Jim Acosta karate chops intern’s arm & loses White House press pass - page 3.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 08:11:58 PM

I mean, if the Republicans would stand up to bullies, we'd not have this problem; the problem is their rank and follow attitude. I swear the whole lot of 'em would jump off a bridge if instructed to.

Sadly, many Democrats would also jump off the bridge; especially if they were told that it would be the ultimate sacrifice, since it would reduce their carbon footprint to near zero. Cheesy

The quality of becoming a sheeple has no political boundaries.

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

What's really funny is the video's doctored to make Jim Acosta look worse. If you want the video that I posted, this whole thread is a nothing burger.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a24937408/kellyanne-conway-jim-acosta-video-doctored/

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: bones261 on November 10, 2018, 07:49:31 PM

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 07:42:41 PM

"THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION?"

ha, what a presidential response to a question. Roll Eyes

This thread exists, the right wing making up fud happens. Wink

I agree that Trump is a bombastic asshole. However, the Democrats just couldn't put a wave together that was big enough to not only impeach the mutha, but have the Senate remove him from office. All we can reasonably hope for is that he rage quits.

I mean, if the Republicans would stand up to bullies, we'd not have this problem; the problem is their rank and follow attitude. I swear the whole lot of 'em would jump off a bridge if instructed to.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 07:42:41 PM

....

"THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION?"

ha, what a presidential response to a question. Roll Eyes

...

In this case, totally justified.

But Acosta didn't karate chop the girl's arm.

I definitely wouldn't give his press privileges back.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 07:42:41 PM

"THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION?"

ha, what a presidential response to a question. Roll Eyes

This thread exists, the right wing making up fud happens. Wink

I agree that Trump is a bombastic asshole. However, the Democrats just couldn't put a wave together that was big enough to not only impeach the mutha, but have the Senate remove him from office. All we can reasonably hope for is that he rage quits.

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: bones261 on November 10, 2018, 07:11:01 PM

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 07:01:57 PM

Government vs private industry.

Two entirely different things man.

If Alex Jones pay for his own platform, I don't give a shit what shit he spews from his corner. I won't do business with his entity either, based on just his views. If I remember right, Alex Jones violated contracts with Google and therefore lost privileged access. If I remember correctly, the violation was "harassment". Now, if you want to start setting internet rules, good luck dude.

I don't like government silencing media. That's dystopian.

I am not aware of the government issuing an injunction or indictment on CNN or any other news outlet. Since my partner is a news addict, I can still hear them shouting quite loudly 24/7; especially when they put together a panel of 12 lefties and one righty to issue their opinion. If the Trump administration is truly making a concerted effort to silence the media, they are failing miserably. Cheesy

"THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION?"

ha, what a presidential response to a question. Roll Eyes

This thread exists, the right wing making up fud happens. Wink

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 07:01:57 PM

Government vs private industry.

Two entirely different things man.

If Alex Jones pay for his own platform, I don't give a shit what shit he spews from his corner. I won't do business with his entity either, based on just his views. If I remember right, Alex Jones violated contracts with Google and therefore lost privileged access. If I remember correctly, the violation was "harassment". Now, if you want to start setting internet rules, good luck dude.

I don't like government silencing media. That's dystopian.

I am not aware of the government issuing an injunction or indictment on CNN or any other news outlet. Since my partner is a news addict, I can still hear them shouting quite loudly 24/7; especially when they put together a panel of 12 lefties and one righty to issue their opinion. If the Trump administration is truly making a concerted effort to silence the media, they are failing miserably. Cheesy

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: bones261 on November 10, 2018, 06:55:17 PM

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 06:48:17 PM

Aha, if the secret service tackled him to the ground for refusing to give up a mic, we'd probably see an uproar from the left. Hell, the media already sides with Jim just because his speech was infridged, and that's literally the only thing protecting their jobs.

It's kinda sad to see the state of journalism in the United States;

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Ranked 45 in freedom for "america, land of the free^{^*}"

_{_{* Only if you're rich.}}

Yet, us lefties cheer when the social media moguls censor someone from the right. (ie nutjob Alex Jones) Granted, private corporations are not obligated to grant free speech. However, aren't we being somewhat hypocritical? What ever happened to "When they go low, we go high?" Or is Michelle Obama's strategy too complicit for us now?

Government vs private industry.

Two entirely different things man.

If Alex Jones pay for his own platform, I don't give a shit what shit he spews from his corner. I won't do business with his entity either, based on just his views. If I remember right, Alex Jones violated contracts with Google and therefore lost privileged access. If I remember correctly, the violation was "harassment". Now, if you want to start setting internet rules, good luck dude.

I don't like government silencing media. That's dystopian.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 06:48:17 PM

Aha, if the secret service tackled him to the ground for refusing to give up a mic, we'd probably see an uproar from the left. Hell, the media already sides with Jim just because his speech was infridged, and that's literally the only thing protecting their jobs.

It's kinda sad to see the state of journalism in the United States;

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Ranked 45 in freedom for "america, land of the free^{^*}"

_{_{* Only if you're rich.}}

Yet, many lefties cheer when the social media moguls censor someone from the right. (ie nutjob Alex Jones) Granted, private corporations are not obligated to grant free speech. However, aren't the lefties being somewhat hypocritical? What ever happened to "When they go low, we go high?" Or is Michelle Obama's strategy too complicit for us lefties now?

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: bones261 on November 10, 2018, 06:45:19 PM

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 05:23:37 PM

Can you highlight an example of a previous president just demanding a reporter to be silent?

I can find things of places with dictatorships (turkey) silencing journalist, but nothing of America with a quick Google query.

I've seen people escorted out, but I haven't really seen presidents just "SHUT UP PERSON! STOP TALKING" from the USA.

Well, unfortunately the USA now has a petulant brat for a president, and ~40% or so give it their stamp of approval. At least the president didn't have the secret service tackle the guy to the ground and beat him up. After all, the intern the president had remove the microphone was really petite. It wasn't like a typical bar bouncing situation. If Jim feels that his 1st amendment rights have been infringed, then he should proceed to Federal court, ASAP, and settle this civilly. (If he hasn't already done so.)

Aha, if the secret service tackled him to the ground for refusing to give up a mic, we'd probably see an uproar from the left. Hell, the media already sides with Jim just because his speech was infridged, and that's literally the only thing protecting their jobs.

It's kinda sad to see the state of journalism in the United States;

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Ranked 45 in freedom for "america, land of the free^{^*}"

_{_{* Only if you're rich.}}

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 10, 2018, 05:23:37 PM

Can you highlight an example of a previous president just demanding a reporter to be silent?

I can find things of places with dictatorships (turkey) silencing journalist, but nothing of America with a quick Google query.

I've seen people escorted out, but I haven't really seen presidents just "SHUT UP PERSON! STOP TALKING" from the USA.

Well, unfortunately the USA now has a petulant brat for a president, and ~40% or so give it their stamp of approval. At least the president didn't have the secret service tackle the guy to the ground and beat him up. After all, the intern the president had remove the microphone was really petite. It wasn't like a typical bar bouncing situation. If Jim feels that his 1st amendment rights have been infringed, then he should proceed to Federal court, ASAP, and settle this civilly. (If he hasn't already done so.)

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: bones261 on November 10, 2018, 05:21:11 PM

Meh, it was obvious Jim was trying to bait the president(and succeeding to some extent.) There were other reporters waiting to ask questions too. He should have just handed over the mic when prompted to, with no resistance. There is always another day to get your f**ing "scoop."

Can you highlight an example of a previous president just demanding a reporter to be silent?

I can find things of places with dictatorships (turkey) silencing journalist, but nothing of America with a quick Google query.

I've seen people escorted out, but I haven't really seen presidents just "SHUT UP PERSON! STOP TALKING" from the USA.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Meh, it was obvious that Jim was trying to bait the president(and succeeding to some extent.) There were other reporters waiting to ask questions too. He should have just handed over the mic when prompted to, with no resistance. There is always another day to get your f**ing "scoop."

kenzawak

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 851

Quote from: OgNasty on November 08, 2018, 04:04:40 AM

Imagine ignoring the President telling you, “That’s enough” and forcefully denying a young woman White House staff member trying to do her job. Then complaining about it all over the media when you’re not allowed back.

Forcefully lol ? She's the one putting her hands on him.
He even apologizes to her !

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 10, 2018, 01:55:57 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 10, 2018, 01:46:00 PM

It's as simple as this. If Acosta was required by policy to hand over the mic, and he didn't, he was wrong. But if he was assaulted, he was in the right for protecting himself.

Even if he was wrong about handing over the mic, the violence of the woman was wrong.

Even if Acosta was fired for his actions, his act of self protection is part of universal law, and especially in the U.S.

Wanna play politics? Go ahead. But Acosta was right in protecting himself.

If Acosta was wrong in not handing over the mic, the woman was wrong in trying to take it from him by force.

There is appropriate policy in place for both Acosta and the woman... a way to handle the situation peacefully.

This whole thing is a political tug of war.

Cool

This is false equivalency horse shit people always trot out when shit like this happens, allowing this double standard to continue.

Taking some thing from some one's hand is not force (unless of course you have no rights to said property). Even if it was, a reasonable amount of force used to obtain your own property from some one with no rights to it is not a crime.

Also it should be noted the act began with Accostas resistance to the legal act of taking the microphone back, not the other way around. The first to initiate illegal force is quite relevant to any case of assault.

I'm a little surprised at you. It seems you would rather start a brawl than do things through peaceful, due process channels.

If Acosta started it and was in the wrong, he would have been correct through proper channels, just as he was. The idea that he can't protect himself from violence is simply absurd.

Did you really want to see a tug-of-war over the mic?

Cool

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: BADecker on November 10, 2018, 01:46:00 PM

It's as simple as this. If Acosta was required by policy to hand over the mic, and he didn't, he was wrong. But if he was assaulted, he was in the right for protecting himself.

Even if he was wrong about handing over the mic, the violence of the woman was wrong.

Even if Acosta was fired for his actions, his act of self protection is part of universal law, and especially in the U.S.

Wanna play politics? Go ahead. But Acosta was right in protecting himself.

If Acosta was wrong in not handing over the mic, the woman was wrong in trying to take it from him by force.

There is appropriate policy in place for both Acosta and the woman... a way to handle the situation peacefully.

This whole thing is a political tug of war.

Cool

This is false equivalency horse shit people always trot out when shit like this happens, allowing this double standard to continue.

Taking some thing from some one's hand is not force (unless of course you have no rights to said property). Even if it was, a reasonable amount of force used to obtain your own property from some one with no rights to it is not a crime.

Also it should be noted the act began with Accostas resistance to the legal act of taking the microphone back, not the other way around. The first to initiate illegal force is quite relevant to any case of assault.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

It's as simple as this. If Acosta was required by policy to hand over the mic, and he didn't, he was wrong. But if he was assaulted, he was in the right for protecting himself.

Even if he was wrong about handing over the mic, the violence of the woman was wrong.

Even if Acosta was fired for his actions, his act of self protection is part of universal law, and especially in the U.S.

Wanna play politics? Go ahead. But Acosta was right in protecting himself.

If Acosta was wrong in not handing over the mic, the woman was wrong in trying to take it from him by force.

There is appropriate policy in place for both Acosta and the woman... a way to handle the situation peacefully.

This whole thing is a political tug of war.

Cool

squatz1

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1285

Flying Hellfish is a Commie

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on November 08, 2018, 11:56:26 AM

Everybody in that room was asking questions Trump didn't like, but he answered them.

Jim Accoster thinks the press room is actually "The Jim Acosta Show."

+1
Jim had been told that he was to sit down, as Trump was done with his questions. I don't understand how people are going to be able to support someone who's openly not listening to the rules of the WH press conference.

Even after this, he got up and started talking while someone from NBC was asking questions to Trump -- I don't get it folks.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on November 10, 2018, 08:56:35 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 08, 2018, 06:13:48 PM

Yeah isn't it a shame you can't just use physical force whenever you like to get what you want when you have no legal right to it? I mean as long as you don't injure anyone it is ok right? No.

I know, right? So ridiculous. Everyone knows that in the Trump White House you are only allowed to grab women by the pussy.

That is a wonderful whataboutism you have there. I don't know if anyone has taught you but, words are different than actions, and women throwing themselves at you because you are rich is different than assault. You keep sticking with those talking points though, they are clearly working for you.

o_e_l_e_o

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 18748

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 08, 2018, 06:13:48 PM

Yeah isn't it a shame you can't just use physical force whenever you like to get what you want when you have no legal right to it? I mean as long as you don't injure anyone it is ok right? No.

I know, right? So ridiculous. Everyone knows that in the Trump White House you are only allowed to grab women by the pussy.

Topic: Jim Acosta karate chops intern’s arm & loses White House press pass - page 3. (Read 996 times)