petep
Legend
Posts: 26,031
|
Post by petep on Sept 24, 2024 16:09:06 GMT
Basically banned govt from spreading propaganda true or not inside the us. To us citizens. Passed in 1948 Changed by Obama in 2013 to allow it. Now I understand better the argument Biden Harris made in front of the Supreme Court that they should be allowed to have the fbi etc pay visits to media to tell them what is true and not true www.smithmundt.com/about/ |
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 6,239
|
Post by sokpupet on Sept 24, 2024 16:18:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 24, 2024 16:29:46 GMT
petep has always been in favor of transparency in government.. unless it leads to an informed citizenry .. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,031
|
Post by petep on Sept 24, 2024 16:37:55 GMT
petep has always been in favor of transparency in government.. unless it leads to an informed citizenry .. Yet the argument the Biden admin made in the Missouri Supreme Court case is it doesn’t matter if govt knowingly lies to media as govt enjoys the same free speech rights as does any citizen. And this Obama era change allowed it. That’s not transparency. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 24, 2024 16:57:04 GMT
What we pump out to the rest of the world is literal propaganda.
There’s a reason it wasn’t historically allowed domestically.
And now the left champions overturning that barrier. Because the fence is in the way. Take it down with no thought on why it was built.
Let the government tell us how great everything is.
Soon we’ll hear about how American presidents shot 18 holes in one at the golf course.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,031
|
Post by petep on Sept 24, 2024 17:02:25 GMT
What we pump out to the rest of the world is literal propaganda. There’s a reason it wasn’t historically allowed domestically. And now the left champions overturning that barrier. Because the fence is in the way. Take it down with no thought on why it was built. Let the government tell us how great everything is. Soon we’ll hear about how American presidents shot 18 holes in one at the golf course. Your analogy will get lost on the left. The beauty of state run media www.espn.com/espn/page2/index/_/id/7369649 |
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,821
|
Post by RWB on Sept 24, 2024 17:53:12 GMT
petep has always been in favor of transparency in government.. unless it leads to an informed citizenry .. NO surprise low/no IQ Fiddler supports the corrupt Democrats being able to post lies since he's so good at posting lies also 🙄 |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,031
|
Post by petep on Sept 24, 2024 20:11:48 GMT
petep has always been in favor of transparency in government.. unless it leads to an informed citizenry .. NO surprise low/no IQ Fiddler supports the corrupt Democrats being able to post lies since he's so good at posting lies also 🙄 The Biden Harris literally argued to the Supreme Court that it doesn’t matter if govt lies to media. That govt is entitled to the same free speech protections as a citizen. And the democrats support this communist state level propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Sept 24, 2024 21:18:58 GMT
1948, a good year for anti-red measures.
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 24, 2024 22:20:01 GMT
petep has always been in favor of transparency in government.. unless it leads to an informed citizenry .. Yet the argument the Biden admin made in the Missouri Supreme Court case is it doesn’t matter if govt knowingly lies to media as govt enjoys the same free speech rights as does any citizen. And this Obama era change allowed it. That’s not transparency. You can say this as Vance tells a news anchor, live, that if he needs to make up stories to get press attention where he wants, he'll do it? Don't go saying one side is all horrible, when your own side is actively doing the same thing. And if both sides are doing it (and I'm not saying they are), then that becomes a non-differentiating variable between them. It is NOT part of the decision making process between them. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 24, 2024 23:06:40 GMT
Yet the argument the Biden admin made in the Missouri Supreme Court case is it doesn’t matter if govt knowingly lies to media as govt enjoys the same free speech rights as does any citizen. And this Obama era change allowed it. That’s not transparency. You can say this as Vance tells a news anchor, live, that if he needs to make up stories to get press attention where he wants, he'll do it? Don't go saying one side is all horrible, when your own side is actively doing the same thing. And if both sides are doing it (and I'm not saying they are), then that becomes a non-differentiating variable between them. It is NOT part of the decision making process between them. Freon You’re talking about a politician lying in an interview or something, which always happens and has always happened. This is about the government sending armed agents to a media company and warning them about stories they’re seeing being Russian propaganda, obviously indicating they shouldn’t run those stories, when they know that’s a lie. That’s extremely different. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,031
|
Post by petep on Sept 24, 2024 23:23:06 GMT
Yet the argument the Biden admin made in the Missouri Supreme Court case is it doesn’t matter if govt knowingly lies to media as govt enjoys the same free speech rights as does any citizen. And this Obama era change allowed it. That’s not transparency. You can say this as Vance tells a news anchor, live, that if he needs to make up stories to get press attention where he wants, he'll do it? Don't go saying one side is all horrible, when your own side is actively doing the same thing. And if both sides are doing it (and I'm not saying they are), then that becomes a non-differentiating variable between them. It is NOT part of the decision making process between them. Freon Jesus Freon. Please read the law before posting. Your ignorance is on full display again, for all |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 24, 2024 23:46:51 GMT
You can say this as Vance tells a news anchor, live, that if he needs to make up stories to get press attention where he wants, he'll do it? Don't go saying one side is all horrible, when your own side is actively doing the same thing. And if both sides are doing it (and I'm not saying they are), then that becomes a non-differentiating variable between them. It is NOT part of the decision making process between them. Freon Jesus Freon. Please read the law before posting. Your ignorance is on full display again, for all
Yawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 25, 2024 0:09:40 GMT
You can say this as Vance tells a news anchor, live, that if he needs to make up stories to get press attention where he wants, he'll do it? Don't go saying one side is all horrible, when your own side is actively doing the same thing. And if both sides are doing it (and I'm not saying they are), then that becomes a non-differentiating variable between them. It is NOT part of the decision making process between them. Freon You’re talking about a politician lying in an interview or something, which always happens and has always happened. This is about the government sending armed agents to a media company and warning them about stories they’re seeing being Russian propaganda, obviously indicating they shouldn’t run those stories, when they know that’s a lie. That’s extremely different. You are hilarious. Armed agents to a media company. And when they get there, do they point their guns at the company execs and tell them to do their bidding or they'll shoot? You are SO paranoid, man. Look up InfraGARD. Government and companies have been working together since the founding of the country. This is nothing new. But since you don't know your own country's history, this is 'new' to you, and the big scary government with guns is out to get you, lol. Wow. Just. Wow. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 25, 2024 0:12:09 GMT
You can say this as Vance tells a news anchor, live, that if he needs to make up stories to get press attention where he wants, he'll do it? Don't go saying one side is all horrible, when your own side is actively doing the same thing. And if both sides are doing it (and I'm not saying they are), then that becomes a non-differentiating variable between them. It is NOT part of the decision making process between them. Freon Jesus Freon. Please read the law before posting. Your ignorance is on full display again, for all Using the Lord's name in vein? I thought you 'real' Christians considered that a no, no. I guess your religious views are as bullshit as your political and life ones. Consistent. Predictable. So what specifically did I say that demonstrates my great ignorance, oh wise one? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 25, 2024 1:02:15 GMT
You’re talking about a politician lying in an interview or something, which always happens and has always happened. This is about the government sending armed agents to a media company and warning them about stories they’re seeing being Russian propaganda, obviously indicating they shouldn’t run those stories, when they know that’s a lie. That’s extremely different. You are hilarious. Armed agents to a media company. And when they get there, do they point their guns at the company execs and tell them to do their bidding or they'll shoot? You are SO paranoid, man. Look up InfraGARD. Government and companies have been working together since the founding of the country. This is nothing new. But since you don't know your own country's history, this is 'new' to you, and the big scary government with guns is out to get you, lol. Wow. Just. Wow. Freon There was no FBI or CIA or NSA at the founding. I’m so sorry you’re just learning this. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 25, 2024 1:08:45 GMT
You are hilarious. Armed agents to a media company. And when they get there, do they point their guns at the company execs and tell them to do their bidding or they'll shoot? You are SO paranoid, man. Look up InfraGARD. Government and companies have been working together since the founding of the country. This is nothing new. But since you don't know your own country's history, this is 'new' to you, and the big scary government with guns is out to get you, lol. Wow. Just. Wow. Freon There was no FBI or CIA or NSA at the founding. I’m so sorry you’re just learning this. That's not really a response to my point. It's a way of saying something that is technically true, yet irrelevant to the conversation. It is somewhat ironic to me that you righties say you want a business leader running the country, and you want the country run as a business, yet the idea of our 'business' government working with other businesses is anathema to you. As with so many of your positions, you cannot have it both ways. There are positives and negatives to all types of governments, but you seemed sold on the idea that a government is possible where it only has the positives, and none of the negatives. That's EXTREMELY naive. And worse, you are pursuing this fictional thing, instead of trying to improve the one that has demonstrably worked for 250 years. You believe an untried system with promises and no experience, will outperform, on all levels, the working government we already have. There is simply no empirical evidentiary means for you to know things will be better. Yet you believe it. Which means its religion to you, and you are a fanatic. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 25, 2024 14:49:28 GMT
There was no FBI or CIA or NSA at the founding. I’m so sorry you’re just learning this. That's not really a response to my point. It's a way of saying something that is technically true, yet irrelevant to the conversation. It is somewhat ironic to me that you righties say you want a business leader running the country, and you want the country run as a business, yet the idea of our 'business' government working with other businesses is anathema to you. As with so many of your positions, you cannot have it both ways. There are positives and negatives to all types of governments, but you seemed sold on the idea that a government is possible where it only has the positives, and none of the negatives. That's EXTREMELY naive. And worse, you are pursuing this fictional thing, instead of trying to improve the one that has demonstrably worked for 250 years. You believe an untried system with promises and no experience, will outperform, on all levels, the working government we already have. There is simply no empirical evidentiary means for you to know things will be better. Yet you believe it. Which means its religion to you, and you are a fanatic. Freon You’re the one tying the government working hand in hand with private agencies back to the founding… And then pretending that intelligence and law enforcement agencies, that weren’t around at the founding or for generations after that, visiting media companies and lying to them to the benefit of one party and the establishment is just like that. It’s absurd. The rest of your post is just bizarre straw man argument. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 25, 2024 15:31:19 GMT
That's not really a response to my point. It's a way of saying something that is technically true, yet irrelevant to the conversation. It is somewhat ironic to me that you righties say you want a business leader running the country, and you want the country run as a business, yet the idea of our 'business' government working with other businesses is anathema to you. As with so many of your positions, you cannot have it both ways. There are positives and negatives to all types of governments, but you seemed sold on the idea that a government is possible where it only has the positives, and none of the negatives. That's EXTREMELY naive. And worse, you are pursuing this fictional thing, instead of trying to improve the one that has demonstrably worked for 250 years. You believe an untried system with promises and no experience, will outperform, on all levels, the working government we already have. There is simply no empirical evidentiary means for you to know things will be better. Yet you believe it. Which means its religion to you, and you are a fanatic. Freon You’re the one tying the government working hand in hand with private agencies back to the founding… And then pretending that intelligence and law enforcement agencies, that weren’t around at the founding or for generations after that, visiting media companies and lying to them to the benefit of one party and the establishment is just like that. It’s absurd. The rest of your post is just bizarre straw man argument. I don't agree with you. Even at the very founding, the original law makers were businessmen, had ties to other businesses and businessmen, and leveraged that relationship much as it is done today. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 25, 2024 16:00:59 GMT
You’re the one tying the government working hand in hand with private agencies back to the founding… And then pretending that intelligence and law enforcement agencies, that weren’t around at the founding or for generations after that, visiting media companies and lying to them to the benefit of one party and the establishment is just like that. It’s absurd. The rest of your post is just bizarre straw man argument. I don't agree with you. Even at the very founding, the original law makers were businessmen, had ties to other businesses and businessmen, and leveraged that relationship much as it is done today. Freon Again, while I disapprove broadly of this sort of thing you describe, sending law enforcement and intelligence agencies to media companies to lie to them in order to protect one party and the establishment is worlds apart from your examples. One is basic level corruption. The latter is Soviet / mafia style shit. |
|
