Criminal charges if government says your speech is propaganda?
- Thread starter seminole97
- Start date
baloney, she had nothing to do with the intelligence. She actually came across the aisle to vote with the republicans.
Are you suggesting Kamala Harris should end her campaign?
Politics is just over and done with? Baseless claims?
You are really in favor of that? Didn’t think that through did you?
You are asking the wrong guy. He is completely confused and has no clue on anything. He falls for all the propaganda and can't reason or think straight at all. He's nuts.
as direct responses to comments i made...
you said "Have a better example, we can use it instead" which implies you can't think of a better example of a lying politician related to the iraq war (a subject you brought up and connected to hillary and no one else)
also, tony the tiger said "she bears a big part of the responsibility"...self explanatory
Wow, you went straight to the worst talking point ever. There is zero proof of this, zero. It may hold up in the GOP court of opinion but there is absolutely no CREDIBLE evidence this is happening. None. Try again.
You got the first half right, then you built a strawman and spent a while discussing it.
I brought up Hillary's lying past because she's the one peddling neocon propaganda and leaving thousands of corpses in her wake, but then has the audacity to go on TV saying we should prosecute people for propaganda.
Can't we just admire the hypocrisy for a minute?
The use of whataboutism going on in this thread is some of the dumbest shit I have ever seen.
I can only hope that those employing it are trying to point out that no politician should ever ever ever have the power to decide what is truth and what is propaganda and mete out punishment based on those decisions.
Even if something is very obviously propaganda, government should have no say as to whether or not the populace is allowed to see it.
I can only hope that those employing it are trying to point out that no politician should ever ever ever have the power to decide what is truth and what is propaganda and mete out punishment based on those decisions.
Even if something is very obviously propaganda, government should have no say as to whether or not the populace is allowed to see it.
Going to report Bloomberg to Hillary Clinton Censorship Czar?
Venezuela’s Violent Deaths Fall to 22-Year Low on Migration
- Rate is the lowest since 2001, violence observatory say
“Venezuela's rate of violent deaths dropped to its lowest level in more than two decades following years of massive migration as both criminals and victims fled the nation's economic crisis.“
No I think this fits.
Psychopathy - Wikipedia
“Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality, is a personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, impulsive, egocentric traits, masked by superficial charm and the outward appearance of apparent normalcy.“
No empathy or remorse to Bill’s victims.
Suggesting to drone Julian Assange.
Fomenting death and destruction throughout Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen as Secretary of State. No shame, no remorse.
I'm not the one here making claims that and then not backing them up with evidence.
I’ve begun assuming that they’re all lying MF’ers taking money or buying votes and sort it out from there.
Sad times.
And where does it say their jails were emptied and criminals were "imported" here by Biden. It seems your team is taking a stat and making a some unproven liberties with it to support your narrative.
The fact that crime is down in the US doesn't really support your notion that we're importing crime. Maybe Biden is just really bad at that.
My guess is that instead of trying to prove your point, you'll just attack the messenger or the data and tell me how its somehow wrong.
What the data says about crime in the U.S.
Federal statistics show dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s.
www.pewresearch.org
Last edited:
Problem is that you might approach it skeptically but a lot of people are convincing people of things that are things that foreign governments want to change about our policy and they are paying people to say that.
If you have to say "The following content is sponsored by the Government of the Russian Federation" people might approach it a little more critically.
I guess that I am not someone who believes in the Uniparty theory.
Where/when/how did you come to believe in that? There are some major differences between our 2 major parties today, wouldn't you say?
