One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
IS this Anti first amendment?I had my comment removed and i wonder why.
Page <prev 2 of 2
Apr 17, 2017 14:08:23   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
vernon wrote:
I don't think the first amendment protects liars and these msm are the worst liars on record liars in history.


A1 has nothing to do with this. A1 says you have the right to speak. It does not say I have to provide you anything to speak about.

Reply
Apr 17, 2017 14:28:03   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
vernon wrote:
I don't think the first amendment protects liars and these msm are the worst liars on record liars in history.


Believe it or not, there is no law against outright lying. There are laws that criminalize lying and representing those lies as t***h, like when under oath, for instance. That's how they got Slick Willy with the Lewinsky scandal. The fact that he was using the Oval office for purposes we could easily describe as wickedly nefarious was neither here nor there. Had he told the t***h, he would have gotten away with it. Unbelievably, he had broken no law, until he lied under oath. Then they 'got him'.

As for the 'free press', you might call that something of a 'grey area'. On the one hand, we expect our reporting agencies or organizations to be honest and t***hful, but they do not go out of their way to guarantee the honesty and t***hfulness of their reporting. Because of that paradox, news agencies get away with the most egregious lies and propaganda pieces, and if they get found out, the obligatory 'retraction' usually finds itself buried under the obituary section. But, hey, they were 'mistaken' and they 'corrected' it, right? Right??

Reply
Apr 17, 2017 15:35:37   #
Noraa Loc: Kansas
 
vernon wrote:
jelun wrote:
The man who wants to swear that he will defend the Constitution ignores it repeatedly, this latest is a blanket dismissal of the First Amendment.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/donald-trump-just-banned-washington-post-covering-his-campaign

Donald Trump Just Banned the Washington Post From Covering His Campaign
The Post joins a long list of blacklisted publications (including Mother Jones).

PATRICK CALDWELL JUN. 13, 2016 5:13 PM
Kind of like Obama saying Fox wasn't a real news show?


Carlo Allegri/ZUMA
Donald Trump issued an edict on his Facebook page Monday afternoon: The Washington Post will no longer be credentialed to cover his campaign. "Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign," Trump wrote, "we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post."



you are not the one to protect the first amendment. face it when you select statements that you dont like and delete it that is anti first amendment.That just goes to show what a hypocrite you really are.
jelun wrote: br The man who wants to swear that he... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2017 19:18:17   #
Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ
 
desparado wrote:
It does protect the liar in the white house


I believe you meant it did protect the liar that was in the White House.

Reply
Apr 17, 2017 20:14:41   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
Louie27 wrote:
I believe you meant it did protect the liar that was in the White House.


Neither of current or previous POTUS has impeccable honesty.

That said, I can survive Trump's better than Obama's, because Trump isn't attempting to destroy America in the meantime.

Reply
Apr 17, 2017 20:18:01   #
vernon
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
OK, let's just get this in perspective. The first amendment guarantees you the right to speak your mind any time any where, at your choosing. You can stand in the middle of a crowd and orate about wh**ever your pet subject is, all day long, and government cannot stop you. Of course, if you insult or threaten people, they might react in a manner to your detriment. The people are not government. Remember that. Moving on, the first amendment does not guarantee you a platform. You can speak all you want, no-one has to listen to you or engage you in discourse (right to remain silent, anyone?). The first amendment does not guarantee you the ability to force anyone to accept your presence or engage you at their gatherings, whether public or private. That especially applies to private citizens.

Now, the Washington Post tried very hard to (negatively) misinform the populace, in their reporting and their editorial pages, about the Trump campaign and what the candidate was saying about the issues of the day. Donald Trump made it very clear to them, several times, if they continued, they would not be welcome at his gatherings. For wh**ever reasons, they did not heed his warnings. It would appear that the Washington Post was having the same delusions about their constitutional rights and powers as most socialist leaning organizations (basically, wh**ever they want them to be). They seemed to assume that the constitutional right to free speech was applicable to them in their efforts to libel and slander (then) candidate Trump. He was happy to correct their erroneous assumption and they didn't like it. "Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign," Trump wrote, "we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post." Although it was not required or, at that point, even necessary, he even gave a reason for this exclusion. As the English would say, that's their 'hard cheese'.

"Hypocrite"? Not at all. The Washington Post revealed themselves as a partisan organization bent on demeaning the Trump campaign as much as possible. They outed themselves as the enemy, and were therefore excluded. Case closed.
OK, let's just get this in perspective. The first... (show quote)




if you look at left leaning he was great at deleting every one that shot their ideas full holes in there wacky .i got deleted several times and there were several others also.now he complained and i was deleted and i asked why.
in my statement there was no profanity and i thought that was what got their attention.

Reply
Apr 17, 2017 20:55:55   #
Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere
 
vernon wrote:
if you look at left leaning he was great at deleting every one that shot their ideas full holes in there wacky .i got deleted several times and there were several others also.now he complained and i was deleted and i asked why.
in my statement there was no profanity and i thought that was what got their attention.


If profanity was.all it takes, prog1 would be in prison.

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2017 20:56:19   #
America Only Loc: From the right hand of God
 
desparado wrote:
It does protect the liar in the white house


Wake up..moron...we had an e******n and got rid of the liar in the White House. You dip stick democraps are some stupid jerk wads!

Reply
Apr 17, 2017 20:56:43   #
America Only Loc: From the right hand of God
 
Docadhoc wrote:
If profanity was.all it takes, prog1 would be in prison.


DEATH ROW!

Reply
Apr 18, 2017 00:36:44   #
Armageddun Loc: The show me state
 
vernon wrote:
jelun wrote:
The man who wants to swear that he will defend the Constitution ignores it repeatedly, this latest is a blanket dismissal of the First Amendment.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/donald-trump-just-banned-washington-post-covering-his-campaign

Donald Trump Just Banned the Washington Post From Covering His Campaign
The Post joins a long list of blacklisted publications (including Mother Jones).

PATRICK CALDWELL JUN. 13, 2016 5:13 PM



Carlo Allegri/ZUMA
Donald Trump issued an edict on his Facebook page Monday afternoon: The Washington Post will no longer be credentialed to cover his campaign. "Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign," Trump wrote, "we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post."



you are not the one to protect the first amendment. face it when you select statements that you dont like and delete it that is anti first amendment.That just goes to show what a hypocrite you really are.
jelun wrote: br The man who wants to swear that he... (show quote)



How long are we going to relive the campaign?

Reply
Apr 18, 2017 00:46:00   #
Armageddun Loc: The show me state
 
Louie27 wrote:
I believe you meant it did protect the liar that was in the White House.





A post like this so outdated just proves the libs can't get over losing. If I am not mistaken this comes from the campaign back in 2016. Forget the past, live in the now, work the best for the future...

Reply
 
 
Apr 18, 2017 07:47:38   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
Armageddun wrote:
How long are we going to relive the campaign?


Rough guess? At least 4 years. Quite possibly 8. After that, who knows?

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.