• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jim Acosta will get his press pass back.

Nakosis

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
fantome profane said:
I certainly do. Trump as much as stated that Acosta would not be the only reporter he was going to ban. If you allow this administration to ban reporters who ask hard questions it makes it harder, or impossible to do their job. Yes, they can still publish, or broadcast, or post. But if they are denied access to the White House they cannot really report. And that is what freedom of the press is about.
Click to expand...

Which hard question caused him to be banned? It seems to me he was banned for his behavior not his questions.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
fantome profane said:
I never said anything was absolute. Libel, incitement to violence for example are exceptions to both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But asking hard questions is not and cannot be an exception. We can’t have freedom of the press but only if they ask only nice questions. That is not freedom of the press.
Click to expand...
I see. Alex Jones Style.
 
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Trump admin: We need some decorum in the white house!
Also Trump: You are a terrible person and your question is stupid!
 
Nakosis

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
metis said:
Na, Trump was just pms-ing-- too much estrogen from all of his groping.
Click to expand...

They both seemed possessed by a bit of toxic masculinity, however I agree, Trump could have been smarter in how it was handled.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
fantome profane said:
I don’t see that at all.
Click to expand...
Oh?

The group meets the dictionary definition of "caravan".

If /when they begin to cross the border, it becomes
an invasion.

Trump was off only to the extent that t he group
was not yet an invasion, but was clearly intent
on carrying out an invasion.

If that distinction is anything other than semantic
quibbling, and if it is a matter worthy of taking up
time in a press conference, I dont see how.

Prease exprain.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Sanzbir said:
Why can't I have a White House Press Pass?? is what I want to understand.

If denying this thing is denying someone's constitutional rights then I should get one too, right?? I should have those same rights!!
Click to expand...
Are you a member of the press?

As far as I know, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the representatives of a large corporation extra rights that the rest of us don't get, so if he has the rights to attend a press conference, all of us Americans should also be free to attend.
Click to expand...
The Constitution gives the press extra rights that the rest of you don't get. Acosta is a member of the press.

And the right isn't a blanket right to attend press conferences, it's the right not to be denied access once a person qualifies in the normal way.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Audie said:
Oh?

The group meets the dictionary definition of "caravan".

If /when they begin to cross the border, it becomes
an invasion.

Trump was off only to the extent that t he group
was not yet an invasion, but was clearly intent
on carrying out an invasion.

If that distinction is anything other than semantic
quibbling, and if it is a matter worthy of taking up
time in a press conference, I dont see how.

Prease exprain.
Click to expand...
This is such dangerous nonsense.

People coming to the border are not “invading”. Invasion implies violence, war. They are just people coming to the border to apply for asylum.

Calling it an “invasion”.is not a matter of semantics, it is fear-mongering. It is dangerous bigotry. And most importantly it is a lie!
 
tas8831

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Sanzbir said:
Why can't I have a White House Press Pass?? is what I want to understand.

If denying this thing is denying someone's constitutional rights then I should get one too, right?? I should have those same rights!!

As far as I know, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the representatives of a large corporation extra rights that the rest of us don't get, so if he has the rights to attend a press conference, all of us Americans should also be free to attend.
Click to expand...
Some bloggers have received press passes. There are many good reasons that they are normally confined to 'professional' journalists - generally, Joe Blogger can't afford to stay in D.C. for any length of time or to travel there from afar; Joe Blogger tends to have conspiratorial proclivities and ask questions, if called on, designed to rile and annoy rather than get a real answer; etc.
 
tas8831

tas8831

Well-Known Member
fantome profane said:
This is such dangerous nonsense.

People coming to the border are not “invading”. Invasion implies violence, war. They are just people coming to the border to apply for asylum.

Calling it an “invasion”.is not a matter of semantics, it is fear-mongering. It is dangerous bigotry. And most importantly it is a lie!
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, but calling it an "invasion" riled up the base, which, of course, already has certain tendencies that calling it such was sure to arouse. Paranoia, for example....

Odd how the Great Tweeter has pretty much ignored this "invasion" since the midterms.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
fantome profane said:
This is such dangerous nonsense.

People coming to the border are not “invading”. Invasion implies violence, war. They are just people coming to the border to apply for asylum.

Calling it an “invasion”.is not a matter of semantics, it is fear-mongering. It is dangerous bigotry. And most importantly it is a lie!
Click to expand...

No doubtmany are actually in need of asylum,
and perhaps all will apply.

You do not know that they all are legitimately seeking
asylum,still less do you know that many denied
legal entry will not enter illegally. That is, you know,
very common practice.

Now, what you personally feel is implied by the
word invasion is simply what you feel.
Semantics.

Dictionary.com
invasion
1
any entry into an area not previously occupied

I could provide more, but you might do so yourself
now that you've called it "dangerous nonsense".

Your talk of fear mongering, bigotry and lies
are misplaced.

Like this about bigotry, which is entirely you
assuming facts not in evidence, and / or
a lack of understanding (as with "invasion")
of what words actually mean.

Not that I want to be d ragged into semantics, but
you are just p lain wrong on both of those words.

  1. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Now, as for lies. What "lies"??

The only nonsense I have seen in our conversation
here comse from you.

Do examine your facts re vocab before posting again.

Curious, if you favour an open border, no border at all?







 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
tas8831 said:
Oh, sure, but calling it an "invasion" riled up the base, which, of course, already has certain tendencies that calling it such was sure to arouse. Paranoia, for example....

Odd how the Great Tweeter has pretty much ignored this "invasion" since the midterms.
Click to expand...

Ok, you too. Are you for a completely open border?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top