Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something

[Ragnar]

"From such an unimpeachable source, too!"

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something « Hot Air

Everywhere else but Washington, this would qualify as high irony. In the Beltway, however, it only qualifies as another pathetic attack on free speech. Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday, telling CNBC that it would be “legitimate” for the government to create an agency to discredit political arguments and quash Internet rumors:

Bill Clinton: Create Internet agency - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.

“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.

The agency, Clinton said, would “have to be totally transparent about where the money came from” and would have to be “independent” because “if it’s a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet.”

Ed Morrissey nails it as per usual. "We have free speech primarily to hold government accountable, not the Internet." Also as per usual... Bill Clinton has the bass-ackwards view. (and a near fatal case of hypocrisy fever) Hey Billy Jeff! Don't go away mad, just go away.

 

[rdean]

Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob because he was afraid his wife would find out.

That's about the same as nearly every conservative and Republican male in the United States.

 

[Sallow]

"From such an unimpeachable source, too!"

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something « Hot Air

Everywhere else but Washington, this would qualify as high irony. In the Beltway, however, it only qualifies as another pathetic attack on free speech. Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday, telling CNBC that it would be “legitimate” for the government to create an agency to discredit political arguments and quash Internet rumors:

Bill Clinton: Create Internet agency - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.

“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.

The agency, Clinton said, would “have to be totally transparent about where the money came from” and would have to be “independent” because “if it’s a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet.”

Ed Morrissey nails it as per usual. "We have free speech primarily to hold government accountable, not the Internet." Also as per usual... Bill Clinton has the bass-ackwards view. (and a near fatal case of hypocrisy fever) Hey Billy Jeff! Don't go away mad, just go away.

I posted a thread on this a while back..that there should be some sort of non-partisan means of "certifying" news agencies.

Sort of like a better business bureau or something. And it should be completely voluntary.

But of course..it's a thorny issue..and rightly so.

 

[Ragnar]

Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob because he was afraid his wife would find out.

That's about the same as nearly every conservative and Republican male in the United States.

Meaning... we should have a NPRish/PBSish (thus U.S. taxpayer funded) or a United Naitions watchdog (thus U.S. taxpayer funded) "Ministry of Truth" for the Enter-Toobs?

No thank you.

 

[rdean]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday…

It’s a stupid idea – which goes without saying. But how does it preempt free speech? It seems the ‘agency’ would disclose factual corrections of misinformation. As long as the misinformation isn’t stifled or otherwise legislated against, there are no First Amendment violations.

It’s understandable why the right is opposed to this, howrver, misinformation is their stock in trade.

 

[xsited1]

"From such an unimpeachable source, too!"

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something « Hot Air
...

A stupid idea from a very stupid and immoral man. Anybody who defends Bill Clinton needs to have their head examined.

 

[Ragnar]

Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday…

It’s a stupid idea – which goes without saying. But how does it preempt free speech? It seems the ‘agency’ would disclose factual corrections of misinformation. As long as the misinformation isn’t stifled or otherwise legislated against, there are no First Amendment violations.

It’s understandable why the right is opposed to this, however, misinformation is their stock in trade.

It's understandable why the Left is not opposed to this, however, they lost Pravda when the USSR crashed and now they are losing dead tree news and control of the media is their stock in trade.

Sheesh.

You really think a government (international or otherwise) funded "electronic Pravda" would not be harmful? One can navigate the internet just fine as is: if you have the ability to think for yourself. I bet you can do it just fine. I know I can.

 

[code1211]

"From such an unimpeachable source, too!"

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something « Hot Air

Everywhere else but Washington, this would qualify as high irony. In the Beltway, however, it only qualifies as another pathetic attack on free speech. Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday, telling CNBC that it would be “legitimate” for the government to create an agency to discredit political arguments and quash Internet rumors:

Bill Clinton: Create Internet agency - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.

“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.

The agency, Clinton said, would “have to be totally transparent about where the money came from” and would have to be “independent” because “if it’s a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet.”

Ed Morrissey nails it as per usual. "We have free speech primarily to hold government accountable, not the Internet." Also as per usual... Bill Clinton has the bass-ackwards view. (and a near fatal case of hypocrisy fever) Hey Billy Jeff! Don't go away mad, just go away.

I posted a thread on this a while back..that there should be some sort of non-partisan means of "certifying" news agencies.

Sort of like a better business bureau or something. And it should be completely voluntary.

But of course..it's a thorny issue..and rightly so.

You don't need a ministry of truth to tell you if something is true or not. You just need a brain.

If it makes sense that something has happened given everything that you know about it, then you probably know all that happened.

If it doesn't make sense then you either don't have all the facts or the facts you accept as givens are untrue.

So, as a for instance, you believe in your heart that Bill Clinton was a bad President. During his terms, we are not at war, you get regular raises, your 401K triples and your life is fulfilling and rewarding. Is it more likely that Clinton was a bad president or that you are relying on "facts" that are not true?

You may think that The Big 0 is a good president and yet you lost your job, can't find another, ran out of unemployment, your wife divorced you, you lost your house and we are involved in 3 wars. Is it more likely that The Big 0 is a good president or that you are relying on facts that are not true?

We don't need a ministry of truth. We do need leaders that refrain from pissing on our collective hat and telling us it's raining.

 

[Sallow]

"From such an unimpeachable source, too!"

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something « Hot Air
...

A stupid idea from a very stupid and immoral man. Anybody who defends Bill Clinton needs to have their head examined.

Which moral standard are you going by to make such a claim?

If you are holding a standard of Bill Clinton vs. Conservative politicians..he holds up rather well with all but Eisenhower.

 

[code1211]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Facts have no party bias. However, parties have their own facts. The biased in the party tend to believe them without rational critique.

 

[code1211]

Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday…

It’s a stupid idea – which goes without saying. But how does it preempt free speech? It seems the ‘agency’ would disclose factual corrections of misinformation. As long as the misinformation isn’t stifled or otherwise legislated against, there are no First Amendment violations.

It’s understandable why the right is opposed to this, howrver, misinformation is their stock in trade.

You can't be this gullible.

 

[Sallow]

"From such an unimpeachable source, too!"

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something « Hot Air



Bill Clinton: Create Internet agency - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com



Ed Morrissey nails it as per usual. "We have free speech primarily to hold government accountable, not the Internet." Also as per usual... Bill Clinton has the bass-ackwards view. (and a near fatal case of hypocrisy fever) Hey Billy Jeff! Don't go away mad, just go away.

I posted a thread on this a while back..that there should be some sort of non-partisan means of "certifying" news agencies.

Sort of like a better business bureau or something. And it should be completely voluntary.

But of course..it's a thorny issue..and rightly so.

You don't need a ministry of truth to tell you if something is true or not. You just need a brain.

If it makes sense that something has happened given everything that you know about it, then you probably know all that happened.

If it doesn't make sense then you either don't have all the facts or the facts you accept as givens are untrue.

So, as a for instance, you believe in your heart that Bill Clinton was a bad President. During his terms, we are not at war, you get regular raises, your 401K triples and your life is fulfilling and rewarding. Is it more likely that Clinton was a bad president or that you are relying on "facts" that are not true?

You may think that The Big 0 is a good president and yet you lost your job, can't find another, ran out of unemployment, your wife divorced you, you lost your house and we are involved in 3 wars. Is it more likely that The Big 0 is a good president or that you are relying on facts that are not true?

We don't need a ministry of truth. We do need leaders that refrain from pissing on our collective hat and telling us it's raining.

That's ridiculous.

FOX has ran news stories that has even bamboozled the present administration into seeking resignations of it's officials. And they've turned out to be out of context or completely false. Additionally they've manufactured a movement that changed the politcal landscape recently. It should not take months..or even weeks..until after the damage has been done..to help the public figure out that these stories were incorrect.

But there is a real danger in having government undertake the task of determining what is truth and what is not.

That is why this is such a very thorny issue.

 

[Sallow]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

Facts have no party bias. However, parties have their own facts. The biased in the party tend to believe them without rational critique.

Actually..that's correct.

Facts do have a liberal bias. It's not about party. It's about taking into account all sides of a story with some level of objectivity.

Cronkite pointed that out rather nicely.

And he was..and still is the gold standard in journalism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You can't be this gullible.

I’m not the issue.

Explain to us how the mechanics of the proposal preempt free expression.

 

[code1211]

"From such an unimpeachable source, too!"

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something « Hot Air
...

A stupid idea from a very stupid and immoral man. Anybody who defends Bill Clinton needs to have their head examined.

In spite of everything, I'd love to have another 8 years with an explosively expanding economy, no foreign wars and reduced deficits.

If you can refer me to a place to get some good head examination, I will be pleased to get some good head examination.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob because he was afraid his wife would find out.

That's about the same as nearly every conservative and Republican male in the United States.

You certainly missed the point, why am I not surprised?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

What would happen to your universe if this hypothetical agency certified Fox as truthful, fair, and balanced? Would that mean that you would be the half of the country that had a problem with it?

 

[Sallow]

This would only play well with half of the nation.

The other half believes what ever Fox news says, no matter how outrageous, no matter the proof.

Facts have a liberal bias.

What would happen to your universe if this hypothetical agency certified Fox as truthful, fair, and balanced? Would that mean that you would be the half of the country that had a problem with it?

Well first it would take something in the measure of a 180 degree turn around for that to happen.

No one believes that. Even people working there.

 

[Avorysuds]

Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob because he was afraid his wife would find out.

That's about the same as nearly every conservative and Republican male in the United States.

Then he wrote a book about fucking every prostitute he came across because he was scared his wife would find out...

You're a fucking idiot Rtard.