Ministry of Truth

20,639 Views | 531 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Cobretti
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?


FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm just certain that the Biden Administration is so committed to protecting and defending truth that the makeup of this group will be completely bipartisan.
trey3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:




Never again, it's what they swore the time before
Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just gotta survive six more months. Democrats gonna be taken to the train station in November.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to F*** things up". - Barack Obama
DallasBear21
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am personally thrilled I have a government agency that can decide truth for me! These experts were right all along during Covid! They saved millions of lives and helped keep our children safe!

/s
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DallasBear21 said:

I am personally thrilled I have a government agency that can decide truth for me! These experts were right all along during Covid! They saved millions of lives and helped keep our children safe!

/s
I mean

What's scary is our nation is chock full of idiots who believe exactly that
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Just gotta survive six more months. Democrats gonna be taken to the train station in November.
Wish I could believe ya'.... they'll pull a trick or two expand mail in balloting and ballot harvesting
DallasBear21
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Just gotta survive six more months. Democrats gonna be taken to the train station in November.
Wish I could believe ya'.... they'll pull a trick or two expand mail in balloting and ballot harvesting
The ministry of truth told me there was no election fraud though....
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
<Insert Photo of Baghdad Bob Here>
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Just gotta survive six more months. Democrats gonna be taken to the train station in November.
Not if mail in balloting, voter harvesting ....and The Ministry of Truth have anything to do about it .
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New members of the Disinformation Governance Board (edited since chair position changed)

Joe G., Leni Riefenstahl, co-chairs

Tokyo R., Intelligence Community Liaison

B. Bob, Crisis Manager

Hanoi H., Social Media Monitoring Organizer

Axis S., Coordinator of Leaks to Mainstream Media
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Homeland Security is really a cover for all sorts of stuff the Constitution doesn't direct the federal government to do. If Congress wanted a ministry of truth that would be one thing.

Going to be a huge waste of money. 5 or 10 years from now, and hundreds of millions later, scotus will be finding that the department of Homeland Security can't decide for private citizens what truth is.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From National Review

In theory, this proposal doesn't have to be a terrible idea, in that is allegedly designed to rebut "human smuggling organizations peddling misinformation to exploit vulnerable migrants for profit," as well as monitoring messages from terrorist and extremist groups. Wherever you stand on illegal immigration, we should all oppose coyotes and human smugglers taking advantage of people. And since at least 2014, the U.S. has been bedeviled by the perception in some Central American countries that the United States is offering "permisos" for children who cross the border illegally a rumor that picked up steam after President Obama announced he would not deport children who had come into the country illegally with their parents. If this new DHS group spends its time publicly declaring that there are no special, secret, or little-known loopholes for migrants who wish to enter the U.S., it will do some good.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Homeland Security is really a cover for all sorts of stuff the Constitution doesn't direct the federal government to do. If Congress wanted a ministry of truth that would be one thing.

Going to be a huge waste of money. 5 or 10 years from now, and hundreds of millions later, scotus will be finding that the department of Homeland Security can't decide for private citizens what truth is.
Do you really think it will take 5 to 10 years to reach SCOUTS?

I would think it would take the first time they declare a news story from a major news organization "disinformation" and ban it that a case would come up.

The only good thing that could come from this is maybe the history channel would have to go back to actually having shows on history and not aliens, UFOs, bigfoot, etc.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Homeland Security is really a cover for all sorts of stuff the Constitution doesn't direct the federal government to do. If Congress wanted a ministry of truth that would be one thing.

Going to be a huge waste of money. 5 or 10 years from now, and hundreds of millions later, scotus will be finding that the department of Homeland Security can't decide for private citizens what truth is.
Do you really think it will take 5 to 10 years to reach SCOUTS?

I would think it would take the first time they declare a news story from a major news organization "disinformation" and ban it that a case would come up.

The only good thing that could come from this is maybe the history channel would have to go back to actually having shows on history and not aliens, UFOs, bigfoot, etc.


It's the federal government. It will take years and hundreds of millions to even establish the department, another few years to establish the guidelines for "truth according to the feds."
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did someone tell President Houseplant that Orwell was righting satire / warning not endorsing 1984 / Animal Farm?
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is the most on its face unconstitutional move that I can remember any administration ever undertaking.

Stunning.

Now, if you are polling as badly as the Democrats are, why would you create an office that you could not tolerate if it fell into Republican hands?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Republicans: "You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."

Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Republicans: "You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."


Beautiful irony.

Should've expected the former self-described libertarian is now for an executive-run Ministry of Truth.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Republicans: "You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."


You should be against controlling all information unless its illegal.

I'm in favor of allowing left or right misinformation, it's up to the consumer to understand what's bs.

Any governance of information has a 100% chance of turning into tyranny.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?
BylrFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
if there's one thing Americans trust the least, it's the government.
drahthaar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is where the AG should cut them off at the knees. Merrick Garland has a prime situation to insure the integrity of the Justice Dept and the Constitution. I fear he will only prove why he was a poor SCOTUS nominee.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Republicans: "You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."


So now the self-described "conservative" is cool with a Democrat admin once again expanding federal govt. to create its own agency that will help fight untruths like, "Men can't get pregnant," and "Gender is not a choice."

Color me shocked!

Yes, this seems like a very good limited govt. conservative idea. I am sure it won't be abused. Just look at social media's attempts to fight conservative "untruths." No abuses there.

"Conservative." LOL.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?
Existing.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.
The idea behind this DHS governance board is to point to the Federal government's opinion on what is factual and what isn't.

Our government called Hunter's laptop Russian disinformation when it was 100% authentic. If this board existed in 2020, it too would have called his laptop disinformation.

People like me would say "the government is lying" and people like you or people that trust the government would believe a lie.

Their stated objective is to present what's factual about the Ukraine-Russia war. Imagine the capacity for lies like WMDs and coverups like Benghazi coming from an official federal government mouthpiece instead of the individuals responsible for corruption.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.
Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.
The idea behind this DHS governance board is to point to the Federal government's opinion on what is factual and what isn't.

Our government called Hunter's laptop Russian disinformation when it was 100% authentic. If this board existed in 2020, it too would have called his laptop disinformation.

People like me would say "the government is lying" and people like you or people that trust the government would believe a lie.

Their stated objective is to present what's factual about the Ukraine-Russia war. Imagine the capacity for lies like WMDs and coverups like Benghazi coming from an official federal government mouthpiece instead of the individuals responsible for corruption.
You need to stop being "hysterical."

Blue star. What seems elementary is lost on the TDS crowd.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When I think we can go full Clown World, someone in the Idiocracy: "hold my beer."
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

When I think we can go full Clown World, someone in the Idiocracy: "hold my beer."
The irony is, its hysterics - particularly hysterics regarding Trump and Musk - that are largely responsible for the push to create this board.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.
Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.
Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.
1) One doesn't have to assume things as fact to be able to make reasonable and accurate predictions on the manner in which a board suggested by partisan arbiters of truth could be abused. Any reasonable conservative should be alarmed by its very suggestion, which is why a "wait and see approach" is so absurd.

2) So you're in a mental ward then?

Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.
The idea behind this DHS governance board is to point to the Federal government's opinion on what is factual and what isn't.

Our government called Hunter's laptop Russian disinformation when it was 100% authentic. If this board existed in 2020, it too would have called his laptop disinformation.

People like me would say "the government is lying" and people like you or people that trust the government would believe a lie.

Their stated objective is to present what's factual about the Ukraine-Russia war. Imagine the capacity for lies like WMDs and coverups like Benghazi coming from an official federal government mouthpiece instead of the individuals responsible for corruption.
Disinformation is different from wrong opinion. A lot of people, including myself, were rightly concerned about abuses of power during Russiagate and the Mueller investigation. That doesn't mean we should overreact and treat information warfare like it's not a thing. Russia has targeted us with propaganda ever since the Cold War, and various agencies have responded in various ways. This isn't necessarily anything new.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.
Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.
1) One doesn't have to assume things as fact to be able to make reasonable and accurate predictions on the manner in which a board suggested by partisan arbiters of truth could be abused. Any reasonable conservative should be alarmed by its very suggestion, which is why a "wait and see approach" is so absurd.

2) So you're in a mental ward then?


1) I don't know that they are setting themselves up as arbiters of truth.

2) Just visiting...I'll probably need to log out after lunch.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.