Senate passes unanimous resolution avowing a free press

[dblack]

No one is against the free press or the first amendment.

Other than the leftists trying to silence conservatives or conservative wannabes

Well, no, that's a misunderstanding of what free press and the first amendment are all about. Ironically, if the government stepped in and forced Facebook to front Alex Jones (for example), that WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment. Simply put, the first amendment only applies to government, not to privately held businesses. Republican used to get this.

I know that the first amendment applies only to government. But private censorship is censorship nonetheless. You can’t argue that you are for the Free Press when you support censorship.

Now that that isn’t to say government should get involved. They shouldn’t. What’s ironic is this is exactly what these net neutrality laws these people are pushing were supposed to prevent

You mentioned the First Amendment. If you're walking that back, great. No one's rights are being violated.

Really? The left says a baker for not making a cake for gays is violating rights, yet you can be banned off of social media and that's not a violation of rights?

The left is wrong. And now, so is the right.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No one is against the free press or the first amendment.

Other than the leftists trying to silence conservatives or conservative wannabes

Well, no, that's a misunderstanding of what free press and the first amendment are all about. Ironically, if the government stepped in and forced Facebook to front Alex Jones (for example), that WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment. Simply put, the first amendment only applies to government, not to privately held businesses. Republican used to get this.

I know that the first amendment applies only to government. But private censorship is censorship nonetheless. You can’t argue that you are for the Free Press when you support censorship.

Now that that isn’t to say government should get involved. They shouldn’t. What’s ironic is this is exactly what these net neutrality laws these people are pushing were supposed to prevent

You mentioned the First Amendment. If you're walking that back, great. No one's rights are being violated.

Really? The left says a baker for not making a cake for gays is violating rights, yet you can be banned off of social media and that's not a violation of rights?

The left is wrong. And now, so is the right.

how is the right wrong? he said the govt shouldn't get involved. isn't that what you want? But I do think these companies should explain why they are discriminating.

 

[MisterBeale]

Facebook to PragerU: Sorry About That Censorship

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[dblack]

how is the right wrong?

Let's put it this way - the people on the right demanding congressional hearings and claiming that liberal companies are violating free speech rights are wrong.

But I do think these companies should explain why they are discriminating.

They have. You might not like their excuses, but that's ok.

 

[buckeye45_73]

how is the right wrong?

Let's put it this way - the people on the right demanding congressional hearings and claiming that liberal companies are violating free speech rights are wrong.

But I do think these companies should explain why they are discriminating.

They have. You might not like their excuses, but that's ok.

Well then we either have laws where you can refuse service to anyone or noone

 

[dblack]

Well then we either have laws where you can refuse service to anyone or noone

I could get behind that. It would be utterly insane and unworkable, but it's the only way to apply the principle of PA laws consistently. It would at least expose the idiocy at the core of the concept.

Regardless, Trump supporters aren't demanding that. They just want to force liberal media companies to host their shit.

 

[MisterBeale]

This one is shadow banned on most platforms. . .

Had to use vimeo.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well then we either have laws where you can refuse service to anyone or noone

I could get behind that. It would be utterly insane and unworkable, but it's the only way to apply the principle of PA laws consistently. It would at least expose the idiocy at the core of the concept.

Regardless, Trump supporters aren't demanding that. They just want to force liberal media companies to host their shit.

True, I'm not sure why they are doing this, except for politics. From a monetary standpoint, it makes no sense to ban people.

 

[dblack]

Well then we either have laws where you can refuse service to anyone or noone

I could get behind that. It would be utterly insane and unworkable, but it's the only way to apply the principle of PA laws consistently. It would at least expose the idiocy at the core of the concept.

Regardless, Trump supporters aren't demanding that. They just want to force liberal media companies to host their shit.

True, I'm not sure why they are doing this, except for politics. From a monetary standpoint, it makes no sense to ban people.

Of course it's politics. They're probably engaging in their own phony game, pretending that it's not. But of course that's what's going on. So what?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well then we either have laws where you can refuse service to anyone or noone

I could get behind that. It would be utterly insane and unworkable, but it's the only way to apply the principle of PA laws consistently. It would at least expose the idiocy at the core of the concept.

Regardless, Trump supporters aren't demanding that. They just want to force liberal media companies to host their shit.

True, I'm not sure why they are doing this, except for politics. From a monetary standpoint, it makes no sense to ban people.

Of course it's politics. They're probably engaging in their own phony game, pretending that it's not. But of course that's what's going on. So what?

Well we'd like them to be honest about it. And to be fair, because they are a platform AND A publisher. they should be forced to choose one, because it's near a monopoly.

 

[2aguy]

'In a uniform decision Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to "reaffirm the vital and indispensable role the free press serves."

Why it matters: The resolution comes on the heels of a nationwide push by hundreds of local and national newspapers to publish editorials standing up for the press in response to President Trump's claims the press is an "enemy of the people."'

Senate passes unanimous resolution avowing a free press

Good for the Senate.

Why didn't they do it when obama was actually going after reporters?

 

[Doc1]

'In a uniform decision Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to "reaffirm the vital and indispensable role the free press serves."

Why it matters: The resolution comes on the heels of a nationwide push by hundreds of local and national newspapers to publish editorials standing up for the press in response to President Trump's claims the press is an "enemy of the people."'

Senate passes unanimous resolution avowing a free press

Good for the Senate.

Does that include Alex Jones and Infowars? Does it include those that have had their youtube channels deleted from the web? Facebook deletions of citizen journalists that do the job that the lamestream "Operation Mockingbird" media refuses to do because six conglomerates own 90 percent of what is printed and aired????

Alex Jones isn’t a reporter and is not an member of the press. He is an actor, an entertainer and a provocateur.

Bullshit. Aren't you just the good little totalitarian.

 

[dblack]

Well then we either have laws where you can refuse service to anyone or noone

I could get behind that. It would be utterly insane and unworkable, but it's the only way to apply the principle of PA laws consistently. It would at least expose the idiocy at the core of the concept.

Regardless, Trump supporters aren't demanding that. They just want to force liberal media companies to host their shit.

True, I'm not sure why they are doing this, except for politics. From a monetary standpoint, it makes no sense to ban people.

Of course it's politics. They're probably engaging in their own phony game, pretending that it's not. But of course that's what's going on. So what?

Well we'd like them to be honest about it. And to be fair, because they are a platform AND A publisher. they should be forced to choose one, because it's near a monopoly.

Ahh... a 'near monopoly'. Like Microsoft? Or MySpace?

 

[OldLady]

'In a uniform decision Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to "reaffirm the vital and indispensable role the free press serves."

Why it matters: The resolution comes on the heels of a nationwide push by hundreds of local and national newspapers to publish editorials standing up for the press in response to President Trump's claims the press is an "enemy of the people."'

Senate passes unanimous resolution avowing a free press

Good for the Senate.

Virtue signaling, nothing more.

Well, at least someone down there knows right from wrong. Nothing wrong with speaking up.
They should have done more, though. That resolution and a dollar will get me a cup of coffee at McD's.

 

[Slyhunter]

Well then we either have laws where you can refuse service to anyone or noone

I could get behind that. It would be utterly insane and unworkable, but it's the only way to apply the principle of PA laws consistently. It would at least expose the idiocy at the core of the concept.

Regardless, Trump supporters aren't demanding that. They just want to force liberal media companies to host their shit.

True, I'm not sure why they are doing this, except for politics. From a monetary standpoint, it makes no sense to ban people.

Of course it's politics. They're probably engaging in their own phony game, pretending that it's not. But of course that's what's going on. So what?

Well we'd like them to be honest about it. And to be fair, because they are a platform AND A publisher. they should be forced to choose one, because it's near a monopoly.

Ahh... a 'near monopoly'. Like Microsoft? Or MySpace?

Mywho?

 

[McRocket]

'In a uniform decision Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to "reaffirm the vital and indispensable role the free press serves."

Why it matters: The resolution comes on the heels of a nationwide push by hundreds of local and national newspapers to publish editorials standing up for the press in response to President Trump's claims the press is an "enemy of the people."'

Senate passes unanimous resolution avowing a free press

Good for the Senate.

Virtue signaling, nothing more.

Prove it.

Prove that every, single Senator voted for this for 'virtue signalling' and NO OTHER REASON.

I guarantee that you cannot...which means (when you don't produce a link to prove your matter-of-fact statement) your post means NOTHING.


You Trumpbots (I am assuming you are one) are so full of it (politically). All most of your posts seem to be full of are childish emotions and/or bile and/or wild assumptions.
I have yet to encounter (to my knowledge) a Trumpbot with a well thoughtout and intelligently-written post that was backed up by unbiased data/facts.
Most of your posts sound like they were written by students in Grade 8.

Why are you asking me to prove an opinion?

It was a show vote, nothing more.

"look at me I support the press with a useless vote wasting government time"

You did NOT phrase it as an opinion. You made a matter-of-fact statement.

You did not say it 'sounds like...' or 'I believe it was...' or 'I bet the only reason was...'

You typed: 'Virtue signaling, nothing more.'

'matter-of-fact
[mat-er-uh v-fakt]
See more synonyms for matter-of-fact on Thesaurus.com
adjective

1. adhering strictly to fact; not imaginative; prosaic; dry; commonplace:a matter-of-fact account of the political rally.
2. direct or unemotional; straightforward; down-to-earth.'

the definition of matter-of-fact


You made a matter-of-fact statement. And I asked you to prove it (knowing that you could not).

And indeed you did not.

Which means that your matter-of-fact statement means nothing. You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER why all the Senators voted as they did. You can guess, hope, prey, believe...but you cannot know.
I suggest you remember that the next time you decide to speak for other people whom you have never even met.


We are done here.

Have a nice day.

 

[martybegan]

'In a uniform decision Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to "reaffirm the vital and indispensable role the free press serves."

Why it matters: The resolution comes on the heels of a nationwide push by hundreds of local and national newspapers to publish editorials standing up for the press in response to President Trump's claims the press is an "enemy of the people."'

Senate passes unanimous resolution avowing a free press

Good for the Senate.

Virtue signaling, nothing more.

Well, at least someone down there knows right from wrong. Nothing wrong with speaking up.
They should have done more, though. That resolution and a dollar will get me a cup of coffee at McD's.

What should they have done? Tell people the press has feeeewings and they should not be challenged?

Because that's all Trump is doing.

 

[martybegan]

'In a uniform decision Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to "reaffirm the vital and indispensable role the free press serves."

Why it matters: The resolution comes on the heels of a nationwide push by hundreds of local and national newspapers to publish editorials standing up for the press in response to President Trump's claims the press is an "enemy of the people."'

Senate passes unanimous resolution avowing a free press

Good for the Senate.

Virtue signaling, nothing more.

Prove it.

Prove that every, single Senator voted for this for 'virtue signalling' and NO OTHER REASON.

I guarantee that you cannot...which means (when you don't produce a link to prove your matter-of-fact statement) your post means NOTHING.


You Trumpbots (I am assuming you are one) are so full of it (politically). All most of your posts seem to be full of are childish emotions and/or bile and/or wild assumptions.
I have yet to encounter (to my knowledge) a Trumpbot with a well thoughtout and intelligently-written post that was backed up by unbiased data/facts.
Most of your posts sound like they were written by students in Grade 8.

Why are you asking me to prove an opinion?

It was a show vote, nothing more.

"look at me I support the press with a useless vote wasting government time"

You did NOT phrase it as an opinion. You made a matter-of-fact statement.

You did not say it 'sounds like...' or 'I believe it was...' or 'I bet the only reason was...'

You typed: 'Virtue signaling, nothing more.'

'matter-of-fact
[mat-er-uh v-fakt]
See more synonyms for matter-of-fact on Thesaurus.com
adjective

1. 
   
   
   • adhering strictly to fact; not imaginative; prosaic; dry; commonplace:a matter-of-fact account of the political rally.
   • direct or unemotional; straightforward; down-to-earth.'

the definition of matter-of-fact


You made a matter-of-fact statement. And I asked you to prove it (knowing that you could not).

And indeed you did not.

Which means that your matter-of-fact statement means nothing. You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER why all the Senators voted as they did. You can guess, hope, prey, believe...but you cannot know.
I suggest you remember that the next time you decide to speak for other people whom you have never even met.


We are done here.

Have a nice day.

You haven't proved anything. I did not make a statement of fact, I made an opinion, and no amount of attempted dictionary pimping will change that.

You sir, are an idiot, and THAT is a fact.

 

[kaz]

'In a uniform decision Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to "reaffirm the vital and indispensable role the free press serves."

Why it matters: The resolution comes on the heels of a nationwide push by hundreds of local and national newspapers to publish editorials standing up for the press in response to President Trump's claims the press is an "enemy of the people."'

Senate passes unanimous resolution avowing a free press

Good for the Senate.

You're a liar, Trump never said that.

You are proving you're a liar by misquoting him. If you simply didn't understand, you'd quote him accurately. That you change his words shows that you know you are lying about what he said.

You're a useless, bitter partisan lying sack of shit with no morals. If you want to have an honest debate, quote him accurately. Again that you don't quote him accurately shows exactly what you are