TakeYouToTasker

Exactly my point.

I was addressing Tom's narrow argument that CNN has the First Amendment right to be in the briefing room. However the absurdist in me would I'd love to see liberals successfully arguing that corporations are people.

I'm not sure that they do. That would be an argument that all press outlets have the right to be in the briefing room. I would argue that their First Amendment protections are limited to the Government's lacking of the authority to silence them, or to prosecute them for publishing or disseminating. Being in the briefing room is a privilege. Exactly this. I'm pretty sure this was the Madlibs he was talking about. Also, golf is a sport.

LOL... Wut? We can't wait for the government to start a massive campaign that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of law abiding gun owners? Were you raised on a diet consisting of exclusively paint chips?

Extended the offer to participate in the ongoing discussions, and to enhance the quality of the board with a well reasoned liberal perspective; you've instead opted for racial slurs. Stupendous. Thank you for doing your face plant on a diving board.

Why can't we have nice things?

Acosta is asserting that he, individually, has the right to be in the White House press pool? On First Amendment grounds? That's insane. And the insanity doesn't even begin to touch on a Fifth Amendment concerns, which is even more laughable. He should be beaten with a length of rubber hose.

On what grounds?

I'm feeling welcoming and diplomatic today. If he's going to fall on his face, he's going to have to emphatically fling himself headlong at the ground for the whole world to see.

Can to elaborate on the both the "circle jerk" as well as the "facts"? The only thing that get chin checked here is stupid. Are you stupid, or are you going to stick around and have a discussion? I hope you aren't stupid, and that you choose to stick around, because this place need more intelligent, well reasoned, well articulated arguments for a liberal perspective.

... So you're now going to argue that the USSS and USMC don't take known assassination plots into consideration their Presidential protection protocols? Keep going... You're winning!!! You're screaming at a mirror, dopey. You are absolutely making my day. Edit: my assistant just knocked on my door and cocked her head at me with a grin on her face. She heard me laughing.

Didn't want to inconvenience the people of France, as the USSS said they'd have to shut down the city of Paris, and Sanders goes on to mention a 2 1/2 hour drive for which all other areas driven through would also need to be shut down. That's how Secret Service Presidential protection protocols work, as has been explained to you. The President and Sanders didn't say anything right away because they shouldn't have had to. People shouldn't be so dopey as to assume that the President would just hop in his Subaru and make the drive. They should understand the immense security measures that must be undertaken when transporting a President, especially on foreign soil. But here we are, with mud completely covering your face, even after shifting the goal posts multiple times. "Blah, blah, blah... nothing from Sanders or Trump, just you folks here on a Bills message board." Then Sanders and Trump verifying exactly what was said, and you: "Blah, blah, blah.. Trump is a liar." It should cause actual physical pain to be as terminally stupid as you're coming off right now. Does it hurt?

It's certainly not more supportable, unless you don't support the Constitution.

Words have meanings. You don't get to determine isolationism means something new because it better suits your argument, and the word isolationism carries negative connotations. Nothing being proposed is isolationism. Bringing American steel back into the fold was a national security issue. Withdrawing from multi-national treaties which don't work to the benefit of the United States is the job of a responsible Executive. The United States should not be party to any agreements which don't directly benefit us. Withdrawing from multi-national agreements is even more advantageous, because our law doesn't permit us to be party to agreements which are not ratified as treaties. We do need other countries, but they need us more; and the relationship between us should reflect that. Our relationship with Europe is past it's expiration date as written. They attempted to help rig our most recent Presidential election through their Five Eyes involvement, which is an explicit act of war; and shirk their financial responsibility own national defense and UN funding, pinning us with the bill while they spend their own dollars propping up failing welfare states and chastising us at every turn. As for free trade: free trade is a two way street. It is not beneficial for us to participate in free trade agreements with nations who are not reciprocating, because it puts us at a steep disadvantage. Free trade is the most desirable, but there is not benefit to it until other countries tariff structures are broken.

... You're unfathomably stupid.

You're giving him way too much credit. I remain unconvinced that he thinks anything at all.

LOL You can't even begin to communicate without either lying or being so insanely illiterate that it appears you're lying because you're unable to identify what words mean. I said you didn't know they welded manhole covers, I never said you said they didn't. Right here: Which you admitted to here: We got here because you're a moron, and no one is lying but you. Though I leave open the possibility that you're not a liar, but rather are so irretrievably stupid that you don't know how moronic you look right now claiming facts are lies. I can understand why someone to whom intellectual honesty and facts are like garlic to a vampire might consider being able to articulate an informed position sorcery, but I assure you I possess no powers of the occult. What appears to you to be magic is simply me knowing how to read and comprehend the English language, and not opining about things I don't have a firm understanding of. Arthur C. Clarke was a wise, wise man. I didn't think he was referencing basic literacy when he wrote his Third Law, yet here we are.

No, no... By all means, you should continue to argue that Presidential security protocols are exactly the same in DC as they are in foreign nations, and that the Secret Service and United States Marine Corps should have sanctioned the President of the United States traveling 100 miles via motorcade arranged at the last minute, without the benefit of securing the area, identifying threats, notifying local law enforcement, shutting down traffic for miles around and in advance of the motorcade, and everything else that goes into coordinating Presidential travel during a period in which active confirmed assassination plots had been discover targeting the event in question. That's what your arguing. And you're doing so from a base of knowledge so lacking that you didn't even know the Secret Service welds manhole covers shut days in advance. Scale that level of diligence upwards and think about aerial cover, multiple covered evacuation routes, eliminating and controlling sniper positions, controlling 100% of all traffic flow for the duration of the time the President is in transit, manned armed security checkpoints every few hundred feet, complete coordination with local military installations and law enforcement, completely restricted air travel, etc. And that is domestically. Now place that into France which is a sovereign nation where the United States doesn't control the security apparatus. Worst. Argument. Ever.

LOL yes. Please do. Please take pictures of the Secret Service preparing for Presidential travel to protect against assassination attempts. That's sure to not throw up any flags at all. Any more stupid things you'd like to say?

And you never stopped to think that Secret Service Presidential protection protocols might differ for Presidential travel in the DC area, where the Federal apparatus has complete control, and say, a 50 mile stretch of land in France. ***** retard.

For getting the President to a photo op? The Secret Service and United States Marines were going to do what, exactly? Conquer and hold a 50 mile long, 1-2 mile wide stretch of France through which they would drive the President? Do you have any idea what security looks like for moving the President by car through areas not previously secured by the Secret Service over a distance of 100 miles? Clearly not. So, once again, you're making the argument that the Secret Service and United States Marine Corps should have sanctioned the President of the United States traveling 100 miles via motorcade arranged at the last minute, without the benefit of securing the area, identifying threats, notifying local law enforcement, shutting down traffic for miles around and in advance of the motorcade, and everything else that goes into coordinating Presidential travel during a period in which active confirmed assassination plots had been discover targeting the event in question. And it's still a stupid argument.

General Kelly is not a world leader, and has vastly different Secret Service security protocols than those of POTUS. Other world leaders in attendance did not have to make a 100 mile round trip, had the benefit of being able to dictate to local law enforcement and military as EU members, and Macron as the Head of State in the country in question, and had their transport vetted and secured likely months in advance per whatever their nation's security protocols are. Your argument, at it's core, remains that the Secret Service and United States Marine Corps should have sanctioned the President of the United States traveling 100 miles via motorcade arranged at the last minute, without the benefit of securing the area, identifying threats, notifying local law enforcement, shutting down traffic for miles around and in advance of the motorcade in a foreign country where they have no authority to do so, and everything else that goes into coordinating Presidential travel during a period in which active confirmed assassination plots had been discovered targeting the event in question? That's the argument you've going with? That's a stupid argument to make.

The forcible disarming of the US population would result in the largest protracted act of gun violence against civilians in US history my many, many magnitudes.

If liberals were anything approaching consistent in their beliefs, the Right to Bear Arms would require the Federal government arm every single US citizen.