Why EVERYONE'S right to free speech is important...

Attack on "the freedom of press" is not the same as "attack on the press".

Get your quotes right.

 

"Attack on freedom of press" is not the same as attacking the press.

Obama never attacked the press (that I can recall). But lying to the press is an attack on OUR freedom of press.

You seem to believe that Freedom of Press is something reporters have. . It's not. It's our right to receive information from media, from printed sources, from any source that engages in reporting.

 

oh this is just getting embarrassing. quit now before you go even deeper into the abyss of illogic and incoherence!

 

omg dude. rufkm??? it's right there on the screen. how you can read the words that you wrote and then completely ignore them defies all logic. now i know you're just a troll!

 

oh wow. i seriously can't stop laughing at this nonsense you are trying to pass off as a coherent argument. you are just making this up as you go along. i have to admit, it's very entertaining. so there's that...

 

Well... I'm glad to hear that at least you're embarrassed.

 

so about those posts about obama attacking freedom of the press...

 

If you enjoyed it half as much as I enjoyed laughing at your ignorance, than you had a good time. At least while it lasted.

So... you actually did believe that "freedom of the press" meant some sort of right reporters have. Wow! I mean, it doesn't even require much "brain power" to figure out how absurd that would be. Reporters are paid employees. They report because people have a right to know. Not because they have some sort of "right" that's inherent to their profession.

I got my fun, and you got your education. So I guess you could say that we both got something out of this discussion.

 

so about those posts about obama attacking freedom of the press...

 

Yes. I know that's what you're embarrassed about. Confusing "attacking freedom of the press" with "attacking the press".

You know: up to just a few weeks ago, my .sig used to be this

"*NB: It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments, and I suggest you do the same. Please refrain from responding if the only argument you can come up with is a Conspiracy Theory.

Thank you".

I've been thinking it's time to bring it back. Do you think if I hadn't changed it, at least the first part, you wouldn't have made that mistake?

 

so about those posts about obama attacking freedom of the press...

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?goto/post&id=1069501911#post-1069501911

Hope you know that that's called "trolling". It's against the forum rules. And very much frowned upon by all

 

hey i'm just asking you to direct me to the posts you've made in the past criticizing obama for attacking freedom of the press as you already claimed he did! why is this such a big deal??? i just need a link.

 

I have responded to your point(s). My arguments are very clear: you do not know what you are talking about.

 

Well then just... ask. Here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ch-is-important.539110/page-5#post-1069495443

 

I gave you 4 or 5 examples proving my point, and you were unable to respond to any of them. Saying that you have responded is not the same as responding, you know. But if we shouldn't expect anything better from you... so be it.

 

You "proved your point" of Trump violating free speech/press with 4 or 5 examples that have no connection to curtailing free press/speech, which is why I responded to your 4 or 5 examples with the same response: you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

 

sorry but that does not fulfill the requirement. you need to show me a post of you criticizing obama while he was in office for attacking the freedom of the press as you have done here for trump.

 

Isn't it a bitch when somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about gives you a lesson in the area where you claimed to be the expert? I guess you're just going to have to study some more if you expect to do better next time.

 

What "requirements"? "Requirements" for what? And why would I "need" to show you that?

First of all, I don't keep an index of all the posts I've written. You can look back at my posts using the "Search" feature, if yu're that interested. Second, what makes you think that such post exists on this forum? Obama lying was so rare that attacking freedom of the press wasn't even an issue. I didn't even know some of them were lies, or that he had even said them, until a few days ago a poster brought up the comparison between Trump and Obama I quoted. Others were trivial. Too unimportant for anybody to bring up at all. So much so, that Republicans felt the need to make up lies for him. As far as I can recall, most of the discussions regarding "lies" were about statements that Obama made that turned out to be true. Third, I barely participated on this forum during the Obama administration. I was more active on another political forum. I became more active here when that one disappeared. But even there, I don't think the matter of "freedom of press" was ever relevant enough to be brought up by either side. And fourth... why do you need that? What is your point?

 

i thought perhaps you’d demonstrate some manner of intellectual consistency.

 

I assume intellectual consistency on everybody until the second they show that they don't have it. For example, if you had any doubt about mine, and you yourself do value intellectual consistency, you would show why. Up to this point, nobody has been able to show this. And you know why? It's a "trick" I use. The minute I am aware of an error on my part, I correct my position. I have no problem whatsoever admitting it when I am proven wrong. But you do have to prove me wrong. Not impossible, but not easy either. I value intellectual consistency above anything else. Even above being right.

 

Free-speech is important because it extends from self-possession (one's ownership of them self).
Infringement upon speech, by force, between equals, is an infringement upon self-possession.
On the other hand -
Private property also extends from self-possession. As far as I know, facebook and twitter are private property. Consequently, facebook and tweeter can censor all they want as far as I'm concerned.
My right to free-speech is no good measure of your obligation to listen to, let alone broadcast, my speech.

 

so just point me to your posts regarding obama attacking freedom of the press while he was president... it’s a simple request.

 

Do you not read?

Here

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ch-is-important.539110/page-8#post-1069502888

Have somebody read this to you,and stop trolling.