Trump just called for the repeal of the 1st Amendment. We are going to see a lot of upsets next week.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters...ected.html

I don't see anything in there about getting rid of the 1st amendment.

There's no amendment that says you can't be challenged for what you say.

(02-26-2016 03:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I don't see anything in there about getting rid of the 1st amendment.

There's no amendment that says you can't be challenged for what you say.

Opening libel laws to sue journalists? Who the phuck does he think he is? That protection is exactly why we have the 1st Amendment freedom of the press.

(02-26-2016 02:39 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 02:17 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 12:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Krauthammer said on Fox that Rubio was all bluster and no substance.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Yeah, he talks fast. While Cruz, I feel that I have to fact check every word he says especially when he starts a sentence with "Never in the history of the United States...."

I like Cruz...but sometimes his intelligence is his downfall. For instance, that exchange with Trump about people dying in the street. I understood where Cruz was going, but given the line Trump was using, it was best just to move on. In fact, Cruz had won the point just a few minutes before...but, then he kept going.

which lends to....just shut your yammer and realize what a sub-ord is....git on board the ship commander named 'cap'n stewbing'......

(02-26-2016 03:09 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I don't see anything in there about getting rid of the 1st amendment.

There's no amendment that says you can't be challenged for what you say.

Opening libel laws to sue journalists? Who the phuck does he think he is? That protection is exactly why we have the 1st Amendment freedom of the press.

Actually the first amendment only protects your ability to make speech...not the repercussions of that speech. We have libel laws that treat so-called "public figures" differently with regard to speech as opposed to other citizens. Personally, I am okay with eliminating that distinction and treating everyone on a level playing field.

(02-26-2016 03:45 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:09 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I don't see anything in there about getting rid of the 1st amendment.

There's no amendment that says you can't be challenged for what you say.

Opening libel laws to sue journalists? Who the phuck does he think he is? That protection is exactly why we have the 1st Amendment freedom of the press.

Actually the first amendment only protects your ability to make speech...not the repercussions of that speech. We have libel laws that treat so-called "public figures" differently with regard to speech as opposed to other citizens. Personally, I am okay with eliminating that distinction and treating everyone on a level playing field.

yep. these laws have been overused and formulated in a way to make it impossible to ever be enforced. For instance, the news outlet flat out lied and fabricated a tape of George Zimmerman. But the case was thrown out, because George Zimmerman was considered famous. But the reason George Zimmerman became famous was because the news lied about him in the first place; he was not famous prior to the fabricated tape recording.

(02-26-2016 05:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:45 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:09 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I don't see anything in there about getting rid of the 1st amendment.

There's no amendment that says you can't be challenged for what you say.

Opening libel laws to sue journalists? Who the phuck does he think he is? That protection is exactly why we have the 1st Amendment freedom of the press.

Actually the first amendment only protects your ability to make speech...not the repercussions of that speech. We have libel laws that treat so-called "public figures" differently with regard to speech as opposed to other citizens. Personally, I am okay with eliminating that distinction and treating everyone on a level playing field.

yep. these laws have been overused and formulated in a way to make it impossible to ever be enforced. For instance, the news outlet flat out lied and fabricated a tape of George Zimmerman. But the case was thrown out, because George Zimmerman was considered famous. But the reason George Zimmerman became famous was because the news lied about him in the first place; he was not famous prior to the fabricated tape recording.

I think some adjustments can be made to hold the press/journalists to higher standards of truth when reporting public affairs. There is nothing scary about that.

Trump's problem is that he has zero subtlety and speaks in such broad generalities that anything he says ends up sounding however you feel about him.

(02-26-2016 05:35 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 05:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:45 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:09 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I don't see anything in there about getting rid of the 1st amendment.

There's no amendment that says you can't be challenged for what you say.

Opening libel laws to sue journalists? Who the phuck does he think he is? That protection is exactly why we have the 1st Amendment freedom of the press.

Actually the first amendment only protects your ability to make speech...not the repercussions of that speech. We have libel laws that treat so-called "public figures" differently with regard to speech as opposed to other citizens. Personally, I am okay with eliminating that distinction and treating everyone on a level playing field.

yep. these laws have been overused and formulated in a way to make it impossible to ever be enforced. For instance, the news outlet flat out lied and fabricated a tape of George Zimmerman. But the case was thrown out, because George Zimmerman was considered famous. But the reason George Zimmerman became famous was because the news lied about him in the first place; he was not famous prior to the fabricated tape recording.

I think some adjustments can be made to hold the press/journalists to higher standards of truth when reporting public affairs. There is nothing scary about that.

Trump's problem is that he has zero subtlety and speaks in such broad generalities that anything he says ends up sounding however you feel about him.

true. Trumps form of subtlety is to throw a brick at someones head.

(02-26-2016 06:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 05:35 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 05:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:45 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 03:09 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Opening libel laws to sue journalists? Who the phuck does he think he is? That protection is exactly why we have the 1st Amendment freedom of the press.

Actually the first amendment only protects your ability to make speech...not the repercussions of that speech. We have libel laws that treat so-called "public figures" differently with regard to speech as opposed to other citizens. Personally, I am okay with eliminating that distinction and treating everyone on a level playing field.

yep. these laws have been overused and formulated in a way to make it impossible to ever be enforced. For instance, the news outlet flat out lied and fabricated a tape of George Zimmerman. But the case was thrown out, because George Zimmerman was considered famous. But the reason George Zimmerman became famous was because the news lied about him in the first place; he was not famous prior to the fabricated tape recording.

I think some adjustments can be made to hold the press/journalists to higher standards of truth when reporting public affairs. There is nothing scary about that.

Trump's problem is that he has zero subtlety and speaks in such broad generalities that anything he says ends up sounding however you feel about him.

true. Trumps form of subtlety is to throw a brick at someones head.

I don't know what to think of a Trump with tact. Not sure if that would help or hurt him. Maybe he would be better off throwing the brick and then fixing the unintended damage.

Friends do not let friends vote for a con artist.

(02-26-2016 06:46 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Friends do not let friends vote for a con artist.

No Bernie or Hillary then.

Found this pic that "pretty much summarizes the events of the debate":



Off-screen, Kasich is giving up his seat in the movie theater to an old woman out of kindness. Carson found his seat to be really comfortable so he's dosing off somewhere by the exit.

I did something today that I've never done before. Voted in a democrat primary. There wasn't much on the ballot but Hillary versus Bernie, and I voted for Hillary. There pretty much aren't any democrats running for local offices here in Montgomery County (I think there was one, unopposed), so I basically punted voting for any local offices. I personally think that getting Bernie out of the race is the most important thing that my vote could accomplish. Once it's down to Hillary versus the republicans, I don't see much difference between any of them. The one thing that I did not realize would be on the ballot are several initiatives that look like opinion surveys. I voted no on all of them.

(02-26-2016 07:20 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 06:46 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Friends do not let friends vote for a con artist.

No Bernie or Hillary then.

+1

(02-26-2016 06:46 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  Friends do not let friends vote for a con artist.

Looks line another year of not voting then

Vote libertarian.

I voted for Hillary today in the hope of helping to stop Bernie. In the general, I'll vote for whomever the libertarians nominate--for the ninth time in a row.

(02-26-2016 07:25 PM)CameramanJ Wrote:  Found this pic that "pretty much summarizes the events of the debate":



Off-screen, Kasich is giving up his seat in the movie theater to an old woman out of kindness. Carson found his seat to be really comfortable so he's dosing off somewhere by the exit.

So who is Quai-Gon and who is Obi-wan?

Rubio kind of got left at the gate in Iowa and NH, so is he Obi-wan?

(02-26-2016 07:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-26-2016 07:25 PM)CameramanJ Wrote:  Found this pic that "pretty much summarizes the events of the debate":



Off-screen, Kasich is giving up his seat in the movie theater to an old woman out of kindness. Carson found his seat to be really comfortable so he's dosing off somewhere by the exit.

So who is Quai-Gon and who is Obi-wan?

Rubio kind of got left at the gate in Iowa and NH, so is he Obi-wan?

Depends on who you think will take one in the guts to set up the victory for the other. The person who edited the pic clearly thought that Rubio (Qui-Gon, green) eventually eats it and Cruz (Obi, blue) takes up his followers (saber) and vanquishes the mysterious outsider Sith (Trump). Half of Trump's ego is still significant though; he'll still be around years after if the Clone Wars show is canon.

(02-25-2016 09:08 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Don't come for Donald. The Donald will send for you.

A day later and I still crack up.

(02-26-2016 07:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I did something today that I've never done before. Voted in a democrat primary. There wasn't much on the ballot but Hillary versus Bernie, and I voted for Hillary. There pretty much aren't any democrats running for local offices here in Montgomery County (I think there was one, unopposed), so I basically punted voting for any local offices. I personally think that getting Bernie out of the race is the most important thing that my vote could accomplish. Once it's down to Hillary versus the republicans, I don't see much difference between any of them. The one thing that I did not realize would be on the ballot are several initiatives that look like opinion surveys. I voted no on all of them.

I was going to caucus with the dems this time around but I realized my congress critter is not running again. So I should go have a voice in that election.