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.
