Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: China Sunstein

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default China Sunstein

    I knew that I, and a few others, made a dent when Obama’s man in Harvard felt so threatened he attacked freedom of speech on message boards. Basically, every swamp creature knows that political freedom of speech on message boards is a greater benefit to Americans than Twitter and Facebook combined:

    Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

    Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

    Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
    Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
    Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
    by Aaron Klein

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-cza...network-sites/

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...15#post3443715

    The Chicoms got their foreign policy from Sunstein:

    The Chinese-owned TikTok is currently in a battle to save its app from being banned in the US by the Trump administration, which has accused it of spying on Americans for the Chinese government.

    QUESTION: Is 20 percent enough to stop China Sunstein’s attack on freedom of speech?


    Parent company ByteDance is still working to finalize a deal to spin off the app’s American operations. The proposal would set up a new US-based company called TikTok Global that would be partially owned by American investors including software firm Oracle and retail chain Walmart, who would have a combined 20 percent stake.

    President Trump imposed a Nov. 12 deadline for the sale, after which TikTok’s operations would essentially halt in the US.

    More importantly, do Oracle and Walmart executives want to prohibit:


    FIRST AMENDMENT


    “. . . freedom of speech, . . .”

    I do not know the facts about QAnon:

    QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory. It alleges that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against US President Donald Trump, who is battling against the cabal. The theory also commonly asserts that Trump is planning a day of reckoning known as "The Storm", when thousands of members of the cabal will be arrested. No part of the theory is based on fact.

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

    I do know that I am in anyone’s corner that China, Harvard, press barons, and the Democrat Party try to silence.

    NOTE: QAnon is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment regardless of the message it preaches:

    It is no secret that all governments just love protecting meaningless speech. In the real world offensive speech requires the most protection, not touchy-feely sermons.

    The things you cannot say, and the things you must say, is clearly an evolutionary step in America’s culture. In bygone decades the opponents of free speech confined their attacks to silencing average Americans.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...57#post2931557

    Finally, Google and Facebook conspiring with TikTok to silence freedom of speech are guilty of the same old crime.

    TikTok’s move comes less than a week after Google-owned YouTube announced that it would ban QAnon and Pizzagate videos that target individuals and groups in order “to justify real-world violence.”

    It also arrives on the heels of Facebook’s decision to remove hundreds of QAnon-affiliated groups over concerns that they could threaten public safety.
    see also

    The social-media giant said earlier this month that it took down more than 790 groups, 100 pages and 1,500 ads linked to the far-right movement.


    Crackdown on QAnon continues as TikTok bans conspiracy theory content
    By Nicolas Vega
    October 19, 2020 | 1:54pm

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/19/crackd...heory-content/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    I do not know the facts about QAnon:
    This article provides details:

    October 20, 2020
    QAnon:The Media's Latest Obsession
    By Brian C. Joondeph

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...obsession.html

    One piece of info especially caught my attention:

    Q posts on anonymous message boards, starting with 4chan, then 8chan, now 8kun. Anons are anonymous individuals who read, dissect, and analyze every Q utterance looking for deeper messages, posting their thoughts on the message board. Sometimes Q confirms or corrects, and other times Q must laugh at the rabbit holes that some anons dig into.

    But whoever Q is or represents, they remain in the shadows. Q often posts messages at the exact same time that the President tweets, suggesting that Q may be part of the Trump inner circle. In Q lexicon, these are called “Q proofs.”

    These message boards are anonymous and those posting are called “anons”. There is no “QAnon”, only Q and anons, a distinction the media has not figured out. Not all anons are authentic, some are posting simply to muddy the waters, an advantage of being anonymous. The term “QAnon” allows all anonymous posters to be lumped together, the real ones and the disrupters, the media focusing only on what the fake anons post or claim.

    Conservative Americans remaining anonymous on message boards is essential. Here is why:

    Should a Democrat come after you after he finds out who you are and where you live —— you are the one who will end up in jail after you kill the attacker in self-defense. No district attorney in this country will drop the charges against an American who kills a violence-prone Democrat in self-defense.

    Conversely, the odds against punishing a Democrat after he kills you, or cripples you, are roughly one million to one. Ask yourself how many murderers have been arrested, tried, and sent to prison for killing and crippling private sector citizens? I know of none.

    In addition, casting a secret ballot anonymously in elections is the same thing as remaining anonymous on a message board. Had the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to identify themselves in order to voice an opinion they would have said so.

    Speaking for myself, I would be happy to post my name and address after I get enough money from a wealthy Democrat to pay my legal costs —— and take care of my family after I am sent to prison for defending myself.

    Going to prison because I defended myself with a gun is a lead pipe cinch irrespective of a criminal’s intent:


    Gun control advocates use criminals as a scare tactic at the same time Democrats have been abolishing the legal concept of self-defense for everybody except Democrat murders.

    Self-defense is ludicrous when you look at some of the state laws that liberals have managed to pass in their drive to disarm the American people. Example: If an intruder is climbing through a window and you shoot him he better fall inside the house. If he falls outside the window you are in big trouble. The same is true if you smash in his head or stab him; proving that self-defense is the Left’s secondary target after banning guns.

    Self-defense is almost non-existent outside your home while still on your property. The general rule in all instances of self-defense says that you can defend yourself, but do not do it too strenuously. Should you find yourself in the Left’s legal trap your attorney, the prosecutor, and a judge will decide your fate behind your back. Unless you are well-off, or well-connected, I guarantee you will not like their decision.

    Wounding an intruder is almost as bad. The damaged intruder hires a lawyer and files a lawsuit. He then testifies that he is only a thief who would not hurt a fly. Before you ever set a foot in a criminal, or civil, courtroom self-defense is the villain in the piece.

    Even more ludicrous is the Left’s position that says theft is not punishable by death. So who decides? Why a district attorney of course. How do they know an intruder’s intent? Answer: They consult crystal balls that tells them an intruder was only going to steal from you. You are not permitted to decide when a stranger breaking into your home was going to kill you.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...26#post2786426

    Finally, American Communists knowing they will get away with killing and crippling strangers is a big courage booster for Democrats as the recent violence in our cities proves.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    But whoever Q is or represents, they remain in the shadows.

    Jeez, I might have been the first Q.

    As far back as 19 years ago Socialists on my second message board tried to limit the topic to economics —— i.e. Socialism versus Capitalism. Nothing else was allowed until I arrived. Happily, I won that debate after countless messages of mine were removed and eventually put back. In short: Every aspect of Socialism and capitalism was then allowed. Since then every board I posted messages on accused me of espousing conspiracy theories regardless of the topic. Every Lib attacked me personally because they could not defend the Democrat Party’s agenda any better than Socialists could defend their religion 19 years ago. (Personal attacks replaced defending the Democrat Party’s political agenda.)

    When Cass Sunstein came along in the Obama Administration I truly believed he had me in mind when he suggested criminalizing conspiracy theories on message boards. That was years before there was a Q.

    Oddly enough, Democrats panicked when they called everything conservative say a conspiracy no longer worked. Democrats had no place to go. Not to worry. Democrats always have a fallback position. In this case they use the same ‘conspiracy strategy’ to accuse every Q of being a dangerous conspiracy nut job.

    Note that Democrat Party strategy now encompass every conservative in every venue rather than attacking a small handful of conservatives scattered around dozens of political message boards.

    Liberals outnumber conservatives on every political message board by 10 to 1, while conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 or 3 to one in the general population. That is why Democrat talking points always have the highest number of messages posted on message boards.

    Finally, Democrats always controlled print press and television, but they knew they had to gain complete control over social media or lose everything. They began taking control incrementally shortly after Cass Sunstein warned them about the danger absolute freedom of speech poses on message boards. Big Tech censorship is making complete control a reality.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    More importantly, do Oracle and Walmart executives want to prohibit:


    FIRST AMENDMENT


    “. . . freedom of speech, . . .”


    I do not know how Walmart execs feel about the First Amendment, but they sure as came down on the side of the Second Amendment:




    Walmart returns guns and ammunition to store displays after removing them to prevent 'civil unrest'
    by Mica Soellner
    October 30, 2020 03:09 PM

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...t-civil-unrest

    If I was cynical I would say that Walmart execs decided to come down on the winning side after the Communists are all shot to hell in their promised revolution.

    p.s. Walmart execs took a meeting after they initially removed guns from their stores. At that meeting they decided that selling more guns to law-abiding Americans so they could defend themselves come the revolution was good business. The execs could not see a downside since President Trump was going to win a second term in a landslide anyway.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    I wish conservative websites would say ALLEGED MURDERER rather than:


    Alleged Burglar
    Enters Backdoor, Dies from Shotgun Blast
    by AWR Hawkins
    14 Aug 2021

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...shotgun-blast/


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Should a Democrat come after you after he finds out who you are and where you live —— you are the one who will end up in jail after you kill the attacker in self-defense. No district attorney in this country will drop the charges against an American who kills a violence-prone Democrat in self-defense.

    XXXXX

    Even more ludicrous is the Left’s position that says theft is not punishable by death. So who decides? Why a district attorney of course. How do they know an intruder’s intent? Answer: They consult crystal balls that tells them an intruder was only going to steal from you. You are not permitted to decide when a stranger breaking into your home was going to kill you.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Similar Threads

  1. China vaccine almost ready for the China Virus that came from China
    By Darth Omar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-15-2020, 11:38 AM
  2. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-16-2020, 06:30 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-17-2019, 10:35 AM
  4. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-14-2016, 08:20 AM
  5. china begins 'combat ready' patrols in south china sea
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 11:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •