4 ms·

The potus revels in his 1st amendment rights. Not sure what you're getting at.

by buckbova 10y ago

BookmarkSaver 10y ago
His. No one else's. Have you been living under a rock?
- buckbova 10y ago
  > No one else's. You can hurl insults about the US president all you want. But, this is not the forum for it. And if you do, please show some proof. People are getting hysterical, making ridiculous statements intended to invoke certain feelings about the potus based on false premises. It's completely transparent and lame.
  - BookmarkSaver 10y ago
    No, it is pathetic that you are unaware of Trump's exclusion of major news sources from coverage, baseless attacks on the credibility of sourced articles, and explicit statements that he desires to go after news organizations for unfavorable reporting using libel laws. Especially in the light of his recent slander against Obama regarding wiretapping. If you have your eyes closed in denial, then there is nothing I can do for you. The fact that you consider my statement "ridiculous" or "hysterical" just goes to show how utterly deluded you are about the activities and hypocrisy that he's actually engaged in. Trump has absolutely no interest in defending free speech, only his speech.
    - buckbova 10y ago
      > baseless attacks on the credibility of sourced articles I'm sure potus gets it wrong firing from hip so often, but I don't know to which articles you're referring. These news outlets are on full attack against this administration. Just look at positive vs negative news coverage. > Only 3 percent of the reports about Trump that aired on NBC and CBS were positive, while 43 percent were negative and 54 percent were neutral. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/28/news-coverage-of-trump-is-really-really-negative-even-on-fox-news/?utm_term=.70b34ef1b543 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/2... > Especially in the light of his recent slander against Obama regarding wiretapping. Slander? You don't know the truth yet and you're ready to believe what you want to believe. That's what's pathetic. https://www.infowars.com/former-cia-analyst-obama-gave-green-light-for-nsa-cia-to-sabotage-trump/ https://www.infowars.com/former-cia-analyst-obama-gave-green...
- dang 10y ago
  > Have you been living under a rock? This kind of thing will get your account banned on HN. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
colanderman 10y ago
"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected."
- buckbova 10y ago
  Why shouldn't the New York Times be held accountable? Stop running with fake news and non-stories to push an agenda. Major news organization should be compelled to print the facts and instead go on a constant witch hunt (eg Maddow's non-story about Trump's taxes). They are trying to undermine the administration of the president of the united states. This should not be taken lightly. And despite (maybe in spite of) the constant aggression towards potus and his administration, the people trust Trump more than the media. And just because someone has a small blog, they still shouldn't make up stories. Remember this? Melania Trump settles defamation claim against blogger http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-melania-lawsuit-idUSKBN15M22B http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-melania-lawsuit-...
  - colanderman 10y ago
    You mean make up stories like that Obama was born in Kenya? Or that Democrats ran a child sex ring in a DC pizza joint? Or that a terrorist attack occured in Bowling Green? Also, any sentence starting with "major news organizations should be compelled to print" is, uh, pretty much the definition of non-free speech. Come on. I expect more than that level of illogic on this forum, even from Trump apologists.

The potus revels in his 1st amendment rights. Not sure what you're getting at.

BookmarkSaver 10y ago

His. No one else's. Have you been living under a rock?

buckbova 10y ago
> No one else's. You can hurl insults about the US president all you want. But, this is not the forum for it. And if you do, please show some proof. People are getting hysterical, making ridiculous statements intended to invoke certain feelings about the potus based on false premises. It's completely transparent and lame.
- BookmarkSaver 10y ago
  No, it is pathetic that you are unaware of Trump's exclusion of major news sources from coverage, baseless attacks on the credibility of sourced articles, and explicit statements that he desires to go after news organizations for unfavorable reporting using libel laws. Especially in the light of his recent slander against Obama regarding wiretapping. If you have your eyes closed in denial, then there is nothing I can do for you. The fact that you consider my statement "ridiculous" or "hysterical" just goes to show how utterly deluded you are about the activities and hypocrisy that he's actually engaged in. Trump has absolutely no interest in defending free speech, only his speech.
  - buckbova 10y ago
    > baseless attacks on the credibility of sourced articles I'm sure potus gets it wrong firing from hip so often, but I don't know to which articles you're referring. These news outlets are on full attack against this administration. Just look at positive vs negative news coverage. > Only 3 percent of the reports about Trump that aired on NBC and CBS were positive, while 43 percent were negative and 54 percent were neutral. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/28/news-coverage-of-trump-is-really-really-negative-even-on-fox-news/?utm_term=.70b34ef1b543 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/2... > Especially in the light of his recent slander against Obama regarding wiretapping. Slander? You don't know the truth yet and you're ready to believe what you want to believe. That's what's pathetic. https://www.infowars.com/former-cia-analyst-obama-gave-green-light-for-nsa-cia-to-sabotage-trump/ https://www.infowars.com/former-cia-analyst-obama-gave-green...
dang 10y ago
> Have you been living under a rock? This kind of thing will get your account banned on HN. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

colanderman 10y ago

"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected."

buckbova 10y ago
Why shouldn't the New York Times be held accountable? Stop running with fake news and non-stories to push an agenda. Major news organization should be compelled to print the facts and instead go on a constant witch hunt (eg Maddow's non-story about Trump's taxes). They are trying to undermine the administration of the president of the united states. This should not be taken lightly. And despite (maybe in spite of) the constant aggression towards potus and his administration, the people trust Trump more than the media. And just because someone has a small blog, they still shouldn't make up stories. Remember this? Melania Trump settles defamation claim against blogger http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-melania-lawsuit-idUSKBN15M22B http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-melania-lawsuit-...
- colanderman 10y ago
  You mean make up stories like that Obama was born in Kenya? Or that Democrats ran a child sex ring in a DC pizza joint? Or that a terrorist attack occured in Bowling Green? Also, any sentence starting with "major news organizations should be compelled to print" is, uh, pretty much the definition of non-free speech. Come on. I expect more than that level of illogic on this forum, even from Trump apologists.