- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 62,963
- Reaction score
- 27,366
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
They are bought and paid for.The republicans don't want to counter Russian disinformation.
What the hell happened to the Republican party?
They are bought and paid for.The republicans don't want to counter Russian disinformation.
What the hell happened to the Republican party?
Bwhaahahahahaahahaaaaa... dude got busted spreading disinformation in an anti-disinformation thread.
This move is tone deaf, if nothing else.Everything righties accuse others of doing, they do or enable themselves. Every single thing.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Of course facebook is not factual. So where do you get your news..FOX, OAN, and Newsmax?ROTFLMAO!!!!
The left actually believes that these sites like politifact, factcheck, snopes, and even facebook, which are a hive of LIBERAL moderators and fact checker are not unbiased in their reporting LOL.
Thank you for making my point.
Don't even know what the last two are which you mentioned. And the only shows on Fox I watch are The Five (just the A and B blocks) and sometimes Greg Gutfeld. That's it.Of course facebook is not factual. So where do you get your news..FOX, OAN, and Newsmax?
So where do you get your disinformation? From a radio talk show host?Don't even know what the last two are which you mentioned. And the only shows on Fox I watch are The Five (just the A and B blocks) and sometimes Greg Gutfeld. That's it.
I actually listen to more of Joe Rogan (a liberal progressive) than anything on TV.
Why isn't in the State Dept then? And why is it called a GOVERANCE board?Are you saying Russian disinformation shouldn't be countered?
Yes. I'm fully intelligent enough to do my own research. Aren't you? I do not want everyone to be beholden to censorship just because some other people might say something that isn't accurate. Having a wrong opinion is not perfectly fine. Twitter, for example, should be a platform for open ideas and robust debate. They shouldn't rig the debate by blocking opinions or facts they don't like. Likewise, there should be solid discourse within America without the government stepping in to give their views and Homeland Security getting involved if someone says something they don't like. The whole point of a hyper-partisan Homeland Security Czar who will run around the country looking for speech she doesn't like and then attempt to chill that speech is pretty insane. Is making this ridiculous individual a Homeland Security "Czar" really necessary? How did this work out for Russia and why do you want the Biden administration to follow in their example on this?So you are fine with disinformation?
It's not a matter of being fine with any particular speech, but rather the belief that we need to protect speech. The only speech worth protecting is the speech people want to censor or chill. The argument of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a very commonly misunderstood part of free speech in America, so it's typically not a good example since most people who use it don't know what they're talking about.Are you also fine with yelling fire in a crowded theater?
A literal "Ministry of 'Truth'". They are not even trying to hide it anymore.
Then how are illegal aliens crossing our border?There is no open border.
That is exactly the type of disinformation that needs to be countered.
We already have all the govt we need, don't give in to compromise.I suppose if they limit themselves to threats from foreign entities, such that its a direct security threat to our liberty, then Im not opposed to it. However, we need to keep a tight leash.
The republicans don't want to counter Russian disinformation.
What the hell happened to the Republican party?
Then how are illegal aliens crossing our border?
Show us that yelling fire in a crowded theater has been a problem.So you are fine with disinformation?
Are you also fine with yelling fire in a crowded theater?
I think you may have. There are already laws against that sort of thing. Certainly do not need a new Orwellian department created by our federal government.Missed the point.
We already have all the govt we need, don't give in to compromise.
Nothing, it's an excuse for bureaucracy to counter political opponents.If the govt cant already do this, then whats the problem?
Are you saying Russian disinformation shouldn't be countered?Why isn't in the State Dept then? And why is it called a GOVERANCE board?
I don't know if it has been.Show us that yelling fire in a crowded theater has been a problem.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example of a reasonable limit on speech.Yes. I'm fully intelligent enough to do my own research. Aren't you? I do not want everyone to be beholden to censorship just because some other people might say something that isn't accurate. Having a wrong opinion is not perfectly fine. Twitter, for example, should be a platform for open ideas and robust debate. They shouldn't rig the debate by blocking opinions or facts they don't like. Likewise, there should be solid discourse within America without the government stepping in to give their views and Homeland Security getting involved if someone says something they don't like. The whole point of a hyper-partisan Homeland Security Czar who will run around the country looking for speech she doesn't like and then attempt to chill that speech is pretty insane. Is making this ridiculous individual a Homeland Security "Czar" really necessary? How did this work out for Russia and why do you want the Biden administration to follow in their example on this?
It's not a matter of being fine with any particular speech, but rather the belief that we need to protect speech. The only speech worth protecting is the speech people want to censor or chill. The argument of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a very commonly misunderstood part of free speech in America, so it's typically not a good example since most people who use it don't know what they're talking about.
Nothing, it's an excuse for bureaucracy to counter political opponents.
Same way they always have, and we have never had an open border.Then how are illegal aliens crossing our border?
It's a make-believe example, to show that Freedom of Speech can be censored, that from one could think of an infinite number of excuses to censor most anything.I don't know if it has been.
Probably not in modern times anyway, but you missed the point. It is the classic example of the reasonable limits on speech.