It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




How convenient.


What's that?




posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

It isn't an attack on free press because it was "directed" at fake news.

You either have a free press or you don't.
edit on 9-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




It isn't an attack on free press because it was deemed fake news.

You either have a free press or you don't.


One it wasn't an attack. Two it was true.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Attack, critique, observation call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter, the POTUS either stands for a free press or he doesn't.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Why didn't he include Fox News and Brietbart?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TheTory

Attack, critique, observation call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter, the POTUS either stands for a free press or he doesn't.

And he doesn't. De-legitimizing the free press as "fake news" because they say things you don't like or are embarrassing for you is NOT a healthy application of the free press. Especially coming from the President's office who should know better. Remarking about opening up libel laws is even worse and more worrying (for one because there aren't any federal libel laws).
edit on 9-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And it is fascist if Maduro or Kim Jong-un do it but, conveniently, not if Trump does it because he was only referring to news that is honestly, truly, actually fake.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Trump supporters are quickly showing to me that it is only fascist if someone else is doing it. If Trump wants to do it then everything standing in his way is out of date and useless to governing. Constitution included (yes I've talked to Trump supporters who say that the Constitution needs to go so Trump can implement his agenda)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I have had many friends with beards. I dont see what could be so different about yours.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

He hasn't done anything to the press. If you want to see egregious actions taken against the press, look no further than Obama.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And it is fascist if Maduro or Kim Jong-un do it but, conveniently, not if Trump does it because he was only referring to news that is honestly, truly, actually fake.


Does what? Talks?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

What did Obama do? Also talk?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No. He abused his powers to silence journalists. His actions are now legendary.

Source



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Trump had a press ban. So I guess neither just talked. Good thing I wasn't the one trying to say only one of them did.

From the same source
edit on 9-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TheTory

Trump had a press ban. So I guess neither just talked. Good thing I wasn't the one trying to say only one of them did.

From the same source


All of it said before he was president. Anything more recent?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

I'm sure you can find something if you try.

Do you expect us to be naive enough to believe that someone who had no respect for free press less than a year ago will suddenly have it because he won a political position?

ETA: Here is something from a couple months ago.
edit on 9-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TheTory

I'm sure you can find something if you try.

Do you expect us to be naive enough to believe that someone who had no respect for free press less than a year ago will suddenly have it because he won a political position?

ETA: Here is something from a couple months ago.


I don't expect you to believe anything. In fact I doubt you would, even with a lack of evidence for your current beliefs.

The outrage at Trump's "press ban" was overblown. Those outlets are not banned, they just weren't included in the gaggle.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

More semantics? OK.

I honestly don't even care who did what. You are the one who has to try and back up what you claimed.

You making excuses for Trump proves what I said.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




More semantics? OK.

I honestly don't even care who did what. You are the one who has to try and back up what you claimed.

You making excuses for Trump proves what I said.


Semantics? They are facts. I've backed up what I've claimed while all you could do is rummage up some old fear mongering which hasn't been realized. You have nothing and it is you who is making excuses.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

You say what Trump did to the press less than a year ago doesn't count. Why wouldn't it?

Actually all I said was that people will damn some and let others slide.

You have proven me correct.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join