Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Outside the Beltway)   New York Times in 2007: How dare the Executive defy Congress by invoking Executive Privilege. 2012: How dare Congress question the Executive when it invokes Executive Privilege   ( outsidethebeltway.com) divider line
    More: Fail, executive privilege, congresses, Harriet Miers, Congressional Oversight, New York Times Company, George Mason, Jonathan Davis, privileges  
•       •       •

3003 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jun 2012 at 10:43 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-22 11:40:43 AM  

fatandolder: Hermione_Granger: Well considering that this President was trying to protect agents in the field and the last President had no problem outing them, I think there's a world of difference.

Context: it matters.

What agents? We were told this has stopped. Are they still giving guns to the cartel?


This just in 'undercover agent' performs more than just one investigation in his career.

/Not sure I agree with it or not, but it's a legitimate reason if true
//Protecting specific and individual life, yes. 'National Security' as a blanket catch-all to hide behind, no.
 
2012-06-22 11:41:26 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Sudlow: Hermione_Granger

Context: it matters.

You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this. Right?

AFAIK, there's no evidence that the round that killed the agent came from the F&F gun.


Are you farking serious? That's how this whole thing started. The gun.was traced back to the.program. do you think they just had an agent killed and said "it might have been because of this super-secret program"
 
2012-06-22 11:43:02 AM  

bhcompy: Crotchrocket Slim: Fark It: When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."

Given that most House Republicans were elected on jobs-creation etc. platforms and have done everything they can to stifle the President's efforts and suggested none of their own (yay could they waste more time on socially divisive stuff like killing subsidized birth control that marginally over half the population thinks is an excellent use of taxpayer money) I'd say it's very fair to question their motives.

Because "change" involves lining auto unions, auto executives, health executives, and banking executives wallets with tons of cash..

/people who hold politicians to campaign promises are naive, since there is no expectation for them to actually hold up their end of the bargain


OK, where has Congress been anything but a roadblock to closing Gitmo, something Obama tried his first year?

You've also forgotten the part of the Republicans blatantly not even trying to advance their own platforms while trying to kill the President's agenda. The President's agenda may sit largely unadvanced these days but it's not for lack of effort on his part.

BTW outside of your echo chambers people don't hate all unions.
 
2012-06-22 11:44:18 AM  

Mugato: uatuba: So I take it you are all over Obama for his healthcare bullshiat, then...

And what healthcare bullshiat is that?


The bullshiat that he came up with which, as you put it, is used to wipe his ass with the Constitution. I mean, if you're such a constitutionalist and all, you should definitely be in opposition to Obama and his healthcare law.
 
2012-06-22 11:45:12 AM  

Raug the Dwarf: AmazinTim: Let's just shoot them all and start over. This process should be repeated every 4-8 years.

This. I have been saying this for years. Hard term limits. After 8 years, you're done. You are no longer eligible to run for any office. Go home, get a farking real job and quit sucking that government teat and expecting the taxpayers to foot your bill.

It's like reverse welfare for representatives.


As if that would prevent some of the problems we see today. A lot of politicians would go home to "real jobs" in lobbying or in the industries they were previously supposed to regulate, as reward for helping to pass legislation on their behalf...
 
2012-06-22 11:45:43 AM  
Fark It: "And people will continue to do this because nobody really does anything about it, and sticking it to the other side is more important than the truth."

This.
What's good for the country is sometimes bad for your team. If you can't recognize, admit or say that, and vote appropriately, you're part of the problem.
Regardless of who your team is.
 
2012-06-22 11:46:36 AM  

elsuavio: Wrong. Getting elected by saying you'll put an end to those things, then continuing them once you're in office is worse.


Obama tried to get Gitmo closed down, but the Congress lost it's shiat at the thought that Otis and Ms. Teschmacher would fly into Ft. Leavenworth in a hot air balloon to rescue Osama bin Laden.
 
2012-06-22 11:47:00 AM  

Mugato: AdamK: that's kind of thin... somebody can start something and not know or see the full consequences, but if somebody knows and sees the full consequences but still does nothing (if not fully embrace it) i'd say that's far worse

Bush or rather Cheney knew exactly what they were doing when they used the Patriot Act to wipe their ass with the Constitution and open up the abomination to everything the country stands for that became Gitmo. Erasing all of that is a little bit harder than it was to start it, even if Obama wanted to.


so keep executive privilege then?
 
2012-06-22 11:47:46 AM  
The Republicans proved definitively that Executive Privilege is absolute. They convinced us. They won. Why should we go back to that "Pre-Republican Reasoning" now?
 
2012-06-22 11:50:23 AM  
And still I'll get people this election cycle who will try to convince me that I'm throwing my vote away by voting against the two major parties in all possible choices.

I expected to see brainwashing in my lifetime, I guess I just wasn't prepared for how prevalent it would be.
 
2012-06-22 11:51:15 AM  

misanthropologist: Raug the Dwarf: AmazinTim: Let's just shoot them all and start over. This process should be repeated every 4-8 years.

This. I have been saying this for years. Hard term limits. After 8 years, you're done. You are no longer eligible to run for any office. Go home, get a farking real job and quit sucking that government teat and expecting the taxpayers to foot your bill.

It's like reverse welfare for representatives.

As if that would prevent some of the problems we see today. A lot of politicians would go home to "real jobs" in lobbying or in the industries they were previously supposed to regulate, as reward for helping to pass legislation on their behalf...


I'm not saying it would cure all ills. The lobbying would have to stop as well. I'm personally big on Campaign Finance Reform too. In that, you can only spend X amount of dollars on your campaign. You put a hard cap on that. Each candidate can only spend X dollars, no more. Each candidate can only receive up to Y dollars from one source, hard capped, hard enforcement. That would help cut down on too much lobby control. And couple Finance Reform with Hard term limits and I think you have a winning combination. The lobbies won't spend as much with each candidate they bought because they know they're gone in 4-6 years. Cuts out some corruption and out of touch politicians that receive huge financial backing year after year. Would go a long way, I think.
 
2012-06-22 11:53:06 AM  

elsuavio: Wrong. Getting elected by saying you'll put an end to those things, then continuing them once you're in office is worse.


It's not worse, not given the motivations behind enacting these things in the first place and not when putting an end to these things is a lot more complicated that one might have initially thought. There's no comparison.
 
2012-06-22 11:54:54 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Fark It: When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."

Given that most House Republicans were elected on jobs-creation etc. platforms and have done everything they can to stifle the President's efforts and suggested none of their own (yay could they waste more time on socially divisive stuff like killing subsidized birth control that marginally over half the population thinks is an excellent use of taxpayer money) I'd say it's very fair to question their motives.


This right here is more partisan and politically motivated than the F&F investigation has ever been.
 
2012-06-22 11:55:50 AM  

Raug the Dwarf: spamalope: Raug the Dwarf:

Be careful what you wish for. That would hand most of the power to the career bureaucrats, as they build entrenched power. They'll be the only ones who stay, and they write and enforce all the regulations.

No system works if you select amoral leaders. Most are tolerable with competent moral leaders.

Under my system, there would be NO career bureaucrats. That's the whole point.


tgambitg: Raug the Dwarf: AmazinTim:

I love when people trot out the counter argument to your excellent point, the one of "But then nothing will get done!"... THAT'S THE POINT. Congress was initially set up so it was extremely hard to pass laws. It's one of the reasons Senators were state appointed, not directly elected. We have far too many stupid laws and too much money going to stupid things. Hell, we've got far too much money going to smart things too.

Get the federal government back to what it's supposed to do under the Constitution, instead of all the made up Commerce Clause BS and the ignored 9th and 10th amendments. Make the government leaner and meaner, and able to take care of the things it's impractical to do at a state and local level.

Your jib, I like the cut. Thank you.


Lets take your idea to it's natural conclusion. In theory it works wonderfully, but what happens when someone gets elected? they immediately start doing favors for whatever giant corporation or financial institution will give them an executive vice president position when their term is automatically over. You thought that the flat out purchase of politicians was bad NOW. Just wait till they need to have a secure job by a set deadline.

/why Yes, JP Morgan, I WOULD like to work for you 7 years from now.... what can I do for you today to make that happen?
 
2012-06-22 11:55:50 AM  

Raug the Dwarf: I'm not saying it would cure all ills. The lobbying would have to stop as well. I'm personally big on Campaign Finance Reform too. In that, you can only spend X amount of dollars on your campaign. You put a hard cap on that. Each candidate can only spend X dollars, no more. Each candidate can only receive up to Y dollars from one source, hard capped, hard enforcement. That would help cut down on too much lobby control. And couple Finance Reform with Hard term limits and I think you have a winning combination. The lobbies won't spend as much with each candidate they bought because they know they're gone in 4-6 years. Cuts out some corruption and out of touch politicians that receive huge financial backing year after year. Would go a long way, I think.


The big problem there, as I see it, is you cannot control any joe-blow who wants to pull out ads for his candidate. Finance reform can only go so far because ultimately people have money and they're going to spend it on their preferred candidate. You simply can't police every possible method of advertising a candidate such that only $X are spent for any particular candidate.
 
2012-06-22 11:56:40 AM  
Obama Administration (to all of us): American guns are being smuggled into Mexico and are used to murder people. That is why we need stricter gun laws in the U.S.

Obama Administration (among themselves): Yeah, that program to catch arms smuggler as they cross border? Let's see what happens if we just let them go through.

I am hoping they uncover evidence that either connects these, or else (better) show there was no connection at all. But given the lies and now the invoking of privilege, I am doubting that it will be the later.
 
2012-06-22 11:56:52 AM  
the point is the NYTimes is biased. If you didn't know that already, this probably won't convince anyways because you are probably insane.
 
2012-06-22 11:56:53 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Sudlow: You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this.

He died because someone shot him. The DOJ never ordered any hits from what I know.


Oh come on. Putting peanut butter on your junk around a hungry dog doesn't force the dog to lick your nuts, but you have a pretty damn good idea that it can and probably will happen.
 
2012-06-22 11:57:54 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: BTW outside of your echo chambers people don't hate all unions.


Who said I hate them? I have a problem with someone unilaterally giving them a huge ownership share of a massive company while at the same time cancelling the debt(and share) owed to other people that have a stake in the company
 
2012-06-22 12:00:06 PM  

Hermione_Granger: Well considering that this President was trying to protect agents in the field and the last President had no problem outing them, I think there's a world of difference.

Context: it matters.


but this White House knows how to keep a secret
 
2012-06-22 12:01:19 PM  

Big Man On Campus: Raug the Dwarf: I'm not saying it would cure all ills. The lobbying would have to stop as well. I'm personally big on Campaign Finance Reform too. In that, you can only spend X amount of dollars on your campaign. You put a hard cap on that. Each candidate can only spend X dollars, no more. Each candidate can only receive up to Y dollars from one source, hard capped, hard enforcement. That would help cut down on too much lobby control. And couple Finance Reform with Hard term limits and I think you have a winning combination. The lobbies won't spend as much with each candidate they bought because they know they're gone in 4-6 years. Cuts out some corruption and out of touch politicians that receive huge financial backing year after year. Would go a long way, I think.

The big problem there, as I see it, is you cannot control any joe-blow who wants to pull out ads for his candidate. Finance reform can only go so far because ultimately people have money and they're going to spend it on their preferred candidate. You simply can't police every possible method of advertising a candidate such that only $X are spent for any particular candidate.


You could. If the ad is political in nature, then you can sure keep track of the content and who pays for it. We have to do that now with political ads. It wouldn't matter if it came from the campaign itself or from an outside party. If they're running an ad in favor of or against a candidate, they would be subject to the same rules and cap set up by the guidelines. And that would go towards the candidates X amount of dollar spent on their entire campaign AND the Y amount of dollars donated by a single entity.

You'd just have the TV and Radio stations report them (like we do anyway). Include who paid for the ad and who the ad was far. Small price for the citizens to have a free election that wasn't already bought, paid for and decided in the court of the Media.
 
2012-06-22 12:05:36 PM  
I hate him, but Obama is a smart guy and a fantastic politician. If there is no wrong doing, why not just let Issa get what he wants? Obama would win big that way. Shut the Pubs up, show he and his boy Holder are awesome sauce, end of story. Pubs would look very bad if there was nothing to see.

Behind the scenes, I think Obama is a corrupt mofo, and Holder just as bad. Didn't Obama run with an open government promise? Promise to televise the health care debate? How did that go? He is the worst kind of bully, the sneaky kind. The liberal hypocrisy is the worst. Things you would scream bloody murder about with Bush you sit here and defend because it is the Messiah. Crazy.
 
2012-06-22 12:05:54 PM  

Raug the Dwarf: I'm not saying it would cure all ills. The lobbying would have to stop as well. I'm personally big on Campaign Finance Reform too. In that, you can only spend X amount of dollars on your campaign. You put a hard cap on that. Each candidate can only spend X dollars, no more. Each candidate can only receive up to Y dollars from one source, hard capped, hard enforcement. That would help cut down on too much lobby control. And couple Finance Reform with Hard term limits and I think you have a winning combination. The lobbies won't spend as much with each candidate they bought because they know they're gone in 4-6 years. Cuts out some corruption and out of touch politicians that receive huge financial backing year after year. Would go a long way, I think.


No, it would not.

So Zaphod Beeblebrox's election campaign treasury has amassed the maximum of $X. So what? Meanwhile, you believe in Beeblebrox's policies and principles, and he is the most experienced and qualified candidate. The Derpy Derp Derps are loud though and charged up to vote en masse for Damien Thorne or Steve Hitler or whatever. It's looking like a lot of Beeblebrox's assumed constituents are unenthused and may sit this one out. The First Amendment guarantees your right to praise Beeblebrox, to denounce Thorne, to promote elements of Beeblebrox's platform, to criticise those of Thorne. You can buy your own printing press or television station or, as most people do, you can pay existing newspapers and television stations to print or air your voice. You can pool your resources with other Beeblebrox supporters to get your voice out loud and often. Beeblebrox has no control over you just because he's maxxed out his own spending, for fark's sake; you're a free man.
 
2012-06-22 12:09:07 PM  

Fark It: When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."


Well Maybe that's because the Democrats were investigating a plan to use the DOJ to criminally prosecute Bush's political enemies, violate the hatch act by packing the career civil service ranks of the DOJ with partisan ideologues, and override the Attorney General to institute a wiretap prgram that violated the 4th amendment

Thre republicans are "investigating" a minor ATF program started under Bush that was poorly run
 
2012-06-22 12:10:40 PM  

Hermione_Granger: Well considering that this President was trying to protect agents in the field and the last President had no problem outing them, I think there's a world of difference.

Context: it matters.



I wonder if Brian Terry feels safe.
 
2012-06-22 12:12:42 PM  

Thunderpipes: I hate him, but Obama is a smart guy and a fantastic politician. If there is no wrong doing, why not just let Issa get what he wants? Obama would win big that way. Shut the Pubs up, show he and his boy Holder are awesome sauce, end of story. Pubs would look very bad if there was nothing to see.

Behind the scenes, I think Obama is a corrupt mofo, and Holder just as bad. Didn't Obama run with an open government promise? Promise to televise the health care debate? How did that go? He is the worst kind of bully, the sneaky kind. The liberal hypocrisy is the worst. Things you would scream bloody murder about with Bush you sit here and defend because it is the Messiah. Crazy.


Whoa. Dumber than advertised. Issa will NEVER shut up no matter what you give him. He's a petty crook (he burned down his own warehouse for the insurance money) who declared Obama "the most corrupt president we've ever had" befroe being forced to amned that statement to say that while Issa had no evidence that Obama had ever done anything wrong, he just FELT that Obama was corrupt.

Anything you give him will never be enough, so basically? Fark him. He got what he was legally entitled to, and the rest of this is him throwing a temper tantrum
 
2012-06-22 12:14:41 PM  

jayphat: Wendy's Chili: Sudlow: Hermione_Granger

Context: it matters.

You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this. Right?

AFAIK, there's no evidence that the round that killed the agent came from the F&F gun.

Are you farking serious? That's how this whole thing started. The gun.was traced back to the.program. do you think they just had an agent killed and said "it might have been because of this super-secret program"


Actually he's right. Guns from the program were found at the scene, along with other guns. Ballistics tests carried out by the FBI were inconclusive in determining which gun or guns fired the shots - so it isn't known that the Fast and Furious guns were actually responsible for the death. So, technically correct (the best kind!) if a pretty meaningless distinction.

Still, this story has pretty clearly been blown out of proportion for political ends. The same people that argue, "Guns don't kill people, people do," now want us to believe that it is, in fact, the specific gun used in a crime that matters even if there were tens of thousands of others that could just as easily have ended up at the scene of the crime. The Fast and Furious idea was idiotic, but arguing that the BP agent was killed because of it, like the cartels wouldn't have had weapons to use if the ATFE hadn't let those particular guns walk, is equally idiotic.

That said, heads should roll for the stupidity that was F&F. Of course, all of the information shows that it was cooked up by the Arizona locals without apparent approval from above, but that hasn't stopped the Republicans from trying to score political points by demanding documents relating to after-the-fact discussion between Justice and the White House once the idiocy came to light. Of course, I have no doubt that the democrats would have done pretty much the same thing had positions been reversed, but this is just another example of how politics in this country has become far more about scoring points than actually trying to solve problems.
 
2012-06-22 12:19:12 PM  

demonbug: That said, heads should roll for the stupidity that was F&F. Of course, all of the information shows that it was cooked up by the Arizona locals without apparent approval from above


Then why is the President and all his appointed officials hiding from the investigation....why are they not turning over the documents that were subpoena'd by congress?
 
2012-06-22 12:20:20 PM  

HopScotchNSoda: Raug the Dwarf:

in the case of Zaphod v. his dissenters


I'll quote myself here because the posts are flying a little fast....

Raug the Dwarf: Big Man On Campus: Raug the Dwarf:

You could. If the ad is political in nature, then you can sure keep track of the content and who pays for it. We have to do that now with political ads. It wouldn't matter if it came from the campaign itself or from an outside party. If they're running an ad in favor of or against a candidate, they would be subject to the same rules and cap set up by the guidelines. And that would go towards the candidates X amount of dollar spent on their entire campaign AND the Y amount of dollars donated by a single entity.

You'd just have the TV and Radio stations report them (like we do anyway). Include who paid for the ad and who the ad was far. Small price for the citizens to have a free election that wasn't already bought, paid for and decided in the court of the Media.


You just need a Vogon committee to oversee the paperwork. Which we have in place already. You have to keep track of what's being spent and where. Those numbers would be filed, tabulated and added to the total. That or the campaign people would have to figure it in to the budget when they started paying for advertising. It wouldn't stop those groups from taking out ads, but again, it would place a hard cap on the total amount of dollars they spend and the total amount they could contribute to the campaign. Those ad dollars that they're spending from their pocket would go towards that total.
 
2012-06-22 12:22:29 PM  

demonbug: Still, this story has pretty clearly been blown out of proportion for political ends. The same people that argue, "Guns don't kill people, people do," now want us to believe that it is, in fact, the specific gun used in a crime that matters even if there were tens of thousands of others that could just as easily have ended up at the scene of the crime. The Fast and Furious idea was idiotic, but arguing that the BP agent was killed because of it, like the cartels wouldn't have had weapons to use if the ATFE hadn't let those particular guns walk, is equally idiotic.


Well, here's the problem:

You're providing materiel support to the cartels, who kill innocent people, including Americans, right now. People crucify Republicans for doing the same 30 years ago when they provided materiel support to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets and who later broke apart in to groups, one major group of which killed(and continue to kill) innocents and Americans. You either have one or the other, can't have both.
 
2012-06-22 12:22:44 PM  
I think most of us will agree both Bush and Obama are morons. Thing is, Bush never claimed he wasn't, and Obama claimed he wasn't going to be like the other presidents.

He's just like the other presidents.
 
2012-06-22 12:29:36 PM  
...and then links to a right wing blog that gives no other attribution to EDITORIALS other than "The New York Times" AS IF this means anything. We could waste some more of our time, go clip old Fox News editorials and compare them with what they're saying now. I'm sure your half of the s**t sandwich is much more delicious than mine. Next!
 
2012-06-22 12:32:45 PM  

demonbug:

That said, heads should roll for the stupidity that was F&F. Of course, all of the information shows that it was cooked up by the Arizona locals without apparent approval from above, but that hasn't stopped the Republicans from trying to score political points by demanding documents relating to after-the-fact discussion between Justice and the White House once the idiocy came to light.


locals without apparent approval from above? After the fact? Here's documents from July 2010 between Washington and Phoenix. Brian Terry was killed in November 2010.
 
2012-06-22 12:33:38 PM  

austin_millbarge: Mugato: Mentat: We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

It's like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. Once a government gets a power, they don't give it up even after a change in leadership. Still, starting it is worse than not stopping it.

THIS, mainly because yes once the toothpaste is out of the tube....


Which would be a valid point if Obama was just leaving things as they were rather than expanding on the foundation Bush left. But yeah, GO TEAM!!!
 
2012-06-22 12:35:26 PM  
Fun to see the Fark liberal majority largely silent.

2007 Fark Headlines:

Bush Administration says none of McClellan's claims are true, but considers invoking executive privilege to block his testimony 225

In a move that surprises absolutely no one, Bush claims executive privilege on Plame leak to prevent the attorney general from testifying. Congress shakes its tiny, ineffectual fists 206

Bush press secretary Tony Snow: "Executive privilege is a dodge" or at least that is what he said on FoxNews when Clinton was president 211

Why Obama should swear off executive privilege entirely if he's serious about curbing Presidential abuse of power 125

Judge gives Bush Adminstration three days to come up with a reason why they shouldn't have to hand over copies of all e-mails on every White House computer. This should be entertaining 193
 
2012-06-22 12:36:41 PM  

Raug the Dwarf: You just need a Vogon committee to oversee the paperwork. Which we have in place already. You have to keep track of what's being spent and where. Those numbers would be filed, tabulated and added to the total. That or the campaign people would have to figure it in to the budget when they started paying for advertising. It wouldn't stop those groups from taking out ads, but again, it would place a hard cap on the total amount of dollars they spend and the total amount they could contribute to the campaign. Those ad dollars that they're spending from their pocket would go towards that total.


Again, though, that doesn't jibe with the First Amendment's guarantee of your and my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press.

No matter how much has been spent in support of Beeblebrox already, the government has no right to prohibit you from expressing your opinion as well. Thorne's got the masses fooled and has the special daggers properly secured. If you buy a printing plant or a broadcasting facility, you have every right for your plant or facility to pump out nothing but pro-Beeblebrox, anti-Thorne material, let the world know that Thorne is the son of Satan and Beeblebrox's two heads are better than one.

The First Amendment does not apply only to people so rich as to be able to buy whole printing plants and television broadcasting facilities; you (with or without the co-operation of like-minded people) can buy the small use of the printing plant or television broadcasting facility by purchasing advertisements to run within the newspaper or television programming that emerge from the aforesaid printing plant or television broadcasting facility.
 
2012-06-22 12:44:15 PM  

HopScotchNSoda: Raug the Dwarf: You just need a Vogon committee to oversee the paperwork. Which we have in place already. You have to keep track of what's being spent and where. Those numbers would be filed, tabulated and added to the total. That or the campaign people would have to figure it in to the budget when they started paying for advertising. It wouldn't stop those groups from taking out ads, but again, it would place a hard cap on the total amount of dollars they spend and the total amount they could contribute to the campaign. Those ad dollars that they're spending from their pocket would go towards that total.

Again, though, that doesn't jibe with the First Amendment's guarantee of your and my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press.

No matter how much has been spent in support of Beeblebrox already, the government has no right to prohibit you from expressing your opinion as well. Thorne's got the masses fooled and has the special daggers properly secured. If you buy a printing plant or a broadcasting facility, you have every right for your plant or facility to pump out nothing but pro-Beeblebrox, anti-Thorne material, let the world know that Thorne is the son of Satan and Beeblebrox's two heads are better than one.

The First Amendment does not apply only to people so rich as to be able to buy whole printing plants and television broadcasting facilities; you (with or without the co-operation of like-minded people) can buy the small use of the printing plant or television broadcasting facility by purchasing advertisements to run within the newspaper or television programming that emerge from the aforesaid printing plant or television broadcasting facility.


The First Amendment also doesn't say that people are guaranteed all the TV and Radio time they want either. That costs money, money that the groups and individuals need to have their message broadcast. The content of the messages and what they want to say? Go For it. Zaphod's an idiot who eats Dolphins? Whatever.

But if you're spending money, as a group or individual, in support or against a candidate currently running for political office, then your dollar amount would count against the current amount for the candidate you're favoring. There's also 'equal airtime' policies on the books as well. If you do own a station or printing press, then it's your legal duty to offer and provide equal airtime to both candidates.
 
2012-06-22 12:48:05 PM  
BTW, HopScotchNSoda , I appreciate the Hitchhikers fake references to candidates.

For me, it's not about parties anymore. fark Republicans. fark Democrats. Tired of the system in general and it's way past time for an overhaul. I'm just trying to offer solutions.
 
2012-06-22 01:00:56 PM  

Raug the Dwarf: But if you're spending money, as a group or individual, in support or against a candidate currently running for political office, then your dollar amount would count against the current amount for the candidate you're favoring. There's also 'equal airtime' policies on the books as well. If you do own a station or printing press, then it's your legal duty to offer and provide equal airtime to both candidates.


You appear to be confusing the equal time rule with the old "fairness doctrine" that was done away with in 1987, and misapplying it to media which has never been subject to it. The equal time rule only requires two things:

  1, If you provide free access to a candidate then you have to offer an equal amount of free access to the opposing candidates. There are lots of exceptions (news coverage, debates that aren't sponsored by the station itself, and in some cases talk shows).

  2. If you accept advertising, you have to offer advertising to political candidates/organisations at the same rates as your best clients.

The equal time rule applies only to terrestrial television stations and terrestrial radio stations; much like the former rule requiring X hours of news and public information per week, it was conceived as a condition of stations getting the free broadcasting bandwidth: It has never applied to newspapers. Newspapers have traditionally enforced candidates and continue to do so. Satellite radio, magazines, cable/satellite television, the intarwebs, billboards, inter alia are not subject in any way to the equal time rule.
 
2012-06-22 01:03:58 PM  
Both major political parties and their supporters will *ALWAYS* cry "FOUL!" whenever the other party does something that they, themselves, have done in the past when faced with partisan obstructionism or out of political expediency. Get over it, both sides.
 
2012-06-22 01:04:20 PM  
Contrabulous Flabtraption:
yes, it's true. nobody likes claims of executive privilege.

and yes, it's true, people give their own party a pass on things. do you think you're the first person to notice this?
 
2012-06-22 01:18:58 PM  

HopScotchNSoda: Raug the Dwarf: But if you're spending money, as a group or individual, in support or against a candidate currently running for political office, then your dollar amount would count against the current amount for the candidate you're favoring. There's also 'equal airtime' policies on the books as well. If you do own a station or printing press, then it's your legal duty to offer and provide equal airtime to both candidates.

You appear to be confusing the equal time rule with the old "fairness doctrine" that was done away with in 1987, and misapplying it to media which has never been subject to it. The equal time rule only requires two things:

  1, If you provide free access to a candidate then you have to offer an equal amount of free access to the opposing candidates. There are lots of exceptions (news coverage, debates that aren't sponsored by the station itself, and in some cases talk shows).

  2. If you accept advertising, you have to offer advertising to political candidates/organisations at the same rates as your best clients.

The equal time rule applies only to terrestrial television stations and terrestrial radio stations; much like the former rule requiring X hours of news and public information per week, it was conceived as a condition of stations getting the free broadcasting bandwidth: It has never applied to newspapers. Newspapers have traditionally enforced candidates and continue to do so. Satellite radio, magazines, cable/satellite television, the intarwebs, billboards, inter alia are not subject in any way to the equal time rule.


There's nothing in the equal time rules about free access. Just that you have to offer and provide equal airtime to either candidate if they request it. Meaning you can't deny a candidate air time if he's paying for it just because it doesn't agree with your personal stance as owner of the station. I got an email from the NAB a few days ago reminding us what the rules were on political ads.
 
2012-06-22 01:21:13 PM  

cleek: Contrabulous Flabtraption:
yes, it's true. nobody likes claims of executive privilege.

and yes, it's true, people give their own party a pass on things. do you think you're the first person to notice this?


Yes! Duke sucks!
 
2012-06-22 01:34:54 PM  
Democrats do something, and Republicans criticize.... Republicans do something, and Democrats criticize. Must be a slow news day if someone took the time to shine a light on this shocking situation.

/...it's like the cola wars, but when people start to hate cola, everyone agrees there is no substitute.
 
2012-06-22 01:36:10 PM  
"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."
Link

"The Department of Justice is committed to achieving the President's goal of making this the most transparent Administration in history."
Link

I love how people will point to previous bad behavior to justify current bad behavior and never bat an eye while doing it.
 
2012-06-22 01:43:10 PM  

Sudlow: Hermione_Granger

Context: it matters.

You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this. Right?


..because of course, Mexican narco-gangs are simply incapable of buying weapons anywhere but an ill-advised gun-tracking program that started before Holder got into office. Yes indeedy, there is not a single other weapon in the entire world that could have killed that Border Patrol agent.

And we all know that guns are what kill, not people, amirite?
 
2012-06-22 01:47:08 PM  

Raug the Dwarf: There's nothing in the equal time rules about free access. Just that you have to offer and provide equal airtime to either candidate if they request it. Meaning you can't deny a candidate air time if he's paying for it just because it doesn't agree with your personal stance as owner of the station. I got an email from the NAB a few days ago reminding us what the rules were on political ads.



On the contrary, it doesn't require a station to give away airtime unless they give it away to competing candidates. You are correct though that the station cannot censor the ads nor deny the advertising (as long as they accept advertising in the first place -- i.e., a PBS station is not in violation of the act by refusing to run candidate X's advertisement because they don't accept advertising in the first place).
 
2012-06-22 02:26:02 PM  

Mr.Insightful: ..because of course, Mexican narco-gangs are simply incapable of buying weapons anywhere but an ill-advised gun-tracking program that started before Holder got into office. Yes indeedy, there is not a single other weapon in the entire world that could have killed that Border Patrol agent.

And we all know that guns are what kill, not people, amirite?


That isn't the point though - the point is that we were providing material support to drug cartels. The fact that they killed the agent is neither here nor there. The program was ineffective at best, and criminally stupid at worst.

That is the point. The DOJ was propping up Mexican drug cartels for no damn good reason.
 
2012-06-22 02:39:29 PM  

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: Sudlow: You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this.

He died because someone shot him. The DOJ never ordered any hits from what I know.

Oh come on. Putting peanut butter on your junk around a hungry dog doesn't force the dog to lick your nuts, but you have a pretty damn good idea that it can and probably will happen.


You are completely correct. The guy who shot that agent would never have had a gun if F&F had not taken place. Guns were impossible to find in Mexico before it.
 
2012-06-22 02:47:34 PM  

Fark It: Crotchrocket Slim: Fark It: When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."

Given that most House Republicans were elected on jobs-creation etc. platforms and have done everything they can to stifle the President's efforts and suggested none of their own (yay could they waste more time on socially divisive stuff like killing subsidized birth control that marginally over half the population thinks is an excellent use of taxpayer money) I'd say it's very fair to question their motives.

This right here is more partisan and politically motivated than the F&F investigation has ever been.


Well. considering how well you just backed up your opinion it's no wonder the GOP swept both houses of Congress last off-year election.

How about you tell me one thing the Tea Party-centric and other Congressional members of the GOP have accomplished for the nation economically other than mess up our AAA credit rating since 2010?
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report