Did we read the same article? It said the white house revokee it but because it has no standards for behavior set, the revokation was reversed. The WH needs to make set of rules or standards then can revoke if the journalist violates that standard.
If you actually read what the judge said.Wow, it's almost like, CNBC is pushing some kind of narrative! You also didn't seem to read what I actually wrote. The pass was given back. He didn't actually rule on whether or not Acosta had his rights violated:
https://www.apnews.com/5ffb3a155f454a0893dc2d9db18c81d9But the judge also emphasized the “very limited nature” of his ruling Friday. He noted he had not determined that the First Amendment was violated.
You need to learn how to look up other sources, Dave, since you seem to only use one vague one and make your determinations from there.
He is right. I mean, they do have nukes, legally. Maybe nukes need to be legal for personal protection? Never know when ya need Mutually Assured Destruction to keep the government from arresting you, or a burglar from stealing your TV.
He isn't right, though. He was using nukes to say the government is too powerful to fight, which is wrong for a multitude of reasons. Saying "we're already too powerful, there's no point in fighting us" is exactly the kind of stupid thing that gun banners say.
Not Swalwell! I was counting on him running!
We already know that your favorite candidate Hillary runs the show in 2020 yet again. Can she make it this time? Is the third time really the charm? Will Hillary finally win the worker vote from a man with a golden elevator?