What he’s saying is that Caucasians and Asians are so much more advanced than blecks that seem otherworldly to the
how many people? unless you have a cable news show you're not even talking to 100 people a day. If you talk to 100 people a day it would take you 10 days to talk to 1000 people. It would take you 100 days to ten thousand people..
and it would take you 1,000 days to talk to 100K people
for reference Rachel maddow reaches 2 million people per night
you wouldn't even reach a fraction of that in 1000 days
talking to people is nice but it's not enougl .
you need to have a media apparatus that can reach tens of millions of people if you want to even make a dent..
the only way you can do that it was an honest presss
no its not a fundamental part of any democracy
thats a lie they told you
name one way in which the Free press is a fundamental part of democracy. there is no way that a media apparatus designed to lie to you is good for democracy. It means that the decisions you make and the people you vote for to vote for..
please explain how a free press is better than an honest press for democracy. I would rather have a completely non-free protest that was 100% honest than "free press that lies off
u are the news for trump supporters
but there are BILLIONS of people in the world who DONT go ti thedonald.win for news
u need ti care about more tyan the people ur immediately talking too
pedophilia is pedophilia. female supremacy isnt ok
theres no need for masks or lockdownss
vulnerable people should stay inside. everyone else should go back to workk
nobody can be an arbiter. The truth is the truth. however you can fine somebody when they provably lie
we have several investigations by democrats like Robert Mueller and Republicans in the Senate all proving that the Russia thing was a lie. so yes that's the arbiter of Truth. When both sides conduct multiple investigations and they all find the same thing I can say pretty substantially that that's the truth..
I'd rather not let lying journalist be the arbiters of truth either. I would much prefer people who conduct multiple investigations from both sides..
you're not preventing an arbiter of truth. You're just letting people like Rachel maddow be the arbiter of Truth..
that's what Libertarians don't understand. By fighting against one thing you're not stoppin it from happening. You're just putting it in the hands of somebody elsee
as far as being politically targeted? They can't be. The founding fathers set up a great way so that innocent people don't go to jail. it's called the courts. If you told the truth as a journalist and the Government tried to prosecute you you could go to court and the government would have to prove in front of a jury of your peers that you knowingly lied. If you can prove you told the truth then you're good. That's how they prevented government from becoming tyrannical..
who will sue them?
expect every American to take time out of their day and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars swing the media for every single headline?.
we can't even get lazy neocon conservatives up out of their ez chairs to go protest at an event that was already organized for them and you think they're going to have the motivation to go through all that work?? they're far too lazy
I can agree with this. And I would say that we can have them allowed to challenge it in court if they feel that they were accused of lying and they didn't. If they can prove in court that they didn't lie then not only will the fine be removed but the government will also pay their Court fee. I think that would be fair. Of course I think if there is a journalist that blatantly propagates disinformation knowingly to push a Marxist ideology and inspire terrorism in the streets that should be considered criminal. If they purposely pushed this information about police shootings in order to inspire people to burn down their cities and shoot cops that should be beyond afine. that should be a criminal presicutoon and they should be arrested
you can have freedom of speech without allowing this. Is Linux to every single right. there's not a single right that's absolute. we understand that we have to have laws in a country in order to have law and order. You can still say whatever you want. but if you join the press and you work for a news organization and you knowingly lie to misrepresent the truth and push a Marxist ideology that's no longer the same freedom of speech. When Rachel maddow is on the air she is not using her Free speech. Free speech is something anybody can do. You do not have a television show watched by millions of people. therefore what Rachel maddow is doing is not free speech because it's not something you can do. it's not what the average person has. it's beyond that. Rachel maddow could still go to a national park or just going to Central Park stand on a box and shout whatever conspiracy nonsense she can make up. but when you're on national TV that's beyond freedom of speech. Because not everybody has access to doing something like that. not everybody has a television show with millions of viewers. That's no longer the same. it's no longer free speech like what you would do..
so while Rachel maddow still would have free speech she could go onto a street corner and shout into a loudspeaker. When she's on are watched by millions of people and propagating herself as a news source she cannot say whatever she wants. Because it's not free speech anymore. You're on air..
once the camera turns off and she walks out of the building she can do whatever the fuck she wants. In front of that camera though? No dicee
we have undercover videos of them admitting it. there's at least three separate undercover videos with different CNN anchors producers etc admitting that what their we're publishing was not knowingly bullshit. They use the word that it was mostly bullshit. They knew damn well they were full of shit..
it actually inspired terrorism multiple times. do you think James hodgkinson would have shot up that baseball field and shot all those senators if it hadn't been for the Democrat media?.
how about the three separate times that some democrat terrorists firebombed the GOP headquarters? what about that Democrat terrorist that tried to bomb an ce facility?
or the Democrats burning down their cities over the lie that police Target black people..
the media should only be allowed to operate under the assumption that they are going to try to uphold the truth as much as possible. there's no reason to allow an organization to operate that's sole purpose and goal is to misinform the American public for political agenda. If that's their golden there's no reason to allow them to operate at all..
they're going to be pushing A Marxist agenda then why are we giving them a license to do it? The only reason the media should be allowed to operate is under the assumption that they are trying to spread the truth and uphold the truth as good as possible. When it's provable that they are not doing that they should lose the networkk. we don't need more Marxist organizations trying to subvert America. If you're going to be doing that I say ban them and arrrest them..
why? I think that's a hypocritical statement. If that was a 19 year old man making out with a 15 year old girl you would not say that the girl had a good time even if she was enjoying it
you would attack the guy is creepy and claimed that he raped her. or took advantage of her. And you probably wouldn't be wrong. so why is it suddenly okay when it's a woman?
if a 40 year old man even with rippling muscles and a Channing Tatum look started making out with a 15 year old girl people would be calling the put him in jail. but if a 40 year old woman looking like a Victoria's secret model made out with some high school strudent you be congratulating the studentt..
im getting 2020 of them
use a tshirt website and sell them
freedom of the press is a mistake because it allows marxists to say whatever they want
Minecraft can't use it and Republicans can't use it to punish their political enemies. The problem with libertarian is that they can only see suggested policies in the veign of "how can I use this against my enemies?""
this isn't meant to be used against your enemies. it's meant to apply even lie to everybody. That's what a lot is supposed to do. just this is supposed to be blind and Libertarians don't like that
thankfully they don't get a say. Democrats can't use it against their enemies any more than Republicans could. we have a court system proof to prevent that. In order to go to jail you have to be proven beyond A reasonable doubt through a thorough investigation any defense and prosecuting attorney and they have to be decided a jury of your peers. thanks to the courts no government can simply prosecute its political enemies..
courts will ensure that innocent journalists do not go to jail if Democrats don't like what they say. If you can prove that you told the truth or that you simply didn't know you were lying then you don't go to jail
even if you didn't know you were lying you might receive a fine but if you can prove that what you said was true then you're good..
example Rachel maddow could not prove that what she said was true. she wouldn't be able to prove that Trump was a secret agent of Russia. there's no evidence in fact multiple investigations found the opposite. she wouldn't be able to prove the president of the United States secretly colluded with a foreign country to somehow rigged the election. not only did Obama admit that wasn't true but even Obama's staff like James clapper admitted it wasn't truee
and those cases they would not be able to prove that what they reported was the truth. And they would be arrestedd
make it illegal for lefties to be in any institution
already had a law that commies couldn't be in government. let's enforce that law and expand it to university's schools police forces etc..
theyre number one in covid cases
also rated the most segregated place in the countryy
we need to stop allowing Democrats to vote. The world would be a better place if Democrats couldn't vote
journalist who I should go to jail. I'm tired of the pussyfooting around. They need to be serious consequences motivating this corrupt organization to tell the truth. They have no motivation to tell the truth and if they have no motivation to tell the truth they won't tell the truth. we need to give them motivation. If you're caught lying more than three times you go to jail for 30 days. If you do it another three times you go to jail for a year. if a network is caught lying consistently and provably intentionally the network can be banned from reporting the news from anywhere from six months to a year.
these enemies of America need to be worried about consequences for their destructive lies. If motivated terrorism. They push Marxism. They convinced black people the burn stores because they think that they're being targeted by cops. It needs to be
I don't care about anybody's excuses otherwise. You can't make a cohesive argument that punishing journalists would be worse than not punishing journalistss
and the left is EXTREMELY racist and openly black supremacist
if you dont subscribe ti their black supremacist orthedoxy they go after uu
we CANNOT let millenials take over the world
all I'm saying is that if it was still fake news before 2012 then the law
yer blaming can't possibly be the reasonn
do you think the press was honest before 2012?