The compliance = Rewarded
and
Dissent = Punished
state of the current admin is hard to miss.
Yea, this obviously is a terrible way to move forward or progress forward as a nation.
Hope the irony isn't lost on to many leftist ideologue boot lickers.
Okay, so your argument is that the White House shouldn't be able to call up organizations and make complaints to them? Can you describe what else they should be prohibited from doing?
My guess is that nobody here has thought through how this would work, the feasibility of doing that, or the implications of it.
Forget the US, I'm not aware of a single government on the planet in all of human history that hasn't behaved that way.
Your argument is that the government should be able to use its position to suppress or cause to be sanctioned/harmed those who reveal politically inconvenient facts about important subjects. This is apparently a violation of government rights, and justified by other governments doing the same.
Gotcha
Can you provide examples from the OP where individuals who revealed politically inconvenient facts about important subjects were harmed? From what I see the White House called a left wing think tank that published unfavorable stories about them and complained, at which point the editors decided to not piss off the white house because they valued their relationship. There was no censorship as CAP could have still published whatever they wanted, the guy clearly didn't lose his job or anything over it, etc, etc.
If THAT is your government jackboot on the neck of the press, your jackboot is hilariously weak. Needless to say, there is no government in the entire history of humanity that has removed itself so far from communicating with publishers. It would in fact be a mark of incompetence if any government was so foolish as to do so.
I'm genuinely interested in what rules you would suggest to set up for how the White House can communicate with people. Is it ever allowed to express displeasure with publications from think tanks, regardless of the subject or the nature of the disagreement? Who would determine when the White House is permitted to communicate with someone?
Once you sit down and think about how you would try to implement something like you are suggesting (no complaints to anyone ever) you will see how incredibly naive and silly something like that is.
People don't "get" your point of view because nobody else shares it. They don't share it, because it makes no sense. This notion that only a news organization can be censored is bizarre. I'm starting to think you're Canadian because their free speech laws are quite different than our first amendment laws here.
Mr. Jilani quit his job because he did not want to be censored by the White House by way of his employer.
I buy neither the "crushing" description in the thread title nor your utter dismissal. I do not think as you, requiring regulations for everything under the sun.
I can see a thing as wrong and condemn it without feeling the need to justify it as you do nor do I have call for impeachment as is often done.
It's wrong and I'm not going to say otherwise. Those who act as I've demonstrated ought to be called on it. Now you may view this as a failure of people to not be proper mouthpieces, that the ruling party is entitled to suppress others who point out facts in important issues. I understand that the truths concerning American involvements and their relevance to American lives and indeed Americans themselves are secondary to government itself at least to you. So be it. What am I for? Calling a spade a spade. What was done in this case if the story is correctly relayed was wrong. Keep your regulations. I'll settle for recognition of what was done without lame rationalisms. I think that's an impossibly difficult thing for too many.
So fill us in on the other half. With links please, no surmising.So what have here is half a story but it contains the half the retarded right needs in order to get enraged so no need for the rest of the story!
The mental gyrations the left go through to justify virtually anything they feel needs defending are interesting to say the least.
They have no qualms with calling Mr. Jilani a liar. It's easy, he's not here to defend himself. An easy battle to pick. Mr. Jilani by all indications is a progressive and yet he dares to speak out. This is the sin that evidently can not be forgiven.
How much easier life would be with free speech curtailed in the nation. No more uncomfortable stories to read. Happy people doing happy things in a hap, hap, happy way. Happy drones.
But until that glorious day, the leftists will pick apart anything they deem counter to the movement using their tool of last resort, semantics. Find a little crack in an article and spread it wider and wider arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Smart people doing dumb things thinking it makes them look smart. Yeah.
Quick request: can you guys decide whether Obama is a tyrant or a feckless milquetoast? Half of the threads talk about how he is an ineffective leader and how weak he is, the other half talk about how he is crushing freedom under his bootheel.
My thought would be that if he is so ineffective you should be embarrassed by how easily he crushes you. Thoughts?
Quick request: can you guys decide whether Obama is a tyrant or a feckless milquetoast? Half of the threads talk about how he is an ineffective leader and how weak he is, the other half talk about how he is crushing freedom under his bootheel.
My thought would be that if he is so ineffective you should be embarrassed by how easily he crushes you. Thoughts?
Why can't he be both? Why can't he do well on some things and poorly on others? He's not a demigod, he's not a genius with all the answers, he's a man like any other. He's a product of his genes, upbringing, education and experience, and he's bound to be wrong sometimes.
Hear that? It's the sound of minds being blown. Although it may be more than their psyche's can handle. Great post. :thumbsup:Why can't he be both? Why can't he do well on some things and poorly on others? He's not a demigod, he's not a genius with all the answers, he's a man like any other. He's a product of his genes, upbringing, education and experience, and he's bound to be wrong sometimes.
So fill us in on the other half. With links please, no surmising.
Kinda like how you liberal assholes were acting like George W. Bush was some horrible tyrant or just a puppet for Cheney?
Why can't he be both? Why can't he do well on some things and poorly on others? He's not a demigod, he's not a genius with all the answers, he's a man like any other. He's a product of his genes, upbringing, education and experience, and he's bound to be wrong sometimes.
But this is true of every person all the time. Where is your logical argument for why he is a dictator in one example and a milquetoast in another. Show me the perfection of your own education, genes, and experience in this example that explains why it's Obama and not you who is in error.
So he is a ruthless tyrant at home and suddenly loses that killer instinct abroad? Lol.
I think you quoted the wrong guy, I never said anything like that.
Quick request: can you guys decide whether Obama is a tyrant or a feckless milquetoast? Half of the threads talk about how he is an ineffective leader and how weak he is, the other half talk about how he is crushing freedom under his bootheel.
My thought would be that if he is so ineffective you should be embarrassed by how easily he crushes you. Thoughts?
Yes, that's the duality of Obama.
On domestic politics, on which he seems wholly focused most of the time, he plays Chicago style hardball. Phone tapping reporters, suing states etc. He is fully engaged in domestic politics.
Many, including myself, do believe he is mostly disinterested, detached and indecisive when it comes to foreign policy.
I don't see how that's difficult to reconcile. He focuses where his interests lie and where he thinks he can and should exert power/influence.
Fern