sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:
a) Well you said I couldn't do it so.
b) Then why did you point our earlier that you thought, that I thought, that silencing the protesters was ok, which you seemed appalled by?
d) What about foreign policy? What about the protection of America and it's rights? If there's a worldwide worrisome virus spreading and has yet to reach America... it just sits around and waits?
This alone sums up pretty much everything, and is the reason our conversation won't go anywhere productive.
c) "The issue was not with equal access, it was with revoking a pass without cause."
Revoking a pass they never had a right to in the first place. Each individual was being allotted a certain number of questions and the 'journalist' went beyond that, even after being told to pass the mic and yet continued to argue and then actively put his hands on a woman to keep the mic for himself so he could continue arguing. Challenging the Prez by arguing with him, when it's his job to just ask questions and take down the response. Which may mean asking multiple questions to get to the bottom of it if one doesn't suffice, if multiple questions are being taken that is. And no, I don't believe he aggressively karate chopped her, but he did physically push her arms away to keep the mic.
"In a statement, CNN defended its reporter. “The White House announced tonight that it has revoked the press pass of CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta,” said the company in a statement. “It was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today’s press conference."
"The move will be seen as clear interference with the way White House Correspondents’ Association members cover the administration. The White House Correspondents’ Association issued a statement condemning what it called the Trump administration’s “decision to use US Secret Service security credentials as a tool to punish a reporter with whom it has a difficult relationship”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/cnn-jim-acosta-reporter-credentials-revoked
The problem was the excessive aggressive speech, physical act, and not following the rules in general. The pass being revoked was a byproduct.
Free speech is being suppressed on campuses in many ways, and an executive order was the byproduct.
If Jim and the protesters would follow the rules and act like reasonable human beings, the byproducts wouldn't be necessary.
|
a) What?
b) I stated that the speech of protesters is still speech and acknowledged the strangeness of fighting speech to support speech.
c) Neat. I already said that I'm not going to have a conversation about this because I don't think it is relevant, so I'm not sure why you thought to write all that out.
|
You said you weren't, and then you did, and now your not again, again.
If I don't use media sources my words mean little if nothing at times apparently, and if I do use media sources they are 'biased' or 'wrong' or indirect so.
If you've had a short in your electrical system, and I tell you it's because of water and needs to be fixed, and you say 'I don't see why water should have anything to do with an electrical problem because it's not directly tied to how electricity itself works, and if you can't show me a direct electrical relation to the problem, I'm going to assume everything is fine and keep on trying to flick the switches and hope the lights come back on'. Well nothing would change because the power isn't coming back on until the water issue is fixed. As indirect as water may be to the source, it's still related to the problem of the short, and is worthy if not necessary to be taken into account to understand the entire problem and what needs to be done to solve it.
My CNN WH example was the water in this case. Our conversation about what was and wasn't a problem (unruly protest and speech, etc) was the short. Your denial of the connection between the two is the reason the lights aren't coming back on.
I wrote it as an attempt to be as clear as possible about the point I was trying to make, and if you still don't see it, then there's no point in discussing it further.
RolStoppable said:
EricHiggin said:
(...)
If the rest of the entire world, one way or another, ended up with tyrannical leaders, who did everything possible to shut down speech and communication only by individuals seen to be on the left, would that be ok, or should America do something about it?
|
Being oppressed by the FPÖ in Austria or getting "saved" by an intervention of the USA... that's a tough choice. I think I am going to have nightmares for the rest of the week.
|
Well whatever you do, don't watch Team America World Police then. It'll make it waaaay worse.
