Page 434 of 720 FirstFirst ... 334384424432433434435436444484534 ... LastLast
Results 4,331 to 4,340 of 7196

Thread: Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

  1. #4331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post


    Sorry, not sorry.
    www.twitch.tv/3piecesofbread
    Quote Originally Posted by Back
    I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman.



    Quote Originally Posted by Androidpk View Post
    And feel free to get me banned, not going to stop my lawyer from sending Kranar a subpoena for IP information on a couple of people.

  2. Default


  3. #4333
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    A Corporate Republic
    Posts
    12,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Androidpk View Post
    You're a huge retard. And thief.

  4. #4334

    Default

    The judge shot Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass down on the basis of the 5th Amendment's due process clause. Basically, he thought Trump's reasons were junk (which they were, even the WH backed off calling the interaction "assault"). Trump should be able to dismiss a disruptive reporter, but the issue is whether Acosta was legitimately disruptive or whether Trump just doesn't like him and should be able to revoke credentials based on that. The WH is a public institution and needs to make itself available to the press, and not just the reporters it likes.
    My current items for sale or trade: Treasures in the Brambles.
    Contact: Nuadjha (Discord and LNet), Briarfox@play.net

  5. #4335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BriarFox View Post
    The judge shot Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass down on the basis of the 5th Amendment's due process clause. Basically, he thought Trump's reasons were junk (which they were, even the WH backed off calling the interaction "assault"). Trump should be able to dismiss a disruptive reporter, but the issue is whether Acosta was legitimately disruptive or whether Trump just doesn't like him and should be able to revoke credentials based on that. The WH is a public institution and needs to make itself available to the press, and not just the reporters it likes.
    I never considered it assault, but only a true tard would consider it as not being disruptive, especially when he was still barking out bullshit after another reporter was given the mic and was trying to ask their question.

    I hope he gets to stay and Trump just never calls on him ever.
    Last edited by Methais; 11-16-2018 at 02:01 PM.
    www.twitch.tv/3piecesofbread
    Quote Originally Posted by Back
    I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman.



    Quote Originally Posted by Androidpk View Post
    And feel free to get me banned, not going to stop my lawyer from sending Kranar a subpoena for IP information on a couple of people.

  6. #4336
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In amazement
    Posts
    3,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BriarFox View Post
    The judge shot Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass down on the basis of the 5th Amendment's due process clause. Basically, he thought Trump's reasons were junk (which they were, even the WH backed off calling the interaction "assault"). Trump should be able to dismiss a disruptive reporter, but the issue is whether Acosta was legitimately disruptive or whether Trump just doesn't like him and should be able to revoke credentials based on that. The WH is a public institution and needs to make itself available to the press, and not just the reporters it likes.
    Only one issue with that, Acosta the crybaby was not banned from the WH, he would simply have to go there and pass through a regular security check and get a temp badge like a lot of reporters instead of the express lane that he had. So that explanation doesn't hold water. This will be appealed, the full trial was not done and when it gets to the SCOTUS they will have to decide the degree of control allowable by the Judicial branch over the Executive branch. There is no crime or criminal liability here so due process is a red herring and there is no real limit to access so that is also a red herring. And if there is some argument about the inconvenience of going through a process to access the POTUS or exorcise rights, then I am pretty sure that I will enjoy ramming that shit down the throat of every Leftist that wants to register, ban or have waiting periods for the purchase of a firearm and a lot of other things. So yeah, this is going to end up being a non-issue and when Acosta the crybaby goes back in, I hope they sit him in a corner facing the wall and never call on him or CNN again. Ever. And when he does rise up, become disruptive and an ass because you know he will, then they ban him personally from the building as a security threat.
    I asked for neither your Opinion,
    your Acceptance
    nor your Permission.

  7. #4337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Methais View Post
    This is probably gonna get wrecked in SCOTUS or wherever it ends up. Trump isn't banning CNN, the organization that Acosta represents, from the White House, so I don't see how making a "freedom of the press" argument is going to hold up.

    And if it does, then what's to stop every reporter in the universe from demanding WH access simply because they're "the press"?
    This ruling really is baffling, as well as CNN's arguments. CNN argues that it's impossible for Acosta to do his job covering the White House unless he has the press pass. Well...assign Acosta to a different job. Since when does CNN get to dictate that since they want one of their employees to cover the White House then the White House MUST allow that person access to the White House. If CNN hired someone on the terrorist watch list who has made death threats to Trump before and said "Let's assign him to the White House", is the White House now supposed to bend over backwards to allow this guy access to the White House simply because CNN assigned him there? White House.

    Also the judge's ruling doesn't make any sense either. Poor Acosta didn't get due process? Judges have thrown people in jail for contempt of court for coughing and making hand gestures in court before, there sure as shit ain't no due process there, but the White House has to give little butt hurt Jimmy due process before saying he's no longer welcome in the White House?
    Last edited by Tgo01; 11-16-2018 at 04:09 PM.

  8. #4338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BriarFox View Post
    the issue is whether Acosta was legitimately disruptive
    He was. My God, dude. I know you're drinking so much CNN kool aid that you won't even acknowledge the fact that Acosta touched the intern, but you're seriously that drunk on the kool aid that you don't even think his actions were disruptive?

    Quote Originally Posted by BriarFox View Post
    The WH is a public institution and needs to make itself available to the press, and not just the reporters it likes.
    Oh please. Did you see the gaggle of reporters in that room on the day in question? There are plenty of reporters there. Let's not act like it's just Fox News asking questions.

  9. #4339
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    A Corporate Republic
    Posts
    12,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    He was. My God, dude. I know you're drinking so much CNN kool aid that you won't even acknowledge the fact that Acosta touched the intern, but you're seriously that drunk on the kool aid that you don't even think his actions were disruptive?



    Oh please. Did you see the gaggle of reporters in that room on the day in question? There are plenty of reporters there. Let's not act like it's just Fox News asking questions.
    This is all correct.

  10. #4340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BriarFox View Post
    The judge shot Trump's revocation of Acosta's press pass down on the basis of the 5th Amendment's due process clause. Basically, he thought Trump's reasons were junk (which they were, even the WH backed off calling the interaction "assault"). Trump should be able to dismiss a disruptive reporter, but the issue is whether Acosta was legitimately disruptive or whether Trump just doesn't like him and should be able to revoke credentials based on that. The WH is a public institution and needs to make itself available to the press, and not just the reporters it likes.
    Do you believe Acosta was being disruptive at any point during all that?
    www.twitch.tv/3piecesofbread
    Quote Originally Posted by Back
    I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman.



    Quote Originally Posted by Androidpk View Post
    And feel free to get me banned, not going to stop my lawyer from sending Kranar a subpoena for IP information on a couple of people.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •