Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
""Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment"
Nobody said it was. Was is an attack on the 1st Amendment is taking less than 48 hours after being elected to criticise protesters and accuse them of being a media-controlled rent-a-mob instead of a group of people with genuine grievances. The unfair bit is just his usual petulant whining that makes him sound like a spoilt child (which I'm quite sure he was).
Are you new to this? It's almost like you've never seen organized protest before. Nothing you or anyone else has offered proves they're hired or 'professional'. It wouldn't be hard to prove if it were true, so go for it.
Have you considered they might really feel the way the say they do?
Ask Trump. Time after time he made claims that were plain lies, easily disproven in moments and not at all debatable. Clinton lies like any other politician, Trump lies like a 5yo.
"We want a politically incorrect candidate who will say it like it is, clean up the mess, and put working families and restore the freedoms in the Bill of Rights FIRST."
I'm not sure what campaign you've been watching, but the few policies Trump has actually been clear on will absolutely NOT help working families or restore the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, but instead do the exact opposite. Tax cuts for the rich and increases for everyone else? Curtailing free speech rights? Supporting police abuses? He will try to do these things.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
"If he's preventing a corrupt politician from getting the presidency, he's doing the US and most likely the whole world a favour."
Clinton's 'corruption' is going to be far less damaging to the US and the rest of the world than Trump would be. It baffles me that you're so appalled by her fairly standard politician's behaviour that you'd accept a man so grossly incapable of doing the job. If he manages to do half the things he wants the damage will be shocking to behold. More likely he won't have enough support to do much and the USG will be completely impotent and become a world laughing stock.
"Heck, it's BETTER for him to influence the election than it would be to release outside of election time."
Absolutely not. As AC said above, releasing as early as possible give more people more time to properly process the info and avoid stupid over-reactions or missing stuff that's actually important. Advocating for less analysis goes completely against your claim that this info is important. The late release benefits Wikileaks only, not the public.
"I'd suggest that anyone upset about corruption being exposed might just be backing the wrong horse, and not liking it very much."
Nice strawman, but nobody has claimed they're upset about corruption being exposed. The criticism here is about when Wikileaks is choosing to release, and who actually benefits from there timetable.
It's always stunned me how police supporters use the 'few bad apples' line as a defence, seemingly completely ignorant of the whole expression and what it really means. People might have been ok with just a few bad apples, but instead they now see a spoiled barrel.
"Trump is not my preferred candidate, but he has not done anything like what Hillary and the DNC are doing."
You're right, because he's come from a completely different world to Hillary, so he's never been in a position to do what she's done. Instead he's done a whole lot of other things that make him a despicable human being and completely unfit for the job. A Clinton presidency will quite likely be more of the same shit, but a Trump presidency will cause far more damage, and unless you happen to be very wealthy and white, you will most likely suffer as a result.
"Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn't still."
You actually have no reason to believe it is rigged other than Trump's ranting. A claim this serious should be easy to prove, but nobody has provided any credible evidence. You're welcome to try.
Your whole comment makes no sense. Fee speech works perfectly well in the other direction, you don't even try to prove otherwise. And the press doesn't make you guilty, even if some choose to think you are.
There's absolutely no way that he wants this to proceed...
An that right there is the problem. The system lets the Trumps and Thiels of this world use the law as a weapon of revenge or retribution even when they won't win or don't want to even try.
"That's right Mike, defamation law is used when demonstrable lies have been foisted upon someone regardless of the medium."
True, now you need to demonstrate that they're actually lies. Go on, we'll watch.
"For example, there are some out there, you included, who will take some one else's words, like "when you're rich, they let you" (which refers to a set of instances in which consent is involved) and attempt to pass that off as "rape" or "sexual assault"."
Nobody with any credibility has claimed that making those comments is an act of rape or assault. You're conflating two completely different things, probably because it's hard for you to think about two complex issues at once.
"You're so immersed in sucking Clinton cunt to give a shit about the truth anymore."
I'm not sure you even realise how intellectually insignificant comments like this make you sound. If "sucking Clinton cunt" is the cleverest analogy you can come up with, you're only ever going to get laughed at.
Gun control laws are enacted to control people's access to guns and what people can do with guns. There are no laws specifially against manufacturing guns. So in fact it's exactly like Section 230, and your 'gotcha' fails miserably.
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
Nobody said it was. Was is an attack on the 1st Amendment is taking less than 48 hours after being elected to criticise protesters and accuse them of being a media-controlled rent-a-mob instead of a group of people with genuine grievances. The unfair bit is just his usual petulant whining that makes him sound like a spoilt child (which I'm quite sure he was).
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Meme about Hired Protestors
Have you considered they might really feel the way the say they do?
On the post: If You're Blaming Facebook For The Election Results, You're An Idiot
Re: Please don't misinterpret the Brexit vote
On the post: If You're Blaming Facebook For The Election Results, You're An Idiot
Re: Why can't Dems be respectful losers?
Ask Trump. Time after time he made claims that were plain lies, easily disproven in moments and not at all debatable. Clinton lies like any other politician, Trump lies like a 5yo.
"We want a politically incorrect candidate who will say it like it is, clean up the mess, and put working families and restore the freedoms in the Bill of Rights FIRST."
I'm not sure what campaign you've been watching, but the few policies Trump has actually been clear on will absolutely NOT help working families or restore the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, but instead do the exact opposite. Tax cuts for the rich and increases for everyone else? Curtailing free speech rights? Supporting police abuses? He will try to do these things.
On the post: Dear Eric Trump: Do Not Be Shamed Into Deleting Your Free Speech By A Dumb New York State Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not agreeing with TechnoMage , but that's not ad hom. Learn what the term means before throwing it around.
On the post: Pennsylvania Legislature Looking To Hide The Names Of Cops Who Deploy Excessive Or Deadly Force
Re: Re: Re: What do you get when a country is run by cowards?
noun
government by the wealthy.
a state or society governed by the wealthy.
On the post: Here's The Truth: Shiva Ayyadurai Didn't Invent Email
For me, not for thee
I'm sure he cares a lot about his privacy. Everyone else's not so much.
On the post: Copyright Office Fucks Over Thousands Of Sites With Plans To Remove Their DMCA Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did we all walk into a business meeting by mistake and not realize?
"And attention-desperate."
The only attention Mike's getting from cursing is from you, and I'm pretty sure he's not desperate for that.
On the post: Just How Wise Is It When Marco Rubio Promises To Swear Off Factual Information From Wikileaks?
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Wikileaks is not explicitly anti-American."
Clinton's 'corruption' is going to be far less damaging to the US and the rest of the world than Trump would be. It baffles me that you're so appalled by her fairly standard politician's behaviour that you'd accept a man so grossly incapable of doing the job. If he manages to do half the things he wants the damage will be shocking to behold. More likely he won't have enough support to do much and the USG will be completely impotent and become a world laughing stock.
"Heck, it's BETTER for him to influence the election than it would be to release outside of election time."
Absolutely not. As AC said above, releasing as early as possible give more people more time to properly process the info and avoid stupid over-reactions or missing stuff that's actually important. Advocating for less analysis goes completely against your claim that this info is important. The late release benefits Wikileaks only, not the public.
"I'd suggest that anyone upset about corruption being exposed might just be backing the wrong horse, and not liking it very much."
Nice strawman, but nobody has claimed they're upset about corruption being exposed. The criticism here is about when Wikileaks is choosing to release, and who actually benefits from there timetable.
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re: Re: Re: pick and choose
I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with current police procedures, but they appear to have a very different view on the matter.
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re:
On the post: CNN Tells Viewers It's Illegal For Them To Read Wikileaks Document Dumps. CNN Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
You're right, because he's come from a completely different world to Hillary, so he's never been in a position to do what she's done. Instead he's done a whole lot of other things that make him a despicable human being and completely unfit for the job. A Clinton presidency will quite likely be more of the same shit, but a Trump presidency will cause far more damage, and unless you happen to be very wealthy and white, you will most likely suffer as a result.
"Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn't still."
You actually have no reason to believe it is rigged other than Trump's ranting. A claim this serious should be easy to prove, but nobody has provided any credible evidence. You're welcome to try.
On the post: As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
Re: convenient
On the post: As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
Re:
On the post: As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
Re: This is just sabre-rattling by Trump
An that right there is the problem. The system lets the Trumps and Thiels of this world use the law as a weapon of revenge or retribution even when they won't win or don't want to even try.
On the post: As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
Re:
True, now you need to demonstrate that they're actually lies. Go on, we'll watch.
"For example, there are some out there, you included, who will take some one else's words, like "when you're rich, they let you" (which refers to a set of instances in which consent is involved) and attempt to pass that off as "rape" or "sexual assault"."
Nobody with any credibility has claimed that making those comments is an act of rape or assault. You're conflating two completely different things, probably because it's hard for you to think about two complex issues at once.
"You're so immersed in sucking Clinton cunt to give a shit about the truth anymore."
I'm not sure you even realise how intellectually insignificant comments like this make you sound. If "sucking Clinton cunt" is the cleverest analogy you can come up with, you're only ever going to get laughed at.
On the post: As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
Re: They will get the hit
Feel free to link to your source for this dubious claim.
Or do you really just mean that you trust politicians more more than the media. Still seems weird...
On the post: NBC Delayed Story About Trump's Access Hollywood Recording Over Fear That He Might Sue
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't the end of the story
You first. Start with 'burden of proof'.
On the post: Details Of Charges Against Backpage Execs For 'Pimping' Look Totally Bogus
Re: Logic? We don't need no stinking logic!!!
On the post: Trump Adds To His Anti-First Amendment Legacy In Threatening To Sue Clinton For Campaign Ads
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>