Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


there's been such a high turnover of middle management in the State Department and important posts unfilled, that the EU were left scratching their heads.

Who do we talk to? Was the cry from Europe.

Broadly speaking, we would like to know the same thing. It's not like we're getting any more out of Hucka-boo-boo than anyone's getting out of the gutted US state dept.


EDIT: Oh jeebus...this is whats being informing the decisionmaking of the President of the United States...

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/388972-fox-friends-host-kim-jong-un-probably-doesnt-love-being-the-guy-that-has-to

“I think he wants a picture with the American president,” Hegseth said on the show. “The sanctions are having massive effect there."

“And then I think there’s probably a point at which the guy who wants to meet with [former NBA star] Dennis Rodman and loves NBA basketball and loves Western pop culture. Probably doesn’t love being the guy that has to murder his people all day long,” Hegseth continued.


“[He] probably wants some normalization. Let’s give it to him if we can make the world safer," he concluded.

Again...I have no words.

While I'm all for talks and sincerely hope positive things result, the buttering up of Kim here is beyond nauseating, especially as its being done for domestic political reasons, and if someone with a D next to their name had put out a line like this, it would be treated as literal treason by these same people.

Is.... is Fox n Friends really trying to drum up sympathy for a murderous tyrant? Is that for real?

 feeder wrote:
Is.... is Fox n Friends really trying to drum up sympathy for a murderous tyrant? Is that for real?

You think that's bad, just wait until he might have to meet Assad

They have to switch the narrative in case anyone remembers their years of “Obama said he would meet with a murderous evil tyrant” coverage.

New NFL guidelines on players and the national anthem at games.

A sensible compromise has been reached.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/may/23/nfl-protest-national-anthem-new-rules-fine

I'll say what I always say on this issue

The Founders did not want blind obedience, and as a result, we got the 1st amendment, which IMO, is one of the greatest things that mankind ever put down on paper.

I respect the fact that a lot of Americans are proud of their flag and anthem, but to them I would say remember your roots: oaths of alligience to the Britiish Crown were a huge sticking point in the pre-revolutionary days.

American citizens burning their flag and not giving two hoots for the anthem as a political protest, is one of the most pro-American things an American can do.


And no, it's not a contradiction, because it taps into liberty and freedom, the right to free expression etc etc


which is the DNA of the USA. Even Justice Scalia baulked at making flag-burning illegal.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A sensible compromise has been reached.

Poe's Law in action.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
New NFL guidelines on players and the national anthem at games.

A sensible compromise has been reached.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/may/23/nfl-protest-national-anthem-new-rules-fine

I'll say what I always say on this issue

The Founders did not want blind obedience, and as a result, we got the 1st amendment, which IMO, is one of the greatest things that mankind ever put down on paper.

I respect the fact that a lot of Americans are proud of their flag and anthem, but to them I would say remember your roots: oaths of alligience to the Britiish Crown were a huge sticking point in the pre-revolutionary days.

American citizens burning their flag and not giving two hoots for the anthem as a political protest, is one of the most pro-American things an American can do.


And no, it's not a contradiction, because it taps into liberty and freedom, the right to free expression etc etc


which is the DNA of the USA. Even Justice Scalia baulked at making flag-burning illegal.

It's got nothing to do with free speech rights. The players are current employees of the team, fulfilling job duties in their place of business therefore their employer, the team ownership group, can dictate standards of behavior for their employees while they're on the job. I can be fired or disciplined for speech or actions at work that violate my employer's code of conduct. Now, simply because the team ownership groups have the ability to enact this policy doesn't make it good policy but it's not un-American or a violation of free speech rights.

Sanders: Being called a liar 'bothers me'

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it bothers her that people think she misleads the press.

Sanders told The New York Times that she tries to deliver the “best and most accurate information at the time that I can,” adding that she has a responsibility to be truthful and accurate in her role as chief White House spokeswoman.

“One of the few things you have are your integrity and reputation,” Sanders said. “There’s a difference between misspeaking or not knowing something than maliciously lying."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hold on, let me catch my breath...please dont tell me you were actually serious or expected *anyone* to buy this line...

Really?

Let me laugh harder

Had it been a preexisting policy that might be the case, but unilaterally changing the policy to restrict speech or action you previously allowed because of political pressure stinks of censorship.

Business changing policies because people are bitching because of the speech of employees is an American tradition.

My only issue in all this is when POTUS starts to demand a speech restriction from a business to employees. Then the line between government censorship and private speech becomes a bit more blurry.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Had it been a preexisting policy that might be the case, but unilaterally changing the policy to restrict speech or action you previously allowed because of political pressure stinks of censorship.

Private entities are entitled to censor their employees and dictate what product they produce. The NFL already has strict dress codes for game days which is perfectly fine because as the employer they can set uniform standards for their employees. Revising a policy that didn't exist previously because the issue it addresses didn't manifest until last year is a normal reaction. Do I have a right to express myself and lawfully protest an issue? Yes. Do I have a right to do that while on the job in my workplace without suffering any repercussions from my employer? No.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sanders: Being called a liar 'bothers me'

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it bothers her that people think she misleads the press.

Sanders told The New York Times that she tries to deliver the “best and most accurate information at the time that I can,” adding that she has a responsibility to be truthful and accurate in her role as chief White House spokeswoman.

“One of the few things you have are your integrity and reputation,” Sanders said. “There’s a difference between misspeaking or not knowing something than maliciously lying."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hold on, let me catch my breath...please dont tell me you were actually serious or expected *anyone* to buy this line...

Really?

Let me laugh harder

The worst is just shamelessness of it all. No ethics or morals whatsoever.

 d-usa wrote:
Business changing policies because people are bitching because of the speech of employees is an American tradition.

My only issue in all this is when POTUS starts to demand a speech restriction from a business to employees. Then the line between government censorship and private speech becomes a bit more blurry.

It was creating hysteria. It's such an easy fix. NFL make a policy and fire them if they don't follow it. It's not a free speech restriction.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
New NFL guidelines on players and the national anthem at games.

A sensible compromise has been reached.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/may/23/nfl-protest-national-anthem-new-rules-fine

I'll say what I always say on this issue

The Founders did not want blind obedience, and as a result, we got the 1st amendment, which IMO, is one of the greatest things that mankind ever put down on paper.

I respect the fact that a lot of Americans are proud of their flag and anthem, but to them I would say remember your roots: oaths of alligience to the Britiish Crown were a huge sticking point in the pre-revolutionary days.

American citizens burning their flag and not giving two hoots for the anthem as a political protest, is one of the most pro-American things an American can do.

And no, it's not a contradiction, because it taps into liberty and freedom, the right to free expression etc etc

which is the DNA of the USA. Even Justice Scalia baulked at making flag-burning illegal.

Technically no. The NFL is a private organization, and can make its members have to stand for the Anthem if it wants.

I think some of you are missing the point: it's not about the legality of the NFL's decision, it's about the spirit of it. What I think DINLT is saying is that people complaining about how protesting the flag/anthem is being unAmerican are, in fact, forgetting that being able to protest the flag and anthem is very American.

forgetting that being able to protest the flag and anthem is very American.

Exactly. You said it better than I ever could.

Conservative opposition? Conservative opposition?

Feth me, Americans seem to forget that it was the Conservatives who didn't want change, who wanted to stick with King George and who took up arms as Loyalists to defend that system.

The radicals were the John Adams, the John Jays, the George Washingtons of this world, who risked all to change the system and give these American Conservatives the right to moan about flag burning and 'disrespecting' the anthem.

If you had listened to that lot in 1776, there wouldn't be a USA.


Blind obedience was what King George III demand. The founders did not want that.

Freedom is in your DNA, your birthright, and that includes the freedom to burn the flag and stick 2 fingers up at the national anthem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Had it been a preexisting policy that might be the case, but unilaterally changing the policy to restrict speech or action you previously allowed because of political pressure stinks of censorship.

Private entities are entitled to censor their employees and dictate what product they produce. The NFL already has strict dress codes for game days which is perfectly fine because as the employer they can set uniform standards for their employees. Revising a policy that didn't exist previously because the issue it addresses didn't manifest until last year is a normal reaction. Do I have a right to express myself and lawfully protest an issue? Yes. Do I have a right to do that while on the job in my workplace without suffering any repercussions from my employer? No.

Yeah, but you don't lose your constitutional rights when you take up employment.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
New NFL guidelines on players and the national anthem at games.

A sensible compromise has been reached.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/may/23/nfl-protest-national-anthem-new-rules-fine

I'll say what I always say on this issue

The Founders did not want blind obedience, and as a result, we got the 1st amendment, which IMO, is one of the greatest things that mankind ever put down on paper.

I respect the fact that a lot of Americans are proud of their flag and anthem, but to them I would say remember your roots: oaths of alligience to the Britiish Crown were a huge sticking point in the pre-revolutionary days.

American citizens burning their flag and not giving two hoots for the anthem as a political protest, is one of the most pro-American things an American can do.


And no, it's not a contradiction, because it taps into liberty and freedom, the right to free expression etc etc


which is the DNA of the USA. Even Justice Scalia baulked at making flag-burning illegal.

It's got nothing to do with free speech rights. The players are current employees of the team, fulfilling job duties in their place of business therefore their employer, the team ownership group, can dictate standards of behavior for their employees while they're on the job. I can be fired or disciplined for speech or actions at work that violate my employer's code of conduct. Now, simply because the team ownership groups have the ability to enact this policy doesn't make it good policy but it's not un-American or a violation of free speech rights.

Thank God this policy was not on a college campus! Imagine the Free Speech violation that would have been! /S


***To be clear, I agree that employers have the right to restrict speech as the 1A is specifically for the Government and not private employers.

You don’t have a constitutional protection against your employer telling you what you cannot say on the job.

In many of the public cases, the employee also makes a choice to sign a contract limiting their speech and behavior.

Im not quite sure why, but I find this to be funny as feth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter/trump-may-not-block-twitter-users-over-political-views-judge-idUSKCN1IO2P2

For those who think Reuters is some kind of lefty Fake News[code]™ outlet, or the workblocked, or the TL'DR crowd:


Judges ruled today that el Cheeto cannot block users on Twitter because that is a violation of 1A rights. Really, no idea at all why this is so damn funny.

On the topic of free speech...

Judge rules Trump can't block users on Twitter

Was wondering what sort of interesting effects would follow from Spicer's declaration that Trump's twits were "official statements". Now its not Trump's personal outlet, he made them an aspect of his office and now a court has agreed.


Edit: ninjad by seconds...

 Vaktathi wrote:
On the topic of free speech...

Judge rules Trump can't block users on Twitter

Was wondering what sort of interesting effects would follow from Spicer's declaration that Trump's twits were "official statements". Now its not Trump's personal outlet, he made them an aspect of his office and now a court has agreed.


Edit: ninjad by seconds...

Lmao, I clicked your link to a 404

Fixed an errant character

 Vaktathi wrote:
On the topic of free speech...

Judge rules Trump can't block users on Twitter

Was wondering what sort of interesting effects would follow from Spicer's declaration that Trump's twits were "official statements". Now its not Trump's personal outlet, he made them an aspect of his office and now a court has agreed.


Edit: ninjad by seconds...

I don't like this precedent that claims twitter is public speech. You don't have to have twitter on your device and you don't have to follow Trump or anybody else if you do have twitter. It's not a public space it's a two way connection created by two mutually consenting parties to engage in communication. If you and I are both on twitter and you decide to follow me and I accept you then we are now engaged in what is essentially a conversation between the two of us, like a phone call or texting. How is it different from you walking into a room where you know I am and we engage in a conversation? If I am on the sidewalk of a public street I can speak and anyone who passes by will hear me, nobody has to download an app and opt in to listening to me. Twitter is a private company, their app is a product they created so how is the twitterverse public domain?

I don't think Trump should be able to delete tweets since he has proclaimed them to be officially presidential statements, making them subject to various records acts. However I don't think the very act of a public official using a platform magically transforms said platform into a public space and that's actually opening the door to a really difficult area. They're essentially taking from Twitter, a private platform, the right to administer themselves as they see fit by dint of specific users that happen to use the service.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
On the topic of free speech...

Judge rules Trump can't block users on Twitter

Was wondering what sort of interesting effects would follow from Spicer's declaration that Trump's twits were "official statements". Now its not Trump's personal outlet, he made them an aspect of his office and now a court has agreed.


Edit: ninjad by seconds...

I don't like this precedent that claims twitter is public speech. You don't have to have twitter on your device and you don't have to follow Trump or anybody else if you do have twitter. It's not a public space it's a two way connection created by two mutually consenting parties to engage in communication. If you and I are both on twitter and you decide to follow me and I accept you then we are now engaged in what is essentially a conversation between the two of us, like a phone call or texting. How is it different from you walking into a room where you know I am and we engage in a conversation? If I am on the sidewalk of a public street I can speak and anyone who passes by will hear me, nobody has to download an app and opt in to listening to me. Twitter is a private company, their app is a product they created so how is the twitterverse public domain?

Twitter is a private company, but Trump has explicitly called out his personal Twitter account as being official statements of office.

Essentially he went out of his way to make his personal unique account a public space, and as such, the judge ruled he cannot block people from expressing their opinions, especially as he is still free to simply ignore them.

If Trump stops in a McDonalds for a Quarter Pounder, is that McDonalds franchisee now obligated to let anyone on the property who might want to speak to them? What if Trump declares that McDonalds a public space? What right does he have to convert that area?

This concept steals from the autonomy of a private actor.

Definitely presidential records, though, by his own decree.

Can Trump order the USPS, UPS, FedEx from delivering mail from certain persons to the White House?

Can Trump block people be disagrees with from calling the White House? Can he order Verizon to block calls to the White House made on their service?

Can be order a newspaper to not publish letters to the editor if he disagrees with the author of the letter?

Prestor Jon wrote:


I don't like this precedent that claims twitter is public speech. You don't have to have twitter on your device and you don't have to follow Trump or anybody else if you do have twitter. It's not a public space it's a two way connection created by two mutually consenting parties to engage in communication.

It essentially is a public space at least in the sense that whatever you through on there isn't even remotely private. I don't have to follow, know you, or agree to anything to know what you said there.

How is it different from you walking into a room where you know I am and we engage in a conversation?

Is the room lacking walls, surrounded by live stream cameras, and lined by a horde of people who aren't you and me watching and listening to everything?

Is it still constitutional to slide into his DMs?

 d-usa wrote:
Is it still constitutional to slide into his DMs?

The right to send unsolicited dick pics.... shall not be infringed.