Going to get worse.

I hear you. For the last 11 years, I've worked in the court system. My views on how to handle behaviors of people have changed. I worked with a program called Community Sentencing. It's similar to Drug Court. I used to think "break the law, lock em up". I never really thought of other options.
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
ALL WELL STATED POSTS HOSE. I LEFT HERE FOR A COUPLA MONTHS BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL STUFF GOING ON. DJ ALSO GOT IT RIGHT ABOUT HAVING THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATIONS. PROBLEM IS, THAT DOESNT HAPPEN IN HERE. THERE ARE 3 OR 4 FOLKS THAT GANG UP ON OTHER FOLKS FOR HAVING A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT. ITS SAD TO SEE THEM NOW SAYING THEY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, THEY JUST DONT DO IT.

YEAH, CHANGING SOMEONES MIND IS VERY HARD TO DO. EVERYBODY FORMS AN OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING AND ITS EASIER TO DISPUTE SOMEONE ELSES OPINION THAN ADMIT YOU MIGHT BE WRONG. CASE IN POINT, ALMOST EVERY THREAD IN THIS FORUM ABOUT POLITICS. THE SAD THING IS, NONE OF US ARE POLITICIANS AND ONLY KNOW WHAT WE SEE ON THE NEWS, READ IN A PAPER OR SEE ONLINE. ALL OF THOSE ARE SLANTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND THE DIVISION OF AMERICA WILL CONTINUE BECAUSE NOONE WANTS TO ADMIT, MAYBE THEY GOT IT WRONG.
 
Last edited:
I did run for mayor of Muskogee 10 years ago. Got beat by the incumbent. No biggie. Took my loss like a man. I hated the process, and would never do it again.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
I hear you. For the last 11 years, I've worked in the court system. My views on how to handle behaviors of people have changed. I worked with a program called Community Sentencing. It's similar to Drug Court. I used to think "break the law, lock em up". I never really thought of other options.
Locking people up over doing drugs has never been the answer. Dealers sure. Users typically need medical and psychological help. Jail does nothing.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
I did run for mayor of Muskogee 10 years ago. Got beat by the incumbent. No biggie. Took my loss like a man. I hated the process, and would never do it again.
I remember that. Politics locally in Alabama is an elite membership. If you ain't part of it you ain't getting in.

That was until Trump became president. We had many local politicians voted out for outsiders because people were tired of the elite running the county and city. Sadly we couldn't get those same elites out.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
ALL WELL STATED POSTS HOSE. I LEFT HERE FOR A COUPLA MONTHS BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL STUFF GOING ON. DJ ALSO GOT IT RIGHT ABOUT HAVING THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATIONS. PROBLEM IS, THAT DOESNT HAPPEN IN HERE. THERE ARE 3 OR 4 FOLKS THAT GANG UP ON OTHER FOLKS FOR HAVING A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT. ITS SAD TO SEE THEM NOW SAYING THEY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, THEY JUST DONT DO IT.

YEAH, CHANGING SOMEONES MIND IS VERY HARD TO DO. EVERYBODY FORMS AN OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING AND ITS EASIER TO DISPUTE SOMEONE ELSES OPINION THAN ADMIT YOU MIGHT BE WRONG. CASE IN POINT, ALMOST EVERY THREAD IN THIS FORUM ABOUT POLITICS. THE SAD THING IS, NONE OF US ARE POLITICIANS AND ONLY KNOW WHAT WE SEE ON THE NEWS, READ IN A PAPER OR SEE ONLINE. ALL OF THOSE ARE SLANTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND THE DIVISION OF AMERICA WILL CONTINUE BECAUSE NOONE WANTS TO ADMIT, MAYBE THEY GOT IT WRONG.
When it comes to news, there is a difference between bias, building a narrative, and actually showing the news.

Case in point, my TV shows were never preempted over LA, DC, Kenosha, Minneapolis, or Portland burning. The reporting by the media is neglegence.


Jesus, what happens if we have another 911? Who the fuck am I going to watch/believe? A tsunami? Earthquake? The reporting on the CA fires over the summer were widly exaggerated.
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
WHO DECIDES WHAT NEWS IS? IF ALL YOU WATCH ARE CABLE SHOWS, NO, THEY ARENT GOING TO COME INTO THOSE WITH NEWS. COMMERCIAL BROADCAST STATIONS HAD BREAK INS ON SOME OF THOSE STORIES. IF YOU ARENT WATCHING THAT STATION AT A PARTICULAR TIME, YOU MAY NOT SEE IT. DOESNT MEAN IT DIDNT HAPPENED.

AS FAR AS THOSE OTHER ISSUES YOU BROUGHT UP, YOU WILL DO WHAT YOU ALWAYS DO. YOU WILL GO TO WHATEVER NEWS STATION YOU PREFER. RIGHT?
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Who decides what the news is? Right now it's big corporations. I don't use any news outlet. The AP even lost me about ba year ago.

The only ones I trust are the ones on the ground.
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
AGREE WITH THAT. SO IF YOU DONT SEE SOMETHING YOU THINK YOU SHOULD, BLAME THE FOLKS THAT DONT THINK ITS NEWS WORTHY. BUT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE LEARNED, WHAT YOU SEE ON THE NEWS IS THEIR SPIN OF IT. EACH NEWS PROVIDER WILL DIFFER FROM OTHERS. WE JUST HAVE TO PICK WHICH WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE AND FOLLOW. OR, CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE ANY OF IT AND THINK FOR OURSELVES.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
All of those social media companies are privately owned. They can do as they wish. Has zero to do with freedom of speech. You don't like Twitter, don't Tweet
Here's the issue as I see it. Maybe AW can interject with some of his experience.

Social media USED to be social media when they allowed people to speak their minds. BUT, since they've decided to pick and choose what they will allow, and it's mostly one-sided, they have actually morphed into publishers. This being the case, they should be bound by the same laws and rules to which publishers are held. This means they must accept opposing views and allow unedited, and/or uncensored posts of political topics. Am I close on this, AW?
 
I disagree. I'm sure some of these social media companies didn't know how strong they would become, and I'm sure they've needed to adjust their terms and conditions from time to time. However, none of it falls under the 1st amendment. I've been to a lot of homes in Southeast Asia, where you are asked to take your shoes off. It's their home, their rules. If I don't like it, I can choose not to visit.
You may think it's unfair, but it's doesn't have anything to do with your 1st amendment rights.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
I disagree. I'm sure some of these social media companies didn't know how strong they would become, and I'm sure they've needed to adjust their terms and conditions from time to time. However, none of it falls under the 1st amendment. I've been to a lot of homes in Southeast Asia, where you are asked to take your shoes off. It's their home, their rules. If I don't like it, I can choose not to visit.
You may think it's unfair, but it's doesn't have anything to do with your 1st amendment rights.
I get where you're going, but social media is different than a private party in the fact that a home is not a place of business. Social media could not survive without pulling in money from ads and billed pages. They MAY be able to lightly control content when it involves illegal practices, violence, etc., but I believe filtering upon political proclivities has to be a violation of the bill of rights. AW's experience may be able to assist on this if he sees these posts.
 
Top