I guess we can see who all the Fox Faux News aficionados are.
Hey, if Fox tried the same thing they’d get the same treatment. All of the online news sources are biased either left or right. In my opinion there are no unbiased, objective news sources available today. Every one of them is hell bent on getting people to believe their side of the story. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow are spinning in their graves.
The old network news divisions were money losers, provided as a public service. Modern “news” outlets must be profitable, which means giving customers what they want. Some customers do want unbiased information and analysis. But many others prefer hearing opinions, stated loudly and confidently, that match their own. And many others don’t have well formed opinions and prefer to be told what to think by a loud, confident authority figure.
It’s much cheaper to provide opinions than to dig up facts. So the market speaks — you shall receive a large quantity of loud, confident opinions and only a small sprinkling of fact.
Edit —
one of the more interesting groups of people out there are those that voted twice for Obama and then for Trump. The only way that makes sense to me is that they are sheep following the most alpha male available.
Yes, true. All of that is true. But also, and increasingly, we have agenda based "news" services spreading distorted, disinformation to further some agenda that they have. It started with talk shows and some cable news networks and is now proliferating on social media. It has reached the point where we not only have foreign actors using it to influence public opinion but otherwise intelligent people defending it with the "But they all do it!" mantra.
Agreed — these propaganda outlets are doing a lot of damage.
and more broadly — I think democracy as we have known it may be over. The weak points have been identified and exploited. I don’t know what will come next.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
I guess we can see who all the Fox Faux News aficionados are.
Hey, if Fox tried the same thing they’d get the same treatment. All of the online news sources are biased either left or right. In my opinion there are no unbiased, objective news sources available today. Every one of them is hell bent on getting people to believe their side of the story. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow are spinning in their graves.
The old network news divisions were money losers, provided as a public service. Modern “news” outlets must be profitable, which means giving customers what they want. Some customers do want unbiased information and analysis. But many others prefer hearing opinions, stated loudly and confidently, that match their own. And many others don’t have well formed opinions and prefer to be told what to think by a loud, confident authority figure.
It’s much cheaper to provide opinions than to dig up facts. So the market speaks — you shall receive a large quantity of loud, confident opinions and only a small sprinkling of fact.
Edit —
one of the more interesting groups of people out there are those that voted twice for Obama and then for Trump. The only way that makes sense to me is that they are sheep following the most alpha male available.
Yes, true. All of that is true. But also, and increasingly, we have agenda based "news" services spreading distorted, disinformation to further some agenda that they have. It started with talk shows and some cable news networks and is now proliferating on social media. It has reached the point where we not only have foreign actors using it to influence public opinion but otherwise intelligent people defending it with the "But they all do it!" mantra.
Agreed — these propaganda outlets are doing a lot of damage.
and more broadly — I think democracy as we have known it may be over. The weak points have been identified and exploited. I don’t know what will come next.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
To represent your constituencies in the United States requires that you adhere to the Constitution. The only "thugs" are those who are either trying to change it or replace it.
And for the record McCarthy might have been a little aggressive but wasn't wrong.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
To represent your constituencies in the United States requires that you adhere to the Constitution. The only "thugs" are those who are either trying to change it or replace it.
And for the record McCarthy might have been a little aggressive but wasn't wrong.
Did you know that there is a constitutionally approved method for changing the constitution? It's called amendments.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
To represent your constituencies in the United States requires that you adhere to the Constitution. The only "thugs" are those who are either trying to change it or replace it.
And for the record McCarthy might have been a little aggressive but wasn't wrong.
Did you know that there is a constitutionally approved method for changing the constitution? It's called amendments.
I do. And until an amendment is passed we follow the Constitution. What's your point?
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
To represent your constituencies in the United States requires that you adhere to the Constitution. The only "thugs" are those who are either trying to change it or replace it.
And for the record McCarthy might have been a little aggressive but wasn't wrong.
Did you know that there is a constitutionally approved method for changing the constitution? It's called amendments.
I do. And until an amendment is passed we follow the Constitution. What's your point?
You said only thugs would seek to change the constitution. I'm informing you that is incorrect.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
So.... you're now ok with the idea that maybe democracy means the "collective" is sometimes placed above the individual? Or are you actually only ok with it when your tribe happens to be in the majority? I'm sure it's the latter, but at least the hypocrisy is clear.
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a goofy piece of legislation that would have been difficult to implement and might have ended up being counterproductive (which is why J. Edgar opposed it). But in general, I'm not opposed to a democracy limiting the rights of people who are working hard to destroy democracy. There is no doubt in my mind that the Stalinists in the 50s were doing exactly that, and so I imagine I would have been in favor of many practically feasible and effective means of stoping them -- including means that many liberal intellectuals of the time would have opposed (largely out of overconfidence in the durability of democracy). It's ironic that the American right has become increasingly strident in its use of Leninist tactics to undermine democracy, but with different ideological goals in mind.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
Oh, and just fyi -- the Soviet Union no longer exists and Putin is not a communist. This is 2019, not 1979.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
To represent your constituencies in the United States requires that you adhere to the Constitution. The only "thugs" are those who are either trying to change it or replace it.
And for the record McCarthy might have been a little aggressive but wasn't wrong.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
According to your ideology -- which has no basis in reality.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
To represent your constituencies in the United States requires that you adhere to the Constitution. The only "thugs" are those who are either trying to change it or replace it.
And for the record McCarthy might have been a little aggressive but wasn't wrong.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
According to your ideology -- which has no basis in reality.
I'm sorry to say that an increasingly large portion of our reality is based in his ideology...
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
So.... you're now ok with the idea that maybe democracy means the "collective" is sometimes placed above the individual? Or are you actually only ok with it when your tribe happens to be in the majority? I'm sure it's the latter, but at least the hypocrisy is clear.
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a goofy piece of legislation that would have been difficult to implement and might have ended up being counterproductive (which is why J. Edgar opposed it). But in general, I'm not opposed to a democracy limiting the rights of people who are working hard to destroy democracy. There is no doubt in my mind that the Stalinists in the 50s were doing exactly that, and so I imagine I would have been in favor of many practically feasible and effective means of stoping them -- including means that many liberal intellectuals of the time would have opposed (largely out of overconfidence in the durability of democracy). It's ironic that the American right has become increasingly strident in its use of Leninist tactics to undermine democracy, but with different ideological goals in mind.
In the 1950's and 1960's the Communist Soviet Union was at war with us. It was a mostly non-shooting war, but a war for supremacy none the less. As Kruschev told us: "We will bury you!". And that was not a figure of speech or a slogan, he meant it.
It became a struggle over which would survive: Communism or Democracy. It was a struggle to the death. (McCarthy took advantage of the very real and justified fear to start a cleansing campaign of those he disapproved of. Eventually he was exposed and stopped)
That ideological struggle. That war between communism and democracy is over. It's now just a part of history. But, today, there are radicals and crackpots who would fight it all over again. That's just dumb. They should direct their efforts at something positive -- like going after those who actually want to harm us.
I’m glad to see no shortage of skepticism around here. This is no longer an issue of left vs right. Everyone is threatened.
See Lee Camp's interview @ 14:15:
Google Whistleblower Reveals Censorship
PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder
Stossel: Google and Facebook Cross "The Creepy Line"
You get a thumbs up for the John Stossel and Thomas Crowder links.
In light of Facebook now allowing politicians to pay to spread disinformation, AOC asks Zuckerberg how big a lie Facebook would let her tell. "How far can I take this?" Of course Zuckerberg had no answer. Lots of words, but no answers.
The dissemination of propaganda and disinformation on social media is becoming a very profitable business for Facebook: Information is being weaponized while they make money from it.
“AOC” is a Commie. She shouldn’t even be allowed to serve in Congress.
So, only those who agree with your philosophy should be "allowed" to represent their constituencies? You have an interesting idea of democracy.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
Representatives are required to swear by their oath of office. Do you know what’s in that oath?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
1. Where does the word "collective" appear in the Constitution? 2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective 3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
I would support revitalization of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which was originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower and subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court, HOWEVER it was never taken before the Supreme Court for a final ruling. It should be debated and signed into law by Congress after the next election. Surely the Democrats would be OK with it. After all they’ve been screaming about the Communists (aka “Putin”) for the last 3 years, right?
So.... you're now ok with the idea that maybe democracy means the "collective" is sometimes placed above the individual? Or are you actually only ok with it when your tribe happens to be in the majority? I'm sure it's the latter, but at least the hypocrisy is clear.
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a goofy piece of legislation that would have been difficult to implement and might have ended up being counterproductive (which is why J. Edgar opposed it). But in general, I'm not opposed to a democracy limiting the rights of people who are working hard to destroy democracy. There is no doubt in my mind that the Stalinists in the 50s were doing exactly that, and so I imagine I would have been in favor of many practically feasible and effective means of stoping them -- including means that many liberal intellectuals of the time would have opposed (largely out of overconfidence in the durability of democracy). It's ironic that the American right has become increasingly strident in its use of Leninist tactics to undermine democracy, but with different ideological goals in mind.
In the 1950's and 1960's the Communist Soviet Union was at war with us. It was a mostly non-shooting war, but a war for supremacy none the less. As Kruschev told us: "We will bury you!". And that was not a figure of speech or a slogan, he meant it.
It became a struggle over which would survive: Communism or Democracy. It was a struggle to the death. (McCarthy took advantage of the very real and justified fear to start a cleansing campaign of those he disapproved of. Eventually he was exposed and stopped)
That ideological struggle. That war between communism and democracy is over. It's now just a part of history. But, today, there are radicals and crackpots who would fight it all over again. That's just dumb. They should direct their efforts at something positive -- like going after those who actually want to harm us.
That struggle is over, but there's a new struggle (or rather, the re-emergence of a different old struggle) -- democracy vs. right wing authoritarianism. The oligarchs/fascists are back with a vengeance, using Leninist tactics to disrupt democracy. And they are winning.
Comments
and more broadly — I think democracy as we have known it may be over. The weak points have been identified and exploited. I don’t know what will come next.
Added: Joseph McCarthy would have approved of your message.
And for the record McCarthy might have been a little aggressive but wasn't wrong.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
A Communist or Socialist has already broken that oath to support and defend the Constitution, which places the rights of individuals over the collective.
2. Q: What do you call more than one individuals? A: a collective
3. Q: Where does the Constitution say the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? A: Nowhere, because it doesn't.
Democracy is all about placing the rights of the majority above the rights of an individual. There are efforts to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." But fundamentally, democracy is about majority rule.
What you want is a thug-ocracy, in which the rights of the biggest, strongest, richest, individual is placed above "the collective" (aka, a larger collection of individuals than the thugs).
And all I can say is hey -- congrats! you win! You've got it! So stop whining and enjoy it!
So.... you're now ok with the idea that maybe democracy means the "collective" is sometimes placed above the individual? Or are you actually only ok with it when your tribe happens to be in the majority? I'm sure it's the latter, but at least the hypocrisy is clear.
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a goofy piece of legislation that would have been difficult to implement and might have ended up being counterproductive (which is why J. Edgar opposed it). But in general, I'm not opposed to a democracy limiting the rights of people who are working hard to destroy democracy. There is no doubt in my mind that the Stalinists in the 50s were doing exactly that, and so I imagine I would have been in favor of many practically feasible and effective means of stoping them -- including means that many liberal intellectuals of the time would have opposed (largely out of overconfidence in the durability of democracy). It's ironic that the American right has become increasingly strident in its use of Leninist tactics to undermine democracy, but with different ideological goals in mind.
Oh, and just fyi -- the Soviet Union no longer exists and Putin is not a communist. This is 2019, not 1979.
According to your ideology -- which has no basis in reality.
It became a struggle over which would survive: Communism or Democracy. It was a struggle to the death.
(McCarthy took advantage of the very real and justified fear to start a cleansing campaign of those he disapproved of. Eventually he was exposed and stopped)
That ideological struggle. That war between communism and democracy is over. It's now just a part of history. But, today, there are radicals and crackpots who would fight it all over again. That's just dumb. They should direct their efforts at something positive -- like going after those who actually want to harm us.