Freedom of speech

Have I posted this before? Seems quite apt.

And as I told you, I didn't ask you 'for a link'. Do try to get your facts right, you are sounding very confused.

I was quoting from the previous link, as I told you.

We do have to be so careful these days, don't we?

durhamjen, if your sarky jibe about links was aimed at me, I certainly did not ask for a link. I asked you who you were quoting in one of your miraculously link-free posts.

OH I see, the fact of committing perjury and obstructing the course of justice is alright so long as its during a second term of office. Thats ok then!!!!! Selective, but ok!!!

It will be interesting to see whether the US system imposes sufficient checks on the actions of the President to limit his power to do what he says.

I freely admit that I am not an expert on the US Constitution but its legal system has been robust enough to bring banks accused of offences to book where other systems had not acted. It also took action against certain members of FIFA when other countries did not.

I am not a fan of Trump but I wonder how the loudest critics will react if they find themselves in an ever-closer union with Marine Le Pen.

That was at the end of his two terms, not in the first few weeks.
Trump actually boasted at the time that he was worse with women than Clinton. Just locker-room talk for him, I guess.
Trump is actually going against the constitution of the USA.

Impeachment doesn't automatically mean dismissal! Clinton proved that! but then of course he was the 'right' party so perhaps perjury, and obstructing the course of justice doesn't matter so long as you're not a Republican, then of course it does!

Whitewave, I find it very funny that the person who doesn't like links and says she never reads my ilnks then asks me for a link - on the same thread.
She must be very confused. Particularly as the link she asked me for was already there.

What would happen if Pence was then impeached?
How many impeachments make a new election?

Pence would take office... as Ford, Nixon's VP did when Nixon resigned.

With all these calls for Trump to be impeached, which is up to the Americans and the American legal and political system, I would like to know what would happen if he were to be impeached successfully? Not the process, but what would happen next?
Could 'next' be an even worse scenario?

WW

What is dim in my opinion is there are posters who have/do/might believe links/posts because they naturally ally themselves with fellow minded posters who have set them up.

They want to believe in the Fake News/Clickbait because it suits their desire to equate themselves with the rubbish posted as it for the most part is usually being salacious/attacking the character of somebody they hate/dislike.

To answer your post :-

"Blimey pogs surely you aren't so dim as to be able make your own judgement over links?"

No I am not dim and I can make my own judgement over links thank you for asking.

What did you guess ww? Surely not that POGS was dim?!!! One unpleasant comment followed by another! Time to jump ship - again!!

How did I guess!

Charming!

Blimey pogs surely you aren't so dim as to be able make your own judgement over links?

Lewlew

Links and posts are not 'important' if they are directing you to or repeating Fake News/Clickbait/photo shopped pictures are they?

This is/has happened and sadly some don't seem to worry about it or feel as I do it is a form of breaching trust between fellow posters.

Links can be of interest, I don't like links to people's blogs which are just the opinions of the writer

Links are important. Then you know the source and can read it for yourself. You might come to a different conclusion. A short description of the link's contents are helpful in case someone does not want to visit it.

Speaking of apocolypitic politics... Bush and Blair were on the biblical bandwagon for war together.

www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

Cunco 08.43

Totally agree, I like the way you made your point.

I have been banging on about Fake News/C!ickbait and links to nothing more than possibly a fat bloke sitting in a chair eating pizza for a while. GN is not immune from this problem as we have seen.

As for the Wikipedia/Daily Mail I find it amusing as I used a piece of information from Wikipedia once and it did not suit the 'remit' of a poster I was 'debating' with. That poster pointed out that Wikipedia was not a good source for evidence .

I am not denying the Wikipedia/Daily Mail issue is an interesting one to follow however and now the link has been put on 'so many threads' I am sure it will spoken of in further depth over time.

The blue links all over the place interrupt the flow of the 'conversation', certainly. I often wonder why durhamjen can't givve her own précis of the information, or even a general overview, but no, she prefers to scatter links around.

Ah well, never mind. No need to worry about being asked to give up GN...as if!

Of course, I agree that nobody is forced to read a link.

I may be alone in thinking this way but I am interested in hearing other people's point of view, as well as sharing with them my own. I am more likely to listen to what they have to say if it is put in context with a factual link to back it up than if I encounter a blizzard of slanted links.

I imagine people use Gransnet for all sorts of reasons. If DJ chooses to spend time scattering pamphlets on pub tables, who am I to object? Reading a scatter of slanted links just doesn't rock my boat.

Not at all. Can't remember the last time I went to a pub.
I don't interrupt family conversations.

If you just want me to give up GN because you don't like the links I put on, just say so.