Amendment 1

[The emperor has no clothes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/17/the-conservative-ariz-republic-backed-clinton-and-got-death-threats-this-is-its-response/
Rather sad story in my opinion.

[mike72903]

It is sad indeed but I'm not surprised.  It's the result of emotional and intolerant thinking as taught by the conservative media and politicians.  They have reaped what they have sown.  A political party of hate. 

[Bighead]

 A political party of hate.  

Yes I hate someone trying to take away my freedoms as laid out in the constitution.
Yes I hate some wanting to take more from me and give to the free crap army.
Yes I hate where this country is headed.
Yes I hate that since I am white and working I am labeled a rascist,bigot and hater of all that don't agree with my views. Should I go on?

[Rams]

An interesting article.   There are a few extremist on both sides of this election.   Surely you wouldn't condemn all Trump supporter based on what a few may threaten?

We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party.]

Seems to me that "they" decided what they wanted and went with it, we are all responsible for our own decisions and actions.   While I don't support the threats of violence, I do support my right to spend my hard earned cash how, where and when I want.   I most surely would not be buying their paper any longer.   Further down in the article they allude to the alledged sexual advances of women by Trump.   And yet, don't say a word about WikiLeaks and Clintons shameful past.   Just a little non-neutral bias ya think?

She invoked Dennis, a different investigative reporter who first revealed the “despicable mistreatment of our veterans at the VA hospital.”
“Dennis knows that free speech is sometimes the only way to hold the powerful accountable,” Parrish wrote.
She named the wife of longtime publisher Gene Pulliam, Nina, who sat at the bedside of reporter Don Bolles after the car bomb, weeping at his hospital bed for 12 days before he died. “The Pulliams understood that free speech, and a free press, come at a cost,” Parrish wrote.

No doubt, free speech does have a price, with freedom comes responsibility and accountability.   That isn't' meant to suggest anyone should adhere to violence but, there is always the almighty dollar to influence a newspaper.   If enough folks don't like what they read, they'll read something else.   Eventually, that news paper editorial staff will be delivering another newspaper's work.    That's what happen when free Americans speak with their wallets.

She reminded readers that the young people who sell subscriptions door to door, who have been spit on and threatened, are trying to pay their way through school. They were too afraid to give Parrish their first names, for fear of retribution.

While I also would not support threatening or spitting on those who are selling subscriptions, I would have no issue telling these "young'ns" precisely how I felt about their employer and where they could put that paper.   Seems to me the staff didn't consider those folks when they made their decision.   Oh wait, they said up front they knew this would not sit well with their readers.   Oops.

We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party.
We chose patriotism over party.

Seriously, and they picked Clinton.    

Should we endorse no one, or, for the first time in history, go with the Democrat?

They are reaping the harvest of the seeds they have sown.    IMHO, they should report the news, not make it.   I really don't care who they endorsed, I don't like either candidate but, I can't stand Clinton.   A little neutral reporting without their opinions would have let folks make up their own minds without these repercussions.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Rams, this is one of the most consistently conservative newspapers in the country.

[Rams]

Rams, this is one of the most consistently conservative newspapers in the country.

It appears they've had a change of heart if, they can support Clinton.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Rams, this is one of the most consistently conservative newspapers in the country.

It appears they've had a change of heart if, they can support Clinton.

Or it's entirely possible they don't consider Trump a conservative. 

[Rams]

Rams, this is one of the most consistently conservative newspapers in the country.

It appears they've had a change of heart if, they can support Clinton.

Or it's entirely possible they don't consider Trump a conservative.  

Doesn't matter to me what they think, they should report the news and leave their opinions at home.
Doesn't matter to me if they supported Trump, they should still report the news, not put a spin on it, not mention the "alledged" Trump charges and leave out the Hillary scams, emails and cons.   

They deserve the financial hit they get.   

[DK]

An observation; the media is unable to rationally explain Trump's ever-changing positions so they have defaulted to the repetitious clips showing Trump personally stating whatever comes to his mind.

He is getting more than ample media coverage by far consisting of his actual words as delivered in person.

That is why he is losing the election.

The only logical conclusion is that he knows what he is doing and it is for a specific purpose. The man is crazy like a fox.

I think he intends to lose the election in a manner to enable launching a new conservative media outlet espousing the positions of the alt.right movement.

He is duping his followers.

[Rams]

I think he intends to lose the election in a manner to enable launching a new conservative media outlet espousing the positions of the alt.right movement. 

Seriously?   Well, if you're correct, you should be buying lottery tickets.

He is duping his followers.

I have no doubt there is kool aide available from both sides of the table.
Kind of like that horse that one can lead to water, you can't make it drink.  
There are willing followers on both sides.

[Moonshot_1]

It is sad indeed but I'm not surprised.  It's the result of emotional and intolerant thinking as taught by the conservative media and politicians.  They have reaped what they have sown.  A political party of hate. 

Well, this is the result of the emotional and intolerant thinking as taught by the liberal media and politicians. A political party of terrorism.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-trump-condemn-republican-party-office-firebombing-42859592


There is no excuse for the death threats. And there sure as Hell ain't no excuse for firebombing a political office.

But as to the paper endorsing Clinton. They knew they are/were a conservative paper with a conservative customer base. They knew endorsing Clinton would make their customers upset.

It isn't that they simply endorsed a well qualified, war hero, trustworthy, reputable, centrist  Democrat. They endorsed Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the most corrupt politician in US History.

[Rams]

It is sad indeed but I'm not surprised.  It's the result of emotional and intolerant thinking as taught by the conservative media and politicians.  They have reaped what they have sown.  A political party of hate. 

Well, this is the result of the emotional and intolerant thinking as taught by the liberal media and politicians. A political party of terrorism.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-trump-condemn-republican-party-office-firebombing-42859592


There is no excuse for the death threats. And there sure as Hell ain't no excuse for firebombing a political office.

But as to the paper endorsing Clinton. They knew they are/were a conservative paper with a conservative customer base. They knew endorsing Clinton would make their customers upset.

It isn't that they simply endorsed a well qualified, war hero, trustworthy, reputable, centrist  Democrat. They endorsed Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the most corrupt politician in US History.

Agreed.

A no endorsement sent a similar message but that didn't happen.   

[Tx Bohemian]

Doesn't matter to me what they think, they should report the news and leave their opinions at home.
 

I totally agree here!

One thing I never understood was why should I give a hoot who others endorse?!? Whether it be a newspaper, congressman, comedian, etc...
I mean, are there people out there that gullible and stupid to where they can't make up their own mind who they think is the best candidate?  Too "Gruber" to do their own research?

JEEZ!! If that's the case maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote!!

[Pete]

Flame suit on.
An intelligence test before voting? Please say you did not say it!
Dems will be  in a tither until you are silenced.

Next you will want citizen ids before voting.
Dems will be having breathing fits until you are x com mun i cated.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Doesn't matter to me what they think, they should report the news and leave their opinions at home.
 

I totally agree here!

One thing I never understood was why should I give a hoot who others endorse?!? Whether it be a newspaper, congressman, comedian, etc...
I mean, are there people out there that gullible and stupid to where they can't make up their own mind who they think is the best candidate?  Too "Gruber" to do their own research?

JEEZ!! If that's the case maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote!!

Newspapers have been making editorials and endorsements since before the founding of our country. I think that is probably a big reason why most people own them. I doubt an endorsement from anybody changes many votes. But it does provide them an avenue of expressing their opinions.

[..]

DNC emails reveal they paid for shills to disrupt Trump rallies etc etc

Some to cause physical confrontation so they could look as if they had been physically harmed.

No, you go find the emails. I'm not doing your work for you.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think you guys are missing the important part of the story. It's not so much that they endorsed someone, but that because of that reporters and kids selling subscriptions to the paper are receiving death threats, being spit on, and harassed. The newspaper delivery person has nothing to do with an endorsement , but yet some feel they should pay a price of violence.

[Skinhead]

I think you guys are missing the important part of the story. It's not so much that they endorsed someone, but that because of that reporters and kids selling subscriptions to the paper are receiving death threats, being spit on, and harassed. The newspaper delivery person has nothing to do with an endorsement , but yet some feel they should pay a price of violence.

I don't think we're missing anything.  People are reacting (poorly) to the way the media and the anti-Trumpers have been behaving.  Trump supporters being attacked, blatant media bias, and now a conservative icon endorsing the worst of the worst.  How many threats/spittings have occurred per trump supporter?  My GUESS is very few, and while one is too many, there is no accounting for rude behavior by either candidates supporters.

https://youtu.be/wLAY15lB4I4


(Dude kinda reminds me of Willow.....)

[Moonshot_1]

I think you guys are missing the important part of the story. It's not so much that they endorsed someone, but that because of that reporters and kids selling subscriptions to the paper are receiving death threats, being spit on, and harassed. The newspaper delivery person has nothing to do with an endorsement , but yet some feel they should pay a price of violence.

So you are saying that they went ahead and endorsed Clinton knowing full well that their customers would take out their frustration on their kids selling subscriptions? Why would they knowingly put their employees in the middle of all this?

That is the important part of the story.
That the paper set up their employees to take the brunt of their decision to support the most corrupt politician in US History.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think you guys are missing the important part of the story. It's not so much that they endorsed someone, but that because of that reporters and kids selling subscriptions to the paper are receiving death threats, being spit on, and harassed. The newspaper delivery person has nothing to do with an endorsement , but yet some feel they should pay a price of violence.

So you are saying that they went ahead and endorsed Clinton knowing full well that their customers would take out their frustration on their kids selling subscriptions? Why would they knowingly put their employees in the middle of all this?

That is the important part of the story.
That the paper set up their employees to take the brunt of their decision to support the most corrupt politician in US History.

Really ? That's your take on it ? An organization should conform their opinions and ideas to the least threatening aspect. I'm glad the newspapers of the 17th century didn't think like that. How about the customers who are dissatisfied cancel their subscription and quit threatening people and spitting on them. Geez, if it conforms to ones beliefs violence is ok ?

[Moonshot_1]

I think you guys are missing the important part of the story. It's not so much that they endorsed someone, but that because of that reporters and kids selling subscriptions to the paper are receiving death threats, being spit on, and harassed. The newspaper delivery person has nothing to do with an endorsement , but yet some feel they should pay a price of violence.

So you are saying that they went ahead and endorsed Clinton knowing full well that their customers would take out their frustration on their kids selling subscriptions? Why would they knowingly put their employees in the middle of all this?

That is the important part of the story.
That the paper set up their employees to take the brunt of their decision to support the most corrupt politician in US History.

Really ? That's your take on it ? An organization should conform their opinions and ideas to the least threatening aspect. I'm glad the newspapers of the 17th century didn't think like that. How about the customers who are dissatisfied cancel their subscription and quit threatening people and spitting on them. Geez, if it conforms to ones beliefs violence is ok ?

In this specific case, it is my take on it. This wasn't a organization that was purported to be liberal or unbiased. This is an organization that was traditionally conservative and created a following around that perspective and political view. They knowing went and supported a candidate that virtually all of their customer base would consider to be the absolute opposition to their views.

This isn't like your Mom telling you you are not her favorite, this is your Mom telling you she hates you and wants you to runaway and die. It is a profound slap in the face of their customers who felt like they could depend on their journalism.

And you are condemning most of their customers because a few go overboard.

Meanwhile we have the DNC paying people to go to Trump rallies and incite violence. Nothing to see here.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think you guys are missing the important part of the story. It's not so much that they endorsed someone, but that because of that reporters and kids selling subscriptions to the paper are receiving death threats, being spit on, and harassed. The newspaper delivery person has nothing to do with an endorsement , but yet some feel they should pay a price of violence.

So you are saying that they went ahead and endorsed Clinton knowing full well that their customers would take out their frustration on their kids selling subscriptions? Why would they knowingly put their employees in the middle of all this?

That is the important part of the story.
That the paper set up their employees to take the brunt of their decision to support the most corrupt politician in US History.

Really ? That's your take on it ? An organization should conform their opinions and ideas to the least threatening aspect. I'm glad the newspapers of the 17th century didn't think like that. How about the customers who are dissatisfied cancel their subscription and quit threatening people and spitting on them. Geez, if it conforms to ones beliefs violence is ok ?

In this specific case, it is my take on it. This wasn't a organization that was purported to be liberal or unbiased. This is an organization that was traditionally conservative and created a following around that perspective and political view. They knowing went and supported a candidate that virtually all of their customer base would consider to be the absolute opposition to their views.

This isn't like your Mom telling you you are not her favorite, this is your Mom telling you she hates you and wants you to runaway and die. It is a profound slap in the face of their customers who felt like they could depend on their journalism.

And you are condemning most of their customers because a few go overboard.

Meanwhile we have the DNC paying people to go to Trump rallies and incite violence. Nothing to see here.

I am not condemning any of their customers for not agreeing, ending their subscriptions, protesting, or any other form of non violent action. I AM CONDEMNING ANY DUMBASS THAT THINKS BECAUSE THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC DIDN'T ENDORSE TO THEIR LIKING THEY WOULD GO OUT AND COMMIT VIOLENCE ON REPORTERS, CARRIERS, WORKERS. If you can not understand that concept I'm not sure what else to say. 

[MP]

I think you guys are missing the important part of the story. It's not so much that they endorsed someone, but that because of that reporters and kids selling subscriptions to the paper are receiving death threats, being spit on, and harassed. The newspaper delivery person has nothing to do with an endorsement , but yet some feel they should pay a price of violence.

So you are saying that they went ahead and endorsed Clinton knowing full well that their customers would take out their frustration on their kids selling subscriptions? Why would they knowingly put their employees in the middle of all this?

That is the important part of the story.
That the paper set up their employees to take the brunt of their decision to support the most corrupt politician in US History.

Really ? That's your take on it ? An organization should conform their opinions and ideas to the least threatening aspect. I'm glad the newspapers of the 17th century didn't think like that. How about the customers who are dissatisfied cancel their subscription and quit threatening people and spitting on them. Geez, if it conforms to ones beliefs violence is ok ?

In this specific case, it is my take on it. This wasn't a organization that was purported to be liberal or unbiased. This is an organization that was traditionally conservative and created a following around that perspective and political view. They knowing went and supported a candidate that virtually all of their customer base would consider to be the absolute opposition to their views.

This isn't like your Mom telling you you are not her favorite, this is your Mom telling you she hates you and wants you to runaway and die. It is a profound slap in the face of their customers who felt like they could depend on their journalism.

And you are condemning most of their customers because a few go overboard.

Meanwhile we have the DNC paying people to go to Trump rallies and incite violence. Nothing to see here.

I am not condemning any of their customers for not agreeing, ending their subscriptions, protesting, or any other form of non violent action. I AM CONDEMNING ANY DUMBASS THAT THINKS BECAUSE THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC DIDN'T ENDORSE TO THEIR LIKING THEY WOULD GO OUT AND COMMIT VIOLENCE ON REPORTERS, CARRIERS, WORKERS. If you can not understand that concept I'm not sure what else to say. 

I agree 100%. Cancel subscription, etc.  No violence.  I really wonder what % did any of that though?

Would you not also agree that the DNC and Hillary hiring thugs, homeless, and mentally challenged people to go and incite violence, and shut down the Trump rally in Chicago, is also wrong?  And, this was not just "some people", this was direct from the DNC and the Hillary campaign.  Proven in the video tapes and emails.

[The emperor has no clothes]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

[The emperor has no clothes]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

I still haven't seen the video. But after checking, I see it is from that James O'Keefe dude. He has been caught doctoring and selectively editing his videos in the past. It's kind of hard to take someone like this seriously.

[baldo]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

I still haven't seen the video. But after checking, I see it is from that James O'Keefe dude. He has been caught doctoring and selectively editing his videos in the past. It's kind of hard to take someone like this seriously.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/12/james-okeefes-anti-clinton-october-surprise-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

[RP#62]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

I still haven't seen the video. But after checking, I see it is from that James O'Keefe dude. He has been caught doctoring and selectively editing his videos in the past. It's kind of hard to take someone like this seriously.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/12/james-okeefes-anti-clinton-october-surprise-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

Media matters is not exactly a source that can be taken seriously either. 

-RP

[baldo]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

I still haven't seen the video. But after checking, I see it is from that James O'Keefe dude. He has been caught doctoring and selectively editing his videos in the past. It's kind of hard to take someone like this seriously.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/12/james-okeefes-anti-clinton-october-surprise-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

Media matters is not exactly a source that can be taken seriously either. 

-RP

I know you fellas don't like it.....but the facts are the facts. His track record ain't the best, as is widely reported by other sources. Every time he tries to run a 'sting' it blows up in his face. He's quite a tool.

[RP#62]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

I still haven't seen the video. But after checking, I see it is from that James O'Keefe dude. He has been caught doctoring and selectively editing his videos in the past. It's kind of hard to take someone like this seriously.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/12/james-okeefes-anti-clinton-october-surprise-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

Media matters is not exactly a source that can be taken seriously either. 

-RP

I know you fellas don't like it.....but the facts are the facts. His track record ain't the best, as is widely reported by other sources. Every time he tries to run a 'sting' it blows up in his face. He's quite a tool.

I used to think that, but I've learned on this board that facts aren't facts if they were brought up by a source you don't like.

-RP

[baldo]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

I still haven't seen the video. But after checking, I see it is from that James O'Keefe dude. He has been caught doctoring and selectively editing his videos in the past. It's kind of hard to take someone like this seriously.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/12/james-okeefes-anti-clinton-october-surprise-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

Media matters is not exactly a source that can be taken seriously either. 

-RP

I know you fellas don't like it.....but the facts are the facts. His track record ain't the best, as is widely reported by other sources. Every time he tries to run a 'sting' it blows up in his face. He's quite a tool.

I used to think that, but I've learned on this board that facts aren't facts if they were brought up by a source you don't like.

-RP

I think the $100,000 fine he had to pay for his ACORN fiasco has a little sway, don't you?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/#374ff7db3a78

And this is just one of his embarrassments...

[..]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

I still haven't seen the video. But after checking, I see it is from that James O'Keefe dude. He has been caught doctoring and selectively editing his videos in the past. It's kind of hard to take someone like this seriously.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/12/james-okeefes-anti-clinton-october-surprise-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

Media matters is not exactly a source that can be taken seriously either.  

-RP

I know you fellas don't like it.....but the facts are the facts. His track record ain't the best, as is widely reported by other sources. Every time he tries to run a 'sting' it blows up in his face. He's quite a tool.

One can use the right "tool" for the job. Eh Baldo 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3850226/Democratic-strategist-steps-post-video-surfaced-purportedly-showing-hired-people-incite-violence-Trump-rallies.html

[baldo]

MP, I haven't seen the video. But if true, absolutely it's wrong.

I still haven't seen the video. But after checking, I see it is from that James O'Keefe dude. He has been caught doctoring and selectively editing his videos in the past. It's kind of hard to take someone like this seriously.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/12/james-okeefes-anti-clinton-october-surprise-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

Media matters is not exactly a source that can be taken seriously either.  

-RP

I know you fellas don't like it.....but the facts are the facts. His track record ain't the best, as is widely reported by other sources. Every time he tries to run a 'sting' it blows up in his face. He's quite a tool.

One can use the right "tool" for the job. Eh Baldo 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3850226/Democratic-strategist-steps-post-video-surfaced-purportedly-showing-hired-people-incite-violence-Trump-rallies.html

That usually gets the job done.....