If every speech which somehow, in some abstract sense, may harm, is forbidden, then you have free speech on the level of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. This is because every speech against the actual government many somehow, in an abstract sense, harm the country. So, it will be forbidden. Complete nonsense. Feel free to quote the relevant evidence from those reports. I have read the indictment against the bots and found nothing. I have not heard any serious claim that further reports have added anything serious to the indictment, so I can leave this to you. And yet another cheap propaganda technique to suggest that I support slavery immediately follows. What I was aware of was that the liberals think and teach about the Civil War. Because of the evil sources did not hide this, but openly questioned this story with own arguments referring to facts on the ground. (At that time, I simply wanted to find out who is right, and so I asked those whose position was attacked by DiLorenzo if they have counterarguments. You had some, but in my opinion, at best sufficient for a draw, namely that slavery played a role, but not the decisive one and certainly not the only one. If you want to question this summary, do this in that old thread.) The aim of ad hominem defamations is to impress those poor souls who believe the mainstream, thus, those who believe that slavery was the only point of the Civil War and will never even read DiLorenzo because he is somehow evil, as explained by iceaura. Nonsense. I simply accepted what is claimed about the content. Namely that there is something about Russian attacks, like the 13 bots and the DNC hack theories, that there is no evidence for collusion, that there is something about obstruction of justice and something about money laundering and tax avoidance by Manafort and lies under oath by some people in the Trump environment. I have classified this as uninteresting inner policy issues and nonsense against Russia, based on my knowledge of the indictment of the 13 bots and what I have heard about the DNC hack. You have not mentioned or quoted anything more interesting to me. Of course, I will not accept the words in the form "as described by others" if these others are known as anti-Trump propagandists like you and Tiassa. So your descriptions will be, first of all, reformulated in a neutral form to understand what is really claimed. But this does not change the point that I base my assumptions what is inside on your claims, without questioning the content of your claims. LOL. There is nothing even in your claims about the content which would be able to threaten me. That Trump is an evil guy and should be impeached? Start the impeachment, I have no problem with this at all. I even wish you success. Ok, I also wish success to the Trump team, Trump as the US president is, last but not least, the best anti-American propaganda imaginable. (My relation to this is close to the Russian commentators about terrorist infights in Syria: "We wish success to both sides.") That Russia really did the DNC hack? So what, they should be praised for this even by the Dems. Last but not least, the evildoer who replaced Sanders by the only candidate able to lose against Trump stepped down and can no longer harm them. That Russian has tried to influence the US elections? No problem for me, even if this would have tried to harm the US population. The US meddling into elections everywhere is well-known and almost nobody denies it, thus, the US deserves such things by tit for tat. The reelection of Yeltsin, which has seriously harmed Russian people, and which was openly supported by the US, is sufficient for justifying even harmful meddling. So what could threaten me? You simply have failed up to now to tell me about anything which would be slightly interesting to read - that means, something which is somehow in conflict with what I think.