https://youtu.be/xJfUXVOoFBo?si=BpK-OcCgW613nITQ
Hard to get past the first minutes of poisonous demagoguery. Is there a policy in there somewhere?
Its funny, because Mr. "Fake News" is now somehow a free speech advocate.
Winger would be proud.
I love that I can feel you seething with every thread you start on Trump. It’s a glorious feeling.
.gif "Laughing")
(11-10-2024, 04:08 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]https://youtu.be/xJfUXVOoFBo?si=BpK-OcCgW613nITQ
Hard to get past the first minutes of poisonous demagoguery. Is there a policy in there somewhere?
Its funny, because Mr. "Fake News" is now somehow a free speech advocate.
Winger would be proud.
It's a taunt speech, not that different you from the one you might see from Randy Orton any given Monday night. Only difference is Trump puts one out every other day or so.
His fans have learned to appreciate it as such.
They think people like you are suckers for taking it seriously.
Worse, because you are disagreeing with them, they will label you a "lib", and express pleasure in making you angry.
(11-10-2024, 04:08 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]https://youtu.be/xJfUXVOoFBo?si=BpK-OcCgW613nITQ
Hard to get past the first minutes of poisonous demagoguery. Is there a policy in there somewhere?
Its funny, because Mr. "Fake News" is now somehow a free speech advocate.
Winger would be proud.
Perhaps this should be posted in the melt down string?
(11-10-2024, 05:55 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 04:08 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]https://youtu.be/xJfUXVOoFBo?si=BpK-OcCgW613nITQ
Hard to get past the first minutes of poisonous demagoguery. Is there a policy in there somewhere?
Its funny, because Mr. "Fake News" is now somehow a free speech advocate.
Winger would be proud.
Perhaps this should be posted in the melt down string?
I have a concept of the intention to do that.
(11-10-2024, 06:06 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 05:55 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps this should be posted in the melt down string?
I have a concept of the intention to do that.
Kamela tell you to say that ? ...
Maybe someone can explain to me what the hell he's talking about. Because it seems to me he's fighting against imaginary forces. But maybe I'm missing something.
(11-10-2024, 06:07 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 06:06 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]I have a concept of the intention to do that.
Kamela tell you to say that ? ...
He's burdened by whats to come lololol
(11-10-2024, 06:07 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 06:06 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]I have a concept of the intention to do that.
Kamela tell you to say that ? ...
What's the problem? Don't you know what the policy is? Just give it to us in a nutshell. Or isn't there one?
(11-10-2024, 06:17 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 06:07 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Kamela tell you to say that ? ...
What's the problem? Don't you know what the policy is? Just give it to us in a nutshell. Or isn't there one?
Policy: Figure out what makes libbies cry and then do it.
(11-10-2024, 06:13 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe someone can explain to me what the hell he's talking about. Because it seems to me he's fighting against imaginary forces. But maybe I'm missing something.
Lots of cutaways and pauses in that vid. He's having trouble even reading off a telepromoter.
Trump 2015-present.
Left. Left left. Left left left left LEFT left left radical left left activists left corrupt left left enemy left leftiffie left.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Pete's breakin down..
Can't wait for the tictok video lololol
(11-10-2024, 06:13 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe someone can explain to me what the hell he's talking about. Because it seems to me he's fighting against imaginary forces. But maybe I'm missing something.
ok I'll try. A couple of examples may be easier.
First let's take the Jobs report produced by the labor department. Remember how Biden was promoting how well he has done creating Jobs? Recently after the Fed said it did not use it as it was less than accurate. The administration then was forced to adjust it reducing the jobs reported by the Department of Labor by a historical 800,000+ jobs in the run up to elections. Some say it was actually 1.1 million. At that point the Dems went silent not mentioning it during the campaign. The news agencies did not mention it much at all.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/202...886965007/
Second, the FBI and Biden crowed about the reduction in crime under him. Well until the FBI quietly was forced to revise the numbers....from 1.7% to 4.5%. Once again the Dems had to shut up bragging about this.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1tiyle
There are many more on a government level. Also a few large companies did some stuff. You can tell the ones that did by the lack of aggressive anti-trust investigations against them. Law fare on a corporate level.
best I could do sorry...
(11-10-2024, 06:40 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 06:13 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe someone can explain to me what the hell he's talking about. Because it seems to me he's fighting against imaginary forces. But maybe I'm missing something.
ok I'll try. A couple of examples may be easier.
First let's take the Jobs report produced by the labor department. Remember how Biden was promoting how well he has done creating Jobs? Recently after the Fed said it did not use it as it was less than accurate. The administration then was forced to adjust it reducing the jobs reported by the Department of Labor by a historical 800,000+ jobs in the run up to elections. Some say it was actually 1.1 million. At that point the Dems went silent not mentioning it during the campaign. The news agencies did not mention it much at all.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/202...886965007/
Second, the FBI and Biden crowed about the reduction in crime under him. Well until the FBI quietly was forced to revise the numbers....from 1.7% to 4.5%. Once again the Dems had to shut up bragging about this.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1tiyle
There are many more on a government level. Also a few large companies did some stuff. You can tell the ones that did by the lack of aggressive anti-trust investigations against them. Law fare on a corporate level.
best I could do sorry...
So, who was practicing
censorship in those cases? The Dems have a Constitutional right to not talk about anything they want to not talk about. So do the news agencies. So do large companies. All those entities have a Constitutional right to talk or not talk about anything. And, thankfully, the government does not have a right to make someone say or not say anything.
Now, if the Labor Department deliberately misstated the jobs numbers, that would be something, but that's not censorship. It might be fraud or something, but that's not censorship.
Now, if he aimed this idea of his at universities who take government money and then censor conservative speakers, I would be in favor of that. I don't think they should get government funds and then censor conservatives. But of course if you prevent them from censoring anyone, they'd have to let Hamas speak, or ISIS, or some group that wants kids to have sex change operations. No censorship means no censorship. You can't do it halfway. It's either free speech or it's not.
(11-10-2024, 06:06 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 05:55 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps this should be posted in the melt down string?
I have a concept of the intention to do that.
He’s definitely being burdened by that has-been.
(11-10-2024, 07:14 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 06:40 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]ok I'll try. A couple of examples may be easier.
First let's take the Jobs report produced by the labor department. Remember how Biden was promoting how well he has done creating Jobs? Recently after the Fed said it did not use it as it was less than accurate. The administration then was forced to adjust it reducing the jobs reported by the Department of Labor by a historical 800,000+ jobs in the run up to elections. Some say it was actually 1.1 million. At that point the Dems went silent not mentioning it during the campaign. The news agencies did not mention it much at all.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/202...886965007/
Second, the FBI and Biden crowed about the reduction in crime under him. Well until the FBI quietly was forced to revise the numbers....from 1.7% to 4.5%. Once again the Dems had to shut up bragging about this.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1tiyle
There are many more on a government level. Also a few large companies did some stuff. You can tell the ones that did by the lack of aggressive anti-trust investigations against them. Law fare on a corporate level.
best I could do sorry...
So, who was practicing censorship in those cases? The Dems have a Constitutional right to not talk about anything they want to not talk about. So do the news agencies. So do large companies. All those entities have a Constitutional right to talk or not talk about anything. And, thankfully, the government does not have a right to make someone say or not say anything.
Now, if the Labor Department deliberately misstated the jobs numbers, that would be something, but that's not censorship. It might be fraud or something, but that's not censorship.
Now, if he aimed this idea of his at universities who take government money and then censor conservative speakers, I would be in favor of that. I don't think they should get government funds and then censor conservatives. But of course if you prevent them from censoring anyone, they'd have to let Hamas speak, or ISIS, or some group that wants kids to have sex change operations. No censorship means no censorship. You can't do it halfway. It's either free speech or it's not.
Shouldn’t the news agencies report the news? You don’t think the numbers used to tout how well the country is doing being so much different than they actually are is news? Cuz if you’re not reporting news that is bad for one particular side, you’re no longer a news source but a mouth piece of a political party.
(11-10-2024, 07:14 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2024, 06:40 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]ok I'll try. A couple of examples may be easier.
First let's take the Jobs report produced by the labor department. Remember how Biden was promoting how well he has done creating Jobs? Recently after the Fed said it did not use it as it was less than accurate. The administration then was forced to adjust it reducing the jobs reported by the Department of Labor by a historical 800,000+ jobs in the run up to elections. Some say it was actually 1.1 million. At that point the Dems went silent not mentioning it during the campaign. The news agencies did not mention it much at all.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/202...886965007/
Second, the FBI and Biden crowed about the reduction in crime under him. Well until the FBI quietly was forced to revise the numbers....from 1.7% to 4.5%. Once again the Dems had to shut up bragging about this.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1tiyle
There are many more on a government level. Also a few large companies did some stuff. You can tell the ones that did by the lack of aggressive anti-trust investigations against them. Law fare on a corporate level.
best I could do sorry...
So, who was practicing censorship in those cases? The Dems have a Constitutional right to not talk about anything they want to not talk about. So do the news agencies. So do large companies. All those entities have a Constitutional right to talk or not talk about anything. And, thankfully, the government does not have a right to make someone say or not say anything.
Now, if the Labor Department deliberately misstated the jobs numbers, that would be something, but that's not censorship. It might be fraud or something, but that's not censorship.
Now, if he aimed this idea of his at universities who take government money and then censor conservative speakers, I would be in favor of that. I don't think they should get government funds and then censor conservatives. But of course if you prevent them from censoring anyone, they'd have to let Hamas speak, or ISIS, or some group that wants kids to have sex change operations. No censorship means no censorship. You can't do it halfway. It's either free speech or it's not.
I covered it there. I don't have any links as articles about it are frowned upon.
Yep the legacy media and corporation have the rights you speak of. The issue is why were the "books cooked" in the run up to the elections? Who is directing Universities to decide what speakers they approve. Why do they relax security when those they can't stop speak and let people run wild. Let's see if we can find out. Cannot hurt.
I do wish I was a paper shredder salesman about now.
![[Image: giphy.webp]](https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExNW90ZnE0YThtcGlzemJjZmFqbzFjOGFlb3lxYmNrZGE2M2RzcjBybyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/l4EoTLaoFuQ3Us372/giphy.webp)