Purely for entertainment purposes, of course.
Posted on 12/15/2018 6:29:02 AM PST by Kaslin
I agree. It’s disgusting...and, dangerous.
They appear to not stop at anything...nothing is beneath these DC Swamp fiends.
The Republicans seem to be in cahoots and as aggressive (sneakily and behind the scenes) against POTUS, as the vicious, rotten dems.
I don’t trust McCarthy. Heck...I don’t trust MOST of the Repubs. They want it to be back to pre-Trump, cocktail party circuit, business as usual for the elites.
Who will...or HOW do we....stop this?
DC is a big club, and we aren’t in it.
“Who will...or HOW do we....stop this?”
I think about that a lot.
The deep state is bad——but as far as I’m concerned,the MSM is far worse.
Even when they post a picture of Trump it’s purposely uflattering. Not one good word said about him,ever.
With a fair press and good reporting some of the enmity that the Dems have toward him would be challenged and the dreadful treatment that he gets from the “entertainment” world would be called out.
It is more than disheartening,it’s damned frightening.
.
Purely for entertainment purposes, of course.
Bingo!
ditto. we are the children of the REAL patriots.
I was glad to see a wreath on my father’s grave today.
p
One way to create a wave would be to email your Reps and Senators every day on their websites with a list of
QUESTIONS and that we demand ANSWERS.
If the servers started getting millions of emails a day someone would have to take notice...
but it would have to be a concerted plan.
and of course, the libs would start their own counter..
ping to a very essential article......
The question remains: Where the hell do I sign up?
Wanted for?
That is correct! Until WE take the gloves off and join the battle, nothing is going to change.
I agree about “judge shopping,” you wouldn’t want to do in the Ninth Circuit. OTOH there is such a thing as appealing, and you want to go to SCOTUS. Wouldn’t it be just as well, when judge shopping, to go where you would be instantly kicked out of court, appeal, be instantly rejected on appeal - and then appeal to SCOTUS?I’m not a lawyer . . .
"the political right needs a fighting force—an organized ground level force built for the political conflicts of the 21st century".
Post of the year! Public education=public enemy #1!
I have a M.A. in Journalism and graduated Summa Cum Laude. Worked in the field. Outlets don’t want a conservative Journalist. Changed careers. I would shut down the media until standards could be set. No apologies. Ever.
Worked in that field too. It's worse than Journalism. Something has to be done, but few are listening. I've tried on here for YEARS to get folks to get going. Trump finally has started it.
Ping
That’s probably what the Jews of Western Europe were saying in the mid 1930s as Fascism and the rise of Hitler was occurring.
Sadly, Humans appear to be willing to allow themselves misery over action. I also think that the majority of people would rather be told what to do than to have to think and fend for themselves.
It takes a whole lot of pain and misery for people to change. Look at Brazil? A positive outcome now after decades of socialism and decline. They are lucky they escaped the clutches of that evil.
This case would put SCOTUS on the spot, that is certain. Sullivan is settled law, decided 9-0 with strong concurrences, and I don’t question it. You don’t overturn Sullivan, you go around it. Sullivan should be right, because in 1844 it would have been right. And the facts before the Court in 1964 did not raise the right question for Sullivan to be as generally applicable as it is cracked up to be.We are better off if we focus on winning elections and then running the country successfully.The whole point is that the First Amendment tries to assure that the people have reasonable access to all reasonable political opinion. Sullivan tries to implement that. The problem is that Sullivan takes for granted that the First Amendment was in fact successful in its intent of assuring that Americans have reasonable access to all reasonable opinions. 1A was written to assuage fear that the newly constituted government might prevent that via censorship. 1A does not explicitly assure that a private monopoly never does the same thing, by other means - but preventing or redressing such by other law is clearly not in conflict with the intent of 1A.
Sullivan suggests that neither Democrat nor Republican politicians have a right to redress of libel complaints; the trouble is that Republicans are routinely libeled - and Democrats never are. The system by which criticism of Democrats is systematically suppressed in the MSM is the problem. And/or, the problem is the existence of such a thing as an “MSM.” It all revolves around the claims of “journalistic objectivity” which attach to “the MSM” and the extent to which the government sanctions such claims (via the FEC in particular, also by the FCC, and probably by other mechanisms including indoctrination in government schools).
So what if we do “run the country successfully?” Democrats systematicallyfail atavoid doing that, and nearly as systematically win election of a two-term POTUS every 16 years. And were odds-on favorites to make their own ascendency a permanent condition after deploying secret police against our candidate (if not all 16 preliminary candidates) prior to the ’16 campaign.The courts need to clean up that system before it attains majority status in SCOTUS, making itself permanent. The Democrat Party is not independent of the journalism establishment, and neither is the FBI or CIA or any government bureaucracy you want to name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.