Incredibly though, what happened with the 'Brexit' vote in the UK was that after the dust settled, the leading campaigners for 'out' pretty much accepted that much of what they had been saying was pure spin, and not at all accurate, but the salient point was that they won!Astronuc said:
I thought he was already doing that...[COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR]Evo said:
Nice post and nice questions! I say no, and no again. This is not a democracy and the people should not get anything close to a full chance to choose. IMO and in full devil's advocacy, I assert that in politics, like war and life itself, the ends justify the means and might makes right. If you are looking for truth and beauty, then you've come to the wrong place. For that, I find it at the fencing salle or music studio.Salvador said:
Continued
I saw that this morning.Evo said:
Potential conflicts of interest.
From mainstream sources that may be possible, the problem is having to check to make sure the "blogger's commentary stays true to the source and doesn't go off on a personal tangent, which tends to be the problem with the blog and opinion sections, people add their own opinions which may or may not be true. We don't have a paid staff here that can spend all day verifying commentary outside of the news report. Sometimes I actually prefer these sections because a savvy commentator can really clarify what is going on, or they can cause immense confusion.Astronuc said:
I absolutely agree, which is why I emphasized "blogs on mainstream media". I see blogs on the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, . . . . , which are essentially news articles with analysis. Ostensibly, the corporate media entity is legally responsible for what is written on their websites, i.e., they are subject to civil lawsuits for defamation. And I see mainstream news articles that cite blogs!Evo said:
Trump said:Evo said:
Please note that the quote "turn off the internet" in Evo's post was a quote from the article, not a quote from Trump. He didn't say that. The article is twisting his words.rootone said:
He saidruss_watters said:
Potay to potah to
Huh?Evo said:
potato can be (and is) pronounced two different ways. It's still a potato.Bystander said:
Do you dispute that his POINT was to shut off communication, by which he was referring to the internet?russ_watters said:
Yes, I agree, but the discusson here is not about whether it's a good idea but whether it's possible. If we could magically shut off terrorists access to the internet world wide that would be a wonderful thing, BUT that runs into two major problems: (1) it's impossible and (2) who gets to decide who is a terrorist? I think we would disagree w/ Iran and China on that definition.Dotini said:
phinds said:
They do that by stiffing dissent by their citizens in a way that would be, and damn well should be, impossible in the USA. Are you truly ignorant of that or are you just being disingenuous for the sake of argument?Dotini said:
I'm an old man, retired over 10 years. I don't know computer programming. Maybe you do? It seems to me China has found a way to shut off undesirable websites and individual accounts from being on the internet. Simple idea, but, as you say, perhaps it is impossible - or should be - here in the USA.phinds said:
It is absolutely disgusting how the government of China treats its citizens. The internet in China has the very well known "Great Firewall". Since you seem to be unaware of it, I urge you to Google it. They not only block access to a huge swath of internet sites from the rest of the world, they also have, very literally, an army of censors who quickly delete on the Chinese internet any reference to such forbidden topics as Falon Gong, Tiananmen square, and on and on and on. They jail people who persistently try to express free speech. Your damn right it should be impossible here in the USA.Dotini said:
Your emotional reply is appreciated as now honest and truthful. But walking back your earlier assertion of impossibility.phinds said:
phinds said:
I would suspect you have far more limits at present, than you realize. Just my opinion.Dotini said:
No, but there is a really really big difference between shutting off someone's access to the internet and shutting off the entire internet. The idea of a "kill button" is way, way off from what he said.phinds said:
You are correct in that I stated that poorly. It is not literally impossible to shut off the internet, but a HUGE amount of commerce, banking, and our entire infrastructure would collapse. To shut it down PARTIALLY (which is what I should have emphasized) is possible but only if we go the way of China and what I am saying is that is politically impossible, not technically impossible.Dotini said:
Potato grapefruit.Evo said: