you focusing exclusively on hillary for lying about iraq and WMDs is incredible
because we all know the driving force behind the iraq war and the WMD claims was the jr senator from NY
Criminal charges if government says your speech is propaganda?
- Thread starter seminole97
- Start date
because we all know the driving force behind the iraq war and the WMD claims was the jr senator from NY
Sure, Andrei. LOL. Way to project from Trump. Everything is fake news to him. The only fake news for me is the company that is legitimately spreading BS, being sued for it, admitting in court they lie, and paying 787 MILLION DOLLARS because they lie to their viewers. You don't have to like it, but I'm not wrong.
The irony is pretty thick with that one. But her playbook has not changed. She accuses everyone else of the very thing she is guilty of doing. She needs to just go away. She lost to the second worst candidate in history (at least to that point) and blamed everyone but herself.
Last edited:
what about all the pressure the government pushed on private entities during Covid ?
Is creating deep fake videos using AI considered free speech? If so I think there need to be limitations or punishments for intentionally creating something false to manipulate the public.
They can't. Total presidential immunity, remember? Nice try tho.
Also, curious how you think Harris had a hand in that other than guilt by association. VPOTUS has no power or authority except breaking ties in the Senate and ceremonial duties unless POTUS is incapacitated.
She’s a bitter old woman who lost in 2016 to a guy who was the most surprised person in the world that he was going to be the next President.
Why did she lose? NO ONE LIKES HER.
Hillary is just a bitter old fat failure. She is putting out 4th biography and needs to raise interest in it somehow.
A bunch of universities and think tanks will buy thousands of copies and make it a best seller. That’s how the game is played.
Who decides what is propaganda?,.. and what happens when they are wrong?
It’s a fantastic example of uniparty lies from the government.
It’s why we can’t trust politicians to be arbiters of truth.
Have a better example, we can use it instead.
Wow, so we don't discuss all the other republicans that voted for the war but want to focus on Hillary who voted to go to war based on that she thought they had weapons of mass destruction? Really. Exactly how is that propaganda and who put out the propoganda, Bush, Cheney and Intelligence who gave this information to the Senate to make their vote based on. Now who is to blame in this case, is it an intelligence failure, there does appear to be initial intelligence stating there was whether fabricated, or believing statements by Hussein. As to Cheney and others there have been propoganda, and then a continuation of propaganda after the true facts did not match the original intelligence.
Yup. I thought Rumsfeld was later quoted saying they were going to do what they needed to do to get that war. Not the same as Hillary voting for it based off of fake evidence.
Let's ask what Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice said as well, shall we?
From 2003: Colin Powell Addresses United Nations Security Council On Iraq
Rice Lays Out Case For War In Iraq
Bush Adviser Cites 'Moral' ReasonsAugust 16, 2002 at 1:00 a.m. EDT
The United States and other nations have little choice but to seek the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview broadcast yesterday, citing "a very powerful moral case" for action.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
"This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, on all of us," Rice told the BBC. "There is a very powerful moral case for regime change. We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing."
Rice noted that after Sept. 11, the most immediate threat was al Qaeda. But she said Hussein posed a looming threat that could not be ignored. "Clearly, if Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he is doing now, this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...in-iraq/1cd4e5b7-709a-40c8-90d9-3d376dee16a5/
Your anger over the Iraq War is very justified, but you're pointing your finger at the wrong people. If you read Clinton's quote again, you will see that she is citing "intelligence reports". Maybe anger should be pointed towards the people who prepared and cherry picked those intelligence reports?
I think that search would turn up some other names such as Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, etc...
Hell, it would probably include some of the other names at the bottom of this list as well.
PNAC-----Statement of Principles>>Project for a New American Century>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_CenturyJune 3, 1997 American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital --both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:• We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;• We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;• We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;• We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf
Biden is literally importing the Venezuelan mess into the USA as fast as he can.
They emptied their prisons and told them to come here. Now the gangs and murderers have become our problem. But not before they drug traffic and murder again after being let go of an immigration detainer.
Are you brain dead or just delusional?
You have heard the term leadership right? It is the democratic system that is broken in Venezuela that I am stating is broken. I also think immigration needs massive reform, including quota's based on what we have jobs available for, regular updates, and anyone who breaks the law to be deported. You know the immigration regulation that was proposed this spring would have been a great start but Trump killed it and admits it. I am not saying the first 3 years were on Biden, but this last year is fully on Trump.
Yes parody and satire are free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Supreme Court
Hustler v. Falwell 1988
Besides, who wants to live in a world
where The Onion and Babylon Bee are illegal?
4.3 trillion readers can’t be wrong – why The Onion’s defence of satire should be heard by the US Supreme Court
4.3 trillion readers can’t be wrong – why The Onion’s defence of satire should be heard by the US Supreme Court
‘America’s finest news source’ The Onion wants the US Supreme Court to answer some difficult questions: is satire protected speech, and if so, how do we define it?
theconversation.com
Last edited:
All the legislation would have done is legitimized all the illegal actions the Biden Admin & Dems had done for the 3 prior years.
No thanks. I’m glad it wasn’t passed.
Biden-Harris and the rest of the Dems simply cannot be trusted whatsoever when it comes to immigration.
They never ACT in good faith. Ever!
Nice try.
I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
For the few that voted yes, how exactly is a citizen supposed to question or criticize what their government is doing if the government can just declare what they say as propaganda and arrest them?
For all intents and purposes democracy would cease to exist at that point.
That is the real threat to democracy.
And Hillary is just a totalitarian facist.
For all intents and purposes democracy would cease to exist at that point.
That is the real threat to democracy.
And Hillary is just a totalitarian facist.
So we agree the uniparty was pushing lies before the invasion of Iraq.
This is why the uniparty can't be trusted to decide what is truth and what is disinformation, or malinformation, or whatever term they invent next for truths they rather we not know.
How do individuals know if truth, propaganda, parody or satire? That is the biggest question.Yes parody and satire are free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Supreme Court
Hustler v. Falwell 1988
Besides, who wants to live in a world
where The Onion and Babylon Bee are illegal?
4.3 trillion readers can’t be wrong – why The Onion’s defence of satire should be heard by the US Supreme Court
4.3 trillion readers can’t be wrong – why The Onion’s defence of satire should be heard by the US Supreme Court
‘America’s finest news source’ The Onion wants the US Supreme Court to answer some difficult questions: is satire protected speech, and if so, how do we define it?
We all agree intelligence stated either had weapons, components or the ability. Now what was the confidence in that intelligence, and when did the intelligence realize their initial information was incorrect?
The government should never be allowed to decide what the truth is. Anyone that says otherwise is a corrupt totalitarian. The very definition of a facist.
Tim Walz?
Tim Walz?
i want to be clear
every politician that voted for and supported the iraq war should answer for that
but to pretend that hillary clinton is anywhere near the top of the list of who to blame is disingenuous and just another example of a certain group that blames hillary for just about anything that has happened in the last 30 years
and i say that as someone who isn't much of a hillary fan. the only time i've ever voted for her was in teh 2016 general election when the other option was donald trump
You really want government agents that are typically the subject of such satirical lampooning to make this decision?
Are you nuts?
Hillary Clinton suggested the extrajudicial execution of a foreign citizen, Julian Assange, death by drone, and she was serious.
It’s a fact. She’s a psychopath who does not believe in the rule of law.
Yet she is going to lecture us on the danger of misinformation?
You find a totalitarian facist government funny?
I can understand your worry. But we, as a whole group of Americans, should be more worried if your orange messiah steals the election.
Yes Tim Walz is a fascist.
Good thing nobody did that.
I'm just pointing out that lying hag has been lying for decades, and yet she thinks the government should start prosecuting people for speech she decides to label propaganda.
It was lies and bullshit propaganda to say that Gadhafi was committing genocide, but do you think she envisions being prosecuted for it under her proposal?
Of course not.
Honestly though, you are saying Elon Musk can make a fully baseless claim, then claim it is satire? That is basically what occurred last week. At what point do we go after the baseless claims. How about effectively stating he would impregnate Swift? At some point you draw the line, otherwise there is no line and we are in a mess.
Agreed.
We’re just responding to posts that somehow she played a major role in ramping up for the Iraq war. She was the junior senator from New York, not a member of the Bush administration that spearheaded the thing.
Stuff that happened while she was Secretary of State makes more sense to criticize her for. Some of which is fair, other which is exaggerated or false.
Not a personal fan of hers, but she’s also not the devil incarnate either.
