DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:POTUS publicly pissing on the 1st Amendment. When do the 2nd, or 5th become annoying to them?

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:POTUS publicly pissing on the 1st Amendment. When do the 2nd, or 5th become annoying to them?

It never bothered you when it was Obama doing it.

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:POTUS publicly pissing on the 1st Amendment. When do the 2nd, or 5th become annoying to them?

It never bothered you when it was Obama doing it.

Grendel wrote:Hot air.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 180959406/

callmeslick wrote:

Grendel wrote:Hot air.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 180959406/

what, exactly, is your intellectual intent of posting a completely irrelevant article? I mean, that was around limiting a single newspaper from campaign access. Bannon is suggesting that the entire body of the press 'shut up' because 'we won the election'. The right of the Press not to be made or even pressured to 'shut up' at any point is so fundamental the founders placed it at the first position in the Bill of Rights. Are you ok with this, or just wishing to smokescreen the issue being discussed for some reason?

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shopping" until he found one willing to grant such a warrant without telling Rosen himself. Holder even told Google to not notify Rosen that the government was monitoring his email.

And it wasn't just Fox News. The New York Times's James Risen was targeted for almost the entirety of Obama's two terms. His crime? Reporting accurate information the Obama Administration didn't want reported. "

But there’s a third possibility, one that offers a unified, coherent explanation for some of the apparent contradictions in Trump’s foreign-policy views. Trump and some of his advisors (most notably Stephen Bannon) may be operating from a broad, Huntingtonian “clash of civilizations” framework that informs both their aversion to multiculturalism at home and their identification of friends and foes abroad. In this essentially cultural, borderline racialist worldview, the (mostly white) Judeo-Christian world is under siege from various “other” forces, especially Muslims. From this perspective, the ideal allies are not liberals who prize tolerance, diversity, and an open society, but rather hard-core blood-and-soil nationalists who like walls, borders, strong leaders, the suppression or marginalization of anyone who’s different (including atheists and gay people, of course) and the promotion of a narrow and fairly traditional set of cultural values.

For people who see the world this way, Putin is a natural ally. He declares Mother Russia to be the main defender of Christianity and he likes to stress the dangers from Islam. European leaders like Marine Le Pen of France, Nigel Farage of Great Britain, and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands are Trump’s kind of people, too, and on this dimension so are the right-wingers in the Israeli government. And if Islam is the real source of danger, and we are in the middle of a decades-long clash of civilizations, who cares about the balance of power in Asia?

The problem with this way of thinking, as I wrote back when The Clash of Civilizations first appeared, is that it rests on a fundamental misreading of world politics. “Civilizations” are not political entities; they do not have agency and do not in fact act. For good or ill, states still drive most of world politics, and clashes within Huntington’s various “civilizations” are still more frequent and intense than clashes between them. Moreover, seeing the future as a vast contest between abstract cultural groupings is a self-fulfilling prophecy: If we assume the adherents of different religions or cultural groups are our sworn enemies, we are likely to act in ways that will make that a reality.

Spidey wrote:Well that’s one persons spin on it, but I have always been under the impression that a “clash of civilizations” was really about incompatible ideas, and not groups per se.

callmeslick wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:POTUS publicly pissing on the 1st Amendment. When do the 2nd, or 5th become annoying to them?

It never bothered you when it was Obama doing it.

because he didn't. Nothing even remotely close to it. Anyone claiming otherwise is a freaking bald-faced liar. Yes, and if the shoe fits, wear it.

callmeslick wrote:things go from bad to batshit crazy. You all STILL OK? Or, you buy the reason the the Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs needs the free time more than to be on a core security committee??
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/ ... ds-Bannon?

now, as a rule I barely rate Kos much above Breitbart, but since this was confirmed by other reports, and the twitter feed essentially admits to the changes, and gives the reasoning, I went with this just to drop the picture of Bannon in his shorts. I'd laugh were this crap not so damned serious.

callmeslick wrote:things go from bad to batshit crazy. You all STILL OK? Or, you buy the reason the the Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs needs the free time more than to be on a core security committee??
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/ ... ds-Bannon?

now, as a rule I barely rate Kos much above Breitbart, but since this was confirmed by other reports, and the twitter feed essentially admits to the changes, and gives the reasoning, I went with this just to drop the picture of Bannon in his shorts. I'd laugh were this crap not so damned serious.