Kerry: The Internet is making it hard o govern

[hazlnut]

He's talking about DICTATORS. The problem in this country is CNS and the rest of the Pub Propaganda Machine pouring out misinformation to the dupes. Try some real journalism sometime.

Careful a lot of people on this board think CNS and Fox are real journalism.

 

[The T]

Hell without the notoriety he received because of the Internet, Snowden more than likely would have been eliminated by now.

Immie

And that makes it hard for the bastards to "govern"....so eventually they are going to have to censor/eliminate the internet.

.

One of the left's go-to strategies: Control the information. It's worked fabulously in the Progressive Paradise, North Korea.

And that of the old Soviet until they got a taste of liberty in the guise of perestroika, that metered out Liberty...and with that they fell apart...

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition...and why the old Soviet fell. You don't parse liberty.

(Reagan won that one btw, He and Goldwater...)

 

[daveman]

He's talking about DICTATORS, functional shytteheads... DUH. But carry on, fools.

Unsurprisingly, you're wrong. But that's your default mode. From the article:

"It makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest," said Kerry, "and that is complicated by a rise of sectarianism and religious extremism that is prepared to employ violent means to impose on other people a way of thinking and a way of living that is completely contrary to everything the United States of America has ever stood for. So we need to keep in mind what our goals are and how complicated this world is that we’re operating in."​

But by all means, keep playing "The Democrat Didn't Say What He Said". It's always funny when you retards do that.

 

[daveman]

This is why George Bush created the patriot act along with the largest surveillance bureaucracy in world history, the Department of Homeland Security.

Bush wanted the tools to conduct comprehensive surveillance on the American people. He wanted the tools to collect data on every American citizen. He exploited people's fear over 9/11 to build a massive surveillance apparatus. This is exactly what happened in the old Soviet Union, where they propagandized national security threats to build greater surveillance over their own people. Any time a government uses national security to justify surveillance, they are merely trying to protect themselves from the political opposition and their own people.

Please recall Eliot Spitzer's scathing critiques of the Bush administration for its role in the housing and Wall Street meltdowns. In response to Eliot Spitzer's political attacks, the Bush Fed used the patriot act to set up surveillance over Spitzer's life - and once he moved more than $10,000, they had him. This is pure Soviet Union. First you use national security to beef up surveillance, then you use that surveillance to hunt political enemies.

And guess what? The Republican Party is going to be back in power in 2016. You ain't seen nothing yet. The Republicans are going to bring back the war on terrorism, only this time it will be on steroids. You ain't seen nothing yet. The patriot act is going to seem like Club Med compared to what the Republicans are going to do once they get their next attack.

...but it's okay when Obama does it.

 

[The T]

He's talking about DICTATORS. The problem in this country is CNS and the rest of the Pub Propaganda Machine pouring out misinformation to the dupes. Try some real journalism sometime.

Careful a lot of people on this board think CNS and Fox are real journalism.

As some think YOU are a real honest poster.

Stow it.

 

[daveman]

In a sense, he has a strong point.

Too much information (particularly when a lot of it is wrong) does make it make it harder to govern - or function at all, when it comes down to it.

Has anyone ever heard the expression "A man with a watch knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never sure."?

Yes, I've heard it.

How do you propose keeping "wrong" information from exposure, and who do you want deciding what's wrong?

 

[The T]

In a sense, he has a strong point.

Too much information (particularly when a lot of it is wrong) does make it make it harder to govern - or function at all, when it comes down to it.

Has anyone ever heard the expression "A man with a watch knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never sure."?

Yes, I've heard it.

How do you propose keeping "wrong" information from exposure, and who do you want deciding what's wrong?

Indeed...the poster you cite and John Kerry admonish the First Amendment, and twist it to their advantage. BOTH are tyrants.

 

[daveman]

He's talking about DICTATORS. The problem in this country is CNS and the rest of the Pub Propaganda Machine pouring out misinformation to the dupes. Try some real journalism sometime.

Careful a lot of people on this board think CNS and Fox are real journalism.

Same question for you: What outlets do you consider to be real journalism?

 

[Contumacious]

He's talking about DICTATORS. The problem in this country is CNS and the rest of the Pub Propaganda Machine pouring out misinformation to the dupes. Try some real journalism sometime.

Careful a lot of people on this board think CNS and Fox are real journalism.

Same question for you: What outlets do you consider to be real journalism?

Tb CCCP.

.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In a sense, he has a strong point.

Too much information (particularly when a lot of it is wrong) does make it make it harder to govern - or function at all, when it comes down to it.

Has anyone ever heard the expression "A man with a watch knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never sure."?

Yes, I've heard it.

How do you propose keeping "wrong" information from exposure, and who do you want deciding what's wrong?

Well, that's the whole point. There is no solution.

I'm not "proposing" anything. Not every problem has a solution.

 

[daveman]

In a sense, he has a strong point.

Too much information (particularly when a lot of it is wrong) does make it make it harder to govern - or function at all, when it comes down to it.

Has anyone ever heard the expression "A man with a watch knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never sure."?

Yes, I've heard it.

How do you propose keeping "wrong" information from exposure, and who do you want deciding what's wrong?

Well, that's the whole point. There is no solution.

I'm not "proposing" anything. Not every problem has a solution.

Then I guess people will be exposed to "wrong" information.

Freedom is a GOOD thing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, I've heard it.

How do you propose keeping "wrong" information from exposure, and who do you want deciding what's wrong?

Well, that's the whole point. There is no solution.

I'm not "proposing" anything. Not every problem has a solution.

Then I guess people will be exposed to "wrong" information.

Freedom is a GOOD thing.

People have always been exposed to "wrong" information. The Internet just makes it easier to spread.

And of course, freedom is a "good" thing. That doesn't change the validity of Kerry's statement though.

 

[FA_Q2]

you don't have a right to the internet. You have to show an id to buy beer, so you should have to produce a dhs-approved internet id before getting online. It will make things easier for the nsa and the world safer for democracy. Anyone against democracy is a commie fag hell bent on bringing down the internet. Millions of illegal aliens are using the internet to tell each other how to use our government welfare system. We need to keep our internet secure. Internet id now!

do you have a link to these sites?

wooooooosh!

 

[daveman]

Well, that's the whole point. There is no solution.

I'm not "proposing" anything. Not every problem has a solution.

Then I guess people will be exposed to "wrong" information.

Freedom is a GOOD thing.

People have always been exposed to "wrong" information. The Internet just makes it easier to spread.

And of course, freedom is a "good" thing. That doesn't change the validity of Kerry's statement though.

Yes, it's valid -- in totalitarian regimes.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have no idea what this post is supposed to mean in context to what I'm talking about.

Do YOU even read what you write there sport?

Again?

From a sovereign INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN CITIZEN defending his Life, Liberty, and persuit of happiness without the Imperial FED telling ME it's wrong?

YOU=DISMISSED.

GET IT?

Um, no. I don't "get" whatever it is that you're talking about. It's clearly not what I'm talking about.

My point is that from whichever side you're on, half the information out there disagrees with you.

Except that is NOT what you said. You did not say that half the information out there disagreed, you said that it (or more precisely that a ‘lot’) was WRONG.

That is a massive difference. Disagrees is a matter of opinion, wrong is a matter of fact.

In a sense, he has a strong point.

Too much information (particularly when a lot of it is wrong) does make it make it harder to govern - or function at all, when it comes down to it.

Has anyone ever heard the expression "A man with a watch knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never sure."?

This is, for lack of a better term, horse manure. There is no such thing as too much information when it comes to politics. There is also no more /misinformation’ out there than at any other time. The only real difference between now and before is that I have the ability to vet that information. Before the internet, everyone essentially had to take the ‘news’ for fact and the opinions of those around them had no real way to be measured as truth. This generation, by a MASSIVE margin, has the ability to be far more informed than any previously. Not only do I have access to massive amounts of data but I also have access to various was to VERIFY that data. The average politically informed person 30 years ago did not know a fraction of the things that I know about the government now. I have an app on my phone that details every single bill that goes before congress, websites that detail the actual expenditures of the government to the last dollar, official Whitehouse links that tell me every single EO that has been signed and a thousand other things I can view to get real and solid information. Something that was completely unheard of 20 years ago.

To say the we have access to more information that is wrong is simply leaving out the VERY important fact that we have access to more information period and, far more important, more ways to vet that information.

No, the exact opposite of what you imply is true, before we had FAR more access to incorrect information as there simply was no way to verify that it was correct. Now we have the means.

 

[nitroz]

John Kerry: 'This Little Thing Called the Internet ... Makes It Much Harder to Govern'

"Well, folks," he said, "ever since the end of the Cold War, forces have been unleashed that were tamped down for centuries by dictators, and that was complicated further by this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year -"

.

It's easy to govern when your voters are informed.
It's hard to be corrupt.

 

[Desperado]

Last thing politicians want is an informed populace...

True. But I think in the end, misinformation is a bigger problem.

And the government itself is responsible for a high percentage of that misinformation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You didn't built the Internet! The government built it!

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Stupid Kerry thinks a lot of stupid stuff, that's why he works for Obama.
2. I am sure Kerry says dumb stuff daily.
3. How can having more information hurt politics?
4. It should keep them honest, but they whole lot of them are just crooks.
5. Politics as usual are not what they used to be.
6. Its a shame good men can't be found to run.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Clementine]

Well, Kerry needs to call Al Gore up and complain to him since he claimed to have invented the internet. Clearly he did not because he wouldn't want people being able to stay on top of things.