Posted on 12/15/2018 6:29:02 AM PST by Kaslin
So did the USA Army vets come home from WWII and become fascists? LOL. Your argument is stupid, frankly speaking.
Making nice with our enemies?
I pointed out the DANGER of using the lefts techniques, you can lose your soul and I have seen it.
I point out that a gun is dangerous also, use it wisely.
Every counter revolution has it s quislings. Take at look at yourself.
In other words coosing a fighter is a matter of choosing someone who has a real record of fighter.
Not some flashy talk the talk who is probably there to undermine any progress...which seems to be who we always end up with.
Imagine if we. Had 6 Trump like fighters on our side...
In other words, choosing a fighter is a matter of choosing someone who has a real record of being a fighter.
Not some flashy “talk the talk” who is likely there to undermine any progress...which seems to be who we always end up with.
Imagine if we had 6 Trump like fighters on our side...
Secession is the best option. You form a new country from several states. Then you have all the functionality of a country and you can still work and you can can fight off the Feds with a real army if they come for you.
A lot of pacifist were picked on by bullies as children. Sad.
I tried to arouse people into action. Blogging angrily is so much more convenient.
I sent my resume to Trump’s website. Never heard a word. Jim Acosta has no clue what would happen to him if I took him on.
~Winston Churchill
"Better to die on your feet (fighting) than live on your knees."
~Emiliano Zapata
~Red Skelton
Does that mean we get 6 times more chuck n nancy spending? Trump funded his mortal enemies. And he is at it again.
Was there ever a dime in it for the preservation of our country?
Full, immediate wall funding or veto.. Shall we hold our breath?
Trump is not 6 men.
Trump is not 6 men.
And I doubt he has 6 loyal Republicans on his side.
You are the second person in as many days that has mentioned Gov. Bevin in such a way. Quite frankly, I love Trump but wonder who we have in the wings that can pick up his mantle at the end of his Presidency. We are in for a long battle. Hopefully, President Trump serves for 8 years and provides us a good start on the road back to a conservativism. After him, I have been worried there is no bench. I will have to take a good, hard look at the governor. I also like Jim Jordan.
What we are faced with is a propaganda war, and we are all too close to defenseless in it.I speak, of course, of the media. IMHO there is a remedy, which can be implemented but should have been done yesterday. The Republican Party has been libeled systematically and viciously by American journalism, and it must sue for damages in the billions of dollars.
Theoretically anyone can sue for damages, but not just anyone has a specific claim of a specific tort which would really matter. It has to be the Republican Party. Of course, the pre-Trump Republican Party would never have tried such a thing. But as a centaur is a man with the body of a horse, and a mermaid is a maiden with the body of a fish, Donald Trump is a seemingly mythological creature. He is a Republican with the chutzpah of a Democrat. He needs to get this ball rolling.
Anyone can file a lawsuit, but the objection is that the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision makes it difficult for any politician, or even a judge, to sue for libel. This is true - and not only so, but that 1964 decision was unanimous, with concurring opinions wanting to make it even stronger. Not only is that the case but - I warrant - a panel of judges picked by Donald Trump today would decide the same case the same way tomorrow.
Why then do I suggest a lawsuit which would be doomed to fail? Because the case to be brought would neither allege the same facts nor plead for the same relief as the Sullivan case did. And it would attack the media under a different law - antitrust law.
You and I know that the media is a cabal which conspires against the public by ganging up on Republican politicians, and letting Democrats off
easycompletely.. But it can be shown that that is precisely what should be expected of journalism as it exists today. Not only can voluminous evidence of this fact - already compiled by existing organizations such as Brent Bozell Media Research Center - be adduced, but it is easy to show that journalists have ample motive and ample opportunity to conspire against the public in precisely that way.As to motive, journalism operates under the rule for commercial success which states, If it bleeds, it leads. Journalism is systematically negative, such that society might easily build an entire city with little notice from journalism except for the occasions when buildings burn down. All journalists know, therefore, that journalism is negative. And yet journalists claim that journalism is objective. The claim that negativity is objectivity, however, can only be made by a cynic. Why then would journalists claim objectivity? Because they want to be influential (and commercially successful).
The trouble with being objective is that it is difficult to the point of impossibility, on the one hand, and against human nature, on the other. It is against human nature, because anyone who has an opinion thinks that opinion is right - or it wouldnt be his/her opinion. The only way to try to be objective is to analyze that opinion from the point of view that where you stand is probably affected by where you sit. This is uncomfortable, and that makes it hard work. And that is not what journalists do. Given the opportunity, journalists collude to claim objectivity, and collude to destroy the reputation of anyone who questions their objectivity.
And journalists have the opportunity, in spades. It is the air they breathe. In the founding era, and into the late Nineteenth Century, newspapers were primarily about the opinions of their printers (much as the Rush Limbaugh show is about the opinions of Rush Limbaugh), and nobody would have seriously suggested that they were objective. And that is the sort of journalism the authors of the Constitution and First Amendment were familiar with.
The telegraph was demod by Samuel Morse in 1844, and the first wire service began in 1848. This quickly morphed into the Associated Press, and by the 1870s concern began to be expressed over its concentration of propaganda power. The APs response to the charge was to assert that it essentially consisted of its - and its member newspapers notoriously did not agree about much of anything. At the time, there was truth to that argument - and the value of the wire service in disseminating information quickly throughout the country while conserving expensive telegraphy bandwidth was unquestioned.
But the AP wire constituted a virtual meeting of a critical mass of American journalists. And as Adam Smith warned in Wealth of Nations (1776), People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. Although the Associated Press Stylebook institutionalized some useful standardization (such as the pyramid organization of news stories which demands that the most important information appear early in any story), it can also have direct political implications (such as the insistence that illegal aliens not be called illegal aliens).
The meeting created by the wire" gradually became the air that journalists breathe. And the motive to cooperate - the motive of going along and getting along ideologically, and being seen as objective, transformed American journalism from an assortment of ideologically idiosyncratic purveyors of opinion (and secondarily information) into the ideological monolith with which we are all to painfully acquainted. All major journalism institutions all insinuate cynicism towards society, which conservatism considers to be fundamentally OK and in need of little guidance from government. And concomitantly, they project naiveté towards government (of which conservatism is suspicious).
The Republican Party must therefore sue wire service journalism (especially the AP, emphatically including its member newspapers). All wire services have the same sort of homogenizing effect, and all journalists share the motivation of being considered objective - and share the fear of the wrath of the cartel if they challenge any other journalists objectivity. So the fact that there are multiple wire services does not change the dynamic which, arguably, the AP was best positioned to start but need not be the only support of the system in being. Journalism which is in a de facto cartel does not compete, and functions to promote its interests, and those of the Democrat Party.
The upshot is that the journalism cartel pushes for campaign finance reform to decrease the ability of outsiders to oppose its agenda, and in other ways promotes the conceit that, far from being ordinary citizens, journalists in good standing with the cartel are the Fourth Estate, with rights that you and I do not enjoy.
The New York Times v. Sullivan case presented entirely different facts. The losing plaintiff, a Southern Democrat, was an unsympathetic figure, and the Times didnt even write the ad of which the plaintiff complained. And the ad did not even attack the plaintiff by name. There was no implication of conspiracy among journalists as a class.
Collusion among journalists to obviate ideological competition among them is provable factually, and it is explicable theoretically. Not just an individual newspaper here or there but the whole of journalism must be sued for libeling the whole of the Republican Party. Because that is what has been going on for half a century and more. The wire services are engines of conspiracy against the public, and - in the wake of the development of fiber optics, lasers, and microwaves and satellites - wire service journalism doesnt save important money in the dissemination of the news. Wire services should be forced to transform, or disband.
New York Times v. Sullivan to the contrary notwithstanding, SCOTUS can do it. But the Republican Party has to bring the case.
What we are faced with is a propaganda war, and we are all too close to defenseless in it.I speak, of course, of the media. IMHO there is a remedy, which can be implemented but should have been done yesterday. The Republican Party has been libeled systematically and viciously by American journalism, and it must sue for damages in the billions of dollars.
Theoretically anyone can sue for damages, but not just anyone has a specific claim of a specific tort which would really matter. It has to be the Republican Party. Of course, the pre-Trump Republican Party would never have tried such a thing. But as a centaur is a man with the body of a horse, and a mermaid is a maiden with the body of a fish, Donald Trump is a seemingly mythological creature. He is a Republican with the chutzpah of a Democrat. He needs to get this ball rolling.
Anyone can file a lawsuit, but the objection is that the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision makes it difficult for any politician, or even a judge, to sue for libel. This is true - and not only so, but that 1964 decision was unanimous, with concurring opinions wanting to make it even stronger. Not only is that the case but - I warrant - a panel of judges picked by Donald Trump today would decide the same case the same way tomorrow.
Why then do I suggest a lawsuit which would be doomed to fail? Because the case to be brought would neither allege the same facts nor plead for the same relief as the Sullivan case did. And it would attack the media under a different law - antitrust law.
You and I know that the media is a cabal which conspires against the public by ganging up on Republican politicians, and letting Democrats off
easycompletely.. But it can be shown that that is precisely what should be expected of journalism as it exists today. Not only can voluminous evidence of this fact - already compiled by existing organizations such as Brent Bozell Media Research Center - be adduced, but it is easy to show that journalists have ample motive and ample opportunity to conspire against the public in precisely that way.As to motive, journalism operates under the rule for commercial success which states, If it bleeds, it leads. Journalism is systematically negative, such that society might easily build an entire city with little notice from journalism except for the occasions when buildings burn down. All journalists know, therefore, that journalism is negative. And yet journalists claim that journalism is objective. The claim that negativity is objectivity, however, can only be made by a cynic. Why then would journalists claim objectivity? Because they want to be influential (and commercially successful).
The trouble with being objective is that it is difficult to the point of impossibility, on the one hand, and against human nature, on the other. It is against human nature, because anyone who has an opinion thinks that opinion is right - or it wouldnt be his/her opinion. The only way to try to be objective is to analyze that opinion from the point of view that where you stand is probably affected by where you sit. This is uncomfortable, and that makes it hard work. And that is not what journalists do. Given the opportunity, journalists collude to claim objectivity, and collude to destroy the reputation of anyone who questions their objectivity.
And journalists have the opportunity, in spades. It is the air they breathe. In the founding era, and into the late Nineteenth Century, newspapers were primarily about the opinions of their printers (much as the Rush Limbaugh show is about the opinions of Rush Limbaugh), and nobody would have seriously suggested that they were objective. And that is the sort of journalism the authors of the Constitution and First Amendment were familiar with.
The telegraph was demod by Samuel Morse in 1844, and the first wire service began in 1848. This quickly morphed into the Associated Press, and by the 1870s concern began to be expressed over its concentration of propaganda power. The APs response to the charge was to assert that it essentially consisted of its - and its member newspapers notoriously did not agree about much of anything. At the time, there was truth to that argument - and the value of the wire service in disseminating information quickly throughout the country while conserving expensive telegraphy bandwidth was unquestioned.
But the AP wire constituted a virtual meeting of a critical mass of American journalists. And as Adam Smith warned in Wealth of Nations (1776), People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. Although the Associated Press Stylebook institutionalized some useful standardization (such as the pyramid organization of news stories which demands that the most important information appear early in any story), it can also have direct political implications (such as the insistence that illegal aliens not be called illegal aliens).
The meeting created by the wire" gradually became the air that journalists breathe. And the motive to cooperate - the motive of going along and getting along ideologically, and being seen as objective, transformed American journalism from an assortment of ideologically idiosyncratic purveyors of opinion (and secondarily information) into the ideological monolith with which we are all to painfully acquainted. All major journalism institutions all insinuate cynicism towards society, which conservatism considers to be fundamentally OK and in need of little guidance from government. And concomitantly, they project naiveté towards government (of which conservatism is suspicious).
The Republican Party must therefore sue wire service journalism (especially the AP, emphatically including its member newspapers). All wire services have the same sort of homogenizing effect, and all journalists share the motivation of being considered objective - and share the fear of the wrath of the cartel if they challenge any other journalists objectivity. So the fact that there are multiple wire services does not change the dynamic which, arguably, the AP was best positioned to start but need not be the only support of the system in being. Journalism which is in a de facto cartel does not compete, and functions to promote its interests, and those of the Democrat Party.
The upshot is that the journalism cartel pushes for campaign finance reform to decrease the ability of outsiders to oppose its agenda, and in other ways promotes the conceit that, far from being ordinary citizens, journalists in good standing with the cartel are the Fourth Estate, with rights that you and I do not enjoy.
The New York Times v. Sullivan case presented entirely different facts. The losing plaintiff, a Southern Democrat, was an unsympathetic figure, and the Times didnt even write the ad of which the plaintiff complained. And the ad did not even attack the plaintiff by name. There was no implication of conspiracy among journalists as a class.
Collusion among journalists to obviate ideological competition among them is provable factually, and it is explicable theoretically. Not just an individual newspaper here or there but the whole of journalism must be sued for libeling the whole of the Republican Party. Because that is what has been going on for half a century and more. The wire services are engines of conspiracy against the public, and - in the wake of the development of fiber optics, lasers, and microwaves and satellites - wire service journalism doesnt save important money in the dissemination of the news. Wire services should be forced to transform, or disband.
New York Times v. Sullivan to the contrary notwithstanding, SCOTUS can do it. But the Republican Party has to bring the case.
[[The Republican Party has been libeled systematically and viciously by American journalism, and it must sue for damages in the billions of dollars]]
That is my basic point- hit them in the pocket books- all these ‘talk shows’ aren’t doing crap really- yes, they give another opinion, but are not effective in slowing down the left- at all- the only 2 thing that will stop the left are lawsuits, and boycotts- even passing laws agaisnt them will only slow them down until they are back in power- but start costing them billions, and all of a sudden they run for cover
THE REMEDY IS US!
In 2016 over 62 Million people voted for Donald Trump and the preservation of our republic. If just ONE IN FOUR would take the time to bring a new voter to our side by 2020 we would produce over 75 MILLION votes and the liberals would be in the dumpster for decades.
Wobbly independents, 17 year olds, agnostic citizens who don't think voting matters and spoiler libertarians - they are all out there ready to be talked to; ready to be educated; ready to be brought into the light.
But rather than get busy and recruit someone, my guess is that as close to activism as the majority of the people who put Donald Trump in office will get this time around is forwarding some email, or putting a cartoon on Facebook.
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.