Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,132

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    lol, look at the little pretzel-brain trying so hard.

    Freedom of speech means EXACTLY the freedom to spread false propaganda, or anything else you would like, so long as it's not illegal. Who is to judge what is false or propaganda? You? Let's hope not. If no one had questioned "settled science" with their far-out conspiracy theories and propaganda, we would still believe the Earth was flat and the stars were little points of aether on a dome, and deserts were hotter because that's where the sun passes the lowest.

    Unless it is speech that is libelous or some type of illegal activity, a social media platform is forbidden from restricting it, period. That is, unless Facebook or Twitter are ok with giving up their legal status as "platforms" and instead becoming "publishers" who accept liability for any content posted on their service. The law is pretty cut and dry on this.

    "But of course that may be a bit much for you to comprehend."
    Is the law that clear? Because multiple places that claim to be drawn from Section 230 are saying basically the opposite:
    From https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28...m-distinction/
    "That led Congress to enact the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which tried to limit online porn; but the Court struck that down in Reno v. ACLU (1997). Part of the Act, though, remained: 47 U.S.C. § 230, which basically immunized all Internet service and content providers platforms from liability for their users' speech—whether or not they blocked or removed certain kinds of speech. Congress, then, deliberately provided platform immunity to entities that (unlike traditional platforms) could and did select what user content to keep up. It did so precisely to encourage platforms to block or remove certain speech (without requiring them to do so), by removing a disincentive (loss of immunity) that would have otherwise come with such selectivity. And it gave them this flexibility regardless of how the platforms exercised this function."

    "Under current law, Twitter, Facebook, and the like are immune as platforms, regardless of whether they edit (including in a politicized way). Like it or not, but this was a deliberate decision by Congress. You might prefer an "if you restrict your users' speech, you become liable for the speech you allow" model. Indeed, that was the model accepted by the court in Stratton Oakmont. But Congress rejected this model, and that rejection stands so long as § 230 remains in its current form."

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/1...-doesnt-matter
    "One of the primary purposes of Section 230 was to remove this disincentive and encourage online intermediaries to actively curate and edit their sites without being so penalized. Former Rep. Chris Cox, one of the co-authors of Section 230, recalls finding it “surpassingly stupid” that before Section 230, courts effectively disincentivized platforms from engaging in any speech moderation. And Congress recognized that even the notice-based liability that attached to distributors created the prospect of the “heckler’s veto,” whereby one who wants the speech censored tells the distributor about it and the distributor removes the speech without devoting any resources to investigating whether the objection had any merit."

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/1...seff-interview (figured a US Naval Academy Prof might know what he is talking about):
    "I spoke with both [Section 230 architects] Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and former Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) extensively, and I spoke with most of the lobbyists who were involved at the time. None of them said that there was this intent for platforms to be neutral. In fact, that was the opposite. They wanted platforms to feel free to make these judgments without risking the liability that Prodigy faced."

    "How do you think the mistake that Section 230 is about splitting internet services into categories of “platform” or “publisher” came about?

    I have no idea! That’s just not, I mean... I don’t know."

    Reading the law and the various precedent setting cases...it appears that the key phrasing for the courts is "interactive computer service" 9https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id =47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=). Once you pass that comically low-bar for legal standing/coverage by Section 230 - you can do whatever you want.

    From my reading it appears that in the US Court system there is no distinction between platform/publisher/distributor/insert noun here once you meet the standard for "interactive computer service". I can't even find a legal definition for the other terms or a court decision applying them.

    If Congress hadn't freaked out over porn on Prodigy in the early dial-up days....we wouldn't even be having this conversation! From porn to arguing over what protected speech is on the internet....that is full of porn.....

  2. #32
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    Is the law that clear? Because multiple places that claim to be drawn from Section 230 are saying basically the opposite:
    From https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28...m-distinction/
    "That led Congress to enact the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which tried to limit online porn; but the Court struck that down in Reno v. ACLU (1997). Part of the Act, though, remained: 47 U.S.C. § 230, which basically immunized all Internet service and content providers platforms from liability for their users' speech—whether or not they blocked or removed certain kinds of speech. Congress, then, deliberately provided platform immunity to entities that (unlike traditional platforms) could and did select what user content to keep up. It did so precisely to encourage platforms to block or remove certain speech (without requiring them to do so), by removing a disincentive (loss of immunity) that would have otherwise come with such selectivity. And it gave them this flexibility regardless of how the platforms exercised this function."

    "Under current law, Twitter, Facebook, and the like are immune as platforms, regardless of whether they edit (including in a politicized way). Like it or not, but this was a deliberate decision by Congress. You might prefer an "if you restrict your users' speech, you become liable for the speech you allow" model. Indeed, that was the model accepted by the court in Stratton Oakmont. But Congress rejected this model, and that rejection stands so long as § 230 remains in its current form."

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/1...-doesnt-matter
    "One of the primary purposes of Section 230 was to remove this disincentive and encourage online intermediaries to actively curate and edit their sites without being so penalized. Former Rep. Chris Cox, one of the co-authors of Section 230, recalls finding it “surpassingly stupid” that before Section 230, courts effectively disincentivized platforms from engaging in any speech moderation. And Congress recognized that even the notice-based liability that attached to distributors created the prospect of the “heckler’s veto,” whereby one who wants the speech censored tells the distributor about it and the distributor removes the speech without devoting any resources to investigating whether the objection had any merit."

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/1...seff-interview (figured a US Naval Academy Prof might know what he is talking about):
    "I spoke with both [Section 230 architects] Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and former Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) extensively, and I spoke with most of the lobbyists who were involved at the time. None of them said that there was this intent for platforms to be neutral. In fact, that was the opposite. They wanted platforms to feel free to make these judgments without risking the liability that Prodigy faced."

    "How do you think the mistake that Section 230 is about splitting internet services into categories of “platform” or “publisher” came about?

    I have no idea! That’s just not, I mean... I don’t know."

    Reading the law and the various precedent setting cases...it appears that the key phrasing for the courts is "interactive computer service" 9https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id =47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=). Once you pass that comically low-bar for legal standing/coverage by Section 230 - you can do whatever you want.

    From my reading it appears that in the US Court system there is no distinction between platform/publisher/distributor/insert noun here once you meet the standard for "interactive computer service". I can't even find a legal definition for the other terms or a court decision applying them.

    If Congress hadn't freaked out over porn on Prodigy in the early dial-up days....we wouldn't even be having this conversation! From porn to arguing over what protected speech is on the internet....that is full of porn.....
    Well, that marvelous screed aside, you are still left with the question. "Regardless of whether or not you could be technically allowed, is it good to censor public speech of any kind? Should you do it?" The answer to that is no, it is not good and you should not - unless you are a believer of a certain Fourth Reich cult that, for some reason, people seem to think should get a pass. Whether your armchair legal interpretation is correct or not, you've got nothing to be proud of there, bucko.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,132

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    Well, that marvelous screed aside, you are still left with the question. "Regardless of whether or not you could be technically allowed, is it good to censor public speech of any kind? Should you do it?" The answer to that is no, it is not good and you should not - unless you are a believer of a certain Fourth Reich cult that, for some reason, people seem to think should get a pass. Whether your armchair legal interpretation is correct or not, you've got nothing to be proud of there, bucko.
    Always nice to see your willingness to discuss things in an open and calm manner.

    I was actually asking a question and attempting to lay out what I thought I knew based on previous information I had come across. You stated a very different POV with a high degree of certainty. Now...it seems that your confidence in the legal interpretation has slipped and the conversation is shifting into murkier waters.

    Again...if there is a component of the current legal interpretation of Section 203 that I am not properly understanding or aware of (almost certainly); I would love to hear about it because this is going to be one of the most utilized portions of US legal code moving forward. But...it seems...you may not actually have many facts or data....because as soon as your "law is pretty cut and dry" statement was challenged, you pivoted to an argument that no one but you was making...interesting.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    Always nice to see your willingness to discuss things in an open and calm manner.

    I was actually asking a question and attempting to lay out what I thought I knew based on previous information I had come across. You stated a very different POV with a high degree of certainty. Now...it seems that your confidence in the legal interpretation has slipped and the conversation is shifting into murkier waters.

    Again...if there is a component of the current legal interpretation of Section 203 that I am not properly understanding or aware of (almost certainly); I would love to hear about it because this is going to be one of the most utilized portions of US legal code moving forward. But...it seems...you may not actually have many facts or data....because as soon as your "law is pretty cut and dry" statement was challenged, you pivoted to an argument that no one but you was making...interesting.
    A simple "Heil" would have sufficed, we know which side you're on.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  5. #35
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,132

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    A simple "Heil" would have sufficed, we know which side you're on.
    So…once again you made a big claim about something you know little about and now have to weasel out of the discussion when presented with evidence.

    pretty cut and dried.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    So…once again you made a big claim about something you know little about and now have to weasel out of the discussion when presented with evidence.

    pretty cut and dried.
    Taking a page from your book - I know plenty about this and many other subjects, but there is nothing that I or anyone else could say that would change your mind, so what's the point. It's just like that time you wanted to argue about climate change and got your asshole absolutely jackhammered into oblivion by science and mathematics, then weaseled out of it with something to the effect of "well, I just don't think you're putting enough importance on certain things."

    So, better to just cut to the chase. You're a member of a hate group that supports racism, violence, political repression, and censorship. That kind of taints all of the ideas and opinions that you pour forth. Even if they may be technically or legally allowed (a big if), they're still pretty, you know ... gross. That you belong to an unusually large hate group doesn't change the fact that it is one.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array title="El-Gonzo Jackson has a reputation beyond repute"> El-Gonzo Jackson's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,615

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?


  8. #38
    Senior Member Array title="willy has a reputation beyond repute"> willy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson View Post


    Anything that'll get him infront of the cameras or in the newspapers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    ................. - I know plenty about this and many other subjects, ........


  9. #39
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,132

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    Taking a page from your book - I know plenty about this and many other subjects, but there is nothing that I or anyone else could say that would change your mind, so what's the point. It's just like that time you wanted to argue about climate change and got your asshole absolutely jackhammered into oblivion by science and mathematics, then weaseled out of it with something to the effect of "well, I just don't think you're putting enough importance on certain things."

    So, better to just cut to the chase. You're a member of a hate group that supports racism, violence, political repression, and censorship. That kind of taints all of the ideas and opinions that you pour forth. Even if they may be technically or legally allowed (a big if), they're still pretty, you know ... gross. That you belong to an unusually large hate group doesn't change the fact that it is one.
    So that is still a "NO" on your clear reading of the law that apparently is not backed by the US Court system, Congress, legal profession, legal scholars, or basically anyone that has actual knowledge about 230?

    Again...I opted to graciously leave the climate discussion with you before it turned unpleasant because your almost total ignorance on the matter and unwillingness to see the massive logical gaps you were leaping was difficult to engage with without disparaging your overall mindset.

    Just because you state that something is a known fact and indisputable doesn't make it so. You have never (because you can't) provided a single reputable source, scientist, or acknowledged expert to back up any of your bold assertions about how the law, science, and what not actually work. You just spout a hodge-podge of alt-right and neo-libertarian ideas almost certainly cobbled together from faux political intellectuals on the internet.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Array title="El-Gonzo Jackson has a reputation beyond repute"> El-Gonzo Jackson's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,615

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by willy View Post

    - - - Updated - - -




    That is absolutely, effin' incredibly hilarious!!

    Nobody knows more about knowing more......

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array title="cubanstogie has a reputation beyond repute"> cubanstogie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,075

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by El-Gonzo Jackson View Post
    That is absolutely, effin' incredibly hilarious!!

    Nobody knows more about knowing more......
    the funny part is you calling someone out for being self righteous! pot calling kettle lmao.

  12. #42
    Senior Member Array title="El-Gonzo Jackson has a reputation beyond repute"> El-Gonzo Jackson's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,615

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by cubanstogie View Post
    the funny part is you calling someone out for being self righteous! pot calling kettle lmao.
    You have to be able to laugh at that video. Come on. Put your political beliefs down and just look at the guy that ruined the USFL, had a reality TV show, failed business ventures, casinos, who thinks his own daughter is hot............and he thinks he knows more about everything than steeldelusion does? That is some grade A comedy right there.

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    So that is still a "NO" on your clear reading of the law that apparently is not backed by the US Court system, Congress, legal profession, legal scholars, or basically anyone that has actual knowledge about 230?

    Again...I opted to graciously leave the climate discussion with you before it turned unpleasant because your almost total ignorance on the matter and unwillingness to see the massive logical gaps you were leaping was difficult to engage with without disparaging your overall mindset.

    Just because you state that something is a known fact and indisputable doesn't make it so. You have never (because you can't) provided a single reputable source, scientist, or acknowledged expert to back up any of your bold assertions about how the law, science, and what not actually work. You just spout a hodge-podge of alt-right and neo-libertarian ideas almost certainly cobbled together from faux political intellectuals on the internet.
    Well you certainly hit all the keywords with that screed, but I have yet to see anything that resembles an independent thought from you in probably 18 months or more. Probably much longer than that if you count the way that "trust the experts, where are your qualifications" is also your go-to argument in football discussions too. You are just an imbecile who recites doctrine. I guess sometimes you will be right and sometimes you will be wrong that way, but at least it explains your dogged devotion to authority. What a hopeless case.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  14. #44
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,132

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    Well you certainly hit all the keywords with that screed, but I have yet to see anything that resembles an independent thought from you in probably 18 months or more. Probably much longer than that if you count the way that "trust the experts, where are your qualifications" is also your go-to argument in football discussions too. You are just an imbecile who recites doctrine. I guess sometimes you will be right and sometimes you will be wrong that way, but at least it explains your dogged devotion to authority. What a hopeless case.
    To be clear expertise and authority are different things. Since you are an expert on so many subjects, I assumed you would realize that.

    Again....got any verifiable facts or legal precedents to back up your assertion that the law was super clear the way you explained it? This all started because I think Section 230 discussions/debates are interesting and important. I also was legitimately curious to see what legal framework that had made you so certain that I was not finding on my own. But...you have chosen to respond by getting defensive, resorting to personal attacks, and generally being wholly unable to back-up your assertions about the interpretation and clarity of the law under consideration.

    We have previously discussed portions of this...and once you stopped assuming you know what everyone else thinks...we were actually fairly close in agreement on the way things "should" work. I suspect that is actually the case again...but your inability to calmly discuss things leaves that unclear.

    For instance, regardless of the current legal standing and precedents for Section 230, I think that, ideally, no online venue would have to worry about anything that stopped short of criminal. Most of the current online legal framework was all designed to stop porn...and that is most of the current internet. So it clearly doesn't work. And yes, if no one moderates content at all, a ton of false information, foreign propaganda, corporate doctrine, and other things a variety of us may wish were not on the internet will flood through. But that is going to happen no matter what. Rather than continually tweak regulatory structures, we should focus on providing people with the skills to navigate the flood of information and content on the internet on their own.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    To be clear expertise and authority are different things. Since you are an expert on so many subjects, I assumed you would realize that.

    Again....got any verifiable facts or legal precedents to back up your assertion that the law was super clear the way you explained it? This all started because I think Section 230 discussions/debates are interesting and important. I also was legitimately curious to see what legal framework that had made you so certain that I was not finding on my own. But...you have chosen to respond by getting defensive, resorting to personal attacks, and generally being wholly unable to back-up your assertions about the interpretation and clarity of the law under consideration.

    We have previously discussed portions of this...and once you stopped assuming you know what everyone else thinks...we were actually fairly close in agreement on the way things "should" work. I suspect that is actually the case again...but your inability to calmly discuss things leaves that unclear.

    For instance, regardless of the current legal standing and precedents for Section 230, I think that, ideally, no online venue would have to worry about anything that stopped short of criminal. Most of the current online legal framework was all designed to stop porn...and that is most of the current internet. So it clearly doesn't work. And yes, if no one moderates content at all, a ton of false information, foreign propaganda, corporate doctrine, and other things a variety of us may wish were not on the internet will flood through. But that is going to happen no matter what. Rather than continually tweak regulatory structures, we should focus on providing people with the skills to navigate the flood of information and content on the internet on their own.
    Well, you know what, you still never answered my question.

    What's in it for you? What's the point of going to so much effort and gathering so much information to create a fairy tale that is designed just to piss you off? What does one get out of being a liberal?

    While it is certainly interesting to see people who are both so defeatist and self-loathing at the same time as being smug and superior, that is one for the psychologists. As far as I can tell, it's not rewarding or fun at all, and there's nothing to be proud of, either on your own part or that of your politician heroes. What's in it for you? What's your purpose? For real. It is really a bit much for me to comprehend.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  16. #46
    Senior Member Array title="willy has a reputation beyond repute"> willy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?



    Notice how towards the beginning and end she rants against a black women. Very clever for multiple reasons.

  17. #47
    Old School Misfit Array title="silver & black has a reputation beyond repute"> silver & black's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Massillon, Ohio
    Posts
    3,228

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by willy View Post


    Notice how towards the beginning and end she rants against a black women. Very clever for multiple reasons.
    Sounds good to me. Oh, wait... YouTube cartoon!!!

  18. #48
    Senior Member Array title="cubanstogie has a reputation beyond repute"> cubanstogie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    2,075

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by willy View Post


    Notice how towards the beginning and end she rants against a black women. Very clever for multiple reasons.
    lmfao, nice try. good looking white woman who is christian and believes in 2nd amendment. Of course miserable, jealous people on left will hate. Camala is a complete joke! but even if you can back up bashing her with facts you’re labeled racist or misogynistic. Only reason Sleepy joe picked her. affirmative action at its finest!

  19. #49
    Quest For Seven Array title="Mach1 has a reputation beyond repute"> Mach1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Gender
    Posts
    5,157

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?



    Give a lib a fish--he eats for a day

    Teach a lib to fish--he is back the next day asking for more free fish.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  20. #50
    Senior Member Array title="willy has a reputation beyond repute"> willy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Oh look, more racism:



    Haha, she's protecting president Trump from women of color.

  21. #51
    Old School Misfit Array title="silver & black has a reputation beyond repute"> silver & black's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Massillon, Ohio
    Posts
    3,228

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by willy View Post
    Oh look, more racism:



    Haha, she's protecting president Trump from women of color.
    You lefties are "triggered" easily...lol.

  22. #52
    Senior Member Array title="st33lersguy has a reputation beyond repute">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    15,230

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by willy View Post


    Notice how towards the beginning and end she rants against a black women. Very clever for multiple reasons.
    And if she was a liberal you'd be crying sexism at any criticism of her. Also anyone who voted for biden should probably not be calling everyone they disagree with a racist

  23. #53
    Senior Member Array title="willy has a reputation beyond repute"> willy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Charlottesville removes conservative white supremacists statue.


  24. #54
    Quest For Seven Array title="Mach1 has a reputation beyond repute"> Mach1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Gender
    Posts
    5,157

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?



    Give a lib a fish--he eats for a day

    Teach a lib to fish--he is back the next day asking for more free fish.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  25. #55
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach1 View Post
    You left out racist. All liberal snowflakes see or talk about is race race race.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  26. #56
    Senior Member Array title="willy has a reputation beyond repute"> willy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?


  27. #57
    Quest For Seven Array title="Mach1 has a reputation beyond repute"> Mach1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Gender
    Posts
    5,157

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?



    Give a lib a fish--he eats for a day

    Teach a lib to fish--he is back the next day asking for more free fish.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  28. #58
    Senior Member Array title="willy has a reputation beyond repute"> willy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    But if you are suspected of breaking the law, the police should be able to:



    Ahh, no.

  29. #59
    Senior Member Array title="st33lersguy has a reputation beyond repute">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    15,230

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?



    So how about Saul Goodman wannabe Michael Avenatti, the man liberals praised as a hero for no other reason than for going after Trump is now going to jail

    Liberals and being wrong. Name me a more iconic duo.

    Of course as per usual, the lying mainstream media is not covering it

  30. #60
    Senior Member Array title="willy has a reputation beyond repute"> willy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Did CNN admit they are a propaganda machine for Democrats?

    Quote Originally Posted by st33lersguy View Post
    So how about Saul Goodman wannabe Michael Avenatti,........................



    Of course as per usual, the lying mainstream media is not covering it
    So how about the fact that "the moon's mean radius is 1,079.6 miles (1,737.5 kilometers). Double those figures to get its diameter: 2,159.2 miles (3,475 km), less than a third the width of Earth. The moon's equatorial circumference is 6,783.5 miles (10,917 km)?"



    Is Fox News covering that?
    Last edited by willy; 07-11-2021 at 11:48 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •