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.

 

'Tonight, we remind you that you are not safe either...'

page: 16
74
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ConspiracyofRavens

Well said.

And I would guess this is why there have been many on both sides who have spoken in support of Tucker.


I don't support Tucker. I think he is a world class idiot. I do defend his right to free speech and speak his political opinions free from having himself or his family threatened by a bunch effen idiots that need to be arrested before they get shot.

Political speech, vile or noble, true or false, needs to be met and challenged with political speech, not threats or violence.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue what makes this country special or what we stand for.




posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: xuenchen

Meanwhile the left is hysterical about Acosta and the freedom of the press.
They are trying to preserve the right to attack and denigrate President Trump. I think it is good Trump made an example out of Acosta.
edit on 9-11-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: xuenchen

Meanwhile the left is hysterical about Acosta and the freedom of the press.


Everyone should be concerned with defending Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech....for both sides.

Trump is now President, so he can't have dissident voices kicked, punched, shoved and dragged from his speeches.

Taking away a reporters ability to ask questions is about as best as he can get away with now, but none of it is acceptable.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Nope. I summed it up here.

You can not redress or introduce other perceptions without dealing with that fact. Acosta failed plain and simple.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: soberbacchus

Nope. I summed it up here.

You can not redress or introduce other perceptions without dealing with that fact. Acosta failed plain and simple.


?????

Peaceful assembly???

You can not introduce alternate definitions of the word "OR"



The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress ...


The PRESS is distinct from "the people(s)" right to "peaceably assemble".

Whole different category.

Nor does the definition of "peaceable" (as it relates to people assembling) mean that they can not speak loudly or shout questions...lest every protest would always result in mass arrests.

What kind of fascist delusions do you entertain?

That is one of the most frighteningly confused interpretations of the constitution I have seen in a long while.



edit on 9-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I love these rare moments of agreement. Gives me warm fuzzies.

Let's do S'mores

Kumbaya, M'Lord... Kumbaya...



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Oh, man, give me back the marshmallow stick!

Freedom of the press doesn't give anyone unfettered access to presidential briefings or the WH regardless of their behaviour. Otherwise, I'd slap a "press" placard on my trilby and storm the gates.

Jimmy is still unequivocally allowed to bloviate, talk over people, argue, and even make an ass of himself back at the station and all over our airwaves and internet! Hurray for that freedom of the press!



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus

I love these rare moments of agreement. Gives me warm fuzzies.

Let's do S'mores

Kumbaya, M'Lord... Kumbaya...


Well, if we are going to straight up on the issue, I also think college administrators that buckle to student protests and cancel right-wing speakers are hurting our democracy too.

How else will the next generation learn to challenge speech they disagree with in a civil forum if educators shield them from speech contrary to their beliefs? Don't like what someone has to say? Disagree with their belief system? Then meet them in the public forum and ask questions, speak your opinion etc. To demand they be silent is cowardice.

There is a strong case to be made and recent studies to support it that mobile phones are to blame.
We have an entire generation coming up that interacts via snapchat, FB and instagram etc. etc.
They grow up siloed in their own little echo chambers

They are ill equipped for real life human confrontation with people that think differently than them.
Too much coddling, too many safe spaces. They panic when challenged in the real world. (Fight) violence or (flee) cancel speeches and demand safe space.
Learn to deal with people different from yourself. That used to be half the point of college.

Not to say it is just a far left thing. It is the new generation on far left and far/alt-right that is living in a narrow and safe social media world where they fail to develop skills to navigate the REAL world of diversity and people and ideas different than themselves without losing their #.





edit on 9-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Okay, fine. Keep the marshmallow stick.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus

Oh, man, give me back the marshmallow stick!

Freedom of the press doesn't give anyone unfettered access to presidential briefings or the WH regardless of their behaviour. Otherwise, I'd slap a "press" placard on my trilby and storm the gates.


Never said it did.

I said the caveat of "peaceful Assembly" in the constitution applied to the "People" not the "Press" and even if we were to falsely conflate the two, Acosta would have been within constitutional bounds of "Peaceful Assembly" by shouting questions.

As far as Acosta? Sure, he was kind of an ass, but that was a Trump fail. Pulling his pass makes Trump look weak IMO.

It also sends the wrong message that Trump doesn't want to be confronted with challenging questions and would rather ban a reporter than deal with it.

The White House Correspondence Association and the Standing Committee of Correspondents.

Either would be the appropriate avenue for grievance from the WH.



Because administrations generally don’t want to be seen as deciding who is or isn’t a qualified journalist, it’s unheard of for a reporter to be suspended for the quality of his or her reporting or behavior

foreignpolicy.com...

What Trump did was not illegal, but it really made him look weak and petty IMO.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Well, IMO, it establishes that one cannot act inappropriately and ask as many questions as you'd like, and talk over the President while he tries to answer, all while refusing to give up the mic to other reporters in the pool or boorishly put your hands on interns while doing so.

Look at the face on the NBC reporter trying to get his question in while Accosta (again) grandstands and creates theater while becoming the story.

Everyone knows this isn't acceptable behaviour. Even the press. There are just people willing to excuse or obfuscate the real reason he was booted in order to attack the President.

They should have cut his mic and moved on to the next reporter. Noone did that, and Trump got pissy when Accosta kept interrupting the NBC guys chance to talk, and ignoring the President of the United States when he says, next. I'd probably be pissy, too. Accosta got his answer; he just didn't get the answer he wanted. He was deliberately pushing buttons and causing a scene. It doesn't score either of them points that Trump reacted.

It's a battle of wounded narcissists.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus


It's a battle of wounded narcissists.


Spot on there.

Best response from Trump would have been simple silence and waiting.

If he wanted to really throw Acosta to the wolves he could have calmly looked out over the other reporters and said "I am short on time here, no more questions?" Some reporter would have ripped the Mic away from Acosta.

I am not excusing Acosta's behavior. I am saying there are 99 ways Trump and the WH could have handled this better and they chose the dumb way that invited criticism and controversy. If Trump had taken the high road, other reporters (who don't really like Acosta by all accounts) would have come down on him in private or covered him negatively in reporting on the encounter. Trump forced them to defend the guy by over-reaching and over-reacting.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




Trump forced them to defend the guy by over-reaching and over-reacting.


But they are not forced. They are taking the opportunity to make it a political talking point by completely ignoring Accosfa's behaviour. Please cite a single story from MSM that addresses Accosta's ridiculously inappropriate behaviour? I can cite a dozen saying Accosta was a martyr who was doing nothing wrong, just asking tough questions.

That's bull# -- political propaganda, not reporting. Trump's reaction doesn't "force" them to cover it that way. It just gives them the opportunity to twist it that way.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

If you wish to play word games, Trump is not the Congress.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus




Trump forced them to defend the guy by over-reaching and over-reacting.


Please cite a single story from MSM that addresses Accosta's ridiculously inappropriate behaviour? I can cite a dozen saying Accosta was a martyr who was doing nothing wrong, just asking tough questions.


The whole article is an interesting look behind the scenes of this issue.



the reporter he’s sprung it on, Acosta, has a showy, aggressive style that is divisive among his peers.

...

some reporters said the White House likely felt more emboldened to go after Acosta because his style turns off many of his press corps colleagues.

...

“They are going after him because they know he’s a divisive figure among White House reporters,”

...

Multiple reporters said the press corps needed to defend Acosta on principle — as one said, “You have to defend him because they could do it to anyone.”

But they also agreed that it would have been easier to unite behind a less combative reporter.

“He has a way of getting under Trump’s skin, and he knows how to exploit that,” said one reporter who is against any sort of walkout or protest. “It’s important, I think, for all White House reporters to be at their most professional in this administration.”

As Times White House reporter Julie Davis tweeted on Thursday, “@Acosta's behavior here, like it or not, does not disqualify him from the First Amendment-protected freedom to ask questions. Otherwise, how are we different from a place that has no freedom of the press at all?”

Davis‘ Times colleague Maggie Haberman added, “As Julie says, people can disagree with how he handled himself, and many do, but the White House has now unilaterally decided a reporter they don't like can't come into a government building, while sending around a misleading video about him, because it will please Trump.”


www.politico.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: soberbacchus

If you wish to play word games, Trump is not the Congress.


Not games.
The word "Or" is a real thing in the English language.

Since we both agree Congress has made no laws prohibiting the free exercise of the press, under what legal authority was a reporter/us citizen banned from a public building?

Hint, the "Hard Press Pass" that Acosta had taken away is founded on a Secret Service Clearance and in every case in the past where a reporter has had that pass pulled a security threat has been cited by Secret Service, not the WH.

Being A-hole doesn't qualify.

foreignpolicy.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


I think you're confusing "hasn't historically happened" with " doesn't qualify". No other reporter has repeatedly acted disruptive or placed his hands on an intern to keep a mic before to my knowledge. That also "hasn't historically happened" .



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus


I think you're confusing "hasn't historically happened" with " doesn't qualify". No other reporter has repeatedly acted disruptive or placed his hands on an intern to keep a mic before to my knowledge. That also "hasn't historically happened" .


Rather than debate how Acosta's behavior might be characterized, we should cut to the meat of it. If he was a physical threat to anyone in the room, the WH could have asked the Secret Service to pull his pass based on that.

That is what has always been done in the past.

By choosing to rather pull his pass because the WH "disapproves"? That invites the controversy and push back they are getting.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus


No other reporter has repeatedly acted disruptive or placed his hands on an intern to keep a mic before to my knowledge. That also "hasn't historically happened" .


I am no press historian, but I have to imagine in the hay-day of WH reporting (before TV) when a chunk of the press pool was likely half drunk and sipping flasks in between Q&A, much worse has happened.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I can tell you that he was seriously close to being very aggressively physically removed while the cameras were rolling. Watch Trump give the look while stepping away from the podium, he was not looking at Acosta. Then replay it and the intern gives a very similar look before Trump stepped out to the same person off camera.

Having his Press Pass revoked was a very generous outcome to be honest. Could have went very differently for him. All because how he behaved.




top topics



 
74
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join