CDZ Question to Anti Free speech believers

I've never met a liberal who believes "the government should have the power to force a certain way of speaking".

You've built quite the strawman to fight.


Oh please, just look at Franco here and he would post point blank he wished the fairness doctrine was back

The fairness doctrine is not the same thing, no matter what those right wing talking heads told you.


I'm 52, I lived through it and no exactly when talk radio took off on the AM dial the year after it was ended.

So stop with the propaganda it don't make you look smart with me.

Yes. That's when right wing propaganda took off. Also when all the vitriolic division in our country took off.

If only you could again outlaw opposition speech, you would return to the unfettered power you once enjoyed.
 
Exactly what do you think I'm denying?

Watch the videos I posted and tell me they're not propaganda.

I'm shocked that a child, and I presume her mother, would want a war in their home stopped. Yes. That's definitely a sign of some nefarious actions. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't want a war with chlorine gas and so much death to be present in their every day life.
However, it does nothing to show the so called "deep state" that you have manufactured in your head.


Are you really that dense? She has no idea wtf she's saying, she's just sounding out english words! Her mom is reading the script right along with her, watch her eyes... Jesus christ what is wrong with you people... No comment on the second video? Just gonna ignore that?

And this proves the existence of an omnipotent "deep state" how?
 
Exactly what do you think I'm denying?

Watch the videos I posted and tell me they're not propaganda.

I'm shocked that a child, and I presume her mother, would want a war in their home stopped. Yes. That's definitely a sign of some nefarious actions. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't want a war with chlorine gas and so much death to be present in their every day life.
However, it does nothing to show the so called "deep state" that you have manufactured in your head.


This girl was used as a pawn, she was all over twitter for months making rather eloquent posts for a 7 year old child who can't speak english. Here's another video where she's asked what her favorite food is and she replies: saaave duh cheeeldren ov seeria



You might have something if she said "saaave duh cheeeldren ov seeria for the Deep State."
 
I mean in general to those that believe in government having this kind of power if I did not make that clear then I apologies

You're talking to a pretty small crowd then. I never met anybody that wanted what you claim. That's crazy.
Perhaps but when a law is made that does give government the power to do this it couldn't have been done with one CRAZY politician.
Maybe this is quite large but people who are trying for this don't see it in a manner of more gov power but as a tool to remove an opposition.

Care to point out ANYONE, politician or not, who wants what you describe?

Speaking of straw man arguments....

{(CNSNews.com) – Democratic Representatives Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) renewed their call for a constitutional amendment that would limit the First Amendment rights of political action groups and corporations by overturning the Citizens United decision.}

Democrats Call for New Amendment to Limit First Amendment Rights

The democrats in this nation are in an open war to end the Bill of Rights.

View attachment 148594

Citizens United is not about free speech. It's about unlimited money, and should be overturned.
 
I've never met a liberal who believes "the government should have the power to force a certain way of speaking".

You've built quite the strawman to fight.


Oh please, just look at Franco here and he would post point blank he wished the fairness doctrine was back

The fairness doctrine is not the same thing, no matter what those right wing talking heads told you.


I'm 52, I lived through it and no exactly when talk radio took off on the AM dial the year after it was ended.

So stop with the propaganda it don't make you look smart with me.

Yes. That's when right wing propaganda took off. Also when all the vitriolic division in our country took off.

If only you could again outlaw opposition speech, you would return to the unfettered power you once enjoyed.

If you say so.
 
I mean in general to those that believe in government having this kind of power if I did not make that clear then I apologies

You're talking to a pretty small crowd then. I never met anybody that wanted what you claim. That's crazy.
Perhaps but when a law is made that does give government the power to do this it couldn't have been done with one CRAZY politician.
Maybe this is quite large but people who are trying for this don't see it in a manner of more gov power but as a tool to remove an opposition.

Care to point out ANYONE, politician or not, who wants what you describe?

Speaking of straw man arguments....

{(CNSNews.com) – Democratic Representatives Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) renewed their call for a constitutional amendment that would limit the First Amendment rights of political action groups and corporations by overturning the Citizens United decision.}

Democrats Call for New Amendment to Limit First Amendment Rights

The democrats in this nation are in an open war to end the Bill of Rights.

View attachment 148594

Citizens United is not about free speech. It's about unlimited money, and should be overturned.

Citizens United is about the right of people to engage in political speech, which your filthy and treasonous party attempted to crush.CU is the most important decision confirming the right of Americans to speak in the history of the nation. An attempt was made to outlaw speech by anyone but the corrupt DNC controlled news media.

Beyond that though, review the Howard Dean tweet, he is openly calling for the end of the first amendment.

You democrats are engaged in a hot war to end civil rights, particularly the first amendment.
 
You're talking to a pretty small crowd then. I never met anybody that wanted what you claim. That's crazy.
Perhaps but when a law is made that does give government the power to do this it couldn't have been done with one CRAZY politician.
Maybe this is quite large but people who are trying for this don't see it in a manner of more gov power but as a tool to remove an opposition.

Care to point out ANYONE, politician or not, who wants what you describe?

Speaking of straw man arguments....

{(CNSNews.com) – Democratic Representatives Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) renewed their call for a constitutional amendment that would limit the First Amendment rights of political action groups and corporations by overturning the Citizens United decision.}

Democrats Call for New Amendment to Limit First Amendment Rights

The democrats in this nation are in an open war to end the Bill of Rights.

View attachment 148594

Citizens United is not about free speech. It's about unlimited money, and should be overturned.

Citizens United is about the right of people to engage in political speech, which your filthy and treasonous party attempted to crush.CU is the most important decision confirming the right of Americans to speak in the history of the nation. An attempt was made to outlaw speech by anyone but the corrupt DNC controlled news media.

Beyond that though, review the Howard Dean tweet, he is openly calling for the end of the first amendment.

You democrats are engaged in a hot war to end civil rights, particularly the first amendment.

Howard Dean calling for the end of the first amendment? You gotta have a credible link for that.
 
And this proves the existence of an omnipotent "deep state" how?

Who said they're omnipotent? They're pretty damn clumsy if you ask me, hardly godlike. Those videos I showed you are so obviously propaganda, the people pulling the strings must be awfully stupid to think we'd fall for it. Maybe they're afflicted with the same gullible childlike nature as you and most of the liberals on this forum. It'd be kinda endearing, if the stakes weren't so high. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but wtf? No skepticism even after what I showed you? You're just gonna be like sheep led to the slaughter..?

Whatever happened to the anti-war left? Do you really want to send men to die to depose yet another dictator, based on a pack of lies? Didn't you learn anything from the Iraq war? Haven't you ever heard of the military industrial complex? War generates big bucks for the profiteers... You're obstinacy is based on Trump isn't it? Because he didn't want to get involved with syria, you want to do the opposite just out of spite for him and "the right"...
 
And this proves the existence of an omnipotent "deep state" how?

Who said they're omnipotent? They're pretty damn clumsy if you ask me, hardly godlike. Those videos I showed you are so obviously propaganda, the people pulling the strings must be awfully stupid to think we'd fall for it. Maybe they're afflicted with the same gullible childlike nature as you and most of the liberals on this forum. It'd be kinda endearing, if the stakes weren't so high. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but wtf? No skepticism even after what I showed you? You're just gonna be like sheep led to the slaughter..?

Whatever happened to the anti-war left? Do you really want to send men to die to depose yet another dictator, based on a pack of lies? Didn't you learn anything from the Iraq war? Haven't you ever heard of the military industrial complex? War generates big bucks for the profiteers... You're obstinacy is based on Trump isn't it? Because he didn't want to get involved with syria, you want to do the opposite just out of spite for him and "the right"...

So you think an incompetent group took control of the EU, and are now working on the US. Got it.
When Did I say I wanted to send troops anywhere to depose anyone?
 
That's what the propaganda machine wanted us to do, initiate a full on assault to take out Assad. You think it would have been easy..? Just poof and he's gone? I was seriously disappointed when Trump allowed that airfield to be bombed but I'm glad it stopped there. The Syrian people want Assad to remain in power, it's not up to us to decide anyway. And yes, the EU is pretty goddamned incompetent.
 
The fairness doctrine is not the same thing,.


True dat.

If it were in place today, CNN and MSNBC would be in big trouble for their slanted reporting.*



* and calling it "reporting" is an insult to the very institution that was in place when the fairness doctrine prevailed.
 
That's what the propaganda machine wanted us to do, initiate a full on assault to take out Assad. You think it would have been easy..? Just poof and he's gone? I was seriously disappointed when Trump allowed that airfield to be bombed but I'm glad it stopped there. The Syrian people want Assad to remain in power, it's not up to us to decide anyway. And yes, the EU is pretty goddamned incompetent.

Are you looking for an argument from me? That airfield was nothing but a stupid photo-op so that obese orange fool could say he did something. It was never intended to stop, or even slow down activity at that airport.
 
The fairness doctrine is not the same thing,.


True dat.

If it were in place today, CNN and MSNBC would be in big trouble for their slanted reporting.*



* and calling it "reporting" is an insult to the very institution that was in place when the fairness doctrine prevailed.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, whoever is harmed by it will just have to get over it.
 
The fairness doctrine is not the same thing,.


True dat.

If it were in place today, CNN and MSNBC would be in big trouble for their slanted reporting.*



* and calling it "reporting" is an insult to the very institution that was in place when the fairness doctrine prevailed.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, whoever is harmed by it will just have to get over it.


Works for me.

I miss the fairness doctrine ,myself. I would like to see the right having less of a stranglehold on A.M. radio and the left less of a stranglehold on everything else.
 
The fairness doctrine is not the same thing,.


True dat.

If it were in place today, CNN and MSNBC would be in big trouble for their slanted reporting.*



* and calling it "reporting" is an insult to the very institution that was in place when the fairness doctrine prevailed.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, whoever is harmed by it will just have to get over it.


Works for me.

I miss the fairness doctrine ,myself. I would like to see the right having less of a stranglehold on A.M. radio and the left less of a stranglehold on everything else.
A question I asked in the head post

How do you make sure that the ones that have the power over this do not abuse it for their own agenda?

If majority of government is democrat republicans are unrightfully screwed and vice versa.

If the government was made up of nothing but honest men and women perhaps it would work but giving power to people who have proven to use their power in ways that only serve themselves and not everyone is a baaaaaad idea no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on.
 
The fairness doctrine is not the same thing,.


True dat.

If it were in place today, CNN and MSNBC would be in big trouble for their slanted reporting.*



* and calling it "reporting" is an insult to the very institution that was in place when the fairness doctrine prevailed.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, whoever is harmed by it will just have to get over it.


Works for me.

I miss the fairness doctrine ,myself. I would like to see the right having less of a stranglehold on A.M. radio and the left less of a stranglehold on everything else.
A question I asked in the head post

How do you make sure that the ones that have the power over this do not abuse it for their own agenda?

If majority of government is democrat republicans are unrightfully screwed and vice versa.

If the government was made up of nothing but honest men and women perhaps it would work but giving power to people who have proven to use their power in ways that only serve themselves and not everyone is a baaaaaad idea no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on.

Because the rules are set to allow fairness for everyone, and they are not changed on a whim. Any changes must be made in the law.
 
The fairness doctrine is not the same thing,.


True dat.

If it were in place today, CNN and MSNBC would be in big trouble for their slanted reporting.*



* and calling it "reporting" is an insult to the very institution that was in place when the fairness doctrine prevailed.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, whoever is harmed by it will just have to get over it.


Works for me.

I miss the fairness doctrine ,myself. I would like to see the right having less of a stranglehold on A.M. radio and the left less of a stranglehold on everything else.
A question I asked in the head post

How do you make sure that the ones that have the power over this do not abuse it for their own agenda?

If majority of government is democrat republicans are unrightfully screwed and vice versa.

If the government was made up of nothing but honest men and women perhaps it would work but giving power to people who have proven to use their power in ways that only serve themselves and not everyone is a baaaaaad idea no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on.

Because the rules are set to allow fairness for everyone, and they are not changed on a whim. Any changes must be made in the law.
ah so it comes down too what would the law say exactly and how its enforced but still the margin for error in this law seems far to great. I would have to read some versions of it to see if there is a way to perfect such a law.
I'm going to read up on it some more and see some arguments on both sides of this.
 
okay after a little bit of research the flaws seem clear and I feel dumb for not thinking of some.
Feel free to tell me your idea on how to fix these flaws if you got one.

1. The resources needed to oversee so many outlets would cost quite a bit so even more money would need to be taken from the people to enforce it.

2.impossible to determine what is fair since its subjective so It would come down to FCC bureaucrats deciding who's outlet is fair or not. Power to human beings that have agendas.
 
True dat.

If it were in place today, CNN and MSNBC would be in big trouble for their slanted reporting.*



* and calling it "reporting" is an insult to the very institution that was in place when the fairness doctrine prevailed.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, whoever is harmed by it will just have to get over it.


Works for me.

I miss the fairness doctrine ,myself. I would like to see the right having less of a stranglehold on A.M. radio and the left less of a stranglehold on everything else.
A question I asked in the head post

How do you make sure that the ones that have the power over this do not abuse it for their own agenda?

If majority of government is democrat republicans are unrightfully screwed and vice versa.

If the government was made up of nothing but honest men and women perhaps it would work but giving power to people who have proven to use their power in ways that only serve themselves and not everyone is a baaaaaad idea no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on.

Because the rules are set to allow fairness for everyone, and they are not changed on a whim. Any changes must be made in the law.
ah so it comes down too what would the law say exactly and how its enforced but still the margin for error in this law seems far to great. I would have to read some versions of it to see if there is a way to perfect such a law.
I'm going to read up on it some more and see some arguments on both sides of this.

Good idea.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top