in the Senate). By the Left’s rationale, that would have been just fine.
So, morally, they have nothing to stand on. Technically, by disabling the campaign of the opposition, they have made an IN-KIND POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION (to McCain, in this case, being 2008), and would be breaking the law, since corporations still cannot make political contributions (direct or in-kind...it’s basically the same).
This crap needs to end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.