Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

The government can only enforce something if there is something to enforce????? Really???? Are you this obtuse to history?

There are tons of examples of people within government abusing power and enforcing things with NO right to enforce it.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

Defining what they are authorized to do would limit what they CAN do, so don't expect much definition there from this administration. What we do know is Twitter was an unmitigated disaster of leftist censorship so the world's richest man bought it to make it more fair. In response to making Twitter more fair to everyone, (since everyone includes the right), the Biden administration created this response force that is said to be commissioned specifically to deal with "misinformation." It's an obvious move AGAINST Musk's motives of a more fair social media. This ministry of disinformation would have been created after Parlor was created but Apple and Amazon removed it from their platforms so the government didn't need to do anything.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

Why wouldn't the DGB be the same?

---

Fill in the blank (Doc or anyone else).

The NSA was authorized to: collect Google and Yahoo data with court approval.
The NSA abused this power by: secretly collecting Google and Yahoo data without court approval.
The new DHS board is authorized to: ____________
The new DHS board can abuse this power by: censoring Americans' speech.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

Why wouldn't the DGB be the same?

---

Fill in the blank (Doc or anyone else).

The NSA was authorized to: collect Google and Yahoo data with court approval.
The NSA abused this power by: secretly collecting Google and Yahoo data without court approval.
The new DHS board is authorized to: ____________
The new DHS board can abuse this power by: censoring Americans' speech.

---

You've convinced me. Because the rights and responsibilities of this new arm of the Department of Homeland Security, that was created in direct response to leftists losing censorship power, have not been enumerated yet we should totally trust the Biden administration in their intent and application. Never mind what the Biden administration says and never mind what they've done, since it's not yet written out for us, we have no reason to
worry. Whew!

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

Ok. So you have a 12th grade social studies view of this. That's funny. Tell me you've never really had to deal with administrative agencies and bureaucrats without telling me you've never really had to deal with administrative agencies and bureaucrats.

---

Administrative agencies and bureaucrats do all kinds of bizarre things with the power they're given. But they can't do anything until they're given some kind of power. Mayorkas says the new board has no operational authority and will not monitor American citizens. Maybe he's lying. So where does the operational authority come from? Maybe he's misinterpreting. If so, what is he misinterpreting?

Any power can be abused. That doesn't make it unconstitutional on its face. What power will this board exercise that makes it "the most on its face unconstitutional move that you can remember any administration ever undertaking?" What makes it more unconstitutional that what other agencies are doing and have done? What makes it more unconstitutional than what the DHS itself did under Trump?

Or you could just give me some more vague speculation...

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

Why wouldn't the DGB be the same?

---

Fill in the blank (Doc or anyone else).

The NSA was authorized to: collect Google and Yahoo data with court approval.
The NSA abused this power by: secretly collecting Google and Yahoo data without court approval.
The new DHS board is authorized to: ____________
The new DHS board can abuse this power by: censoring Americans' speech.

---

Govern information.

It's a mouthpiece. The power they have is an official federal ultimatum on any topic they wish. That's not ok.

This is basically the governments form of a fact checking website.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

First, the left has zero credibility with which to ask anyone to trust them not to abuse this new power. From attempting to kill the filibuster to trying to pack the scotus, it's become obvious power is all that matters and the ends justifies the means.

Second, the Ministry of Truth only came to be after Musk successfully bought Twitter, a move that was itself a massive reaction to leftist censorship run amok. So of COURSE everyone sees this as a move against what Musk did which would make it pro-leftist censorship.

All the "Hey, relax, they won't abuse this new power! We pinky swear" in the world won't buy that credibility back.

---

What new power are we talking about again, specifically?

---

The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.

---

So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?

---

Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.

---

Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?

---

"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"

---

Pass what? Is there a bill?

---

Oh that's right, it's just a demand from Biden, not anything voted on by congress. I must have TOTALLY forgotten that part.

---

When did Biden demand they turn off your power or put you in jail for your opinions?

---

Did he condemn it when Canada did it?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/new-report-shows-nsa-still-monitoring-american-citizens-without-a-warrant/

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

Fre3dombear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Just gotta survive six more months. Democrats gonna be taken to the train station in November.

---

Na. The socialists figured out how to count the votes.

---

Yeah, it's like that old Doritos ad with Jay Leno;

"Vote all you want, we'll fake more"

Wangchung said:

---

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/new-report-shows-nsa-still-monitoring-american-citizens-without-a-warrant/

---

I knew that when I heard that the Echelon project was renamed Epsilon, then CRITIC SUMMER.

If a program is really cancelled, you don't need new names for later ...

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

---

Those communications had to cross a US border. Guess what countries have sovereignty over (or should)? What crosses their borders. Pretty sure no one was able to listen in on aunt Mable in Wisconsin talking about her porn fetish with her best friend Clara in West Virginia.

Your phone can be confiscated and searched at all US CBP border checkpoints too if they deem it necessary. It sucks, but welcome to the world. If you don't want people to listen in on your communications, encrypt them or communicate anonymously.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

---

I respect your opinion on this and my memory may be faulty, but I think they only collected numbers on those calls and it wasn't illegal.
For example, al Bagdadi calls from Syria to a cell number in the USA. That number in the USA calls bin Laden assistant. The NSA had only the numbers called, not the conversations. In order to listen to the conversations n the future, a court order is required.
And Snowden is a traitor

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

---

Those communications had to cross a US border. Guess what countries have sovereignty over (or should)? What crosses their borders. Pretty sure no one was able to listen in on aunt Mable in Wisconsin talking about her porn fetish with her best friend Clara in West Virginia.

You phone can be confiscated and searched at all US CBP border checkpoints too if they deem it necessary.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

Actually they could have.

Part of what Snowden exposed was Smurf and ANT tools:

• Dreamy Smurf Has the ability to turn phones on or off remotely
• Nosey Smurf Has the ability to make use of the phone's microphone to listen to conversations and noise in the local area.
• Tracker Smurf Has the ability to track your position precisely
• Paranoid Smurf Works to hide the activities of the other Smurfs to prevent detection

They were also using tech from a program called PRISM, which could collect search histories, downloads, emails, and more.

Did you know he exposed them spying on Angela Merkel with these tools?

The whole notion that you shouldn't worry if you aren't doing anything bad isn't something I agree with. The technology and behavior of what they could do should NEVER exist. because it could eventually be captured by bad actors. We have a lot of them in our government...or any government. Even though it's highly unlikely it would be used domestically against citizens in mass, I still draw a redline.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

---

Those communications had to cross a US border. Guess what countries have sovereignty over (or should)? What crosses their borders. Pretty sure no one was able to listen in on aunt Mable in Wisconsin talking about her porn fetish with her best friend Clara in West Virginia.

You phone can be confiscated and searched at all US CBP border checkpoints too if they deem it necessary.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

Actually they could have.

Part of what Snowden exposed was Smurf and ANT tools:

• Dreamy Smurf Has the ability to turn phones on or off remotely
• Nosey Smurf Has the ability to make use of the phone's microphone to listen to conversations and noise in the local area.
• Tracker Smurf Has the ability to track your position precisely
• Paranoid Smurf Works to hide the activities of the other Smurfs to prevent detection

They were also using tech from a program called PRISM, which could collect search histories, downloads, emails, and more.

Did you know he exposed them spying on Angela Merkel with these tools?

The whole notion that you shouldn't worry if you aren't doing anything bad isn't something I agree with. The technology and behavior of what they could do should NEVER exist. because it could eventually be captured by bad actors. We have a lot of them in our government...or any government.

---

1. All that was cross border, as I pointed out and you ignored.
2. If the NSA isn't listening in on foreign leaders, then they aren't doing their job.
3. You should always worry about what you say on line or on the phone. Your interlocutor could be recording you. The Israelis have software called Pegasus that can do all that and is for sale to any country who wants to use it. They can do it in the US, where the NSA cannot.

Be paranoid. At some point, someone will be out to get you. But don't lay that on the USG lawful intercept stuff aimed at cross border security.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

I disagree. I think Snowden is a traitor.

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

---

Those communications had to cross a US border. Guess what countries have sovereignty over (or should)? What crosses their borders. Pretty sure no one was able to listen in on aunt Mable in Wisconsin talking about her porn fetish with her best friend Clara in West Virginia.

You phone can be confiscated and searched at all US CBP border checkpoints too if they deem it necessary.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

Actually they could have.

Part of what Snowden exposed was Smurf and ANT tools:

• Dreamy Smurf Has the ability to turn phones on or off remotely
• Nosey Smurf Has the ability to make use of the phone's microphone to listen to conversations and noise in the local area.
• Tracker Smurf Has the ability to track your position precisely
• Paranoid Smurf Works to hide the activities of the other Smurfs to prevent detection

They were also using tech from a program called PRISM, which could collect search histories, downloads, emails, and more.

Did you know he exposed them spying on Angela Merkel with these tools?

The whole notion that you shouldn't worry if you aren't doing anything bad isn't something I agree with. The technology and behavior of what they could do should NEVER exist. because it could eventually be captured by bad actors. We have a lot of them in our government...or any government.

---

1. All that was cross border, as I pointed out and you ignored.
2. If the NSA isn't listening in on foreign leaders, then they aren't doing their job.
3. You should always worry about what you say on line or on the phone. Your interlocutor could be recording you. The Israelis have software called Pegasus that can do all that and is for sale to any country who wants to use it. They can do it in the US, where the NSA cannot.

Be paranoid. At some point, someone will be out to get you. But don't lay that on the USG lawful intercept stuff aimed at cross border security.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

You and OlBear need to worry
I agree with your post

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

---

Those communications had to cross a US border. Guess what countries have sovereignty over (or should)? What crosses their borders. Pretty sure no one was able to listen in on aunt Mable in Wisconsin talking about her porn fetish with her best friend Clara in West Virginia.

You phone can be confiscated and searched at all US CBP border checkpoints too if they deem it necessary.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

Actually they could have.

Part of what Snowden exposed was Smurf and ANT tools:

• Dreamy Smurf Has the ability to turn phones on or off remotely
• Nosey Smurf Has the ability to make use of the phone's microphone to listen to conversations and noise in the local area.
• Tracker Smurf Has the ability to track your position precisely
• Paranoid Smurf Works to hide the activities of the other Smurfs to prevent detection

They were also using tech from a program called PRISM, which could collect search histories, downloads, emails, and more.

Did you know he exposed them spying on Angela Merkel with these tools?

The whole notion that you shouldn't worry if you aren't doing anything bad isn't something I agree with. The technology and behavior of what they could do should NEVER exist. because it could eventually be captured by bad actors. We have a lot of them in our government...or any government.

---

1. All that was cross border, as I pointed out and you ignored.
2. If the NSA isn't listening in on foreign leaders, then they aren't doing their job.
3. You should always worry about what you say on line or on the phone. Your interlocutor could be recording you. The Israelis have software called Pegasus that can do all that and is for sale to any country who wants to use it. They can do it in the US, where the NSA cannot.

Be paranoid. At some point, someone will be out to get you. But don't lay that on the USG lawful intercept stuff aimed at cross border security.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

I'm not laying anything on border security or insinuating they or other federal employees did anything with these tools against American citizens. What I'm trying to explain is their data collection is a threat if it fell into the wrong hands and we should remove that capability altogether...which is what they were supposed to do.

A federal court ruled that what Snowden exposed was unconstitutional behavior by the NSA. If he was captured, and labeled a traitor/treasonous, that's the death penalty or minimum 5 years in prison. I don't think that's fair for whistleblowing something ruled as unconstitutional.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

---

Those communications had to cross a US border. Guess what countries have sovereignty over (or should)? What crosses their borders. Pretty sure no one was able to listen in on aunt Mable in Wisconsin talking about her porn fetish with her best friend Clara in West Virginia.

You phone can be confiscated and searched at all US CBP border checkpoints too if they deem it necessary.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

Actually they could have.

Part of what Snowden exposed was Smurf and ANT tools:

• Dreamy Smurf Has the ability to turn phones on or off remotely
• Nosey Smurf Has the ability to make use of the phone's microphone to listen to conversations and noise in the local area.
• Tracker Smurf Has the ability to track your position precisely
• Paranoid Smurf Works to hide the activities of the other Smurfs to prevent detection

They were also using tech from a program called PRISM, which could collect search histories, downloads, emails, and more.

Did you know he exposed them spying on Angela Merkel with these tools?

The whole notion that you shouldn't worry if you aren't doing anything bad isn't something I agree with. The technology and behavior of what they could do should NEVER exist. because it could eventually be captured by bad actors. We have a lot of them in our government...or any government.

---

1. All that was cross border, as I pointed out and you ignored.
2. If the NSA isn't listening in on foreign leaders, then they aren't doing their job.
3. You should always worry about what you say on line or on the phone. Your interlocutor could be recording you. The Israelis have software called Pegasus that can do all that and is for sale to any country who wants to use it. They can do it in the US, where the NSA cannot.

Be paranoid. At some point, someone will be out to get you. But don't lay that on the USG lawful intercept stuff aimed at cross border security.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

I'm not laying anything on border security or insinuating they or other federal employees did anything with these tools against American citizens. What I'm trying to explain is their data collection is a threat if it fell into the wrong hands and we should remove that capability altogether...which is what they were supposed to do.

A federal court ruled that what Snowden exposed was unconstitutional behavior by the NSA. If he was captured, and labeled a traitor/treasonous, that's the death penalty or minimum 5 years in prison. I don't think that's fair for whistleblowing something ruled as unconstitutional.

---

All of what he exposed or some? The capabilities or the use to which some of it was put - seldomly?

He didn't whistleblow. That requires following a chain of command up the line until there is nowhere else to go. He self aggrandized. He gave defensive information to the enemy. He is a traitor.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

Why wouldn't the DGB be the same?

---

Fill in the blank (Doc or anyone else).

The NSA was authorized to: collect Google and Yahoo data with court approval.
The NSA abused this power by: secretly collecting Google and Yahoo data without court approval.
The new DHS board is authorized to: ____________
The new DHS board can abuse this power by: censoring Americans' speech.

---

Govern information.

It's a mouthpiece. The power they have is an official federal ultimatum on any topic they wish. That's not ok.

This is basically the governments form of a fact checking website.

---

NSA had the legal power to collect certain data, and they abused it. Fact-checking websites don't have the power, either practically or legally, to censor you. They can't cut off other sources of information or stop you from saying what you want.

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?

---

This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.

---

100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."

---

And you know this because…

---

Because we have seen what makes democrats cheer. We have seen how leftists behave when they have censorship power, which led to needing the worlds richest man buying Twitter to stop them. All your "why don't you trust democrats with this power? They've done nothing to betray our trust" talk is just strange.

---

I'm glad you brought up this censorship "power" again, because that's what I'm trying to ask about. The government can only enforce something if there's something to enforce - a statute, regulation, order, or something of that nature. Can you point me to the authority on which this power is supposedly based?

Anyone?

---

So it's your contention that not having a specific authority to point to from which this new division of the DHS will derive its power will stop democrats from abusing it in effort to stymie their opposition? Why do you believe democrats will change course and NOT abuse this authority? Edit; The rules will be made up as they go along and goal posts will be moved constantly. The more esoteric the new division of DHS is the more power they can muster.

---

Not abuse what authority? To know whether they're likely to abuse it, it helps to know what they are authorized to do.

---

The NSA wasn't authorized to collect data on everyone, but they did and they didn't get in trouble for it. Nobody got fired, no one went to prison, and just last year we found out they were still abusing their power and going outside of what they're authorized to do.

---

What date did NSA collect and on whom?
I think it was meta data (international calls into USA). They weren't listening to calls.

---

Post patriot act. Collection on all telephone communications originating or ending in the U.S., whether or not the caller was the target of an investigation.

It's not what they did or didn't do with that data, it's the fact that they weren't supposed to access and store it, but they did anyway and they lied about it.

---

Those communications had to cross a US border. Guess what countries have sovereignty over (or should)? What crosses their borders. Pretty sure no one was able to listen in on aunt Mable in Wisconsin talking about her porn fetish with her best friend Clara in West Virginia.

You phone can be confiscated and searched at all US CBP border checkpoints too if they deem it necessary.

Also, Snowden is a traitor.

---

Actually they could have.

Part of what Snowden exposed was Smurf and ANT tools:

• Dreamy Smurf Has the ability to turn phones on or off remotely
• Nosey Smurf Has the ability to make use of the phone's microphone to listen to conversations and noise in the local area.
• Tracker Smurf Has the ability to track your position precisely
• Paranoid Smurf Works to hide the activities of the other Smurfs to prevent detection

They were also using tech from a program called PRISM, which could collect search histories, downloads, emails, and more.

Did you know he exposed them spying on Angela Merkel with these tools?

The whole notion that you shouldn't worry if you aren't doing anything bad isn't something I agree with. The technology and behavior of what they could do should NEVER exist. because it could eventually be captured by bad actors. We have a lot of them in our government...or any government. Even though it's highly unlikely it would be used domestically against citizens in mass, I still draw a redline.

---

Did you know Germany spies on us?

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

You're using an outdated concept of information control. Censorship is antiquated and difficult. Instead, this is targeting citizens directly in venues where organizations like Hamas, the Taliban, and dozens of others that function to undermine the US operate freely.

The power is the pulpit and trend manipulation that uses the same tools the aforementioned bad actors do. Without one use of legal action or order, we've seen how chosen voices are silenced with the support of government narrative. You think it's warranted. I think it's dangerous to freedom. This is one script of how populism destroys freedom, but instead of a ballot it's a like or share.

---

Why should we care if it's targeting enemy territory? It's not like they don't target us. That's all part of the game.

I do object to social media companies getting special treatment as free forums while acting as de facto publishers. Add the influence of a government fact arbiter, and I agree there could be a problem. But influence isn't control, much less censorship, and calling it that doesn't make it so. The solution isn't to unilaterally disarm ourselves in the information war.

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

Yeah, they probably won't lean on big tech (or flat out threaten) to censor conservative speech while labeling it Russian disinformation.

I mean, its not like the government has ever lied to us before

---

But can they censor conservative speech? Otherwise it would be an empty threat, would it not?