A possible reason why Trump is trying to silence opposition media

[OKTexas]

Damn, I guess I missed where the 1st said freedom of a false, slanderous press. But then I haven't seen you out defending the free speech rights of preachers speaking about political topics form the pulpit either.

That is a curious twist that you are taking here, but I will play along. Preachers can say anything they want, including political endorsements, as long as they are willing to give up their tax exemptions.

So if their speech can be abridged I guess the press can too. Funny how that works, the founders enlisted the help of preachers during the revolution to help bring people around for independence and modern politicians try to silence them. But to this point I haven't seen Trump try to silence anyone. Go figure.

Where the hell did you come up with that argument? Nobody is "abridging" preacher's speech. They voluntarily do not make political endorsements because they prefer not to pay taxes on the donations they receive. There is not even the slightest parallel between that and journalists. You are so far out into left field that you have left the ball park.

Funny, it wasn't an issue for more than 200 years until a democrat got pissed about what they were saying, then the Johnson amendment was born. The parallel is quite clear, except democrats used the law and extortion to silence critics, Trump is only bitching about them and you folks are having a freaking cow. Sounds a bit childish to me.

Try to stay on topic. This thread has nothing to do with tax exemptions on churches.

No it's about silencing critics, my example was spot on and you've ran out of arguments. LMAO

 

[ding]

Most right wingers who are now stuck with the Trumpster have NO choice but to condone all of the excesses this clown is imposing on our democracy.....and that is too bad; brainwashing is never pleasant to watch.

However, the current administration is well aware that there are very damaging leaks about the Trump administration dealings with Russian thugs just waiting to be exposed in the upcoming weeks (and probably some of these leaks will be from the Russians themselves in their quest to ridicule the current status of U.S. standing in the world's eyes.)

Given these realities, the oval office has launched a preemptive strike against our own media outlets (labeling them fake news) in order to "cushion" the blow of what these media outlets will soon reveal.

Whenever any organization is beleaguered by an onslaught of controversy, the organization retreats into its bunkers hoping that the controversy will be overshadowed by a more important exigency.

Ultimately this sham of an administration will not be brought down by so-called liberals, but by sane republicans who would rather lose a battle than a more devastating war launched by a charlatan under their banner.

We will be facing very nasty and contentious springtime months..

.

When they act like media they can be treated like media. Until then they should be treated as a political party affiliate.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not denying them shit. Federal money shouldn't go somewhere that provides abortion. They can go elsewhere to kill their baby.

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain......

Is abortion legal or no?

is an embryo a baby, yes or no?

Abortion is legal for now. Science will prove that it is murder.
Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Why do you imagine that those are two different words?

Is it possible that they are indeed not the same thing at all and describe the actual state of development the entity is in.

4 d ultrasounds are showing a fetus is a baby. It's only time before science proves it. So then are you gonna hate science?

A fetus by definition is not a baby. There is a reason they are referred to differently.

 

[jknowgood]

Not denying them shit. Federal money shouldn't go somewhere that provides abortion. They can go elsewhere to kill their baby.

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain......

Is abortion legal or no?

is an embryo a baby, yes or no?

Abortion is legal for now. Science will prove that it is murder.
Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Why do you imagine that those are two different words?

Is it possible that they are indeed not the same thing at all and describe the actual state of development the entity is in.

4 d ultrasounds are showing a fetus is a baby. It's only time before science proves it. So then are you gonna hate science?

A fetus by definition is not a baby. There is a reason they are referred to differently.

Science is starting to disagree with you. Soon your kind will be thought of worse than slave owners.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain......

Is abortion legal or no?

is an embryo a baby, yes or no?

Abortion is legal for now. Science will prove that it is murder.
Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Why do you imagine that those are two different words?

Is it possible that they are indeed not the same thing at all and describe the actual state of development the entity is in.

4 d ultrasounds are showing a fetus is a baby. It's only time before science proves it. So then are you gonna hate science?

A fetus by definition is not a baby. There is a reason they are referred to differently.

Science is starting to disagree with you. Soon your kind will be thought of worse than slave owners.

No, it's not.

A fetus is still developing and cannot survive outside of the womb. A baby is the end result of development.

 

[jknowgood]

Abortion is legal for now. Science will prove that it is murder.
Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Why do you imagine that those are two different words?

Is it possible that they are indeed not the same thing at all and describe the actual state of development the entity is in.

4 d ultrasounds are showing a fetus is a baby. It's only time before science proves it. So then are you gonna hate science?

A fetus by definition is not a baby. There is a reason they are referred to differently.

Science is starting to disagree with you. Soon your kind will be thought of worse than slave owners.

No, it's not.

A fetus is still developing and cannot survive outside of the womb. A baby is the end result of development.

Like I said worse than slave owners.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why do you imagine that those are two different words?

Is it possible that they are indeed not the same thing at all and describe the actual state of development the entity is in.

4 d ultrasounds are showing a fetus is a baby. It's only time before science proves it. So then are you gonna hate science?

A fetus by definition is not a baby. There is a reason they are referred to differently.

Science is starting to disagree with you. Soon your kind will be thought of worse than slave owners.

No, it's not.

A fetus is still developing and cannot survive outside of the womb. A baby is the end result of development.

Like I said worse than slave owners.

^Dumber than shit.

 

[nat4900]

I guess why you idiots keep screaming global cooling, global warmin, or climate change with no proof.

You're "absolutely correct" moron......a whopping 3% of scientist hacks agree with you......

What is the percentage of scientists who believe in global warming?

The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

And that is a lie.....

Yes, there is ONE moronic scieintist at Prager U. that disagrees

In (Consensus) Denial
The clear scientific consensus about human-caused climate change (certainly between 90-100% of experts, and most likely somewhere around 97%) presents a big problem for the contrarians. Namely, most people have neither the time nor the inclination to sift through the evidence for themselves, so they tend to defer to the majority of experts. Therefore, if the contrarians want to keep the masses from demanding action to reduce human-caused climate change, they need to cloud the public’s perception of the scientific consensus. That’s exactly what retired atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen does in a new video called “Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?” produced by “Prager University”. In this post, I will point out some clear instances where Lindzen obfuscates the issue. He’s so good at the Art of Lying Well (TM) that he can do it without making any factual claims that aren’t technically true (in a sense that almost none of his viewers would understand).

 

[Vandalshandle]

It turns out that there really are scientists who deny man caused global warming. However, on examination, it also turns out that they all work in the petroleum industry. These are the same folks that fought against removing lead from gas for years.

 

[Indeependent]

It turns out that there really are scientists who deny man caused global warming. However, on examination, it also turns out that they all work in the petroleum industry. These are the same folks that fought against removing lead from gas for years.

Turns out there are economists who insist that trespassers are good for the US economy.
Of course, they own real estate.

 

[Care4all]

Most right wingers who are now stuck with the Trumpster have NO choice but to condone all of the excesses this clown is imposing on our democracy.....and that is too bad; brainwashing is never pleasant to watch.

However, the current administration is well aware that there are very damaging leaks about the Trump administration dealings with Russian thugs just waiting to be exposed in the upcoming weeks (and probably some of these leaks will be from the Russians themselves in their quest to ridicule the current status of U.S. standing in the world's eyes.)

Given these realities, the oval office has launched a preemptive strike against our own media outlets (labeling them fake news) in order to "cushion" the blow of what these media outlets will soon reveal.

Whenever any organization is beleaguered by an onslaught of controversy, the organization retreats into its bunkers hoping that the controversy will be overshadowed by a more important exigency.

Ultimately this sham of an administration will not be brought down by so-called liberals, but by sane republicans who would rather lose a battle than a more devastating war launched by a charlatan under their banner.

We will be facing very nasty and contentious springtime months..

.

When they act like media they can be treated like media. Until then they should be treated as a political party affiliate.

so, Fox News is a Republican Party Affiliate, and Briebart is a Republican Party Affiliate, and the New York Post is a Republican Party Affiliate, and the Washington Times is a Republican Party Affiliate, and the DailyCaller is a republican party Affiliate etc????

Or is this applied only to the liberal leaning press and not the conservative leaning press?

 

[Avatar4321]

The United States President says that the media should be required to list their sources in any story they publish, which obviously conflicts with the first amendment, and you are not even a little bit concerned about the loss of your constitutional rights. Ok. I will do my best, through resistance, to protect those rights for you.

Damn, I guess I missed where the 1st said freedom of a false, slanderous press. But then I haven't seen you out defending the free speech rights of preachers speaking about political topics form the pulpit either.

That is a curious twist that you are taking here, but I will play along. Preachers can say anything they want, including political endorsements, as long as they are willing to give up their tax exemptions.

So if their speech can be abridged I guess the press can too. Funny how that works, the founders enlisted the help of preachers during the revolution to help bring people around for independence and modern politicians try to silence them. But to this point I haven't seen Trump try to silence anyone. Go figure.

Can't imagine why modern politicians want to silence preachers

I'll give you three guesses which party came up with it and are still pushing it.

Democrats under lbj

 

[OKTexas]

Damn, I guess I missed where the 1st said freedom of a false, slanderous press. But then I haven't seen you out defending the free speech rights of preachers speaking about political topics form the pulpit either.

That is a curious twist that you are taking here, but I will play along. Preachers can say anything they want, including political endorsements, as long as they are willing to give up their tax exemptions.

So if their speech can be abridged I guess the press can too. Funny how that works, the founders enlisted the help of preachers during the revolution to help bring people around for independence and modern politicians try to silence them. But to this point I haven't seen Trump try to silence anyone. Go figure.

Can't imagine why modern politicians want to silence preachers

I'll give you three guesses which party came up with it and are still pushing it.

Democrats under lbj

Close, it was LBJ himself along with the commiecrats. It was called the Johnson amendment.

 

[pwjohn]

Most right wingers who are now stuck with the Trumpster have NO choice but to condone all of the excesses this clown is imposing on our democracy.....and that is too bad; brainwashing is never pleasant to watch.

However, the current administration is well aware that there are very damaging leaks about the Trump administration dealings with Russian thugs just waiting to be exposed in the upcoming weeks (and probably some of these leaks will be from the Russians themselves in their quest to ridicule the current status of U.S. standing in the world's eyes.)

Given these realities, the oval office has launched a preemptive strike against our own media outlets (labeling them fake news) in order to "cushion" the blow of what these media outlets will soon reveal.

Whenever any organization is beleaguered by an onslaught of controversy, the organization retreats into its bunkers hoping that the controversy will be overshadowed by a more important exigency.

Ultimately this sham of an administration will not be brought down by so-called liberals, but by sane republicans who would rather lose a battle than a more devastating war launched by a charlatan under their banner.

We will be facing very nasty and contentious springtime months..

.

I don't mean to piss on your wheaties but the rwn's would just assume suck shit out of a pigs ass than see trump leave office.

 

[nat4900]

I guess why you idiots keep screaming global cooling, global warmin, or climate change with no proof.

You're "absolutely correct" moron......a whopping 3% of scientist hacks agree with you......

What is the percentage of scientists who believe in global warming?

The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

And that is a lie.....

Well, 2BrainCells.......did you check out the background of that climate denier "scientist" of your little video???? LOL

BTW, I DID state that 3 whole percent of so-called scientists (mostly on Monsanto's payroll) do NOT believe that there's global warming......

 

[Avatar4321]

Not denying them shit. Federal money shouldn't go somewhere that provides abortion. They can go elsewhere to kill their baby.

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain......

Is abortion legal or no?

is an embryo a baby, yes or no?

Abortion is legal for now. Science will prove that it is murder.
Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Why do you imagine that those are two different words?

Is it possible that they are indeed not the same thing at all and describe the actual state of development the entity is in.

4 d ultrasounds are showing a fetus is a baby. It's only time before science proves it. So then are you gonna hate science?

Science has already proven it. But it doesn't matter to them. They ignore science whenever it doesn't fit their agenda. They think there are countless genders. They think temperatures dropping proves the planet is warming. They don't even admit there is a difference between men and women. And they think science is determined by how many people agree on a particular theory.

How do you educate that level of ignorance??

 

[Avatar4321]

It's only time before science proves it

Why don't idiots like you then WAIT until science"proves it"???......Of course, you must yield to that Nobel winner scientist, Sean Hannity's opinion.

Who the heck cares about hannity other than you obviously?

You know its rather pathetic when strangers care more about your children living than you to. You wouldn't think you'd need science to prove what's obvious to anyone with common sense. Killing your child is wrong

 

[edward37]

Most right wingers who are now stuck with the Trumpster have NO choice but to condone all of the excesses this clown is imposing on our democracy.....and that is too bad; brainwashing is never pleasant to watch.

However, the current administration is well aware that there are very damaging leaks about the Trump administration dealings with Russian thugs just waiting to be exposed in the upcoming weeks (and probably some of these leaks will be from the Russians themselves in their quest to ridicule the current status of U.S. standing in the world's eyes.)

Given these realities, the oval office has launched a preemptive strike against our own media outlets (labeling them fake news) in order to "cushion" the blow of what these media outlets will soon reveal.

Whenever any organization is beleaguered by an onslaught of controversy, the organization retreats into its bunkers hoping that the controversy will be overshadowed by a more important exigency.

Ultimately this sham of an administration will not be brought down by so-called liberals, but by sane republicans who would rather lose a battle than a more devastating war launched by a charlatan under their banner.

We will be facing very nasty and contentious springtime months..

.

When they act like media they can be treated like media. Until then they should be treated as a political party affiliate.

Act like the media???? You mean if the ah in the WH doesn't like what they say they're all false??? If the pos doesn't get his back slapped or applause at every turn he's gonna tweet false news?

 

[edward37]

Not denying them shit. Federal money shouldn't go somewhere that provides abortion. They can go elsewhere to kill their baby.

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain......

Is abortion legal or no?

is an embryo a baby, yes or no?

Abortion is legal for now. Science will prove that it is murder.
Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Yes an unborn fetus is a baby.

Why do you imagine that those are two different words?

Is it possible that they are indeed not the same thing at all and describe the actual state of development the entity is in.

4 d ultrasounds are showing a fetus is a baby. It's only time before science proves it. So then are you gonna hate science?

Science has already proven it. But it doesn't matter to them. They ignore science whenever it doesn't fit their agenda. They think there are countless genders. They think temperatures dropping proves the planet is warming. They don't even admit there is a difference between men and women. And they think science is determined by how many people agree on a particular theory.

How do you educate that level of ignorance??

Friday was the warmest day on record for a february in Boston Repubs have little regard for science

 

[Avatar4321]

I guess why you idiots keep screaming global cooling, global warmin, or climate change with no proof.

You're "absolutely correct" moron......a whopping 3% of scientist hacks agree with you......

What is the percentage of scientists who believe in global warming?

The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

Thank you for proving my point. You think science is determined by consensus. You have just proven you don't know what science is.

Using your argument Galileo was wrong because the consensus of scientists said otherwise. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

Oh wait I said your argument Is ridiculous. I have clearly silenced you despite the fact that you never shut up