JD Vance on free speech

Does free speech lead to dictatorship?

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 18 100.0%

  • Total voters
    18
60 minutes likes to pretend they are non-partisan. Then they edit the Harris interview to make her look better.
Which is irrelevant. It is perfectly legal to be ultrapartisan. Having an opinion and expressing speech in support of that opinion is not a campaign contribution.
 
Which is irrelevant. It is perfectly legal to be ultrapartisan. Having an opinion and expressing speech in support of that opinion is not a campaign contribution.

Not when there are rules governing what you can do with candidates for an election on the airwaves.

You notice when they are stating opinion, they say it out front. Here they edited the interview to make Harris look good, and only released the unedited version when pushed to.
 
“They’re just sitting there like, ‘Hey, yeah, we’re proud of this. This is great,’ and laugh about it,” Gray continues, adding, “and she’s smiling as she’s asking them the questions.”
Europeons- and American liberals - have no idea what freedom really is.
 
Not when there are rules governing what you can do with candidates for an election on the airwaves.

You notice when they are stating opinion, they say it out front. Here they edited the interview to make Harris look good, and only released the unedited version when pushed to.
And now you're switching your argument from FEC rules to FCC rules.

Do you notice when you abandon a bullshit argument to bring up another bullshit argument?
 
And now you're switching your argument from FEC rules to FCC rules.

Do you notice when you abandon a bullshit argument to bring up another bullshit argumen

It's fun to watch you squirm and defend hackery.
 
It's fun to watch you squirm and defend hackery.
Actually you’re the one squirming.

First you started with campaign finance laws, which doesn’t work because speech is not a campaign contribution.

Now you’re changing your story to FCC broadcast rules which have nothing to do with campaign finance.

You’re at step 3, which is making silly personal attacks because you can’t defend your own bullshit arguments.
 
Actually you’re the one squirming.

First you started with campaign finance laws, which doesn’t work because speech is not a campaign contribution.

Now you’re changing your story to FCC broadcast rules which have nothing to do with campaign finance.

You’re at step 3, which is making silly personal attacks because you can’t defend your own bullshit arguments.

I was making valid personal attacks on you for years.

Having multiple reasons why 60 minutes was possibly doing something against campaign or other laws doesn't invalidate anything.
 
Kinda absurd for any Repub to think they have credibility on the subject of free speech when the excommunicate from the party anyone who is openly critical of Dear Leader.
 
I was making valid personal attacks on you for years.

Having multiple reasons why 60 minutes was possibly doing something against campaign or other laws doesn't invalidate anything.
Calling them valid is a bit funny because you can't defend them. Thats why you squirm and switch arguments so much.
 
Calling them valid is a bit funny because you can't defend them. Thats why you squirm and switch arguments so much.

I don't have to defend anything, most normal people on this board know you are a fucking mouthbreathing idiot.

Your only allies are your equally lame socks.
 
Germany's law on speech is none of Vance's business.
Why not?

If we notice some shitbags doing stupid stuff like censoring political speech, why can’t we warn the world about what a teeeible idea such censorship is?

Shitbags like taint seem damned insistent upon commenting our our government and its policies.

Naturally, only morons take his crap seriously. But he still has a right to spew his imbecility.
 
I don't have to defend anything, most normal people on this board know you are a fucking mouthbreathing idiot.

Your only allies are your equally lame socks.
You can't defend these absurd positions and you aren't. It's very apparent.
 
The fuck it is. Editorial decisions are protected speech, see Miami Herald v Tornillo. The idea that a news agency can't exercise editorial discretion is clearly unconstitutional.

Who cares if the leaders of this country are saying fascist things and convincing their followers that these fascist things are correct?

Gosh, I can't imagine why someone would care about that. You just want us to ignore the direction the country is going?
I heard someone say once that if you described fascism to a MAGA they would back every single one of it's tenants and that has proven to be absolutely true.

They do not like the label fascism because they know it is evil but if you take the label away they cheer for everything that makes a state fascist.

This is what happens when you have a team rather than ethics or values.
 
I heard someone say once that if you described fascism to a MAGA they would back every single one of it's tenants and that has proven to be absolutely true.

They do not like the label fascism because they know it is evil but if you take the label away they cheer for everything that makes a state fascist.

This is what happens when you have a team rather than ethics or values.
False claim from a retard.

Then again, we weren’t expecting honesty from a rancid twat.

(Edited for typo correction. You’re all welcome. 😎 )
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom