Jim Acosta will get his press pass back.

[fantome profane]

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?

Let me ask you a couple questions.

Have you ever traveled to another country?

Have you ever invaded another country?

I have not been there in many years but I use to go to the U.S. quite regularly. But I don’t think it is fair to say I have ever “invaded” the United States.

Don’t try to tell me that walking to the border is the same as an invasion.

You need to understand that there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that anyone in the caravan intends to enter the U.S. illegally. I am sure many of these people will be denied asylum. That is not the point. To accuse these people of being invaders based on no evidence at all is bigotry. And Trump should absolutely be called out for that.

 

[Sanzbir]

Are you a member of the press?

Yes.

The citizens are the press.

Being employed by a major corporation does not make one "the press". Major news corporations did not exist at the time the thing was written. Anyone who can print or publish something is the press, and everyone has the right to print or publish things, as written.

All citizens are the press. Don't lick the boots of corporations by pretending that corporation imbues a person with magical extra-important status over the rest of the citizenry.

The Constitution gives the press extra rights that the rest of you don't get. Acosta is a member of the press.

No it doesn't: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Where is the part of this that specifies that the rights listed here only apply to the chosen representatives of major corporations??

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.

Qualifies by being selected by a major corporation??

You're in favor of corporations having extra rights over other citizens??

It's okay if that's what you feel, it's just an odd and unpopular opinion to hold.

 

[Sanzbir]

Some bloggers have received press passes. There are many good reasons that they are normally confined to 'professional' journalists

That's not important, though, if this press pass is a right.

If it is covered under the amendments, then it must be free to any Joe Blogger who wants one.

If you want to argue that the White House should pick and choose who can and cannot attend based on practicality, and that there's no inherent right to attend, then the lawsuit makes no sense.

If there is a right, however, to attend these things, then I'm a citizen just like Acosta, and I want my dang pass!!

If the right to the press is limited (as some people here claim) then you are saying I don't have the right to write and publish a book if I want to, because that is what freedom of the press entails. Does anyone here actually think that right is limited to certain citizens by the Constitution??

The Constitution does not say that the right to the press is limited to the representatives of major corporations!! I have the right to the press just as Acosta does, so if press pass access is indeed part of these rights as is being argued, I want mine!!

 

[fantome profane]

That's not important, though, if this press pass is a right.

If it is covered under the amendments, then it must be free to any Joe Blogger who wants one.

If you want to argue that the White House should pick and choose who can and cannot attend based on practicality, and that there's no inherent right to attend, then the lawsuit makes no sense.

If there is a right, however, to attend these things, then I'm a citizen just like Acosta, and I want my dang pass!!

If the right to the press is limited (as some people here claim) then you are saying I don't have the right to write and publish a book if I want to, because that is what freedom of the press entails. Does anyone here actually think that right is limited to certain citizens by the Constitution??

The Constitution does not say that the right to the press is limited to the representatives of major corporations!! I have the right to the press just as Acosta does, so if press pass access is indeed part of these rights as is being argued, I want mine!!

I think you are making a very valid point. Of course the number of press passes must be limited simply because the size of the room is finite.

This had been done based not on constitutional law, but based on tradition and norms.

I say that if you can use a press pass as effectively as a network reporter (i.e. show up regularly, disseminate the information effectively) then I think you should have one.

But however it is decided it can’t be based on who asked nice or rude questions.

 

[Sanzbir]

I think you are making a very valid point. Of course the number of press passes must be limited simply because the size of the room is finite.

This had been done based not on constitutional law, but based on tradition and norms.

I say that if you can use a press pass as effectively as a network reporter (i.e. show up regularly, disseminate the information effectively) then I think you should have one.

But however it is decided it can’t be based on who asked nice or rude questions.

Indeed, but it also can't be decided on Constitutional terms, and it cannot thus be a Constitutional right because of the logistical problems that would cause.

Which is why the lawsuit filed kind of baffles me, because it claims these things are constitutional rights. But if this is specifically a constitutional issue... why am I barred?? Which is why I don't like the insinuations of the lawsuit filed... they should invoke tradition and precedent, perhaps, but not Constitutionality.

I don't like Acosta. I don't like Acosta having his pass revoked. And I also don't like Acosta and his Corporation arguing that they are entitled to Constitutional Rights that the rest of us don't receive.

 

[tas8831]

If there is a right, however, to attend these things, then I'm a citizen just like Acosta, and I want my dang pass!!!

Are you part of the Press?

If not, then stop your bellyaching.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

And what is The Press?

the press
noun

Definition of the press
: the people (such as reporters and photographers) who work for newspapers, magazines, etc.

 

[tas8831]

Ok, you too. Are you for a completely open border?

No.

Do you consider a group of men, women, and children trying to lead better lives "an invasion"?

The manner in which the Ministry of Propaganda and its acolytes (Fox, right-wing blogs, Russian trolls on social media) depict this group as an invasion has a very obvious connotation, especially given their audience.

Let's not make this about semantics - calling it "an invasion" had a very real, very obvious purpose. And now that its purpose is done, one may note that the Ministry of Propaganda has virtually ignored this "invasion", with the Great Tweeter mentioning it only once since the election.

 

[Audie]

No.

Do you consider a group of men, women, and children trying to lead better lives "an invasion"?

THAT depends.

The "migrant caravans", I'd probably not call them
either caravans or invasions.

As an immigrant myself, I can hardly be
anti-immigrant.

I did come here legally,though, f ollowing
all proper proper procedures as laid out
in Federal law.

Try it sometime! It is quite a process.

I have many relatives who would like
very much to come to the USA, but, as
they try to do so legally, their waits are long,
their chances slim.

I wonder where you draw the line, between
simply taking down the border, and, being
highly selective.

BTW, I am aware of the history of US meddling
in the central American countries that are now
so devastated that people risk it all to flee.

A case could be made for how the USA should
now pay for its sins, by helping out the victims
or its own policies.

 

[fantome profane]

Indeed, but it also can't be decided on Constitutional terms, and it cannot thus be a Constitutional right because of the logistical problems that would cause.

Which is why the lawsuit filed kind of baffles me, because it claims these things are constitutional rights. But if this is specifically a constitutional issue... why am I barred?? Which is why I don't like the insinuations of the lawsuit filed... they should invoke tradition and precedent, perhaps, but not Constitutionality.

I don't like Acosta. I don't like Acosta having his pass revoked. And I also don't like Acosta and his Corporation arguing that they are entitled to Constitutional Rights that the rest of us don't receive.

Maybe what is needed is an independent body that can decide who gets passes and who keeps them.

But what I find interesting about this issue is how it hasn’t been an issue. It wasn’t an issue under Obama, it wasn’t an issue under George W Bush, it wasn’t an issue under Bill Clinton, it wasn’t an issue under George H.W. Bush, it wasn’t an issue under Ronald Reagan ....

But it is now an issue under the first U.S. President to declare the press the enemy of the people.

That is interesting.

 

[Audie]

Let me ask you a couple questions.

Have you ever traveled to another country?

Have you ever invaded another country?

I have not been there in many years but I use to go to the U.S. quite regularly. But I don’t think it is fair to say I have ever “invaded” the United States.

Don’t try to tell me that walking to the border is the same as an invasion.

You need to understand that there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that anyone in the caravan intends to enter the U.S. illegally. I am sure many of these people will be denied asylum. That is not the point. To accuse these people of being invaders based on no evidence at all is bigotry. And Trump should absolutely be called out for that.

Traveled to? Lets see. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
Philippines, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Haiti, France, England,
Italy, what else..

I am an immigrant myself, to the USA.

Why do you ask?

Don’t try to tell me that walking to the border is the same as an invasion

Dont you try to make up words to put in my mouth.
Your deliberate misrepresentation just shows that
you have little real to say.

Now,as for "invasion" your question is silly, and
I refer you, again, to the dictionary. My point earlier was
that caravan v invasion is just (invidious) semantics.
And such was the case in said overblown press
conference incident. Arguing which of two different definitions is the right one. Ridiculous.

You need to understand that there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that anyone in the caravan intends to enter the U.S. illegally.

You needs to look before you leap. Check definitions,
references, etc.

No reason at all?

LA TIMES
People 'associated with' Central American caravan have entered U.S. illegally, federal officials say


But never mind that. The example set by the constant
flow of people moving up from the south and entering
the country illegally is kind of a clue that THIS batch
is not somehow made up of only the truly needy
and the full-compliance with every law people.
Was there not a mass illegal entry into Mexico?

Migrant Caravan Breaks Through Guatemala's Border Fence and Rushes Into Mexico


To accuse these people of being invaders based on no evidence at all is bigotry.

Plenty of evidence, and no bigotry.

Dont use words if you dont know what they mean.

 

[fantome profane]

Traveled to? Lets see. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
Philippines, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Haiti, France, England,
Italy, what else..

I am an immigrant myself, to the USA.

Why do you ask?

Don’t try to tell me that walking to the border is the same as an invasion

Dont you try to make up words to put in my mouth.
Your deliberate misrepresentation just shows that
you have little real to say.

Now,as for "invasion" your question is silly, and
I refer you, again, to the dictionary. My point earlier was
that caravan v invasion is just (invidious) semantics.
And such was the case in said overblown press
conference incident. Arguing which of two different definitions is the right one. Ridiculous.

You need to understand that there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that anyone in the caravan intends to enter the U.S. illegally.

You needs to look before you leap. Check definitions,
references, etc.

No reason at all?

LA TIMES
People 'associated with' Central American caravan have entered U.S. illegally, federal officials say


But never mind that. The example set by the constant
flow of people moving up from the south and entering
the country illegally is kind of a clue that THIS batch
is not somehow made up of only the righteous and the holy.

To accuse these people of being invaders based on no evidence at all is bigotry.

It may be the truth, it may be exaggerated, it may be 100% false, but, it is not bigotry.

Dont use words if you dont know what they mean.

So what you are saying is they these people are suspect based on the actions of others of their kind.

Thank you. I think I know the definition of bigotry.

 

[tas8831]

THAT depends.

The "migrant caravans", I'd probably not call them
either caravans or invasions.

As an immigrant myself, I can hardly be
anti-immigrant.

I did come here legally,though, f ollowing
all proper proper procedures as laid out
in Federal law.

Did you ask for asylum?

Try it sometime! It is quite a process.

I have thought about moving to a Scandinavian country for some time, but am too rooted to do so.

I have many relatives who would like
very much to come to the USA, but, as
they try to do so legally, their waits are long,
their chances slim.

Pity none of them are related to Melania.. or the Saudis...

I wonder where you draw the line, between
simply taking down the border, and, being
highly selective.

Never said anything about open borders. I am closer to highly selective, merit based, with worker visas as another option, were I to 'take a stance.'

BTW, I am aware of the history of US meddling
in the central American countries that are now
so devastated that people risk it all to flee.

A case could be made for how the USA should
now pay for its sins, by helping out the victims
or its own policies.

That would be nice - but the USA is basically a bully. And bullies, behind their facades, are cowards. This is why we hide behind our bloated military and have yahoos riding around in pick up trucks with confederate flags ready to shoot people. It isn't bravery, it is cowardice (and before I am blasted as some commie liberal, I served in the military and I own guns... but I am socially liberal because I am not a selfish hypocrite).

My 'argument' on this whole issue is the political one - I do not claim to have the best answer as to what to do about the borders (or even an OK one) - the manner in which this group of people was vilified and used by the right to scare and manipulate people. I am not aware that we know what they plan to do, but I have read that one seeking asylum really has no option but to show up at an embassy or the border and request it (don't know if that is accurate or not).
I understand that illegal immigration is a problem, but turning the USA into East Berlin will just make us look like fascist xenophobes and will probably not very successfully deal with the problem in the end. Putin's boys are probably laughing their collective butts off, seeing as how they have played a role in getting the usual suspects all in a tizzy about "foreigners" by calling this particular bunch "an invasion." I guess "caravan" wasn't making the gun nuts scared and paranoid enough...

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think that it was. And as I mentioned earlier Trump indicated he was thinking of banning other reporters for asking “rude” questions.

Rude questions or rude behavior in press conferences?

 

[Audie]

Did you ask for asylum?


I have thought about moving to a Scandinavian country for some time, but am too rooted to do so.


Pity none of them are related to Melania.. or the Saudis...


Never said anything about open borders. I am closer to highly selective, merit based, with worker visas as another option, were I to 'take a stance.'


That would be nice - but the USA is basically a bully. And bullies, behind their facades, are cowards. This is why we hide behind our bloated military and have yahoos riding around in pick up trucks with confederate flags ready to shoot people. It isn't bravery, it is cowardice (and before I am blasted as some commie liberal, I served in the military and I own guns... but I am socially liberal because I am not a selfish hypocrite).

My 'argument' on this whole issue is the political one - I do not claim to have the best answer as to what to do about the borders (or even an OK one) - the manner in which this group of people was vilified and used by the right to scare and manipulate people. I am not aware that we know what they plan to do, but I have read that one seeking asylum really has no option but to show up at an embassy or the border and request it (don't know if that is accurate or not).
I understand that illegal immigration is a problem, but turning the USA into East Berlin will just make us look like fascist xenophobes and will probably not very successfully deal with the problem in the end. Putin's boys are probably laughing their collective butts off, seeing as how they have played a role in getting the usual suspects all in a tizzy about "foreigners" by calling this particular bunch "an invasion." I guess "caravan" wasn't making the gun nuts scared and paranoid enough...

I didnt need asylum.

Your going off on east berlin, paranoia and gun nuts
is a bit of a rant, but then, I guess that is the theme
for this thread.

 

[fantome profane]

Rude questions or rude behavior in press conferences?

I said rude questions. I said I think that the reason Acosta lost his pass is that he asked a question Trump did not like.

 

[metis]

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

I personally don't like that confrontational style because I'm just too lovable.

Seriously, I think both made fools of themselves, so I agree with ya.

 

[metis]

Do ya have science for that?

The words "science" and "Trump" don't go well together.

 

[Audie]

The words "science" and "Trump" don't go well together.

Wait, what? You got them both into one sentence, but
it took some doing!

IF the USA ever manages to get a less intellectual
president with less regard for science, it may be
the end.

 

[Shad]

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.

The ruling was about procedure part of due process, nothing more.

 

[Shad]

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!

Invasion can imply war but that is not the only definition of the word