Trump Blames Freedom of the Press for Bombings

[nikcers]

I didn't mention Hitler, just Germany, so that law was not invoked.

Secondly, ISIS is at war with us. They claim they are at war with us and they are actively bombing and terrorizing us here at home. Obviously they won't be able to take over our country, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from the casualties.

we control the propaganda that ISIS puts out- those magazines are created by the deep state, our tax dollars.

 

[nikcers]

This is about Cold war 2, not ISIS. I will not give up my free speech over Russia. I would rather die in a nuclear pile of green goo.

 

[PierzStyx]

I'm sorry but I don't believe the first amendment was written to protect violent groups actively engaged in violence and combat..

So then you don't believe in free speech or the inalienable rights of each individual to say what they think, believe, and wish to do? You want limits on those ideas you think too "dangerous" for consumption?

If the freedom of speech doesn't protect the speech of those you oppose then you do not have free speech at all. You have governmentally approved speech. Congratulations. You agree with Hillary Clinton.

The real silly part is that for you to say this and believe it you can only do so by ignoring the traitors, rebels, and terrorists who wrote the thing in the first place. The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights belongs to violent anti-government groups that actively engaged in violent rebellion against their lawful government and killed those who opposed them. They tortured people publicly, or do you think having your body covered in molten tar was a nice experience? They openly called for violence against government representatives and violence against the government itself.

Indeed, the First Amendment was specifically written to protect violent groups actively engaged in violence and combat because it was written by those who had done just that.

 

[PierzStyx]

So, you think this is a bad thing? Trump is absolutely right and to not do so is fricking suicidal.

To do so is fricking suicidal. That you think this is okay makes you a bigger danger to my life and liberty than ISIS every has been. Indeed, given that you want to use the government to violently abuse millions of people, killing those who oppose you and forcing the rest to think and live like you, like "an American" makes you no better than ISIS, (mod edit). Your religion you are killing for is the same as theirs- the State.

 

[PierzStyx]

You responded to me saying that we should stop funding ISIS and leave the Middle East and stop attacking countries there with you saying the exact same thing. You aren't teaching me anything, you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say here. If it's a choice between continuing funding ISIS and going to war with Syria and all these other countries which will continue to embolden ISIS, and doing what TRUMP says and stop attacking these countries and just take out ISIS, I would choose stop attacking all these Middle Eastern countries and take out ISIS. Does that make sense? I know you want to believe that Trump won't do what he says, and I dunno whether to believe him or not either - but once again our other option is 100% more of the same..

I don't know what Donald Trump is going to do, he's not incredibly consistent with his statements, but he has said many times that our foreign policy is too aggressive and we should think hard before we go to war. Whether he means it or not, I dunno, but that is better than the alternative of more of the same.

Trump is 100% the same. Actually read teh article. He just wants to go after Iran instead of Syria.

 

[LibertyEagle]

To do so is fricking suicidal. That you think this is okay makes you a bigger danger to my life and liberty than ISIS every has been. Indeed, given that you want to use the government to violently abuse millions of people, killing those who oppose you and forcing the rest to think and live like you, like "an American" makes you no better than ISIS, (mod edit). Your religion you are killing for is the same as theirs- the State.

What in hell are you talking about? What I quoted was about immigration standards. We have every right to determine who enters our country and is offered citizenship. To offer this to people who want to live under a different form of government than we have here is downright stupid. I fail to see how that has one thing to do with killing anyone.

 

[donnay]

Trump is 100% the same. Actually read teh article. He just wants to go after Iran instead of Syria.

Yeah well that is what doesn't make any sense. If we are to believe the media, Trump loves Putin. Putin is an ally of Iran. Hillary said she would definitely go after Iran and disarm them. So which is the truth? We need to use a little discernment here, folks.

Flashback:

Hillary Clinton Threatens War with Iran, ‘They’ll Be Celebrating in the Kremlin’ if Trump Wins
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...-be-celebrating-in-the-kremlin-if-trump-wins/

 

[LibertyEagle]

So then you don't believe in free speech or the inalienable rights of each individual to say what they think, believe, and wish to do? You want limits on those ideas you think too "dangerous" for consumption?

If the freedom of speech doesn't protect the speech of those you oppose then you do not have free speech at all. You have governmentally approved speech. Congratulations. You agree with Hillary Clinton.

The real silly part is that for you to say this and believe it you can only do so by ignoring the traitors, rebels, and terrorists who wrote the thing in the first place. The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights belongs to violent anti-government groups that actively engaged in violent rebellion against their lawful government and killed those who opposed them. They tortured people publicly, or do you think having your body covered in molten tar was a nice experience? They openly called for violence against government representatives and violence against the government itself.

Indeed, the First Amendment was specifically written to protect violent groups actively engaged in violence and combat because it was written by those who had done just that.

This is an interesting topic. Maybe a new thread should be started to discuss the 1st Amendment and what our Founders were trying to defend against. Since you raised it here, I started looking, because I remembered the old adage that free speech didn't mean you could yell FIRE in a crowded theater. I thought this was interesting, in that it described the first amendment's underlying goal was to protect speech that was against our government and its officials. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

 

[LibertyEagle]

We absolutely know Trump would be more of the same- worse than what we have now in fact.

"Few of the policies he mentioned were significantly different from the antiterrorism strategy now being pursued. For example, Mr. Trump said he would join with allies in the Middle East to “aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.” The Pentagon is already pursuing all those approaches.

Pierz, the U.S. government is not trying to take out ISIS. They never have. Their sole goal of being in Syria is to overthrow Assad. In fact, our government loves Al Qaeda and ISIS, to the extent that they will do their dirty work for them. Which is why the U.S. government has been running guns and other supplies to them for quite a long time. I'm sure you remember that Hillary was running guns to the Syrian rebels from the CIA Outpost in Libya. Our government is helping them out in the open now.

 

[robert68]

· The chance of being murdered by a non-terrorist is one in 14,275 a year compared to one in 3,609,709 a year for all foreign-born terrorist attacks.

· The chance of being murdered on U.S. soil by any terrorist, native or foreigner, was one in 3.2 million a year.

· The chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, committed by a foreigner after 9/11 was one in 177.1 million a year.

· For every successful foreign-born terrorist who actually killed somebody on U.S. soil in an attack, over 28 million foreigners entered the United States.

· 9/11 is a tremendous outlier in terms of deadliness – about an order of magnitude deadlier than the second-deadliest terror attack in world history.

· Excluding 9/11 from this analysis helps us understand what most terrorist attacks in the past and the future are going to be like. Doing that reveals that 91 percent of the deaths caused by all terrorists on U.S. soil, native or foreign-born, were committed by natives or those with unknown nationalities (usually because their identities were never uncovered) while 9 percent were committed by foreigners.

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-terrorism


"Fear of Terror Makes People Stupid"

 

[dannno]

So then you don't believe in free speech or the inalienable rights of each individual to say what they think, believe, and wish to do? You want limits on those ideas you think too "dangerous" for consumption?

Actually I never said that. Peaceful people can say whatever they want. But if they are actively engaged in violence and combat against peaceful people, then you don't use the first amendment to protect them..

 

[Ender]

So then you don't believe in free speech or the inalienable rights of each individual to say what they think, believe, and wish to do? You want limits on those ideas you think too "dangerous" for consumption?

If the freedom of speech doesn't protect the speech of those you oppose then you do not have free speech at all. You have governmentally approved speech. Congratulations. You agree with Hillary Clinton.

The real silly part is that for you to say this and believe it you can only do so by ignoring the traitors, rebels, and terrorists who wrote the thing in the first place. The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights belongs to violent anti-government groups that actively engaged in violent rebellion against their lawful government and killed those who opposed them. They tortured people publicly, or do you think having your body covered in molten tar was a nice experience? They openly called for violence against government representatives and violence against the government itself.

Indeed, the First Amendment was specifically written to protect violent groups actively engaged in violence and combat because it was written by those who had done just that.

Yep-and another Jefferson quote- been doing a few of these lately:

Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[dannno]

Yep-and another Jefferson quote- been doing a few of these lately:

Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Thomas Jefferson

This isn't about the freedom of the press. The media is saying it is about freedom of the press. Donald Trump says he believes in the freedom of the press, and this issue has nothing to do with that - and in fact it doesn't.

 

[Ender]

This isn't about the freedom of the press. The media is saying it is about freedom of the press. Donald Trump says he believes in the freedom of the press, and this issue has nothing to do with that - and in fact it doesn't.

And it has to do with................?

Waiting................

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump interview in question, about the 21:00 mark:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVFebjbs4jA

Sounds like Trump was complaining about all types of media talking about how to make the bombs used. That would include CNN, Fox, etc. Then he specifies magazines that have the details. He wants to arrest people giving out instructions. "Arrest them all! ... They are inciting violence! ... Yet we don't want to touch them because of freedom of speech".

Trump is wrong. Freedom of speech is not the issue at all. He convoluted that with "inciting violence". Inciting violence, calling for the (mass) murder of people is already illegal. No changes to freedom of the press or freedom of speech are required. You can not eradicate knowledge. Even attempting it would be futile, and the loss of liberty and destruction of society in a "knowledge inquisition" is insane.

Trump's logic would dictate that gun manufacturers are responsible for all gun murders because they "made it possible".

Now a person may question the wisdom of the media for what they show, but limiting them is not even suggested. For instance, every time one of these lone gunman wackos goes on a spree, they show the body-count (score) non-stop on all of the major media outlets. These idiots and copy-cats always refer at some point to the counts of the ones before them. Perhaps the media should not emphasize the counts like it's a damn sporting event? Should there be a law? No, but they should be shamed about it.

 

[twomp]

So you oppose taking out ISIS?

I oppose bombing people in other countries without a declaration of war. Why do you hate our constitution so much? Oh yeah, Trump supporter. It figures. Oh wait, let me guess, you aren't a trump supporter you just defend him all day long every day.

 

[dannno]

I oppose bombing people in other countries without a declaration of war. Why do you hate our constitution so much? Oh yeah, Trump supporter. It figures. Oh wait, let me guess, you aren't a trump supporter you just defend him all day long every day.

Like I said, I don't support Trump, I don't support taking out ISIS unless it is done through private funding. I was merely asking the OP a question to get a dialogue going. I support withdrawing from the middle east and stop giving support to ISIS. However, if I had to choose between Hillary and Trump, Trump provides a FAR better option that is a lot more Constitutional than global government Hillary. At least in rhetoric, we don't know what he is going to do - but the main point is that the media is lying about Trump again and that is what you sadly fail to recognize.

 

[JK/SEA]

To do so is fricking suicidal. That you think this is okay makes you a bigger danger to my life and liberty than ISIS every has been. Indeed, given that you want to use the government to violently abuse millions of people, killing those who oppose you and forcing the rest to think and live like you, like "an American" makes you no better than ISIS, you terrorist prick. Your religion you are killing for is the same as theirs- the State.

TOS VIOLATION

INSULTING A BOARD MEMBER.

REPORTED.

 

[Origanalist]

TOS VIOLATION

ATTEMPTING TO INCITE A RETALIATION.

REPORTED.

 

[twomp]

Like I said, I don't support Trump, I don't support taking out ISIS unless it is done through private funding. I was merely asking the OP a question to get a dialogue going. I support withdrawing from the middle east and stop giving support to ISIS. However, if I had to choose between Hillary and Trump, Trump provides a FAR better option that is a lot more Constitutional than global government Hillary. At least in rhetoric, we don't know what he is going to do - but the main point is that the media is lying about Trump again and that is what you sadly fail to recognize.

I am the OP and that was my answer to your loaded question. The first amendment guarantees free speech and it can't just be pushed aside because you and Trump are scared of ISIS.