Trump just threatened to strip NBC of its broadcast license (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 16, 2024, 01:54:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Trump just threatened to strip NBC of its broadcast license (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Trump just threatened to strip NBC of its broadcast license  (Read 3542 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,849
United States


« on: October 12, 2017, 12:01:11 AM »

Typical snowflake tyrant like Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Trujillo, Mao, Duvalier, Castro, Amin, Pinochet, or Khomeini... when one dislikes the output of a free press, then shut it down.

Hey, would-be dictator! Our Founding Fathers decided to ratify a Bill of Rights that includes the freedom of speech and the press as a protection against a would-be tyrant like you. Someone who admires dictators like Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin instead of the more standard heroes of conservatism such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.  Leaders like you? I have seen them in business, the sorts who demand that subordinates tell them only what those bosses want to hear. That's the antithesis of leadership.

...By trying to short-circuit the Constitution, this President has done an impeachable offense. It need not be a statutory crime.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,849
United States


« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2017, 10:30:25 AM »

Typical snowflake tyrant like Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Trujillo, Mao, Duvalier, Castro, Amin, Pinochet, or Khomeini... when one dislikes the output of a free press, then shut it down.

Hey, would-be dictator! Our Founding Fathers decided to ratify a Bill of Rights that includes the freedom of speech and the press as a protection against a would-be tyrant like you. Someone who admires dictators like Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin instead of the more standard heroes of conservatism such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.  Leaders like you? I have seen them in business, the sorts who demand that subordinates tell them only what those bosses want to hear. That's the antithesis of leadership.

...By trying to short-circuit the Constitution, this President has done an impeachable offense. It need not be a statutory crime.

Cry me a river

The joke of a president you worship is the river-crier.

It's telling that he endorses Roy Moore for the US Senate. Talk about someone who does not understand the core principle stare decisis that keeps legal process from disintegrating into legal anarchy.

President Trump knows little of law. I contrast the man that Sarah Palin ridiculed as a "Professor of Constitutional Law"... you know who. President Obama is an arch-conservative on legal precedent and diplomatic protocol. He may have had plenty of trouble with Congress, but practically none with the legal process.

Do you know what I find ironic? The next conservative President that we have who will not be a joke will have much the same temperament and the same respect for legal niceties as Barack Obama. See also "Dwight Eisenhower", another stickler for legal precedent and nicety.     
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,849
United States


« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2017, 09:51:55 PM »

Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned because folks came to see it as bad law.  And well it should have been overturned.  Roe v. Wade should meet the same fate.

"Separate but equal" sounded good in theory, better than the alternative of "nothing at all". Segregated  schools were better than no schools at all. Separate water fountains were better than none at all. "Colored"  seating in a movie theater were better than no seats at all. A "colored " takeout window at a restaurant that would never allow blacks to dine was better than no chance to get a meal from the restaurant. "Separate" neighborhoods may have been slums, but those were better than no housing whatsoever.

"Separate but equal" proved to be an oxymoron in practice. American law may not always be rational in result, but it tends toward a chilly logic. Roughly sixty years after Plessy v. Ferguson, the "but equal" segment of the phrase had proved impossible to realize reliably.  Note also that in the 1950s, Americans had come to recognize that the segregation of people based on something not so obvious as skin color (like the religion of one's grandparents) had served as a pretext for one of the most horrific crimes of history.

Had segregated facilities and institutions proved to have at least the potential of offering equality of result, then Plessy v. Ferguson might have remained intact. But in practice blacks almost every where and some Asian groups in the West clearly got worse -- the cast-offs that the white community was willing to offer.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.