Ana Navarro: I want them muted, I WANT THEM SILENCED!

[Pilot1]

She's entitles to her opinion. Why does she not think others are entitled to theirs?

Because she is a Communist.

Constitutionalists vs Communists, who will win?

That is exactly the question. The Media, Education, Globalists, and Democrats all want Communism. Everyone else wants the Constitution which has worked for centuries.

 

[Pogo]

To be more accurate, Rump really doesn't go after the media. He goes after the unwashed to have THEM go after the media. That's what all that whining on Tweeter is about. That's what all that bullshit posturing and strutting about "opening up libel laws" and "the media is the enemy" is about --- getting the little people to do the dirty work he's too much of a wimp to do himself.

No other President, innocent or guilty, could have withstood that Mueller probe. Wimpy Rand Paul and Marco Rubio would have resigned day 2.

Rilly?

How long was that Clinton probe?

 

[skye]

the little Goebbels wannabe.

 

[K9Buck]

She's entitles to her opinion. Why does she not think others are entitled to theirs?

Because she's more enlightened than everyone else. Therefore, she alone should be the sole arbiter of what ideas can be expressed. In her mind, she should be appointed queen for life and then all ideas will have to be cleared by her before they can be made public.

 

[Olde Europe]

Quite obviously, it does not, for you seem to believe that "freedom of speech" means the right to use another person's or entity's property to disseminate speech. This is not the case, as, for example, you have no right to post here, and you also have no right to a square foot on the front page of the NYTimes.

Several on here tried to explain that to you, to no avail whatsoever. Why is that? Really, I'd like to know. Alex Jones is perfectly free to splutter his ghoulish crap just as he was before. He just doesn't get to erect a giant billboard on your (or somebody else's) front yard to disseminate it. The reason why that is has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

That is not hard to understand or complicated.

My goodness, you're not bright.

I never said anyone has a right to use a privately-owned platform. That's your complete willful misunderstanding.

But I wouldn't expect a European to fully understand human rights anyway.

Let's keep in mind your text here (as one of several examples):

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech [...]

All Facebook did was to deny the likes of Alex Jones the use of their platform to disseminate their vile crap.

That, in your mind, amounts to lack of support for "Freedom of speech", when, in fact, Jones's freedom of speech is intact. That leaves "use of private property for the purpose of dissemination" as the freedom of speech infringement.

Yep, I am not terribly bright, but I do understand your argument, and also why it is invalid. You obviously don't.


So, we have Ana Navarro declared a "Far left propaganda artist", a "communist" even, when she is a life-long Republican, a Republican strategist working, exclusively, for Republican candidates - not even a single Democratic candidate among her employers.

The banning of Mr. Farrakhan notwithstanding, this was then made into an attempt at silencing "conservatives".

On that occasion, the beginning of the "Great Civil War" was declared.

Underpinning it all is a complete, deplorable, and willful misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is saying. It all comes with a side of spluttering apoplexy, hysteria, and, shall we say, a big fat dollop of mendacity.

Our Deplorables are a sight to behold.

 

[blastoff]

She's entitles to her opinion. Why does she not think others are entitled to theirs?

Because she’s a typical lefty?

 

[Mac1958]

Our illiberal leftist authoritarians sure are happy to spin and deflect and attack for what this person said.

For the obvious reason: They're illiberal leftist authoritarians. They're fine with shutting speech down.

 

[daveman]

Quite obviously, it does not, for you seem to believe that "freedom of speech" means the right to use another person's or entity's property to disseminate speech. This is not the case, as, for example, you have no right to post here, and you also have no right to a square foot on the front page of the NYTimes.

Several on here tried to explain that to you, to no avail whatsoever. Why is that? Really, I'd like to know. Alex Jones is perfectly free to splutter his ghoulish crap just as he was before. He just doesn't get to erect a giant billboard on your (or somebody else's) front yard to disseminate it. The reason why that is has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

That is not hard to understand or complicated.

My goodness, you're not bright.

I never said anyone has a right to use a privately-owned platform. That's your complete willful misunderstanding.

But I wouldn't expect a European to fully understand human rights anyway.

Let's keep in mind your text here (as one of several examples):

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech [...]

All Facebook did was to deny the likes of Alex Jones the use of their platform to disseminate their vile crap.

That, in your mind, amounts to lack of support for "Freedom of speech", when, in fact, Jones's freedom of speech is intact. That leaves "use of private property for the purpose of dissemination" as the freedom of speech infringement.

Yep, I am not terribly bright, but I do understand your argument, and also why it is invalid. You obviously don't.


So, we have Ana Navarro declared a "Far left propaganda artist", a "communist" even, when she is a life-long Republican, a Republican strategist working, exclusively, for Republican candidates - not even a single Democratic candidate among her employers.

The banning of Mr. Farrakhan notwithstanding, this was then made into an attempt at silencing "conservatives".

On that occasion, the beginning of the "Great Civil War" was declared.

Underpinning it all is a complete, deplorable, and willful misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is saying. It all comes with a side of spluttering apoplexy, hysteria, and, shall we say, a big fat dollop of mendacity.

Our Deplorables are a sight to behold.

"All Facebook did was to deny the likes of Alex Jones the use of their platform to disseminate their vile crap."

Uh huh. Meanwhile, vile crap like calls for white genocide and terrorist recruiting videos are not removed from Facebook.

But you just keep pretending Facebook has no bias against conservatives. You're European...it's not like you have any understanding of freedom.

 

[Blackrook]

Not a good sign when Americans are using words like that.

What's more "horrible for society" is the shutting down of opposing views.

Stopped clock tells the correct time for a fraction of a second.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

You actually think you made some point with a literally FIVE SECOND snippet of some unknown talking head that doesn't even identify its pronoun?

Have you always been retarded or were you born that way?

Hey everyone, the dumbest creature on USMB just vomited something...

And a herpaderp to you too, sluggo.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And it says that ------------ where?

In that 5 second clip that you were too ******* stupid to grasp.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Quite obviously, it does not, for you seem to believe that "freedom of speech" means the right to use another person's or entity's property to disseminate speech. This is not the case, as, for example, you have no right to post here, and you also have no right to a square foot on the front page of the NYTimes.

Several on here tried to explain that to you, to no avail whatsoever. Why is that? Really, I'd like to know. Alex Jones is perfectly free to splutter his ghoulish crap just as he was before. He just doesn't get to erect a giant billboard on your (or somebody else's) front yard to disseminate it. The reason why that is has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

That is not hard to understand or complicated.

My goodness, you're not bright.

I never said anyone has a right to use a privately-owned platform. That's your complete willful misunderstanding.

But I wouldn't expect a European to fully understand human rights anyway.

Let's keep in mind your text here (as one of several examples):

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech [...]

All Facebook did was to deny the likes of Alex Jones the use of their platform to disseminate their vile crap.

That, in your mind, amounts to lack of support for "Freedom of speech", when, in fact, Jones's freedom of speech is intact. That leaves "use of private property for the purpose of dissemination" as the freedom of speech infringement.

Yep, I am not terribly bright, but I do understand your argument, and also why it is invalid. You obviously don't.


So, we have Ana Navarro declared a "Far left propaganda artist", a "communist" even, when she is a life-long Republican, a Republican strategist working, exclusively, for Republican candidates - not even a single Democratic candidate among her employers.

The banning of Mr. Farrakhan notwithstanding, this was then made into an attempt at silencing "conservatives".

On that occasion, the beginning of the "Great Civil War" was declared.

Underpinning it all is a complete, deplorable, and willful misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is saying. It all comes with a side of spluttering apoplexy, hysteria, and, shall we say, a big fat dollop of mendacity.

Our Deplorables are a sight to behold.

So, Fascistbook censored dissenting views?

Blows a hole in the claim they are a public forum.

 

[Jets]

If she directed that screed at conservatives she should be ashamed of herself.

That said, the entire portion should have been posted for context.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If she directed that screed at conservatives she should be ashamed of herself.

That said, the entire portion should have been posted for context.

She's a Nazi cvnt. That was plenty to reinforce that fact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

Ann, go suck a bag of dicks