Sen. Lindsey Graham: I would support censoring mail if it was ‘necessary’

Say what?!

Source

“If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don’t think it is,” he said, according to Yahoo News.

Do you hear this folks? This is how TRUE censorship begins. Your elected officials make INSANE statements, and nobody questions them or challenges them to a proper answer.

He tried to use WWII as an excuse?

We don’t need to censor the mail, but we do need to find out what the enemy’s up to,” he concluded.

It seems to me that if you're spying on Americans it's because you believe that they are the enemy. Mark my words my American friends, you all need to start demanding that your media start asking hard questions and start laughing at those who make idiots out of themselves with statements like these.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

He is one of the guys I think may have a lot to worry about from Edward Snowden. His remarks over that past few days have me shaking my head.

Of course Graham would support it. If you look at practically every bill that goes through that wants to limit or outright take our rights away this traitor is always at the top. The people who keep electing him are idiots.

Oh really?

Government 'censorship' is nothing new when one considers that other hot topic that gets rid of a thing that some people don't like.

American politics are so hypocritical because one standard never applies to other 'issues', and yes you could say both sides are guilty of that.

Graham and other congress support a lot of things because they think it is 'necessary' remember that.

For Graham its mail for others it's words like 'illegal', and the list goes on.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Say what?!

Source

“If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don’t think it is,” he said, according to Yahoo News.

Do you hear this folks? This is how TRUE censorship begins. Your elected officials make INSANE statements, and nobody questions them or challenges them to a proper answer.

Pair it with Rep. Peter King (R) ...

King says journalists should be prosecuted in leak cases

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

If Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh agree on something.....

What does that tell you?

I agree with both of them in this case, so Graham, Boehner, Harry Reid, Peter King, Nancy Pelosi and all of the other fascists can stick their braincases where the sun don't shine. They are the real traitors!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


how do you demand anything from the media?

They are a business looking only for profit?

would you be ok with public media with its own cabinet member? I guess that is
a secretary possition in the US.

I only watch CBC for news because it is public broadcasting but it seems
a lot of people consider pyblic media as a form of government control.

reply to post by FirstCasualty



The US needs something like the CBC. Or they need laws specifically for journalistic integrity and truth.

As is stands right now, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the news media is allowed to lie to you all they want under the 1st amendment.

~Tenth

Graham is a walking constitutional hazard. How this guy keeps getting elected is a unbelievable. Oh no wait. Big lobby money.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

"I would support X if it was necessary" is a nonstatement. Doesn't matter what X is ... censoring mail, crossdressing, eating babies. Anything necessary will have the support of a rational person. Rhetorically, the phrase is usually used as a prelude to a denial, i.e., "but X is not necessary so I do not support it." That's how it's used here. Graham doesn't think mail censorship is necessary, and doesn't support it, and he says as much. "If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don't think it is." There's no story here.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


That's double think.

If grahm doesn't support it, and doesn't think it's necessary, then why make the comment at all?

I'll tell you why.

He made it because he was trying to say "I'd support anything the government was doing with the best intentions for the American public, be it illegal or not".

That's the problem. He's playing cheerleader for a group of people who are stomping on your rights.

~Tenth

The mail interception already exists. The FBI uses it, that when someone is under suspicion the USPS takes their mail, puts it on an inspectors desk, he or she inspects it, and then it goes to the mailbox. If there is something of interest, and if the inspector were corrupt, would the inspected one ever know? Probably not.

So they kind of censor mail already under that program. Just wait until the parameters of what is necessary changes. And there are always the crooks in business not yet caught.

Outrageous! The senator supports something that already exists!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


What? What a spineless twatt that is. Sorry. But Jeeeze, whats' wrong with those people.

He'd support censoring mail eh? I'd support mandatory courses on basic Constitutional principal and law for every lawmaker and those new to taking the position in the future too. They all seem to really need it, badly. We're in America and too many of these guys are spelling that with a K, it seems.

I'd also support the idea of a recall election to remove this flaming idiot from office, too. When they so openly advocate the violation of rights by the State itself? It's time they stop working for the state I believe. They've been there FAR FAR too long.

This one sure has, anyway.

Does Congress still have an approval rating above zero? it should be in negative numbers by now. If it is still positive I suppose it is due to the "I don't care about my rights" people out there.

Allow me to censor Graham's mail.

C'mon, let me.

These idiots can't read past a 2nd Grade level anyway. It'd be easy!

If the desire to bitch-slap politicians for making stupid statements created pizza, I would be able to feed the world!

I'd support banning career politicians, if it were necessary.

Oh wait it is!!!