Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

IN FEBRUARY, after Donald Trump tweeted that the U.S. media were the “enemy of the people,” the targets of his insult exploded with indignation, devoting wall-to-wall media coverage to what they depicted as a grave assault on press freedoms more befitting of a tyranny. By stark and disturbing contrast, the media reaction yesterday was far more muted, even welcoming, when Trump’s CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, actually and explicitly vowed to target freedoms of speech and press in a blistering, threatening speech he delivered to the D.C. think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.

What made Pompeo’s overt threats of repression so palatable to many was that they were not directed at CNN, the New York Times or other beloved-in-D.C. outlets, but rather at WikiLeaks, more marginalized publishers of information, and various leakers and whistleblowers, including Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.

Trump’s CIA Director stood up in public and explicitly threatened to target free speech rights and press freedoms, and it was almost impossible to find even a single U.S. mainstream journalist expressing objections or alarm, because the targets Pompeo chose in this instance are ones they dislike – much the way that many are willing to overlook or even sanction free speech repression if the targeted ideas or speakers are sufficiently unpopular...................................

This is all independent of the fact that Pompeo’s boss, President Trump, just hosted at the White House and lavished praise on one of the world’s most repressive tyrants (and closest allies of the U.S. Government), Egyptian leader Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. And the government of which Pompeo is a part sends arms, money and all kinds of other support to dictators across the planet.

So how could Mike Pompeo – fresh off embracing and honoring Saudi tyrants, standing in a building funded by the world’s most repressive regimes, headed by an agency that for decades supported despots and death squads – possibly maintain a straight face as he accuses others of “making common cause with dictators”? How does this oozing, glaring, obvious act of projection not immediately trigger fits of scornful laughter from U.S. journalists and policy makers?

Pompeo in Riyadh with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Prince Muhammed bin Nayef Photo: ABNAThe reason is because this is a central and long-standing propaganda tactic of the U.S. Government, aided by a media that largely ignores it. They predicate their foreign policy and projection of power on hugging, supporting and propping up the world’s worst tyrants, all while heralding themselves as defenders of freedom and democracy and castigating their enemies as the real supporters of dictators.
Try to find mainstream media accounts in the U.S. of Pompeo’s trip to Riyadh and bestowing a top CIA honor on a Saudi despot. It’s easy to find accounts of this episode in international outlets, but very difficult to find ones from CNN or the Washington Post. Or try to find instances where mainstream media figures point out what should be the unbearable irony of listening to the same U.S. Government officials accuse others of supporting dictators while nobody does more to prop up tyrants than themselves.

This is the dictatorship-embracing reality of the U.S. Government that remains largely hidden from its population. That’s why Donald Trump’s CIA Director – of all people – can stand in a dictator-funded think tank in the middle of Washington, having just recovered from his jet lag in flying to pay homage to Saudi tyrants, and vilify WikiLeaks and “its ilk” of “making common cause with dictators” – all without the U.S. media taking note of the intense inanity of it.

kalm wrote:

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.

- Hugo Black

IN FEBRUARY, after Donald Trump tweeted that the U.S. media were the “enemy of the people,” the targets of his insult exploded with indignation, devoting wall-to-wall media coverage to what they depicted as a grave assault on press freedoms more befitting of a tyranny. By stark and disturbing contrast, the media reaction yesterday was far more muted, even welcoming, when Trump’s CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, actually and explicitly vowed to target freedoms of speech and press in a blistering, threatening speech he delivered to the D.C. think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.

What made Pompeo’s overt threats of repression so palatable to many was that they were not directed at CNN, the New York Times or other beloved-in-D.C. outlets, but rather at WikiLeaks, more marginalized publishers of information, and various leakers and whistleblowers, including Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.

Trump’s CIA Director stood up in public and explicitly threatened to target free speech rights and press freedoms, and it was almost impossible to find even a single U.S. mainstream journalist expressing objections or alarm, because the targets Pompeo chose in this instance are ones they dislike – much the way that many are willing to overlook or even sanction free speech repression if the targeted ideas or speakers are sufficiently unpopular...................................

This is all independent of the fact that Pompeo’s boss, President Trump, just hosted at the White House and lavished praise on one of the world’s most repressive tyrants (and closest allies of the U.S. Government), Egyptian leader Abdel Fatah al-Sissi. And the government of which Pompeo is a part sends arms, money and all kinds of other support to dictators across the planet.

So how could Mike Pompeo – fresh off embracing and honoring Saudi tyrants, standing in a building funded by the world’s most repressive regimes, headed by an agency that for decades supported despots and death squads – possibly maintain a straight face as he accuses others of “making common cause with dictators”? How does this oozing, glaring, obvious act of projection not immediately trigger fits of scornful laughter from U.S. journalists and policy makers?

Pompeo in Riyadh with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Prince Muhammed bin Nayef Photo: ABNAThe reason is because this is a central and long-standing propaganda tactic of the U.S. Government, aided by a media that largely ignores it. They predicate their foreign policy and projection of power on hugging, supporting and propping up the world’s worst tyrants, all while heralding themselves as defenders of freedom and democracy and castigating their enemies as the real supporters of dictators.
Try to find mainstream media accounts in the U.S. of Pompeo’s trip to Riyadh and bestowing a top CIA honor on a Saudi despot. It’s easy to find accounts of this episode in international outlets, but very difficult to find ones from CNN or the Washington Post. Or try to find instances where mainstream media figures point out what should be the unbearable irony of listening to the same U.S. Government officials accuse others of supporting dictators while nobody does more to prop up tyrants than themselves.

This is the dictatorship-embracing reality of the U.S. Government that remains largely hidden from its population. That’s why Donald Trump’s CIA Director – of all people – can stand in a dictator-funded think tank in the middle of Washington, having just recovered from his jet lag in flying to pay homage to Saudi tyrants, and vilify WikiLeaks and “its ilk” of “making common cause with dictators” – all without the U.S. media taking note of the intense inanity of it.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/tru ... -freedoms/

cx500d wrote:There's a difference between informing the public and just being a nuisance and general all around gadfly because they don't like the new leadership.

kalm wrote:

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.

- Hugo Black


https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/tru ... -freedoms/

cx500d wrote:There's a difference between informing the public and just being a nuisance and general all around gadfly because they don't like the new leadership.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I think we might want to reconsider what the intent of that amendment was.........you know...........back then before cell phones and the internet. Let's bastardize the 1st the same way politicians do the 2nd amendment!


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Why? I don't have to since I am a well regulated militia.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Vidav wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Why? I don't have to since I am a well regulated militia.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Well armed, no doubt, but well regulated?

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I think we might want to reconsider what the intent of that amendment was.........you know...........back then before cell phones and the internet. Let's bastardize the 1st the same way politicians do the 2nd amendment!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Vidav wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Why? I don't have to since I am a well regulated militia.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Well armed, no doubt, but well regulated?

houndawg wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I think we might want to reconsider what the intent of that amendment was.........you know...........back then before cell phones and the internet. Let's bastardize the 1st the same way politicians do the 2nd amendment!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

We haven't needed the 2nd amendment since we decided to embrace having a standing Army.

kalm wrote:

Vidav wrote:
Well armed, no doubt, but well regulated?

He's about as well regulated as my bowels.

Why do you hate original intent, Alpha?

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

houndawg wrote:


We haven't needed the 2nd amendment since we decided to embrace having a standing Army.

That's just stupid, we need the second amendment everyday. The founders wanted us to overthrow the government every 20 years or so! Man you are reaching.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Vidav wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Why? I don't have to since I am a well regulated militia.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Well armed, no doubt, but well regulated?

cx500d wrote:There's a difference between informing the public and just being a nuisance and general all around gadfly because they don't like the new leadership.

kalm wrote:

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.

- Hugo Black


https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/tru ... -freedoms/

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

houndawg wrote:


We haven't needed the 2nd amendment since we decided to embrace having a standing Army.

That's just stupid, we need the second amendment everyday. The founders wanted us to overthrow the government every 20 years or so! Man you are reaching.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion,

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

“Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions.”

kalm wrote:
Jefferson did talk about changing original intent every 20 years or so...

Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another,

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.

Ibanez wrote:

cx500d wrote:There's a difference between informing the public and just being a nuisance and general all around gadfly because they don't like the new leadership.

You're correct, there is a difference...but it's still protected.

Personally, I think it's un-American to silence dissent. That is one thing that makes America great. You can have such a polarizing, illogical, hateful, ignorant message but b/c we value (supposedly) freedom of speech so much, we won't ban it.

Ibanez wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: That's just stupid, we need the second amendment everyday. The founders wanted us to overthrow the government every 20 years or so! Man you are reaching.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

How many times has this been disproven?

Thomas Jefferson never said that. No founding father said that. Jefferson said,

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion,

You're missing the context of that quote.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Jefferson is talking about Shay's Rebellion. He thought the parties should be punished but not harshly. He also thought that Shay's Rebellion would have a drastic impact on the Constitution ( as it was in DRAFT from at the time of this letter in 1787. He thought it would make it less liberal). He thought Shay and his followers patriotic for standing up to what they perceived as wrong...but he thought them ignorant for not knowing all the facts and details.

Jefferson also thought our system of government would make a violent overthrow unnecessary.

“Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions.”

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: How many times has this been disproven?

Thomas Jefferson never said that. No founding father said that. Jefferson said, You're missing the context of that quote.



Jefferson is talking about Shay's Rebellion. He thought the parties should be punished but not harshly. He also thought that Shay's Rebellion would have a drastic impact on the Constitution ( as it was in DRAFT from at the time of this letter in 1787. He thought it would make it less liberal). He thought Shay and his followers patriotic for standing up to what they perceived as wrong...but he thought them ignorant for not knowing all the facts and details.

Jefferson also thought our system of government would make a violent overthrow unnecessary.

You are reading it wrong

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:So I'm right. Thanks for the confirmation.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Vidav wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Why? I don't have to since I am a well regulated militia.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Well armed, no doubt, but well regulated?