The danger of Hugo's Russia derangement syndrome

[Js1 85109]

15 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I'm going to admit I'm just skipping around this threadbortion but can someone clarify just so I can get some landmarks_

 

There are actually posters here who think Hugo's "Russia Derangement Syndrome" is a bigger threat to our country than the best info we have which is 43% of Republicans think Trump should be able to shut down media that reports negative info on him? Is this what is being flown up the flag pole?

Yeah but Hugo, and ONLY Hugo's Russia "derangement" syndrome, will lead to the regulation of social media, which is INFINITEY times worse than Trump's assault on America's free press as fake news, trying to interfere with a DOJ investigation, unlawful detentions and deportations, etc. etc.

[Anastasis 23395]

14 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I agree with your assessment of Putin.  He's a bad actor.  He's a dangerous dude.  He's not the only one either.  He's not the only one with an arsenal of nukes either.  The world is a dangerous place.

There is a perception that Trump is under Putin's thumb.  It certainly seems that way in the realm of political theater which is what most folks pay attention to.  In terms of actual policy, I'm not sure that sentiment is supportable.

I didn't start this thread to discuss the relative merits of HRC's emails vs. Putin.  I started it to bring attention to the fact that the current hysteria poses real risks to liberty.  All the work people did to oppose SOPA, PIPA, etc., to support net neutrality - to secure the internet as a medium for free speech.  Well, you can throw it all out the window if people don't wake up.

You should have left Hugo's name out of the thread title. That was a mistake. 

[Anastasis 23395]

21 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The faux libertarians are standing up for each other. So cute.

I will grant you, the other threads where the liberals eat their own when they are not focused on attacking the newly converted Democrats are much more enjoyable. 

[bernorange 8348]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

... I think that somebody will bump this thread and that quote ca. 2022 or so. 

It wouldn't be the first time I raised an alarm amid a cacophony of voices telling me I was an overreacting loon only to see my warnings realized ten years later.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

17 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I started it to bring attention to the fact that the current hysteria poses real risks to liberty.  All the work people did to oppose SOPA, PIPA, etc., to support net neutrality - to secure the internet as a medium for free speech.  Well, you can throw it all out the window if people don't wake up.

Sure, this current hysteria poses "real risks to liberty", way more so than the fucking risks to liberty being PROMULGATED BY THE FUCKING ADMINISTRATION.

Priorities, dude.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

17 minutes ago, bernorange said:

 

So much to unpack here.

I never expressed any value judgement.  I've been quite candid that I haven't read through the 47 or so page document that Hugo linked earlier.  I'm real impressed that everyone who negged me for stating so has read every page and done a critical analysis of it.  I'm obviously behind the curve on that.  I asked if it referenced any hard evidence and did not get any affirmative answer, so I have couched my references to same with possibility instead of certainty.  You don't have to like that I'm trying to be clear and honest to the best of my knowledge.

Wat?  Where did I ever express any disagreement with the military?  What is the purpose of throwing this (off-target) shade?

Please do show me where I changed any fact. 

I never said that it didn't, did I?  I did ask whether their indictment referenced any hard evidence or not.  Do you know if it does?  You are aware that there have been warnings that the IC is not necessarily apolitical/neutral/objective in this matter, right?  You are aware that the voices behind these warnings include former Senators from the left that held positions on the Intelligence committees, right?  A modicum of skepticism until real evidence is evident is not crazy given the circumstances. 

But, even conceding that Russia was the actor that hacked HRC's email server and delivered the contents to wikileaks.... Holy shit, doesn't that validate every criticism levied at HRC for putting national security at risk?  IfeellikeI'mtakingcrazypills.gif

The messenger/actor behind the leak is not nearly as concerning to me as:

1. The content of the leaked emails

2. The circumstances whereby the emails were housed in an unsecured server in violation of every security protocol to classified data.

 

3. The bad faith by HRC in handling the issue.

Glad to fucking hear it.  What does "defend the Constitution" mean to you?  Because, the whole point of this thread is an exercise in waking people the hell up that Hugo's Russia derangement syndrome is leading to domestic actors looking to subvert the bill of rights.

 

In the comment I quoted you on, you stated that hugo (and by extension everyone else who is doing the same thing) worries to much by focusing on Putin's objectives. If you haven't read any intelligence reports regarding Putin and the clear and present danger he and his underlings pose, even the unclassified reports, then you have really nothing to add to the conversation but misguided speculation. The intelligence reports do reference hard evidence, beyond that I can't state anything more as I am not a releasing authority.

The elected officials stand apart from the intelligence community and our mandate, of which I am a part. Senators and representatives do things based on gaining an upper hand I  their political struggles against their counterparts. In some circumstances, this is may be benign in others its not. Right now, one party is working to maintain the integrity of the Republic and the other is working to cover up the conspiracy that occurred between their party and a foreign government. Not all members of the latter fall into the group working towards the goal of trying to cover up criminal activity.

You seem to be misunderstanding how the hacking occurred upon the Candidate. The server in question that was hacked wasn't in her home. Never the less, Candidate 1 publicly called for a foreign government to hack into Candidate 2's email server and extract files then release them. This is conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States as outlined in 18 US code 371. This is not at all the same thing as what Candidate 2 was under investigation for at a later point in the 2016 presidential campaign. You are making a false equivalency and should be ashamed of yourself for even trying g to push such shameful drivel upon anyone who reads this board.

To answer your final question about "what defending the Constitution looks like to me?" It looks like going to war and having to endure the hardships that come along with it. The domestic actors that everyone needs to be awoken to are the white-nationalists, the xenophobes, those whose conspired with foreign governments for political or monetary gain, and the carpetbaggers who are supporting them in their efforts yet refuse to see the rot they are bringing to our Republic.

[formermav43 4599]

25 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The faux libertarians are standing up for each other. So cute.

You know, it’s *possible* to just prefer people to characterize other posters accurately, whoever they are. For example, on the same page, I pointed out a mischaracterization of both jimmy and bern. #bothsides?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

We might be flirting with tyranny based on a culture of corruption and greed where the 1% control almost everything but at least the internet will be unregulated.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bernorange 8348]

14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah but Hugo, and ONLY Hugo's Russia "derangement" syndrome, will lead to the regulation of social media, ...

Why so literal?  He's clearly the Surly poster boy for the Russia hysteria.  Did I give you too much credit for understanding the message?

14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

... which is INFINITEY times worse than Trump's assault on America's free press as fake news, trying to interfere with a DOJ investigation, unlawful detentions and deportations, etc. etc.

#bothsides!  I'm fairly certain there are other threads discussing those issues.  I made no value judgement on whether this issue was any worse or better than any other.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

18 minutes ago, bernorange said:

 

There is a perception that Trump is under Putin's thumb.  It certainly seems that way in the realm of political theater which is what most folks pay attention to.  In terms of actual policy, I'm not sure that sentiment is supportable.

It really seems that way in terms of actual policy unless Trump is pressured otherwise. The idea that one must weigh the probability that Trump is under the thumb of an actual authoritarian who gives fuck all about freedom of speech, and who is supported at home by a plurality of his party who believes he should be able to shut down media critical to his presidency labeled by him in the most cliched of dictatorial ways as Enemy of The People against furrow browed concerns over.....*drum roll*….freedom of speech is a logical snake eating his tail that should climax in a Tard Nova. 

It's a fucking asinine concept.

[bernorange 8348]

14 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

In the comment I quoted you on, you stated that hugo (and by extension everyone else who is doing the same thing) worries to much by focusing on Putin's objectives....

Context H'H.  The concern for Putin's desires/objectives is clouding any judgement of anything else on the merits.  If Putin desires that you DO NOT JUMP OFF THAT CLIFF, are you going to jump off that cliff to spite him?  No, of course not, but a lot of Hugo's posts are tantamount to advocacy of same.  It's emotional and reactionary.

[Brisketexan 104610]

I'm going to admit I'm just skipping around this threadbortion but can someone clarify just so I can get some landmarks_
 
There are actually posters here who think Hugo's "Russia Derangement Syndrome" is a bigger threat to our country than the best info we have which is 43% of Republicans think Trump should be able to shut down media that reports negative info on him? Is this what is being flown up the flag pole?

That’s not an unfair summary.

It wouldn't be the first time I raised an alarm amid a cacophony of voices telling me I was an overreacting loon only to see my warnings realized ten years later.

Preach.

Sacrificing basic liberties for the illusion of security is a shitty habit that we have.

I’ll suggest that the problem here is that 1) we have the party in power and its supporters claiming (often at the same time) that nothing happened at all, and 2) so what, Hillary sucks, everyone does it, so don’t worry about (a foreign power attacking our election with the cooperation of American co-conspirators).

If the situation was, instead, “this is a real problem, we should defend ourselves, and work to protect the integrity of the electoral process, but this is the wrong way to go about it because it sacrifices an essential liberty,” that conversation would find a much more receptive audience.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I’ll suggest that the problem here is that 1) we have the party in power and its supporters claiming (often at the same time) that nothing happened at all, and 2) so what, Hillary sucks, everyone does it, so don’t worry about (a foreign power attacking our election with the cooperation of American co-conspirators).

If the situation was, instead, “this is a real problem, we should defend ourselves, and work to protect the integrity of the electoral process, but this is the wrong way to go about it because it sacrifices an essential liberty,” that conversation would find a much more receptive audience.

I'll suggest that the problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the party in power seems to have a perpetual hardon for Russians and that we have yet to learn whether or not they actually assisted Russia's meddling in our election.

Your 2nd paragraph, while objectively supportable, tends to minimize the scope of the potential problem.

[Huckleberry 32701]

The man is a charlatan and is fond of making empty threats.

Why didn't this logic prevent you from starting this thread? Are you actually worried that a stupid bill proposed in communications between members of the minority party is going to become law? A bill that doesn't even actually exist in reality let alone on the floor of Congress?

Partisan hack?  Bullshit.  And you complained just a few posts ago that someone wasn't familiar with your posting history.  tsk tsk.

You are worried about a memo between members of the minority party but absolve yourself of worrying about the authoritarian tendencies of the party in power, mentioning that you don't take the President seriously despite the actual implementation of authoritarian policies. That smacks of partisan behavior whether you want to believe it or not.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just like to say my derangement is mostly a result of a lack of leadership to address this problem.  If the government and the tech companies aren’t going to help us defend ourselves, I feel pretty helpless considering I witnessed the attack first hand as it happened.

The only recourse I have is to better educate myself and pay it forward to my fellow citizens.  Sounds corny but it’s all I got.

[Huckleberry 32701]

I should also mention that I don't believe bernorange is actually a partisan in terms of being a Republican and therefore only against Democrats, but his approach here is quite flawed. Claiming that you don't take Trump seriously when he's, you know, the President of the United States and that's why you focus on things like internal memos from the party that can't do anything is silly at best.

[Brisketexan 104610]

I should also mention that I don't believe bernorange is actually a partisan in terms of being a Republican and therefore only against Democrats, but his approach here is quite flawed. Claiming that you don't take Trump seriously when he's, you know, the President of the United States and that's why you focus on things like internal memos from the party that can't do anything is silly at best.

This.

Folks are way more worried about people who 1) lost a presidential election, and aren’t in an position power, or 2) are members of the minority party writing a memo, than, you know, THE ACTUAL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

[Guest]

So putting aside Trump's deranged antics and Russian meddling for a bit, and also putting aside the likelihood of any proposed legislation getting passed, does anyone think that the US government should institute any of the measures suggested in the article linked in the OP such as online identity verification? Or is anyone in favor of any other first amendment carve outs for social media? I am genuinely curious if anyone is for these or related measures and would be interested in seeing the details on their supported reasoning.  

Edited August 10, 2018 by Guest

[ndawg 1242]

I can only answer that question with a question, @Aphelion: in what way would GDPR style regulations encroach on our first amendment rights?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I can only answer that question with a question, @Aphelion: in what way would GDPR style regulations encroach on our first amendment rights?

Allow me to rephrase:

What rules & regulations (that are not currently in place) would you like for the US government to enforce for social media and/or any other type of internet based communication?

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

Allow me to rephrase:

What rules & regulations (that are not currently in place) would you like for the US government to enforce for social media and/or any other type of internet based communication?

Any internet mention of a non-relative female, who in any way might be physically attractive, must be accompanied by photos featuring said female.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

43 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Any internet mention of a non-relative female, who in any way might be physically attractive, must be accompanied by photos featuring said female.

Well yeah, enough with the obvious.  We're digging deeper here.

[Huckleberry 32701]

Plus I'm pretty sure he's looking for new rules, not already existing rules.

[ndawg 1242]

2 hours ago, Aphelion said:

Allow me to rephrase:

What rules & regulations (that are not currently in place) would you like for the US government to enforce for social media and/or any other type of internet based communication? 

Just spitballing here, but here's how I would start. If someone chooses to associate a personal identity with a social media account, they should be required to either:

1. Verify their identity
2. Use the site from a US based IP (no VPNs allowed)
3. Label their account as parody

This is just me taking about five minutes to think about it, though.

[Anastasis 23395]

papers please. 

[Newy25 7638]

Someone may have also pointed this out but apoarently Russia was using social media to message even before this election. The reason I would be opposed to censoring or regulating now is it seems like it’s coming from politicians or a political party who happened to lose this time. 

It’s ok if it sparks Black Lives Matter but not ok if it supports Trump for President? To me it’s all bad or all ok. And someone in government has to make the call? 

That’s seens far too difficult to implement fairly.  Perhaps what is happening with the public being educated is the best possible solution? 

[Newy25 7638]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just like to say my derangement is mostly a result of a lack of leadership to address this problem.  If the government and the tech companies aren’t going to help us defend ourselves, I feel pretty helpless considering I witnessed the attack first hand as it happened.

The only recourse I have is to better educate myself and pay it forward to my fellow citizens.  Sounds corny but it’s all I got.

It seens like spitting in the ocean if we try to start censoring the Internet message by message. 

Education of the electorate always will be a better solution, IMO. 

[Brisketexan 104610]

papers please. 

1- we already have that.

2- it’s only for messicans, Sheriff Joe and Trump out front shoulda told ya.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

papers please. 

 

33 minutes ago, ndawg said:

3. Label their account as parody

 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Just spitballing here, but here's how I would start. If someone chooses to associate a personal identity with a social media account, they should be required to either:

1. Verify their identity
2. Use the site from a US based IP (no VPNs allowed)
3. Label their account as parody

This is just me taking about five minutes to think about it, though.

So I'm assuming that when using sites that do not require one to give their personal identity or in the case that someone prefers to remain anonymous, then they will not be required to give their identity under your proposed measures.  Is this correct?

Regarding US based IP, what about when one travels abroad?  Also, would folks outside the US simply not be allowed to participate in US social media?  For point 3, are you saying that one has to tag any user profile on social media as a parody account if that is the intended purpose?  

[ndawg 1242]

16 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

So I'm assuming that when using sites that do not require one to give their personal identity or in the case that someone prefers to remain anonymous, then they will not be required to give their identity under your proposed measures.  Is this correct?

Regarding US based IP, what about when one travels abroad?  Also, would folks outside the US simply not be allowed to participate in US social media?  For point 3, are you saying that one has to tag any user profile on social media as a parody account if that is the intended purpose?  

Right, if someone wants to post anonymously, there is no problem. Also, if they don't claim to be Americans, no big deal. The problem here is paying people to pretend to be someone on the other side of the world's metaphorical neighbor.

I'm imagining that anyone who pretends to be a citizen of our country but probably isn't (based on IP or VPN usage) could be labelled or distinguished with a warning that they may not be who they say they are. Verifying obviously removes the doubt.

[Anastasis 23395]

58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

2- it’s only for messicans,

 

[F250 28682]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

Just spitballing here, but here's how I would start. If someone chooses to associate a personal identity with a social media account, they should be required to either:

1. Verify their identity
2. Use the site from a US based IP (no VPNs allowed)
3. Label their account as parody

This is just me taking about five minutes to think about it, though.

Sorry, #2 triggered me because it gave me flashbacks of working in China.

[Mole 4320]

3 hours ago, Aphelion said:

So putting aside Trump's deranged antics and Russian meddling for a bit, and also putting aside the likelihood of any proposed legislation getting passed, does anyone think that the US government should institute any of the measures suggested in the article linked in the OP such as online identity verification? Or is anyone in favor of any other first amendment carve outs for social media? I am genuinely curious if anyone is for these or related measures and would be interested in seeing the details on their supported reasoning.  

This is much more interesting to me than another Trump is terrible thread (he is). I haven't had a real chance to think through the problems of every idea in the paper, but these seem pretty benign.

1. Increasing deterrence against foreign manipulation: I'm ok with tit for tat against foreign governments. This seems like a relatively safe one concerning civil liberties. Having a clear cyber deterrence doctrine seems relatively painless.

2. Public initiative for media literacy: This seems like common sense and would be relatively harmless.

3. Dark patterns: These practices are deceptive and eliminating them would be good for consumers and help protect our privacy.

4. Improve disclosure requirements for political ads: This one gets a little tricky where a social media ad ends and private speech begins, but I don't think it would be unusually difficult to carve out some clarity.

 

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

Just spitballing here, but here's how I would start. If someone chooses to associate a personal identity with a social media account, they should be required to either:

1. Verify their identity
2. Use the site from a US based IP (no VPNs allowed)
3. Label their account as parody

This is just me taking about five minutes to think about it, though.

Lots of historical pseudonyms, two very famous uses for risky discussions:

Quote

...

Hamilton chose "Publius" as the pseudonym under which the series would be written. While many other pieces representing both sides of the constitutional debate were written under Roman names, Albert Furtwangler contends that "'Publius' was a cut above 'Caesar' or 'Brutus' or even 'Cato.' Publius Valerius was not a late defender of the republic but one of its founders. His more famous name, Publicola, meant 'friend of the people.'"^[10] It was not the first time Hamilton had used this pseudonym: in 1778, he had applied it to three letters attacking fellow Federalist Samuel Chase. Chase's patriotism was questioned when Hamilton revealed that Chase had taken advantage of knowledge gained in Congress to try to dominate the flour market.

Authorship[edit]

At the time of publication the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers discerned the identities of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Following Hamilton's death in 1804, a list that he had drafted claiming fully two-thirds of the papers for himself became public, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison (No. 49–58 and 62–63). The scholarly detective work of Douglass Adair in 1944 postulated the following assignments of authorship, corroborated in 1964 by a computer analysis of the text:

• Alexander Hamilton (51 articles: No. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85)
• James Madison (29 articles: No. 10, 14, 18–20,^[11] 37–58 and 62–63)
• John Jay (5 articles: No. 2–5 and 64).

In a span of ten months, a total of 85 articles were written by the three men. Hamilton, who had been a leading advocate of national constitutional reform throughout the 1780s and represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, in 1789 became the first Secretary of the Treasury, a post he held until his resignation in 1795. Madison, who is now acknowledged as the father of the Constitution—despite his repeated rejection of this honor during his lifetime^[12], became a leading member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia (1789–1797), Secretary of State (1801–1809), and ultimately the fourth President of the United States.^[13] John Jay, who had been secretary for foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation from 1784 through their expiration in 1789, became the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, stepping down in 1795 to accept election as governor of New York, a post he held for two terms, retiring in 1801.

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

and famously:

Quote

During the eighteenth century, it was common for writers and journalists to use pseudonyms, or false names, when they created newspaper articles and letters to the editor. Franklin used this convention extensively throughout his life, sometimes to express an idea that might have been considered slanderous or even illegal by the authorities; other times to present two sides of an issue, much like the point-counterpoint style of journalism used today. 

When Franklin used a pseudonym, he often created an entire persona for the "writer." Sometimes he wrote as a woman, other times as a man, but always with a specific point of view. While all of his writings were focused and logical, many were also humorous, filled with wit and irony. Silence Dogood, Harry Meanwell, Alice Addertongue, Richard Saunders, and Timothy Turnstone were a few of the many pseudonyms Franklin used throughout his career.

...

https://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_name.html

Leave the internet as is.  Debate the issue, not the author.

[ndawg 1242]

As I said, after thinking about it more, simply labeling people who are not verified and are likely to be non-Americans might strike a better balance. I think there's a pretty reasonable case for at least a discussion on regulation. Social media is a brand new medium, and there are vulnerability vectors here that can't be addressed.

It's understandable to believe that the truth can ultimately win on its own merit, without intervention. That idealism is a powerful comfort for those who'd prefer the simplicity of a hard-line, absolutist stance, but to me it doesn't seem realistic.

[bernorange 8348]

5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

... Are you actually worried that a stupid bill proposed in communications between members of the minority party is going to become law? ...

 

Yeah, it's always been my idiom to highlight odious ideas circulating in the sausage grinder since forever.  It is alarming that the ideas have taken root amongst a number of Senators.  I'm not in the habit of considering these things in just the short term.  Things change.  The minority party today may not be so in the near future.  Any legislation in this domain is not imminent, but it is percolating and that's precisely why now is the important time to raise the issue so it can be nipped in the bud.

[hayden_horn 11360]

So now we want net neutrality is that it?

[maninblack 7974]

 

 

 

 

 

No, the issue is the absurdity of his even asking the question. Whether or not someone is okay with their nation doing it to others has absolutely zero to do with the obviously understandable and perfectly reasonable desire to ensure that other nations don't do it to theirs.

 

If I were a citizen of a Latin American country whose political process had been undermined by the United States I would be furious at the United States and would want my nation's leaders never to let it fallen again. Whether or not my nation had tried to undermine the United States would be completely irrelevant to that desire. That's how being a citizen works.

 

Well that's how it works unless you're a Republican apparently. Or a Republican who pretends to be a libertarian turned anarchist like maninblack.

 

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. No one here screaming Russia, Russia, Russia cares about free and fair elections. If you did you would have been complaining for years about the meddling the US government has done across the globe for decades. You care because Donald Trump is in office and you don't like him. It's ridiculously transparent.

 

Keep grinding that axe Huck

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

Inviting the whole world to add their input into who they believe should govern the United States of America without disclosing who they are or making it easier to misrepresent who they are, to advocate for more opaqueness, is counter to democracy. It is advocating for less information to the dismissal of more information. It's pro-ignorance. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

25 minutes ago, maninblack said:

If you did you would have been complaining for years about the meddling the US government has done across the globe for decades. 

I'll take Conservatives Claiming Liberals Blame America First For Goddamn Fucking Ever for 500, Alex. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[F250 28682]

"Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." - SCOTUS

 

[Mole 4320]

In the aftermath of 9/11, there was a real and direct threat to us in the form of terrorism. That warranted a response. Unfortunately, in our zeal, lines were crossed in terms of civil liberties that weren't well thought out by most of the general public. We're still and probably forever paying for that shortsightedness. 

I think we're in a similar place right now. We were certainly attacked and that requires a response and rethinking of how we do things. We shouldn't be so short-sighted as to ignore the real threats to our civil liberties. Twenty years from now, we'll hopefully still be a functioning country and be clear of the current mess we're in. Whatever overreaction we have today will still be with us though.

It's frustrating that half the country won't acknowledge the problem or pretends that the problem is actually a good thing. It's frustrating that this is only seen in short-term partisan terms. It's all frustrating, but we'll have to live with whatever terrible decisions we make.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

25 minutes ago, F250 said:

"Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." - SCOTUS

 

Hello Valued Customers Ma And Pa Kettle,

We here at ABC Bank appreciate your longtime customer loyalty and wish to extend you our Bonus Rewards Program. We will just need to verify some information to get you on your way to making your money work for you.

Sincerely,

Not Really ABC Bank and not even subject to your laws

[jimmyjazz 45557]

45 minutes ago, maninblack said:

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. No one here screaming Russia, Russia, Russia cares about free and fair elections. If you did you would have been complaining for years about the meddling the US government has done across the globe for decades. You care because Donald Trump is in office and you don't like him. It's ridiculously transparent.

Well, no, we care because Trump is a Russian stooge who is helping undermine our democracy.  I know this is difficult for you to parse, but please, let the adults do the thinking.

[F250 28682]

32 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Hello Valued Customers Ma And Pa Kettle,

We here at ABC Bank appreciate your longtime customer loyalty and wish to extend you our Bonus Rewards Program. We will just need to verify some information to get you on your way to making your money work for you.

Sincerely,

Not Really ABC Bank and not even subject to your laws

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

8 hours ago, JBJ said:

Any internet mention of a non-relative female, who in any way might be physically attractive, must be accompanied by photos featuring said female.

Woah woah woah... non-relative doesn’t give anyone a free pass.

[Newy25 7638]

9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, no, we care because Trump is a Russian stooge who is helping undermine our democracy.  I know this is difficult for you to parse, but please, let the adults do the thinking.

And this is the kind of unhinged thinking about Russia that loses most Americans. Have you seen polls about where this issue rates with independent voters? Somwhere between the viability of the post office and coast guard funding.  

Edited August 11, 2018 by Newy25

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

42 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

And this is the kind of unhinged thinking about Russia that loses most Americans. Have you seen polls about where this issue rates with independent voters? Somwhere between the viability of the post office and coast guard funding.  

That's the problem.