Petulant Children of UC Berkeley

[marshallnoise]

Omg I about fell out of bed reading this
You ought to cut out this quote of yours and pin it to your forehead
You complaining others don't add anything to the debate when you're the fucking king of drive by commentators
Rofl

Irony is lost on BU. But you are 100% correct.

[BraveUlysses]

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/plan-a-protest-lose-your-house-arizona-senate-passes-sb-1142-charging-provocateurs-with-racketeering-9109154

The Arizona Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would allow the government to seize the property of people who help plan a demonstration that turns violent.

If the bill becomes law, prosecutors could charge people and seize assets for conspiracy to riot even if the so-called conspirators didn't participate in any violence.

As Phoenix New Times columnist Stephen Lemons wrote last week, the bill comes as a right-wing response to the violence and damage at recent protests in Washington, D.C., and on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.

"You now have a situation where you have full-time, almost professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder," Arizona State Senator John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, told the Arizona Capitol Times.

News of the bill's passage in the State Senate shocked many Democrats and others who have found a much-needed outlet in public protests and demonstrations since the election of Donald Trump.

(continued at link)

Overreaction continues.

[TimeMachinE30]

I agree, over reaction. Should just deal with agitators and violence mongers right then and there.

But, truth is, big money is behind these astroturf movements. The only language they speak, well, is money. Hit them where it counts; seize assests. We do it already for other crimes.

[BraveUlysses]

I agree, over reaction. Should just deal with agitators and violence mongers right then and there.

But, truth is, big money is behind these astroturf movements. The only language they speak, well, is money. Hit them where it counts; seize assests. We do it already for other crimes.

Even if you think there's "big money" behind these movements, this bill doesnt necessarily mean that the people who organize a peaceful protest have any influence or ability to stop people who show up to throw rocks and break shit.

[Massive Lee]

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...eering-9109154



Overreaction continues.

Actually, I love it. Next time that Trump organises a demonstration, people just have to crash it. As it will turn violent, Trump's asset will be confiscated and he will be put to jail. Great job on behalf of the Republicans against freedom of speech. Basically, for the past month, it has been their way, or no way.

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...eering-9109154



Overreaction continues.

So you are not for individual states rights?

Actually, I love it. Next time that Trump organises a demonstration, people just have to crash it. As it will turn violent, Trump's asset will be confiscated and he will be put to jail. Great job on behalf of the Republicans against freedom of speech. Basically, for the past month, it has been their way, or no way.

You are really showing what a light grasp you actually have on American politics.

[Massive Lee]

So you are not for individual states rights?




You are really showing what a light grasp you actually have on American politics.

What American politics? It's nothing more than a Gong Show. It is actually the most hilarious comedy on earth these days. It's only the beginning and t's getting better week after week. I'ts definitely a fantasy world where reality gets redefined on a daily basis by an orange carrot.

Now, medias that contradict Trump are no longer welcome at the White House press conferences... Trump just "fired" CNN, The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, The Daily Mail, BBC, Los Angeles Times et New York Daily News. Also, Associated Press and Times Magazine are now boycotting the White House' so-called "press conferences".

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/the-war-on-fake-news-is-all-about-censoring-real-news/

In October, President Obama complained that we need a “curating function” to deal with the “wild-wild-west-of-information flow.” Who would be doing this “curating” is unclear — but we can guess: “Obviously,” Noah Feldman writes at Bloomberg View, “it would be better if the market would fix the problem on its own . . . But if they can’t reliably do it — and that seems possible, since algorithms aren’t (yet) fact-checkers — there might be a need for the state to step in.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obamas-feud-with-fox-news/

...Tension between presidents and the press is as old as the Republic. FDR was so incensed by the war reporting of one New York Daily News correspondent he tried to present him with an Iron Cross from Nazi Germany. John Kennedy tried to get New York Timesman David Halberstam pulled out of Vietnam; and Vice-President Spiro Agnew's assaults on the network press is legendary...

...So why is the White House out to "de-legitimize" FOX? Not because it has opinions, but because its opinion voices are so hostile to Mr. Obama - and because FOX News is, as it has been for a decade, by far the most watched of the cable news networks. In fact, its ratings have increased 13 percent this summer. So if FOX is feeling any pain from the White House's stance, it's crying all the way to the bank...

Lee,

Please don't just attribute the attempts at control of the narrative to be a one sided issue. The sooner we ALL accept that both sides are playing regular people's emotions to elicit an action, the sooner we can have a resurgence of non-biased media that isn't in the pocket of profit, but in the endeavor of truth. We need to stop giving credit to either side reporting and only consume unbiased sources. (I know, we have few, if any at all.)

[Farbin Kaiber]

Oh, and...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1

Barack Obama's campaign has booted from its airplane three reporters who work for newspapers that have endorsed John McCain.

The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign, but the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board.

Eliminated from the plane's traveling press were the Washington Times, the New York Post and the Dallas Morning News.

"It feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth," said John Solomon, executive editor of the Washington Times.

"We paid all along to travel and cover Obama. This is a matter of basic fairness. We've committed a lot of resources and have been covering Obama since the beginning. By the campaign's own admission our reporter has done a fair job," he said.

"We've covered him since 2007 and paid our dues. By the numbers we've covered Obama longer and given more coverage to him than many of the other people who were given seats. Our readers are mostly from Virginia, an important battleground state. He's not punishing us, he is punishing them," Solomon said.

The Times is one of the most-read news Web sites in the country and has one of the highest circulations in Virginia, Solomon said. He said the paper would fly its reporters on its own to continue coverage.

In the final days of a campaign, it is not uncommon for journalists to be shuffled as multiple news agencies rush to get a coveted seat close to the candidate.

"Unfortunately, demand for seats on the plane during this final weekend has far exceeded supply, and because of logistical issues we made the decision not to add a second plane," said Obama campaign senior adviser Anita Dunn.

"This means we've had to make hard and unpleasant for all concerned decisions about limiting some news organizations and in some cases not being in a position to offer space to news organizations altogether," she said.

Glamour and Ebony Remain on Obama Plane

The Dallas Morning News, which has a daily circulation of about 300,000, acknowledged that it had not been covering the campaign as long as some other papers, but that it was discouraged to learn that magazines like Glamour had retained their seats.

"We're protesting it and we're not happy about it," said editor Bob Mong of the Dallas Morning News. "We're not in a swing state, but given our history of outstanding political reporting, we're upset, particularly when you see guys like Glamour on board."

Mong said he had no evidence that his reporter had been ejected given the paper's editorial decision. A Morning News reporter, he said, was ejected from the campaign plane of John McCain, Obama's Republican rival, earlier in the week, but had recently gotten it back.

The Obama campaign said the decision was not based on the way Obama had been covered and pointed out that both the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, which have been critical of Obama, had retained their seats.

The campaign said it needed to make room for the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, but reportedly Jet and Ebony magazines have seats as well.

Col Allan, the New York Post's editor in chief, said, "We are happy to be on the outside looking in. It's what makes The New York Post special. We are not in the news business to be liked."

Journalists have complained in the past that campaigns kicked them off the planes as retribution for their coverage.

In 2004, The New York Times said it was not given a seat on Air Force 2 when Vice President Dick Cheney was stumping with President Bush, because the vice president was displeased with the paper's coverage of him.

[z31maniac]

Lee is being an uninformed troll, per usual.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[Massive Lee]

Please don't just attribute the attempts at control of the narrative to be a one sided issue. The sooner we ALL accept that both sides are playing regular people's emotions to elicit an action, the sooner we can have a resurgence of non-biased media that isn't in the pocket of profit, but in the endeavor of truth. We need to stop giving credit to either side reporting and only consume unbiased sources. (I know, we have few, if any at all.)

Bla bla bla. Grump thinks that medias presenting facts that don't please him are necessarely biased medias, or fake news. So your arguments about unbiased medias have nothing to do in this case. Everything about this administration is a fraud... That dude is a joke.

[gwb72tii]

Bla bla bla. Grump thinks that medias presenting facts that don't please him are necessarely biased medias, or fake news. So your arguments about unbiased medias have nothing to do in this case. Everything about this administration is a fraud... That dude is a joke.

Yes and Trudeau is a communist blah, blah, blah

[TimeMachinE30]

Kaiber, gentle with the truth. Many will experience withdraw type symptoms if fed too much intel. Slow, baby steps.

[TimeMachinE30]

Even if you think there's "big money" behind these movements, this bill doesnt necessarily mean that the people who organize a peaceful protest have any influence or ability to stop people who show up to throw rocks and break shit.

Think? Follow he money trails. See if the Soros name comes up? Read.

The money goes to paid protesters, read: actors. Those actors are given roles. Heavy on emotion, violence and when confronted light on facts.

BLM movement? Baltimore riots for Freddie Gray? Charlotte, North Carolina protesters found to be primarily from out of state?

[BraveUlysses]

Think? Follow he money trails. See if the Soros name comes up? Read.

The money goes to paid protesters, read: actors. Those actors are given roles. Heavy on emotion, violence and when confronted light on facts.

BLM movement? Baltimore riots for Freddie Gray? Charlotte, North Carolina protesters found to be primarily from out of state?

Your unwavering belief in conspiracy theories is always good for a laugh.

So you are not for individual states rights?

what?