Ministry of Truth

34,039 Views | 650 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Cobretti
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

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



Please speak for yourself .

Am the youngest 66 year old I know !
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

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


It is unconstitutional without Wickard. There's no reason an amendment shouldn't have been used to establish it, other than power grabbing.
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti said:




Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

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
I certainly understand why you, his sycophant, thinks so. You would be wrong about that, just as you are with many things.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

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/
LOL. Well let's take their word for it. Nothing to see here.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cobretti said:


Clearly she's just a hysterical conservativ...er, I mean, Democr...er, Trump supporter...er, what label shall we use Sam?

I mean, why be worried about a partisan hack censoring free speech? What could go wrong?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

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


It is unconstitutional without Wickard. There's no reason an amendment shouldn't have been used to establish it, other than power grabbing.
Constitutional amendment for the FBI? I'm always ready to learn. Do you have a link?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

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
I certainly understand why you, his sycophant, thinks so. You would be wrong about that, just as you are with many things.
And I understand why you disagree.
You're mad because he grinds your meat in every substantive discussion. Hence, you just call names and insults
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Osodecentx said:

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



Please speak for yourself .

Am the youngest 66 year old I know !
You youngsters need to listen to your elders
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

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
I certainly understand why you, his sycophant, thinks so. You would be wrong about that, just as you are with many things.
And I understand why you disagree.
You're mad because he grinds your meat in every substantive discussion. Hence, you just call names and insults
Sam can stay away from my meat. What you two engage in is between you. No need to be projecting your fantasies on other people.

I am not mad at Sam. I am sad at what he has become. He used to be a good, reasonable, and conservative poster who I agreed with on most things. The COVID and Trump fear porn have turned him into a troll and a dullard, much like yourself. He has mostly abandoned any semblance of conservatism he once possessed.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

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
I certainly understand why you, his sycophant, thinks so. You would be wrong about that, just as you are with many things.
And I understand why you disagree.
You're mad because he grinds your meat in every substantive discussion. Hence, you just call names and insult

I am not mad at Sam. I am sad at what he has become. He used to be a good, reasonable, and conservative poster who I agreed with on most things. The COVID and Trump fear porn have turned him into a troll and a dullard, much like yourself. He has mostly abandoned any semblance of conservatism he once possessed.
I forgot. People who disagree with you are liars, right?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

Mothra said:

Osodecentx said:

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
I certainly understand why you, his sycophant, thinks so. You would be wrong about that, just as you are with many things.
And I understand why you disagree.
You're mad because he grinds your meat in every substantive discussion. Hence, you just call names and insult

I am not mad at Sam. I am sad at what he has become. He used to be a good, reasonable, and conservative poster who I agreed with on most things. The COVID and Trump fear porn have turned him into a troll and a dullard, much like yourself. He has mostly abandoned any semblance of conservatism he once possessed.
I forgot. People who disagree with you are liars, right?
I think you're confusing me with yourself.

Stop projecting, old man. It ain't healthy.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

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


It is unconstitutional without Wickard. There's no reason an amendment shouldn't have been used to establish it, other than power grabbing.
Constitutional amendment for the FBI? I'm always ready to learn. Do you have a link?


If you look and are truly interested, you'll find one.

Try this.

https://fee.org/articles/wickard-v-filburn-the-supreme-court-case-that-gave-the-federal-government-nearly-unlimited-power/
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?

ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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)
Realistically, the best work the CIA, FBI counter Intel, and NSA has done and does is the work you don't know about.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear 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)
Realistically, the best work the CIA, FBI counter Intel, and NSA has done and does is the work you don't know about.
Probably right
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jupiter said:


This guy has literally put out Russian (Syrian too) propaganda, and he's saying it's Russian propaganda to resist censorship of "disinformation"? We are in Bizarro world.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.
Not knowing is what got people to load up in the train cars so easily.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.
What a buffoon.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Canada2017 said:

Osodecentx said:

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



Please speak for yourself .

Am the youngest 66 year old I know !
You youngsters need to listen to your elders
We listen...sometimes even politely .

But if helps if the speaker has a clue .
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.
probably not.. they are just gonna take complaints and do nothing like every other blue run enforcement agency.

Good news is if they enforce and jail you, low dollar cash bail might be available if you are wearing a BLM shirt
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.
probably not.. they are just gonna take complaints and do nothing like every other blue run enforcement agency.

Good news is if they enforce and jail you, low dollar cash bail might be available if you are wearing a BLM shirt


No Cash Bail for the select.

Suspend Habeas Corpus and off to Gitmo for the rest.

Should be about right...
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.
probably not.. they are just gonna take complaints and do nothing like every other blue run enforcement agency.

Good news is if they enforce and jail you, low dollar cash bail might be available if you are wearing a BLM shirt


No Cash Bail for the select.

Suspend Habeas Corpus and off to Gitmo for the rest.

Should be about right...
if they try to jail me for voicing my first amendment rights then we may have to have a talk about my Second Amendment rights as well
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

RMF5630 said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.
probably not.. they are just gonna take complaints and do nothing like every other blue run enforcement agency.

Good news is if they enforce and jail you, low dollar cash bail might be available if you are wearing a BLM shirt


No Cash Bail for the select.

Suspend Habeas Corpus and off to Gitmo for the rest.

Should be about right...
if they try to jail me for voicing my first amendment rights then we may have to have a talk about my Second Amendment rights as well


There was a 2nd Amendment? Only in mythology of the right. Ministry confirmed it was an idea that really never existed. Discussed, but never approved. You see misinformation is every where. Own guns! Who would believe such a thing.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

RMF5630 said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.
probably not.. they are just gonna take complaints and do nothing like every other blue run enforcement agency.

Good news is if they enforce and jail you, low dollar cash bail might be available if you are wearing a BLM shirt


No Cash Bail for the select.

Suspend Habeas Corpus and off to Gitmo for the rest.

Should be about right...
if they try to jail me for voicing my first amendment rights then we may have to have a talk about my Second Amendment rights as well
The headline will read; "White Nationalist found after making hate speech, arsenal of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammo found in home:"
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Someone (I'm guessing Hannity or Carlson) obviously told you all to be very, very afraid of something. What that something is doesn't seem to matter.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear 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)
Realistically, the best work the CIA, FBI counter Intel, and NSA has done and does is the work you don't know about.
Also the worst, considering they go to great lengths trying to cover up their corruption.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You know how they stamp your voter registration card with your party when you vote in the primary? Now they are going to tattoo it on your arm. It will give them a target spot for your vaccine... among other things.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/
There's not a government office/team/group/department/bureau/center/agency/commission that Sam has't loved.
FormerFlash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In other words, nothing to see here? Pay no attention? Just go about your lives and ignore us completely?

No thanks.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/
They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/
They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.