Monday, February 27, 2017

When a wingnut cries foul (pt 4)

I have already touched on the ability to screen refugees. There is really not much that can be added here other than one needs a firm grasp in the varying processes and how they work. Not pertinent to our discussion here, although I would suggest brushing up if these are the type of discussions you pursue.

Before I tackle the second topic.  I will readily admit that foreign policy is not my forte.  Part due to apathy and part due to my isolationist stance.  I do not believe the US should be involved in any military action on foreign soil unless directly attacked.  I don't have a logical well thought out reason other than I do not believe in violence.  It's kind of my utopian view and I am full aware that it just is not feasible in today's world.  That being said I have no clue what TW is referring to concerning Russia, Iran, and S America and it really has no relevance to the OP.  It is just more distracting twaddle.

What my point here will be is TW's Gish Gallop and avoidance of the original OP yet again when confronted with a we bit of push back and knowledge.  As Deb noted in a subsequent conversation, "she totally changed the subject whenever I pushed her on something.  That's why I kept asking her the same shit over and over."

In part 1 she used the "Swedish rape crisis" to deflect from the OP.  Part 2 it was a nefarious plot and alleged refugee killings of Americans (no refugees killed anyone).  And in part 3 it was a continuation of said plot and "leftist leaders".   Now she is throwing bullshit from within SA. Three or four different notions NOT related to the original OP. The problem becomes, for one not well versed in many facets, a daunting task.  This is what a con nut relies on, for many it is a well worn script.  Very similar to what one faces when discussion evolution.
The next series of screen grabs I am going to jump a bit as workus interuptus kept me from commenting, and other dialogue intervened before getting back to my question posed to TW.

So here's the deal, "American news is propaganda".  Actually I happen to agree to a certain extent but not for the same reasons.  Because of that I do not rely on one source (hence why all the news feeds).  I also do not jump through hoops when a story breaks, but wait; sometimes 2-3 days as current events change drastically as more information comes to light.  Like TW I do not watch TV but I do watch news clips on the inter-web if something piques my interest.  I rely on print media (online) for information concerning certain items of news. But where I differ with TW, I do not believe that our news is a propaganda arm of the government.  Biased - yes.
One caveat to this, FOX news is junk.  End of story!  I have too many stories concerning one Todd Starnes and his lies and half truths. I have no respect for any organization that keeps a man lacking in the ability to tell the truth; claims Christianity to boot.
TW then continues, "Obama repealed the anti-propaganda laws while you were sleeping. America does not have free press."  I wasn't sleeping. 

Craig adds "Presidents don't repeal laws, they may sign bills of repeal passed by the legislature and absent that act, they can only enforce the laws, generally speaking. Second, the Act in question was not repealed, it was amended and it's not the deep dark dirty you've been told it is."

But I really wanted to know, what she thought the "anti-propaganda ban" was, to prove a point.  TW really had no fucking clue what she was talking about and only repeats echo-chamber bullshit. But yet she researches.  Not very well mind you!
The repeal was bad because it allowed propaganda to go unchecked. It was terrible actually. The bill was created in 1948 to make sure that America did not go like the Nazis, propaganda driven, it was repealed, and now the people don't know facts and the news is filled with lies. Our news media is becoming like Palestinian propaganda (which I am sure you have believed) . using same actors and created scenes, it has allowed the press to lie. Obama repealed that law, 2012 just like the travel ban 2016 at Christmas time, when no one was watching. Nice present!
Remember, yet again, we are talking refugees.   But let's unpack that BS shall we:

1]  The repeal was bad because it allowed propaganda to go unchecked
As already noted, SM1948 was not repealed but amended.  Considering all information can be in some form be propaganda it is not necessarily a bad thing - garnering domestic support for a foreign policy.  Or as was done during WWII, influence foreign support of America’s wars abroad.

The ability to sway public opinion concerning an issue is an important function. It is when said information is biased or misleading, is not objective and presents facts selectively.

2]  The bill was created in 1948 to make sure that America did not go like the Nazis, propaganda driven
This statement sounds straight out of the Hasting's article, "The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns."

"But the outcry is misguided. The law doesn't permit the spread of any information that isn't already available to the American public. Moreover, the amendment brings more of the government's overseas information operations into the sunlight, a good thing.  There's some value to knowing how the United States articulates itself to the rest of the world."

3] Now the people don't know facts and the news is filled with lies
The cry of "fake news",,, boo hoo.  Guess what darling, just because you don't agree with the content of said news does not make it fake.  The wall provided by SM1948 is moot in today's internet age, hence the amendment, to counter al Qaeda.  Anybody in the US can access most of this otherwise open info.  Just check out the websites for Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, or listen to Radio Sawa.

One question I do have, isn't the American public capable of sorting through self-serving state PR? Or do you need the information spoon-fed to you, filtered through your little bubble?

4] Our news media is becoming like Palestinian propaganda
How to gently put this.  How about we agree to disagree on this point as delving into the topic of Palestinian-Israeli relations is way beyond the scope of the matter at hand.  I can guarantee we don't agree and it would add nothing to the conversation.

5] Using same actors and created scenes, it has allowed the press to lie.
I am not sure what this is referring to in the context of SM1948 and TW's mention of "Palestinian propaganda".  Alleged false-flags?  We will leave it that.

6] Just like the travel ban 2016 at Christmas time
Plain and simple, President Obama DID NOT ban refugees from Iraq.

A 2013, ABC News article incorrectly stated "the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011" after the <s>Bowling Green Massacre</s>.  That is the source of said claim.

That claim is mistaken, as even the ABC article notes.  "In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show."  So while the influx was slower, it did not stop.  This is a point John Finer makes, “In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Trump’s EO stopped all Iraqi citizens as well as six other countries from temporarily entering the U.S. “on any visa category,” affecting those trying to visit family or come here for work, in addition to live. It also affects six other countries.  Initially, green card holders were included and many were hung to dry.  (I personally had friends trapped out of country due to this ban as well as the news being filled will such stories.)  While Obama did slow the refugee program, it did not impact green card holders, or anyone with a visa. It also did not affect refugees who had already gone through the vetting process.

Nothing in TW's understanding of the SM1948 and subsequent amendment is correct.  Her explanation put forth is filled with more misinformation.  This is the garbage her and her ilk choose to believe and spread as "truth".  This is why I do what I do as I told TW in PM, "the information you disseminated in a public forum deserves a response as it is false. I am criticizing the information you spread showing how it is wrong with correct information. It is that simple,,, If your ideas cannot stand to criticism and scrutiny then the ideas are weak and will fall.  Show me were I am incorrect."
Again I will put forth the same offer given to TW in PM, "If you would like to offer a counter argument with verifiable sources and show were my information is incorrect I would be more than willing to publish it."  

Her answer, "You think I would lower myself to discuss anything further with you? No thank you."

No comments:

Post a Comment