'Suffocating Pressure' - White House 'censorship'

[Attic]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Can you be more clear as to how this relates to the story in the OP and how you would structure White House communications differently?

Also, punished in what way?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[Thebobo]

The title should be changed or thread closed There was NO white house censorship.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

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.

 

[monovillage]

The White House and their sycophants say to conservatives that complain about political censorship.

Just lie back and enjoy it.

 

[DominionSeraph]

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.

Yet another conservatard who thinks that "free speech," means that anybody and everybody must publish your rants.

Jilani doesn't own ThinkProgress. He has no positive right to publish under their name or to use their resources.
If I call up the New York Times and tell them I want their front page headline to read, "The New York Times thinks DominionSeraph is the best," are they violating my free speech if they don't print that? No.
Stop being a dumbass and use your brain for once.

 

[boomerang]

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.

 

[ivwshane]

I especially like how the retarded right gets upset about a story they read and don't bother to fact check it or ask basic questions. I guess they don't want a disturbance in their bubble.

And by "suffocating" they mean that the news organization was threatened, either physically or coercively via other means. And since we have the owners statement on the matter we also know exactly what was said between the White House and them and the only thing that could have been said were threats, there are no other possibilities.
/s

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! Right?

Rage on!

 

[fskimospy]

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 basically you think it is perfectly fine to say that something is bad without any plausible action for how it could be different or really any standard for what is right or wrong.

This is the worst and silliest form of complaint; complaining for its own sake. I get why the OP does that, as he is addicted to rage against the opposite political tribe. You have tried to claim otherwise though.

 

[boomerang]

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!

So fill us in on the other half. With links please, no surmising.

 

[fskimospy]

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?

 

[monovillage]

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?

Kinda like how you liberal assholes were acting like George W. Bush was some horrible tyrant or just a puppet for Cheney?

 

[Greenman]

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.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

 

[boomerang]

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:

 

[ivwshane]

So fill us in on the other half. With links please, no surmising.

Sure if I come across some but unlike you I don't receive emails about the latest faux issue nor do I receive talking points, my spam filters work pretty well

But even if I don't have the otherside of the story it doesn't mean we shouldn't want it

 

[ivwshane]

Kinda like how you liberal assholes were acting like George W. Bush was some horrible tyrant or just a puppet for Cheney?

I don't recall anyone saying he was a tyrant, an idiot and a puppet? Yes.

 

[fskimospy]

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 he is a ruthless tyrant at home and suddenly loses that killer instinct abroad? Lol.

 

[Greenman]

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.

I never claimed he was a dictator, I don't think (I could be mistaken) that I ever claimed he'd done something wrong. I have stated that I disagree with some of his decisions, why is that such a difficult pill to swallow? I can disagree with someone and still respect their point of view, I can see the reasoning behind their position, and understand what brought them to that point. With that understanding I might still hold the belief that they're mistaken, but I can do that without thinking their stupid or brain damaged.

"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".
I don't believe I claimed that he was in error, but I do believe it should be looked at. The office of the president is a powerful one, abuse of that power is something to be concerned about. If a staffer called and asked that they lighten up a little that's one thing. If someone was told to back of or there would be repercussions, that's an entirely different matter.

 

[Greenman]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you quoted the wrong guy, I never said anything like that.

Maybe you quoted the wrong guy too.

 

[Fern]

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

 

[fskimospy]

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

So wait, you think he just doesn't care and that's why he doesn't play 'hardball' in foreign affairs?

This seems so out of touch with reality that it's scary. Maybe he is the same guy for both and you just project what you want on his actions. Doesn't that seem more likely?