OT: Freedom of the Press (self-censorship?)
Peter Lawrence
I just read that MSNBC has suspended Mark Halperin indefinitely because he
commented today on the MSNBC show "Morning Joe" in regards to the
President's demeanor at President's news conference yesterday. Halperin
stated, "I thought he was a kind of a dick yesterday."
Now, I don't have any problem with MSNBC suspending any of their on-air
personalities who don't conform to MSNBC's standards and practices in
regards to the proper language to use while on air.
But what I do find disturbing is that the White House Press Secretary, Jay
Carney, complained to MSNBC, though not requesting that Halperin be
suspended, he did state that "It would be inappropriate to say that about
any president of either party."
WTF?
Inappropriate? What ever happened to the concept of "Freedom of Speech"?
While the White House (of either party) would not appreciate such comments
made about their President, I really don't think it was appropriate for the
Press Secretary of the White House to complain about it to MSNBC.
Again, I can understand MSNBC suspending Halperin just because he used
language not conforming to MSNBC's standards. But the White House should
really had let it be, and maybe should have only stated that "Everyone is
entitled to their opinions." and just leave it at that.
I don't want to live in an era where news organizations are self-censoring
themselves to avoid offending whoever resides in the White House.
- Peter
Bigolhomo
wrote:
>
>I just read that MSNBC has suspended Mark Halperin indefinitely because he
>commented today on the MSNBC show "Morning Joe" in regards to the
>President's demeanor at President's news conference yesterday. Halperin
>stated, "I thought he was a kind of a dick yesterday."
>
>Now, I don't have any problem with MSNBC suspending any of their on-air
>personalities who don't conform to MSNBC's standards and practices in
>regards to the proper language to use while on air.
>
>But what I do find disturbing is that the White House Press Secretary, Jay
>Carney, complained to MSNBC, though not requesting that Halperin be
>suspended, he did state that "It would be inappropriate to say that about
>any president of either party."
>
>WTF?
>
>Inappropriate? What ever happened to the concept of "Freedom of Speech"?
>
>While the White House (of either party) would not appreciate such comments
>made about their President, I really don't think it was appropriate for the
>Press Secretary of the White House to complain about it to MSNBC.
You don't think it was appropriate? What ever happened to the concept
of "Freedom of Speech"?
>
Bigolhomo
The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
@gmail.com Zob
wrote:
>
>I just read that MSNBC has suspended Mark Halperin indefinitely because he
>commented today on the MSNBC show "Morning Joe" in regards to the
>President's demeanor at President's news conference yesterday. Halperin
>stated, "I thought he was a kind of a dick yesterday."
>
>Now, I don't have any problem with MSNBC suspending any of their on-air
>personalities who don't conform to MSNBC's standards and practices in
>regards to the proper language to use while on air.
>
>But what I do find disturbing is that the White House Press Secretary, Jay
>Carney, complained to MSNBC, though not requesting that Halperin be
>suspended, he did state that "It would be inappropriate to say that about
>any president of either party."
>
>WTF?
>
>Inappropriate? What ever happened to the concept of "Freedom of Speech"?
He's right. Of course it's legal and constitutional, lol. But what
Carney said was spot on. It's "inappropriate." There's a world of
difference. Following your logic, a news reporter could go on
television and say, "That child killing little whore Casey Anthony
decided not to take the stand today." Would it be constitutional? Of
course. Would it be inappropriate public speech? Of course. There is
a definite distinction between what is constitutional and what is
appropriate. ITA that it would be inappropriate for any news
reporter to refer to any President of the United States as a "dick" on
television. Even if they meant it in a good way, as Halperin did.
--
Zob
"So You Think You Can Dance" Season 6 Certainty Contest Champion
Peter Lawrence
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:43:29 -0700, Peter Lawrence<humm...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I just read that MSNBC has suspended Mark Halperin indefinitely because he
>> commented today on the MSNBC show "Morning Joe" in regards to the
>> President's demeanor at President's news conference yesterday. Halperin
>> stated, "I thought he was a kind of a dick yesterday."
>>
>> Now, I don't have any problem with MSNBC suspending any of their on-air
>> personalities who don't conform to MSNBC's standards and practices in
>> regards to the proper language to use while on air.
>>
>> But what I do find disturbing is that the White House Press Secretary, Jay
>> Carney, complained to MSNBC, though not requesting that Halperin be
>> suspended, he did state that "It would be inappropriate to say that about
>> any president of either party."
>>
>> WTF?
>>
>> Inappropriate? What ever happened to the concept of "Freedom of Speech"?
>>
>> While the White House (of either party) would not appreciate such comments
>> made about their President, I really don't think it was appropriate for the
>> Press Secretary of the White House to complain about it to MSNBC.
>
> You don't think it was appropriate? What ever happened to the concept
> of "Freedom of Speech"?
My point is that the White House Press Secretary shouldn't have contacted
MSNBC to complain about it. They should have had thicker skin. Far worse
things have been said by the press about other Presidents without the White
House Press Secretary contacting them to express the White House disapproval.
Peter Lawrence
>
> And BTW, it is inappropriate to call the President of the US a dick.
> The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
I agree. Again, I don't have a problem with MSNBC reprimanding and
suspending Halperin for what he said on air. I was just bothered that the
White House Press Secretary took time to contact MSNBC about it.
- Peter
Peter Lawrence
My problem wasn't that Carney stated that the language was inappropriate, if
Carney had just done that during the daily press briefing. My problem is
with Carney contacting MSNBC about it and lodging a formal complaint.
That can be a subtle form of intimidation. Locally, there was a bit of a
blow up between the White House and a reporter from the San Francisco
Chronicle when the reporter decided to take videos of an event she was
invited to cover (as the press' pool reporter) and the White House didn't
want the videos published.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/28/MNA51J994T.DTL
Basically, the White House threaten to ban the reporter from covering future
events. So this White House isn't above issuing threats to news
organizations that don't want to play by *their* rules.
(Note that the San Francisco Chronicle is a pretty liberal newspaper, along
the lines of the New York Times and the Washington Post. It's not a
right-wing rag.)
- Peter
CatNipped
news:rf1r079qmerj855ip...@4ax.com...
> And BTW, it is inappropriate to call the President of the US a dick.
> The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
What did you think about his pussy-footing around the gay marriage question?
--
Hugs,
CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped
See the RPCA FAQ site, by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/
Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net
Bigolhomo
wrote:
>"Bigolhomo" <not...@nothing.com> wrote in message
>news:rf1r079qmerj855ip...@4ax.com...
>> And BTW, it is inappropriate to call the President of the US a dick.
>> The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
>
>What did you think about his pussy-footing around the gay marriage question?
I think that's the same thing every politician does when they're
trying to get re-elected, trying to please both sides. It sucks that
that's what our political process is, but so few politicans have any
sort of real integrity, I'm not going to demonize him for doing what
they all do.
And I think his "evolving views" will miraculously complete their
evolution as soon as he's out of office, and then he'll say he's all
for it.
Bigolhomo
wrote:
So what does that have to do with freedom of speech? He's free to
call Obama a dick, the White House is free to call him out on it.
Sounds like freedom of speech is alive and well in this situation.
Peter Lawrence
It's about pressuring news organizations to self-censor themselves. For
news organizations to self-edit their words beforehand not to receive grief
from the White House that has the power to make news organizations
reporters' jobs more difficult in regards to access to events and interviews
with White House and other government officials.
- Peter
Micki
wrote:
I disagree somewhat. I think his "evolving views" will miraculously
complete their evolution after the 2012 election while he is still in
office but not running for re-election.
Although I am not demonizing him for still pussy-footing on the issue
I do say that not all politicians running for office do this. Andrew
Cuomo had legalizing gay marriage as a plank in his campaign and
followed through on it after he was elected.
Micki
Save the earth..... It's the only planet with chocolate!
Nathan Sanders
"CatNipped" <mya...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bigolhomo" <not...@nothing.com> wrote in message
> news:rf1r079qmerj855ip...@4ax.com...
> > And BTW, it is inappropriate to call the President of the US a dick.
> > The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
>
> What did you think about his pussy-footing around the gay marriage question?
It's pretty clear that he's speaking as carefully as he can to
maintain plausible deniability for the campaign season so that he has
the best shot at reelection. The instant he says "I support marriage
equality for same-sex couples", he knows that will get played back
over and over in attack ads in swing states (especially Florida) where
he can't afford to lose votes.
It's also clear that if Congress passed a DOMA repeal or even an
outright marriage equality bill, he'd sign it, while none of his
likely Republican opponents would. Indeed, Obama has already ordered
the DOJ to stop defending DOMA, and he is all but explicitly telling
everyone that once his job is secure, his position will "evolve". It
doesn't take too much reading between the lines to know what he means,
but as long he doesn't say it explicitly, his opponents will have less
ammunition to use against him.
Nathan
Nathan Sanders
Micki <mos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:35:44 -0700, Bigolhomo <not...@nothing.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:26:31 -0500, "CatNipped" <mya...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>"Bigolhomo" <not...@nothing.com> wrote in message
> >>news:rf1r079qmerj855ip...@4ax.com...
> >>> And BTW, it is inappropriate to call the President of the US a dick.
> >>> The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
> >>
> >>What did you think about his pussy-footing around the gay marriage question?
> >
> >I think that's the same thing every politician does when they're
> >trying to get re-elected, trying to please both sides. It sucks that
> >that's what our political process is, but so few politicans have any
> >sort of real integrity, I'm not going to demonize him for doing what
> >they all do.
> >
> >And I think his "evolving views" will miraculously complete their
> >evolution as soon as he's out of office, and then he'll say he's all
> >for it.
>
> I disagree somewhat. I think his "evolving views" will miraculously
> complete their evolution after the 2012 election while he is still in
> office but not running for re-election.
I agree. Once he's reelected, especially if his VP is someone who
clearly won't be running for President, he'll be free to say and do
what he wants.
> Although I am not demonizing him for still pussy-footing on the issue
> I do say that not all politicians running for office do this. Andrew
> Cuomo had legalizing gay marriage as a plank in his campaign and
> followed through on it after he was elected.
Of course, Cuomo's jurisdiction is much more progressive than Obama's,
so he could afford to have more openly progressive views.
But yeah, Cuomo deserves major kudos.
Nathan
Micki
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On 7/1/2011 2:58 PM, Micki wrote:
>
>> Although I am not demonizing him for still pussy-footing on the issue
>> I do say that not all politicians running for office do this. Andrew
>> Cuomo had legalizing gay marriage as a plank in his campaign and
>> followed through on it after he was elected.
>
>In a LOCAL, not a NATIONAL election, and in NY.
>
>Not a good analogy.
>
>Susan
Now Susan, it wasn't a national election but it also wasn't a"local'
election. And you know that while NY is not a red state it is pretty
well divided beween blue and red. And he won in a year that
Republicans took the state Senate.
CatNipped
I guess I'm just a Pollyanna, but I *DO* so wish government would get out of
the morals business, especially since they seem to have none themselves, and
get working on solutions to our economic problems. What does it take to get
people to just live and let live - as long as it's not affecting me, who
gives a shit about what someone else might be doing, smoking, sleeping with,
etc. It's *NOT MY BUSINESS*!!
@gmail.com Zob
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:35:44 -0700, Bigolhomo <not...@nothing.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:26:31 -0500, "CatNipped" <mya...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Bigolhomo" <not...@nothing.com> wrote in message
>>>news:rf1r079qmerj855ip...@4ax.com...
>>>> And BTW, it is inappropriate to call the President of the US a dick.
>>>> The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
>>>
>>>What did you think about his pussy-footing around the gay marriage question?
>>
>>I think that's the same thing every politician does when they're
>>trying to get re-elected, trying to please both sides. It sucks that
>>that's what our political process is, but so few politicans have any
>>sort of real integrity, I'm not going to demonize him for doing what
>>they all do.
>>
>>And I think his "evolving views" will miraculously complete their
>>evolution as soon as he's out of office, and then he'll say he's all
>>for it.
>
>I disagree somewhat. I think his "evolving views" will miraculously
>complete their evolution after the 2012 election while he is still in
>office but not running for re-election.
You're both wrong. In a speech last week, President Obama said that
he now fully supports LGBT having the same marriage rights as other
Americans. The evolution completed before the elections.
Bigolhomo
Well, I wasn't talking specifically about gay marriage, but of course
there are exceptions. They are few and far between, though.
Even though I can't stand Jerry Brown, I at least admire that he was
willing to take a decisive stand on some hot button issues in the last
election (granted, they were always the opposite of my views). Meg
Whitman lost my vote because she was playing to both sides of the
fence on pretty much everything, and it just made me realize we
couldn't trust anything she said.
I ended up voting Libertarian.
Bigolhomo
wrote:
>You're both wrong. In a speech last week, President Obama said that
>he now fully supports LGBT having the same marriage rights as other
>Americans. The evolution completed before the elections.
No, he didn't:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-gay-marriage-20110630,0,4229979.story
Obama stops short of endorsing gay marriage
The president says gays and lesbians should be 'treated like all
Americans,' but holds his position that same-sex marriage should be
decided by the states, not the federal government.
(Michael Reynolds / European Pressphoto Agency / June 29, 2011)
By James Oliphant, Washington Bureau
June 30, 2011
Reporting from Washington—
Gays and lesbians deserve to be "treated like all Americans,"
President Obama said at Wednesday's news conference, but he stopped
short of endorsing same-sex marriage.
"I'm not going to make news on that today," he joked in response to a
reporter's question.
The president has been on the record as opposing same-sex marriage,
but has sought to navigate a middle position by saying the matter
should be decided by individual states, not the federal government.
Speaking in the East Room of the White House, Obama lauded the recent
move by the New York Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage,
calling it "a good thing."
"I think what you're seeing is a profound recognition on the part of
the American people that gays and lesbians and transgender persons are
our brothers, our sisters, our children, our cousins, our friends, our
co-workers, and that they've got to be treated like every other
American. And I think that principle will win out," he said.
But Obama said the question remained one for states to resolve.
Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and
the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.
"Each community is going to be different and each state is going to be
different," he said.
Obama touted his administration's accomplishments on behalf of the gay
and lesbian community, including ending the military's "don't ask,
don't tell" policy and refusing to defend the federal Defense of
Marriage Act.
"We're moving in a direction of greater equality, and I think that's a
good thing," he said.
But Obama gave no sign that he planned to embrace same-sex marriage.
When asked about it again, he said, "I'll keep giving you the same
answer until I give you a different one."
Lesmond
Amen.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
@gmail.com Zob
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:36:40 -0400, Zob <zobva1 @ gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You're both wrong. In a speech last week, President Obama said that
>>he now fully supports LGBT having the same marriage rights as other
>>Americans. The evolution completed before the elections.
>
>
>No, he didn't:
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-gay-marriage-20110630,0,4229979.story
>
>Obama stops short of endorsing gay marriage
>
>The president says gays and lesbians should be 'treated like all
>Americans,' but holds his position that same-sex marriage should be
>decided by the states, not the federal government.
> (Michael Reynolds / European Pressphoto Agency / June 29, 2011)
I kind of agree with that position... Obama said that he thought the
debate and ultimate approval of civil LGBT marriages in New York was
the way it should be done and was the right thing to do. It should be
a state rights issue just as heterosexual marriage is, and the federal
government should stay out of marriage issue altogether. It's too
easy to end up with things like DOMA when the Feds get involved,
depending on which political party happens to be in power.
But having said that, I guess I was too eager to hear what I wanted
him to say in that speech (and others). He devolves as fast as he
evolves on the issue, depending on which group he happens to be
speaking to.
He's still 10X better than any other Presidents in recent history on
the issue though, flawed as his stance is. At least he's not fighting
it.
Bigolhomo
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:23:42 -0700, Bigolhomo <not...@nothing.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:36:40 -0400, Zob <zobva1 @ gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You're both wrong. In a speech last week, President Obama said that
>>>he now fully supports LGBT having the same marriage rights as other
>>>Americans. The evolution completed before the elections.
>>
>>
>>No, he didn't:
>>
>>http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-gay-marriage-20110630,0,4229979.story
>>
>>Obama stops short of endorsing gay marriage
>>
>>The president says gays and lesbians should be 'treated like all
>>Americans,' but holds his position that same-sex marriage should be
>>decided by the states, not the federal government.
>> (Michael Reynolds / European Pressphoto Agency / June 29, 2011)
>
>I kind of agree with that position... Obama said that he thought the
>debate and ultimate approval of civil LGBT marriages in New York was
>the way it should be done and was the right thing to do. It should be
>a state rights issue just as heterosexual marriage is, and the federal
>government should stay out of marriage issue altogether. It's too
>easy to end up with things like DOMA when the Feds get involved,
>depending on which political party happens to be in power.
But it also needs to be recognized on a federal level. Until that
happens, things still aren't equal. A letter carrier in New York can
marry their partner now, but they still can't file taxes as married,
or add the partner to their health insurance as a spouse.
>
>But having said that, I guess I was too eager to hear what I wanted
>him to say in that speech (and others). He devolves as fast as he
>evolves on the issue, depending on which group he happens to be
>speaking to.
And that's exactly why he's saying what he's saying. He wants people
like you to hear the speech and come away thinking he's in favor of
gay marriage, but he also wants people who are against gay marriage to
hear it and come away thinking he hasn't endorsed it.
>
>He's still 10X better than any other Presidents in recent history on
>the issue though, flawed as his stance is. At least he's not fighting
>it.
True, dat.
Tin@
> And BTW, it is inappropriate to call the President of the US a dick.
> The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
Agreed.
Moni
> But it also needs to be recognized on a federal level. Until that
> happens, things still aren't equal. A letter carrier in New York can
> marry their partner now, but they still can't file taxes as married,
> or add the partner to their health insurance as a spouse.
But, under the constitution, it can't be a federal decision overriding the
state's jurisdiction. It is a state issue. How do you propose they get
around that? I'm not saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't grow a pair
and declare gay marriage constitutional, but that states rights issue would
be tricky to circumvent.
--
Moni
What you're telling me is a matter of
major insignificance.
Toronto mayor Allan Lamport
@gmail.com Zob
wrote:
>
>"Bigolhomo" <not...@nothing.com> wrote in message
>news:9f0v07dshhv49urps...@4ax.com...
>> But it also needs to be recognized on a federal level. Until that
>> happens, things still aren't equal. A letter carrier in New York can
>> marry their partner now, but they still can't file taxes as married,
>> or add the partner to their health insurance as a spouse.
>
>But, under the constitution, it can't be a federal decision overriding the
>state's jurisdiction. It is a state issue. How do you propose they get
>around that? I'm not saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't grow a pair
>and declare gay marriage constitutional, but that states rights issue would
>be tricky to circumvent.
That was my thinking too... until I realized that BOH has a point. All
states recognize (heterosexual) marriages that were performed in other
states as legally binding . But without federal protection of equal
rights, the states will be like the collection of little fiefdoms that
they were pre-revolutionary war, each one picking and choosing who
will and will no be recognized as being married. There are many
precedents where Congress or Federal courts have superceded state laws
in order to preserve equal rights for all citizens.
You know, I have a POV on something related to this that isn't
politically partisan, it's just an observation. I think certain
aspects of the U.S. Constitution are woefully outdated. When it was
written, and when America declared its independence in 1776, there
were 13 self-governed colonies, and it took days to even communicate
and get information back and forth between say, South Carolina and the
Massachusetts Bay colony. Originally the United States was exactly
that -- an agreement to unite between the colonies which had been
completely separate and governed completely separately. Now here we
are 235 years later, and there are really no such separations other
than what our antiquated constitution imposes. Times have changed and
the country has evolved. I guess that would make me a Federalist,
lol. To me the idea of individual States having sovereignty seems
dated at best, and guaranteeing inequality among Americans at worst.
Most U.S. citizens think of themselves as "Americans" first not as a
"Connectican" or a "North Dakotan." (whack job Texas Governors
excepted!) States will always be useful as smaller administrative
bodies... but IMO all Americans should be bound by one set of Federal
laws, and the states should administer those laws equally to all
American citizens.
OK, brainiacs, where are the holes in my thinking?
Bigolhomo
wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:41:39 -0700, "Moni" <fmo...@fakeaddress.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bigolhomo" <not...@nothing.com> wrote in message
>>news:9f0v07dshhv49urps...@4ax.com...
>>> But it also needs to be recognized on a federal level. Until that
>>> happens, things still aren't equal. A letter carrier in New York can
>>> marry their partner now, but they still can't file taxes as married,
>>> or add the partner to their health insurance as a spouse.
>>
>>But, under the constitution, it can't be a federal decision overriding the
>>state's jurisdiction. It is a state issue. How do you propose they get
>>around that? I'm not saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't grow a pair
>>and declare gay marriage constitutional, but that states rights issue would
>>be tricky to circumvent.
>
>That was my thinking too... until I realized that BOH has a point. All
>states recognize (heterosexual) marriages that were performed in other
>states as legally binding . But without federal protection of equal
>rights, the states will be like the collection of little fiefdoms that
>they were pre-revolutionary war, each one picking and choosing who
>will and will no be recognized as being married. There are many
>precedents where Congress or Federal courts have superceded state laws
>in order to preserve equal rights for all citizens.
I actually just stumbled across this story 5 minutes after reading
this post:
http://gawker.com/5817594/married-gay-couple-wins-fight-against-deportation
I would imagine that as more and more states legalize gay marrige,
eventually the feds will get on board and do something to make it
legal on a federal level. Who knows how long that will take though.
>
>You know, I have a POV on something related to this that isn't
>politically partisan, it's just an observation. I think certain
>aspects of the U.S. Constitution are woefully outdated. When it was
>written, and when America declared its independence in 1776, there
>were 13 self-governed colonies, and it took days to even communicate
>and get information back and forth between say, South Carolina and the
>Massachusetts Bay colony. Originally the United States was exactly
>that -- an agreement to unite between the colonies which had been
>completely separate and governed completely separately. Now here we
>are 235 years later, and there are really no such separations other
>than what our antiquated constitution imposes. Times have changed and
>the country has evolved. I guess that would make me a Federalist,
>lol. To me the idea of individual States having sovereignty seems
>dated at best, and guaranteeing inequality among Americans at worst.
>Most U.S. citizens think of themselves as "Americans" first not as a
>"Connectican" or a "North Dakotan." (whack job Texas Governors
>excepted!) States will always be useful as smaller administrative
>bodies... but IMO all Americans should be bound by one set of Federal
>laws, and the states should administer those laws equally to all
>American citizens.
>OK, brainiacs, where are the holes in my thinking?
I think you're right. I think our entire political and judicial
system needs to be overhauled, but I don't see it happening in our
lifetime. I think it's safe to say that what we see today in
congress, elections, and the court system is NOT what the founding
fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution.
I have no idea who could overhaul it though. The days of politicians
doing what's best for the country are long gone, now most of them only
care about enriching themselves and doing what's best for their own
political party.
Moni
"Zob" <zobva1 @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d9017hrehpi3redv...@4ax.com...
I won't be the one who argues with you. The idea of states' rights is about
as practical as a separation of church and state or the right to bear arms
during these times. However, we would have to be very, very careful before
anything gets changed in the constitution. Once you open that can of worms,
the unexpected can happen in a flash and you may regret the change. Yes,
Big has a good point. However, back in the dark ages, blacks and whites
weren't allowed to marry or even have a sexual relationship in parts of the
South. If they did get married, lets say in New York, that marriage wasn't
acknowledges in parts of the South and those couples would be considered as
being illegal. Huge issue and not one to go away with a swipe of a pen.
CatNipped
news:3d9017hrehpi3redv...@4ax.com...
> Most U.S. citizens think of themselves as "Americans" first not as a
> "Connectican" or a "North Dakotan." (whack job Texas Governors
> excepted!) States will always be useful as smaller administrative
Hey! I represent that remark!!
--
Hugs,
CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped
See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/
Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net
@gmail.com Zob
wrote:
>"Zob" <zobva1 @ gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d9017hrehpi3redv...@4ax.com...
>> Most U.S. citizens think of themselves as "Americans" first not as a
>> "Connectican" or a "North Dakotan." (whack job Texas Governors
>> excepted!) States will always be useful as smaller administrative
>
>Hey! I represent that remark!!
LOL! What can I say? It cracks me up that just a couple of years ago
your esteemed Governor Rick Perry was advocating that Texas secede
from the Union and go back to being the Independent Republic of
Texas... and now a few days ago he has declared his candidacy for
POTUS -- who has to swear to defend the Union and uphold its laws!
It's gonna be a fun election year!
Moni
I'm making popcorn as we speak.
CatNipped
news:4uOdnecnzIflkY_T...@giganews.com...
Yep, it's gonna be a three ring circus - only problem is citizens will be
f*cked as usual. So put extra butter on the popcorn, we might need it for
another orifice.
Bigolhomo
wrote:
>Yep, it's gonna be a three ring circus - only problem is citizens will be
>f*cked as usual. So put extra butter on the popcorn, we might need it for
>another orifice
Nah, eventually it stretches out and the politician can just slide
right in. I think we're pretty much at that point now.
@gmail.com Zob
wrote:
>"Moni" <fmo...@fakeaddress.net> wrote in message
LOL! Yep, might need that extra lube this time around!
CatNipped
LOL! That would be *really* funny if it weren't so true.
Larc
<briant...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote in
| news:iul0t4$atq$2...@dont-email.me:
|
| > On 7/1/11 1:33 AM, Bigolhomo wrote:
| >>
| >> And BTW, it is inappropriate to call the President of the US a dick.
| >> The office deserves more respect than that, free speech or not.
| >
| > I agree. Again, I don't have a problem with MSNBC reprimanding and
| > suspending Halperin for what he said on air. I was just bothered that
| > the White House Press Secretary took time to contact MSNBC about it.
| >
| >
| > - Peter
| >
| >
|
| Don't be. It's not a 1st Amendment issue in any way, shape, or form. And
| it was inappropriate. That's it.
I agree it was totally inappropriate. But I can't help wondering if MSNBC would
have considered it so and taken the same action against Halperin if he had said
what he did about Obama's predecessor when he was President.
Larc
Bigolhomo
Thanatos
>
>> On 7/1/11 11:37 AM, Bigolhomo wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:39:38 -0700, Peter Lawrence<humm...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/11 1:27 AM, Bigolhomo wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:43:29 -0700, Peter
>>>>> Lawrence<humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just read that MSNBC has suspended Mark Halperin indefinitely
>>>>>> because he commented today on the MSNBC show "Morning Joe" in
>>>>>> regards to the President's demeanor at President's news conference
>>>>>> yesterday. Halperin stated, "I thought he was a kind of a dick
>>>>>> yesterday."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, I don't have any problem with MSNBC suspending any of their
>>>>>> on-air personalities who don't conform to MSNBC's standards and
>>>>>> practices in regards to the proper language to use while on air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what I do find disturbing is that the White House Press
>>>>>> Secretary, Jay Carney, complained to MSNBC, though not requesting
>>>>>> that Halperin be suspended, he did state that "It would be
>>>>>> inappropriate to say that about any president of either party."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inappropriate? What ever happened to the concept of "Freedom of
>>>>>> Speech"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While the White House (of either party) would not appreciate such
>>>>>> comments made about their President, I really don't think it was
>>>>>> appropriate for the Press Secretary of the White House to complain
>>>>>> about it to MSNBC.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't think it was appropriate? What ever happened to the
>>>>> concept of "Freedom of Speech"?
>>>>
>>>> My point is that the White House Press Secretary shouldn't have
>>>> contacted MSNBC to complain about it. They should have had thicker
>>>> skin. Far worse things have been said by the press about other
>>>> Presidents without the White House Press Secretary contacting them
>>>> to express the White House disapproval.
>>>
>>> So what does that have to do with freedom of speech? He's free to
>>> call Obama a dick, the White House is free to call him out on it.
>>> Sounds like freedom of speech is alive and well in this situation.
>>
>> It's about pressuring news organizations to self-censor themselves.
>
>
> Ah, see, you've mistakenly assumed MSNBC to be a "news organization."
Interesting that when Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut, he was
suspended for barely a week, but Halperin gets booted indefinitely.
Seems like it's obvious where MSNBC's sympathies lie.