(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.

---