Trump's assault on free speech - agree with him or else!

[jc456]

let's take this one from your signature: 1. >>> It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence". What is it you're trying to tell us?

Well, two things: There are some wingers here (from both sides, of course), who have accused me of being a "fence sitter", even though, unlike them, I regularly take incoming from both ends of the spectrum every day here. So that was a little clarification for them.

Second, the Left and the Right share many counter-productive and destructive behaviors that are causing this country great harm: Distortion, deflection, personal attacks, name-calling, wild hyperbole, intense myopia, hypocrisy, intolerance and outright lies. Since they can be so similar in their behaviors, I look at them as essentially being on the same side of the fence. The rest of us, the majority, are the on the other side.
.

ok, so what is it you stand for? I think that is the piece that is missing here. everyone leans a direction, which direction do you lean and what is it you'd like to see news outlets report?

 

[pismoe]

Given the Regressive Left's commitment to Political Correctness, to shutting down speech at (of all places) American Universities, and its authoritarian addiction to punishing anyone who dares to say anything they don't like about anything in any situation, it has a long, long way to go before it can complain about Freedom of Speech.

What the hell does your view of 'political correctness' have anything to do with the POTUS removing press credentials from certain members of the free Press?!?!

I just explained it.
.

I don't think you understand what 'authoritarian' means. To do so, you have to be in a position of authority to do so.....not sure why pointing out stupidity of right wing theories equates to shutting down free speech? Quite the contrary.....I LOVE right wing nutcases speaking....their ineptitude is better evidence of their craziness than anything I could say.

what speech is being shut down? why won't you answer?

---------------------------- i think that FTank might be embarrassed JC !!

 

[bendog]

yep, understand that. the question being asked now is why? What purpose does it serve? It was, from what I heard last night, transition purposes. Well we're 18 months in and these folks still have it? What is it going to hurt anyone to remove their clearance? How is that silencing them exactly per the OP?

Why should the executive branch single out these 5 people? If having a clearance when you get out of service is such an evil thing then do away with it totally.

I do agree it is not silencing them in the least, but it is a vindictive action by Trump


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

------------------------------------------------ its just funny GGator . These people losing [may lose] S.C. are pwicks anyway . 'brennan' voted for a Communist is one example . I know you are not impressed with that explanation so the TRUMP heard your pleas and i guess that to make you happy that there may be a BLANKET Ban on any ex gov official keeping their 'sec clearance' in the future . If that happens and i hope that it does then everything should be good GGator .

I bet you 10 bucks that never happens, no way Trump pisses off the military that much. He would be ******* over a lot of people just to be a vindictive dick


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

--------------------------------------------------- Everyone likes being SPECIAL i guess . And you might be correct and we will see but there is no reason to give these DEEP STATE Type people SPECIAL PRIVLEDGES in the USA GGator .

Again, he hasn't answered why they need it.

No one answered why Trump should remove clearances when other potuses have not. LOL

 

[Mac1958]

let's take this one from your signature: 1. >>> It's not about "Left vs. Right". It's about the WINGERS on BOTH ends vs. a MAJORITY of America. That's MY "side of the fence". What is it you're trying to tell us?

Well, two things: There are some wingers here (from both sides, of course), who have accused me of being a "fence sitter", even though, unlike them, I regularly take incoming from both ends of the spectrum every day here. So that was a little clarification for them.

Second, the Left and the Right share many counter-productive and destructive behaviors that are causing this country great harm: Distortion, deflection, personal attacks, name-calling, wild hyperbole, intense myopia, hypocrisy, intolerance and outright lies. Since they can be so similar in their behaviors, I look at them as essentially being on the same side of the fence. The rest of us, the majority, are the on the other side.
.

ok, so what is it you stand for? I think that is the piece that is missing here. everyone leans a direction, which direction do you lean and what is it you'd like to see news outlets report?

Well, I think of myself as a left-leaning independent, and I think that's borne out in the issues from the link in the second line of my sig.

The major media is so far removed from what I would like to see that it's difficult to answer that question. When I was trained, when I was in the business, the top priority was to (a) present the facts in context, and (b) let the reader/viewer/listener make their own decisions. The media now feels that it has to "find the truth", and since most of the media is liberal, the "news" is presented from that perspective. So, as a result, getting enough information to make our own decisions is very difficult. The same holds true for watching Fox, from the opposite direction.

I'm not aware of an outlet that I trust by itself.
.

 

[bendog]

by Jesus I just hope the revoke Albright's and Kissinger's too. I mean this clearly out of hand. All those security clearances need to be put back in the cigar box so President Trump can find them when he needs them!

 

[Dana7360]

How is using speech to refute speech an "attack of expression"? Isn't that the exact opposite?

Refuting it is one thing, shutting it down or intimidating it is another.

"I'm going to use my freedom of speech to shut down yours" is a blatant and cynical perversion of the concept.

These people agree:

I agree that some universities have refused to have right wing people speak on their campus is wrong.

The proper thing is to allow the person to speak. The people on the campus obviously won't go to hear that speech so the speaker is wasting their time and money to go there. Let good old capitalism do it's thing. No demand, the supply is worthless so right wing people will stop. They really don't want to speak. They want the issue of being denied to speak.

However, that's not all liberals. It's not the leaders of liberals. What happens on the campus of a university isn't all liberals and certainly not leaders of liberals.

I think it's wrong to lump everyone into one classification based on what one small part of a group does.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Everyone that leaves Govt service or the military that has a clearance when they get out have it till it expires, it has always been that way.

They are not indefinite, a TS is renewed every 5 years.

They have no privileges, haunch a clearance and having access are two separate issues


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yep, understand that. the question being asked now is why? What purpose does it serve? It was, from what I heard last night, transition purposes. Well we're 18 months in and these folks still have it? What is it going to hurt anyone to remove their clearance? How is that silencing them exactly per the OP?

Why should the executive branch single out these 5 people? If having a clearance when you get out of service is such an evil thing then do away with it totally.

I do agree it is not silencing them in the least, but it is a vindictive action by Trump


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

------------------------------------------------ its just funny GGator . These people losing [may lose] S.C. are pwicks anyway . 'brennan' voted for a Communist is one example . I know you are not impressed with that explanation so the TRUMP heard your pleas and i guess that to make you happy that there may be a BLANKET Ban on any ex gov official keeping their 'sec clearance' in the future . If that happens and i hope that it does then everything should be good GGator .

I bet you 10 bucks that never happens, no way Trump pisses off the military that much. He would be ******* over a lot of people just to be a vindictive dick


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

With technologies we have today, I can see it. why are you against it? it would plug up leaks.

No it would not. One more time for the reading impaired...having a clearance does not give you access. None of these people have access to what they had before.

I am against it because it is being done just to be a dick and because it is a terrible waste of tax dollars


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Dana7360]

Yes, it's an authoritarian move, but I don't think Trump has the capacity to realize it.

You mean like he'd never open concentration camps and OOOOPS we have concentration camps on the Southern Border.

It's his standard, petulant, vindictive, shallow behavior, something he's demonstrated since he came down the escalator. He doesn't appear to have a grasp of context, he just reacts.

And that should scare the hell out of you. Because now he's got thousands of people ready to act on his whims, all willing to ingratiate themselves to him.

But you won't care until the stock market tanks... that's your moral value.

My point, however, is that the illiberal authoritarian Left has been making a mockery of the most liberal of values, freedom of expression, for a couple of generations now. The attacking, punishing and intimidating of speech by these people is certainly authoritarian, and it flies directly in the face of freedom of expression.

Bullshit. If I'm spending $40,000 a year to send my kid to a good college, I don't want that money going to giving forums to Nazis.

Now, if we were locking up Nazis like Coulter and Richard Spenser, you might have a point. (in Europe, they WOULD be locked up, because on Nazism, "Been there, done that, got beaten by the brown-shirt". ) But saying, "Um, no, we aren't going to give your filth the intellectual stamp of approval of speaking on our campus", that's not censorship. That's refusing patronage.

If a big corporation refuses to put their ads on a Fox News show that features Coulter (which is why you never see her on TV anymore), why should college kids be forced to subsidize her?

I understand your point and agree with it to a point.

The way to stop conservatives from poisoning college students with their hate is to educate the college students against such hate.

Let the haters go to the campus to speak to an empty room. Let them waste their time and money. They aren't there to speak. They are there to create the issue that they aren't being allowed to speak. That liberals don't believe in free speech.

Why give them what they want?

They scream they love capitalism. So let capitalism do it's job. We all know anyone can produce a product all day long. It's worthless if no one will buy it. Those who are sponsoring the haters will get tired of wasting their money and stop sending their haters to spread their hate.

Offer the college students an alternative. Have a rally to increase tolerance and reject hate and nazis. I'm sure that rally will be packed with the hater rally mostly empty.

Free speech is for everyone. Not just those who say what you want to hear.

 

[sartre play]

Truth is gone away in the hope that we may sway, with big & little lie's
saying things that aren't quite true never checking facts or learning new.
each side say's you started it, so then it's ok for me to be dishonest too.

 

[Mac1958]

How is using speech to refute speech an "attack of expression"? Isn't that the exact opposite?

Refuting it is one thing, shutting it down or intimidating it is another.

"I'm going to use my freedom of speech to shut down yours" is a blatant and cynical perversion of the concept.

These people agree:

I agree that some universities have refused to have right wing people speak on their campus is wrong.

The proper thing is to allow the person to speak. The people on the campus obviously won't go to hear that speech so the speaker is wasting their time and money to go there. Let good old capitalism do it's thing. No demand, the supply is worthless so right wing people will stop. They really don't want to speak. They want the issue of being denied to speak.

However, that's not all liberals. It's not the leaders of liberals. What happens on the campus of a university isn't all liberals and certainly not leaders of liberals.

I think it's wrong to lump everyone into one classification based on what one small part of a group does.

I draw a distinction between liberals and the illiberal Leftist authoritarians who have taken over the Democratic party.

Real liberals defend freedom of expression, ESPECIALLY when it's words with which they disagree.

I hate seeing the American Flag burned, but I'll damn sure defend their right to burn it.

Anyone who leverages THEIR freedom of expression to shut down or shout down or punish or intimidate that of others is no liberal, at least to me.
.

 

[Dana7360]

One thing we should ALL be in agreement on....the right for any of us to speak freely without repercussion from an oppressive government. The First Amendment reads:

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.

Trump has been assaulting freedom of speech since he has been elected. Whether it was the assault on people based on religion (Muslims). Or, his open assaults on the free press and his threats to remove certain members' press credentials to the White House if he doesn't like what they say.
Trump Is Threatening to 'Take Away' Reporters' Credentials. He Told TIME He Wouldn't Do That

His latest swipe at the First Amendment involves removal of security clearances from Americans who have the audacity to stand up for what they believe in. Americans who served their country for decades are being silenced by a President who believes everyone should serve his interests...and NOT those of the country. I don't care what you think of the politics of guys like John Brennan, but, to have them silenced simply because they disagree with what the POTUS is doing? Who else will we allow Trump to silence?
Trump's Assault on the First Amendment
Targeting critics, Trump threatens ex-officials' security clearances

Where are the patriotic Republicans?! Seriously....how many times will Trump have to wipe his backside with the Constitution before you're going to care?

The real threat to our constitution is the one missing from your rant...the second amendment abolishing, as for the above it is PC speech that is the real threat in those areas

Good news goober......nobody is looking to abolish the second amendment, so, rest easy.

Define "PC speech"......you know, given it is the "real threat" (moreso than a President using authority to silence critics of his).

PC speech differs depending on who is president.

Right now it's very PC to never tell the truth, to attack our media and intelligence agencies. It's PC to kiss putin's butt while attacking our friends. It's PC to hate anyone who isn't white and far right conservative.

Right now it's very PC to behave like a childish and hateful monster.

 

[whitehall]

Or else what? Try saying one of the forbidden words that liberals have listed on college campus. Try giving a speech on college campus if you are a conservative. Liberals have it rigged so that you will most likely be assaulted. The problem with the left is that they can't stop whining. They are so used to having the support of the mainstream media that the mildest criticism sends them into a tailspin or a crazy angry rant.

 

[pismoe]

Why should the executive branch single out these 5 people? If having a clearance when you get out of service is such an evil thing then do away with it totally.

I do agree it is not silencing them in the least, but it is a vindictive action by Trump


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

------------------------------------------------ its just funny GGator . These people losing [may lose] S.C. are pwicks anyway . 'brennan' voted for a Communist is one example . I know you are not impressed with that explanation so the TRUMP heard your pleas and i guess that to make you happy that there may be a BLANKET Ban on any ex gov official keeping their 'sec clearance' in the future . If that happens and i hope that it does then everything should be good GGator .

I bet you 10 bucks that never happens, no way Trump pisses off the military that much. He would be ******* over a lot of people just to be a vindictive dick


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

--------------------------------------------------- Everyone likes being SPECIAL i guess . And you might be correct and we will see but there is no reason to give these DEEP STATE Type people SPECIAL PRIVLEDGES in the USA GGator .

Again, he hasn't answered why they need it.

No one answered why Trump should remove clearances when other potuses have not. LOL

------------------------------------- just put these ex gov employees back in the ranks of the rabble where they belong . Its just the PRINCIPLE that no one is annointed Special by the government of the USA Ben .

 

[g5000]

So you guys don't like a member of the D33P STAIT who has a security clearance making baseless accusations of criminal activity against someone, eh?

Suuuuuuuurrrre...

 

[Dana7360]

I'm not talking in circles, nor are the people I have quoted. This is pretty clear, and I'll say it again: There is a difference between disagreeing with people and shutting them down, or shouting them down, or intimidating them. The people I quoted agree with me, you don't have to.

I'm sorry, when has Ann Coulter been "shut down".

I mean, Fox News won't have her on anymore because the sponsors won't have it, but it's not like she learns anything. Quite the contrary, like any good troll, she just says increasingly obnoxious things to try to get attention. You know, kind of like Madonna doing more provocative things when everyone is kind of tired of her schtick.

It strikes me that if Fox News sponsors won't put Ann Coulter on the air anymore because she is so obnoxious in her racism... college kids have every right to reject her using their campus to give her spew any legitimacy.

If Ann really wants to speak, she should rent a hall and charge $5.00 a head.

The reason fox won't have her on their network has nothing to do with her racism. Those at fox agree with her.

Money is the reason why she's not on fox anymore.

I agree, I don't want her to poison the minds of our youth. There's enough of it all over the internet and fox news.

I don't agree that she shouldn't be allowed to speak. Let her speak.

What liberals should do is either let her speak in a debate with the other point of view being spoken too. If she wants to spew her hate and lies then have the truth right next to her speaking just as much as she does.

Or allow her to speak and have an alternative rally at the same time on the same campus. Give the students a choice of what to go to. Have the truth being told while the lies are being spewed.

Or allow her to speak and have an alternative concert with speakers between bands.

It costs money to go on the road to speak. She has sponsors. Those sponsors will get tired of paying for her to speak to an empty room.

 

[bendog]

------------------------------------------------ its just funny GGator . These people losing [may lose] S.C. are pwicks anyway . 'brennan' voted for a Communist is one example . I know you are not impressed with that explanation so the TRUMP heard your pleas and i guess that to make you happy that there may be a BLANKET Ban on any ex gov official keeping their 'sec clearance' in the future . If that happens and i hope that it does then everything should be good GGator .

I bet you 10 bucks that never happens, no way Trump pisses off the military that much. He would be ******* over a lot of people just to be a vindictive dick


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

--------------------------------------------------- Everyone likes being SPECIAL i guess . And you might be correct and we will see but there is no reason to give these DEEP STATE Type people SPECIAL PRIVLEDGES in the USA GGator .

Again, he hasn't answered why they need it.

No one answered why Trump should remove clearances when other potuses have not. LOL

------------------------------------- just put these ex gov employees back in the ranks of the rabble where they belong . Its just the PRINCIPLE that no one is annointed Special by the government of the USA Ben .

Clearly it's been done improperly for decades and a change has obviously been needed dating back to ..... I guess Nixon. LOL

 

[rightwinger]

So you guys don't like a member of the D33P STAIT making baseless accusations of criminal activity against someone, eh?

Suuuuuuuurrrre...

They should let Hillary close the cell door on him

 

[pismoe]

yep , time to fix it , time to fix lots of things , Trump May be the fixer Ben .

 

[Jantje_Smit]

So you guys don't like a member of the D33P STAIT who has a security clearance making baseless accusations of criminal activity against someone, eh?

Suuuuuuuurrrre...

I thought the #resistance loved free speech

 

[Mac1958]

I thought the #resistance loved free speech

Nope. Only speech they like. Otherwise, there's always an excuse to shut it down, shout it down, or intimidate it away.

They're cowards.
.