- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What Is There To “Win” For Progs In The Acosta Case?
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:34 pm to BeeFense5
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:34 pm to BeeFense5
quote:
Why does anyone truly give a frick about Acosta and his press pass?
They don't give a single frick about Acosta himself, and this whole thing wouldn't even be news during any other administration.
The old saying when it came to media was "sex sells," well now it's "Trump hatred and outrage sells...kinda."
0
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:34 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Triggered much?
Why don't you try rebutting his argument? He pretty much shut you down.
quote:
Constitutional scholars disagree with your assessment
Which ones. Please share, preferably with a link.
quote:
enough to the point that a news network would have the balls to sue a sitting POTUS.
It's CNN. It's not "balls" it's resistance. It's what you regressives do. Nothing brave about being partisan hacks.
quote:
Maybe they should have consulted with your internet badassery before filing.
Maybe you should address his point, instead of pivoting.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:34 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
However during those press meetings there needs to be rules so everyone gets questions answered. Acosta broke those rules. I agree that Acosta was an extremely rude individual.
I agree that there need to be rules. Unfortunately, there are no specific rules that Acosta broke. That's part of CNN's suit. They want specific rules in place so that the POTUS can't abuse power and bar any negative press. What's so bad about that?
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:35 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:He isn't barred fool.
They want specific rules in place so that the POTUS can't abuse power and bar any negative press. What's so bad about that?
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:35 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
have the balls to sue a sitting POTUS.
You're not serious, are you?
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:36 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:Oh, there is a lot of keyboard thuganometry going on. Nothing will be gained by this, especially for CNN. Put another reporter in, how freaking hard is that? And I would never say a news network has balls, the ridiculousness of that statement is astounding.
internet badassery before filing.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:36 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
there are no specific rules that Acosta broke
There's no "rule" saying I can't take a steaming shite on the White House floor, if I do so and they remove me, lawsuit right?1
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:37 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
negative press
Negative press is one thing but CNN's is a rabid attacking press.
CNN's constant negativity does nothing to help them in this situation
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:37 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
[quote]And then he had the Secret Service revoke his press pass. That's the 1st, 5th & APA violation he's getting sued for.
Because he acted an arse and refused to move on.
Stop changing your story, you said, "he should've just said "No, next question""....which he did.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:37 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Unfortunately, there are no specific rules that Acosta broke.
I think everyone is aware of common decency. And there are no binding rules. Guess what chief, POTUS Trump is top dawg. I know it makes you wet yourself at night, but what he says goes, and what the Secret Service says goes. Acosta wants to assault a WH aide, then his arse gets the boot. You want him to stay because "well there are no rules". You sound like a big pussy.
quote:
They want specific rules in place so that the POTUS can't abuse power and bar any negative press. What's so bad about that?
Where has CNN been barred? Please post examples. Acosta was kicked out, but was CNN? Did we all miss something? Or are you sky screaming?
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:38 pm to NIH
The #resistance idiots still haven't realized that presidential press conferences are privileges and not rights
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:39 pm to TBoy
quote:
Actually, my rights and your rights under the first amendment have been stifled as we depend upon a free press to gather and disseminate information. If the President asserts control over that right, we are all harmed.
What a drama queen. Your little boyfriend gets kicked to the curb and now 1A is dead.
You people are insane. Trump broke you and it's hilarious.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:39 pm to BeeFense5
quote:
Negative press is one thing but CNN's is a rabid attacking press.
CNN's constant negativity does nothing to help them in this situation
But CNN is a respected news network
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:40 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:wait wait wait..... you think sueing someone shows you have balls???
enough to the point that a news network would have the balls to sue a sitting POTUS. Maybe they should have consulted with your internet badassery before filing.
bwahahahahahaha.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:40 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Even acting like a child doesn't excuse the Secret Service to take away your press credentials.
I agree with you.
Trump in fact agrees with you.
Thank goodness his press pass was not taken away arbitrarily. This was not a random reason.
Acosta violated the decorum of that conference.
So you see, his pass was not revoked arbitrarily. It was revoked for cause.
All this temper tantrum is doing is extending his temporary time in time out.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:41 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:Shirley you can't be Sirius, Clark.
Unfortunately, there are no specific rules that Acosta broke. That's part of CNN's suit. They want specific rules in place
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:42 pm to TBoy
quote:
Actually, my rights and your rights under the first amendment have been stifled as we depend upon a free press to gather and disseminate information. If the President asserts control over that right, we are all harmed.
I would argue that Trump has a 1st Amendment right to NOT speak to Acosta. So, if CNN wants a question answered, they need to send a different reporter. Preferably one who knows how to mind his/her manners, ask their question in a respectful and professional manner, then pass the mic. Jim Acosta is nothing more than a front-row heckler.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:42 pm to BugAC
LINK
Something tells me we're in the middle of a pointeless, tribal internet argument.
Seriously, if you don't think there is a single constitutional scholar who will side with CNN here, why should I bother arguing? It's like you're arguing against the existence of penguins. Just because you can't see any doesn't mean they don't exist!
Does POTUS have a point? Sure, there needs to be some decorum in the White House. Does that give them a right to revoke credentials from journalists? I think that gives POTUS too much power to stifle dissent. CNN is obviously taking that same stance. We'll see if courts decide to stick with Sherrill v. Knight.
Something tells me we're in the middle of a pointeless, tribal internet argument.
Seriously, if you don't think there is a single constitutional scholar who will side with CNN here, why should I bother arguing? It's like you're arguing against the existence of penguins. Just because you can't see any doesn't mean they don't exist!
Does POTUS have a point? Sure, there needs to be some decorum in the White House. Does that give them a right to revoke credentials from journalists? I think that gives POTUS too much power to stifle dissent. CNN is obviously taking that same stance. We'll see if courts decide to stick with Sherrill v. Knight.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:42 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Some people enjoy the free press afforded by the First Amendment. Some people (including the SCOTUS per Sherrill v Knight) see the WH's removal of press credentials as stifling that freedom of the press and free speech.
It doesn't affect the freedom of the press at all.
The Whitehouse is under ZERO legal obligation to even hold press conferences.
The Whitehouse is under zero legal obligation to issue press credentials.
The press can still freely report whatever they chose to report.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 2:44 pm to victoire sécurisé
One more time CNN has access to the WH, so does Jimmy Acosta.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News