• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump threatening NBC?

BobTheCoward said:
I'm not sorry that I often disagree with people here. What you call a discussion is a big circle of agreement.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between rational and irrational disagreement.
I could reply to every post with P!nk lyrics. Would that be valuable disagreement?
 
beren said:
There is a difference between rational and irrational disagreement.
I could reply to every post with P!nk lyrics. Would that be valuable disagreement?
Click to expand...

My position isnt irrational. I have different values and perception than you. My observations are rational to my worldview.
 
BobTheCoward said:
My position isnt irrational. I have different values and perception than you. My observations are rational to my worldview.
Click to expand...

I am here, I am here
I've already seen the bottom, so there's nothing to fear
Know that I'll be ready when the devil is near
I am here, I am here
All of this wrong, but I'm still right here
I don't have the answers, but the questions is clear
 
Travis said:
I just felt it needed to be pointed out. NBC gave context for why the SOS thinks Trump is an idiot. Infowars thought Obama was going to take over the USA via Jade Helm. Any notion they are equivalent is specious.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but the difference you draw seems irrelevant for first amendment discussions.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
quadraginta said:
Sure. That's easy to say now.

But what if it had worked? What then?

You'd be singing a different tune, I bet.
Click to expand...

Whistling "Colonel Bogey" more like.

The march whistled in "Bridge over the River Kwai".

Had to look it up myself, no need to make ya'll do same.
 
phiwum said:
Fair enough, but the difference you draw seems irrelevant for first amendment discussions.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The problem being it is both erroneous and irrelevant. Not responding to it leaves the premise unchallenged, responding to it validates the irrelevancy.

"A strange game

The only winning move is not to play"

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The problem being it is both erroneous and irrelevant. Not responding to it leaves the premise unchallenged, responding to it validates the irrelevancy.

"A strange game

The only winning move is not to play"

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'll give you irrelevant, but how is it erroneous?

It is the case that there are significant differences between NBC and Infowars in terms of reliability, journalistic method, etc. Now, these differences don't seem to produce differences in First Amendment protection[1], so they are irrelevant, but it is not an error to claim such differences.

[1] And here, I'm not so sure. It's possible that there is a difference in protection for the "legitimate" press engaged in reporting news and the CT press. But if there's a clear difference, I don't know it.
 
I just saw a photo of AZ Cardinal fans booing kneeling players. They cupped both hands around their mouths in order to boo.

They were being much more disrespectful than the kneelers! Not only were their right hands not on their hearts, they were disrupting the playing of the anthem. Are these people -- and keep in mind, this is a rhetorical question -- just *********** stupid? In what way is booing throughout the anthem properly respectful?
 
phiwum said:
I'll give you irrelevant, but how is it erroneous?

It is the case that there are significant differences between NBC and Infowars in terms of reliability, journalistic method, etc. Now, these differences don't seem to produce differences in First Amendment protection[1], so they are irrelevant, but it is not an error to claim such differences.

[1] And here, I'm not so sure. It's possible that there is a difference in protection for the "legitimate" press engaged in reporting news and the CT press. But if there's a clear difference, I don't know it.
Click to expand...

I meant the claim of equivalence is erroneous.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
phiwum said:
I just saw a photo of AZ Cardinal fans booing kneeling players. They cupped both hands around their mouths in order to boo.

They were being much more disrespectful than the kneelers! Not only were their right hands not on their hearts, they were disrupting the playing of the anthem. Are these people -- and keep in mind, this is a rhetorical question -- just *********** stupid? In what way is booing throughout the anthem properly respectful?
Click to expand...

I agree with your general point but I'd like to comment on the highlighted: why is it even important? I've never gotten the point of doing that, and that adds to the comical way that people cover their left breast, while the heart is, unsurprisingly, in the middle of the chest.
 
Argumemnon said:
I agree with your general point but I'd like to comment on the highlighted: why is it even important? I've never gotten the point of doing that, and that adds to the comical way that people cover their left breast, while the heart is, unsurprisingly, in the middle of the chest.
Click to expand...

Just has to do with the U.S. traditions, enshrined in law, about how to respect the flag and anthem. Removing your hand from your heart is a lesser offense than kneeling, but booing throughout the anthem is (in my mind) a greater offense and is not justified by the fact that others are kneeling.

Obviously, the degrees of lesser and greater are my own and not enshrined in law.
 
Argumemnon said:
Wait... you're legally obliged to do that?
Click to expand...
No.

ETA: I'm on dangerous ground now, as the following (in different form) got me a yellow card.

A 1943 Supreme Court decision says that we cannot be compelled by any government official to act in specific ways or recite specific words to prove our nationalism, political position, or anything else, like patriotism.

Trump is using the bully pulpit. No one will let him do anything official about it.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
There's very little the president can officially do, anyway.

Half the angst about Trump is based on a mythical understanding of the powers of the president.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just because the President of the United States comes out consistently and aggressively against free speech while continuing to enjoy the support of 80% of Republicans, it's nothing to be concerned about.

Meanwhile, kneeling football players are ruining the world:
theprestige said:
Think about it a little more, and you might not find it funny at all. They aren't doing enough to make the world a better place, and they're doing too much to make the world a worse place. The mix of criticism rightly expresses this sad situation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom