CNN, MSNOW and Politico banned from White House (Page 10 of 11)
|
Originally Posted By Kent: You think anyone who isn't a far left loon cares about CNN or MSNBC? Anyone who thinks those are NOT far left leaning isn't voting for our country anyway... so no loss. Did you notice that ABC, NBC, CBS. and FOX are boycotting White House pressers? The Trump Divenity Sycophants (TDS) will enjoy the American Pravda. TDS never change:"I support and will defend the constitution of the US, except the 1st and 3rd thru 27th Ammendments." |
Soldier for Life
|
Originally Posted By MikeJGA: Did you notice that ABC, NBC, CBS. and FOX are boycotting White House pressers? The Trump Divenity Sycophants (TDS) will enjoy the American Pravda. TDS never change:"I support and will defend the constitution of the US, except the 1st and 3rd thru 27th Ammendments." And there's still other press outlets that have access. Ones that get much further reach and aren't owned by mega corporations or billionaires. |
|
|
Originally Posted By realwar: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32274/Screenshot_2026-09-23_at_20-39-25__11__S-3831979.JPG 
|
|
|
So, CNN in a perfect example of their less than stellar reporting even falsely claimed that the judge issues reinstatement orders for them. Their hubris is only overshadowed by their hate of this administation. |
I have no useful skills, therefore I supervise.
Call sign:Radio Silence
Call sign:Radio Silence
|
Originally Posted By Gunslinger808: So, CNN in a perfect example of their less than stellar reporting even falsely claimed that the judge issues reinstatement orders for them. Their hubris is only overshadowed by their hate of this administation. Is time a liberal conspiracy? You do realize that the posts cited above are three hours apart, and the judge issued the order after midnight, right? |
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/09/24/trump-white-house-ban-cnn-ms-now-politico/91915510007/ WASHINGTON A federal judge halted President Donald Trump's ban blocking three major media outlets from reporting at the White House, saying the move was probably unconstitutional, and ordered access to be restored. In an early-morning ruling, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order to reinstate press passes for reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, after Trump announced on Sept. 18 that he was banning them from the White House. "Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes was motivated by national security concerns," Kelly wrote in the order. |
|
Originally Posted By Advance:
|
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
|
Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Is time a liberal conspiracy? You do realize that the posts cited above are three hours apart, and the judge issued the order after midnight, right? Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Originally Posted By Gunslinger808: So, CNN in a perfect example of their less than stellar reporting even falsely claimed that the judge issues reinstatement orders for them. Their hubris is only overshadowed by their hate of this administation. Is time a liberal conspiracy? You do realize that the posts cited above are three hours apart, and the judge issued the order after midnight, right? Here, you can white knight for the partial list of lies CNN has spewed, Nolte posted them up for you... ...cnn sucks balls (along with the rest of the dnc propaganda mouthpieces) |
|
Originally Posted By FMJ3: Here, you can white knight for the partial list of lies CNN has spewed, Nolte posted them up for you... ...cnn sucks balls (along with the rest of the dnc propaganda mouthpieces) Originally Posted By FMJ3: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Originally Posted By Gunslinger808: So, CNN in a perfect example of their less than stellar reporting even falsely claimed that the judge issues reinstatement orders for them. Their hubris is only overshadowed by their hate of this administation. Is time a liberal conspiracy? You do realize that the posts cited above are three hours apart, and the judge issued the order after midnight, right? Here, you can white knight for the partial list of lies CNN has spewed, Nolte posted them up for you... ...cnn sucks balls (along with the rest of the dnc propaganda mouthpieces)  How the fuck is that relevant? I anxiously await your terribly witty reply. |
|
Originally Posted By MikeJGA: Did you notice that ABC, NBC, CBS. and FOX are boycotting White House pressers? The Trump Divenity Sycophants (TDS) will enjoy the American Pravda. TDS never change:"I support and will defend the constitution of the US, except the 1st and 3rd thru 27th Ammendments." There is no suppression of free speech here. There is simply limiting access to the White House, which is no different than Officials limiting who can speak at a local Town Hall meeting, or anything else. People are still free to shout from the roof tops, even CNN can broadcast whatever they want. But getting special access requires special privileges. If a reporter is combative and disrespectful, do they have a RIGHT to keep talking over the President at a White House press briefing? Do they have a RIGHT to get on Air Force One? Of course not. People are only unhappy because the traditions have changed. They're still welcome to stand out on Pennsylvania Avenue with their cameras and say whatever they want. When the President revokes their broadcasting credentials, or nationalizes the companies, let me know. |
|
Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Yeah! Damn liberal activist judges. Probably an Obama or Biden appointee. Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By saigamanTX: Tell the judge to fuck off I’m sure you are aware that the judge is a trumph appointee. That said, it seems the administration is, in fact, telling the court to fuck off. |
|
Originally Posted By RCK1999: I'm sure you are aware that the judge is a trumph appointee. That said, it seems the administration is, in fact, telling the court to fuck off. Originally Posted By RCK1999: Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By saigamanTX: Tell the judge to fuck off I'm sure you are aware that the judge is a trumph appointee. That said, it seems the administration is, in fact, telling the court to fuck off. I'm aware. See the article I posted above.  |
|
Originally Posted By realwar: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32274/Screenshot_2026-09-24_at_09-36-53__5__Ho-3832126.JPG LOL. Kaitlan must be a xenophobe if she objects to the Chinese media being there. |
Attached File
Attached File
|
|
Originally Posted By realwar: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32274/Screenshot_2026-09-24_at_09-58-09__5__Ho-3832142.JPG
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32274/Screenshot_2026-09-24_at_10-13-15__5__Ho-3832149.JPG
Lyin' cuntiness. It's all that channel does. KAren screeching. Neverending. |
Brought back from the beyond to be a half-dead short-bus riding seat warmer in the Dracula factory.
Esteemed grain-grower & reactionary defender of True Justice, in a death struggle with the Karen quo.
*Do not Karen-tinize the Eschaton!!!*
Esteemed grain-grower & reactionary defender of True Justice, in a death struggle with the Karen quo.
*Do not Karen-tinize the Eschaton!!!*
|
Make it no electronics allowed. Make everyone go back to paper pads and pencils for note taking. Put up a live cast at wh_pressconference.gov with a recording available for download afterwards. Never pan to the reporter asking the question, just show a stock photo and name. Not even the organization they represent. Daily lottery for attendees. One win per week. You won a seat on Monday? You are eligible again next Monday. Don't like it? Fuck em. Turn it into a briefing only. No questions allowed. |
"Fully-loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness." - Malcom Reynolds
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
|
Fox is the only network that carried Bibi's UN speech. Attached File
|
|
Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: How the fuck is that relevant? I anxiously await your terribly witty reply. Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Originally Posted By FMJ3: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Originally Posted By Gunslinger808: So, CNN in a perfect example of their less than stellar reporting even falsely claimed that the judge issues reinstatement orders for them. Their hubris is only overshadowed by their hate of this administation. Is time a liberal conspiracy? You do realize that the posts cited above are three hours apart, and the judge issued the order after midnight, right? Here, you can white knight for the partial list of lies CNN has spewed, Nolte posted them up for you... ...cnn sucks balls (along with the rest of the dnc propaganda mouthpieces) How the fuck is that relevant? I anxiously await your terribly witty reply. Most of us understand why it should be relevant to someone that loves to cover for liberal, lying POS journos like those at CNN. 
|
|
Originally Posted By RRA_223: There is no suppression of free speech here. There is simply limiting access to the White House, which is no different than Officials limiting who can speak at a local Town Hall meeting, or anything else. People are still free to shout from the roof tops, even CNN can broadcast whatever they want. But getting special access requires special privileges. If a reporter is combative and disrespectful, do they have a RIGHT to keep talking over the President at a White House press briefing? Do they have a RIGHT to get on Air Force One? Of course not. People are only unhappy because the traditions have changed. They're still welcome to stand out on Pennsylvania Avenue with their cameras and say whatever they want. When the President revokes their broadcasting credentials, or nationalizes the companies, let me know. And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn’t violate 2nd Amendment either. You don’t have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. 
|
|
Originally Posted By realwar: Fox is the only network that carried Bibi's UN speech. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32274/Screenshot_2026-09-24_at_13-00-01__7__Ho-3832201.JPG
I'm sure the highlights would be up on Youtube for any and all to watch. |
|
Originally Posted By careyvonhasselhoff: I'm sure the highlights would be up on Youtube for any and all to watch. The point is the MSM doesn't want people to hear Bibi. I remember back in the day when all the news channels would show the speeches on regular TV. The only time they will cut in now is if a democrat president is speaking. |
|
Originally Posted By Krater: And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn't violate 2nd Amendment either. You don't have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. https://media1.giphy.com/media/UI7EYk96rzq24/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cepc4bpm37qu0rm38ehxt654b3egg5jql9ouvzbq9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Originally Posted By Krater: Originally Posted By RRA_223: There is no suppression of free speech here. There is simply limiting access to the White House, which is no different than Officials limiting who can speak at a local Town Hall meeting, or anything else. People are still free to shout from the roof tops, even CNN can broadcast whatever they want. But getting special access requires special privileges. If a reporter is combative and disrespectful, do they have a RIGHT to keep talking over the President at a White House press briefing? Do they have a RIGHT to get on Air Force One? Of course not. People are only unhappy because the traditions have changed. They're still welcome to stand out on Pennsylvania Avenue with their cameras and say whatever they want. When the President revokes their broadcasting credentials, or nationalizes the companies, let me know. And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn't violate 2nd Amendment either. You don't have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. https://media1.giphy.com/media/UI7EYk96rzq24/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cepc4bpm37qu0rm38ehxt654b3egg5jql9ouvzbq9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Again, NO ONE is telling the press what they can publish. We have courts to determine libel. If you want to try a gun comparison, you can't take one to the WH either, nor a few other places. |
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in time when everyone stands around, and wise men are reloading."
-Somebody that's been there.
-Somebody that's been there.
|
Originally Posted By Dirtydog: Again, NO ONE is telling the press what they can publish. We have courts to determine libel. If you want to try a gun comparison, you can't take one to the WH either, nor a few other places. Originally Posted By Dirtydog: Originally Posted By Krater: Originally Posted By RRA_223: There is no suppression of free speech here. There is simply limiting access to the White House, which is no different than Officials limiting who can speak at a local Town Hall meeting, or anything else. People are still free to shout from the roof tops, even CNN can broadcast whatever they want. But getting special access requires special privileges. If a reporter is combative and disrespectful, do they have a RIGHT to keep talking over the President at a White House press briefing? Do they have a RIGHT to get on Air Force One? Of course not. People are only unhappy because the traditions have changed. They're still welcome to stand out on Pennsylvania Avenue with their cameras and say whatever they want. When the President revokes their broadcasting credentials, or nationalizes the companies, let me know. And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn't violate 2nd Amendment either. You don't have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. https://media1.giphy.com/media/UI7EYk96rzq24/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cepc4bpm37qu0rm38ehxt654b3egg5jql9ouvzbq9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Again, NO ONE is telling the press what they can publish. We have courts to determine libel. If you want to try a gun comparison, you can't take one to the WH either, nor a few other places. |
|
Originally Posted By RRA_223: There is no suppression of free speech here. There is simply limiting access to the White House, which is no different than Officials limiting who can speak at a local Town Hall meeting, or anything else. People are still free to shout from the roof tops, even CNN can broadcast whatever they want. But getting special access requires special privileges. If a reporter is combative and disrespectful, do they have a RIGHT to keep talking over the President at a White House press briefing? Do they have a RIGHT to get on Air Force One? Of course not. People are only unhappy because the traditions have changed. They're still welcome to stand out on Pennsylvania Avenue with their cameras and say whatever they want. When the President revokes their broadcasting credentials, or nationalizes the companies, let me know. This has been explained several times in this thread. The cliff notes version: 1st amendment: What the press writes is protected free speech. 5th amendment: The government has to follow due process. It can't make shit up on the fly. 14th amendment: The government can't pick and choose to who and when laws do or do not apply. Taken together the governement, the executive in this case, can't inhibit or descriminate against specific members of the press based on the content of their speech. If it is going to give press briefings to the press what the press does or does not say can not be criteria for whether the are or are not included. Trump was vocal that that was exactly the rationale, so of course he lost. Obviously the whitehouse can have criteria for who is allowed into the whitehouse or on airforce one or whtever. But those criteria need to be disclosed, they need to be legal and they need to be consistent. None of that was the case here. They made up rules after the fact, the rules weren't legal and they were applied to specific outlets and not others. The real dumb shit is that at least one of the examples of politico publishing information the whitehouse alleges was a security threat was it publishing information given on background by Vance during a sanctioned phonecall with the press. Vance was the leak, except it wasn't a leak at all. It was just another press breifing. |
Joined:
Feb 2025
Posts:
4558
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By 15fanatic: Now trump is angry at CNN and MSNBC for not being at the white house today to film the giant show he put on for Xi. lol https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTAoulwWUAAvtsJ?format=jpg&name=large |
|
Originally Posted By FMJ3: Most of us understand why it should be relevant to someone that loves to cover for liberal, lying POS journos like those at CNN. Originally Posted By FMJ3: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Originally Posted By FMJ3: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: Originally Posted By Gunslinger808: So, CNN in a perfect example of their less than stellar reporting even falsely claimed that the judge issues reinstatement orders for them. Their hubris is only overshadowed by their hate of this administation. Is time a liberal conspiracy? You do realize that the posts cited above are three hours apart, and the judge issued the order after midnight, right? Here, you can white knight for the partial list of lies CNN has spewed, Nolte posted them up for you... ...cnn sucks balls (along with the rest of the dnc propaganda mouthpieces) How the fuck is that relevant? I anxiously await your terribly witty reply. Most of us understand why it should be relevant to someone that loves to cover for liberal, lying POS journos like those at CNN. Do you understand how reason works? I posted a factual correction on when the ruling came down, and you responded with some inane bullshit that is unrelated to when the judge ruled. Again, how is that at all related to the facts discussed> Is the best you can come up with is some weak ad hominem? |
|
Originally Posted By Local: This has been explained several times in this thread. The cliff notes version: 1st amendment: What the 5th amendment: The government has to follow due process. It can't make shit up on the fly. 14th amendment: The government can't pick and choose to who and when laws do or do not apply. Taken together the governement, the executive in this case, can't inhibit or descriminate against specific members of the press based on the content of their speech. If it is going to give press briefings to the press what the press does or does not say can not be criteria for whether the are or are not included. Trump was vocal that that was exactly the rationale, so of course he lost. Obviously the whitehouse can have criteria for who is allowed into the whitehouse or on airforce one or whtever. But those criteria need to be disclosed, they need to be legal and they need to be consistent. None of that was the case here. They made up rules after the fact, the rules weren't legal and they were applied to specific outlets and not others. The real dumb shit is that at least one of the examples of politico publishing information the whitehouse alleges was a security threat was it publishing information given on background by Vance during a sanctioned phonecall with the press. Vance was the leak, except it wasn't a leak at all. It was just another press breifing. Fixed. The bill of rights is about individual rights. |
Bad things happen in isolated instances in an armed populace, horrific things happen to a disarmed populace. 20th Century Democide https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
|
Originally Posted By MikeJGA: Did you notice that ABC, NBC, CBS. and FOX are boycotting White House pressers? The Trump Divenity Sycophants (TDS) will enjoy the American Pravda. TDS never change:"I support and will defend the constitution of the US, except the 1st and 3rd thru 27th Ammendments." Originally Posted By MikeJGA: Originally Posted By Kent: You think anyone who isn't a far left loon cares about CNN or MSNBC? Anyone who thinks those are NOT far left leaning isn't voting for our country anyway... so no loss. Did you notice that ABC, NBC, CBS. and FOX are boycotting White House pressers? The Trump Divenity Sycophants (TDS) will enjoy the American Pravda. TDS never change:"I support and will defend the constitution of the US, except the 1st and 3rd thru 27th Ammendments." They're only doing that so that their passes don't get revoked when Officer Harris gets elected in 2028. None of them will be standing in solidarity with the Daily Wire when they can't get in anymore. Their ability to be "journalists" isn't encumbent on the white house offering a special pass |
|
Originally Posted By Krater: And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn’t violate 2nd Amendment either. You don’t have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. https://media1.giphy.com/media/UI7EYk96rzq24/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cepc4bpm37qu0rm38ehxt654b3egg5jql9ouvzbq9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Originally Posted By Krater: Originally Posted By RRA_223: There is no suppression of free speech here. There is simply limiting access to the White House, which is no different than Officials limiting who can speak at a local Town Hall meeting, or anything else. People are still free to shout from the roof tops, even CNN can broadcast whatever they want. But getting special access requires special privileges. If a reporter is combative and disrespectful, do they have a RIGHT to keep talking over the President at a White House press briefing? Do they have a RIGHT to get on Air Force One? Of course not. People are only unhappy because the traditions have changed. They're still welcome to stand out on Pennsylvania Avenue with their cameras and say whatever they want. When the President revokes their broadcasting credentials, or nationalizes the companies, let me know. And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn’t violate 2nd Amendment either. You don’t have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. https://media1.giphy.com/media/UI7EYk96rzq24/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cepc4bpm37qu0rm38ehxt654b3egg5jql9ouvzbq9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g You're entirely right. Banning guns in prison is exactly the same thing as limiting who has access to sensitive national security sites in a time of conflict. The same thing. |
|
Originally Posted By 6SJ7GT: Fixed. The bill of rights is about individual rights. Originally Posted By 6SJ7GT: Originally Posted By Local: This has been explained several times in this thread. The cliff notes version: 1st amendment: What the 5th amendment: The government has to follow due process. It can't make shit up on the fly. 14th amendment: The government can't pick and choose to who and when laws do or do not apply. Taken together the governement, the executive in this case, can't inhibit or descriminate against specific members of the press based on the content of their speech. If it is going to give press briefings to the press what the press does or does not say can not be criteria for whether the are or are not included. Trump was vocal that that was exactly the rationale, so of course he lost. Obviously the whitehouse can have criteria for who is allowed into the whitehouse or on airforce one or whtever. But those criteria need to be disclosed, they need to be legal and they need to be consistent. None of that was the case here. They made up rules after the fact, the rules weren't legal and they were applied to specific outlets and not others. The real dumb shit is that at least one of the examples of politico publishing information the whitehouse alleges was a security threat was it publishing information given on background by Vance during a sanctioned phonecall with the press. Vance was the leak, except it wasn't a leak at all. It was just another press breifing. Fixed. The bill of rights is about individual rights. How does one assemble by themselves? |
|
Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: How does one assemble by themselves? Multiple personalities? |
"Fully-loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness." - Malcom Reynolds
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
|
Originally Posted By VacaDuck: They're a fatass that takes the space of two people? Multiple personalities? Originally Posted By VacaDuck: Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: How does one assemble by themselves? Multiple personalities? For people who really sit around the house? |
|
Originally Posted By Master_Shake: So what happens when those courts decide that it's unconstitutional for Trump, or any other President, to kick reporters out of the WH because they don't like them? Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By Dirtydog: Originally Posted By Krater: Originally Posted By RRA_223: There is no suppression of free speech here. There is simply limiting access to the White House, which is no different than Officials limiting who can speak at a local Town Hall meeting, or anything else. People are still free to shout from the roof tops, even CNN can broadcast whatever they want. But getting special access requires special privileges. If a reporter is combative and disrespectful, do they have a RIGHT to keep talking over the President at a White House press briefing? Do they have a RIGHT to get on Air Force One? Of course not. People are only unhappy because the traditions have changed. They're still welcome to stand out on Pennsylvania Avenue with their cameras and say whatever they want. When the President revokes their broadcasting credentials, or nationalizes the companies, let me know. And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn't violate 2nd Amendment either. You don't have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. https://media1.giphy.com/media/UI7EYk96rzq24/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cepc4bpm37qu0rm38ehxt654b3egg5jql9ouvzbq9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Again, NO ONE is telling the press what they can publish. We have courts to determine libel. If you want to try a gun comparison, you can't take one to the WH either, nor a few other places. |
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in time when everyone stands around, and wise men are reloading."
-Somebody that's been there.
-Somebody that's been there.
|
Originally Posted By Dirtydog: Seriously? You do what the court says. If you don't like the ruling, you appeal. If that doesn't help, you change the argument, like Obama arguing if Obamacare was a tax or a fee. Look it up. |
|
Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Change the argument like pretending the First Amendment doesn't specifically mention freedom of the press? Originally Posted By Master_Shake: Originally Posted By Dirtydog: Seriously? You do what the court says. If you don't like the ruling, you appeal. If that doesn't help, you change the argument, like Obama arguing if Obamacare was a tax or a fee. Look it up. 
|
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in time when everyone stands around, and wise men are reloading."
-Somebody that's been there.
-Somebody that's been there.
|
Originally Posted By Thrasymachus: How does one assemble by themselves? Individuals deciding who they want to associate with. |
Bad things happen in isolated instances in an armed populace, horrific things happen to a disarmed populace. 20th Century Democide https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
|
Originally Posted By Dirtydog: Is there a full moon tonight? Nope just the normal group trying to rationalize Trumps corruption, incompetence and desire to trample rights. |
"George said "TAX? Fuck that, I THE FUCKING MAN!" Then took a bunch of shots of the whiskey he made himself and shot King George in the goddamned face." -RustedAce
|
Originally Posted By Krater: And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn’t violate 2nd Amendment either. You don’t have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. https://media1.giphy.com/media/UI7EYk96rzq24/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cepc4bpm37qu0rm38ehxt654b3egg5jql9ouvzbq9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Originally Posted By Krater: Originally Posted By RRA_223: There is no suppression of free speech here. There is simply limiting access to the White House, which is no different than Officials limiting who can speak at a local Town Hall meeting, or anything else. People are still free to shout from the roof tops, even CNN can broadcast whatever they want. But getting special access requires special privileges. If a reporter is combative and disrespectful, do they have a RIGHT to keep talking over the President at a White House press briefing? Do they have a RIGHT to get on Air Force One? Of course not. People are only unhappy because the traditions have changed. They're still welcome to stand out on Pennsylvania Avenue with their cameras and say whatever they want. When the President revokes their broadcasting credentials, or nationalizes the companies, let me know. And limiting the kind of guns you can buy, how often you can buy them , and where you can take them doesn’t violate 2nd Amendment either. You don’t have the RIGHT to bring a gun to a prison , for example - right? Same thing. You are welcome to buy a .38 revolver, store it at a gun range and shoot it there. Traditions have changed. https://media1.giphy.com/media/UI7EYk96rzq24/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cepc4bpm37qu0rm38ehxt654b3egg5jql9ouvzbq9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g You do realize how absolutely stupid and inaccurate of a comparison that is right? I mean, I know this has turned into a TDS circle jerk but come on
|