White House bans CNN reporter from press conference

[hollodero]

(08-01-2018, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And both I and the Press Secretary have provided examples of when ID is required to buy groceries.

Sure he could have more eloquently made the point of ID requirement(s), but it really doesn't make his example hilarious. Nothing you said in this post is a symptom of derangement. But obsessing on the given example just might be.  Dude said "ID is required to buy groceries"; that's it. 

Well, I just find that sounds funny. There's not so much to read into that. I would have thought it funny if say Schumer had said that either. It's the kind of thing that happens in politics, you choose a weird line and people focus on it. That hasn't started with Trump.


Also, I once again like to take the opportunity to voice my concern over using the attribute "deranged" towards other people. That's close to deplorable.

[BmorePat87]

(08-01-2018, 06:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are many occasions where the shopper must provide identification to include buying alcohol, tobacco, and writing a check to pay for the groceries.  So it is not a false claim to assert you must provide an ID when you shop for groceries. Hell, I shop at the Commissary on post and have to show ID to enter the store. I think Sam's club is similar.

But feel free to think you and others are actually pointing something of relevance when you focus on Trump saying ID is required to shop for groceries. I go on thinking it is pointless and petty,    

Interesting response that doesn't actually address my post and the points I made about the burden of proof and the use of repeated lies to support a stance. Maybe expecting accurate statements and genuine evidence to back up a position seems petty to you, but, as I said earlier, we should be a nation that respects truth over rhetoric. 

But I am glad you provided a scenario where the falsehood could be construed to be accurate. Now we just need to find a way to actually make it back up his stance. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-01-2018, 07:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I just find that sounds funny. There's not so much to read into that. I would have thought it funny if say Schumer had said that either. It's the kind of thing that happens in politics, you choose a weird line and people focus on it. That hasn't started with Trump.


Also, I once again like to take the opportunity to voice my concern over using the attribute "deranged" towards other people. That's close to deplorable.

As soon as he uses the "derangement" thing, you know he really has nothing of value left to say. Let him call others derange as he defends a lie from a man he has never met who he claims to not support. 

Everyone can see who the unstable one is in this situation. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2018, 07:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As soon as he uses the "derangement" thing, you know he really has nothing of value left to say. Let him call others derange as he defends a lie from a man he has never met who he claims to not support. 

Everyone can see who the unstable one is in this situation. 

It's not like I expect anyone to admit their POV is mentally unsound (deranged) when talking all things Trump, but an example of the symptom was provided; not just a baseless assertion as you suggest here.  

As I said you go on thinking this quote was a big deal and I'll go on thinking it is pointless. No doubt folks can read and assess stability for themselves. 

As to me I'm done with the subject I simiply pointed out that focusing on that line distracts from the issue at hand. And it confirms my assertion that folks are their own worst enemies when it comes to the anti-Trump agenda. It's almost like their rational is mentally unsound.

[BmorePat87]

(08-01-2018, 07:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not like I expect anyone to admit their POV is mentally unsound (deranged) when talking all things Trump, but an example of the symptom was provided; not just a baseless assertion as you suggest here.  

As I said you go on thinking this quote was a big deal and I'll go on thinking it is pointless. No doubt folks can read and assess stability for themselves. 

As to me I'm done with the subject I simiply pointed out that focusing on that line distracts from the issue at hand. And it confirms my assertion that folks are their own worst enemies when it comes to the anti-Trump agenda. It's almost like their rational is mentally unsound.

I’m not sure you get to suggest you’re the rational one when you respond by calling people deranged rather than addressing what they said, but atleast, for everyone’s sake, you’re “done”.

[*bfine32*]

Sounds like somebody might want to suppress Freedom of Speach:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/01/two-way-street-sanders-pressed-trump-supporters-heckling-cnns-acosta?page=2

Dude in the embedded video might just be one.

But I get it: "He didn't actually say that".

[hollodero]

(08-01-2018, 07:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sounds like somebody might want to suppress Freedom of Speach:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/01/two-way-street-sanders-pressed-trump-supporters-heckling-cnns-acosta?page=2

Dude in the embedded video might just be one.

But I get it: "He didn't actually say that".

I don't know what your perception of freedom of speech is. The reporter asked if the WH was willing to say it was wrong of the crowd to behave like they behaved. That's not calling for suppressing freedom of speech. He didn't ask for the crowd to be indicted, prosecuted, jailed or anything like that. He just asked if the WH would call it wrong, not if they would call it culpable.

When someone say offends an old lady (fictional example), I would call that wrong. I might even interrupt. By that I do not infringe that person's first amendment rights.

Or did you call for suppressing free speech when you called out spectators booing a very conservative soccer player.
I sense a double standard here.

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2018, 09:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know what your perception of freedom of speech is. The reporter asked if the WH was willing to say it was wrong of the crowd to behave like they behaved. That's not calling for suppressing freedom of speech. He didn't ask for the crowd to be indicted, prosecuted, jailed or anything like that. He just asked if the WH would call it wrong, not if they would call it culpable.

When someone say offends an old lady (fictional example), I would call that wrong. I might even interrupt. By that I do not infringe that person's first amendment rights.

Or did you call for suppressing free speech when you called out spectators booing a very conservative soccer player.
I sense a double standard here.

Oh, I've sensed a double standard since the time the CNN reporter posted about getting heckled. 

The dude in the video is just another example of somebody just saying. Hell the Press Secretory states they don't condone violence in any form, but that's not good enough for dude. 

As to the example of me not liking folks booing the soccer player; I've said multiple times that I am not a fan of the chanting, so I guess I have a hard time seeing the double standard you are referring to.  

[hollodero]

(08-01-2018, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I've sensed a double standard since the time the CNN reporter posted about getting heckled. 

The dude in the video is just another example of somebody just saying. Hell the Press Secretory states they don't condone violence in any form, but that's not good enough for dude. 

He took the response differently than you did. Maybe you could convince me he exaggerated, blew things out of proportion, yeah you could definitively convince me of that. However, nothing he said amounts to that guy calling for the suppression of free speech. Calling the chants wrong and asking for others to do so as well is not wanting to suppress freedom of speech.

(08-01-2018, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the example of me not liking folks booing the soccer player; I've said multiple times that I am not a fan of the chanting, so I guess I have a hard time seeing the double standard you are referring to.  

Well, and the reporter said in stronger terms that he is not a fan of the chanting. He called it wrong and wonders how that isn't universally shared. OK.
I was tempted to look if you called it "wrong" to boo the soccer player, and then use that quote to accuse you of wanting to suppress free speech, but then I remembered I'm too old for that pettiness. But you get my point, right. Being critical of any shouting, booing, crude language, lieing, ... , even calling these things "wrong" and condemning them in strong terms doesn't mean advocating to infringe people's constitutional rights. Is my point.

[*michaelsean*]

The White House should have said there was nothing wrong. I’m not a fan of shouting down people who are speaking at an event, but this is just someone trying to cover it. Tough shit.

[GMDino]

(08-01-2018, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks do this to distract from the actual issue at hand. They will distract from the validity of presenting ID to vote by pointing something Trump said wrong about showing identification while shopping. 

Trump: I think voters should be required to show identification to vote, we must show ID when we shop.

Person trying to deflect from subject at hand: LOL, Trump said you have to show ID to shop.

(08-01-2018, 06:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are many occasions where the shopper must provide identification to include buying alcohol, tobacco, and writing a check to pay for the groceries.  So it is not a false claim to assert you must provide an ID when you shop for groceries. Hell, I shop at the Commissary on post and have to show ID to enter the store. I think Sam's club is similar.

But feel free to think you and others are actually pointing something of relevance when you focus on Trump saying ID is required to shop for groceries. I go on thinking it is pointless and petty,    

(08-01-2018, 06:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Goes to show folk's perspectives are different; as I do not find the assertion that ID is required when you shop to fall into the hilarious category. There are many instances when an ID is required. 

The Press Secretary provided such an example, but folks LOL, not because it is funny; put because of their bias.  

There's a term for this condition; however, it escapes me at the moment.

(08-01-2018, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And both I and the Press Secretary have provided examples of when ID is required to buy groceries.

Sure he could have more eloquently made the point of ID requirement(s), but it really doesn't make his example hilarious. Nothing you said in this post is a symptom of derangement. But obsessing on the given example just might be.  Dude said "ID is required to buy groceries"; that's it. 

(08-01-2018, 07:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sounds like somebody might want to suppress Freedom of Speach:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/01/two-way-street-sanders-pressed-trump-supporters-heckling-cnns-acosta?page=2

Dude in the embedded video might just be one.

But I get it: "He didn't actually say that".

[Benton]

(08-01-2018, 02:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: On either side

No, this is all the right.

They’ve embraced this. They’ve found a champion for being ugly for the sake of ugliness. Constantly calling a free press the enemy of the people because you don’t like what they say isn’t a partisan issue, it’s a problem that’s become common in those on the right, along with an unwillingness to hear anything other than one side.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2018, 10:11 AM)Benton Wrote: No, this is all the right.

They’ve embraced this. They’ve found a champion for being ugly for the sake of ugliness. Constantly calling a free press the enemy of the people because you don’t like what they say isn’t a partisan issue, it’s a problem that’s become common in those on the right, along with an unwillingness to hear anything other than one side.

Of course you want to assign the blame solely to the right and you may have a point.

Remember all those Hillary Rallies the Right disrupted during the Presidential race?...............Hey wait a minute

[Benton]

(08-02-2018, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you want to assign the blame solely to the right and you may have a point.

Remember all those Hillary Rallies the Right disrupted during the Presidential race?...............Hey wait a minute

Irrelevant to the issue. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2018, 01:48 PM)Benton Wrote: Irrelevant to the issue. 

Yep, you're right; the hate is all on the right. 

Please keep believing that.

[hollodero]

(08-02-2018, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you want to assign the blame solely to the right and you may have a point.

Remember all those Hillary Rallies the Right disrupted during the Presidential race?...............Hey wait a minute

Oh that didn't happen. People were too busy claiming she runs a pedophile ring and killed Seth Rich.
But that's ok because someone from the left shouted something at a Trump rally, so that evens it out.

To be clear, I'm certain hate and stupidity exist on both sides. The right does have the problem that they chose one of those folks to run for president.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-02-2018, 10:11 AM)Benton Wrote: No, this is all the right.

They’ve embraced this. They’ve found a champion for being ugly for the sake of ugliness. Constantly calling a free press the enemy of the people because you don’t like what they say isn’t a partisan issue, it’s a problem that’s become common in those on the right, along with an unwillingness to hear anything other than one side.

To be fair, it was the left (including Obama) that started it with their constant attacks on Fox News.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2018, 02:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh that didn't happen. People were too busy claiming she runs a pedophile ring and killed Seth Rich.
But that's ok because someone from the left shouted something at a Trump rally, so that evens it out.

To be clear, I'm certain hate and stupidity exist on both sides. The right does have the problem that they chose one of those folks to run for president.

Actually they went as far as to charge the stage, but I understand your desire to trivialize the absolute hate displayed from the left. 

[GMDino]

(08-02-2018, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair, it was the left (including Obama) that started it with their constant attacks on Fox News.

To be fair FOX was using the tagline "Fair and Balanced" then too.  It was pretty easy for "the left" to point out their spin and, in some cases, outright lies that showed them to less than "Fair and Balanced".  And need I add that old Limbaugh (in his prime) was busy telling his Dittoheads that HE would be the only one that could tell them the "truth" about current events...long before Obama was elected.

But, honest question: If Obama's occasional mention that FOX News didn't like him was a "constant attack" how do you rate Trump's attacks on the media?  

Like on a sliding scale of 1-20 if Obama was a 4 or even a 10 how the heck to we rate the current administration's "attack" on the media?  Because Obama was certainly wasn't as aggressive about it as Trump is.

[hollodero]

(08-02-2018, 03:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair, it was the left (including Obama) that started it with their constant attacks on Fox News.

Yeah that's not fair. Voicing displeasure with the media or with certain outlets or certain reports isn't the problem here. I guess hardly anyone would deny Trump the right to be critical of the media. Critizism is OK, as is correcting the record or accusing them of being biased.
It's the means Trump chooses to voice his displeasure that are 100% of the problem here. Obama did not call FOX news the real enemy of the people compared to Putin, he didn't personally slander journalists, he didn't acuse them of being fake and making up sources and didn't call them the most dishonest people in the country. He wasn't quite that incentive.

Never mind that FOX news actually really is a republican mouthpiece and in no way is it rational to claim the MSM is equally pro-democrat. That's just not true.

(08-02-2018, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually they went as far as to charge the stage, but I understand your desire to trivialize the absolute hate displayed from the left. 

I don't get you at times. I said there's definitely hate on both sides. I don't even dared to evaluate on which side there's more hate.
I honestly didn't know the stage was charged, but it doesn't surprise me. Idiots are everywhere. One of these hating idiots stood at the podium and mused about how fun tmes were when protesters could just be beaten up.

You're the one trying to evaluate it. And when the answer, implicitly or explicitly, sounds like "the left is where the hate is", than I find that to be a bit odd. Given that a chief hate mongerer has ben chosen by the right to become president.