Almost every comment on this seed contains a sweeping generalization, at least by the standards that are used here to remove comments as such.
The "sweeping generalization" reason for censorship should be ended. It allows uneven and inherently unfair censorship based on the dubious use of "flagging". It also encourages more visible activity by the moderators.
I really like the new avatar....
What's going on with not commenting though?
Are you upset?
Hey JR, how you been?
Long time no see man. Don't be a stranger. New blood in the forum maybe.
Congratulations, John! What a game!
Why do you care about his penis size?
The top left was The Exorcist , the top right was Rain Man
the next one down was Gone With The Wind
the next was Gladiator
the last was Avatar
Gone With the Wind
I can only identify Avatar, the bottom all-gray one.
Gone with the Wind
I can't figure out the final one. Maybe the matrix?
put answers to movie quiz on this page
Didn't keep him from winning so it really doesn't mean shit does it?
I've been posting to my Blog for the last week or so... getting almost no reaction.
Now, that could be because no one is interested in what I post ( ). But it could also be because posts to Blogs don't show up in the "Newest Comments" and "Newest Discussions" pages. Blog posts appear briefly on the NT Home page, in "Latest Activity", but they quickly fall off and are lost forever.
So... if you have appreciated my posts in the past, please stop by at my Blog, and if you like what you see there you can:
1) Stop by from time to time...
2) Subscribe via RSS. RSS is a really, really REALLY good way to get your news. YOUR news, whatever YOU want to get. I've posted a tutorial.
Man's obituary asks mourners not to vote for Donald Trump http://huff.to/1Vb5QJI
Mrs. Clinton's apparent laxness with her e-mails is something people can consider when they decide who to vote for in the presidential elections.
Beyond that, there isn't a lot to say until we get actual information from the investigators, and not just the right wing hoo ha currently making the rounds.
"Conservatives" have been proving for 20 years that they are irrational concerning Hillary Clinton, they don't need to continue proving it every day.
Photo by David Evison/Shutterstock
It has become increasingly clear that terrorist groups such as ISIS can extend their reach to American territory via the Internet. Using their own websites, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, they lure young men and women to their mission—without having to risk the capture of foreign agents on U.S. soil. The Americans ensnared in ISIS’s net in turn radicalize others, send money to ISIS, and even carry out attacks.
Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way—and by this I mean ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks that kill people. The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech.
What can we do? Proposals that Internet companies “shut down” dangerous communications have been met with howls of laughter from Silicon Valley. It’s easyfor determined jihadis to replace shuttered websites with new ones and hard for Internet companies to keep track of billions of communications. Using the law to force Facebook and Twitter to do more to block ISIS propaganda would make sense but also falls short of what is needed. No approach is perfect, but there is a way to deal with these problems.
Consider Ali Amin, the subject of a recent article in the New York Times. Lonely and bored, the 17-year-old Virginia resident discovered ISIS online, was gradually drawn into its messianic world, eventually exchanged messages with other supporters and members, and then provided some modest logistical support to ISIS supporters (instructing them how to transfer funds secretly and driving an ISIS recruit to the airport). He was convicted of the crime of material support of terrorism and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Amin did not start out as a jihadi; he was made into one.
Researchers at George Washington University identified 300 U.S-based ISIS sympathizers who use Twitter and other social media to lure Muslim Americans into the arms of ISIS. These American citizens and residents—themselves the fruit of the recruiting efforts of foreign ISIS members as well as of other Americans—frequently use a graduated approach so as to avoid alarming people who are merely curious about Islam:
In one case the seemingly naïve individual posted general questions about religion, to which ISIS supporters quickly responded in a calm and authoritative manner. After a few weeks, the accounts of hardened ISIS supporters slowly introduced increasingly ardent views into the conversation. The new recruit was then invited to continue [conversing] privately, often via Twitter’s Direct Message feature or on other private messaging platforms such as surespot.
But there is something we can do to protect people like Amin from being infected by the ISIS virus by propagandists, many of whom are anonymous and most of whom live in foreign countries. Consider a law that makes it a crime to access websites that glorify, express support for, or provide encouragement for ISIS or support recruitment by ISIS; to distribute links to those websites or videos, images, or text taken from those websites; or to encourage people to access such websites by supplying them with links or instructions. Such a law would be directed at people like Amin: naïve people, rather than sophisticated terrorists, who are initially driven by curiosity to research ISIS on the Web.
The law would provide graduated penalties. After the first violation, a person would receive a warning letter from the government; subsequent violations would result in fines or prison sentences. The idea would be to get out the word that looking at ISIS-related websites, like looking at websites that display child pornography, is strictly forbidden. As word spread, people like Amin would be discouraged from searching for ISIS-related websites and perhaps be spared radicalization and draconian punishment for more serious terrorism-related crimes.
The law would not deter sophisticated terrorists who send one another encrypted messages. That’s not its point. ISIS seeks to recruit Americans on American soil; in order to recruit from the public, it obviously cannot act secretly. It must instead broadcast widely and rely on surrogates to broadcast widely, in order to reach an audience of nonradicalized Muslims. This is a vulnerability. When people discover ISIS websites and circulate them by Twitter, Facebook, and other public websites, those people often disclose their identities. Many are too naïve to use pseudonyms; others reveal their identities to their ISPs, which can be forced to cough them up to police. Teenagers who are curious about ISIS but not yet committed to it are unlikely to use complicated encryption technologies to mask their identities from ISPs. Laws directed at this behavior would make a dent in recruitment, and hence in homegrown radicalism, even if they do not solve other problems.
Syed Rizwan Farook, left, and a photo of Tashfeen Malik.
Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik did not make open posts on social media regarding radical Islamic jihad or martyrdom before the Dec. 2 terror attack in San Bernardino, FBI Director James B. Comey said Wednesday, attempting to knock down criticism that U.S. officials had missed the growing radicalism of the couple and could have prevented her from moving to the U.S. last year.
Speaking in New York, Comey also revealed for the first time that the shooting deaths last July of five people after attacks on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tenn., have now officially been classified as a terrorist attack. The assailant in that attack, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a naturalized U.S. citizen living in Hixson, Tenn., was killed by police gunfire after he shot and killed four Marines and a sailor and wounded three other people.
“In Chattanooga we’ve concluded the killer was inspired by a foreign terror group’s propaganda,” Comey said. “It’s often difficult, as it is with San Bernardino, to untangle what particular sources’ competing foreign terror poison is out there. But there’s no doubt the Chattanooga killer was inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”
The classification of the Tennessee attack as a terrorist incident brings to three the number of such assaults in the U.S. this year, starting with an attempted attack in Garland, Texas, in May. In that assault, a security officer was wounded, and the two assailants, radicalized individuals from Phoenix, were shot dead.
In the San Bernardino case, Comey said, some news reports about Farook and Malik’s social media use had been a “garble.” He emphasized the distinction between postings on social media and private messages using social media platforms.
Join the conversation on Facebook >>
“We can see from our investigation that in late 2013 — before there is a physical meeting of these two people, resulting in their engagement and journey to the United States — they are communicating online, showing signs in that communication their joint commitment to jihad and to martyrdom. Those communications are direct private messages,” he said.
“So far in this investigation we have found no evidence of the posting on social media by either of them at that period of time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom. I’ve seen some reporting on that. That’s a garble. All right?
“The investigation continues, but we have not found that kind of thing. These communications are private, direct messages, not social media messages,” he added.
An article Tuesday in the Los Angeles Times was consistent with Comey’s characterization. The article reported that federal law enforcement officials had said that Malik had sent at least “two private messages” on Facebook to a small group of Pakistani friends in 2012 and 2014 pledging support for jihad.
NEWSLETTER: Get the day's top headlines from Times Editor Davan Maharaj >>
Those private messages were sent before she entered the U.S. on a K-1 fiancee visa in July 2014. One of the officials characterized the messages as “her private communications ... to a small group of her friends” that “went only to a small group.”
In an article Sunday, the New York Times reported that Malik had “talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.”
The two articles prompted critics of the Obama administration to say that officials had not done enough to catch potential terrorists and safeguard the U.S.
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas echoed those complaints during the Republican presidential debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas.
Last week in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey revealed that the couple had posted a message on social media on the day of the shootings pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, before they were killed in a police shootout in San Bernardino. Afterward, Islamic State leaders praised the couple as “martyrs” but did not claim any involvement in the plot.
Facebook has said it discovered the post after the shooting and took it down after notifying the FBI.
The attacks in San Bernardino and Chattanooga both "involved people consuming poison on the Internet" and becoming radicalized, Comey said. “But in San Bernardino, as I’ve said before, we see in the killers Malik and Farook two people who are radicalized before the emergence of ISIL [the Islamic State], and so untangling the motivation [and] which particular terrorist propaganda motivated them and in what way remains a challenge in these investigations. And our work is ongoing there.”
The FBI is continuing to investigate whether Farook and Malik also may have communicated with foreign terror groups through encrypted devices that would have prevented the FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies from following their trail, as happened in the Garland case.
Comey and other law enforcement officials have long sought the ability to get around encryption and listen in on potential terror suspects after obtaining a court order. On Wednesday he called the issue of encryption a “collision” between public and Internet security and basic law enforcement tools.
“That,” he said, is something “we as a democracy must solve together.”
Comey said it was becoming increasingly difficult to track efforts by foreign terror groups to recruit people in this country or abroad intent on sponsoring or carrying out attacks in the U.S. or elsewhere.
“Your parents' Al Qaeda was a very different model than the threat we face today,” he said, noting that hundreds of investigations of potential terror plots were underway around the U.S. And he said that social media platforms like Twitter often were used to radicalize young adults.
“Twitter works as a way to sell books, as a way to promote movies,” he said, “and it works as a way to crowd-source terrorism -- to sell murder.”
Item - Trump Receives 23 Times More TV Coverage Than Bernie Sanders
Item - "Liberal" News Channel MSNBC Shows Entire Trump Rallies Live
I'm not sure there has been a minute since Trump entered the race in June that the national news media has not been kissing his ass. The next weekend, he was on the phone talking to This Week on ABC , Meet The Press on NBC, and Face The Nation on CBS. They all put him at the top of the show, even though, at the time Trump was not the frontrunner. Why did he merit instant appearances on all the Sunday news shows. Did Christie, Fiorina , Paul etc merit this fawning attention when they entered the race ? Of course not.
Trump was , at the time , a national celebrity, a household name, and that is all that mattered. They expected some ratings jump by having him on, and that is why he was given undue consideration. And it has never stopped. Til this minute, the cable news channels show extended segments of Trumps rallies live, sometimes up to a half hour or 45 minute bloc, giving him free campaign advertising. How in the world do they morally or ethically justify this ? I guess the answer is they don't have to.
The "Tyndall Report" has tracked all the coverage of all the candidates to date on the network nightly news programs. Trump has received more coverage than all the Democratic candidates combined, including Biden , and 23 times as much coverage as Bernie Sanders. For much of the election season sanders has had as much support in terms of number of people choosing him in polling as trump has had, yet is virtually ignored in the media. Why? He is not a ratings magnet.
Chris Matthews was talking about Trump tonight, he says he "fights" with his audience because some of them question all the wall to wall advertising for trump. Matthews says he gives Trump the coverage because his opponents can't take him down.
How can they take him down when US national media is giving him free ads every night and keeping him in front of everyone who watches cable and network news regularly ?
It's a scandal but won't be treated like one because people are sheep.
In a new wrinkle on CNN on Tuesday, Republicans in Las Vegas were asked to debate basically one issue — terrorism. If you were hoping to see candidates well versed in foreign policy and national security, the results were ... not encouraging. There was a little substance, along with a whole lot of mush.
But for now, the horse race.
It's been a while since the candidates last met (Nov. 10), and the nomination contest has sorted itself out quite a bit. Donald Trump is still the polling leader. Ted Cruz is now first in Iowa polls and second nationally, and appears well on his way to consolidating support from party actors who are social conservatives and perhaps all of those who are most conservative. Marco Rubio is third in the polls, but is the only real coalition-style candidate in the race, and as such is picking up support from elected officials and other party actors.
So the first question is: Did this debate allow any of the others to break through? Jeb Bushtried by taking on Trump, and Bush will probably get a fair amount of publicity from that. They butted heads over at least two extended periods, and this time Bush wasn't a clear loser. Which doesn't mean it will help in the polls. He's improving, but he's still not especially good at these things, and doesn't quite seem to know who his intended audience might be. He has not yet adapted to a world in which Republicans don't simply default to the nearest Bush.
As for the rest, maybe Chris Christie was able to sustain a bit of momentum in New Hampshire. If there was a sound bite that either conservative media or the "neutral" press will run with, I didn't notice it — from him or any of the others, in the main event or the kiddie table debate. If anyone is poised to surge, it won't be this debate that started it.
Trump was mostly subdued this time, and as always he disappeared when real policy questions were on the table. His interest is really engaged only when the conversation turns to him. Among other things, Trump's answer to a question late in the debate made it clear he knows nothing about the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, which in bygone years would have been a major gaffe by a presidential candidate.
Cruz is quick on his feet and knows how to speak to a conservative audience. For his first debate as a potential target, he did fine. However, if Rubio wants to set up a dividing line to portray Cruz as a "dove" (or isolationist) alongside Rand Paul, the evening couldn't have worked out better. During the matinee debate, Lindsey Graham constantly lumped Paul and Cruz together, and in prime time Paul repeatedly jumped in to take Cruz's side. If Rubio is correct about where the Republican Party is, he's going to pick up a lot of support from Republican foreign policy professionals.
Rubio did nothing to spark any progress in the polls, but also nothing to scare party actors away from continuing their slow march toward him. In previous contests, it's been a good bet that where the bulk of the party actors are, the voters will eventually follow. Rubio also, for whatever it's worth, does actually demonstrate knowledge about foreign policy and national security (or at least substantive talking points). Whether the policies he advocates are good ideas or not, he doesn't settle for repeating that the U.S. strategy should be "winning," and he doesn't pretend that saying a few magic words will defeat Islamic State.
As for Wolf Blitzer and the other moderators: They did a good job of pushing for substance, and that's all we can ask.
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg View columnist covering U.S. politics.
You pose a good question.
Looks if you have any opinion your deleted. If that's the case why is it on NewsTalkers at all?
That is not the case. I wanted to clear all the old comments off and start over but the system will not allow it so it left remnants of old comments. Don't know why we can't remove material off our own pages maybe Perrie can answer that.