 
     |
| Let's talk about the media, and what journalism should be in a free society (Page 9/38) |
|
williegoat
|
FEB 28, 03:32 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
So, are you supposed to eat this? Because that's pretty hard-core... I've eaten a Sour Cream & Chives cricket before... but not a scorpion. |
|
Claro que si! Pero yo? No!
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
FEB 28, 04:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
So, are you supposed to eat this? Because that's pretty hard-core... I've eaten a Sour Cream & Chives cricket before... but not a scorpion. |
|
"And when there were no crawdads to be found we ate sand."
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
FEB 28, 06:22 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
Claro que si! Pero yo? No! |
|
So, if you eat it, can the stinger not still sting you as you're munching on it ? I'm assuming the dude is dead. Doesn't the poison have a crippling effect on the nervous system? Or is that the point I guess?
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
FEB 28, 06:55 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
So, if you eat it, can the stinger not still sting you as you're munching on it ? I'm assuming the dude is dead. Doesn't the poison have a crippling effect on the nervous system? Or is that the point I guess? |
|
I am not sure exactly how they are prepared. I have heard various things such as that cooking them (boiling, frying) or soaking them in Mezcal will render them relatively harmless. I have also heard that the stinger and poison sack should be removed, but I will leave that to other, more adventurous gourmands. However, they are certainly eaten in Mexico and in Asia.
I have eaten the gusano from a bottle of Mezcal, but I didn't like it. It was something that every young man had to do in certain circles. But I will pass on any arachnid. Gracias, pero no![This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-28-2024).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAR 01, 07:33 AM
|
|
Well... this just in, kind of ridiculous in my opinion: https://therightscoop.com/b...ot-divulging-source/
Let me be totally clear... the people who "leak" information, especially to the media, should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law. It betrays the trust of the American people where you (as an employee) have literally taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution. To that point, there are numerous avenues under whistleblower legislation that quite literally allows you to divulge information to your senator or representative in congress of your choice... (can be Republican or Democrat), and be free from reprisal. So there's no excuse to leak it to a reporter.
BUT... the reporter has committed no crimes. The reporter has not made such oath in duty as a Federal civilian or member of the armed forces, or even a contractor. They have no obligation to protect and secure classified information, at all. A reporter merely is an inference mechanism for acquiring information to / from sources for the benefit of public consumption. What this judge has done here is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm getting tired of this bullshit "virtual signalling" that happens where they rule absurdly, and then stay the order pending appeal. THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB... if you're staying the order, then it means you KNOW that you're decision is bullshit. What is with these radical leftist judges who think activism is acceptable in the judicial system?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 01, 08:58 AM
|
|
This isn't a case where the FBI—or going up the chain—the DOJ or the current (Biden) administration is pressuring a journalist to reveal sources so that the government can take action against leakers inside the government, or leakers that were working directly or indirectly for the government.
I don't know if it makes sense to categorize this judge's ruling as any kind of "radical leftist activism"... even when the judge issued a stay of his own ruling so that his ruling can be appealed by the journalist before the journalist is pressed to disclose her sources to the litigant that is suing the government because of her data having been leaked to this journalist.
Someone would have to tell me more about U.S. District Judge Christopher Reid Cooper to persuade me that he is a "radical leftist"... more than citing just this one news report and adding that he was nominated and then appointed—after a unanimous vote to confirm by all 100 Senators—by President Obama.
"I'm all about more..."
"Dig" the comments on the YouTube page about this very memorable bro-mercial.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-01-2024).]
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
MAR 01, 09:38 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Well... this just in, kind of ridiculous in my opinion: https://therightscoop.com/b...ot-divulging-source/
Let me be totally clear... the people who "leak" information, especially to the media, should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law. It betrays the trust of the American people where you (as an employee) have literally taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution. To that point, there are numerous avenues under whistleblower legislation that quite literally allows you to divulge information to your senator or representative in congress of your choice... (can be Republican or Democrat), and be free from reprisal. So there's no excuse to leak it to a reporter.
BUT... the reporter has committed no crimes. The reporter has not made such oath in duty as a Federal civilian or member of the armed forces, or even a contractor. They have no obligation to protect and secure classified information, at all. A reporter merely is an inference mechanism for acquiring information to / from sources for the benefit of public consumption. What this judge has done here is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm getting tired of this bullshit "virtual signalling" that happens where they rule absurdly, and then stay the order pending appeal. THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB... if you're staying the order, then it means you KNOW that you're decision is bullshit. What is with these radical leftist judges who think activism is acceptable in the judicial system? |
|
BBS bad bull sh1t we need to know what is really going down
not just what the government PIG allows us to KNOW
the current problem is reactionary fascist judges appointed by the rump who want to change settled law for religions cult reasons
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
MAR 08, 12:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
MAR 08, 03:00 PM
|
|
First of all his premise is flawed. Trump did not "by pass" the media> He had the largest most popular news network on earth (FoxNews) on his side plus many more conservative media outlets (Dailey Wire, NewsMax, OAN, New York Post, The Blaze, Washington Times, Breitbart, etc, etc)
Second of all Dr. Bhattacharya was wrong. You can't protect the most vulnerable members of society at the same time that you try to establish herd immunity by letting the virus run free.
Third, anyone comparing Facebook algorithms to Russian gulags deserves a "Drama Queen of the Year Award" in addition to his "Samizat Prize" . The information that he tries to claim was "suppressed" was actually all over the internet along with tons of other dangerous misinformation.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
MAR 08, 04:12 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
First of all his premise is flawed. Trump did not "by pass" the media> He had the largest most popular news network on earth (FoxNews) on his side plus many more conservative media outlets (Dailey Wire, NewsMax, OAN, New York Post, The Blaze, Washington Times, Breitbart, etc, etc)
Second of all Dr. Bhattacharya was wrong. You can't protect the most vulnerable members of society at the same time that you try to establish herd immunity by letting the virus run free.
Third, anyone comparing Facebook algorithms to Russian gulags deserves a "Drama Queen of the Year Award" in addition to his "Samizat Prize" . The information that he tries to claim was "suppressed" was actually all over the internet along with tons of other dangerous misinformation.
|
|
First, Trump bypassed the hostile media....
Second, test you can. Isolate those that are the most vulnerable. Allow the rest to roam free.
Third, no, it wasn't suppressed because it was on the internet - that was the point.
Are you sure you read the article?
|
|
|
|