Re: Trump Spits On First Amendment

[Steve]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:37:01 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

>NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 04:16:29 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>Sherman) wrote:
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>I'm not a Trump supporter in any way. Be that as it may, bradley is
>>>>wrong in thinking this is a first amendment issue. It isn't, not in any
>>>>way.
>>>
>>>Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong:
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.leagle.com/decision/1977693569F2d124_1686/SHERRILL%20v.%20KNIGHT
>>>
>>>
>>> These press facilities are perceived
>>
>>Perception is not law. Your source's logic is poor and so is yours.
>
>Law? No one said anything about the law. What I said is
>that Trump is spitting on the First Amendment. QED.
>
> --bks


<SNORT> Hey, Dummy, the First Amendment is law...

Leftists are insecure and need to control other people
in order to feel comfortable. They want elected officials
who offer them that control, i.e. to make others do what
they want them to do. That's why they react like spoiled
children when there is a government that doesn't respond
to their security needs.

[Steve]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

>Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:o8s4qd$3u5$1
>>@reader1.panix.com:

>>
>>> Law? No one said anything about the law. What I said is
>>> that Trump is spitting on the First Amendment. QED.
>>

>>Whose speech did President Trump abridge?
>
>Journalists who hurt his feelings. He's such a
>precious snowflake.
>
> --bks


...and yet the "journalists" can say whatever they want....

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 2/25/2017 6:58 AM, Steve wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:o8s4qd$3u5$1
>>> @reader1.panix.com:
>>>
>>>> Law? No one said anything about the law. What I said is
>>>> that Trump is spitting on the First Amendment. QED.
>>>
>>> Whose speech did President Trump abridge?
>>
>> Journalists who hurt his feelings. He's such a
>> precious snowflake.
>>
>> --bks
>
>
> ...and yet the "journalists" can say whatever they want....

The argument that Trump is violating the First Amendment is the press's
speech is now chilled as to what it says because they face sanction for
it (won't be included in a press briefing). I know of no cases, one way
or the other, that speak to this argument, but it does seem reasonable
that at least the spirit of freedom of speech is being attacked.

[Steve]

Your opinion.... and mine is "nonsense."

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:59:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/2017 6:58 AM, Steve wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>>>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:o8s4qd$3u5$1
>>>>> @reader1.panix.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Law? No one said anything about the law. What I said is
>>>>>> that Trump is spitting on the First Amendment. QED.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose speech did President Trump abridge?
>>>>
>>>> Journalists who hurt his feelings. He's such a
>>>> precious snowflake.
>>>>
>>>> --bks
>>>
>>>
>>> ...and yet the "journalists" can say whatever they want....
>>
>> The argument that Trump is violating the First Amendment is the press's
>> speech is now chilled as to what it says because they face sanction for
>> it (won't be included in a press briefing). I know of no cases, one way
>> or the other, that speak to this argument, but it does seem reasonable
>> that at least the spirit of freedom of speech is being attacked.

Obama tapped the phones of some journalists and their families... What
principals of freedom did that violate?



--
That's Karma

The Democrats slogan is *HATE AMERICA FIRST*

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:59:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/2017 6:58 AM, Steve wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>>>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:o8s4qd$3u5$1
>>>>> @reader1.panix.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Law? No one said anything about the law. What I said is
>>>>>> that Trump is spitting on the First Amendment. QED.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose speech did President Trump abridge?
>>>>
>>>> Journalists who hurt his feelings. He's such a
>>>> precious snowflake.
>>>>
>>>> --bks
>>>
>>>
>>> ...and yet the "journalists" can say whatever they want....
>>
>> The argument that Trump is violating the First Amendment is the press's
>> speech is now chilled as to what it says because they face sanction for
>> it (won't be included in a press briefing). I know of no cases, one way
>> or the other, that speak to this argument, but it does seem reasonable
>> that at least the spirit of freedom of speech is being attacked.

Obama tapped the phones of some journalists and their families... What
principals of freedom did that violate?

The Media will "REAP WHAT THEY SOW" just as the congress has and Obama
has. They're distrusted and disliked.

And the Media will be the same as they "sow the seeds of hate" just like
Democrats did for the last 16 years. The visceral hate for America from
Democrats is paying off for them today, just as the Muslims Thousand
years of hate has rewarded them with peace and prosperity?

Birds of a feather "they say" will flock together, and Muslims and
Liberals common hate for America have them migrating in the same
direction and they're starting to align in a flock together.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:59:59 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Complete nonsense. There is no law that says that everyone in media
must be allowed into press briefings. The First Ammendment says the
media may print anything that they wish, not that the be given free
access to everywhere and everyone the want.

[First-Post]

Funny how the leftist idiots are so quick to change their tune when it
isn't Obama excluding what are seen as conservative news agencies from
briefings, yes?

It wasn't long ago at all when the libs here were posting how great it
was that Obama was not taking questions from such "hostile" news
agencies.

For nearly 8 years straight Obama whined about Fox, Hannity and others
not being nice to him and the libs chimed right in with how they
weren't being fair or playing nice.

Is it even possible for a liberal to go just 24 hours without being a
flaming hypocrite?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Freedom of Speech has been construed by SCOTUS to mean the government
cannot discriminate against one type of private-party speech over
another based on the viewpoint of that speech. So while it is likely
true that the media can be barred in its entirety from access, it is not
clear if the government gives some media access, they are permitted to
deny other media access based on the viewpoint of the media.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Obama used his viewpoint to enforce only the laws that he liked... SO
apparently they can use their viewpoint to enforce all laws. That would
include free speech laws.

If Obama was giving equal protection while deciding what laws to enforce
then so is the TRUMP team.

Obama was setting the precedence.

--
That's Karma

The Democrats slogan is *MAKE AMERICA HATE AGAIN*
but they'll reap what they sow.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

The government is permitted to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint
when the government itself speaks. If it couldn't do that, then the
government would have to express all sorts of viewpoints it doesn't want to.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:50:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

You took a lot of words to admit I'm correct.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

If you said the media can be barred in its entirety, you are likely
correct. But, who cares? That's not the issue we are debating.

The issue we are debating is whether some of the media can be barred
based on their viewpoint. I did not admit that was correct.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:24:58 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

No we are not discussing that.

>The issue we are debating is whether some of the media can be barred
>based on their viewpoint. I did not admit that was correct.

Any publication can be excluded for any reason. There is no law that
says anyone who wants in must be admitted. Lack of access does not
inhibit their ability to print what they want...they do anyway.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

As I explained above, the counter argument is that if publications are
barred from access based on the viewpoints they print, that could have a
chilling effect on what they print which is not permitted by the First
Amendment.

Of course, you disagree with that conclusion, but it is not settled law
as to which opinion the courts would accept.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Forcing people to have an FFL to sell buy/sell their personal firearms
could have a chilling effect on exercising their 2nd amendment.


--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
Speech writers are all from those same colleges that teach the same
Liberal - Socialist vernacular using the same vocabulary so all speeches
sound like they were written by a Millennial political science graduate
with no life experience. Naturally they use the same buzz words as
their idiot Socialist professors.

The only thing it proves is that COLLEGES INDOCTRINATE their journalism
and law students into Liberalism rather than educate them so they can
grow intellectually.

This is what it's come to, it's all made of *Liberal* ticky-tacky and
they all look just the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUoXtddNPAM

[Rudy Canoza]

On 2/24/2017 8:16 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm not a Trump supporter in any way. Be that as it may, bradley is
>> wrong in thinking this is a first amendment issue. It isn't, not in any
>> way.
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong:
>
>
> http://www.leagle.com/decision/1977693569F2d124_1686/SHERRILL%20v.%20KNIGHT
>
>

> These press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide
> Washington-based journalists, whereas most of the White House itself,
> and press facilities in particular, have not been made available to the
> general public. White House press facilities having been made publicly
> available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection
> afforded news gathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of
> the press,

Nope. That's not the basis for it. "Freedom of the press" means *ONLY*
the ability of the press to say what they want to say; nothing more.

You are wrong. Access is *NOT* a first amendment issue - not in any
way. This is settled, boi.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 2/25/2017 6:37 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 04:16:29 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>> Sherman) wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I'm not a Trump supporter in any way. Be that as it may, bradley is
>>>> wrong in thinking this is a first amendment issue. It isn't, not in any
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.leagle.com/decision/1977693569F2d124_1686/SHERRILL%20v.%20KNIGHT
>>>
>>>
>>> These press facilities are perceived
>>

>> Perception is not law. Your source's logic is poor and so is yours.
>

> Law? No one said anything about the law. What I said is
> that Trump is spitting on the First Amendment.

He isn't. The first amendment does not mean access. It never did.

> QED.

You don't know what that means. You misused it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 2/25/2017 6:49 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:o8s4qd$3u5$1
>> @reader1.panix.com:

>>
>>> Law? No one said anything about the law. What I said is

>>> that Trump is spitting on the First Amendment. QED.
>>
>> Whose speech did President Trump abridge?
>
> Journalists who hurt his feelings.

Nope. They still can say anything they want to say in print or on
broadcasts. In no way did Trump infringe on their first amendment
rights. This is settled.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 2/25/2017 7:59 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 2/25/2017 6:58 AM, Steve wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:49:18 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>> Sherman) wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>>> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:o8s4qd$3u5$1
>>>> @reader1.panix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Law? No one said anything about the law. What I said is
>>>>> that Trump is spitting on the First Amendment. QED.
>>>>
>>>> Whose speech did President Trump abridge?
>>>
>>> Journalists who hurt his feelings. He's such a
>>> precious snowflake.
>>>
>>> --bks
>>
>>
>> ...and yet the "journalists" can say whatever they want....
>
> The argument that Trump is violating the First Amendment is the press's
> speech is now chilled as to what it says because they face sanction for
> it (won't be included in a press briefing).

That's not an infringement.

[Rudy Canoza]

And as childish as Trump's exclusion of certain media outlets from press
briefings may be, he hasn't engaged in any such discrimination.

Access is not speech. There's really no argument, except by cocksucking
sophists like you, and you have already lost.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

You keep saying this issue is settled. Please provide the court cases
that have settled it.

[Rudy Canoza]

It is.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

[Rudy Canoza]

None needed.

I know, little cocksucking statist, that if some organ of the state
doesn't decide something, you consider it to be undecided, but the rest
of us don't suffer from your crippling limitation.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 2/28/2017 10:13 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 2/28/2017 9:24 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

{snip}

>>>>>> Freedom of Speech has been construed by SCOTUS to mean the government
>>>>>> cannot discriminate against one type of private-party speech over
>>>>>> another based on the viewpoint of that speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> And as childish as Trump's exclusion of certain media outlets from
>>>>> press briefings may be, he hasn't engaged in any such discrimination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Access is not speech. There's really no argument, except by
>>>>> cocksucking sophists like you, and you have already lost.
>>>>
>>>> You keep saying this issue is settled.
>>>
>>> It is.
>>
>> Please provide the court cases that have settled it.
>
> None needed.
>
> I know, little cocksucking statist, that if some organ of the state
> doesn't decide something, you consider it to be undecided, but the rest
> of us don't suffer from your crippling limitation.

Please provide any evidence that the issue is settled.

[Rudy Canoza]

Access to speakers isn't speech.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

And the other side argues that selective access based on what the media
publishes is discrimination on the basis of speech (because what they
publish is speech).

So I again ask, what is your evidence that your interpretation is
settles the issue.

[Rudy Canoza]

It's not.

There is no "right" to access.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

I again ask, what is your evidence that your interpretation has settled
the issue.

[Rudy Canoza]

What is your evidence that there is a "right" to access?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

https://www.justsecurity.org/38173/top-amendment-experts-react-white-house-press-briefing-ban-cnn-nyt/

[Rudy Canoza]

<yawn> There *still* is no "right" to access.

I don't *like* the Trumpolini chickenshit with the media, because I
think it's small-minded and unpresidential. It is not, however,
"unconstitutional." It's just small-minded, petty and unpresidential.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

... in your opinion. But, that isn't a settled issue.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:25:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Repeating your claim doesn't make it true. No one is stopping the
press from printing what they want, hence no infringment or
"chilling".

>
>Of course, you disagree with that conclusion, but it is not settled law
>as to which opinion the courts would accept.

All you have to do is show a court opinion that states that anyone who
wants to attend a press briefing is required to be allowed in.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:01:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Wouldn't it be your burden to do so since you keep insisting that
Trump is discriminating and interfering with the 1st Ammendment?

[NoBody]

That's opinion, not proof.

[Steve]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:23:30 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

>NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:49:51 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>Sherman) wrote:
>>>
>>>Even W is saying it:
>>> | ...
>>> | Asked about Trump's claim that the media is the "enemy of
>>> | the people," Bush warned that an independent press is
>>> | essential to democracy and that denouncing the press at
>>> | home makes it difficult for the United States to preach
>>> | democratic values abroad.
>>> | ...
>>><https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/27/george-w-bush-critiques-trump-on-travel-ban-free-press/?utm_term=.ae9540fcfc77>
>>
>>Your quote has only a tiny relationship to subject.
>
>My quote is directly related to the subject. What part
>of "independent press" do you not understand.
>
> --bks
>
>Still here.


I wonder why so many lefty fruitcakes have so much trouble
understanding the First Amendment...

Leftists are insecure and need to control other people
in order to feel comfortable. They want elected officials
who offer them that control, i.e. to make others do what
they want them to do. That's why they react like spoiled
children when there is a government that doesn't respond
to their security needs.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

No, because I am making no such claim. I have said there is an argument
that Trump is doing so, and there is an argument that he is not. I only
claimed that the issue is not settled and thus those who say it is (one
way or the other) are mistaken.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/1/2017 3:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:25:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

>>> Any publication can be excluded for any reason. There is no law that
>>> says anyone who wants in must be admitted. Lack of access does not
>>> inhibit their ability to print what they want...they do anyway.
>>
>> As I explained above, the counter argument is that if publications are
>> barred from access based on the viewpoints they print, that could have a
>> chilling effect on what they print which is not permitted by the First
>> Amendment.
>
> Repeating your claim doesn't make it true. No one is stopping the
> press from printing what they want, hence no infringment or
> "chilling".
>
>>
>> Of course, you disagree with that conclusion, but it is not settled law
>> as to which opinion the courts would accept.
>
> All you have to do is show a court opinion that states that anyone who
> wants to attend a press briefing is required to be allowed in.

... in order to support the claim that the above counter argument is the
settled law. But, I didn't make such a claim. I said the issue is not
settled law.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, it's a fact.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/1/2017 7:44 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 2/28/2017 10:51 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

{snip}

>>>>>>>> And the other side argues that selective access based on what the
>>>>>>>> media publishes is discrimination on the basis of speech
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no "right" to access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I again ask, what is your evidence that your interpretation has
>>>>>> settled the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your evidence that there is a "right" to access?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.justsecurity.org/38173/top-amendment-experts-react-white-house-press-briefing-ban-cnn-nyt/
>>>
>>> <yawn> There *still* is no "right" to access.
>>
>> ... in your opinion.
>
> No, it's a fact.

Please provide evidence for your claim that this is a fact.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 2/28/2017 4:49 AM, Bradley K. Sherman, dainty homo, lied:
> NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> ....
>> You're running away Bradley - typical lib.
>
> How am I "running away"? I'm right here. As is
> the Subject line, which is now established beyond
> all doubt

No, it is not established as fact, because it is a lie.

[Rudy Canoza]

LOL! Stop it, you verminous little sheeny. You believe *nothing* in
life is settled until a court decides it.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

They can file a (FOIA) Freedom Of Information Act, to get the same
information as the people standing there.

That way if they think the information given by the pool reporters is in
error or otherwise misleading, they can get the official government
version like Obama gave when it was requested and couldn't be found.

--
That's Karma

The Democrats slogan is *MAKE AMERICA HATE AGAIN*
but they'll reap what they sow.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/1/2017 3:15 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* blackshirt
nobody and registered sex offender lied:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:49:51 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2017 8:21 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>> a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* blackshirt nobody and registered sex offender lied:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Which is law you moron. Your inability to respond directly is so
>>>>> noted.
>>>>
>>>> Spitting on the First Amendmendment [sic]

<chuckle>

>>>
>>> Not done. Press access to the president has nothing to do with the
>>> first amendment. This is settled.

>>
>> Even W is saying it:
>> | ...
>> | Asked about Trump's claim that the media is the "enemy of
>> | the people," Bush warned that an independent press is
>> | essential to democracy and that denouncing the press at
>> | home makes it difficult for the United States to preach
>> | democratic values abroad.
>> | ...
>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/27/george-w-bush-critiques-trump-on-travel-ban-free-press/?utm_term=.ae9540fcfc77>
>
> Your quote has only a tiny relationship to subject.

While nothing Trumpolini has done infringes the first amendment in fact,
it does indeed violate the necessary spirit of it. Trumpolini is being
his usual petty, small-minded, vindictive shitbag self in excluding
certain highly respected media outlets from press events to which they
always were invited under *all* previous presidents, merely because he's
pissy over factual things they've written about him and his shills.

He's a midget. There is no disputing that. He's a *weak*, vain
Rumpelstiltskin midget.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/1/2017 3:17 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* blackshirt

nobody and registered sex offender lied:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:01:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/28/2017 8:51 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2017 8:50 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>>>> On 2/26/2017 8:18 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* blackshirt nobody and registered sex offender lied:

Amendment. There are only two instance of the letter m in amendment,
not three.

You don't seem to understand that to the plodding dull sophomore,
joshie, *nothing* is settled in life until a court decides it. joshie
is a statist, and thinks the state must decide everything, every time.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/2/2017 3:37 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody
blackshirt and registered sex offender lied:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:21:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/2017 3:15 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody blackshirt and registered sex offender lied:

>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:49:51 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/2017 8:21 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* blackshirt nobody and registered sex offender lied:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Which is law you moron. Your inability to respond directly is so
>>>>>>> noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spitting on the First Amendmendment [sic]
>>
>> <chuckle>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not done. Press access to the president has nothing to do with the
>>>>> first amendment. This is settled.
>>>>
>>>> Even W is saying it:
>>>> | ...
>>>> | Asked about Trump's claim that the media is the "enemy of
>>>> | the people," Bush warned that an independent press is
>>>> | essential to democracy and that denouncing the press at
>>>> | home makes it difficult for the United States to preach
>>>> | democratic values abroad.
>>>> | ...
>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/27/george-w-bush-critiques-trump-on-travel-ban-free-press/?utm_term=.ae9540fcfc77>
>>>
>>> Your quote has only a tiny relationship to subject.
>>
>> While nothing Trumpolini has done infringes the first amendment in fact,
>> it does indeed violate the necessary spirit of it.
>

> Where in the First Ammendment (yes capitalized, idiot)

1. That's wrong
2. It's spelled *Amendment* - only one 'm' following the 'a', you fuckwit

> does it say the
> press is entitled to attend any press conference they wish?

What part of the *spirit* of the first amendment (no capitalization,
only one 'm' following the 'a') do you fail to understand? What part of
"petulant vindictive *WEAK* *WEAK* *WEAK* playground bully Trumpolini"
do you fail to understand? Why do I have to keep lecturing you on
civics? While the first amendment (ibid.) does not literally specify
that the press have a right of access, in spirit - and by longstanding
American custom - the press *are* to have access to the president. That
means *all* of the accredited press, including the media outlets that
the whiny petulant foot-stomping *WEAK* Trumpolini excluded for no
reason other than his own crippling insecurity and lack of self confidence.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/2/2017 3:35 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody

blackshirt and registered sex offender lied:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:23:30 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.

> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody blackshirt and registered sex offender lied:
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:49:51 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even W is saying it:
>>>> | ...
>>>> | Asked about Trump's claim that the media is the "enemy of
>>>> | the people," Bush warned that an independent press is
>>>> | essential to democracy and that denouncing the press at
>>>> | home makes it difficult for the United States to preach
>>>> | democratic values abroad.
>>>> | ...
>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/27/george-w-bush-critiques-trump-on-travel-ban-free-press/?utm_term=.ae9540fcfc77>
>>>
>>> Your quote has only a tiny relationship to subject.
>>

>> My quote is directly related to the subject. What part
>> of "independent press" do you not understand.
>

> A former President's opinion is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

No. You just don't *like* the opinion, because it reflects badly on
your Russian puppet Duce, Trumpolini.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/2/2017 3:32 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody

blackshirt and registered sex offender lied:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:22:10 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.

> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody blackshirt and registered sex offender lied:

>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:49:10 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.

>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody blackshirt and registered sex offender lied:

>>>>>> ....
>>>>> You're running away Bradley - typical lib.
>>>>
>>>> How am I "running away"? I'm right here. As is
>>>> the Subject line, which is now established beyond

>>>> all doubt, despite your best efforts to obfuscate.
>>>
>>> You snipped all context and could not address it. That is, by
>>> definintion "running away".
>>
>> Is English your first language? That makes no sense.
>>
>
> Only because

Only because it makes no sense. We've discussed your wretched English
composition skills before, and they haven't improved.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/4/2017 5:58 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody

blackshirt and registered sex offender lied:

> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 04:33:42 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <lklibc5te8a7mq4au...@4ax.com>,
>> NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mighty big paragraph to say there is no violation of the First
>>> Amendment. I guess you have to obscure your stupidity somehow. BTW,
>>> you made a grammar error in your reply. I'll leave it to you to find
>>> it.
>>
>> Freedom of press means newspapers don't have to say nice things about Drumpf,
>> they don't have to ask for comments or print his side, and they aren't
>> accountable to Drumpf's standards of alternate facts.
>
> Actually the standards of journalism requires a reporter

Fuck off. You don't know anything about journalism.