There’s no need to clarify it now. It would have been helpful back when the media, the Democratic party and a bunch of intelligence agencies were doing their best to suppress it though. It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t see the problem with this.
2 Likes
Yup.
1 Like
Now you understand.
The government should do as little as possible, especially regarding inherent rights unless they are whooping butt to protect them absolutely.
Limited government and all that… yadda yadda. That debate’s been going on since the 1780’s.
What’s your point? Still as relevant as ever.
That nobody has a monopoly on what it means to be American or the role of government in our lives. There are things the government can do that I may consider a valuable service that you may not.
Where did I say you aren’t entitled to your opinion? You made no counterpoint. You just did some mumble rap or something.
So…anyone see DGB’s decision over the documentary 2000 Mules, or is fait complait already disinformation, because Nina G’s on the case?
You defined what you thought government should do:
And I explained in a nice way that TaipAmy sitting on her sofa doesn’t get to decide for everyone what government should and should not to.
There have always been competing voices of limited government and stronger centralization. There is no monopoly on what government should do.
Do I want the CDC to give advice in a health crisis or Dr. Oz? Hmm…that’s a tough one.
If the CCP is infiltrating media companies and spreading propaganda, do I want the government to say something? Yes I do. I don’t care if that meets your definition of what a government should and should not do.
Considering all the misinformation Fauci has put out, it is a tough one.
I mean I guess… Save masks for the healthcare workers. Vaccines stops transmission with Alpha oops now it doesn’t with Delta. I guess he should’ve known all that. He’s not Jesus.
I want both of them to give advice and people to choose for themselves what they want to believe.
I don’t need anyone to say anything. I can determine that by myself if it’s blatant enough to matter.
I’d rather trust independent people doing independent investigative work expressing their opinions independently.
1 Like
Me too.
I’d like the option for both. Government knew about the lead up to the invasion in Ukraine. They are saying now Putin is preparing for a prolonged war beyond Donbas. Would an independent journalist know that? Maybe but probably not.
I don’t think independent journalists will always know what the CCP is up to so the more voices the better in my opinion. That’s the antithesis of censorship.
Many of the hyperbolic examples in this thread are really irrelevant to at least what the DBG says it will do. Which is to counter foreign interference which is deliberately meant to mislead the public and undermine national security. DHS has given examples of how they’ve already done that for 10 years.
Here’s one example:
2 Likes
Letting Nina G run this board and her background is 1-year Fulbright Scholarship in foreign ministry of Ukraine = insane in the membrane.
Carry on…
All those things already fall under the national intelligence agency umbrella. No need for another department, especially one so ripe for abuse.
1 Like
You are not allowed to talk about 2020 election fraud or you get the Lou Dobbs treatment, Tucker Carlson did have Catherine Engelbrecht on to talk about the data True the vote used in the movie 2000 Mules, but apparently was made to promise ahead of time not to actually mention the movie by name.
Tried looking for the clip on YouTube, couldn’t find it, lol. Rumble had a copy.
I wouldn’t classify a working group of the DHS another department, and certainly not at the budget of DEA especially when they have no operational authority…
I think we can all agree foreign interference is a threat and we need a deterrent. Doing nothing doesn’t help anybody. I’d rather see wait and see.
Well here you go, she want’s verified blue check twitter users to be able to edit non verified (untrustworthy 
) twitter users tweets.
1 Like