Winners only.

[ThxOne Premium Member]

It’s easy to prove your opinions wrong when the opinion is contrary to verifiable fact.
You have an opinion that information that must be obtained by a FOIA request is not locked down by the agency holding that info. Patently incorrect opinion. If it must be requested, it is not “public”, and therefore locked down by the very definition.

God damn... you ride your bullshit out to the end don't you. That whole keep saying it until it becomes true shit is annoying. Listen you dumb phuck, my opinion is not that the information MUST be obtained by a FOIA. That concept is yet again created solely in YOUR head and you are running wild with it.

Now, prove my opinion wrong with verifiable fact that I think the news doesn't need to tell you an alleged criminal or suspects personal information. I will stop you before you stumble around Google trying desperately to prove me wrong. It is a verifiable fact that NO news source has to tell you any information what so ever. Go ahead, call CNN, they will verify that fact for you, idiot.

You have an opinion that information being held should only be released when a “need” is demonstrated. Incorrect opinion. A FOIA request does not need to include an explanation of need.

Incorrect as I have never stated that a FOIA should be the only way to obtain the information. I said if YOU NEED TO KNOW so bad, go get the information yourself you lazy entitled moron. But you keep right on chirping the same line over and over... eventually it will be true. In your own mind.

You have an opinion that new should only be reported on a “need to know” basis.
Incorrect opinion. News is a “want to know” information source. Has been for centuries.

Yeah, again... try to comprehend shit. I know it is a painfully difficult concept for you and one you get right 1% of the time. I never made a statement saying the news should only be reported on a need to know basis. I said they don't need to give your dumb, uncomprehending asss all the information and you are the reason I think this as you are proving that you take information wrong, misread shit, don't comprehend shit, twist words around then form your own opinions and act on them. You are exactly the type of person who doesn't need all the information. You are a judgmental simpleton. You have a singular wit and a one track mind. I don't know how you have been alive this long. I am assuming, pity.

The questions are entirely relevant with your concepts of information being disseminated on a “need to know” basis.
If we should only be given some info about criminals on a “need to know” basis, should a jail roster be posted publicly?
If so, what demographics about the incarcerated would you authorize as “need to know”?

Irrelevant.

The news is there to report things to us, not for us to research. If we are all being investigative reporters, then there is no need for news sources to exist. Telling us to research our own news in order to watch the news is like telling us to act a role in order to watch a movie, or telling the judge to provide evidence that shows your innocence as a defendant.
Ridiculous notions, all of them.

I can see how this confuses you as you can only comprehend in black or white. No in between... where the rest of the world lives. They can easily give you the news and be informative without including the "infotainment" part of the news which you seem to crave so much.

Aside from ****** orientation of a criminal, what other demos do you think should be locked down and only obtained with a demonstrated “need to know”?

You're pathetic. Again, keep repeating it over and over until it becomes true.

What other types of information that news sources currently report do you think should only be obtained with a demonstrated “need to know”?

Does it not bother you to literally make shit up, claim someone said it then keep running with it telling them they said it over and over? Where do you far left people learn this? How did you not get your head beaten in over and over growing up? There is NO WAY if I knew you in middle or high school that I would not have just pushed your face right through a locker over and over lol.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

It’s one of his contradictions, like homosexuality being a choice, but heterosexuality being mandatory.

He wants the information to be locked down by SOME entity, but wants to call it “public” at the same time.

I get it, but his point is we don't "need" the information. And by that standard, you could strike well over half the "news" that gets reported. Luckily the US (and much of the world) values freedom of the press over some "need to know basis." And of course you don't know what you do or don't need to know until you have the information at hand, which is why censoring should be kept to a minimum.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

The House of Saud and Opec flexing their muscles again. IMHO, you can look all the way back to GW Bush and say thanks. Saudi Arabi and Opec used to be "US friendly" when it came to oil prices, until Dubya invaded Iraq against Saudi Arabi's advice/wishes.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1180056198/saudi-arabia-oil-opec

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I get it, but his point is we don't "need" the information. And by that standard, you could strike well over half the "news" that gets reported. Luckily the US (and much of the world) values freedom of the press over some "need to know basis." And of course you don't know what you do or don't need to know until you have the information at hand, which is why censoring should be kept to a minimum.

It's not censoring to report the relevant information. ****** identity is not relevant to the general public when it comes to a person shooting up a school.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

It's not censoring to report the relevant information. ****** identity is not relevant to the general public when it comes to a person shooting up a school.

You're using a definition of censor that differs from the dictionary definition. Why is that people that want to censor information always deny that they want to censor information? Just come clean about what you want to do - you want to censor the news to fit your agenda. The ***** identity of the Nashville shooter is (most likely) relevant to the story. I may not "need to know," but the identity of these murderers are quiet often very relevant.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Really? Life expectancy slipping a year or two is a "big problem" in the US?

US life expectancy problem is ‘bigger than we ever thought,’ report finds

A new study found the country has been at a life expectancy disadvantage since the 1950s, with more than 50 countries surpassing the U.S.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Com'on neoconservatives? It's theater, that's were the gheys are. Taking the ghey out of theater is like taking hops out of beer.

Students Raised Over $80K to Stage a School Play That Was Canceled by Conservatives

According to the synopsis, the play is “a gender-bending, patriarchy-smashing, hilarious new take on the classic tale...

www.intomore.com

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You're using a definition of censor that differs from the dictionary definition. Why is that people that want to censor information always deny that they want to censor information? Just come clean about what you want to do - you want to censor the news to fit your agenda. The ***** identity of the Nashville shooter is (most likely) relevant to the story. I may not "need to know," but the identity of these murderers are quiet often very relevant.

It's relevant in the trial, not when the news reported it. Relevance and censoring, not the same.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

God damn... you ride your bullshit out to the end don't you. That whole keep saying it until it becomes true shit is annoying. Listen you dumb phuck, my opinion is not that the information MUST be obtained by a FOIA. That concept is yet again created solely in YOUR head and you are running wild with it.

"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."
Your words. Quoted verbatim. Not edited. Not enhanced. Not adjusted.
Maybe you didn't understand FOIA at the time you wrote it. Maybe you do now.
Regardless, the message you give is that the information should in some way be controlled by SOMEONE and only given out if a NEED is demonstrated. I'll repeat the quote for clarity: "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."

Now, prove my opinion wrong with verifiable fact that I think the news doesn't need to tell you an alleged criminal or suspects personal information. I will stop you before you stumble around Google trying desperately to prove me wrong. It is a verifiable fact that NO news source has to tell you any information what so ever. Go ahead, call CNN, they will verify that fact for you, idiot.

That was not your argument. You argument was that the information should be controlled and in some way doled out if a NEED is shown to dole it out. Your words "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."

Incorrect as I have never stated that a FOIA should be the only way to obtain the information. I said if YOU NEED TO KNOW so bad, go get the information yourself you lazy entitled moron. But you keep right on chirping the same line over and over... eventually it will be true. In your own mind.

Your words: "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."
Are you suggesting that you never used these words in your post? Here's a screen snip if you are tryign to accuse me of editing your words:

Yeah, again... try to comprehend shit. I know it is a painfully difficult concept for you and one you get right 1% of the time. I never made a statement saying the news should only be reported on a need to know basis. I said they don't need to give your dumb, uncomprehending asss all the information and you are the reason I think this as you are proving that you take information wrong, misread shit, don't comprehend shit, twist words around then form your own opinions and act on them. You are exactly the type of person who doesn't need all the information. You are a judgmental simpleton. You have a singular wit and a one track mind. I don't know how you have been alive this long. I am assuming, pity.

"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."
"they don't need to give your dumb, uncomprehending asss all the information"
This directly described news reporting being done on a NEED TO KNOW basis. YOU are deciding which information is relevant for the entire audience, based on YOUR opinion of what should be presented.
If we take ALL opinions like yours and filter out every bit of info, then everything becomes need-to-know, and not just the information that YOU have deemed unnecessary for people to know.

A judgmental simpleton is the guy who thinks his singular opinion should form the basis of how all society acts. A judgmental simpleton thinks information should be controlled by the government and doled out as THEY see fit, on a need-to-know basis.

Irrelevant.

Of course you think it's irrelevant. You are worried about the ****** orientation of a criminal being released publicly, but simultaneously think it's irrelevant to discuss what information about a criminal is released publicly.
You are incredibly inconsistent in your thinking.
Do you think jail rosters should be need-to-know?
If you think they should be public, what information should be included about the person?

I can see how this confuses you as you can only comprehend in black or white. No in between... where the rest of the world lives. They can easily give you the news and be informative without including the "infotainment" part of the news which you seem to crave so much.

So, what specific details have YOU determined as acceptable for the infotainment sources to release about a criminal or alleged criminal? Name? Age? Hair color? State of residence? Birth ****** identity? Prior criminal history? Skin color?
Give us YOUR specific list of the "proper" information to be released by the media when reporting.

You're pathetic. Again, keep repeating it over and over until it becomes true.

I was repeating a question. I'm not sure why you think that repeating a question might somehow make it a "truth". Are you saying that I never asked the question? Here it is. Again. Why are you so afraid to answer it?

Does it not bother you to literally make shit up, claim someone said it then keep running with it telling them they said it over and over? Where do you far left people learn this? How did you not get your head beaten in over and over growing up? There is NO WAY if I knew you in middle or high school that I would not have just pushed your face right through a locker over and over lol.

You have made the claim over and over that I make stuff up and claim people said it. But, you are NEVER able to provide an example. Funny how that is. Maybe you think repetition of the claim will just make it a truth.
It doesn't.

And again with the political orientation defining what facts are in a discussion. Kind of funny, since you were the guy whining about other people always making things political.
Please tell us, what does political affiliation have to do with whether information should be censored and locked down by the government? Are you suggesting the right-wing advocates censorship and the left wing advocates freedom of information?
You COULD be right if you are. I've never seen left-wingers pushing for book bans and media censorship. Maybe it happened, but I've never seen evidence of it.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

"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."
Your words. Quoted verbatim. Not edited. Not enhanced. Not adjusted.
Maybe you didn't understand FOIA at the time you wrote it. Maybe you do now.
Regardless, the message you give is that the information should in some way be controlled by SOMEONE and only given out if a NEED is demonstrated. I'll repeat the quote for clarity: "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."


That was not your argument. You argument was that the information should be controlled and in some way doled out if a NEED is shown to dole it out. Your words "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."

Your words: "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."
Are you suggesting that you never used these words in your post? Here's a screen snip if you are tryign to accuse me of editing your words:
View attachment 49458

"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."
"they don't need to give your dumb, uncomprehending asss all the information"
This directly described news reporting being done on a NEED TO KNOW basis. YOU are deciding which information is relevant for the entire audience, based on YOUR opinion of what should be presented.
If we take ALL opinions like yours and filter out every bit of info, then everything becomes need-to-know, and not just the information that YOU have deemed unnecessary for people to know.

A judgmental simpleton is the guy who thinks his singular opinion should form the basis of how all society acts. A judgmental simpleton thinks information should be controlled by the government and doled out as THEY see fit, on a need-to-know basis.



Of course you think it's irrelevant. You are worried about the ****** orientation of a criminal being released publicly, but simultaneously think it's irrelevant to discuss what information about a criminal is released publicly.
You are incredibly inconsistent in your thinking.
Do you think jail rosters should be need-to-know?
If you think they should be public, what information should be included about the person?

So, what specific details have YOU determined as acceptable for the infotainment sources to release about a criminal or alleged criminal? Name? Age? Hair color? State of residence? Birth ****** identity? Prior criminal history? Skin color?
Give us YOUR specific list of the "proper" information to be released by the media when reporting.


I was repeating a question. I'm not sure why you think that repeating a question might somehow make it a "truth". Are you saying that I never asked the question? Here it is. Again. Why are you so afraid to answer it?
View attachment 49459

You have made the claim over and over that I make stuff up and claim people said it. But, you are NEVER able to provide an example. Funny how that is. Maybe you think repetition of the claim will just make it a truth.
It doesn't.

And again with the political orientation defining what facts are in a discussion. Kind of funny, since you were the guy whining about other people always making things political.
Please tell us, what does political affiliation have to do with whether information should be censored and locked down by the government? Are you suggesting the right-wing advocates censorship and the left wing advocates freedom of information?
You COULD be right if you are. I've never seen left-wingers pushing for book bans and media censorship. Maybe it happened, but I've never seen evidence of it.

You got issues. Should be able to is not the same as must get through.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Whoops, I guess they forget to mention this part, because it's your tax dollars going to it. When the federal gov says white supremacy is the biggest threat, then they fund neo-Nazi groups, then are they warning the nation of themselves?

Home

edit post News Nintendo Black Friday 2025 Deals Announced: See All Switch Games Discounted November 10, 2025 Optimal Column This

dnyuz.com

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You got issues. Should be able to is not the same as must get through.

The fact that you think it should be available by request only suggests that the information is in some way controlled by an entity of authority.
What entity do you think should be in control of information regarding a criminal?
If a news agency obtains that information only via a demonstrated need, should that news agency only release it to the viewers/readers who similarly demonstrate a need?
For the viewers who demonstrate the need and get the info, are they allowed to share with family and friends, or should the info also only be shared on a need-to-know basis?

What is your protocol for determining what particular information should be controlled, and what is your protocol for people being able to demonstrate whether they need to know?
Would it be a questionnaire?
Maybe clearance levels based on the type information?
Maybe a "burn after reading", or check the info out like a library book and return it when done?

What's your opinion on jail rosters? Should they be posted publicly, or should the public have to file a special request to know who is incarcerated?
If posted publicly, what information do you think should be allowed on the report?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

The fact that you think it should be available by request only suggests that the information is in some way controlled by an entity of authority.
What entity do you think should be in control of information regarding a criminal?
If a news agency obtains that information only via a demonstrated need, should that news agency only release it to the viewers/readers who similarly demonstrate a need?
For the viewers who demonstrate the need and get the info, are they allowed to share with family and friends, or should the info also only be shared on a need-to-know basis?

What is your protocol for determining what particular information should be controlled, and what is your protocol for people being able to demonstrate whether they need to know?
Would it be a questionnaire?
Maybe clearance levels based on the type information?
Maybe a "burn after reading", or check the info out like a library book and return it when done?

What's your opinion on jail rosters? Should they be posted publicly, or should the public have to file a special request to know who is incarcerated?
If posted publicly, what information do you think should be allowed on the report?

Every time you use extremes to prove your point...but I guess that's just the lazy arguments you specialize in

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Whoops, I guess they forget to mention this part, because it's your tax dollars going to it. When the federal gov says white supremacy is the biggest threat, then they fund neo-Nazi groups, then are they warning the nation of themselves?

Home

edit post News Nintendo Black Friday 2025 Deals Announced: See All Switch Games Discounted November 10, 2025 Optimal Column This

dnyuz.com

It's interesting that their military leaders would allow them to have non-military patches on their uniform, especially patches that are generally recognized for what Hitler turned the symbol into.

I wonder what would happen if US soldiers sewed confederate flags onto their combat gear?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Every time you use extremes to prove your point...but I guess that's just the lazy arguments you specialize in

You think discussing HOW the information that he wants to have controlled, be controlled, is "extreme"?
You DO realize that ideas such as his have far-reaching implications, yes?

It's much like the moron who says "We should just end welfare tomorrow. Tell people to get a job." A statement like that exhibits absolutely NO comprehension of the ramifications of an action.
Thxone wants information to be controlled in some way. That concept has very far-reaching tentacles. Do you disagree?

Since we are conversing, are you going to pony up with the proof of the accusations you made of me, or were you just throwing shit at the wall, hoping it would stick?