Jim The Accoster

[Rustic]

The ignorance of the right with regard to the role of a free press in our free society comes as no surprise, of course.

The contempt conservatives have for the role of a free press in our free society likewise comes as no surprise.

It is the role and responsibility of a free press in our democratic society to challenge elected officials, to hold elected officials accountable, to conflict with elected officials when they are being evasive and when they are lying, and to expose the lies and dishonesty of elected officials.

Journalists work for the people – not elected officials – they represent the people to our elected officials; a journalist is not doing his job – not working for the people, not fulfilling his Constitutional role as codified by the First Amendment – if he fails to challenge, to hold accountable, and at times to conflict with elected officials, including a president.

And typical of this misadministration, an inappropriate and unwarranted effort was made to silence a journalist’s questions because of an unfit, unprepared president’s contempt for a free press and the people’s First Amendment right to know.

This misadministration then further compounded its inappropriate and unwarranted effort to silence a journalist by contriving and propagating the lie that the journalist was somehow ‘in the wrong,’ and distributing a falsely edited video in a failed attempt to ‘validate’ that lie.

Lol
The Clinton news network only represents progressives you fucking moron

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I saw it live and he pushed her away.

Yeah? Show me where.
You've swallowed.

Watch it without your Lib tinted glasses. You know what he did and you are dodging the REAL issue which was his incorrigible behavior which included physically resisting the young lady trying to do her job. Do you condone his actions?

Pulling a mic away from the press isn't anybody's "job".

There may be such openings in North Korea. Not here.

Splitting hairs? Parsing words? Contesting tiny details and meaningless distinctions in order to salvage the issue somehow? Contentious trivialities? Yes.
That's sure how it seems unless you know better.
Helping facilitate press briefings (by doing things like giving journalists a microphone so their comments can be heard) certainly seems to be someone's duty and function in that situation.

It's a shame someone had to try and pry the microphone from Jim Acosta's cold, morally dead hands.

 

[Pogo]

I saw it live and he pushed her away.

Yeah? Show me where.
You've swallowed.

Watch it without your Lib tinted glasses. You know what he did and you are dodging the REAL issue which was his incorrigible behavior which included physically resisting the young lady trying to do her job. Do you condone his actions?

Pulling a mic away from the press isn't anybody's "job".

There may be such openings in North Korea. Not here.

Thank you for making my point. The protocol is to hand the mike to the intern assigned to moving the mike around the room so everyone has a chance to ask their question. Not physically block her so you can make a speech and draw attention to yourself.

And he doesn't "physically block her". He doesn't even move. She does.

And there is no protocol, anywhere, to simply snatch a mic out of the hand of a person while he's using it.

 

[cnm]

Watch it without your Lib tinted glasses.

What happened to 'He pushed her away'? That you saw with your own eyes, live?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I saw it live and he pushed her away.

Yeah? Show me where.
You've swallowed.

Watch it without your Lib tinted glasses. You know what he did and you are dodging the REAL issue which was his incorrigible behavior which included physically resisting the young lady trying to do her job. Do you condone his actions?

Pulling a mic away from the press isn't anybody's "job".

There may be such openings in North Korea. Not here.

Thank you for making my point. The protocol is to hand the mike to the intern assigned to moving the mike around the room so everyone has a chance to ask their question. Not physically block her so you can make a speech and draw attention to yourself.

And he doesn't "physically block her". He doesn't even move. She does.

And there is no protocol, anywhere, to simply snatch a mic out of the hand of a person while he's using it.

Neither is their any protocol in trying to engage the president in an argument over the definition of the word "invasion"
when the question has already been asked and answered.

Have you actually seen the video of the incident? Acosta was informed in no uncertain terms that his manner was argumentative, contentious and unprofessional and his time was up. Someone shouldn't have to try to snatch the mic from his hands because he refused to yield but that's CNN for you.

I take it you approve of Jim Acosta commanding the mic like a monkey hoarding a banana in a tree.

 

[cnm]

Splitting hairs? Parsing words?

Newspeak, citizen.

Doubleplusgood.

 

[cnm]

Neither is their any protocol in trying to engage the president in an argument over the definition of the word "invasion"
when the question has already been asked and answered.

No, 'invasion' wasn't defined by the orange shitgibbon.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah? Show me where.
You've swallowed.

Watch it without your Lib tinted glasses. You know what he did and you are dodging the REAL issue which was his incorrigible behavior which included physically resisting the young lady trying to do her job. Do you condone his actions?

Pulling a mic away from the press isn't anybody's "job".

There may be such openings in North Korea. Not here.

Thank you for making my point. The protocol is to hand the mike to the intern assigned to moving the mike around the room so everyone has a chance to ask their question. Not physically block her so you can make a speech and draw attention to yourself.

And he doesn't "physically block her". He doesn't even move. She does.

And there is no protocol, anywhere, to simply snatch a mic out of the hand of a person while he's using it.

Neither is their any protocol in trying to engage the president in an argument over the definition of the word "invasion"
when the question has already been asked and answered.

Have you actually seen the video of the incident? Acosta was informed in no uncertain terms that his manner was argumentative, contentious and unprofessional and his time was up. Someone shouldn't have to try to snatch the mic from his hands because he refused to yield but that's CNN for you.

I take it you approve of Jim Acosta commanding the mic like a monkey hoarding a banana in a tree.

I didn't see the whole context, therefore I won't opine on it. I have what are called "standards" that way.

What I do see is a gaggle of self-delusional yahoos trying to sell the world a perverted version of what's clearly going on in a few seconds of video, directed by a White House crank quoting this moron as her source....

"Assault", my ASS.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Watch the video,

Are you referring to the doctored video from infowars the White House released as fake news? Which was slowed down then sped up to make Acosta look aggressive? After all, it would know all about fake news. And how eagerly its base would swallow it.

Tell us about the fake moon landing footage too while you are at it.

No matter how you characterize it Jim Acosta physically deterred a young woman from taking possession of the White House microphone when he refused to stop badgering the president. That's disgraceful and very very low.

 

[MarathonMike]

What we have here is the typical Liberal diversion from the real issue. I have yet to hear if any of them CONDONE Jim Acosta's entire performance.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Neither is their any protocol in trying to engage the president in an argument over the definition of the word "invasion"
when the question has already been asked and answered.

No, 'invasion' wasn't defined by the orange shitgibbon.

It's not a high school debate and it was not the president's job to define the word invasion to Jim Acosta's liking.
The president said the action at the border constituted an invasion in his view and Acosta wanted to argue the point.

That's not why he was there. He asked Trump a question. Trump answered the question. Next customer, please.

 

[cnm]

No matter how you characterize it

The orange shitgibbon's spokesperson from the Ministry of Truth is characterising it as assault.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Watch it without your Lib tinted glasses. You know what he did and you are dodging the REAL issue which was his incorrigible behavior which included physically resisting the young lady trying to do her job. Do you condone his actions?

Pulling a mic away from the press isn't anybody's "job".

There may be such openings in North Korea. Not here.

Thank you for making my point. The protocol is to hand the mike to the intern assigned to moving the mike around the room so everyone has a chance to ask their question. Not physically block her so you can make a speech and draw attention to yourself.

And he doesn't "physically block her". He doesn't even move. She does.

And there is no protocol, anywhere, to simply snatch a mic out of the hand of a person while he's using it.

Neither is their any protocol in trying to engage the president in an argument over the definition of the word "invasion"
when the question has already been asked and answered.

Have you actually seen the video of the incident? Acosta was informed in no uncertain terms that his manner was argumentative, contentious and unprofessional and his time was up. Someone shouldn't have to try to snatch the mic from his hands because he refused to yield but that's CNN for you.

I take it you approve of Jim Acosta commanding the mic like a monkey hoarding a banana in a tree.

I didn't see the whole context, therefore I won't opine on it. I have what are called "standards" that way.

What I do see is a gaggle of self-delusional yahoos trying to sell the world a perverted version of what's clearly going on in a few seconds of video, directed by a White House crank quoting this moron as her source....

"Assault", my ASS.

I've never called Acosta's act an "assault". Just a blatant act of partisan non journalism under the auspices of
CNN, a propaganda mill masquerading as a news source.

 

[cnm]

The president said the action at the border constituted an invasion in his view and Acosta wanted to argue the point.

There is no action at the border. That's why the definition of 'invasion' is important.

 

[Pogo]

No matter how you characterize it

The orange shitgibbon's spokesperson from the Ministry of Truth is characterising it as assault.

The one who looks like she just popped what she thought was a candy bar into her mouth but it turned out to be an onion?

 

[cnm]

What we have here is the typical Liberal diversion from the real issue.

That Trump cannot handle contradiction but throws a tantrum?

 

[cnm]

The one who looks like she just popped what she thought was a candy bar into her mouth but it turned out to be an onion?

Sanders, if that is to whom you're referring.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No matter how you characterize it

The orange shitgibbon's spokesperson from the Ministry of Truth is characterising it as assault.

Provide that quote. Assault as a legal term can be something as elementary as causing a person apprehension or
uneasiness as a result of one's actions.

As I said I wouldn't call it assault...that doesn't mean the word is not appropriately used in this context.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The president said the action at the border constituted an invasion in his view and Acosta wanted to argue the point.

There is no action at the border. That's why the definition of 'invasion' is important.

There was no D-Day invasion before D-Day either. Just because the event is imminent doesn't change what that event is.

And yes I know the mob from Central America is not staging a military invasion. Please don't even go there.

 

[WEATHER53]

Mannerless mental midgit
Verbal and physical confrontationalist