How many alibis for the serial failures of socialism/communism have we heard yet its proponents are not the least bit dissuaded
If we fail to resist this, we are subjected to the troubles needlessly; and there are real barbarians at the gate. If we fall, our like may not be seen again
BUuuuuuuRN!!!!Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?
Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?
Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?
Bingo. It was just fine for his predecessor to bow (first) to leaders of other nations and beg for forgiveness for things this country has done (absolutely not his place) but we are to be outraged about this.
We haven't produced a politician worth admiring in a long, long time.
Bingo. It was just fine for his predecessor to bow (first) to leaders of other nations and beg for forgiveness for things this country has done (absolutely not his place) but we are to be outraged about this.
We haven't produced a politician worth admiring in a long, long time.
So we don't view the 1st Amendment in the say way we the 2nd? How is the FCC different from that of the BATFE? Reasonable restrictions on speech, I guess.
It isn't a restriction on the press but on the use of the radio frequency that the government regulates. Whichever network he is threatening to lose their license is still free to publish in any manner their work. They just may not be able to do so over the airwaves.
That's the difference. Controlling a certain band of the radio spectrum is not 'freedom of the press'. They can publish on the internet, on paper, a magazine, etc. There is no abridging the freedom of the press in revoking an FCC license to broadcast over the air.
It isn't a restriction on the press but on the use of the radio frequency that the government regulates. Whichever network he is threatening to lose their license is still free to publish in any manner their work. They just may not be able to do so over the airwaves.
That's the difference. Controlling a certain band of the radio spectrum is not 'freedom of the press'. They can publish on the internet, on paper, a magazine, etc. There is no abridging the freedom of the press in revoking an FCC license to broadcast over the air.
Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?
It is a de facto attack on the 1A rights of that network...
What an idiot.
He is an employee of the government. He is subject to certain boundaries as a condition of employment. He can say what he likes, but not while employed in that capacity. You know, like an NFL player.
Besides, the President's word is always a policy influence. He can't say he prefers ribeye over filet without causing a whole host of headaches and controversy.
Umm... "elected office-holder" != "employee of the government". He is subject only to the bounds enumerated in the Constitution. And I'm pretty sure that broccoli managed to survive GHWB.
Hired by U.S. Taxpayers. Paychecks written by U.S. Treasury. Sworn to uphold the Constitution. How sharp is that knife you're using? I'm having trouble splitting this hair with mine.
I get that there are real differences, but functionally within my comment it makes no difference.
You don't understand. The Donald gets a pass (not necessarily from chip, but from many INGOers and voters) because he's "not a politician."
Hired by U.S. Taxpayers. Paychecks written by U.S. Treasury. Sworn to uphold the Constitution. How sharp is that knife you're using? I'm having trouble splitting this hair with mine.
I get that there are real differences, but functionally within my comment it makes no difference.
"Elected" != "Hired".
Taxpayers cannot "fire" an elected official, in the same way that a hired employee can be fired (though from what I understand, such firing is extremely difficult for someone hired into the public sector). There are constitutional provisions for removing an elected official from office, including (depending on the office) impeachment by other elected officials, and recall elections.
Likewise, I do not believe that public-sector employees are made to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution as a condition for employment, in the same manner that an elected official is constitutionally/statutorily required to swear, as a condition for taking office.
So, no: being an elected official is in no way whatsoever analogous to being an NFL player, with respect to having to follow the dictates of one's employer.
I'm FAR more concerned with Republicans failing to repeal ObamaCare, failing to pass tax reforms, sitting on suppressor and federal reciprocity legislation, and meanwhile supporting a Trojan Horse bump-fire stock ban, than I am about the president - any president - using the bully pulpit.
Actually a lot of employees of the federal government swear an oath to the constitution. Most, maybe. FBI, ATF, DoD, etc. All elected officials swear the oath.
But hey, since the mechanism by which the president is installed is different than the secretary down the hall, he can attack the constitution with impunity. Unless he's a democrat, of course.