Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-17-2018, 09:14 PM   #31
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Trump said:
"Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? "

His tweet didn't claim that any speech should be banned. He claimed that the hour by hour coverage was one sided and unfair defamation belittlement of him, and possibly collusion against him. He asked if the unfair one-sided coverage should be tested in the courts. If it could be legal--in effect does the First Amendment grant the Press the right to slant only in one direction in dereliction of the right granted to it to provide information necessary to maintain a free Republic, and if it should be tested in courts? He is most likely wrong to wonder if the media doesn't have that right (although the way courts "interpret" things one cannot be sure that his question has no merit).


But he made no claim that any speech should be banned. He asked if it was fair or even legal for news coverage to be so biased. The implication being that negative reporting should be balanced with obvious positive things if the Press's right to free speech has any merit.

And the right to speak is not a right that the Press or media has alone. The President, as well as the rest of us, have that right. His right to ask the question should not be "banned," and it certainly doesn't abridge the right of the media to be biased.
You’re wrong
Rights are rarely lost wholesale but disappear incrementally
Just as people have concerns about the second amendment and incremental loss all rights need to be carefully guarded
Trump is not an ordinary citizen with limited power but the most powerful political person in this country and possibly the world.
He has yet to wield it well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 12-17-2018, 11:15 PM   #32
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
You’re wrong
Rights are rarely lost wholesale but disappear incrementally
Just as people have concerns about the second amendment and incremental loss all rights need to be carefully guarded
Trump is not an ordinary citizen with limited power but the most powerful political person in this country and possibly the world.
He has yet to wield it well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's somewhat typical of you to say I am wrong when you actually agree with me. I have stated before that our loss of rights has been an incremental process.

But we disagree on the process. In regards to the current discussion of whether or not Trump made a lawless threat in his tweet, you claim that he did and that what he said is part of the process. I think, on the other hand, that your "interpretation" of what he said is part of the process that has incrementally eroded our rights.

The actual text of what Trump said is not an "illustration" of what you claim. And it is by this process over time of "interpreting" reality to fit a preferred narrative that has incrementally brought us to this point of diminished individual rights accompanied by expanded government power.

And you have defended that process of interpretation, specifically by the Court, and in general by siding with the progressive view of the constitution being a malleable structure that must change to suit changing norms.

But when "interpretation" claims that words say what they do not say, then interpretation is a lie. When we compound lies upon past lies, creating a growing heap of false precedent, we change the structure of society, of law, of relationships, and of the fundamental meaning of existence.

By "interpretation," we have created a system of government that is a lie. We claim that we are governed by our Constitution's structure and principles. We are not. We are basically governed by an administrative state. We claim that we are a democracy. But our courts routinely strike down the will of the people when it runs counter to some Progressive notion of social justice. We boast about our Bill of rights. But most rights have been eroded into being whatever the government claims them to be, if the government chooses to acknowledge them. We are daily spied on by the government that is supposed to be our servant, and deprived of a major portion of our income in order to support that government, and have been spent into an unpayable debt to be handed down to our descendants. And we have been atomized into contentious, disparate groups, and into silly identities that compete with biology. We have been post modernly and social marxistly molded into this most unnatural species of hominids to have ever claimed to own a spot on this planet.

You like to point out how, according to you, Trump is a master liar, perhaps a pathological one. And that he and his lies are part of that incremental procession of our loss of rights. To some extent you have some claim to being right. But he is more of a symptom than a cause. And he is, in some ways, a pushback against the big lie, in government and in the Press.

You claim that he is "the most powerful political person in this country and possibly the world." And yet you claim that he is soon destined to be in prison, or impeached, or run out of office--where is the mighty power you speak of in all that? Are you, as you claim, the mere "citizen with limited power" in such dire straights?

You claim some notion of us being under the thumb of some powerful one percent (or a tenth of one percent). But you support the Progressive policies of an entrenched ruling class in the elite, established cabal of congressional dinosaurs who enrich themselves at the trough and bidding of the dreaded one percent and who thwart whatever Trump tries to do. But Trump is the one who is wielding power against us??

He ran on a platform which to a great extent has been accomplished, in spite of the factions against him, and yet you claim that he has not yet wielded his power well.

I think you are a good man, and your heart is in the right place. But you express yourself in such confusing, contradictory ways that I wonder what you actually are about.
detbuch is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com