I guess the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment means nothing now. One hallmark of dictatorship is that you are not allowed to laugh at your leaders.
A Code Pink Protester Laughs Over a Trump Nominee and Is Convicted
1 Like
-
I’m not at all inclined to cede the factual accuracy or completeness of such an article at all.
-
Leftists have no business complaining about free speech, given how they repress speech themselves.
-
I’ve seen them in action. I’m pretty sure they were the ones repressing speech here. They shout people down to silence opposing views. It’s what they do.
Oh, and they lie like nobody’s business.
Code Pink. Give me a break.
I fucking hate politics these days. Both sides have gotten so ridiculous I can’t support either. If I say disagree with Trump I get shit on being called a libtard etc etc. If I disagree if with democrats or the left, I’m a hateful hypocritical Christian etc etc. I hate how it’s assumed I must take a side. I support gun rights and I think trump is a moron. Why can’t I side with individual issues anymore? Why are there so many people like @rowland that say BS like Leftist have no business complaining about free speech. Isn’t it a self refuting statement?
Everythings going to shit because everyones lost their fucking minds and are being unreasonable assholes.
It is what it is, they do what they do, and I won’t apologize for telling the truth.
Reality does not necessarily have a centrist bias.
But reality has a rowland is right bias. Got it.
Better that than a wrong bias.
Code Pink – anytime I’ve heard of them, they are about disruption. Even Obama had problems with them. He tried to deescalate and make it cool, but they’re so obnoxious, they still force themselves to be removed.
If Code Pink were at that hearing, they were there to garner attention to themselves. Not to enjoy the hearing and merely giggle. To not know the difference between a giggle and a paroxysm of disruptive guffaws is to not know the difference between a New York minute and an honest minute.
That’s a noble sentiment, but what you’ve told us is basically just that we should presume everything written in the NY Times is false (even when a video is included with the article), without actually making any case for your view.
Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, leftists refusing to acknowledge anything reported by the “alt-news”.
Ah, New York, New York. I hear some famous people live there. 
Not everything. But it’s the way to bet. Especially with all the SJW shibboleths in the article. The NYT is a rag by inherited wealth for inherited wealth. It’s all about useless scions assuring each other that they’re actually wonderful human beings. Overcompensating for rich liberal guilt. Evidence? Any given edition of the paper will do to prove my point.
Oh, and… you do know video can be deceptively edited, right?
Did you watch the video? It doesn’t have the Hollywood excitement of a Dr. Dao video, but it shows enough of the incident for a reasonable person (if there is such a thing) to think for oneself about whether or not the title of this thread is accurate.
The NYT actually does have someone come along every now and then to remind the readers that most of them are living in a bubble. Does Breitbart ever do that? (Just asking, not rhetoricizing.)
1 Like