Hillary Clinton suggests jailing Americans for posting "misinformation"

Being shot at by other republicans... Democrats don't really believe in guns.

Trump got shot at because two demonstrably crazy people - Crooks and Routh - were able to acquire military-grade weapons.

1000 people being shot by police a year is not rare, guy.
It's an insane number compared to other industrialized country, which have numbers in the low double digits.
So you're telling me the number of shootings we're seeing in the Democrat controlled cities are being committed with spit balls?
:auiqs.jpg:
 
Hillary said this weekend that people who spread misinformation should be thrown in jail.

I think that's a great idea, beginning with Hillary.

After all.........she paid someone to spread the fake Russian Collusion hoax.


Speaking of being Locked up..
Trump said in 2016' at that one Debate Famously Directed AT THAT THING:
"Because YOU'D Be in Jail"
Whatever Happened to That Anyway?
 
Inflation was 1.4% when Biden took office in Jan. 2021. 16 MONTHS into his term it was 9.1%. Biden and Harris are the problem.

It was that low because unemployment was at 7%, and half the country was still locked down. When it came out of lockdown, supply chains were screwed and consumer demand was up.

Geez, you guys don't understand economics at all. It's why you fuck it up every time you are in charge.
 
Right, it is an opinion, albeit a misinformed one. I am pretty sure Lisa was just pointing out that if they are going to ban the opinions of one side they have to ban the opinions of both. In fact, neither should be banned.

Opinions are one thing. Lies that get people hurt or killed are another.
 
Being shot at by other republicans... Democrats don't really believe in guns.

Trump got shot at because two demonstrably crazy people - Crooks and Routh - were able to acquire military-grade weapons.

1000 people being shot by police a year is not rare, guy.

It's an insane number compared to other industrialized country, which have numbers in the low double digits.
All misinformation lies.
OFF TO JAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You actually can.

You should not practice law on the internet.


In 1919, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck and Baer’s convictions. Although they had argued that the conviction violated their right of free speech, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes found there was no conflict between the Espionage Act and the Constitution. This is where the “theater” phrase comes in. Holmes used the analogy to introduce a truism: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” This prosecution, he argued, was like that scenario. The fact that the nation was involved in a war meant that “many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”
 
And if they tried to run Trump over with a car, you might have a point.

But they used military grade weapons they had no business having given their histories of mental health issues.
Well I don't know about Crooks.... His background seems to be remarkably sanitized; But yeah the other guy was definitely a problem for a long time. I was just doing some reading up on him yesterday. He was an absolute, genuine fruit loop.

I strongly resist the tendency to try to assign a political affiliation to somebody like that because it just doesn't fit. Somebody who's gone to the point of taking a lethal weapon to kill political candidate is not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a rational person..... This is not even a political category it's a mental health category.
 


In 1919, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck and Baer’s convictions. Although they had argued that the conviction violated their right of free speech, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes found there was no conflict between the Espionage Act and the Constitution. This is where the “theater” phrase comes in. Holmes used the analogy to introduce a truism: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” This prosecution, he argued, was like that scenario. The fact that the nation was involved in a war meant that “many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

That was overturned about 60 years ago.

Carry on.
 
Well I don't know about Crooks.... His background seems to be remarkably sanitized; But yeah the other guy was definitely a problem for a long time. I was just doing some reading up on him yesterday. He was an absolute, genuine fruit loop.

I strongly resist the tendency to try to assign a political affiliation to somebody like that because it just doesn't fit. Somebody who's gone to the point of taking a lethal weapon to kill political candidate is not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a rational person..... This is not even a political category it's a mental health category.
I really can't give your side a pass for that, given you guys insist the reason why civilians need weapons of war (like both of these clowns had despite their mental health issues) is to fight whatever you perceive as tyranny.

yes, we have a long history of crazy people taking shots at presidents or candidates - Hinkley, Moore, Fromme, Oswald, Giteau. They are almost never well people.
 
Another tried a true Neo-GOP tactic. Accuse me of something I didn't do. I said there are laws against spreading false information, and I gave a recent example. Not simply spreading information I personally disagree with. But you knew that.
OMG…..libs do that ALL THE TIME!
 

Forum List

Back
Top