Personal Attacks

Personally? I'm not sure I can always keep the discussion to the issues. When someone, in the middle of russia's* terror campaign, starts spreading "news" in support of central putin thesis of Ukraine as an artificial Nazi state, I just can't believe the intent is to have a civil discussion and not troll. And yes, Nazi concern trolling involving Azov regiment with link to propaganda pieces is very much part of it.


*I think I will follow the emerging norms of Ukrainian language and write "russia" and "putin" (as well as "khuylo") uncapitalized. Just makes sense

 

1. Look at the instigator.
2. Stop that person from posting (gradually, of course).

 

I think some of this work can be and maybe already done by our top agencies that deal with homeland security and espionage etc.

 

...before you know it, you can have people in powerful executive offices labeling news outlets "enemies of the people". I'm sure people concerned with DGB would go absolutely ballistic if that happened, and would never support it or individuals engaging in such rhetoric?

 

Do you think Darth Santis needs Biden's permission to implement thought police? He's hard at work doing it in Florida as we speak.
Actually, if we do not want to give DeSantis or Trump instruments to do bad s#1t, abolishing ICE could be a good step.

 

Exactly.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty not Safety" wrote Benjamin Franklin. Our God given rights are enumerated n our Bill of Rights.
You are incorrect to assume I advocate lies foreign or otherwise. Now, let's look at an actual case study on this very topic: Evidence of Presidential malfeasance stored on the "Laptop from Hell." Dismissed as a Roooskie plot but, shamefully it's real When you have Executive Branch Agencies invented to interfere with the press, it is a prima facie violation of the First Amendment. Oh, if it were only so easy to dismiss all inconvenient truth as Russian Disinformation. No. No. No. Any sort of Ministry of Truth Through Police cannot be congruent with our Constitution

 

You have apparently bought into the Looneytoon lies being spread by the folks that are running around thinking that their hair is on fire.

Here's a small taste of sanity that I found just for you, Charles. (Note: it's okay if other folks read it)
https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/policy/disinformation-governance-board?rebelltitem=10#rebelltitem10

 

Do you suscribe to the claim the "Laptop FromB Hell" is a Rookie plot? Do you think Americans should be proscribed from reading about it? Do you believe the government has any authority to infringe upon the freedom of the press? Who in your opinion is the arbitor of truth? I repudiate any attack upon the Bill of Rights.

It's classless for you to call names and suggest my adherence to the Constitution is cartoonish.

 

This is a strawman because nobody, least of which the person you are replying to, has made any of the claims you're trying to rebut, save the laptop whose provenance, contents and authenticity remain hotly contested.

If you are interested in actually upholding the First Amendment's right to freedom of speech you should join Democrats in fighting against:

• governments banning textbooks for including social-emotional learning content
• attempts to punish Disney because they expressed support for the LGBT community
• teachers getting fired for talking about slavery in the classroom

Those are actual uses of the government to clamp down against speech.

 

You keep spreading false nonsense and are not making sense for the most part.

For example,

1. "Do you suscribe to the claim the "Laptop FromB Hell" is a Rookie plot?" makes no sense to me.
2. "Do you believe the government has any authority to infringe upon the freedom of the press?" Of course there are limitations like the press cannot commit libel.
3. "Who in your opinion is the arbitor of truth?" More nonsense that makes no sense that I can figure out. What is this supposed to mean?
4. "I repudiate any attack upon the Bill of Rights." No one is attacking the the Bill of Rights in this thread. Nor does that statement have any basis in reality regarding the Disinformation Governance Board.
5. "When you have Executive Branch Agencies invented to interfere with the press, it is a prima facie violation of the First Amendment. Oh, if it were only so easy to dismiss all inconvenient truth as Russian Disinformation. No. No. No. Any sort of Ministry of Truth Through Police cannot be congruent with our Constitution" You are apparently not reading reality based sources. Did you even bother reading the link I provided? It was a short article.
6. "It's classless for you to call names and suggest my adherence to the Constitution is cartoonish." Please reread what I said, I did not call names. I said, "You have apparently bought into the Looneytoon lies being spread by the folks that are running around thinking that their hair is on fire." You are apparently upset about false statements being spread by others. Hence my attempt to provide you with a source that tries to explain what is really going on. You know the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." Now before you go off the deep end again and claim that I called you a horse or something silly, what that means is that I provided a link that tries to explain what is really going on but I can't make you read it.

 

Don't know what "Rookie" is. It's a case of stolen property criminals use for gain and political advantage. Pretty much all "information" on it is inherently untrustworthy - and still doesn't contain anything that is a "smoking gun" to anything approaching crime. Not even to the level of Hunter's ill-conceived but entirely legal Burisma gig.
And, yeah, some things can be a foreign intelligence plots even if perps are careful enough not to leave any clues. I have no idea if the laptop plot is one, but e.g. I honestly believe that Assange is a russian asset and a Clinton emails dump that conveniently overshadowed coverage of Access Hollywood tape leak was a spetsoperatsija. As you understand, definite proof of stuff like that may never surface.

Any person who is both literate and honest who clicked on a link you ostensibly respond to could read about Mayorkas explicitly saying the Board would not have any operational authority. So, yeah, I'm not sure why you yell at Bill and what does it even mean.

 

Strawman arguments! Get yer strawman arguments right here! Now, ladies and gentlemen, these aren't just any strawman arguments. Oh, no. These have extra features, including ad hominem, non sequiturs, and all done with a huge dose of gaslighting! Step right up and get some for your very own! (Get away from me kid, you're botherin' me....)

 

Sir, Would it not be courteous to allow Mr. Huffman to respond? My comments were in response to his remarks.

 

He did respond.

 

Let's take this bit by bit:
1. Let's be courteous to one and other. We will view things from different perspectives but, that doesn't create any need denigrate each other's conclusions.
2. The so called Laptop From Hell is relevant. It may very well contain evidence of Presidential malfeasance. The administration insists its existence is simply a Russian Disinformation operation. My fear of a Ministry of Truth and Thought Police go well beyond the bad judgement of the current President and his son. The laptop actually does appear to have belonged to the President's son. The press must be free to report on this and any other matter. To declare it disinformation and infringe on press coverage is a violation of the First Amendment. I do wonder if the laptop the catalyst to the creation of the "Ministry of Truth.

 

Perhaps transmission is delayed by my GRU analysts. I did not see his response until well after I read your's.
I have responded to him.