o/t “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Thoughts?

[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey][quote=ucodegen][quote=harvey]
1st Amendment protects the speech of US residents.

It doesn’t protect foreign governments.
[/quote]

That is where it kind of gets interesting.. some of the protections of the constitution have been extended to non-citizens as well as non-residents via Supreme Court. Non-residents and non-citizens which happen to be citizens of foreign nations.
[/quote]

Lol, that’s complete bullshit.

You’re clearly more concerned about the imaginary First Amendment rights of Vladimir Putin than you are about a real US president that tells the American people that we can only trust the White House as source of information.

They’ve got you. Hook, line, sinker.[/quote]
You know, I have been civil here without dropping down to using ad hominem attacks (use of logic fallacies). When logic fails, you seem to resort to insults.

The pushing of constitutional rights to foreign persons is not a fallacy. Its true. The issues of ‘sanctuary cities’ demonstrates some of it. That many people being in the US illegally can somehow get assistance from SSI (which was formed to help the citizens of this nation). That people in the country illegally (non-citizens) have the right to the first amendment as shown by public demonstrations by Mexican nationals.

I make no differentiation between whether a person here illegally is Mexican or Russian. That would be racist.

I make no differentiation between whether a person making posts is Mexican or Russian. That would be racist.

Your post sounds almost McCarthy-ist.. ie. The Red Scare. You are also not paying attention to what I have posted which states that I do not like any law that puts some governmental official (ie White House) in charge of determining what it true fact or what if fake news. As I said – It is “Kind of Orwellian” – see 5th post on this thread.

Also see my last line to the comment that you responded to:

As for the gov’s “Trust Me”, I prefer to trust but always be able to verify.

Maybe it would be better to read for comprehension before popping off.

[PCinSD]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=harvey][quote=ucodegen][quote=harvey]
1st Amendment protects the speech of US residents.

It doesn’t protect foreign governments.
[/quote]

That is where it kind of gets interesting.. some of the protections of the constitution have been extended to non-citizens as well as non-residents via Supreme Court. Non-residents and non-citizens which happen to be citizens of foreign nations.
[/quote]

Lol, that’s complete bullshit.

You’re clearly more concerned about the imaginary First Amendment rights of Vladimir Putin than you are about a real US president that tells the American people that we can only trust the White House as source of information.

They’ve got you. Hook, line, sinker.[/quote]
You know, I have been civil here without dropping down to using ad hominem attacks (use of logic fallacies). When logic fails, you seem to resort to insults.

The pushing of constitutional rights to foreign persons is not a fallacy. Its true. The issues of ‘sanctuary cities’ demonstrates some of it. That many people being in the US illegally can somehow get assistance from SSI (which was formed to help the citizens of this nation). That people in the country illegally (non-citizens) have the right to the first amendment as shown by public demonstrations by Mexican nationals.

I make no differentiation between whether a person here illegally is Mexican or Russian. That would be racist.

I make no differentiation between whether a person making posts is Mexican or Russian. That would be racist.

Your post sounds almost McCarthy-ist.. ie. The Red Scare. You are also not paying attention to what I have posted which states that I do not like any law that puts some governmental official (ie White House) in charge of determining what it true fact or what if fake news. As I said – It is “Kind of Orwellian” – see 5th post on this thread.

Also see my last line to the comment that you responded to:

As for the gov’s “Trust Me”, I prefer to trust but always be able to verify.

Maybe it would be better to read for comprehension before popping off.[/quote]

Easy now. He has a card!

[ucodegen]

[quote=PCinSD]
Easy now. He has a card![/quote]
ROTFLMAO ☺

[Anonymous]

So many words, so much gibberish.

Let’s explain again:

If one’s ass is inside in the US, Bill of Rights applies. No matter if that ass is Mexican or Russian (BTW, great to hear that you aren’t a racist!)

But if you aren’t a citizen and aren’t in the US, no 1st Amendment for you.

Now in your convoluted world you think the 1st Amendment protects the free speech of foreign states. It doesn’t.

I can’t even begin to comprehend how some folks now believe that having a hard-on for Russia is patriotic. But hey, there’s a lot of stupid out there.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=harvey]

I can’t even begin to comprehend how some folks now believe that having a hard-on for Russia is patriotic. But hey, there’s a lot of stupid out there.[/quote]

Especially after decades of using Russia as the boogeyman

They also seem unconcerned about China. HNA has a deal with Trump hotel to house their airline staff.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9MjWBInGZ0[/quote]

Which point, precisely, were you disagreeing with, and what facts do you have to back up your opinions?

Throughout this thread, I’ve listed fact after fact. You? Nothing by unrelated rants and personal attacks.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=harvey][quote=ucodegen][quote=harvey]
1st Amendment protects the speech of US residents.

It doesn’t protect foreign governments.
[/quote]

That is where it kind of gets interesting.. some of the protections of the constitution have been extended to non-citizens as well as non-residents via Supreme Court. Non-residents and non-citizens which happen to be citizens of foreign nations.
[/quote]

Lol, that’s complete bullshit.

You’re clearly more concerned about the imaginary First Amendment rights of Vladimir Putin than you are about a real US president that tells the American people that we can only trust the White House as source of information.

They’ve got you. Hook, line, sinker.[/quote]
You know, I have been civil here without dropping down to using ad hominem attacks (use of logic fallacies). When logic fails, you seem to resort to insults.

The pushing of constitutional rights to foreign persons is not a fallacy. Its true. The issues of ‘sanctuary cities’ demonstrates some of it. That many people being in the US illegally can somehow get assistance from SSI (which was formed to help the citizens of this nation). That people in the country illegally (non-citizens) have the right to the first amendment as shown by public demonstrations by Mexican nationals.

I make no differentiation between whether a person here illegally is Mexican or Russian. That would be racist.

I make no differentiation between whether a person making posts is Mexican or Russian. That would be racist.

Your post sounds almost McCarthy-ist.. ie. The Red Scare. You are also not paying attention to what I have posted which states that I do not like any law that puts some governmental official (ie White House) in charge of determining what it true fact or what if fake news. As I said – It is “Kind of Orwellian” – see 5th post on this thread.

Also see my last line to the comment that you responded to:

As for the gov’s “Trust Me”, I prefer to trust but always be able to verify.

Maybe it would be better to read for comprehension before popping off.[/quote]

Ucodegen, you know what your talking about, as usual, and you’re able to read and comprehend what’s going on. I agree with you about activists being labled as “terrorists,” and have seen evidence of it myself, like when law enforcement was using facial recognition cameras to videotape and photograph people at both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protests. They’ve also been actively trying to pass “domestic terrorism” laws aimed at those who oppose certain government actions (which is precisely what the First Amendment is all about).

Pri/Harvey has a regular habit of intentionally twisting the words of other posters, redirecting conversations to unrelated topics, and using ad hominem attacks at every turn instead of actually addressing any of the issues in an intelligent manner. This, along with his habit of spouting propaganda, line-by-line, has made me wonder if he is a troll, with a strong possibility that he might be a paid troll.

Note that he’s not been able to refute a single point I’ve made throughout this entire thread; instead, chosing to redirect the conversations to completely unrelated issues and make personal attacks.

I can prove everything I’ve said here, and have posted link after link directly to the sources who’ve been working on this legislation, which is what makes him launch into his nonsensical personal tirades. He’s completely incapable of using facts and logic to make his points.

Posters like Pri/Harvey have made it difficult to have intelligent conversations and debates about some of the most important issues of our time. The level of discourse has declined dramatically because of a handful of posters who do nothing but post political party talking points and make personal attacks when challenged by informed, educated posters.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]This, along with his habit of spouting propaganda, line-by-line, has made me wonder if he is a troll, with a strong possibility that he might be a paid troll.[/quote]

Damn, you figured it out. Well played.

It’s true. I’m a paid troll. You are correct, as always.

But can you blame me? I make good money posting here. My employers just gave me a raise because of my success engaging some of the most difficult adversaries. I receive base pay plus a “CA Renter” premium because my employers recognize that you are a tough opponent.

Please keep responding, I have a mortgage to pay.

[FlyerInHi]

CArenter, can you please summarize?
So you believe there is a Deep State trying to crush us the people. So we need guns.

However, you have defended police shootings before, usually when victims are Black. So when exactly are people victims of the police? And when are they legitimate targets of enforcement?

What do you think of Cliven Bundy?

[gogogosandiego]

Was the original post amended? Pretty sure this wasn’t known to the OP on Dec 14th 2016 as it was pointed out to her later in this thread.

“They quietly passed it as part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.”

Now why would someone do that?

[CA renter]

[quote=gogogosandiego]Was the original post amended? Pretty sure this wasn’t known to the OP on Dec 14th 2016 as it was pointed out to her later in this thread.

“They quietly passed it as part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.”

Now why would someone do that?[/quote]

No, it was not amended, but you can ask Rich to confirm. Your lack of reading comprehension skills are on full display again, though.

Nobody else pointed out new information regarding the dates, titles, or the manner in which this was passed. I’m the one who originally wrote about this topic, and included the relevant text and information in both my original post, along with additional links and information in the comments section.

[CA renter]

Again…stop trying to distract from the topic being discussed. Answer the question.

[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9MjWBInGZ0[/quote]

Which point, precisely, were you disagreeing with, and what facts do you have to back up your opinions?

Throughout this thread, I’ve listed fact after fact. You? Nothing by unrelated rants and personal attacks.[/quote]

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]CArenter, can you please summarize?
So you believe there is a Deep State trying to crush us the people. So we need guns.

However, you have defended police shootings before, usually when victims are Black. So when exactly are people victims of the police? And when are they legitimate targets of enforcement?

What do you think of Cliven Bundy?[/quote]

Seriously, Brian? Your mind is a frightening place.

[Anonymous]

Much of what Mueller’s office charges — that influence-mongers used Facebook and Twitter to turn up the volume and pit American against American — was already public. But the 37-page indictment also includes a number of fascinating new insights.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/17/586698361/the-russia-investigations-mueller-indicts-the-internet-research-agency

Conspicuous silence from CA Renter.

Hmmmmmmm….

[gogogosandiego]

So then you knew there was no such bill passed yet you were still googling for it on Dec 26th?

“I searched google (using the search terms “obama signs countering disinformation and propaganda act” and “countering disinformation and propaganda act”) for any news about it…”

It was pointed out to you later that day what actually occurred and you continued to insist this bill was passed despite having already acknowledged in your OP that is wasn’t?

Facts and logic indeed.

[Author]

Posts