<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On Dec 18, 2016, at 3:52 PM, John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 Dan TheBookMan </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:danust2012@gmail.com" target="_blank">danust2012@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Whoa! This was voted on by people currently in office. Also, Democrats, especially Clinton, are extremely vocal about doing something about 'fake news.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">The bill passed the House by a landslide <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">vote </div>390 to 30, but of the 30 that voted against it 24 were Democrats. </font></span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Granted, though that still means many, many Democrats in the House voted for -- not just a handful. 390 is well above a bare majority. So what's your point? Are you denying any Democrats, including Clinton, have spoke out about the need to use the state to deal with fake news?</div><div><br></div><div>Here's but one example of her calling for the government to do something about fake news:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/hillary-clinton-warns-danger-fake-news-addresses-ceremony-harry1/">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/hillary-clinton-warns-danger-fake-news-addresses-ceremony-harry1/</a></div><div><br></div><div>Isn't the legislation Clinton is talking about there -- and praising -- this bill? If so, then why wouldn't we expect if she takes the Oval Office next month that she'll sign it into law? (I'm saying if the Electors decide to vote for her.)</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">It's unlikely to become law before January 20. </font></span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you seriously believe that had Clinton won, she would veto it? It that if the bill passes the Senate by a similar margin, it would veto-proof, no? </div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font size="4">On a unrelated subject that <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>has nothing to do with fake news, did you know that the headquarters of Hillary's child sex slave ring <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">is</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">in </div>the basement of <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the </div>Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> in Washington DC? It is, and I know it is because I read all about it on the internet. Never mind that </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the </div>Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> in Washington DC has no basement. </div></font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>What's your point? Did you fall for that bit of fake news? I certainly didn't. Since you often claimed to be a libertarian here, I'm wondering if to you you believe that being a libertarian is compatible with the state deciding what's fake news. Don't we already have plenty of historical examples of what happens when the state decides these issues? Wouldn't you rather put up with the bother of fake news over the much more serious threat of government vetted news?<div><br></div><div>Thanks once more for your fake news approach to editing my responses. <br><br><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> Sample my Kindle books via:</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><font color="#000000" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">http://author.to/DanUst</a></font></div></div></div></div></body></html>