They've been surveying people on the 1st Amendment since the early 70's. When you don't call it the Amendment a very large portion of the population isn't in favor of it. It was especially bad during the Civil Right and Anti-war movements. Free speech and free press are always at risk from that kind of people who support Trump.. They're the ones that used to have "America - Love it or Leave it' and 'My Country Right or Wrong" bumper stickers on their cars. Anyone remember the "Hard Hat Riot" in 1970? The AFL/CIO was virulently anti-Communist and recruited a couple of hundred construction workers as counter demonstrators after Kent State. It was ugly and brought to you by the same sorts of people who gave us Trump and Charlottesville. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Hmm; getting some kind of mixed messages from that poll. I feel like they should have defined, "bad behavior" a little more precisely; to some people, that might mean printing stories you just don't like; to others, it could mean printing blatantly false stories. Without knowing how that was defined in the survey, that's not terribly useful.I am a little encouraged that more Republicans are against shutting down certain outlets and not others; at least some of them seem to realize cherry-picking your coverage is bad. Or at least they realize it's a dead giveaway; one of the two.
When you add in the cost of branding your chickens and the horses for the round-up, the corrals and all, an egg will cost about the same as a head of cattle. I'm sure the poor will find that enticing.
'The President should have the right to close down news outlets engaged in bad behaviour' ie critical of him. Can I point something out? Those same folks feel that they need to possess lots of guns (even illegally) to stop tyranny. That is what the President would class as bad behaviour, right?
OK, here is the other point. This guy here: https://www.changeyourthoug...He sat in a prison cell for over 20 years. Why? Because he knew that when it came down to a tussle between the people who owned newspapers and the people who owned guns and prisons, one side would win. It is not courage to pretend that access to weapons is the ONLY answer. It is courage to say 'I will do it. And I will do it without guns. And I might get killed for it, but they are gonna remember the guy that didn't make change at the point of a gun as a visionary'
When grandma was a teenager she had to chop off the head of one of the family's chickens for dinner, and ended up having to chase a headless chicken down the block. Conservatives don't talk about that either.
Fortunately truth is an affirmative defense against libel. The editor at one paper where I worked would get screaming calls threatening lawsuits over routine stories where we had the facts nailed down, and he would tell the caller "The Daily Star would WELCOME a lawsuit." Never got any call backs. I fielded a call one time from some dumbass wife of a doctor (she made sure to point out) who was going to talk to her lawyer because our reporter correctly quoted her remarks at a public meeting WITHOUT HER PERMISSION. I told her to go right ahead, her lawyer could probably use a good chuckle. Fortunately also too, libel laws are state statutes and vary slightly from state to state. Trump can't do shit about them.
They've been surveying people on the 1st Amendment since the early 70's. When you don't call it the Amendment a very large portion of the population isn't in favor of it. It was especially bad during the Civil Right and Anti-war movements. Free speech and free press are always at risk from that kind of people who support Trump.. They're the ones that used to have "America - Love it or Leave it' and 'My Country Right or Wrong" bumper stickers on their cars. Anyone remember the "Hard Hat Riot" in 1970? The AFL/CIO was virulently anti-Communist and recruited a couple of hundred construction workers as counter demonstrators after Kent State. It was ugly and brought to you by the same sorts of people who gave us Trump and Charlottesville. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
I'm against the Weather Channel
And the only "real" Americans.
That must have come from my “garden.” : /
Hmm; getting some kind of mixed messages from that poll. I feel like they should have defined, "bad behavior" a little more precisely; to some people, that might mean printing stories you just don't like; to others, it could mean printing blatantly false stories. Without knowing how that was defined in the survey, that's not terribly useful.I am a little encouraged that more Republicans are against shutting down certain outlets and not others; at least some of them seem to realize cherry-picking your coverage is bad. Or at least they realize it's a dead giveaway; one of the two.
I tend to binge-watch BBC David Attenborough nature documentaries. A trivia-addiction MUST be fed, of course.
When you add in the cost of branding your chickens and the horses for the round-up, the corrals and all, an egg will cost about the same as a head of cattle. I'm sure the poor will find that enticing.
'The President should have the right to close down news outlets engaged in bad behaviour' ie critical of him. Can I point something out? Those same folks feel that they need to possess lots of guns (even illegally) to stop tyranny. That is what the President would class as bad behaviour, right?
OK, here is the other point. This guy here: https://www.changeyourthoug...He sat in a prison cell for over 20 years. Why? Because he knew that when it came down to a tussle between the people who owned newspapers and the people who owned guns and prisons, one side would win. It is not courage to pretend that access to weapons is the ONLY answer. It is courage to say 'I will do it. And I will do it without guns. And I might get killed for it, but they are gonna remember the guy that didn't make change at the point of a gun as a visionary'
Frum said that as a reason why we should vote for Conservatives.
I took it as a reason why would should imprison traitors. But hey, different perspectives, amiright?
"Quit spending on unnecessary shit that eats up your health" = block sanctimonious pricks. Because nobody has time for that shit.
When grandma was a teenager she had to chop off the head of one of the family's chickens for dinner, and ended up having to chase a headless chicken down the block. Conservatives don't talk about that either.
He invested 12 ampersands?
BURRRRNNNN
It's a good one.
That's great news.
Fortunately truth is an affirmative defense against libel. The editor at one paper where I worked would get screaming calls threatening lawsuits over routine stories where we had the facts nailed down, and he would tell the caller "The Daily Star would WELCOME a lawsuit." Never got any call backs. I fielded a call one time from some dumbass wife of a doctor (she made sure to point out) who was going to talk to her lawyer because our reporter correctly quoted her remarks at a public meeting WITHOUT HER PERMISSION. I told her to go right ahead, her lawyer could probably use a good chuckle. Fortunately also too, libel laws are state statutes and vary slightly from state to state. Trump can't do shit about them.