HenryBHough
Diamond Member
I smell CT.
Have you tried "Pristine" or "Summer's Eve"?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I smell CT.
You believe your views should be mandated by threat of government violence.I don't think that the warnings will be ignored this time.
Some of the same trump people who attacked the capitol in January now want to blow up the capitol and kill as many politicians as possible.
I hope all who are involved in this are found and their plots stopped.
Capitol Police chief warns extremists 'want to blow up the Capitol' when Biden addresses Congress
The acting chief said members of militia groups want to "kill as many members as possible" in an attack during Biden's coming address.www.nbcnews.com
Guilty without evidence eh?So, you want to make it illegal to say anything other than the Official Government Propaganda (that has repeatedly contradicted itself).For years, news media have claimed that the first amendment gives them the right to knowingly lie to o their viewers and spread misinformation.
I say that the only thing it does is prevent the government from dictating which stories they cover but that they still have the obligation to cover those stories as unbiased as possible. And that any intentional misinformation should be illegal especially if it causes harm to the public health such as conservative news the lying about covid
Freedom of speech doesn't mean a damn thing to leftists.
No I think news media should be prohibited from lying in order to promote particular political or social agenda. All news media should be required to report stories as truthfully as possible. And any intentional line or misinformation should be illegal.
The fact that conservative think that requiring their news media to report the truth is propaganda is very bad for this country and the Republican party in general. If the truth makes your side look bad and you are on the wrong side
They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
If you want to see the deleterious effects of disinformation, look no further than Trump, January 6th, 2021, and forums like this one.
Lawmakers Ask Big Cable Why They Let OANN and Newsmax Spread Disinformation – VICE
Lawmakers are demanding answers from Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cox, and other cable companies who have 'done nothing' to stop disinformation on OANN, Newsmax, and Fox News.www.vice.com
Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
It could be about the difference in rhetoric and policies.Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Hint: None.
It's not. It's about covering for the Democrat. Always has been.It could be about the difference in rhetoric and policies.Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Hint: None.
I agree to disagree; unless you agree that right wingers are the same or worse.It's not. It's about covering for the Democrat. Always has been.It could be about the difference in rhetoric and policies.Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Hint: None.
I have no obligation to validate your fantasies. And I don't care if you agree or disagree.I agree to disagree; unless you agree that right wingers are the same or worse.It's not. It's about covering for the Democrat. Always has been.It could be about the difference in rhetoric and policies.Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Hint: None.
Thanks. I think you have nothing but right wing fantasy, in that case.I have no obligation to validate your fantasies. And I don't care if you agree or disagree.I agree to disagree; unless you agree that right wingers are the same or worse.It's not. It's about covering for the Democrat. Always has been.It could be about the difference in rhetoric and policies.Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Hint: None.
One of us is right.Thanks. I think you have nothing but right wing fantasy, in that case.I have no obligation to validate your fantasies. And I don't care if you agree or disagree.I agree to disagree; unless you agree that right wingers are the same or worse.It's not. It's about covering for the Democrat. Always has been.It could be about the difference in rhetoric and policies.Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Hint: None.
If you want to see the deleterious effects of disinformation, look no further than Trump, January 6th, 2021, and forums like this one.
Lawmakers Ask Big Cable Why They Let OANN and Newsmax Spread Disinformation – VICE
Lawmakers are demanding answers from Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cox, and other cable companies who have 'done nothing' to stop disinformation on OANN, Newsmax, and Fox News.www.vice.com
All you need is a valid argument to prove it. It is not you.One of us is right.Thanks. I think you have nothing but right wing fantasy, in that case.I have no obligation to validate your fantasies. And I don't care if you agree or disagree.I agree to disagree; unless you agree that right wingers are the same or worse.It's not. It's about covering for the Democrat. Always has been.It could be about the difference in rhetoric and policies.Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Hint: None.
It's not you.
You've already made it plain that the only arguments you'll accept are those that support your own views.All you need is a valid argument to prove it. It is not you.One of us is right.Thanks. I think you have nothing but right wing fantasy, in that case.I have no obligation to validate your fantasies. And I don't care if you agree or disagree.I agree to disagree; unless you agree that right wingers are the same or worse.It's not. It's about covering for the Democrat. Always has been.It could be about the difference in rhetoric and policies.Uh huh. How many news organizations who were outraged at Trump's facilities for illegal immigrant children have criticized Biden for the same thing?You miss the point. It is about not taking practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy seriously.If you disagree with them, why are you too calling for a theocracy?Why does the "moral majority" want to be taken seriously?Are you calling for a theocracy? We don't do that in America.Job 34:30 applies especially since we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.View attachment 462698They should be asking right wing news organizations why they have no problem with false witness bearing or the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.
Censorship has less to do with our First Amendment.
Hint: None.
It's not you.