Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

What happened to the libertarian-leaning, limited-govt. advocating Sam Lowry? The guy who incessantly decried the govt. overreach of the Patriot Act back during the Bush years? He would have bristled with the suggestion of a partisan, govt.-created board designed to "re"educate Americans. Did Trump and COVID scare it out of him? Or does he only bristle at such overreach when it occurs under a Republican administration?

The dangers of such a board are self-evident.I suspect your friend quash could help you understand the dangers.

---

I was challenged in my opposition to the Patriot Act just as I'm challenging you now. In response I listed about ten specific things enabled by the Act which I found objectionable. What specific powers does this DHS board have which you find objectionable?

---

As someone who used to be libertarian, the concerns regarding the board should be self-evident to you. That's what's so sad - the point of my last post. But if you would like for me to spell them out to you, I will give it a shot.

As a caveat, let me first say we don't know what the board's "powers" will be. Unlike the Patriot Act, those have not been spelled out yet. However, what we do know from statements from the admin is that it's yet another govt.-created board, which would typically be problem no. 1 for any purported libertarian. Most libertarians I know believe more govt. is not a good thing.

Second, we know this board will apparently be staffed by people selected by the Biden admin to "fight disinformation," whatever the Biden admin considers that to be. That's problem no. 2. Sam, can you think of any reasons whatsoever that a govt.-created board staffed by Biden partisans might be a concern to libertarians or conservatives, especially when "truth" is often-times in the eye of the beholder? Can you think of any way a board such as this, with govt. insignia and backing, could be abused or used to do the admin's bidding? Does it at all sound similar to 1984's Ministry of Truth, a governmental department that controls information coming from news, entertainment, arts and education?

According to Psaki, two of the areas it will focus on are COVID and elections. Undoubtedly, that's sweet music to your ears, and I am sure the reason you purportedly can't see why anyone would be concerned with such a board. But can you honesty think of ways that a board such as this might try to control information or limited speech?

I think an intellectually honest answer to these questions will help you understand why the idea of such a board is a concern to any reasonable libertarian or conservative.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

What happened to the libertarian-leaning, limited-govt. advocating Sam Lowry? The guy who incessantly decried the govt. overreach of the Patriot Act back during the Bush years? He would have bristled with the suggestion of a partisan, govt.-created board designed to "re"educate Americans. Did Trump and COVID scare it out of him? Or does he only bristle at such overreach when it occurs under a Republican administration?

The dangers of such a board are self-evident.I suspect your friend quash could help you understand the dangers.

---

I was challenged in my opposition to the Patriot Act just as I'm challenging you now. In response I listed about ten specific things enabled by the Act which I found objectionable. What specific powers does this DHS board have which you find objectionable?

---

As someone who used to be libertarian, the concerns regarding the board should be self-evident to you. That's what's so sad - the point of my last post. But if you would like for me to spell them out to you, I will give it a shot.

As a caveat, let me first say we don't know what the board's "powers" will be. Unlike the Patriot Act, those have not been spelled out yet. However, what we do know from statements from the admin is that it's yet another govt.-created board, which would typically be problem no. 1 for any purported libertarian. Most libertarians I know believe more govt. is not a good thing.

---

So, there's a board.

Mothra said:

---

Second, we know this board will apparently be staffed by people selected by the Biden admin to "fight disinformation," whatever the Biden admin considers that to be. That's problem no. 2. Sam, can you think of any reasons whatsoever that a govt.-created board staffed by Biden partisans might be a concern to libertarians or conservatives, especially when "truth" is often-times in the eye of the beholder? Can you think of any way a board such as this, with govt. insignia and backing, could be abused or used to do the admin's bidding? Does it at all sound similar to 1984's Ministry of Truth, a governmental department that controls information coming from news, entertainment, arts and education?

---

Staffed by Democrats.

Mothra said:

---

According to Psaki, two of the areas it will focus on are COVID and elections. Undoubtedly, that's sweet music to your ears, and I am sure the reason you purportedly can't see why anyone would be concerned with such a board. But can you honesty think of ways that a board such as this might try to control information or limited speech?

I think an intellectually honest answer to these questions will help you understand why the idea of such a board is a concern to any reasonable libertarian or conservative.

---

With potential for abuse.

How does this not describe every agency under every Democratic administration? What's so special about this one?

Robert Wilson said:

---

Any actual dangerous behavior was already illegal and under the purview of multiple law-enforcement agencies.

---

Are all of those agencies unconstitutional too? What makes this one different?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

In the year of our Lord 2022, the FBI are the terrorists!

---

You really believe that?

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

You are wasting your time. It's beyond stupid to even have to point out of the problems here. If they are not on their face apparent to someone, that person is beyond help. The executive branch, underneath the department of homeland security, created an office to battle "disinformation, "and it is headed by blatantly Partisan person. This is on its face unconstitutional and abominable. We don't have to know at a granular level what behavior will follow. Whatever it is is going to be awful. There is no good answer here. The mere existence of this is a complete embarrassment. Having to discuss it is an embarrassment. For ****s sake. Any actual dangerous behavior was already illegal and under the purview of multiple law-enforcement agencies.

---

You're right. He's a stubborn, obtuse fool, and he didn't answer a single question (despite his protests that he wants to engage). COVID and Trump have driven any semblance of reason out of him.

I should have known better than to engage. I am seriously considering the ignore function for the first time ever.

---

Let me save you the trouble.

Ignored.

Canada2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

You are wasting your time. It's beyond stupid to even have to point out of the problems here. If they are not on their face apparent to someone, that person is beyond help. The executive branch, underneath the department of homeland security, created an office to battle "disinformation, "and it is headed by blatantly Partisan person. This is on its face unconstitutional and abominable. We don't have to know at a granular level what behavior will follow. Whatever it is is going to be awful. There is no good answer here. The mere existence of this is a complete embarrassment. Having to discuss it is an embarrassment. For ****s sake. Any actual dangerous behavior was already illegal and under the purview of multiple law-enforcement agencies.

---

You're right. He's a stubborn, obtuse fool, and he didn't answer a single question (despite his protests that he wants to engage). COVID and Trump have driven any semblance of reason out of him.

I should have known better than to engage. I am seriously considering the ignore function for the first time ever.

---

Realized over a year ago Sam is not interested in legitimate discussions .....only in trolling .

' Ignore ' is a viable alternative to his foolishness .

---

Unfortunately, it appears so. Held out hope, but alas.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

You are wasting your time. It's beyond stupid to even have to point out of the problems here. If they are not on their face apparent to someone, that person is beyond help. The executive branch, underneath the department of homeland security, created an office to battle "disinformation, "and it is headed by blatantly Partisan person. This is on its face unconstitutional and abominable. We don't have to know at a granular level what behavior will follow. Whatever it is is going to be awful. There is no good answer here. The mere existence of this is a complete embarrassment. Having to discuss it is an embarrassment. For ****s sake. Any actual dangerous behavior was already illegal and under the purview of multiple law-enforcement agencies.

---

You're right. He's a stubborn, obtuse fool, and he didn't answer a single question (despite his protests that he wants to engage). COVID and Trump have driven any semblance of reason out of him.

I should have known better than to engage. I am seriously considering the ignore function for the first time ever.

---

Let me save you the trouble.

Ignored.

---

Bye old friend.

RMF5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

In the year of our Lord 2022, the FBI are the terrorists!

---

You really believe that?

---

Yes. They have been weaponized by the Left/ Deep State to aid in destroying political opponents. The CIA the same.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

In the year of our Lord 2022, the FBI are the terrorists!

---

You really believe that?

---

Yes. They have been weaponized by the Left/ Deep State to aid in destroying political opponents. The CIA the same.

---

There may be individuals like Strokz that are zealots, but systematic ? No way.

Canada2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

You are wasting your time. It's beyond stupid to even have to point out of the problems here. If they are not on their face apparent to someone, that person is beyond help. The executive branch, underneath the department of homeland security, created an office to battle "disinformation, "and it is headed by blatantly Partisan person. This is on its face unconstitutional and abominable. We don't have to know at a granular level what behavior will follow. Whatever it is is going to be awful. There is no good answer here. The mere existence of this is a complete embarrassment. Having to discuss it is an embarrassment. For ****s sake. Any actual dangerous behavior was already illegal and under the purview of multiple law-enforcement agencies.

---

You're right. He's a stubborn, obtuse fool, and he didn't answer a single question (despite his protests that he wants to engage). COVID and Trump have driven any semblance of reason out of him.

I should have known better than to engage. I am seriously considering the ignore function for the first time ever.

---

Realized over a year ago Sam is not interested in legitimate discussions .....only in trolling .

' Ignore ' is a viable alternative to his foolishness .

---

You are wrong

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

We need the FBI & CIA. They do a good job.

I would argue that the best work the CIA has done is Cuban missile crisis, finding bin Laden, and Ukraine (predicting Russian invasion, Russian troop movement)

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

You are wasting your time. It's beyond stupid to even have to point out of the problems here. If they are not on their face apparent to someone, that person is beyond help. The executive branch, underneath the department of homeland security, created an office to battle "disinformation, "and it is headed by blatantly Partisan person. This is on its face unconstitutional and abominable. We don't have to know at a granular level what behavior will follow. Whatever it is is going to be awful. There is no good answer here. The mere existence of this is a complete embarrassment. Having to discuss it is an embarrassment. For ****s sake. Any actual dangerous behavior was already illegal and under the purview of multiple law-enforcement agencies.

---

You're right. He's a stubborn, obtuse fool, and he didn't answer a single question (despite his protests that he wants to engage). COVID and Trump have driven any semblance of reason out of him.

I should have known better than to engage. I am seriously considering the ignore function for the first time ever.

---

Realized over a year ago Sam is not interested in legitimate discussions .....only in trolling .

' Ignore ' is a viable alternative to his foolishness .

---

You are wrong

---

No, he's not.

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

You are wasting your time. It's beyond stupid to even have to point out of the problems here. If they are not on their face apparent to someone, that person is beyond help. The executive branch, underneath the department of homeland security, created an office to battle "disinformation, "and it is headed by blatantly Partisan person. This is on its face unconstitutional and abominable. We don't have to know at a granular level what behavior will follow. Whatever it is is going to be awful. There is no good answer here. The mere existence of this is a complete embarrassment. Having to discuss it is an embarrassment. For ****s sake. Any actual dangerous behavior was already illegal and under the purview of multiple law-enforcement agencies.

---

You're right. He's a stubborn, obtuse fool, and he didn't answer a single question (despite his protests that he wants to engage). COVID and Trump have driven any semblance of reason out of him.

I should have known better than to engage. I am seriously considering the ignore function for the first time ever.

---

Realized over a year ago Sam is not interested in legitimate discussions .....only in trolling .

' Ignore ' is a viable alternative to his foolishness .

---

You are wrong

---

No, he's not.

---

Yes, he is

CNN's David Zurawik: "Dangerous" with Elon Musk buying Twitter, we need to look to Europe.

"You need regulation. You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country or we are headed to hell. We are there. Trump opened the gates of hell and now they’re chasing us down." pic.twitter.com/QubyKZwVCQ

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) May 1, 2022

Days after installing a Minister of Truth, Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary says it’s not for him to opine on whether the Steele Dossier was disinformation. pic.twitter.com/zPKk69EPlu

— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) May 1, 2022

Canon said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

We need the FBI & CIA. They do a good job.

---

One of those is correct. The other is the FBI. The FBI are aimed at Americans and have been used as a political weapon for/by the democrat party since Obama. The Trump presidency demonstrated how far the FBI had sunk into their role as democrat brown shirts.

---

The FBI has a national security role, which can be understood independently from the Commerce Clause as part of Congress' power to provide for the common defense and police violations of the law of nations. The same is true of the DHS and its activities here.

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

You are wasting your time. It's beyond stupid to even have to point out of the problems here. If they are not on their face apparent to someone, that person is beyond help. The executive branch, underneath the department of homeland security, created an office to battle "disinformation, "and it is headed by blatantly Partisan person. This is on its face unconstitutional and abominable. We don't have to know at a granular level what behavior will follow. Whatever it is is going to be awful. There is no good answer here. The mere existence of this is a complete embarrassment. Having to discuss it is an embarrassment. For ****s sake. Any actual dangerous behavior was already illegal and under the purview of multiple law-enforcement agencies.

---

You're right. He's a stubborn, obtuse fool, and he didn't answer a single question (despite his protests that he wants to engage). COVID and Trump have driven any semblance of reason out of him.

I should have known better than to engage. I am seriously considering the ignore function for the first time ever.

---

Realized over a year ago Sam is not interested in legitimate discussions .....only in trolling .

' Ignore ' is a viable alternative to his foolishness .

---

You are wrong

---

Am wrong frequently .

However since I only post in this venue for entertainment.....it is of no consequence .





Peace Be With You .

---

Old *******s like you and me are at peace

BUbearinARK said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

We need the FBI & CIA. They do a good job.

I would argue that the best work the CIA has done is Cuban missile crisis, finding bin Laden, and Ukraine (predicting Russian invasion, Russian troop movement)

---

Speaking of bin laden..


[url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10749777/Osama-bin-Laden-planned-SECOND-terror-attack-9-11.html?fbclid=IwAR0WdJZ4pZWeEqxVzsuRj--T7DKfZbhO1O4fTyKAFgV7VYtyqfce6EXZw6g][/url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10749777/Osama-bin-Laden-planned-SECOND-terror-attack-9-11.html?fbclid=IwAR0WdJZ4pZWeEqxVzsuRj--T7DKfZbhO1O4fTyKAFgV7VYtyqfce6EXZw6g

Quote:

---

Quote:
Analysts have been studying bin Laden's letters since they were found in a trove of documents at the Pakistan compound where he was killed and seized by U.S. special forces in 2011.
It was previously revealed that the terrorist had urged followers to assassinate Obama as a way of disrupting the 2012 presidential election.
He also banned al Qaeda from assassinating Joe Biden because he believed the Democrat would become an incompetent president and 'lead the US into a crisis' if jihadists were successful in killing Barack Obama.
Bin Laden penned the 48-page missive in May 2010 to an aide identified as 'Brother Shaykh Mahmud', real name Atiyah Abd al-Rahman. In it, he discusses the need to direct resources away from terror attacks in other Muslim countries and instead focus on direct attacks against the U.S.
On page 36, he outlines his desire to form two hit squads - one in Pakistan and another in Afghanistan - whose job it will be to plot attacks against then-President Barack Obama and ex-CIA director David Petraeus, should they visit either country.
Giving his reasoning for attacking Obama, he says: 'Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency for the remainder of the term, as it is the norm over there.
'Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the US into a crisis.

---

---

I didn't know that

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

We need the FBI & CIA. They do a good job.

---

One of those is correct. The other is the FBI. The FBI are aimed at Americans and have been used as a political weapon for/by the democrat party since Obama. The Trump presidency demonstrated how far the FBI had sunk into their role as democrat brown shirts.

---

The FBI has a national security role, which can be understood independently from the Commerce Clause as part of Congress' power to provide for the common defense and police violations of the law of nations. The same is true of the DHS and its activities here.

---

Remember, this guy says the FBI is unconstitutional without Wickaerd

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec 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.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

1. A board that polices "disinformation."

2. The fact that it purports to police "disinformation."

3. Who is defining "disinformation"? Will it be the people who told us that the Hunter Biden laptop story was fake? The people who tell us men can get pregnant? The people who said the Steele dossier was a valid basis for warrants?

---

The usual definition is falsehood deliberately spread with the intention to deceive and manipulate opinion. This State Department source describes what it is and some of what they do to counter it:

https://www.state.gov/disarming-disinformation/