Trump trying to destroy Free Press?

[Pogo]

By default most people will automatically associate Fascism with Hitler's Nazism even though Nazism (under Hitler) was not true Fascism. Since that is the typical inference that's what I was addressing.

Actually "fascism" itself is Italian, etymologically. I'm afraid "by default most people will associate" is not an argument, if he didn't make that direct comparison, which he didn't. We cannot redefine "fascism" to mean "Hitler" and nothing else. If we do that we throw away any way to say "fascism" when what we actually mean is "fascism".

Why then didn't the OP compare it to the Communist suppression/control of the press?

In both cases "Authoritarian" would have been a more descriptive term, since suppression of the press has nothing directly to do with communism.

Just as appropriate when making false comparisons. How about comparing it to the partisan journalism that has permeated the press since the times leading up to the American Revolution? How about comparing it to Bill and Hillary's more subtle but much more effective manipulation/control of press access?

I believe that particular Tu Quoque is already under way. But the topic clearly states "Trump". It's actually the first word in the title.

 

[Pogo]

The title says nothig of free speech. It says destroying free press, dear.
Here is another for you
Hillary Clinton Denies BLM Entry to Her Event

Is Hillary trying to destroy a free press?!?
Clinton team blasts reporters with noise machine during Hillary fundraising speech

I uh --- don't think you're getting the idea here.

Running a "static noise machine" at a private event, apparently to shut somebody out of hearing ----- isn't qute the same thing as suppressing the right to speaking.

"Hearing" / "Speaking". Know the difference.

As another post said,

There's nothing in The Constitution that requires unlimited media access to every single event that occurs.

What the **** is "static noise" anyway?

Once again, you don't seem to discern the difference between "speaking" and "hearing".

I suspect it's related to the way you post all your quotes backwards.
---- which is ironic, since it makes this post look like I'm answering myself instead of you, which in effect masks your own voice, so you're doing the same thing.

Stop that.

 

[Ringel05]

By default most people will automatically associate Fascism with Hitler's Nazism even though Nazism (under Hitler) was not true Fascism. Since that is the typical inference that's what I was addressing.

Actually "fascism" itself is Italian, etymologically. I'm afraid "by default most people will associate" is not an argument, if he didn't make that direct comparison, which he didn't. We cannot redefine "fascism" to mean "Hitler" and nothing else. If we do that we throw away any way to say "fascism" when what we actually mean is "fascism".

Why then didn't the OP compare it to the Communist suppression/control of the press?

In both cases "Authoritarian" would have been a more descriptive term, since suppression of the press has nothing directly to do with communism.

Just as appropriate when making false comparisons. How about comparing it to the partisan journalism that has permeated the press since the times leading up to the American Revolution? How about comparing it to Bill and Hillary's more subtle but much more effective manipulation/control of press access?

I believe that particular Tu Quoque is already under way. But the topic clearly states "Trump". It's actually the first word in the title.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can be extremely pedantic and obdurate when it suits your purpose.......

 

[NightFox]

Hey dumbfuck, Congress thought 1 and 2, which didn't make it, were more important.

LOL, apparently in the plane of existence that you inhabit the Amendment Process of the COTUS is different than the one that is in operation here in the reality that the rest of us occupy, since in our Universe amendments require the acquiescence of both Congress AND the States or by Constitutional Convention to become actual amendments, so yeah "1 and 2" aren't "1 and 2" they aren't amendments at all.

.....and thus the FIRST amendment remains the FIRST amendment... except of course in your alternate reality where the FIRST is the THIRD and the 27th is really the 11,539th amendment.

 

[BluesLegend]

So the NY Times runs a hit piece story on Trump, intentionally lying, so blatant the model in the story had to come out and say hey the NY Times lied, and Trump is destroying the free press???

 

[Pogo]

By default most people will automatically associate Fascism with Hitler's Nazism even though Nazism (under Hitler) was not true Fascism. Since that is the typical inference that's what I was addressing.

Actually "fascism" itself is Italian, etymologically. I'm afraid "by default most people will associate" is not an argument, if he didn't make that direct comparison, which he didn't. We cannot redefine "fascism" to mean "Hitler" and nothing else. If we do that we throw away any way to say "fascism" when what we actually mean is "fascism".

Why then didn't the OP compare it to the Communist suppression/control of the press?

In both cases "Authoritarian" would have been a more descriptive term, since suppression of the press has nothing directly to do with communism.

Just as appropriate when making false comparisons. How about comparing it to the partisan journalism that has permeated the press since the times leading up to the American Revolution? How about comparing it to Bill and Hillary's more subtle but much more effective manipulation/control of press access?

I believe that particular Tu Quoque is already under way. But the topic clearly states "Trump". It's actually the first word in the title.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can be extremely pedantic and obdurate when it suits your purpose.......

Then what IS the topic? Perhaps my screen is broken....

Points for using the word "obdurate" though. I've already seen "hoosegow" and "obdurate" in the same day. Can "fisticuffs" be far behind?

 

[depotoo]

What!?!
Journalists Meet To Discuss Frustration With Clinton Campaign's Control Over Access And Information

 

[Ringel05]

By default most people will automatically associate Fascism with Hitler's Nazism even though Nazism (under Hitler) was not true Fascism. Since that is the typical inference that's what I was addressing.

Actually "fascism" itself is Italian, etymologically. I'm afraid "by default most people will associate" is not an argument, if he didn't make that direct comparison, which he didn't. We cannot redefine "fascism" to mean "Hitler" and nothing else. If we do that we throw away any way to say "fascism" when what we actually mean is "fascism".

Why then didn't the OP compare it to the Communist suppression/control of the press?

In both cases "Authoritarian" would have been a more descriptive term, since suppression of the press has nothing directly to do with communism.

Just as appropriate when making false comparisons. How about comparing it to the partisan journalism that has permeated the press since the times leading up to the American Revolution? How about comparing it to Bill and Hillary's more subtle but much more effective manipulation/control of press access?

I believe that particular Tu Quoque is already under way. But the topic clearly states "Trump". It's actually the first word in the title.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can be extremely pedantic and obdurate when it suits your purpose.......

Then what IS the topic? Perhaps my screen is broken....

Points for using the word "obdurate" though. I've already seen "hoosegow" and "obdurate" in the same day. Can "fisticuffs" be far behind?

So, since false comparisons were used in the OP no other comparisons, false or nor, are valid simply because of the thread title? Okie dokie.........

 

[Pogo]

By default most people will automatically associate Fascism with Hitler's Nazism even though Nazism (under Hitler) was not true Fascism. Since that is the typical inference that's what I was addressing.

Actually "fascism" itself is Italian, etymologically. I'm afraid "by default most people will associate" is not an argument, if he didn't make that direct comparison, which he didn't. We cannot redefine "fascism" to mean "Hitler" and nothing else. If we do that we throw away any way to say "fascism" when what we actually mean is "fascism".

Why then didn't the OP compare it to the Communist suppression/control of the press?

In both cases "Authoritarian" would have been a more descriptive term, since suppression of the press has nothing directly to do with communism.

Just as appropriate when making false comparisons. How about comparing it to the partisan journalism that has permeated the press since the times leading up to the American Revolution? How about comparing it to Bill and Hillary's more subtle but much more effective manipulation/control of press access?

I believe that particular Tu Quoque is already under way. But the topic clearly states "Trump". It's actually the first word in the title.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can be extremely pedantic and obdurate when it suits your purpose.......

Then what IS the topic? Perhaps my screen is broken....

Points for using the word "obdurate" though. I've already seen "hoosegow" and "obdurate" in the same day. Can "fisticuffs" be far behind?

So, since false comparisons were used in the OP no other comparisons, false or nor, are valid simply because of the thread title? Okie dokie.........

The thread title is straightforward. Whether the OP that comes with it makes its case eloquently or not, well that's what the thread's for, but its entire focus was, again, on Donald Rump and his attitude toward a free press.

You chose to stop and sip at the word 'fascism'. That uh, wasn't the end of it.

So yea verily, tell me more of this "pedantry".

 

[Jack4jill]

Hey dumbfuck, Congress thought 1 and 2, which didn't make it, were more important.

LOL, apparently in the plane of existence that you inhabit the Amendment Process of the COTUS is different than the one that is in operation here in the reality that the rest of us occupy, since in our Universe amendments require the acquiescence of both Congress AND the States or by Constitutional Convention to become actual amendments, so yeah "1 and 2" aren't "1 and 2" they aren't amendments at all.

.....and thus the FIRST amendment remains the FIRST amendment... except of course in your alternate reality where the FIRST is the THIRD and the 27th is really the 11,539th amendment.

Asshole, he said the First was so important that they made it number one only, you dumbfuck, they made it number three.

 

[Ringel05]

By default most people will automatically associate Fascism with Hitler's Nazism even though Nazism (under Hitler) was not true Fascism. Since that is the typical inference that's what I was addressing.

Actually "fascism" itself is Italian, etymologically. I'm afraid "by default most people will associate" is not an argument, if he didn't make that direct comparison, which he didn't. We cannot redefine "fascism" to mean "Hitler" and nothing else. If we do that we throw away any way to say "fascism" when what we actually mean is "fascism".

Why then didn't the OP compare it to the Communist suppression/control of the press?

In both cases "Authoritarian" would have been a more descriptive term, since suppression of the press has nothing directly to do with communism.

Just as appropriate when making false comparisons. How about comparing it to the partisan journalism that has permeated the press since the times leading up to the American Revolution? How about comparing it to Bill and Hillary's more subtle but much more effective manipulation/control of press access?

I believe that particular Tu Quoque is already under way. But the topic clearly states "Trump". It's actually the first word in the title.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can be extremely pedantic and obdurate when it suits your purpose.......

Then what IS the topic? Perhaps my screen is broken....

Points for using the word "obdurate" though. I've already seen "hoosegow" and "obdurate" in the same day. Can "fisticuffs" be far behind?

So, since false comparisons were used in the OP no other comparisons, false or nor, are valid simply because of the thread title? Okie dokie.........

The thread title is straightforward. Whether the OP that comes with it makes its case eloquently or not, well that's what the thread's for, but its entire focus was, again, on Donald Rump and his attitude toward a free press.

You chose to stop and sip at the word 'fascism'. That uh, wasn't the end of it.

So yea verily, tell me more of this "pedantry".

Ahhhhh, the old obfuscation ploy.

 

[Pogo]

Actually "fascism" itself is Italian, etymologically. I'm afraid "by default most people will associate" is not an argument, if he didn't make that direct comparison, which he didn't. We cannot redefine "fascism" to mean "Hitler" and nothing else. If we do that we throw away any way to say "fascism" when what we actually mean is "fascism".

In both cases "Authoritarian" would have been a more descriptive term, since suppression of the press has nothing directly to do with communism.


I believe that particular Tu Quoque is already under way. But the topic clearly states "Trump". It's actually the first word in the title.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can be extremely pedantic and obdurate when it suits your purpose.......

Then what IS the topic? Perhaps my screen is broken....

Points for using the word "obdurate" though. I've already seen "hoosegow" and "obdurate" in the same day. Can "fisticuffs" be far behind?

So, since false comparisons were used in the OP no other comparisons, false or nor, are valid simply because of the thread title? Okie dokie.........

The thread title is straightforward. Whether the OP that comes with it makes its case eloquently or not, well that's what the thread's for, but its entire focus was, again, on Donald Rump and his attitude toward a free press.

You chose to stop and sip at the word 'fascism'. That uh, wasn't the end of it.

So yea verily, tell me more of this "pedantry".

Ahhhhh, the old obfuscation ploy.

Yup, like getting hung up on "fascism", projecting it to "Hitler" and ignoring the rest of the point.

"Obdurate" followed by "obfuscation"... is today "ob-" day? I thought that was obsolete.

 

[NightFox]

Hey dumbfuck, Congress thought 1 and 2, which didn't make it, were more important.

LOL, apparently in the plane of existence that you inhabit the Amendment Process of the COTUS is different than the one that is in operation here in the reality that the rest of us occupy, since in our Universe amendments require the acquiescence of both Congress AND the States or by Constitutional Convention to become actual amendments, so yeah "1 and 2" aren't "1 and 2" they aren't amendments at all.

.....and thus the FIRST amendment remains the FIRST amendment... except of course in your alternate reality where the FIRST is the THIRD and the 27th is really the 11,539th amendment.

Asshole, he said the First was so important that they made it number one only, you dumbfuck, they made it number three.

LOL, "they" didn't make it number three , "they" made it number one, that's why it's called the FIRST amendment, if it were "number three" it would have been called the THIRD amendment, see how that works?

Here endth the math lesson.

BTW would you like a napkin to wipe all the foam from your lips?

 

[Pogo]

Hey dumbfuck, Congress thought 1 and 2, which didn't make it, were more important.

LOL, apparently in the plane of existence that you inhabit the Amendment Process of the COTUS is different than the one that is in operation here in the reality that the rest of us occupy, since in our Universe amendments require the acquiescence of both Congress AND the States or by Constitutional Convention to become actual amendments, so yeah "1 and 2" aren't "1 and 2" they aren't amendments at all.

.....and thus the FIRST amendment remains the FIRST amendment... except of course in your alternate reality where the FIRST is the THIRD and the 27th is really the 11,539th amendment.

Asshole, he said the First was so important that they made it number one only, you dumbfuck, they made it number three.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that first means "first". If that is granted, all else follows". -- Orwell (paraphrased)

And if the State says First means "third"?

 

[Jack4jill]

Hey dumbfuck, Congress thought 1 and 2, which didn't make it, were more important.

LOL, apparently in the plane of existence that you inhabit the Amendment Process of the COTUS is different than the one that is in operation here in the reality that the rest of us occupy, since in our Universe amendments require the acquiescence of both Congress AND the States or by Constitutional Convention to become actual amendments, so yeah "1 and 2" aren't "1 and 2" they aren't amendments at all.

.....and thus the FIRST amendment remains the FIRST amendment... except of course in your alternate reality where the FIRST is the THIRD and the 27th is really the 11,539th amendment.

Asshole, he said the First was so important that they made it number one only, you dumbfuck, they made it number three.

LOL, "they" didn't make it number three , "they" made it number one, that's why it's called the FIRST amendment, if it were "number three" it would have been called the THIRD amendment, see how that works?

Here endth the math lesson.

BTW would you like a napkin to wipe all the foam from your lips?

You are so ******* dumb. What does "III" mean here? (It means three as in, not one or two).

Article I
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article II
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article IV
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article V
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Bill of Rights - Text Version - Archiving Early America

 

[Ringel05]

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you can be extremely pedantic and obdurate when it suits your purpose.......

Then what IS the topic? Perhaps my screen is broken....

Points for using the word "obdurate" though. I've already seen "hoosegow" and "obdurate" in the same day. Can "fisticuffs" be far behind?

So, since false comparisons were used in the OP no other comparisons, false or nor, are valid simply because of the thread title? Okie dokie.........

The thread title is straightforward. Whether the OP that comes with it makes its case eloquently or not, well that's what the thread's for, but its entire focus was, again, on Donald Rump and his attitude toward a free press.

You chose to stop and sip at the word 'fascism'. That uh, wasn't the end of it.

So yea verily, tell me more of this "pedantry".

Ahhhhh, the old obfuscation ploy.

Yup, like getting hung up on "fascism", projecting it to "Hitler" and ignoring the rest of the point.

"Obdurate" followed by "obfuscation"... is today "ob-" day? I thought that was obsolete.

No more beating around the bush, deflection doesn't suit you......... Remember, perception is everything..... or have you forgotten?
Heck I'd love to see the contest come down to Sanders and Trump, two train wrecks that would each be lame duck presidents from the moment one or the other was sworn in. Neither having the full support of their establishment parties, potentially both attempting to then "rule by executive order" keeping SCOTUS busy undoing everything they do. Now that would be hysterically funny to watch.
Hillary is probably Machiavellian enough to do the job but that remains to be seen.........

 

[Jack4jill]

Hey dumbfuck, Congress thought 1 and 2, which didn't make it, were more important.

LOL, apparently in the plane of existence that you inhabit the Amendment Process of the COTUS is different than the one that is in operation here in the reality that the rest of us occupy, since in our Universe amendments require the acquiescence of both Congress AND the States or by Constitutional Convention to become actual amendments, so yeah "1 and 2" aren't "1 and 2" they aren't amendments at all.

.....and thus the FIRST amendment remains the FIRST amendment... except of course in your alternate reality where the FIRST is the THIRD and the 27th is really the 11,539th amendment.

Asshole, he said the First was so important that they made it number one only, you dumbfuck, they made it number three.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that first means "first". If that is granted, all else follows". -- Orwell (paraphrased)

And if the State says First means "third"?

Just deal with the fact you were wrong. It wasn't so important that they made it number one. They made it number three, the states made it number one because the first two didn't pass. Suck it, *****.

 

[paulitician]

Nah, that's Hussein. Even many of his loyal Bootlickers in the Press have expressed concern & outrage over his treatment of journalists.

 

[Pogo]

Hey dumbfuck, Congress thought 1 and 2, which didn't make it, were more important.

LOL, apparently in the plane of existence that you inhabit the Amendment Process of the COTUS is different than the one that is in operation here in the reality that the rest of us occupy, since in our Universe amendments require the acquiescence of both Congress AND the States or by Constitutional Convention to become actual amendments, so yeah "1 and 2" aren't "1 and 2" they aren't amendments at all.

.....and thus the FIRST amendment remains the FIRST amendment... except of course in your alternate reality where the FIRST is the THIRD and the 27th is really the 11,539th amendment.

Asshole, he said the First was so important that they made it number one only, you dumbfuck, they made it number three.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that first means "first". If that is granted, all else follows". -- Orwell (paraphrased)

And if the State says First means "third"?

Just deal with the fact you were wrong. It wasn't so important that they made it number one. They made it number three, the states made it number one because the first two didn't pass. Suck it, *****.

"First" means "third". War is peace. Etc.

You must be a hoot playing baseball, running around the bases clockwise.

Actually it's often occurred to me that, to be fair, a righthanded batter should be allowed to run to third, the base closest to him. Everything would reverse direction depending on the batter. The shortstop becomes the second baseman, etc. I suspect you'd fit right in.

 

[Jack4jill]

Hey dumbfuck, Congress thought 1 and 2, which didn't make it, were more important.

LOL, apparently in the plane of existence that you inhabit the Amendment Process of the COTUS is different than the one that is in operation here in the reality that the rest of us occupy, since in our Universe amendments require the acquiescence of both Congress AND the States or by Constitutional Convention to become actual amendments, so yeah "1 and 2" aren't "1 and 2" they aren't amendments at all.

.....and thus the FIRST amendment remains the FIRST amendment... except of course in your alternate reality where the FIRST is the THIRD and the 27th is really the 11,539th amendment.

Asshole, he said the First was so important that they made it number one only, you dumbfuck, they made it number three.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that first means "first". If that is granted, all else follows". -- Orwell (paraphrased)

And if the State says First means "third"?

Just deal with the fact you were wrong. It wasn't so important that they made it number one. They made it number three, the states made it number one because the first two didn't pass. Suck it, *****.

"First" means "third". War is peace. Etc.

You must be a hoot playing baseball, running around the bases clockwise.

Unlike you when I write down a list I don't try to say that item number three is number one.

When the first two get crossed off, now it's number one, not before then. You useless little ***** are never man enough to own up.