Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Atty Gen Eric Holder Caught Lying Under Oath  
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Oopsie...

“First of all you’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material. This has not fared well in American history… In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.“

That was his testimony under oath last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW7GhfOXe5U

After the AP scandal became public, an even worse event came to light where a the Justice Department got a search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen, to get his emails, track his movements etc. In order to get the warrant, Rosen was accused in a Justice Department affidavit of being a possible criminal "co-conspirator" - an extremely unusual step.

After Holder said that he had never been involved in anything like that, now it turns out that Holder personally signed off on the Rosen warrant.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...-private-emails-official-says?lite

So, the nation's chief law enforcement officer tells a bald-faced lie under oath to Congress. I think he's toast.

Cue the usual people who will insist that Holder did nothing wrong...


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

There is a difference between prosecution and approving a warrant. So your thread title is just as illogical as your rant.

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
So, the nation's chief law enforcement officer tells a bald-faced lie under oath to Congress. I think he's toast.

Cue the usual people who will insist that Holder did nothing wrong...

However the issue of tracking so-called journalists is not right ( I don't consider fake news employees to be journalists of any integrity).

Holder and others will have a lot to answer for here.

[Edited 2013-05-24 05:58:37]


Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

This:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
First of all you’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material.

And this:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
After the AP scandal became public, an even worse event came to light where a the Justice Department got a search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen, to get his emails, track his movements etc. In order to get the warrant, Rosen was accused in a Justice Department affidavit of being a possible criminal "co-conspirator" - an extremely unusual step.

Are not necessarily in conflict.

Did you see exactly what the FBI suspected Rosen of? Its in the article you link to:

Quote:

"asked, solicited and encouraged … (a source) to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information."

That's not "prosecuting the press for publication of material", that's "looking into whether the press breached espionage laws".

Even the press don't get to do that without risking legal backlash...


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
There is a difference between prosecution and approving a warrant. So your thread title is just as illogical as your rant.

  

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
Cue the usual people who will insist that Holder did nothing wrong...

How about cueing the people who believe that thread after thread in this online obsession over every possible morsel is getting creepy.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12551 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
How about cueing the people who believe that thread after thread in this online obsession over every possible morsel is getting creepy.

Throw enough (fecal matter) against the wall and some will stick.

The problem for Obama's administration is that issues related to the misuse of the IRS and misuse of the justice system raise concerns across the political spectrum.

These are only few issues that the right has been able to raise that has some traction outside of the right's political base.

In the mean time, issues that Obama has tried to gain traction on, such as background checks and immigration reform, aren't going anywhere.

And we're finding better economic results that in some degree are related to the cut in government spending via the sequester.

It tends to support the feeling that the strategy of throwing sticks into the wheels of government is a good thing, especially if you already have a mistrust of government, which many do.

Obama's strategy depends on a well functioning government, which is hard to do under any circumstance, and even more when your political opposition is exaggerating potential problem and doing whatever it can to gum up the works.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8152 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
These are only few issues that the right has been able to raise that has some traction outside of the right's political base.

In the mean time, issues that Obama has tried to gain traction on, such as background checks and immigration reform, aren't going anywhere.

There needs to be a GTFO clause where the citizenry can just up and vote and depose the whole lot of them. Maybe replace the entire Congress with some college graduates from a sample of schools and some young business and community leaders. Can't do any worse than the over 50 crowd mucking up everything they touch now.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
Are not necessarily in conflict.

Moo, I think you've missed the point.

The first paragraph in the OP's post is a quote by Eric Holder where he claims that he has never been involved with or heard of the press being subject to potential prosecution for disclosure of material. That is what Holder said.

It is later revealed that Holder signed off a warrant, prior to his statement, investigating a reporter for disclosure of material.


You are correct that while the press enjoys a level of Constitutional protection, it does not rise to the level of protecting them while engaged in espionage. But, as I understand it, in order for the DoJ to do anything but the most superficial investigations, there are several hoops for the DoJ to jump through. And, those hoops may have been jumped through here. But, on its face, it appears that Eric Holder lied.

He said he had heard nothing about any potential prosecution, but he had signed the warrant investigating a reporter.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
There is a difference between prosecution and approving a warrant. So your thread title is just as illogical as your rant.

Why would you get a warrant if there were not potential prosecution?

Holder should have been dismissed after the Black Panther thing, or after Fast and Furious. He only weakens the Obama Administration and by extension, the Presidency.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20640 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 5):
There needs to be a GTFO clause where the citizenry can just up and vote and depose the whole lot of them.

We get that chance every two years for the House. If it's that important to get the stuffy ol' over-50s out, put your money where your mouth is and run, ya whippersnappers. All it takes is filing a form.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 6):
Why would you get a warrant if there were not potential prosecution?

Warrant's are for getting information about something you think might be illegal. It is about gathering evidence. It is part of the path , and does not imply final prosecution.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):

That's an interesting post and needs further exploration. Maybe in another thread? I'll leave it with: we'll agree in some places and disagree in others.

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 5):
There needs to be a GTFO clause where the citizenry can just up and vote and depose the whole lot of them. Maybe replace the entire Congress with some college graduates from a sample of schools and some young business and community leaders.

There is: it's called revolution. For those of us that live in the real world: we have elections every 2 years where we can "throw the bums out"; unfortunately, too many of the entrenched stay entrenched.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
Warrant's are for getting information about something you think might be illegal. It is about gathering evidence. It is part of the path , and does not imply final prosecution.

Yup, it does not imply final prosecution, but Holder didn't say prosecution; he said:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.

And that's what warrants are about: gathering evidence for potential prosecution.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

I notice that the press is still there and still reporting. Holder is going to have to make an effort if he (as the right claims) wants to shut down the media. According to the right, this is the same thing as shutting down the media.

But, these same people who say the media is under attack were fine with warrantless wiretapping and reading e-mails without a warrant, etc.

Isn't this whole case about trying to find leaks around terror activities, anyway?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Yup, it does not imply final prosecution, but Holder didn't say prosecution; he said:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.
And that's what warrants are about: gathering evidence for potential prosecution.

Sigh, this is the problem with the GOP Windbag machine. They take things out of context, and then run with it. Basically because if it doesn't fit in a 128 byte text message, their constituency won't understand it.

Holder's question was in regard to Prosecution and that it would be a dangerous road to go dow n in regards to their disclosure of info given to them. Not that it wasn't something possible.

It doesn't say anything about going through and conspiring illegally to obtain information.
the Warrant may be valid if the state department believed their was illegal items occurring..... IE Spyware on computers, Phones with open passwords.... Gifts. The list is endless.


This thread is much ado about nothing if there were real illegal issues going on with the what Rosen was doing. However at this point not much is known about why the warrant was sought out exactly.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
After Holder said that he had never been involved in anything like that, now it turns out that Holder personally signed off on the Rosen warrant.


What else is new. No body in Washington is aware of any of these issues going down. AP scandal, Fox news/IRS witch hunt, Benghazi...no body knows anything. If that is the case then it just goes to show how unattached this administration is. This begs the question then...who sanctions all this nonsense and just who is really running the country...into the ground. Eric holder, The President, Harry Reid, Jay Carney, Nancy Pelosi and all the rest are ballerinas just dancing around the truth. Scandals have always blessed every administration in some form or another...if discovered, fess up and deal with it but this rote lying all the time is getting old.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 6):

No, I didn't miss the point - the two things are not comparable.

Authorising a warrant for information on a suspected espionage case is worlds apart from prosecuting someone for publishing information. He did not contradict himself at all, and only those with a particular agenda could possibly say that he is.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1781 times:


You miss the point. Warrants are one thing. Naming the reporter as a co-conspirator is unprecedented. Between this, and the AP tapping, people are now going to be much more hesitant before talking to reporters - which clearly was the administration's intention.

To be clear. Since the Pentagon Papers, any such crime was committed by the leaker, not by the reporter who receives the information and publishes it. Judges have put injunctions on publishing information, but there has never been an implication that a reporter commits a crime by publishing classified info.

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
Cue the usual people who will insist that Holder did nothing wrong...

And I wasn't disappointed...

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
That's not "prosecuting the press for publication of material", that's "looking into whether the press breached espionage laws".

Even the press don't get to do that without risking legal backlash...

It is part of the Free Press' job to find out things that government wants to keep secret and expose them IF in their editorial opinion the government is wrong to do so. It's a vague line, but note that back in 2003 or so when the New York Times published that the NSA was able to listen in on cellular phones in Pakistan and elsewhere (commonly thought then to be untappable because they were supposedly digitally encrypted), the US lost a very major intelligence-gathering asset and it can be reasonably assumed that many people later died because terrorists stopped using cell phones so freely and attacks that would otherwise have been stopped succeeded. Yet the NYT was not prosecuted (and many people here yelled "free speech!")

Personally I think the NYT went too far on that one. But there is the precedent.

Rosen did not reveal anything that put lives in danger. He was looking for the administration's rationale behind its NK policy. That's what reporters do. I don't even know if what he found was worth publishing.

According to CNN and NewYorker reporter Ryan Lizza: "it is unprecedented for the government, in an official court document, to accuse a reporter of breaking the law for conducting the routine business of reporting on government secrets."

Quoting casinterest (Reply 8):
Warrant's are for getting information about something you think might be illegal. It is about gathering evidence. It is part of the path , and does not imply final prosecution.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 11):
Sigh, this is the problem with the GOP Windbag machine. They take things out of context, and then run with it

Context? you are the one saying context is irrelevant, that governments might go after internal leaks (as they should) , but you don't go after reporters. What next - Should the Rosens expect an IRS audit? Maybe a sudden EPA audit of their property. There are tons of stories coming out now about how people who upset the government (by disagreeing with them and who tried to form a 503c) suddenly started getting visits from IRS, OSHA, EPA, FBI etc where before then they were never on the radar.


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Rosen might not yet have revealed anything that put people in danger, but even the press don't get free reign to coerce others to break laws - the press are not above the law, regardless of what you believe, they still have to operate within legal frameworks.

The rest of your post is just positional rubbish.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):

Context? you are the one saying context is irrelevant, that governments might go after internal leaks (as they should) , but you don't go after reporters.

you want Context how about something you won't get from the Fake news round robin.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...rant-for-fox-news-reporters-emails


"

In a 2010 affidavit in support of the search warrant, an FBI agent named Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in the case because he “asked, solicited and encouraged” Kim to give him information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act,” said a department official, referring to a federal law that governs under what circumstances information can be subpoenaed from the news media. “And a federal magistrate judge made an independent finding that probable cause existed to approve the search warrant.”
"





So a Federal Magistrate judge found probable cause to issue the warrant under the law. And all your pathetic source contexts are upset with is that Holder was aware of it.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 16):
So a Federal Magistrate judge found probable cause to issue the warrant under the law.

Based on the BS put in the affidavit by the Justice Department, and apparently signed off on by Holder.

The judge does not conduct his own investigation. He only has what he is given. Garbage in, garbage out.

Reporters ask questions. That is their job. You don't put a dog down for public lewdness for peeing on the street. He's just being a dog.

[Edited 2013-05-24 14:47:26]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1679 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Reporters ask questions. That is their job. You don't put a dog down for public lewdness for peeing on the street. He's just being a dog.

But you do put a dog down if they bite someone. And in this case there was more to the reporter's actions or alleged actions than you are seeing. . if a judge is just signing off, then is he being a Judge? Your whole grasp of "Context" is getting fuzzier and fuzzier. But go on with it.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8152 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
There is: it's called revolution. For those of us that live in the real world: we have elections every 2 years where we can "throw the bums out"; unfortunately, too many of the entrenched stay entrenched.

Nah I was kind of thinking more along the lines of a snap election. As you just put it so well, the current election system just keeps the same losers in place.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
If it's that important to get the stuffy ol' over-50s out, put your money where your mouth is and run, ya whippersnappers.

In the spirit of BMI727, my money is for me and those dear to me, not to gamble and run for office with.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 6):
The first paragraph in the OP's post is a quote by Eric Holder where he claims that he has never been involved with or heard of the press being subject to potential prosecution for disclosure of material. That is what Holder said.

It is later revealed that Holder signed off a warrant, prior to his statement, investigating a reporter for disclosure of material.

He wasn't investigated because he disclosed the material, he was investigated because it was believed (based on FBI information) he “asked, solicited and encouraged” someone to give him classified information. That goes beyond just reporting what you hear (and would make him a co-conspirator if it were true, which it may or may not be).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
There is a difference between prosecution and approving a warrant. So your thread title is just as illogical as your rant.

Sounds to me like your whole reply is a RANT !

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
I don't consider fake news employees to be journalists of any integrity).

In spite of all of your crude attempts to insult Fox News, they continue to draw more listeners than MSNBC, CNBC, and Commie News Network COMBINED; ( apparently they're doing quite a few things right )



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 21):
In spite of all of your crude attempts to insult Fox News, they continue to draw more listeners than MSNBC, CNBC, and Commie News Network COMBINED; ( apparently they're doing quite a few things right )

Like how to buy cable air time. Over the past 20 years, they have done everything they can to be on basic cable. As long as they sell ad time, they don't care about integrity. CNN is just starting to learn this. They get it wrong and people are starting to watch to see what other big number twos they come up with. No one really wants actual news or truth anymore. They just want to see the next big lie.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
According to CNN and NewYorker reporter Ryan Lizza: "it is unprecedented for the government, in an official court document, to accuse a reporter of breaking the law for conducting the routine business of reporting on government secrets."

That should read: leaking. Why should the media know what the government knows about classified information? Why should the media know, within hours, intimate details of raids and missions? Isn't that a threat to national security? Or was it only a threat to national security when W was in the White House?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4622 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 21):
Sounds to me like your whole reply is a RANT !

Coming from the person that posted the following, I think I an rest easy on the waste this thread was.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 21):
In spite of all of your crude attempts to insult Fox News, they continue to draw more listeners than MSNBC, CNBC, and Commie News Network COMBINED; ( apparently they're doing quite a few things right )

Hate to break it to you, but these are all TV cable channels. They have viewers. The fact that Fake News has the highest viewerships should be sobering when you realize they have the highest average age of viewers . (65), and their demographic viewership of 74 % republican. It is nothing more than a GOP echo chamber and eye candy for folks that have hearing aids and cataracts.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22):
They get it wrong and people are starting to watch to see what other big number twos they come up with.

Have any statistics to back that up? How many retractions or corrections issued by Fox News compared to CNN or MSNBC? Any other relevant data?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22):
That should read: leaking. Why should the media know what the government knows about classified information? Why should the media know, within hours, intimate details of raids and missions? Isn't that a threat to national security? Or was it only a threat to national security when W was in the White House?

It is the job of the administration and all other officials, federal employees, soldiers etc to hold their tongue. They are the ones who should be held accountable and prosecuted if they blab to a reporter. They sign agreements to that effect.

Journalists are under no such restriction. Their job is to ask questions, find out what's happening, and report to the public. Occasionally they might self-censor, for which I applaud them, when given information that if made public might do more harm than good - such as the NYT story on eavesdropping. I regret the reporter in that case did not hold back, but I would never prosecute him for not doing so. The leaker, on the other hand, should have been taken out and shot.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 DocLightning : OK, I'll weigh in. I actually agree with Mr. Dreadnought, an event that occurs very rarely. If you get a warrant for a search, it is because you are p
26 casinterest : See now you are off to Fake news land. You forget the real problem. He was suspected of being a part the coercion of the information. Whether that st
27 aaron747 : How so, pray tell??
28 casinterest : Because holder's quote under oath was about investigative journalism , not criminal activities. To buy into this thread's title, you have to make the
29 Dreadnought : What does MSNBC have to do with this? Do we really have to repeat this again? Ever since the Pentagon Papers, when this subject was argued and litiga
30 Post contains links aaron747 : Absolute gold from Jon Stewart on this whole thing, as if he couldn't move up another notch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=602RdrxgyqY
31 Boeing717200 : Imagine if they'd have gotten away with illlegaly charging a Fox News reporter with espionage.... The intent would have been to bring down Fox News.
32 ImperialEagle : Yes. I am glad they are around to represent the other sides of the arguments and to hold these people accountable for their actions. There are so man
33 Boeing717200 : It is entertaining to be sure. It was clear until recently this Administration could do no wrong. This had Chitown politics all over it. Sleep with t
34 seb146 : All of that can be said about the previous administration. And, yet, no outrage. No hearings. So, someone was trying to find the source of leaks, but
35 Mir : The distinction is that there was the possibility of prosecution not for simply reporting the information, but rather for asking for, soliciting or e
36 Post contains links aaron747 : Think about why that is. Because Obama decided within 5 minutes of meetings with Bush that he would stick to the Presidential privilege tradition and
37 DocLightning : No, no, you are correct. I retract my position. As I now understand the situation, Mr. Holder did not lie under oath. He was very careful about what
38 Mir : You're missing the discrepancy between what he said he didn't do (prosecute someone for reporting information) and what he signed the warrant for (so
39 Boeing717200 : I can understand your frustration. People have a lot invested in Obama. When reality sets it, it's difficult to come to terms with it.
40 seb146 : I was talking about way before he even campaigned for office. Not as much as Koch Bros. and Karl Rove and Dick Morris and FOX have invested in the ri
41 aaron747 : Oh really? Does it need to be brought up again that Obama's campaigns have been largely bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigrou
42 casinterest : Coming from you , I would be guessing you are having a stroke. But MSNBC is just as bad as Fake news. I don't think either should be allowed to call
43 FlyDeltaJets : This is not news as any subpoena against a journalist has to be signed off by the Attorney General. Also can we agree that there is a strong conserva
44 seb146 : And, let's not forget this is an investigation into a small number of reporters to find if there is a security breach. This has nothing at all to do w
45 Dreadnought : A) Administrations have been investigating security leaks for decades without resorting to such measures. B) While "shutting down the free press" may
46 seb146 : In other words: It only matters now that Obama is investigating leaks. So, you agree there is no problem. But, I thought your side hated NYT? Now you
47 Post contains links Mir : I would consider intelligence information involving North Korea, one of the world's most closed societies, to be worthy of keeping classified. It can
48 Dreadnought : Non sequitur. It matters now because unprecedented measures are being used that endanger the ability of a free press to do its job. It's not a black
49 seb146 : I am also trying to figure out why you have so many holes in your arguments. I know it is only a matter of time before the personal attacks begin bec
50 Boeing717200 : The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with a free press.
51 Dreadnought : Shhhh - Weren't you told as a kid at the zoo, don't tease the animals...
52 aaron747 : Nobody actually *hates* the NYT. They are not infallible, like any other organization, but they generally hire exceptional writers, regardless of pol
53 seb146 : The right hates NYT. Any time someone posts a link from NYT to back up a claim, all we hear is "they are biased" and "don't use that rag". Now, NYT i
54 aaron747 : Are you serious?? Maybe the twits on shock radio say they do, but most respectable people know it is not a rag. Unlike a lot of other large publisher
55 Boeing717200 : I'm always amused about what the left thinks the right hates. It's why they never see it coming.
56 AeroWesty : Just because the left and center are observant, doesn't mean they can't detect whether the light at the end of the tunnel is from a freight train abo
57 Boeing717200 : I'm sorry you get so upset over wit. By the way, they didn't see 2010 coming did they? Biggest freight train in a decade, totally missed it.
58 Post contains images AeroWesty : And the far right didn't see 2012 coming, did they?
59 Boeing717200 : Everyone pretty much saw that coming. But I'm not far right so I can't speak for them.
60 AeroWesty : You know the old saying, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...
61 Boeing717200 : Yeah I know right. Don't ya hate it though when it turns out that some people can't be categorized so they can later be marginalized with sweeping ge
62 Post contains images AeroWesty : What's even more interesting are those who feel the need to leap at disassociating themselves with something no one associated them with in the first
63 Boeing717200 : The world isn't black and white man. Maybe you should stop trying to label people so you can later marginalized them. It's rude.[Edited 2013-05-28 07
64 Post contains images AeroWesty : Nothing like a little paranoia in the morning!
65 seb146 : Go look at my example. Plus, the right-wing talkers droning on about how NYT and LA Times are firmly on the side of Obama. I'm always amazed how the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
GOP: Clarke May Have Lied Under Oath posted Sun Mar 28 2004 18:55:21 by Alpha 1
Japan Now Largest Foreign Holder Of US Securities posted Sat Mar 2 2013 20:58:41 by PHX787
North Korean Video Showing NYC Under Missile Attac posted Wed Feb 6 2013 03:25:40 by MadameConcorde
Surprising Reveal Of The Next-Gen Ford F-150 Truck posted Tue Jan 15 2013 15:01:13 by stasisLAX
New-Gen Chevy Corvette Launching At Detroit Show posted Fri Jan 11 2013 18:48:26 by stasisLAX
GEN Norman Schwarzkoph Has Died posted Thu Dec 27 2012 16:31:20 by cptkrell
Full Size Millenium Falcon Under Construction posted Tue Dec 11 2012 07:11:22 by Gonzalo
A Down Under Darwin Award Nominee? posted Sun Nov 18 2012 03:53:44 by GDB
TSA Agents Caught In Sting For Theft posted Fri Sep 28 2012 13:53:47 by mcdu
Holder To Sue The SSA? posted Fri Aug 31 2012 07:05:33 by fr8mech