Licensing for the 2nd Amendment is bad, but for the 1st?

[jamil]

If anyone really truly thinks anyone who became POTUS is an idiot, they aren't objective. I can't stand Bush, maybe even more than Obama, but I always thought it was funny when people thought he was an "idiot". People truly thought he was literally an idiot. Really? That's ridiculous. Same with Obama. I can't stand him but he's not an idiot.

Trump says "mean" things? Yep sometimes. But you didn't get my point. I never said he never said anything mean. I just said I don't care. Again, when there's a real issue of substance to call him out on, I will. Saying "mean" things about people who most likely deserve it, isn't going to register on my give-a-care meter.

First, I didn’t say Trump is literally an idiot. I said in the Forrest gump sense, you know, an idiot is as an idiot does.

Second, that I don’t agree with you does not evidence that I didn’t get your point. Trump doesn’t limit his attacks to people who deserve it. Anyone who says anything negative about him even if what they’re saying is true, Trump will attack them. Not caring about that seems selective. What would you call him out on? So you don’t give a flying **** what he does as long as he delivers his campaign promises. That’s it? Everything else is fair game?

 

[2A_Tom]

I do not twit, so I only see the big blow ups you guys talk about and as Liberty has said show something substantial and maybe I'll take umbrage.

For a bunch of guys that don't believe in being offended, you sure get offended easily.

 

[jamil]

I do not twit, so I only see the big blow ups you guys talk about and as Liberty has said show something substantial and maybe I'll take umbrage.

For a bunch of guys that don't believe in being offended, you sure get offended easily.

Who’s offended?


btw, I don’t tweet, but I do use twitter and follow people I think are news makers. It’s actually a good way to stay informed if not pulling your hair out. Yes, I’m going to blame the growing bald spot on twitter.

 

[Liberty1916]

First, I didn’t say Trump is literally an idiot. I said in the Forrest gump sense, you know, an idiot is as an idiot does.

Second, that I don’t agree with you does not evidence that I didn’t get your point. Trump doesn’t limit his attacks to people who deserve it. Anyone who says anything negative about him even if what they’re saying is true, Trump will attack them. Not caring about that seems selective. What would you call him out on? So you don’t give a flying **** what he does as long as he delivers his campaign promises. That’s it? Everything else is fair game?

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I respect your opinion, because unlike some people on the forum, you actually have the courage to come out and say what you mean.

That being said, of course I'll give a flying **** if it's something real. Being "mean" to people doesn't rise to that level for me. I just don't care. I realize you and some others do though. That's your prerogative. I will say though, that a lot of the Trump criticism looks like virtue signaling to me. People who voted for him but still want people who hate him to take them seriously say things like "yeah I voted for him but I know he's a crass idiot, blah blah". "I had to because Hillary was the Dem candidate, blah, blah". Me, I couldn't care less what people think who didn't vote for Trump.

Again, find something real, like Trump is using the IRS to wage war against his political opponents, and then I'll care.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I know you ran away to your LOL safe space and aren't talking to me since I hurt your feelings, but since you think I'm a racist, it would probably interest you to know that I'm no fan of flying the Confederate flag outside of historical reenactments etc. Statues? Maybe, like VMI's Stonewall Jackson statue, or battlefield/historical statues. Jeff Davis statue in New Orleans, not so much.

One thing I do find interesting is that the people who do support those things generally (maybe always) support America and and respect the American flag in parallel. Unlike BLM and the NFL protestors who crap on the flag and the country every chance they get. Just an interesting observation worth noting.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Stupid.

I do not see anyone doing this. There are many of us that call the folks that want to tear existing ones down stupid.

I would say it depends on the person, some yes some no, but I do not know all of them so IDK.

I have known at least one very patriotic yet very prejudiced man.

...well still happens. Obviously mostly in the South.

 

[Woobie]

I've said many times, I'll vote for Trump next time too, because it's doubtful the Democrats are capable of nominating a saner candidate. But that don't mean I'm not gonna voice my concerns when Trump acts like a fool.

I left the presidential ticket blank on my ballot. But I'm open to voting for Trump in 2020, but he hasn't really earned it yet.

 

[Woobie]

The last politician (I'm aware of on the national stage) who prevailed in such a libel lawsuit was Barry Goldwater after the 1964 presidential election, who sued those who smeared him with a poll of 1800 psychiatrists to make the claim he was psychologically unfit to be president (Goldwater v. Ginzburg). Provided it's not a remotely credible threat of physical harm, one can make just about any claim they want to about any politician with impunity, including smear campaigns, falsehoods, and partial truths, especially if they're running for office or incumbents.

Likewise, Congresswoman Empty Drum (D-FL) knows she can say whatever she wants to about anyone or anything and say it anywhere in any forum she wants to, with complete impunity, either under the U.S. Constitution's Speech or Debate clause, or under the Westfall Act of 1988. It matters not how untrue or damaging it might be to even a private citizen. Members of Congress can utterly destroy people at will with complete lies if they so choose, and a few have done just that.

John

Yes, precisely. So Trump's only real option is to grow up. At least if he wants the support of critical thinkers.

 

[jamil]

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I respect your opinion, because unlike some people on the forum, you actually have the courage to come out and say what you mean.

That being said, of course I'll give a flying **** if it's something real. Being "mean" to people doesn't rise to that level for me. I just don't care. I realize you and some others do though. That's your prerogative. I will say though, that a lot of the Trump criticism looks like virtue signaling to me. People who voted for him but still want people who hate him to take them seriously say things like "yeah I voted for him but I know he's a crass idiot, blah blah". "I had to because Hillary was the Dem candidate, blah, blah". Me, I couldn't care less what people think who didn't vote for Trump.

Again, find something real, like Trump is using the IRS to wage war against his political opponents, and then I'll care.

Fight? Who's fighting? We're just talking here.

One thing though. I fall into the "yeah, I voted for him but I know he's a crass idiot, and I had to vote for him because the other choice was Hillary." HOWEVER. I would never say you should hate him. I don't hate him. I do think he has a low character. And all that said, I will vote for him again next time because the Dems will nominate some lunatic like Fauxcahontas. I don't see a sane candidate in sight until maybe 2024 or later.

 

[Woobie]

Nope. But what I also don't care about is him threatening "to pull an FCC license", when that's never going to happen and everyone knows it's never going to happen, vs the actual, real, violations of our BoR like Obama committed by using the IRS to target conservatives.



LOL, you don't know me very well if you think I'm a sycophant. I voted for Trump and will support him in as far as he works on getting the agenda he campaigned on implemented. I'm pretty a-political and dislike Bush as much as Obama. And no, I'm not a Libertarian either.

"Fake news" is a pretty good summary of what goes on today. Does anyone really think the news, any news, isn't agenda driven anymore? It's takes a lack of critical thinking to believe that any real news actually exists.

As far as criticizing Trump or "admitting he should have never said what he did", you're mistaking my lack of concern with support for the comment. I don't support everything he says, I just don't see the need to criticize him to prove to anyone that I'm a "critical thinker". I get that you hate Trump, lots of people do, but I also don't think you understand Trump or what's really going on when he makes comments like that.

The fact that he voices a desire to do something he can't gives me a window into his values. That should cause concern.

I certainly do not hate Trump. I think he has done a couple of good things, and he has put some really good people around himself, which I admire.

There is a complete lack of honesty in the media today, I agree. But this "fake news" is a meme that has taken on the personality of the man who coined the phrase.

 

[jamil]

The fact that he voices a desire to do something he can't gives me a window into his values. That should cause concern.

I certainly do not hate Trump. I think he has done a couple of good things, and he has put some really good people around himself, which I admire.

There is a complete lack of honesty in the media today, I agree. But this "fake news" is a meme that has taken on the personality of the man who coined the phrase.

Well, actually. It was the Dems who coined the term. I think Barack Obama used it in a speech and then Trump latched onto it and made it his own. Which. Actually, if nothing else useful can be gleaned from it, entertainment can be. On the one hand, to people who aren't fiercely loyal to Trump, it is a window into his poor Character. But it is still entertaining to see the left get gobsmacked by their own straw-man.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, actually. It was the Dems who coined the term. I think Barack Obama used it in a speech and then Trump latched onto it and made it his own. Which. Actually, if nothing else useful can be gleaned from it, entertainment can be. On the one hand, to people who aren't fiercely loyal to Trump, it is a window into his poor Character. But it is still entertaining to see the left get gobsmacked by their own straw-man.

Unless Barry has been fighting other immortals for a very long time, he did not coin the term. Looking into it, it appears the term has been around since the late 19th century.
Oh, and "There can only be one."
Masters of the Universe and all that jazz.

 

[jamil]

Unless Barry has been fighting other immortals for a very long time, he did not coin the term. Looking into it, it appears the term has been around since the late 19th century.
Oh, and "There can only be one."
Masters of the Universe and all that jazz.

I'm not going to bother to verify that. I can take your word for it. But the point remains, Dems reintroduced it into the campaign as a political tool against Trump and they ended up eating it. And of course now it is way overused to the point where it really has no meaning anymore. But the fact that the Dems had to eat their own straw is satisfying.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not going to bother to verify that. I can take your word for it. But the point remains, Dems reintroduced it into the campaign as a political tool against Trump and they ended up eating it. And of course now it is way overused to the point where it really has no meaning anymore. But the fact that the Dems had to eat their own straw is satisfying.

Well that totally depends on the context of how it was being used. I don't have any examples on hand, but if the term was being used correctly, by Democrats, compared to it's current uses by the sitting administration now, then I don't see how there's and similarity. It would simply indicate that the meaning of the word has been perverted.
I'll check and see how the democrats used it.

Edit: I can't find examples of "fake news" being used by Democrats prior to Trump's usage.

 

[Liberty1916]

Fight? Who's fighting? We're just talking here.

One thing though. I fall into the "yeah, I voted for him but I know he's a crass idiot, and I had to vote for him because the other choice was Hillary." HOWEVER. I would never say you should hate him. I don't hate him. I do think he has a low character. And all that said, I will vote for him again next time because the Dems will nominate some lunatic like Fauxcahontas. I don't see a sane candidate in sight until maybe 2024 or later.

We're good, I just thought you were taking some of that personally, when I didn't mean it that way. Trump has low character? Yep, but I knew that when I voted for him. That's why I'm trying to pay more attention to things that have substance rather than chasing the rabbits that his opponents want chased.

 

[Liberty1916]

I'm not going to bother to verify that. I can take your word for it. But the point remains, Dems reintroduced it into the campaign as a political tool against Trump and they ended up eating it. And of course now it is way overused to the point where it really has no meaning anymore. But the fact that the Dems had to eat their own straw is satisfying.

Correct. IIRC dems first used it against Brietbart in an effort to discredit Bannon's role in the campaign. Trump quickly turned it back on them to the point that fake news became synonymous with CNN, which is maybe the funniest thing that came out the of this election cycle.

 

[Woobie]

Come on, Woobie. All you have to do is peruse the front page of Real Clear Politics' site occasionally to see the liberal press (which is 90% of the press) move in lockstep on the latest getTrump story (complete with distortions) or see them ignoring stories they should be all over because they don't fit the narrative (FusionGPS, who paid for the Steele Dossier etc)

A good example is the "ten-fold increase in nuclear arsenal" story that I address elsewhere in this thread. It is completely unsupported, even by purported leaks. The only reference I could find to the actual event was that Trump was shown a graph of numbers of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal (which I assume, since its showing the levels of the 60s was referenced, would show a downward trend) and said he didn't want to end up at the endpoint of that graph and expressed a preference for more historic levels (year or decade not specified) The greatest spread I could find was an ~ 5 fold multiplier between today and 1965 (the actual peak on the graph)

In fact, START II's limit on strategic warheads was 1500, of which we currently have slightly more than 1400 and the Russians have I believe 1561 (guess who's not in compliance) and so called new START was an Obama era agreement to reset the number at 1550 (which means we could increase our strategic warheads by 10% and still be in compliance). So where would you suppose the 10x number came from and take a look at how many (of the usual suspects ) ran (and continue to run) with it.

At what point does an overwhelmingly lying press attempting to advance the interests of one political party over the other rise to the existential threat to 1A that you wish to make Trump to be. Wouldn't a US Pravda be just as bad no matter who was calling the tune

Many people have been pointing out the duplicity of the press for a long time, without any appreciable correction. Perhaps an existential threat is needed, but you might want to read up on who has 'standing' to challenge an individual broadcast outlet's FCC license (hint: Trump could only personally challenge outlet's in NYC, DC and Palm Beach - ignoring whether as titular head of the FCC he could be involved in the process directly at all)

I fail to see how encouraging those who support him to consider such challenges to obvious purveyors of fake or distorted news' licenses is beyond the pale or in any way threatening to the 1A

Again, I have said nothing to indicate I feel the media is being intellectually honest or impartial. Quite the opposite, the various networks are quite partisan. But the meme has grown ridiculous, and hearing people regurgitate the phrase like school children is sad.

I find your characterization of Trump's tweets to be similar to how Trump would explain away what he says. "No, that's not how I meant it." But who should "challenge these licenses"? And who would determine revocation of licenses if not an agency in his Executive Branch?

Pravda? I suppose if there were only one network. But nothing is stopping Fox from putting out "fake news". As long as we have a government that supports the 1A, we will never have a government-controlled monopoly on the press. And it is this issue which is at stake in this discussion. So really, nipping this sort of talk in the bud is precisely the way we avoid ever having Pravda on our shores. Or we could just say this is no big deal, and hope no one ever takes step two down that path.

 

[BugI02]

Really? If Fox went down along with a couple of other conservative outlets, what would we have left? To have our very own Pravda doesn't require we only have one news outlet, just that all the news outlets take direction from the party.

Just pulled up front page at RCP

The publishers of the Saturday content are: NYT, CNN, USA today, Salon, Federalist, The Guardian, NYT, PJ Media, American Prospect, RCP, NYT, WSJ, American Greatness, Politico, The Hill, New Yorker,
Washington Examiner, New Yorker, NY Post, Slate, American Greatness, The Atlantic, IBD, Al-Monitor, NYT, Rush, CNN, WaPo

About 65%/35% Pull out Fox and its affiliates (as James and Lachlan arguably may wish to do) and how many of what's left have a major media presence. Look through the daily archives at RCP (I think you can go back at least a week) and watch the media move in lockstep with the progressive talking points/anti-Trump theme of the moment. The situation is even worse in broadcast media, and don't even try to convince me that print media can pick up the slack. That would require our bourgeoning little resistance members to actually read something. For them if it isn't on video/social media it didn't happen

We are closer to Pravda than you might wish to think

You didn't address the '10x nuclear arsenal' lie. Is that 'fake news' or not?

And, from: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/broadcast-radio-license-renewal

Petition to Deny Requirements. First, to file a Petition to Deny, a person must be a "party in interest" and have "standing." That means, generally, that the person must have more than a passing interest in the station. He or she must be a regular listener or have some other contact with the station that gives the petitioner a real stake in the outcome of the renewal process. A petition must be supported by an affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge of the allegations of fact contained in the petition. Additionally, a Petition to Deny a license renewal must be "timely" filed at least one month prior to the license expiration date, as explained in the previous paragraph. Finally, the petition must contain a certification that a copy of the petition was mailed to the station. Failure to include the certification that a copy was mailed to the station and the affidavit of personal knowledge will result in dismissal of the Petition to Deny.

 

[jamil]

Provda? Both camps are that. Solution: don't pick a camp.

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;eZVv2AOCnaA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA[/video]


[video=youtube;TM8L7bdwVaA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA[/video]