"Democrats and Republicans reject individualism and free speech and both have become dangerous to our liberty"
Can you give us an EXAMPLE of ANY Republican “reject(ing) individualism and free speech?”
Here’s an example of an offense against freedom of the press (First Amendment) that a previous president actually discussed using:
“With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!” Trump, a Republican, wrote in a post on Twitter on Wednesday.
Trump kept up his criticism of the media in an appearance with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, saying: “It is frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write.”
In a tweet late on Wednesday, Trump said: “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!”
In the early 1970s, then-President Richard Nixon and his top aides discussed using the FCC’s license renewal process as a way of punishing the Washington Post for its coverage of the Watergate burglary that ultimately brought down his presidency.
If you’d like further examples of Republicans attacking individual freedom and free speech, I am certain I can dig up a variety of them going back a lot of years – long before the idea of a President Trump was no longer a joke.
Has any Republican ACTUALLY “suppressed speech, etc.” instead of just talking about it? Secondarily, as bad as the so-called “mainstream media” has become in their zeal to destroy ANY Republican presidency, maybe it’s NOT such a bad idea to hold their licenses over their collective heads. The licenses ARE subject to “serving the interest of the general public” and they CERTAINLY aren’t “serving the public interest” with what they’ve been doing for the past 50 years of serving the interest of the globalists and far left.
Oh, you mean I shouldn’t worry about a president who says he wants to suppress speech? Fortunately, Congress hasn’t given the office that much power yet. But, yeah, to quote Rush Limbaugh again, “words mean things.” Are we meant to believe that Trump never tells us the truth about his values?
How is holding broadcast licenses over the heads of companies who are NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, “serving the public interest” “suppressing free speech?” These companies are free to their free speech…but NOT at the cost of the general public interest. If they want their freedom to lie, obfuscate and suppress the truth, they can do that…but not on OUR airwaves and our dime.
The article makes the ridiculous assertion that the President’s support is somehow a “cult of personality”. They don’t realize, or choose not to realize, that his support is due to agreement on MAJOR ISSUES and his continuing efforts to implement them. As many evangelical leaders have said “we didn’t elect a pastor in chief”. We are supposed to walk away from the President because of indiscretions in his past, efforts to keep them private where they belong and over the top campaign embellishment.
PS If we had elected Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, we wouldn’t be hearing a peep about morality from you or how wonderful a role model he might be for our youth. It would be the uge danger to separation of church and state, whatever you misconstrue that to be.
So speech is only “free” as long as you agree with it. Wow.
So a progressive President railing against the dangers of firearms and how they should be banned would be ok with you as long as they didn’t acctually do it?
I don’t have the LEAST problem, with a left-winger in ANY position "railing against firearms. " That merely assures that he/she won’t be elected anywhere outside of New York, New Jersey or Kalifornia.
I didn’t say anything LIKE that, Mr/Ms Brown. I said that you cannot spread lies as if they were the truth–which the media does all the time–using our airwaves and at our expense. Have you simply been in a coma for the past 60 years? Cronkite, the self-styled “most trusted man in America”, LIED repeatedly about what was going on in Vietnam, contributing to the turn of public opinion about the war there. Just for example, he pontificated in stentorious terms that Tet was a decided “VICTORY” for the VC, which was pure, unadulterated BS. It was a “victory” in which the VC lost 60% of its fighting force, never won a single battle anywhere in the country, and didn’t take ANY real estate for more than 3 days (parts of Hue) before being run out by the U.S. Marines. How many times have the major media been PROVEN to have lied–either directly or by omission–during the Trump Administration. The answer, of course, is MULTIPLE dozens of times–beginning with their phony “polls” conducted prior to the actual election itself. A more recent example was the media accusing President Trump of calling all immigrants “animals.” He never said any such thing. He said the MS-13 MEMBERS were animals, and a good case can be made that that’s EXACTLY what they are.
Exactly, and I suppose you are the one that lets us all know what are lies and what isn’t, right? Your deliberation on this point seems to support that contention.
And then when we identify lies that people you support tell you can then tell us which lies you feel matter and which ones do not. I’ve pointed out thousands of lies the President has told and those lies don’t seem to bother you a bit.
As far as the immigrants are animals comment, I agree that comment was taken out of context and it’s been rightly corrected by “liberal” media outlets.
The problem is that Trump understands language and how to manipulate it as this page demonstrates.
That’s not what he said; he said that you don’t necessarily get your choice of audience or venue for free speech. Although I think I understand your concern.
In countless arguments over the years, on various boards, and with various stripes of political hacks, I’ve noticed this constant: political hacks are utterly unable to fathom that anyone else might be anything other than another species of political hack. The idea that someone might make a genuine and good faith effort to behave like a decent citizen and human being, with real and consistent moral principles, never occurs to the political hacks (on either side).
There were NO “misleading claims about immigration” in the SOTU. Not a single one. Contrast the MSMs questions to Obama in a 2015 presser that boil down to “Just how great are you, Mr. President” with the FALSE accusations of treason, theft, perjury and probably mass murder directed at President Trump. A slow 2nd grader can see the difference.
I appreciate your understanding.
Of course and you are the arbiter are what is true and what isn’t. I said this already.
Little refresher on what “lies” are:
So you support President Obama deciding what is fair and unfair? What “serves the public interest”? Or President Clinton? Or government officials just being in charge of what broadcasters say? When will you Democrats and Republicans learn that the door goes both ways. Either we have free speech or we don’t. It’s clear, based on your response here, that you believe public officials should decide what is true or not, that the broadcast media are their mouthpieces.
“Our airwaves and our dime” huh? The same ones owned by Bernie Sanders and his followers and Hillary Clinton and her followers and John McCain and his followers (if he has any) President Trump and his followers? Which one do you prefer to be in charge of the U.S. Department of Deciding-What’s-Fit-To-Broadcast?
Do you not hear yourself? Your post is yet another example of a Republican opposing free speech.
So, you want the politicians to start deciding what are lies and may not be broadcast? What if President Obama started shutting down any station that quoted Donald Trump about Obama’s birth certificate? You really don’t the see the problem here?
That’s why a lot of us are concerned about Republicans rejecting individualism and free speech – Republicans are being very collective, defending the indefensible and attacking free speech, just like the Democrats and lefties.
Seems to me you’ve solved your own problem without trampling on free speech then. Except, the president opposes free speech. Shall we move on to other examples?