When There Is Too Much Winning.......

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
131,875
Reaction score
67,672
Points
2,615
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1.The Constitution is the only document the people of the free country of America have agreed to be governed by.
I'm gonna call this the most important part of the document: ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."


2. I'm a conservative, a supporter of Trump, and a believer in Lord Acton's warning that power corrupts.
Great article by Stossel....



3. " I was relieved when Donald Trump, campaigning for the presidency, said, "If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country!"
Democrats, by contrast, had been eagerly censoring. During Covid, they threatened social media companies, ordering them to censor the internet.

"They are directly speaking to millions!" complained Kamala Harris, "without any level of oversight, and that has to stop!"
Fortunately, once Trump was reelected, he told his staff: "Stop all government censorship."
Hooray!




4.But now that Trump's president, and getting lots of criticism from the media, he's started calling speech that he doesn't like "illegal." "They'll take a great story, and they'll make it bad. I think that's really illegal, personally."

He also threatened TV stations: "They give me only bad publicity ... maybe their license should be taken away."
"There's free speech, and then there's hate speech," said his attorney general, Pam Bondi. "We will absolutely target you ... if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."

They will "target" people?




5. Trump's FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, joined in. When Jimmy Kimmel said nasty and incorrect things about Charlie Kirk's murder, Carr threatened ABC's TV licenses, saying, like a mafia boss, "We can do this the easy way or the wawy. Yet months earlier, he'd tweeted: "Dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights."

And years earlier, he tweeted that the FCC does "not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the public interest."
He was right ... then.

But power tends to corrupt."
 
Last edited:
1761420427296.webp
 
Liberals wrote the Constitution

We the People….
Such a trite thing to say.

They were more classical liberals which means that by today’s metrics, they were conservatives.

This is a fair explanation for why the modern American liberal doesn’t support our Constitution (except when and to the extent it serves their own momentary interests).
 
liberals?

they overthrew the reigning government and set up their own.

Kinda like the Bolsheviks.
Founding Fathers were the most liberal of their day
They wrote the Constitution

Imagine believing in all men are created equal and allowing common men to vote

Conservatives supported the crown.
 
They were more classical liberals which means that by today’s metrics, they were conservatives.
Sorry Skippy, but you don’t get to play both sides of the fence

Conservatives of the day supported the King
Liberals used to Tar and Feather them

What we call……The Good Ole Days
 
Founding Fathers were the most liberal of their day
They wrote the Constitution

Imagine believing in all men are created equal and allowing common men to vote

Conservatives supported the crown.
About 1/3 backed the king of England. 1/3 did not care either way. 1/3 supported overthrow of Government. Today 1/3 still support overthrowing the Government. Conservatives still support the present government.
 
About 1/3 backed the king of England. 1/3 did not care either way. 1/3 supported overthrow of Government. Today 1/3 still support overthrowing the Government. Conservatives still support the present government.

Conservatives of the day supported the King
Conservatives today still support a King

Some things don’t change
 
Founding Fathers were the most liberal of their day
They wrote the Constitution

Imagine believing in all men are created equal and allowing common men to vote

Conservatives supported the crown.
/----/ They allowed slavery to exist, only land owners could vote, and women had little or no rights. Some liberals.
 
/----/ They allowed slavery to exist, only land owners could vote, and women had little or no rights. Some liberals.

At the time, opposing a monarchy meaning all men are created equal. This meant no royalty not that slaves were equal.
Most liberal ideal of the era

Liberals evolve to face new social challenges …Abolition, rights of women, rights of workers, civil rights, gay rights

Conservatives?
Not so much
 
15th post
1.The Constitution is the only document the people of the free country of America have agreed to be governed by.
I'm gonna call this the most important part of the document: ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."


2. I'm a conservative, a supporter of Trump, and a believer in Lord Acton's warning that power corrupts.
Great article by Stossel....



3. " I was relieved when Donald Trump, campaigning for the presidency, said, "If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country!"
Democrats, by contrast, had been eagerly censoring. During Covid, they threatened social media companies, ordering them to censor the internet.

"They are directly speaking to millions!" complained Kamala Harris, "without any level of oversight, and that has to stop!"
Fortunately, once Trump was reelected, he told his staff: "Stop all government censorship."
Hooray!




4.But now that Trump's president, and getting lots of criticism from the media, he's started calling speech that he doesn't like "illegal." "They'll take a great story, and they'll make it bad. I think that's really illegal, personally."

He also threatened TV stations: "They give me only bad publicity ... maybe their license should be taken away."
"There's free speech, and then there's hate speech," said his attorney general, Pam Bondi. "We will absolutely target you ... if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."

They will "target" people?




5. Trump's FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, joined in. When Jimmy Kimmel said nasty and incorrect things about Charlie Kirk's murder, Carr threatened ABC's TV licenses, saying, like a mafia boss, "We can do this the easy way or the wawy. Yet months earlier, he'd tweeted: "Dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights."

And years earlier, he tweeted that the FCC does "not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the public interest."
He was right ... then.

But power tends to corrupt."
I don't take Trump seriously when he's spouting off after being attacked for the 9,745,934th time by the completely corrupt media we have in this country.
As for the FCC, I think Carr was well within his job description to question the license of ABC. The public airwaves are licensed for a reason: they need to show at least a modicum of fairness. ABC doesn't. Between their late night show, their news and The View (which is, unbelievably, a product of their news division), it is a leftist propaganda machine. Therefore, I think a little investigation into whether or not they are serving the American public may be warranted.
 
I don't take Trump seriously when he's spouting off after being attacked for the 9,745,934th time by the completely corrupt media we have in this country.
As for the FCC, I think Carr was well within his job description to question the license of ABC. The public airwaves are licensed for a reason: they need to show at least a modicum of fairness. ABC doesn't. Between their late night show, their news and The View (which is, unbelievably, a product of their news division), it is a leftist propaganda machine. Therefore, I think a little investigation into whether or not they are serving the American public may be warranted.
Sorry, I tend to be a free speech totalist,right up to the Supreme Court's

Brandenburg v. Ohio | 395 U.S. 444 (1969)​

1761422920865.webp
Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
https://supreme.justia.com › cases › federal




Brandenburg v. Ohio: A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent......
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom