DC Tom Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: Aaarrgh ! ......................I'll take the rats. MSNBC it is then... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 40 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So, what would you propose we do if Russia was, say, paying people to go on message boards to say America is the bad country, that its corrupt and its institutions are rotten? What could be done? Not sure anything can be done other than to make people aware they've been duped which is the responsibility of the companies involved in passing along foreign propaganda. 29 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: OK, so you actually do wish to implement an official "Ministry of Truth". Because our government is absolutely trustworthy, and should be able to dictate to it's citizens what the truth is, and should be able to punish those who step outside what they have decided are the boundaries, and this is in no way problematic, and certainly doesn't directly jeopardize freedom? No, I don't. It's up to the corporate citizens to make their consumers aware. You seem intent on making this about the government. I have no intention of going down that rabbit hole. Other than to say that if these media platforms seek 1st Amendment protections, then they need to act responsibly while earning them. They can't have it both ways by declaring themselves "neutral" while being the vehicle for mass dissemination of propaganda generated by adversarial governments posing as regular US citizens. 24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's all good, I'm not trying to convert you or even convince you (or anyone). Just sharing information for you to go do your own digging on and form your own conclusions. See what holds up and what doesn't. Though, for the record, I don't believe Americans are ignorant. I believe we have been had. We are the greatest country on the planet - or were before it was stolen from us by unelected groups within the USIC, the MiC, and the financial sectors who have been subverting the constitution for their own benefit for going on 70 years. We no longer live in a democratic republic, we live under an oligarchy. That isn't conspiracy, that's reality. Unless you have millions in the bank to buy a congressman or three, you are not being represented by anyone in Congress or in DC at this time. That's not conspiracy, Citizens United (along with its predecessors) made that reality. We have no say in our foreign policy agendas - as we're seeing with this election. We are trillions in debt as a nation while an additional 21 trillion of our money has been siphoned off and stolen from us. I'm also not saying we shouldn't sanction Russia or lift the ones we have. I do think you're mistaken if you think the sanctions hurt Putin and his goons more than it hurts the average Russian citizen. Sanctions always hit the people harder than bad actors they're designed to hit. This was made clear in the sanctions of Iraq between wars as well as dozens of other countries. My argument is that a military response to a problem that is fundamentally rooted in our internal failures as a nation cannot be the only solution we discuss. Especially when the evidence clearly shows that we have been intentionally misled by the very intelligence agencies in charge of the investigation - not once, but many, many, MANY times. Since 2012 it's been legal for the USIC and State department to run propaganda campaigns on the American people. The resistance you're feeling internally to some of the darker truths raised by my posts is because you (and all of us) have been conditioned by an intense form of information warfare that originated from our own government. It's painful to realize how deep the deception goes. But the only way through it is to drag it all into the light. Per the bold text, I'm relieved to hear you say that. In your previous post you seemed to be saying that Americans have been dumbed down so I thought you were saying we are stupid. We are definitely ignorant, but that's not the same thing as stupid. Thanks for the clarification. And you are absolutely correct about the sanctions in terms of who they hurt most. That's the collateral damage inflicted. But it has hurt Putin. Indeed, those sanctions along with Obama's call to the Saudis to increase production, have harmed his economy. Yes, he and his henchmen are better equipped to ride them out, but they do hurt them where it matters, regardless. Sorry for the average Joe in Russia or the other Joes that have been hurt by our sanctions over the years, but that's the way it is. Harsh as it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, K-9 said: No, I don't. It's up to the corporate citizens to make their consumers aware. You seem intent on making this about the government. I have no intention of going down that rabbit hole. Other than to say that if these media platforms seek 1st Amendment protections, then they need to act responsibly while earning them. They can't have it both ways by declaring themselves "neutral" while being the vehicle for mass dissemination of propaganda generated by adversarial governments posing as regular US citizens. No, you're making it about the government, because you're talking about the enforcement of a "should" action, and it's the government tasked with the enforcement. As such, there's absolutely zero way around the fact that you'll be instructing the government to be the arbiter of what the actual truth is in order to enforce your standards. If you don't want to go down the rabbit hole, Alice, start by not jumping directly into it with both feet. Further, these media don't "seek" First Amendment protections. They have them, guaranteed by the Amendment in question, which does not issue caveats nor carve-outs in it's language. You're asking for a new interpretation of the Document which would create a new type of unprotected speech, and the speech you're looking to exempt from Constitutional protection is political speech. It's absolutely beyond me how you don't view these things as absurdly problematic. Edited November 6, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, you're making it about the government, because you're talking about the enforcement of a "should" action, and it's the government tasked with the enforcement. As such, there's absolutely zero way around the fact that you'll be instructing the government to be the arbiter of what the actual truth is in order to enforce your standards. If you don't want to go down the rabbit hole, Alice, start by not jumping directly into it with both feet. Further, these media don't "seek" First Amendment protections. They have them, guaranteed by the Amendment in question, which does not issue caveats nor carve-outs in it's language. You're asking for a new interpretation of the Document which would create a new type of unprotected speech, and the speech you're looking to exempt from Constitutional protection is political speech. It's absolutely beyond me how you don't view these things as absurdly problematic. Wrong. I am talking about corporations enforcing a "should" action. If you don't believe corporate citizens have a patriotic duty to the citizenry, at least as their consumers, we have nothing more to discuss on the issue. As for seeking those 1st Amendment protections, that's exactly what the social media platforms are doing. They just aren't beholding to the idea that they are media entities with the same kind of civic responsibility that the press has had for centuries. They see themselves as "neutral" and they just can't have it both ways when they are in the information dissemination business to billions of consumers. If they seek to be protected entities under the 1st Amendment, they have to adhere to the rules. I find your lack of ability to grasp these truths equally absurdly problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 17 minutes ago, K-9 said: Wrong. I am talking about corporations enforcing a "should" action. If you don't believe corporate citizens have a patriotic duty to the citizenry, at least as their consumers, we have nothing more to discuss on the issue. As for seeking those 1st Amendment protections, that's exactly what the social media platforms are doing. They just aren't beholding to the idea that they are media entities with the same kind of civic responsibility that the press has had for centuries. They see themselves as "neutral" and they just can't have it both ways when they are in the information dissemination business to billions of consumers. If they seek to be protected entities under the 1st Amendment, they have to adhere to the rules. I find your lack of ability to grasp these truths equally absurdly problematic. Again your prescription is to deputize private organizations to enforce regulations. As long as a user of a private communications network abides by the ToS and does not break laws, it's not up to the communications network to play the cop. Again, you are advocating modern day McCartheyism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 2 hours ago, GG said: Again your prescription is to deputize private organizations to enforce regulations. As long as a user of a private communications network abides by the ToS and does not break laws, it's not up to the communications network to play the cop. Again, you are advocating modern day McCartheyism. No I’m not. I’m simply saying that the facebooks, twitters, and other social media platforms headquartered here should exercise more responsibility to help ensure their platforms aren’t used to disseminate propaganda from foreign governments whose sole aim is to sow discord or worse. Especially from hostile foreign governments. That’s simple consumer protection, not McCarthyism. But to each his own, I guess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, K-9 said: No I’m not. I’m simply saying that the facebooks, twitters, and other social media platforms headquartered here should exercise more responsibility to help ensure their platforms aren’t used to disseminate propaganda from foreign governments whose sole aim is to sow discord or worse. Especially from hostile foreign governments. That’s simple consumer protection, not McCarthyism. But to each his own, I guess. And who defines "hostile?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Well... I guess that's one way to sell a book. Unless... DNC’S DONNA BRAZILE DEDICATED HER BOOK TO ‘PATRIOT’ SETH RICH, WHOSE DEATH MADE HER FEAR FOR HER OWN LIFE http://www.newsweek.com/donna-brazile-book-seth-rich-dnc-murder-conspiracy-702838?amp=1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Well... I guess that's one way to sell a book. Unless... DNC’S DONNA BRAZILE DEDICATED HER BOOK TO ‘PATRIOT’ SETH RICH, WHOSE DEATH MADE HER FEAR FOR HER OWN LIFE http://www.newsweek.com/donna-brazile-book-seth-rich-dnc-murder-conspiracy-702838?amp=1 I became a huge Donna Brazile fan this week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 11 hours ago, K-9 said: No I’m not. I’m simply saying that the facebooks, twitters, and other social media platforms headquartered here should exercise more responsibility to help ensure their platforms aren’t used to disseminate propaganda from foreign governments whose sole aim is to sow discord or worse. Especially from hostile foreign governments. That’s simple consumer protection, not McCarthyism. But to each his own, I guess. And how would social networks do that without tying into government's databases to identify the bad actors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Trump adviser sent email describing ‘private conversation’ with Russian official The email by adviser Carter Page contradicts earlier statements about his July 2016 trip to Moscow. In the email, he wrote that he had been provided “incredible insights and outreach” by Russian lawmakers and “senior members” of President Vladimir Putin’s administration. And there is this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-twitter-support-for-trump-began-right-after-he-started-campaign-1509964380 The Putin gang was into Trump pretty early. Its as if they knew he would win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 46 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Trump adviser sent email describing ‘private conversation’ with Russian official The email by adviser Carter Page contradicts earlier statements about his July 2016 trip to Moscow. In the email, he wrote that he had been provided “incredible insights and outreach” by Russian lawmakers and “senior members” of President Vladimir Putin’s administration. And there is this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-twitter-support-for-trump-began-right-after-he-started-campaign-1509964380 The Putin gang was into Trump pretty early. Its as if they knew he would win Ah, the Russian Crusade lives on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Ah, the Russian Crusade lives on. Your point is that this is nothing? How blind do you have to be to think its fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 56 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Trump adviser sent email describing ‘private conversation’ with Russian official The email by adviser Carter Page contradicts earlier statements about his July 2016 trip to Moscow. In the email, he wrote that he had been provided “incredible insights and outreach” by Russian lawmakers and “senior members” of President Vladimir Putin’s administration. And there is this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-twitter-support-for-trump-began-right-after-he-started-campaign-1509964380 The Putin gang was into Trump pretty early. Its as if they knew he would win BLAME AMERICA FIRST!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: BLAME AMERICA FIRST!! Exactly! DR is on board for that, so is Trump and Putin. America the whore, America the just as bad as Russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Exactly! DR is on board for that, so is Trump and Putin. America the whore, America the just as bad as Russia Keep that drumbeat going, Russian Crusader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Keep that drumbeat going, Russian Crusader. And you don't care about it? Don't you love your country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: And you don't care about it? Don't you love your country? Тиберий - русский крестоносцы с простым умом и живет в тот день, когда он не дерьмо в штанах. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: http://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-congressional-testimony-transcript-steele-dossier-2017-11 Russia Russia Russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 The irony here is thick: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/07/robby-mook-now-2016-clinton-profile-feature-215794 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts