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, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2026 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, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2002 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, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1982 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, 20740 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1983 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, 12722 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1957 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, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1949 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 onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1949 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, 20740 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1947 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, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1944 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 onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5490 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1923 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, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1916 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, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1904 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 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1889 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, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1820 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, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1795 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, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1765 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, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1733 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, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1726 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, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1693 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, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1678 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, 21679 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 1618 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 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 1614 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, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 1589 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, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 1580 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, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 1576 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
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19942 posts, RR: 59
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

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 planning on gathering evidence that will be used to arrest someone and charge them with a crime (and hence prosecute them for it). That is the only appropriate (and, AFAIK, legal) use of a search warrant.

If Mr. Holder were not planning on prosecuting the reporter(s) in question, then he was illegally obtaining a warrant. The alternative is that he did obtain the warrant with the intent of pursuing prosecution, in which case he lied under oath.

This is very disturbing news from within the Obama administration and I'd like to see Mr. Holder resign at the very least. I really do not like the administration's justice department at all when it comes to basic democratic principles like privacy and freedom of the press.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 1591 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
If Mr. Holder were not planning on prosecuting the reporter(s) in question, then he was illegally obtaining a warrant. The alternative is that he did obtain the warrant with the intent of pursuing prosecution, in which case he lied under oath.

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 stands as valid or not is up to the Federal Magistrate Judge that granted the warrant. The judge granted the warrant.

Freedom of the press is one thing, but their is a big reason why reporters are taught to report a story and not get involved in it.

To assume a reporter is above reproach of the law for illegal activities is a fine line of balance that has to be weighed out.

The Warrant is the intent of pursuing a logical string of evidence. If the evidence bears out, prosecution can be brought

The real question here and the disturbing fact, is that Warrant's are very invasive. In this case it was extremely invasive, and that policy needs to be rethought by the DOJ in general.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 26):
See now you are off to Fake news land.

How so, pray tell??



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 1594 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 27):
How so, pray tell??

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 assumption that Journalist's are impeccable. You already know what I think of Fake News.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 1576 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 28):
You already know what I think of Fake News

What does MSNBC have to do with this?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 28):
To buy into this thread's title, you have to make the assumption that Journalist's are impeccable.

Do we really have to repeat this again?

Ever since the Pentagon Papers, when this subject was argued and litigated ad nauseum, the legal framework is as follows:

In a case where classified information is published, the leaker is guilty of a crime, the reporter is not. Even if the reporter paid the informant a million dollars for the information, the only crime he will have committed would be related to bribery of a public official, not espionage which is what the DOJ tried to paint Rosen with. The only exception to this rule is when the secrets divulged directly would endanger US lives. Publishing the detailed invasion plans for Iraq before the invasion, for example, would qualify, as it would allow defenses to be improved and more US casualties.

By the way... in the FBI affidavit, which Holder signed off on, it said, “There is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed a violation of the Espionage Act “. Doesn't the term espionage presume that the accused is working for a foreign power?

BTW, for those who don't know, the Espionage Act of 1917 which the DOJ invoked against Rosen is also more commonly (though informally) known as the Sedition Act.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

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



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):

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. That's an abuse of power at the highest level. Fortunately they failed and in the course of the fail have been exposed for what they are. The Administration is on a mission destroy anything that is not leftist in this country. The beauty of this is that in their zeal they have failed and may actually end up destroying themselves. For that he'll blame Pelosi and he'll find out about it like he always does... on the nightly news with the rest of us.

[Edited 2013-05-25 07:18:05]

User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 21):
apparently they're doing quite a few things right

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 many people who believe their side is the only "right" way that they would be willing to agree to censureship of the media if they could have their way. They would be the first to squall if their rights got stepped on.

Even more telling is Obama's comment about "having complete trust in Holder".
I'm sure Holder would say the same thing about Obama.
IMO Neither one would know the truth if it fell on their head. They are just another example of how power corrupts.
Interesting to observe how many people are willing to go along with this ruse just because it doesn't require them to think. Marching in lockstep as it were with an administration who clearly feels it is above the law of the land. They are the same people who would do well under a dictatorship just because they would not have to think.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 23):
. It is nothing more than a GOP echo chamber and eye candy for folks that have hearing aids and cataracts.

That is your OPINION. NOT a FACT.

And just what is CNN? MSNBC? They are our only "fair and balanced" source of news? And just what age have you determined your opinion will no longer be viable? That your years of experience will become worthless? That because of your age you don't know what you are talking about because you become more ignorant as you age? That all of your life's experiences have amounted to nothing? 40, 50, 60,70?



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 12):

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 the press, get away with anything and everything. Dig up crap on people and hold it over their heads for their silence. Then they pissed off the press, she left scorned and the wheels are off the wagon.

It's epic watching this fraud and his drinking buddies get exposed for what they are. I don't recall an administration that has spent so much time blaming everyone but themselves for everything and they are still trying. I'm shocked they aren't blaming Reagan for Benghazi. After all, he bombed Libya so it must be his fault.

That said, it's a complete reflection of all the failings in America right now. No personal accountability, no moral spine, lie to get your way, blame others... The list goes on. Perhaps we'll learn something from it as a nation, but I doubt it. No one likes to look in a mirror and see ugly.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 33):
it's a complete reflection of all the failings in America right now. No personal accountability, no moral spine, lie to get your way, blame others... The list goes on.

All of that can be said about the previous administration. And, yet, no outrage. No hearings.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
In a case where classified information is published, the leaker is guilty of a crime, the reporter is not.

So, someone was trying to find the source of leaks, but not shutting down any particular news or "news" agency never happened.

Unless you happen to be part of the right. Then, it was an attack on the media.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 31):
The Administration is on a mission destroy anything that is not leftist in this country.

How? Where? When? What has been pointed out is: there was a leak, Holder tried to find it. How is that "destroying anything not leftist"? Why is no one complaining that there is only one left-wing cable news network? Why is no one complaining there are less than 50 left-wing talk radio stations in this country? Why is no one complaining Koch Bros. are trying to buy the last 10 or so independent newspapers? I guess that is what an attack on the right looks like in this country. Besides, the only people that complain about such things, according to the right, hate America and hate free speech.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21679 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 1430 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
If you get a warrant for a search, it is because you are planning on gathering evidence that will be used to arrest someone and charge them with a crime (and hence prosecute them for it). That is the only appropriate (and, AFAIK, legal) use of a search warrant.

If Mr. Holder were not planning on prosecuting the reporter(s) in question, then he was illegally obtaining a warrant. The alternative is that he did obtain the warrant with the intent of pursuing prosecution, in which case he lied under oath.

The distinction is that there was the possibility of prosecution not for simply reporting the information, but rather for asking for, soliciting or encouraging the information. Whether that's an appropriate charge to be leveling is a matter for discussion, and I'm certainly not saying that DOJ was right to use the tactics they did, but the idea that Holder lied about potentially prosecuting a reporter for disclosing information that they were given just isn't substantiated.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 1384 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
All of that can be said about the previous administration. And, yet, no outrage. No hearings.

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 not prosecute anybody from the previous administration, even if there was stuff there.

It's all one big good 'ol boys club.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
So, someone was trying to find the source of leaks, but not shutting down any particular news or "news" agency never happened.

The issue is saying he didn't, when the record shows he did. Is that proper for the head of an incredibly powerful organization like the DOJ?

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
but the idea that Holder lied about potentially prosecuting a reporter for disclosing information that they were given just isn't substantiated

Really? What am I missing here? Holder is off the reservation and now sh*t has hit the fan. Found this story this morning on HuffPo about how the FBI has pretty much been shaking down every potential leak source they can think of. If anything, this should be making right-wingers happy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/us...ow-wide-a-net-is-cast.html?hp&_r=0



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19942 posts, RR: 59
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months ago) and read 1385 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
The distinction is that there was the possibility of prosecution not for simply reporting the information, but rather for asking for, soliciting or encouraging the information.

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 he said.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21679 posts, RR: 55
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 36):
Really? What am I missing here?

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 (soliciting classified information).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
He was very careful about what he said.

As you'd expect from a lawyer. And I should add that this doesn't mean he's not a sleazeball who's acted inappropriately, only that he's not a perjuring one.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1344 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):

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.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1310 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 36):
Because Obama decided within 5 minutes of meetings with Bush that he would stick to the Presidential privilege tradition and not prosecute anybody from the previous administration, even if there was stuff there.

I was talking about way before he even campaigned for office.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 39):
I can understand your frustration. People have a lot invested in Obama

Not as much as Koch Bros. and Karl Rove and Dick Morris and FOX have invested in the right wing. Besides, Obama has done more positive things for this country than Bush did. At least he has not started any wars on lies. Just think if he had the support of the right.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1307 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 40):
Not as much as Koch Bros. and Karl Rove and Dick Morris and FOX have invested in the right wing.

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 Citigroup?

This is why nobody has been prosecuted.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1252 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):

What does MSNBC have to do with this?

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 themselves news agencies.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
By the way... in the FBI affidavit, which Holder signed off on, it said, “There is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed a violation of the Espionage Act “. Doesn't the term espionage presume that the accused is working for a foreign power?

Umm not necessarily. However you would need a Warrant to collect evidence of this if it was suspected. Please see a doctor.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 32):
That is your OPINION. NOT a FACT.

Good job pointing out the obvious.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 32):
And just what is CNN? MSNBC? They are our only "fair and balanced" source of news? And just what age have you determined your opinion will no longer be viable? That your years of experience will become worthless? That because of your age you don't know what you are talking about because you become more ignorant as you age? That all of your life's experiences have amounted to nothing? 40, 50, 60,70?

The news isn't about opinions, and that is all Fake news puts forth. A very right sided biased opionion with cropped soundbites and videe editing to manipulate / satisfy their demographic targets opinion. I could care less if everyone over 60 watched it, if the demographics were equal, but they are not.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1893 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1245 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

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 conservative slant on Fox news even on their non opinion programs and there is a liberal slant on MSNBC even on their non-opinion programs and CNN is just slanted to getting more viewers and staying relevant to people not waiting on a flight in an airport.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1202 times:

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 with shutting down the free press. Although that is what the "persecuted" right wing media wants the American public to believe.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1204 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 44):

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 with shutting down the free press.

A) Administrations have been investigating security leaks for decades without resorting to such measures.

B) While "shutting down the free press" maybe an exaggeration, the point is that when Reporters and sources start fearing such measures, reporters may start being more shy with their questions, and sources start clamming up - particularly with this administration's unprecedented record of persecuting and punishing whistle-blowers.

The purpose of a free press is to ensure the old "New York Times Rule". One should not do anything they would be embarrassed at if it appeared on the front page of the NYT. We aren't talking about operational military secrets or such things which truely ought to be held classified, but embarrassing failures, mistakes and misjudgments. The press is supposed to report on those.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1179 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45):
Administrations have been investigating security leaks for decades without resorting to such measures.

In other words: It only matters now that Obama is investigating leaks.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45):
While "shutting down the free press" maybe an exaggeration

So, you agree there is no problem.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45):
The purpose of a free press is to ensure the old "New York Times Rule"

But, I thought your side hated NYT? Now you love NYT? Which is it?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21679 posts, RR: 55
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1174 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45):
We aren't talking about operational military secrets or such things which truely ought to be held classified, but embarrassing failures, mistakes and misjudgments. The press is supposed to report on those.

I would consider intelligence information involving North Korea, one of the world's most closed societies, to be worthy of keeping classified. It can't be easy at all to get a source there, and however draconian you think the Obama administration is in going after leaks, you can be damn sure that it's nothing compared to what the North Koreans would do. It might not be as easy to get more sources after that, and that could have real and damaging consequences - the situation in North Korea is not particularly stable, and if things go badly there it would have very negative consequences for the entire region and the US as well.

Here's the article involved. I don't see anything about a failure, mistake or misjudgment.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/node/1419#ixzz2U4llzcte

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1172 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 46):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45):
Administrations have been investigating security leaks for decades without resorting to such measures.

In other words: It only matters now that Obama is investigating leaks.

Non sequitur. It matters now because unprecedented measures are being used that endanger the ability of a free press to do its job.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 46):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 45):
While "shutting down the free press" maybe an exaggeration

So, you agree there is no problem.

It's not a black and white thing, and you know it. Your slanted view of reality is showing. You can have an independant press but if it is hamstrung there is not much point is there?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 46):
But, I thought your side hated NYT? Now you love NYT? Which is it?

The New York Times Rule has been around for decades. The first reference I find of it dates back 50 years, when the NYT was indeed "the newspaper of record".

Your attempts to take things out of context and poke whatever little holes reeks of desperation. Could it be that you know perfectly well that what the IRS, DOJ have done is inexcusable, but simply cannot admit it in public and are clinging to whatever barbs give you that sense of having the last word?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1135 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 48):
Could it be that you know perfectly well that what the IRS, DOJ have done is inexcusable, but simply cannot admit it in public and are clinging to whatever barbs give you that sense of having the last word?

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 because you have been found out for who you are.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 48):
It matters now because unprecedented measures are being used that endanger the ability of a free press to do its job.

But you are against a free press. You say how awful Fairness Doctrine is but you want a "free press" but you want the press to be a for-profit industry.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 48):
You can have an independant press but if it is hamstrung there is not much point is there?

Just keep it "Fair And Balanced" right? Because we all know how "Fair And Balanced" FOX is...



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1107 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 49):

The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with a free press.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1094 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 50):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 49):

The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with a free press.

Shhhh - Weren't you told as a kid at the zoo, don't tease the animals...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1077 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 46):
But, I thought your side hated NYT? Now you love NYT? Which is it?

Nobody actually *hates* the NYT. They are not infallible, like any other organization, but they generally hire exceptional writers, regardless of political stripes. There are some quality people at FOX news even, like O'Reilly and Wallace.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 49):
you want the press to be a for-profit industry.

It's not even a matter of want. The press has *always* been a for-profit industry. The competitiveness within the press used to keep quality and standards high. Well, before television came along anyway.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1051 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 52):
Nobody actually *hates* the NYT

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 is the greatest thing ever?

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 52):
The press has *always* been a for-profit industry. The competitiveness within the press used to keep quality and standards high. Well, before television came along anyway.

What was the Nixon saying? "If we have lost Cronkite, we have lost America"? I really don't think the press became a for-profit industry until the 1980s. After that, the top story was all these fake celebrities and what is going on with movie stars. Since Reagan, the media wants us to care more about some dress shop owner from Calabasas and her family than what goes on in Congress. The media wants us to care more about a woman who stabbed her boyfriend 27 times then shot him 10 times than what goes on in the White House. The only time the media really cares about anything remotely political is when they can spin it so they can sell air time and copies.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1045 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):
I really don't think the press became a for-profit industry until the 1980s.

Are you serious??

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):
The right hates NYT.

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 publishers, they admit their biases, particularly on social issues. Their international coverage is nothing if not excellent. If the NYT were really seen as a rag, they wouldn't still be turning in quarters like the last one, with $50 million in net profits even as ad revenues are sagging 10% year over year in the publishing trade at large.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 53):

I'm always amused about what the left thinks the right hates. It's why they never see it coming.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20740 posts, RR: 62
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1028 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 55):
It's why they never see it coming.

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 about to run them over or not, something the right are usually unable to do through all the noise they keep making about stuff.

See, I can do meaningless pithy one liners too.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1012 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 56):

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.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20740 posts, RR: 62
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1007 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 57):
By the way, they didn't see 2010 coming did they?

And the far right didn't see 2012 coming, did they?




International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1006 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 58):

Everyone pretty much saw that coming. But I'm not far right so I can't speak for them.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20740 posts, RR: 62
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1001 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 59):
But I'm not far right so I can't speak for them.

You know the old saying, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 997 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 60):
You know the old saying, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...

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 generalizations?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20740 posts, RR: 62
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 993 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 61):
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 generalizations?

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 place.   



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 986 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 62):

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 07:49:37]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20740 posts, RR: 62
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 975 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 63):
Maybe you should stop trying to label people so you can later marginalized them. It's rude.

Nothing like a little paranoia in the morning!   



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 964 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 55):
I'm always amused about what the left thinks the right hates. It's why they never see it coming.

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 double standards are pointed out and the right starts in with "but, but, but..." to excuse themselves from doing it.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 63):
Maybe you should stop trying to label people so you can later marginalized them. It's rude.

When one has a finger pointing at someone else, there are three pointing back at oneself.



Life in the wall is a drag.
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