Who will Harris pick as VP? It’s Walz!!

yet you back a candidate who loves him some Putin...the disconnect is palpable

 

yes

 

He said anything the government deems misinformation... Lol... That SCOTUS already said even hate speech is protected... Sorry to inform Mr. Walz, but the government is not the last word on free speech.

Sorry to inform you, but there will be NO Ministry of Truth in our United States of America.

 

I don't know if Walz made this claim but it would but add it to the list of things to investigate.

 

Now you are dragging me down to your level, but you didn’t get a 50/50 on the Wonderlic. That is simply not true. You might have paid a website $10 to give you a certificate saying you did, but unless you got a 1600 on the SAT, you didn’t get a 50/50 on the Wonderlic.

If your intelligence was that high you a) won’t be bragging about it on an anonymous message board and b) would have lead with your score on a standardized test as those are more widely used.

See what I did with logic there?

 

You obviously didn't watch the whole video. Nor did you post the full video yourself. Do better. Be better. SMDH

Do you think you can be charged in the USA for using social media to spread misinformation about voting methods?

 

That thread doesn’t really “debunk” the attacks. In fact it’s the primary source of information that people are using to support a number of them.

I don’t know who Barry Markson is, but his “bottom line” is contradicted by a number of the things pointed out in the very thread he links to.

 

I saw it...

 

J.D. Vance’s lame and disgusting attempt to smear the military record of Gov. Tim Walz is not the first time that he’s played this pathetic and unpatriotic game. It turns out that two years ago he tried to smear the reputation of retired Army General Barry McCaffrey.

After McCaffrey criticized Vance’s position to not support Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, Vance tried to attack McCaffrey’s stellar military record.

Vance shot back at McCaffrey, saying: "Your entire time in military leadership we won zero wars. You drank fine wine at bulls—t security conferences while thousands of working class kids died on the battlefield. Oh, by the way, how much do you stand to gain financially from a war with Russia, Barry?"
What a twit.

New York Times columnist David French slammed Vance, writing: "He’s talking about a guy with three Purple Hearts, two silver stars, and who commanded 24th ID in Desert Storm, leading the attack that led to one of the most decisive military victories in American history. This is such a sad and shameful attack on an honorable man."

J.D. Vance has a history of trying to smear people's military records - UPDATED

 

Then you seem to have challenges with comprehension or ethics.

Again, do you think you have 1st Amendment rights to spread misinformation about voting methods?

 

Yet you support a candidate who praises a former KGB colonel who described the fall of the Soviet Union as a great geopolitical tragedy.

 

I don't often argue about what the SCOTUS has already ruled on... this is no exception.

 

I didn’t intend to insinuate that our tribal natures were immutable. In fact, the whole reason we got onto this conversation is that I was arguing that some aspects of woke ideology threaten to ignite this very behavior. The mutability of our in-group biases underlies my entire argument.

And my criticism of the reason of individuals wasn’t meant to suggest that therefore we must defer to the reason of other individuals. All individuals have these flaws, which is why I was advocating for community- level processes.

I certainly take your point about scientism. Ironically, fighting scientism was a central part of Hayek’s conception of liberty for the very same reasons you are elaborating. He feared that experts could appeal to their own scientific authority to determine rules, which could not be subsequently evaluated by anyone lacking that authority. Such a system is clearly ripe for corruption. Though this might not seem so clear when our people are in charge, it becomes obvious when the opposition comes to power.

 

When posters call me stupid I have the right to set them straight. The Wonderlic is actually a pretty simple test. Like the PCAT, which I smoked along with the SAT math ,lbut not verbal). I don't consider myself super-smart, but I'm smart enough to figure out who I should listen to on various topics. Jack Posobiec (former Navy Intel Officer) is a great source

 

Social Media Influencer Douglass Mackey Sentenced after Conviction for Election Interference in 2016 Presidential Race
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-robocalls-case/2011/06/16/AGwU2cXH_blog.html
Men Ordered To Admit They Lied In Calls Targeting Voters: Judge

The 1A is not absolute. Here are other carveouts:

• Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action
• True Threats
• Obscenity
• Child Pornography
• Defamation (Libel and Slander)
• Fighting Words
• Commercial Speech
• Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct
• National Security
• Intellectual Property

 

Lol...

 

Notable misinformation campaigns by Posbiec include Pizzagate, Seth Rich, Covid-19 and election fraud during 2020.

Great "source"!

 

You do have the right to set them straight. You also have the right to lie about your Wonderlic score. I have the right to call bullshit on that.

You didn’t get a 50/50 on the Wonderlic based solely on what you told me about other tests (i.e., the verbal section of the SAT). You are lying.

 

That is a sad and pitiful response to being refuted.

Now that you've admitted you are wrong, please add a note to your earlier post about Walz and the 1st Amendment. Thanks in advance.

FWIW.. I recommend the Popehat Report for insights into the protections and exceptions to 1A.