^^^ Intersting and compelling, but I'd like to have heard his response.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
^^^ I just renewed mine. Wish I could have had that unique and historic feature!

Can you renew early? Maybe I will "lose" mine and get a replacement...

Can somebody please explain to me why anyone would agree that the federal government should threaten ABC with their license for letting that jackass Kimmel exercise his first amendment right?

I get pretty indignant when the left pulls this kind of shit to go after those they find distasteful, and I sure as hell don’t want a conservative led government doing the same.

That idiot has a right to speak his mind without government intrusion. The rest of us are free to judge him for it. We are free to judge his employer for allowing it, and we are free to say so or print it.

If your opinion is that the first amendment is wrong or should have limitations (other than the limitations that do apply; we all understand you can’t threaten someone’s life and hide behind the first to avoid prosecution), that is also your prerogative. But using the government to silence even the most vile offenders is wrong.

TDS is a mental disorder. These people have been spoon fed hatred of conservative values from birth, and they lack the character and maturity to question the rhetoric.

They believe everything fake news tells them. Trump (and those of us like him) are LITERALLY Hitler. Therefore, ANYTHING they do to oppose us is justified.

You cannot reason with mentally ill people. Just like the trans people who claim to be victims of ‘genocide’ - so they murder school children.

And the leftists in government and media PURPOSEFULLY agitate these people so that they will act on their delusions.

It almost worked when the would-be assassin missed murdering President Trump by a simple turn of his head.

Don’t try to ‘understand’ why mentally ill people do irrational stuff. There is no rational reason.

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
Can somebody please explain to me why anyone would agree that the federal government should threaten ABC with their license for letting that jackass Kimmel exercise his first amendment right?

FCC Regulation of Broadcast Media and the First Amendment


Portion of the opinion delivered by SCOTUS Justice Byron White in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969)

The broadcasters challenge the fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules on conventional First Amendment grounds, alleging that the rules abridge their freedom of speech and press. Their contention is that the First Amendment protects their desire to use their allotted frequencies continuously to broadcast whatever they choose and to exclude whomever they choose from ever using that frequency. No man may be prevented from saying or publishing what he thinks, or from refusing in his speech or other utterances to give equal weight to the views of his opponents. This right, they say, applies equally to broadcasters.

Although broadcasting is clearly a medium affected by a First Amendment interest, differences in the characteristics of new media justify differences in the First Amendment standards applied to them. . . . Where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. If 100 persons want broadcast licenses but there are only 10 frequencies to allocate, all of them may have the same "right" to a license; but if there is to be any effective communication by radio, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. It would be strange if the First Amendment, aimed at protecting and furthering communications, prevented the Government from making radio communication possible by requiring licenses to broadcast and by limiting the number of licenses so as not to overcrowd the spectrum.

This has been the consistent view of the Court. Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. No one has a First Amend- ment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech." By the same token, as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves. This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326 [of the Communications Act], which forbids FCC interference with "the right of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC...

I watched the dinner last night with King Charles. My first impression was that 'wow, he's old and crusty - looks like he's gonna keel over any minute now.' But, then he started his speech.

I was REALLY impressed. King Charles was hilarious. I had never seen the Queen so much as crack a smile - to hear the monarch joking about burning the White House in 1814 was just too much. I laughed my butt off at that.

THEN he presented President Trump the ship's bell from HMS Trump - a Brit submarine launched in 1944. That was the coolest thing I have EVER seen in any diplomatic setting.

quote:

I had never seen the Queen so much as crack a smile

If you mean Queen Elizabeth II then you weren’t looking very closely.

Temu Obama gets another free presser and guess what buddy, your team messed with the bull, now you're getting the horn.

Maybe spend a little more time on working for the country and not your pocketbook...

https://x.com/BreitbartNews/st.../2049564329108816311

Will this affect what those pukes did in VA?

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
^^^ I just renewed mine. Wish I could have had that unique and historic feature!

Can you renew early? Maybe I will "lose" mine and get a replacement...

Saw on a Newsmax show this morning that the Trump passport will only be available out of the DC area, disappointment for me.

quote:

Originally posted by 400m:
Can somebody please explain to me why anyone would agree that the federal government should threaten ABC with their license for letting that jackass Kimmel exercise his first amendment right?.

Kimmel works for the ABC network, an over-the-air broadcast entity that is heavily regulated by the FCC, by the government. One does not have the right to say anything the fuck they want on ABC, CBS, NBC, there are rules, regulations, codes of conducts, etc. If Kimmel was on CNN or MTV, he would have more freedom to lie, tell shitty disgusting jokes.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Temu Obama gets another free presser and guess what buddy, your team messed with the bull, now you're getting the horn.

Maybe spend a little more time on working for the country and not your pocketbook...

"Maximum warfare..." [Hakeem Jeffries]

And just like that…my argument is gone.
Thank you Para and oddball.

"TDS sufferers have a mental defect, whereby they believe conservatives (MAGA, Republicans, political conservatives, Christians, etc) are reprehensible people."

Kind of like being infidels

quote:

Originally posted by Hamden106:
"TDS sufferers have a mental defect, whereby they believe conservatives (MAGA, Republicans, political conservatives, Christians, etc) are reprehensible people."

Kind of like being infidels

Very good analogy

while the First amendment gives you the right of free speech and free expression, it DOES NOT shield you from the consequences of that speech

Kimmel is a reprehensible piece of filth that taunted an elegant lady with the impending death of her husband

in no way is that remotely funny, it was NOT a joke and he is going to have to put up with the results of his crude and tasteless rant

thats not the government saying he can't say it

The one guy I associate with who has full-blown TDS bases his entire political viewpoint on "green" perspectives. Not conservationism/preserving the environment for optimal human uses, which he discounts as unimportant, but the fake anti-humanist issues that pervade leftist talking points. He sees Trump as opposed to these points of view, and is therefor against anything Trump espouses. He is a very smart guy in his field, and most matters, but is unable to escape the circular "logic" that sustains such opinions. One cannot civilly discuss these issues with him as he is deaf to anything that might erode his stance, no matter how rational and obvious the argument. I have seen him shaking and sweating in anger when his views are challenged, especially when he cannot deny plain truth (of course, he does anyway). If it isn't an actual diagnosed mental disorder, it comes close enough to make no difference.

Not saying that everyone with TDS has the same origins for their affliction, this is merely a sample of one that I've been able to closely observe.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
while the First amendment gives you the right of free speech

It does no such thing.

Freedom of speech (like freedom of effective self-defense) is an inherent right of any free individual. The first amendment merely precludes the Govt. from abridging that right. A right that is inherent cannot be "granted" by the Constitution, or any other agreement of persons.

I am sure that most here understand the distinction, but a little more care in expression would be appreciated.