Winners only.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought you were thinking along religious lines as the reason we would eliminate evolution in school. We have an accountability problem in America. No one is responsible for their own actions, especially our spoiled weak children. Of course, our system is really about money and power, not creating critical thinking adults. Between public AND private money (liberals love to compare government funding here to socialist countries where private money isn’t used), we fund our schools per student more than any country in the world by far, yet our teachers have to beg in the streets with “red for Ed” signs to get more pay. it seems like their is a black hole that ***** in money somewhere in the school system causing teachers to buy their own school supplies and whine to the public about the lack of funding while simultaneously working in the richest education system in the world. But I suppose that’s probably all just conspiracy and the real problem is that we just havent thrown enough cash at the problem, since that’s the way to fix everything in this country.
IMHO adding private money into the equation is disingenuous. The comparison should be per pupil spending in the public sector. Spending isn't a good comparison, ie (what if) Ireland doesn't count the money spent on mentally challenged students in the education budget and we do? What if Ireland is more willing to spend on mental health issues than the US, etc.

There are lots of problems in the US - $hitty parents who don't believe Johnny could possibly do anything wrong, the lack of proper spending/facilities for kids with mental/behavioral disabilities, crappy policies, drugs, political agendas, crappy teachers, crappy students...
 
Interesting. Seems to me the right got away with alot of vague/broad abortion bans, maybe the courts are seeing the error of that approach.

 
You very clearly said the information should only be available through and FOIA request. If the information is only available through an FOIA request as per your directive, then the information is controlled by the government. That means that you are advocating for government control of the information. There is no other way around it.
No I didn't. That is a lie and you cannot prove otherwise.
This statement has no relevance. The thing about free information is that people can choose to disseminate what they want and what they don’t want to. I can tell you the color of my car if I feel like it, or I can choose not to tell you. And infotainment Nettwerk can tell you who the shooter is, or choose not to; if they have the information it’s their freedom of choice what to do with it.
Our media is not state-sponsored or run.
No **** Sherlock. You are making it more obvious that YOU missed the point.
You call it a dumb example, then you illustrate why it’s a good example.
You’re not a roofer, so you don’t NEED to read a book about it. It you CHOOSE to, you think you should have to file an FOIA request to be able to see it.
How do you feel about public jail rosters or warrant lists? Should they exist, and if they should, what information to you deem acceptable for the lists?
Again, you missed any point that was made and now you will argue like you know something.
What does a conviction have to do with it? A conviction doesn’t change a person’s skin color, age, sexual orientation, political leanings, etc.
Are you asking in earnest? Or are you really that stupid?
And your analogy of the kids and their mother’s income is not valid. People get to choose what they want to share about themselves. If she chooses not to give her kids that info, so be it.
But she doesn’t get to control what other people might say to her kids. A family acquaintance might tell the kids without knowing mom has a secret.
Welcome to societal living.
Again, any point that was made missed you like light on the backside of the moon.
I comprehend you just fine. You made it clear multiple times that you think information should be kept under lock and key by the government unless said government deems we have the correct “need” to know such information, and that information outlets such as “news” networks should be prevented from sharing information unless the government sees a demonstrated “need” for that information to be released.
If you comprehended me just fine as you say then you wouldn't keep saying this same dumb ****.
Its a concept well known in other places.
State-run media, heavily filtered and monitored internet, etc.
The people benefit from it greatly.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
 

C19 made its easy and prefect for curbside pick but will eliminate many jobs too. Chicago must have some kind incentive for them keep their business open to prevent food/drug dessert. As for Walgreens just wants push pharma drugs that were poisoned food we consume.
 
Last edited:
No I didn't. That is a lie and you cannot prove otherwise.
“It's not about censoring anything or not being transparent. It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request.”
Here is your proof. Your own words. If info is only available by the FOIA request you advocate for, then it is controlled by the government.
If you think information should only be available by FOIA than you by default think the government should be controlling that information.
No **** Sherlock. You are making it more obvious that YOU missed the point.
So you think a book that you do not NEED to read should be made unavailable until/unless you demonstrate the need.
So much for education, huh?
It's not about censoring anything or not being transparent. It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request.

Again, you missed any point that was made and now you will argue like you know something.
I know plenty. I know that I don’t want my government censoring information that should be public.
Are you asking in earnest? Or are you really that stupid?
Asking in earnest. Answers to both questions would be appreciated.
Again, any point that was made missed you like light on the backside of the moon.
Did you mean dark side?
Regardless, your example of a parent and a child is not analogous to a criminal and society.

If you comprehended me just fine as you say then you wouldn't keep saying this same dumb ****.
I understand you advocate for censorship, but my attempts to understand WHY you do have fallen on deaf ears, it seems.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Not a conspiracy at all. Very real. Very factual. A few small places that do it:
Internet access is available in North Korea, but is only permitted with special authorization. It is primarily used for government purposes, and also by foreigners.”
“China censors both the publishing and viewing of online material. Many controversial events are censored from news coverage, preventing many Chinese citizens from knowing about the actions of their government, and severely restricting freedom of the press. China's censorship includes the complete blockage of various websites, apps, video games, inspiring the policy's nickname, the "Great Firewall of China", which blocks websites. Methods used to block websites and pages include DNS spoofing, blocking access to IP addresses, analyzing and filtering URLs, packet inspection, and resetting connections.
China's Internet censorship is more comprehensive and sophisticated than any other country in the world.”

I thought the fact that this happened outside of the US was common knowledge.
 
“It's not about censoring anything or not being transparent. It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request.”
Here is your proof. Your own words. If info is only available by the FOIA request you advocate for, then it is controlled by the government.
If you think information should only be available by FOIA than you by default think the government should be controlling that information.
I gave ONE example. I never said it should be the only means of obtaining the information, idiot. If you weren't so hell bent on reading into ****, arguing and speaking for others you might have been able to COMPREHEND what was actually said.
So you think a book that you do not NEED to read should be made unavailable until/unless you demonstrate the need.
So much for education, huh?
Do me a favor, do all of us a favor. If you plan to lie in the future about how well you comprehend, save it. We don't need you to lie to us.
I know plenty. I know that I don’t want my government censoring information that should be public.
Not one time did I say they should you dramatic woman.
Asking in earnest. Answers to both questions would be appreciated.
People knowing all the information ahead of a trial taints the public and future potential jurors. Your I.q. just hit 50.
Did you mean dark side?
Regardless, your example of a parent and a child is not analogous to a criminal and society.
It is if you can comprehend.
I understand you advocate for censorship, but my attempts to understand WHY you do have fallen on deaf ears, it seems.
Hard to understand that which I did not say.
Not a conspiracy at all. Very real. Very factual. A few small places that do it:
Internet access is available in North Korea, but is only permitted with special authorization. It is primarily used for government purposes, and also by foreigners.”
“China censors both the publishing and viewing of online material. Many controversial events are censored from news coverage, preventing many Chinese citizens from knowing about the actions of their government, and severely restricting freedom of the press. China's censorship includes the complete blockage of various websites, apps, video games, inspiring the policy's nickname, the "Great Firewall of China", which blocks websites. Methods used to block websites and pages include DNS spoofing, blocking access to IP addresses, analyzing and filtering URLs, packet inspection, and resetting connections.
China's Internet censorship is more comprehensive and sophisticated than any other country in the world.”

I thought the fact that this happened outside of the US was common knowledge.
I couldn't care less.
 
I gave ONE example. I never said it should be the only means of obtaining the information, idiot. If you weren't so hell bent on reading into ****, arguing and speaking for others you might have been able to COMPREHEND what was actually said.
Yet you are still advocating “means if obtaining”, which suggests it is not readily available or allowed to be freely disseminated.
‘Can’t be locked down but also free.
Sorry.
Do me a favor, do all of us a favor. If you plan to lie in the future about how well you comprehend, save it. We don't need you to lie to us.
I think maybe you have difficulty comprehending the conversation, then just blurt stuff out that you don’t understand.
This is not the first time you have presented two contradictory arguments and backed BOTH.
Not one time did I say they should you dramatic woman.
Then you obviously have no idea what the FOIA has to do with. YOU brought it up. Maybe don’t bring up things you do not actually understand.
People knowing all the information ahead of a trial taints the public and future potential jurors. Your I.q. just hit 50.
You’re demonstrating childishly simplistic thinking, and once again asking Daddy to control our lives by deciding what we can and cannot know.
It is if you can comprehend.
If you think a mother deciding whether her child needs to know her income source is analogous to the public being able to know the identity of a criminal, you are really living in an alternative reality.
Hard to understand that which I did not say.
Thinking it’s a good idea for government to control information is the same as advocating for censorship.
Different words, same effect.
I couldn't care less.
Your usual response to seeing something you obviously don’t know about but choose to speak of anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yet you are still advocating “means if obtaining”, which suggests it is not readily available or allowed to be freely disseminated.
‘Can’t be locked down but also free.
Sorry.

I think maybe you have difficulty comprehending the conversation, then just blurt stuff out that you don’t understand.
This is not the first time you have presented two contradictory arguments and backed BOTH.

Then you obviously have no idea what the FOIA has to do with. YOU brought it up. Maybe don’t bring up things you do not actually understand.

You’re demonstrating childishly simplistic thinking, and once again asking Daddy to control our lives by deciding what we can and cannot know.

If you think a mother deciding whether her child needs to know her income source is analogous to the public being able to know the identity of a criminal, you are really living in an alternative reality.

Thinking it’s a good idea for government to control information is the same as advocating for censorship.
Different words, same effect.

Your usual response to seeing something you obviously don’t know about but choose to speak of anyway.
You are about as dumb as they come. Nobody said anything about the government censoring and controlling anything. If the police arrest someone then they have all the information of the person in custody. It is public record. All one has to do is go ask for the information. All I said is that it is pointless for the news to give out the alleged criminal or suspects information as it does nothing for the general public and allows morons to form ideas and opinions which lead to people doing dumb things to people who have nothing to do with the crime. So go phuck yourself and all your dumb asss comments and conclusions. You don't know ****. Idiot.
 
You are about as dumb as they come. Nobody said anything about the government censoring and controlling anything. If the police arrest someone then they have all the information of the person in custody. It is public record. All one has to do is go ask for the information. All I said is that it is pointless for the news to give out the alleged criminal or suspects information as it does nothing for the general public and allows morons to form ideas and opinions which lead to people doing dumb things to people who have nothing to do with the crime. So go phuck yourself and all your dumb asss comments and conclusions. You don't know ****. Idiot.
That is very much NOT what you said, but if you don’t want to stand behind your own words, so be it.
But remember: Denying what you said when it’s tight on the thread got all to see makes you look quite foolish.

And, are these anger flare ups associated with drinking? They remind me of my old neighbor who would become really Barry after he downed a few too many. Damn near bipolar on booze.
 
That is very much NOT what you said, but if you don’t want to stand behind your own words, so be it.
But remember: Denying what you said when it’s tight on the thread got all to see makes you look quite foolish.

And, are these anger flare ups associated with drinking? They remind me of my old neighbor who would become really Barry after he downed a few too many. Damn near bipolar on booze.
Like I said, you can't comprehend ****. STFU stupid.
 
Like I said, you can't comprehend ****. STFU stupid.
Why do you deny your own words, and literally challenge me to prove you wrong over and over again?

You suggested information having to be obtained through a FOIA request. Specifically, information about someone who committed a crime. “ It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request.”
“Could/should be able to get it through a foia request.”


Such information (info that you would need a FOIA request to obtain) is held by a Federal agency.
A federal agency is a government agency.

You added to this idea by saying info about crimes should be withheld from the public until a hearing and conviction occurs.

These are both advocating control censorship by the US government.
 
Last edited:
Why do you deny your own words, and literally challenge me to prove you wrong over and over again?

You suggested information having to be obtained through a FOIA request. Specifically, information about someone who committed a crime. “ It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request.”
“Could/should be able to get it through a foia request.”

Such information (info that you would need a FOIA request to obtain) is held by a Federal agency.
A federal agency is a government agency.

You added to this idea by saying info about crimes should be withheld from the public until a hearing and conviction occurs.

These are both advocating control censorship by the US government.
Look idiot, if you refuse to comprehend what is there because your relaxed brain only allows you to see things your way, you may need to seek help. FOIA is PUBLIC INFORMATION DIPSHIT. It's not censored nor on lockdown. IS IT???? I have explained the post like 3 damn times now and you have shown to be too stupid to understand it 3 damn times. Phuck off already.
 
Look idiot, if you refuse to comprehend what is there because your relaxed brain only allows you to see things your way, you may need to seek help. FOIA is PUBLIC INFORMATION DIPSHIT. It's not censored nor on lockdown. IS IT???? I have explained the post like 3 damn times now and you have shown to be too stupid to understand it 3 damn times. Phuck off already.
OK, so you really are clueless about this topic.
FOIA is not information. It is the Freedom Of Information Act. An “act” is also known as a law. This particular law allows for the request by Joe Citizen of information being held/controlled by FEDERAL agencies.
This LAW carries no weight for info held/controlled by Congress, courts, state or local government agencies.

If the information was public, there would be no need to file a FOIA request to view it. It would be (hold your hat) PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
The fact that you can’t access the info without a FOIA request means it indeed IS being “locked down”.

If you are genuinely confused by this concept, the LAST thing you should do is call others stupid when they are the ones pointing out your lack of understanding.
 
Last edited:
OK, so you really are clueless about this topic.
FOIA is not information. It is the Freedom Of Information Act. An “act” is also known as a law. This particular law allows for the request by Joe Citizen of information being held/controlled by FEDERAL agencies.
This LAW carries no weight for info held/controlled by Congress, courts, state or local government agencies.

If the information was public, there would be no need to file a FOIA request to view it. It would be (hold your hat) PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
The fact that you can’t access the info without a FOIA request means it indeed IS being “locked down”.

If you are genuinely confused by this concept, the LAST thing you should do is call others stupid when they are the ones pointing out your lack of understanding.
You know how everyone knows you were wrong from the beginning? You go and find definitions and continue to argue to no end.

Let's see if you can answer direct questions since you want to keep your ignorance going.

Rob, does the news need to tell you a persons sexual identity if they are accused of a crime?
 
You know how everyone knows you were wrong from the beginning? You go and find definitions and continue to argue to no end.

Let's see if you can answer direct questions since you want to keep your ignorance going.

Rob, does the news need to tell you a persons sexual identity if they are accused of a crime?
I already knew you were wrong. I provide the definitions because you would undoubtedly say I was making it up if I used my own words to explain things.

For fvck sake, you’ve even gone as far as saying the dictionary definitions are wrong.

The news doesn’t need to tell us ANYTHING. It’s a private industry, and they get to tell us as little or as much of the story as they want.
Welcome to America.

Why do you feel public information should be locked down by the government and released only when someone demonstrates a valid need?
Do you think jail rosters and warrant lists should be public access?
If you do, what demographics should be included on the lists?
 
Last edited:
I already knew you were wrong. I provide the definitions because you would undoubtedly say I was making it up if I used my own words to explain things.

For fvck sake, you’ve even gone as far as saying the dictionary definitions are wrong.

The news doesn’t need to tell us ANYTHING. It’s a private industry, and they get to tell us as little or as much of the story as they want.
Welcome to America.


Why do you feel public information should be locked down by the government and released only when someone demonstrates a valid need?
Do you think jail rosters and warrant lists should be public access?
If you do, what demographics should be included on the lists?
So you can't answer direct questions with direct answers. Good to know.

Right, they don't NEED to tell us anything. A point I made already.

I never said public information should be locked down. That's you and your brain saying that ****.

Now, public information is what? I will tell you...

The term 'public information' means any information, regardless of form or format, that an agency discloses, disseminates, or makes available to the public.

This means if the news doesn't give us the information... it's not public information. HOWEVER, the arresting entity has the information. It's not on lockdown, it's just there. We are allowed to ask for it and they are required to give it to us. They are not required to just disclose it to please you in some way. So I ask you, why are you so against asking for the information? Why do you feel so entitled that you think the news should just give you all the information from the word go?

Tell me how knowing any information helps you. What does it help you do? Why do you need the information?
 
So you can't answer direct questions with direct answers. Good to know.
Stop trying to tap dance around. Here’s the direct answer to your question. The same answer I gave in the previous post: “The news doesn’t need to tell us ANYTHING. It’s a private industry, and they get to tell us as little or as much of the story as they want.”
The question I answered:”Rob, does the news need to tell you a persons sexual identity if they are accused of a crime?”
Right, they don't NEED to tell us anything. A point I made already.
If they didn’t tell us anything, then they wouldn’t be “news” outlets.
I never said public information should be locked down. That's you and your brain saying that ****.
You said the information should have to be obtained and not openly disseminated. You suggested a FOIA request be required, and a need demonstrated.
That means by default the info is “locked down”.
Now, public information is what? I will tell you...

The term 'public information' means any information, regardless of form or format, that an agency discloses, disseminates, or makes available to the public.
This means if the news doesn't give us the information... it's not public information. HOWEVER, the arresting entity has the information. It's not on lockdown, it's just there. We are allowed to ask for it and they are required to give it to us. They are not required to just disclose it to please you in some way. So I ask you, why are you so against asking for the information? Why do you feel so entitled that you think the news should just give you all the information from the word go?
“Makes available to the public”. That means open disclosure, NOT disclosure by special request.
A jail roster on a county website is public. Information about an SEC investigation is not public, but can be obtained with a FOIA.
A city budget is public, but a UFO sighting investigation might not be public, yet obtained with a FOIA.
IF a FOIA is needed, the info is NOT public.
Tell me how knowing any information helps you. What does it help you do? Why do you need the information?
This has no relevance to whether it should be locked down by the government, any more than you should have to prove a NEED to have subwoofers in your car, or a NEED to be an armed citizen, a NEED to practice whatever religion you choose, a NEED to have Gilet Mignon instead of top round.
Public information should be just what the words say: PUBLIC INFORMATION

Why is that such a foreign concept to you?
 
Last edited:
You said the information should have to be obtained and not openly disseminated. You suggested a FOIA request be required, and a need demonstrated.
That means by default the info is “locked down”.
See, you are a moron. This IS why I can't talk to you. You're stupid.

I did not say the information "should have to be obtained". I said if you really NEED the information you should/could be able to FOIA the information. Meaning take your lazy asss down and get it. I never once said the FOIA request should be REQUIRED and a need demonstrated. You are a phucking liar and are literally making **** up now. You made the statement of "locked down" and now you are making **** up to support your spin.

Still you can't tell me how knowing the personal information helps you in any way. Is it because it doesn't and wont and you are just an entitled pos that thinks the world revolves around him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

Slo_Ride

5,000+ posts
Regulator
Thread starter
Slo_Ride
Joined
Location
ATLANTA
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
33,976
Views
968,770
Last reply date
Last reply from
Buck
IMG_1882.jpeg

slater

    Oct 4, 2025
  • 0
  • 0
Screenshot_20251004_120904_Photo Translator.jpg

1aespinoza

    Oct 4, 2025
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top