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.

(Salon)   Media Matters sends out talking points defending Obama's DOJ obtaining AP phone logs so dumb and partisan that even Salon is forced to blush   ( salon.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Media Matters, U.S. state abbreviations, Obama Justice Department, DOJ, obama, Salon, David Brock, Jonathan Haidt  
•       •       •

2646 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2013 at 9:48 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-17 08:50:58 AM  
Which distinguishes them, of course, from other talking points, which are normally non-partisan and rich with analytic detail.
 
2013-05-17 09:50:20 AM  
It was an outright fishing expedition and the judge that allowed this needs to be gone. In fact, every judge should be asked to review this and fire the one's that fail the test.
 
2013-05-17 09:51:07 AM  
This letter is all you need to know about this scandal.  It was legal, but contrary to the DOJ's own guidelines developed with media input to avoid this kind of power trip.
 
2013-05-17 09:59:53 AM  
I guess since we're all the libbiest libs that ever libbed a lib, we're assumed to be defending this till our dying breaths?

/I mean, it's not like it's a talking point from FOX
 
2013-05-17 10:00:47 AM  
This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.
 
2013-05-17 10:01:26 AM  
Now the crap is craping crap.

/crap!
 
2013-05-17 10:02:42 AM  
Yes, it's fatuous to try to pull the "because TERROR" blanket over everything.  I'm glad the right is finally coming to realize this.

/until they're back in power
 
2013-05-17 10:03:15 AM  
This is why there's no liberal party in the US.  There's enough integrity on that side that it would be impossible to fund raise.
 
2013-05-17 10:03:22 AM  

Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.


inb4 the trolls and dittos start chanting "ONLY CUZ U GOT CAUGHT LOLOBAMABENGHAZIIRSAPBIGGESTSCANDALEVARZ"

But srsly, even though it's being called out and refuted, Media Matters should have scrutiny and ridicule heaped upon it at least as much as all the libbiest libs heap onto Foxnews and the like.
 
2013-05-17 10:03:39 AM  
So, the guy who voted for immunity for those involved in the warrantless wiretaps doesn't care about the right to privacy? Colour me shocked.The press is only pissy because now it's happening to them instead of helpless individuals.
 
2013-05-17 10:04:03 AM  

I_C_Weener: This letter is all you need to know about this scandal.  It was legal, but contrary to the DOJ's own guidelines developed with media input to avoid this kind of power trip.


Well no, that's not "all" you need to know. The DOJ wrote back explaining (within the usual limits of any comment about an ongoing investigation) why they did what they did. The media coalition letter seems more to be an argument from incredulity than anything else.
 
2013-05-17 10:09:40 AM  
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-05-17 10:12:43 AM  

PawisBetlog: Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.

inb4 the trolls and dittos start chanting "ONLY CUZ U GOT CAUGHT LOLOBAMABENGHAZIIRSAPBIGGESTSCANDALEVARZ"

But srsly, even though it's being called out and refuted, Media Matters should have scrutiny and ridicule heaped upon it at least as much as all the libbiest libs heap onto Foxnews and the like.


Because Media Matters is a 24/7 cable news channel.  Because Media Matters and Fox News have equal influence.  Because Media Matters claims to report all of "the news."  Because Media Matters constantly stresses that they're "fair and balanced."  Because Media Matters claims that all other news outlets are biased lamestream driveby media, but they, the single largest news media organization, are different.  Pure.  Good.
American.  Because one of Media Matters' best-known talking heads has been boycotted by numerous advertisers because so many people have expressed disgust with him.  Because liberal politicians jump from the "I HATEZ ME SOME MEDIA" bandwagon to well-paying positions within Media Matters, where they leave behind all semblance of reasonable debate and instead simply regurgitate "ZOMG Republican Monster Scandal" talking points.
 
2013-05-17 10:15:49 AM  
And of course, I see no link in this article to the actual talking points.

Am I missing something?
 
2013-05-17 10:16:38 AM  

Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.


I think Salon "blushed" because even they had to make some protest about the DOJ seizing the records of Journalists.

If not for that, they'd be defending it as well.
 
2013-05-17 10:18:06 AM  
Join me, would you? We're going to take a trip back in time, to the summer of 2008. There may be some culture shock, as you see many people heading to and from their houses to their full-time jobs, and our president is from a minority group...

*doodle-doo doodle-doo doodle-doo*

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s191

// you may now return to now-time
 
2013-05-17 10:20:02 AM  

un4gvn666: And of course, I see no link in this article to the actual talking points.

Am I missing something?


Nevermind, I was just being lazy. They're right here on the website.
 
2013-05-17 10:21:36 AM  

un4gvn666: un4gvn666: And of course, I see no link in this article to the actual talking points.

Am I missing something?

Nevermind, I was just being lazy. They're right here on the website.


Also, upon reading them, I don't see what the BFD is.
 
2013-05-17 10:24:26 AM  
I've not paid much attention to Media Matters in some time, but see them references frequently. I used to think well of David Brock. This stuff, though? Coming from him, of all people? Screw that guy.
 
2013-05-17 10:24:37 AM  
...another "liberal" site heard from.

/Much like The Raw Story, Salon is barely left of center.  Glenn Greenwald has to baselessly call Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins "islamophobes" just to keep up his librul street cred.
 
2013-05-17 10:25:25 AM  

un4gvn666: And of course, I see no link in this article to the actual talking points.

Am I missing something?


The DOJ's AP Investigation

Did Republicans in Congress who are now exploiting the situation to score political points oppose the media shield law that likely would have protected the Associated Press in this situation

I like that one.
 
2013-05-17 10:26:03 AM  

Citrate1007: his is the primary difference between the right and left. The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.


You earnestly believe that "the left" does not repeat spin "until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth."?

Is it that you think the left doesn't spin, or that the left doesn;t have a dumb ass base, or both?
 
2013-05-17 10:31:29 AM  
Media Matters is actually where most of the AP, Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow and Jon Stewart get their talking points from.  Then Total Fark spits it out a day later.

Its funny when you hear montages of reporters from all over the country using the exact same language.
 
2013-05-17 10:33:18 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: or that the left doesn;t have a dumb ass base


This is actually provably false.

The liberal base is statistically more informed and less prone to conspiracies than conservatives. This should be obvious to anyone at this point.

We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.
 
2013-05-17 10:34:13 AM  
BAWWWWWW
 
2013-05-17 10:34:48 AM  
I've yet to see anyone ITT pointing out specifically what points in those talking points are false or irrelevant to the discussion, or how they are meant to obfuscate any understanding of the issue.

They seem like pretty reasonable points to me.
 
2013-05-17 10:36:36 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Citrate1007: his is the primary difference between the right and left. The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.

You earnestly believe that "the left" does not repeat spin "until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth."?

Is it that you think the left doesn't spin, or that the left doesn;t have a dumb ass base, or both?


The left does spin, and the left does have a dumbass base, but tell me what you have to stack up against:

1. Kerry swiftboating (by a candidate who was AWOL from a VIP-only no-combat unit)
2. Obama Kenyan Muslim
3. Obama in partnership with terrorist Bill Ayers to promote terrorism

One candidate derailed on pure lies.  Another survived pure lies, but that didn't stop the spin machine from pushing it well after the campaign was over.

So what stacks up against that?  Bush fabricated WMD evidence?  Bush spent more time on vacation than any other president?

How many Republicans, when polled, still believe that WMDs were found, that Saddam was connected to 9/11, that Kerry was a deserter, that Obama is not an American?

Now list your crackpot theories acribed to liberals, and how many, if polled, would still claim to believe them?
 
2013-05-17 10:38:52 AM  
This proves the Democratic Party is imploding.
 
2013-05-17 10:52:16 AM  

un4gvn666: BojanglesPaladin: or that the left doesn;t have a dumb ass base

This is actually provably false.

The liberal base is statistically more informed and less prone to conspiracies than conservatives. This should be obvious to anyone at this point.

We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.


Yeah...less prone to conspiracies....like Trayvon Martin was murdered by white man....CIA sold crack in the hood....AIDS was created by govt to kill minoritirs....Colbert's sister was a great candidate who would destroy the cuckold GOP candidate....

Yeah Dems and libs don't believe in conspiracies....
 
2013-05-17 10:54:25 AM  

FloridaFarkTag: Yeah Dems and libs don't believe in conspiracies....


I don't know anybody who believes any of those things. I think you're full of shiat.
 
2013-05-17 10:55:04 AM  

FloridaFarkTag: un4gvn666: BojanglesPaladin: or that the left doesn;t have a dumb ass base

This is actually provably false.

The liberal base is statistically more informed and less prone to conspiracies than conservatives. This should be obvious to anyone at this point.

We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.

Yeah...less prone to conspiracies....like Trayvon Martin was murdered by white man....CIA sold crack in the hood....AIDS was created by govt to kill minoritirs....Colbert's sister was a great candidate who would destroy the cuckold GOP candidate....

Yeah Dems and libs don't believe in conspiracies....


Take a poll on all of those things, just as you've written them.  Let's see what libby libz say.

Then take a poll on "Saddam was connected with 9/11" and "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" and see what rightwingers say.

Also:  "Colbert's sister was a great candidate who would destroy the cuckold GOP candidate."  Two things:  1) Look up "cuckold", it does not mean what you think it means, and 2) that's a conspiracy?
 
2013-05-17 10:56:28 AM  
"even salon"

what the shiat
 
2013-05-17 10:56:57 AM  
Media Matters obviously doesn't understand Bully Logic®.

1. The Bully makes the Rules.
2. The Bully appears to be in the center of a crowd of supporters.
3. Actual logic and argument has no place in Bully Logic® and no appeal to compassion, fairness or any "churchy" weakness has any effect.
4. Bully Logic® requires the skillful use of Victim Values© like compassion, fairness, tolerance, equity to confuse and contradict.
5. Bully Logic® protects the amoral, especially the very wealthy amoral. and the careful exercise of always choosing the darker side when the other is a win-win.
6. Bully Logic® knows that Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg is not a problem. The government will always buy it another Goose, and bill the Victim Values©

.
 
2013-05-17 10:56:59 AM  

Kibbler: PawisBetlog: Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.

inb4 the trolls and dittos start chanting "ONLY CUZ U GOT CAUGHT LOLOBAMABENGHAZIIRSAPBIGGESTSCANDALEVARZ"

But srsly, even though it's being called out and refuted, Media Matters should have scrutiny and ridicule heaped upon it at least as much as all the libbiest libs heap onto Foxnews and the like.

Because Media Matters is a 24/7 cable news channel.  Because Media Matters and Fox News have equal influence.  Because Media Matters claims to report all of "the news."  Because Media Matters constantly stresses that they're "fair and balanced."  Because Media Matters claims that all other news outlets are biased lamestream driveby media, but they, the single largest news media organization, are different.  Pure.  Good.
American.  Because one of Media Matters' best-known talking heads has been boycotted by numerous advertisers because so many people have expressed disgust with him.  Because liberal politicians jump from the "I HATEZ ME SOME MEDIA" bandwagon to well-paying positions within Media Matters, where they leave behind all semblance of reasonable debate and instead simply regurgitate "ZOMG Republican Monster Scandal" talking points.


No, because Media Matters is engaging in partisan hackery, and partisan hackery should be reviled and ridiculed wherever it appears, anywhere on the political spectrum, whether it's your stabbing at the heart of your opponent from the castle of your mom's basement, or from a major news outlet.

\for the record, it was not my pee you tasted in your cheerios this morning, look elsewhere.
 
2013-05-17 10:57:50 AM  

Kibbler: Colbert's sister was a great candidate who would destroy the cuckold GOP candidate."  Two things:  1) Look up "cuckold", it does not mean what you think it means, and 2) that's a conspiracy?


Hey, you never know, Sanford could be really into that.
 
2013-05-17 11:01:16 AM  

PawisBetlog: Kibbler: PawisBetlog: Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.

inb4 the trolls and dittos start chanting "ONLY CUZ U GOT CAUGHT LOLOBAMABENGHAZIIRSAPBIGGESTSCANDALEVARZ"

But srsly, even though it's being called out and refuted, Media Matters should have scrutiny and ridicule heaped upon it at least as much as all the libbiest libs heap onto Foxnews and the like.

Because Media Matters is a 24/7 cable news channel.  Because Media Matters and Fox News have equal influence.  Because Media Matters claims to report all of "the news."  Because Media Matters constantly stresses that they're "fair and balanced."  Because Media Matters claims that all other news outlets are biased lamestream driveby media, but they, the single largest news media organization, are different.  Pure.  Good.
American.  Because one of Media Matters' best-known talking heads has been boycotted by numerous advertisers because so many people have expressed disgust with him.  Because liberal politicians jump from the "I HATEZ ME SOME MEDIA" bandwagon to well-paying positions within Media Matters, where they leave behind all semblance of reasonable debate and instead simply regurgitate "ZOMG Republican Monster Scandal" talking points.

No, because Media Matters is engaging in partisan hackery, and partisan hackery should be reviled and ridiculed wherever it appears, anywhere on the political spectrum, whether it's your stabbing at the heart of your opponent from the castle of your mom's basement, or from a major news outlet.

\for the record, it was not my pee you tasted in your cheerios this morning, look elsewhere.


That "pee in your cheerios" thing could be applied to what you originally said.  It could be applied to almost any statement that anybody makes about anything that expresses an opinion.  Same thing for the "the castle of your mom's basement" crack.  You may note that I didn't make any remarks like that.
 
2013-05-17 11:03:00 AM  

FloridaFarkTag: Yeah...less prone to conspiracies....like Trayvon Martin was murdered by white man....CIA sold crack in the hood....AIDS was created by govt to kill minoritirs....Colbert's sister was a great candidate who would destroy the cuckold GOP candidate....


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this one actually happen? Like, we have admissions from former LAPD officers who did the selling?
 
2013-05-17 11:04:57 AM  

Kibbler: That "pee in your cheerios" thing could be applied to what you originally said. It could be applied to almost any statement that anybody makes about anything that expresses an opinion. Same thing for the "the castle of your mom's basement" crack. You may note that I didn't make any remarks like that.


And you may notice that I didn't make any remarks like "Media Matters and Fox News have equal influence" or "Media Matters claims to report all of "the news", or that "Media Matters constantly stresses that they're fair and balanced" I made a passing comparison, not a detailed thesis on their similarities.

Pardon my snark, but I was just pointing out that those of us who are of the liberal persuasion need to be equally scornful of bad behavior when it occurs within our ranks, taking the high road of objectivity if you will, lest we further feed the partisan war machine.
 
2013-05-17 11:15:04 AM  

I_C_Weener: This letter is all you need to know about this scandal.  It was legal, but contrary to the DOJ's own guidelines developed with media input to avoid this kind of power trip.


In this instance,where the Department subpoenaed two months of records related to 20 telephone lines, including records from major AP bureaus and the home phone and cell phone records of individual journalists, the Department appears to have ignored or brushed aside almost every aspect of the guidelines.

-Narrow scope of the subpoena...
-Seeking information from alternative sources...
-Obligation to inform and negotiate...
-Attorney General approval...
-Balancing of interests...
 ...
It should immediately return the telephone toll records obtained and destroy all copies, as requested by The Associated Press. If it refuses, it should at the very least segregate these records and prohibit any further use of them at this time. It should explain how government lawyers overreached so egregiously in this matter and describe what the Department will do to mitigate the impact of these actions. Additionally, the Department must also publicly disclose more information on who has had access to the records and what protections were taken to ensure that information unrelated to a specific criminal investigation was not utilized by any Department employees. This undertaking is consistent with § 50.10(g)(4) ("Any information obtained as a result of a subpoena issued for telephone toll records shall be closely held so as to prevent disclosure of the information to unauthorized persons or for improper purposes.


That's from the letter, and those are the issues  that should be prevalent about this expedition, and each of the failings are documented.  The most notable aspect of the talking points is that they fail to address any of them and instead try to twist the issues to partisan ones about the reporter shield law and Valerie Plame.  Neither of those have any relevance to whether in this instance, the DoJ followed it's own guidelines and procedures in an overly broad search that cuts straight to the core of why the Constitution singles out the press as the only private enterprise meriting explicit protection.
 
2013-05-17 11:19:53 AM  

Dr Dreidel: our president is from a minority group...


in 2008?   Are Connecticut born Texans a protected class?
 
2013-05-17 11:22:22 AM  
Hey GOP, remember all those times people have posted stuff to you that basically boiled down to "Stop crying wolf, or people are going to start tuning you out completely and when there really 'is' something to be upset about, no one's going to believe you."

Well, you didn't listen.  You screamed and wailed and squealed over every little stupid thing in the world, until every sane soul in America just rolled their collective eyes and stopped listening to you.

And now?  Well, let's just say that if you'd acted 'sane' the last five years, I guarantee you people would be taking this a LOT more seriously.  As it is, most people are skimming it, seeing your involvement and simply chalking it up to the Outrage of The Week.

You were warned, and honestly, it makes me sick.

This is what 'the loyal opposition' is all about, guys.  You're supposed to keep the Democrats on their toes, but you lost your farking minds over 'arugula'.  And mustard.  And gardens.  And the President having a beer.  And the fact that he golfs.  And a thousand and one other insignificant things, all because you ran into a Democrat that didn't have any skeletons in his closet and who has an innate talent for trolling your ignorant asses until you make complete fools out of yourselves on a regular basis.

So, now you're a joke on the world stage and when the Democrats 'do' get out of hand and push too far, people automatically assume it's less than what it might be, because YOU are outraged.  Again.  And they assume it's something on the scale of mustard and birf certificat whar.
 
2013-05-17 11:24:50 AM  
Media Matters is partisan? The devil you say!
 
2013-05-17 11:25:57 AM  
Well, AP had been acting like Fox News Jr. throughout the campaign. If they were acting on orders from the Romney campaign, I'd certainly want to find out about it.
 
2013-05-17 11:27:07 AM  

Karma Curmudgeon: I_C_Weener: This letter is all you need to know about this scandal.  It was legal, but contrary to the DOJ's own guidelines developed with media input to avoid this kind of power trip.

In this instance,where the Department subpoenaed two months of records related to 20 telephone lines, including records from major AP bureaus and the home phone and cell phone records of individual journalists, the Department appears to have ignored or brushed aside almost every aspect of the guidelines.

-Narrow scope of the subpoena...

AP has 3,400 employees so 20 phones does in fact seem pretty narrow to me plus it is also limited to 2 months, so also narrow in that sense.

-Seeking information from alternative sources...
Apparently they did in fact exhaust these alternate sources of information first

-Obligation to inform and negotiate...
not sure about this one

-Attorney General approval...
He recused himself for some reason but the Deputy Attorney General approved.  (Typically the term "deputy" indicates an equivalency of vested authority)

-Balancing of interests...
GOP wanted the leaks investigated, they tried to investigate it without AP records and they couldn't.  So long as AP is not the target of the investigation, I would say interests are balanced.  AP not giving up the records willingly also protects there reputation.

 ...
It should immediately return the telephone toll records obtained and destroy all copies, as requested by The Associated Press. If it refuses, it should at the very least segregate these records and prohibit any further use of them at this time. It should explain how government lawyers overreached so egregiously in this matter and describe what the Department will do to mitigate the impact of these actions. Additionally, the Department must also publicly disclose more information on who has had access to the records and what protections were taken to ensure that information unrelated to a specific criminal investigation was not utilized by any Department employees. This undertaking is consistent with § 50.10(g)(4) ("Any information obtained as a result of a subpoena issued for telephone toll records shall be closely held so as to prevent disclosure of the information to unauthorized persons or for improper purposes.

That's from the letter, and those are the issues  that should be prevalent about this expedition, and each of the failings are documented.  The most notable aspect of the talking points is that they fail to address any of them and instead try to twist the issues to partisan ones about the reporter shield law and Valerie Plame.  Neither of those have any relevance to whether in this instance, ...
 
2013-05-17 11:29:56 AM  

mrshowrules: Karma Curmudgeon: I_C_Weener: This letter is all you need to know about this scandal.  It was legal, but contrary to the DOJ's own guidelines developed with media input to avoid this kind of power trip.


Let me just say that I think it was wrong because they did have a court ordered judgement to get these records.  This practice in general is wrong/terrible but I don't think it is illegal but I am not a lawyer (not even a GED).
 
2013-05-17 11:33:45 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Citrate1007: his is the primary difference between the right and left. The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.

You earnestly believe that "the left" does not repeat spin "until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth."?

Is it that you think the left doesn't spin, or that the left doesn;t have a dumb ass base, or both?


The left has it's portion of dumb ass in its base; however, it is not anti-intellectual and idiots are shunned out of the spotlight.  That is the general notion I was going for.
 
2013-05-17 11:34:13 AM  
David Brock has some very serious mental health issues that he needs to get more help for.
 
2013-05-17 11:44:10 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Dr Dreidel: our president is from a minority group...

in 2008?   Are Connecticut born Texans a protected class?


Seems like someone missed a joke.
 
2013-05-17 11:47:20 AM  
But FOX News?

WTF

Anyone have the cartoon of the donkey and the elephant jumping over different sized hurdles with the word hypocrite coming out of the Donkeys mouth?
 
2013-05-17 11:50:29 AM  

madgonad: It was an outright fishing expedition and the judge that allowed this needs to be gone. In fact, every judge should be asked to review this and fire the one's that fail the test.


except...no.  Judges don't even need to approve these kind of record grabs anymore thanks to the patriot act, and phone records have NEVER needed a warratn because according to the Supreme Court nearly 60 years ago, phone records belong to the phone company, not you so you have no expectation of privacy over them (same with your bank records BTW)

Don;t like that? Then change the law, but stop whining about people doing something that's been more or less routine ofr half a century
 
2013-05-17 11:59:30 AM  

Giltric: But FOX News?

WTF

Anyone have the cartoon of the donkey and the elephant jumping over different sized hurdles with the word hypocrite coming out of the Donkeys mouth?


It's filed under "cartoonists who have no grasp of reality".
 
2013-05-17 11:59:32 AM  
The correct, non-partisan view is:  AP surveillance = seriously wrong, Benghazi and IRS = partisan bullshiat
 
2013-05-17 12:11:46 PM  

Nem Wan: The correct, non-partisan view is:  AP surveillance = seriously wrong, Benghazi and IRS = partisan bullshiat


surveillance without a court order/judgement is wrong period but the GOP pretty much can't go there
 
2013-05-17 12:14:57 PM  

mrshowrules: Nem Wan: The correct, non-partisan view is:  AP surveillance = seriously wrong, Benghazi and IRS = partisan bullshiat

surveillance without a court order/judgement is wrong period but the GOP pretty much can't go there


It opens them up to all manner of flanking attacks on their own activities in that area, so yeah.
 
2013-05-17 12:17:51 PM  
I don't see the problem in suggesting that the DoJ investigation of AP include discussion of what the investigation is about.  News media, even lefty news media, has circled the wagons to protect the sanctity of the first amendment but as they themselves were saying a month ago there are upper boundaries to our freedoms, we shouldn't give bazookas to prison inmates and presumably we shouldn't give away national security secrets.
 
2013-05-17 12:27:48 PM  
www.investors.com
 
2013-05-17 12:32:47 PM  
Of course, this could just be the difference between left-leaning and right-leaning press. The thing that makes the AP phone log mess legal (not right, legal) is the Patriot Act. Most lefties don't like the Patriot Act no matter who's in charge. The mainstream press has either been pretty quiet or favored the Patriot Act. Even now, I haven't seen anything in the mainstream press that points to the Patriot Act as the main problem here (and it is). The mainstream press just seems to want a special press exemption, to hell with the rest of the public. And the right-leaning press would marry the Patriot Act and have its baby if it were possible.
 
2013-05-17 12:33:06 PM  
I'm sorry, but I automatically ignore people who do nothing more than post stupid political cartoons.  It's habit.
 
2013-05-17 12:35:36 PM  
progressive talkers and influentials

Whatever way your political leanings lie, I think we can all agree on one thing:  making up labels for things by using adjectives as nouns and then pluralizing them makes one sound like a giant douche-nozzle.
 
2013-05-17 12:36:07 PM  

DeaH: Of course, this could just be the difference between left-leaning and right-leaning press. The thing that makes the AP phone log mess legal (not right, legal) is the Patriot Act. Most lefties don't like the Patriot Act no matter who's in charge. The mainstream press has either been pretty quiet or favored the Patriot Act. Even now, I haven't seen anything in the mainstream press that points to the Patriot Act as the main problem here (and it is). The mainstream press just seems to want a special press exemption, to hell with the rest of the public. And the right-leaning press would marry the Patriot Act and have its baby if it were possible.


Obama extended the Patriot Act twice thus far.  Where is your derp-rage then?
 
2013-05-17 12:37:13 PM  
I can only imagine the spittle-spewing from the right that would have resulted had DOJ not used every legal means at its disposal to investigate the leaks. Eric Cantor would have been screaming about Obama's gross negligence regarding our national security. Mitch McConnell would have been demanding a thorough investigation of everyone from the Attorney General himself down to the janitors. A drunk John Boehner would have been demanding jail time for anyone found to have been involved in the decision making process. There would have been hearings at which everyone from Louis Gohmert to Michelle Bachmann could have their ten minutes in the spotlight, insisting that Obama has eviscerated the effectiveness of our intelligence community. Say what you will about the propriety of the subpoena issued in this matter, but you must concede that at least it spared us the media circus that surely would have followed had DOJ proceeded otherwise.
 
2013-05-17 12:39:32 PM  

mrshowrules: -Narrow scope of the subpoena...
AP has 3,400 employees so 20 phones does in fact seem pretty narrow to me plus it is also limited to 2 months, so also narrow in that sense.


"Narrow" relates to the proportion of information extraneous to the investigation that could be anticipated to be received under the subpoena.  Clearly the DoJ didn't know what it was looking for or where to find it.

-Seeking information from alternative sources...
Apparently they did in fact exhaust these alternate sources of information first


Regardless of their statements, the breadth of the subpoena suggests otherwise.

-Obligation to inform and negotiate...
not sure about this one


Not debatable.  DoJ informed AP literally seconds before they received the records.

-Attorney General approval...
He recused himself for some reason but the Deputy Attorney General approved. (Typically the term "deputy" indicates an equivalency of vested authority)


From what I understand, the guidelines restrict authorization solely to the AG and it is not a delegable function, i.e. whether or not he was conducting the investigation he still should have signed off on the subpoena because the specific intent of the guidelines is to hold the highest officer at the DoJ accountable for this process.

-Balancing of interests...
GOP wanted the leaks investigated, they tried to investigate it without AP records and they couldn't. So long as AP is not the target of the investigation, I would say interests are balanced. AP not giving up the records willingly also protects there reputation.


The guidelines are not there to respect a balancing of political interests. It's about a balance between the investigative need for the records and the public's right to information from a free press, unencumbered by punitive governmental actions for exercising their constitutional rights. By demonstrating it is willing to use it's subpoena power in this broad of a manner, the DoJ gives any person who is in a position of knowing  governmental misdeeds, serious pause about giving that information to reporters, which according to multiple members of the media is already severely hampering the their ability to report on newsworthy events.  It's part and parcel of this administrations historic and undemocratic attempt to clampdown on information that liberals like myself have been complaining about for years, but this event extends further than simply punishing those speaking to reporters about classified information, in that it serves to intimidate sources from discussing anything with reporters.
 
2013-05-17 12:47:20 PM  
Did Media Matters steal all of the talking points from Fark?  Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.
 
2013-05-17 12:51:54 PM  

mrshowrules: Let me just say that I think it was wrong because they did have a court ordered judgement to get these records


pretty sure they had one of those fancy secret court warrants though?
 
2013-05-17 12:51:55 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: mrshowrules: -Narrow scope of the subpoena...
AP has 3,400 employees so 20 phones does in fact seem pretty narrow to me plus it is also limited to 2 months, so also narrow in that sense.

"Narrow" relates to the proportion of information extraneous to the investigation that could be anticipated to be received under the subpoena.  Clearly the DoJ didn't know what it was looking for or where to find it.

I still have to take issue with this one.  One news agency, 20 phones, 2 months.  This seems narrow to me.  They have narrowed it to a period when the leak happened, to the news agency they suspect is involved, and the employees working on those subjects.  It isn't a fishing expedition.

-Seeking information from alternative sources...
Apparently they did in fact exhaust these alternate sources of information first

Regardless of their statements, the breadth of the subpoena suggests otherwise.

-Obligation to inform and negotiate...
not sure about this one

Not debatable.  DoJ informed AP literally seconds before they received the records.
fair enough

-Attorney General approval...
He recused himself for some reason but the Deputy Attorney General approved. (Typically the term "deputy" indicates an equivalency of vested authority)

From what I understand, the guidelines restrict authorization solely to the AG and it is not a delegable function, i.e. whether or not he was conducting the investigation he still should have signed off on the subpoena because the specific intent of the guidelines is to hold the highest officer at the DoJ accountable for this process.
If the Attorney General is hit by a bus, the Deputy has all the necessary powers to run the DoJ.  Recusing himself would logically have the same result but that is just what I would guess

-Balancing of interests...
GOP wanted the leaks investigated, they tried to investigate it without AP records and they couldn't. So long as AP is not the target of the investigation, I would say interests are balanced. AP not giving up the records willingly also protects there reputation.

The guidelines are not there to respect a balancing of political interests. It's about a balance between the investigative need for the records and the public's right to information from a free press, unencumbered by punitive governmental actions for exercising their constitutional rights. By demonstrating it is willing to use it's subpoena power in this broad of a manner, the DoJ gives any person who is in a position ...


Got it.  This seems the most subjective criteria of all.  Of course, the DoJ would say the interests of a free press were balanced against the eminent threat of a terrorist blowing up American airlines.  They would have to back that up of course.

Anyways, my primary issue about his whole thing is that it was done without a court order/judgement.  That's why it sucks especially when it involves a news agency.  However, this is not a glass house the GOP can throw rocks even though I would be happy if they did.
 
2013-05-17 12:52:48 PM  

slayer199: Did Media Matters steal all of the talking points from Fark?  Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.


False equivalency.......these aren't really scandals.  The worst is the AP one, but sadly it was legal.
 
2013-05-17 12:52:54 PM  

slayer199: Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.


Do go on...  please...
 
2013-05-17 12:54:06 PM  

cheyanne9: [www.investors.com image 800x549]


Oh look!  Someone thinks that this will sway opinion~! Isn't this that "conservative humor" I've been hearing about?
 
2013-05-17 12:56:29 PM  

Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.


In this case, the right is supporting the DOJ, since the AP is a dirty liberal org.
 
2013-05-17 12:59:59 PM  

un4gvn666: We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.


There are sooo many things wrong with your list of assumptions.

Here's a hint: I'm a big fan of Colbert and I don't like the teabaggers.

But I also am not so blind as to think that "the left" is somehow immune from the same idiocy as "the right". As demostrated in this very article.

Citrate1007: The left has it's portion of dumb ass in its base; however, it is not anti-intellectual and idiots are shunned out of the spotlight. That is the general notion I was going for.


I would agree with that in general terms. I am old enough to remember a time when conservatives were mostly intellectual and pragmatic, and liberals were "bleeding heart emotionalists". The elevation of the anti-intellectualism within the GOP (as a result of the over-emphasis of evengelicals, I believe) is one of the most serious flaws with the Republican party of today. fark Palin and her ilk.
 
2013-05-17 01:00:26 PM  

slayer199: Did Media Matters steal all of the talking points from Fark?  Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.


"I'm above it all" posts always crack me up. You go girl!!!
 
2013-05-17 01:00:27 PM  
The problem with Partisans is that they never think their being partisan.

/Both sides are bad/ You sound tired/ Derp Derp Derp/ Blah blah blah.
 
2013-05-17 01:01:33 PM  

HortusMatris: Whatever way your political leanings lie, I think we can all agree on one thing: making up labels for things by using adjectives as nouns and then pluralizing them makes one sound like a giant douche-nozzle.


I CAN agree with that.
 
2013-05-17 01:04:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: un4gvn666: We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.

There are sooo many things wrong with your list of assumptions.

Here's a hint: I'm a big fan of Colbert and I don't like the teabaggers.

But I also am not so blind as to think that "the left" is somehow immune from the same idiocy as "the right". As demostrated in this very article.

Citrate1007: The left has it's portion of dumb ass in its base; however, it is not anti-intellectual and idiots are shunned out of the spotlight. That is the general notion I was going for.

I would agree with that in general terms. I am old enough to remember a time when conservatives were mostly intellectual and pragmatic, and liberals were "bleeding heart emotionalists". The elevation of the anti-intellectualism within the GOP (as a result of the over-emphasis of evengelicals, I believe) is one of the most serious flaws with the Republican party of today. fark Palin and her ilk.


So you're one of the sane ones.  I thought most of you had disappeared by now.

Regardless, until/unless the pragmatics and intellectuals left in the GOP step up and push out the lunatics, your party is going to crash and burn in a bad way and that's horrible for this country's political set up.

So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.
 
2013-05-17 01:04:57 PM  

Marshal805: The problem with Partisans is that they never think their being partisan.

/Both sides are bad/ You sound tired/ Derp Derp Derp/ Blah blah blah.


You, or course, are COMPLETELY impartial, highly non-partisan.

You have an unreasoned allegiance to non-partisanship. High five!
 
2013-05-17 01:07:36 PM  

Citrate1007: False equivalency.......these aren't really scandals. The worst is the AP one, but sadly it was legal.


So, I guess that makes it ok then.

Point is that liberals defend Obama for things they would have excoriated Bush for.

Use of Force in Libya without congressional approval?  No problem
Drone strikes against American citizens with targeting done in secret and without trial?  Not a problem, they had it coming.
Lack of transparency?  No problem, we trust the administration.
DOJ wiretaps against the press?  It's ok, it was legal.
Fast and Furious?  No biggie.  It was a legitimate operation,
IRS targeting political enemies of the President?  He didn't know, so it's ok...and besides, the asked for the resignation of the guy that was leaving anyway.

I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy.  I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system.  If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what.  The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.
 
2013-05-17 01:10:27 PM  

slayer199: Citrate1007: False equivalency.......these aren't really scandals. The worst is the AP one, but sadly it was legal.

So, I guess that makes it ok then.

Point is that liberals defend Obama for things they would have excoriated Bush for.

Use of Force in Libya without congressional approval?  No problem
Drone strikes against American citizens with targeting done in secret and without trial?  Not a problem, they had it coming.
Lack of transparency?  No problem, we trust the administration.
DOJ wiretaps against the press?  It's ok, it was legal.
Fast and Furious?  No biggie.  It was a legitimate operation,
IRS targeting political enemies of the President?  He didn't know, so it's ok...and besides, the asked for the resignation of the guy that was leaving anyway.

I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy.  I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system.  If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what.  The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.


Congressional approval for moving against Libya wasn't required.  We are fully authorized to honor our commitments to NATO, and since this was a NATO originated mission, the Congressional GOP can go fark itself.
 
2013-05-17 01:12:05 PM  

cheyanne9: [www.investors.com image 800x549]


I must say, that caricature of Obama has a remarkably skinny head.
 
2013-05-17 01:14:10 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: cheyanne9: [www.investors.com image 800x549]

I must say, that caricature of Obama has a remarkably skinny head.


Nice.
 
2013-05-17 01:18:51 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: cheyanne9: [www.investors.com image 800x549]

I must say, that caricature of Obama has a remarkably skinny head.


*citizenkaneapplause.jpg*
 
2013-05-17 01:19:56 PM  

Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.


slayer199: I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy. I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system. If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what. The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.


I think many conservatives or republicans here have no problem voting for a democrat when the republican is a shiat sandwich....but the democrats here have stated that they will never vote for a republican ever.

Sort of makes the side that screams about partisan right wingers even more partisan than those right wingers they scream about.

Look at all the BUT BUSH AND THE PATRIOT ACT!!!!!! type dems who are forgetting that it was a democrat controlled house, senate and executive branch that extended the Patriot Act during Obamas first term..
 
2013-05-17 01:20:20 PM  

Infernalist: Congressional approval for moving against Libya wasn't required. We are fully authorized to honor our commitments to NATO, and since this was a NATO originated mission, the Congressional GOP can go fark itself.


BS.  The administration's rationale was that it didn't rise to full-blown hostilities required in the War Powers Act...nothing to do with NATO (which is a defensive pact and none of the signatories were threatened).

Ask yourself this honestly, if Bush had acted unilaterally with the same justification...what would your reaction be?
 
2013-05-17 01:22:23 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

slayer199: I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy. I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system. If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what. The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.

I think many conservatives or republicans here have no problem voting for a democrat when the republican is a shiat sandwich....but the democrats here have stated that they will never vote for a republican ever.

Sort of makes the side that screams about partisan right wingers even more partisan than those right wingers they scream about.

Look at all the BUT BUSH AND THE PATRIOT ACT!!!!!! type dems who are forgetting that it was a democrat controlled house, senate and executive branch that extended the Patriot Act during Obamas first term..


As long as the GOP embraces people like Bachmann, King, Rand/RON PAUL and Santorum, they'll never get another vote from me.

They are toxic.  Until they reject their lunatics, no sane soul will touch them.
 
2013-05-17 01:22:29 PM  

Infernalist: Regardless, until/unless the pragmatics and intellectuals left in the GOP step up and push out the lunatics, your party is going to crash and burn in a bad way and that's horrible for this country's political set up.

So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.


Why would you assume I am a Republican? I've been here long enough for that to be pretty clear. I am opposed to the very concept of party membership, much less allegience. I think that choosing a candidate based on party is a sign of mental infirmity, and indicates an unwillingness or inability to differentiate individual candidates. I voted against both Sheila Jackson Lee and Ted Cruz. I have voted for democratic lesbian mayors, and against liberal presidents.

So please. Enough with this " you guys" and "your party" nonsense. Binary politicos are the lest intersting political comentators there are.
 
2013-05-17 01:22:58 PM  
Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?
 
2013-05-17 01:23:05 PM  

mediablitz: Marshal805: The problem with Partisans is that they never think their being partisan.

/Both sides are bad/ You sound tired/ Derp Derp Derp/ Blah blah blah.

You, or course, are COMPLETELY impartial, highly non-partisan.

You have an unreasoned allegiance to non-partisanship. High five!


Jon Stewart is not going sleep with you.
 
2013-05-17 01:24:11 PM  

Infernalist: As long as the GOP embraces people like Bachmann, King, Rand/RON PAUL and Santorum, they'll never get another vote from me.


So you are completely comfortable with everyone the DNC "embraces"?
 
2013-05-17 01:28:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: As long as the GOP embraces people like Bachmann, King, Rand/RON PAUL and Santorum, they'll never get another vote from me.

So you are completely comfortable with everyone the DNC "embraces"?


Completely comfortable? No. Relatively sure that they won't have a psychotic break and shoot up the gallery? Yes. And I couldn't say that if I were a Republican.
 
2013-05-17 01:28:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: As long as the GOP embraces people like Bachmann, King, Rand/RON PAUL and Santorum, they'll never get another vote from me.

So you are completely comfortable with everyone the DNC "embraces"?


In my district/state/nation, so far so good.

If I lived in the district of some moon-bat loony like Jackson Lee, I'd work within the party, with like-minded sane folk to try and get her minimized, marginalized and appropriately silenced on the fringe.

Because that's what Democrats do, for the most part.  Not always successfully, else we'd not have Jackson Lee to face-palm about every so often, but we do TRY to keep the nutballs out of elected office.

The GOP embraces their fringe nutballs, and that's why they'll never get a vote from me.
 
2013-05-17 01:30:07 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?


Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.
 
2013-05-17 01:33:18 PM  

Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?

Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.


So you take responsibility for Shiela "Neil Armstrong landed on Mars why didnt opportunity take a picture of the flag he placed their" Jackson Lee

Or Cynthia "the WTC were brought down with thermite and all those people on the planes were taken somewhere and imprisoned" McKinney?
 
2013-05-17 01:36:59 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?

Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.

So you take responsibility for Shiela "Neil Armstrong landed on Mars why didnt opportunity take a picture of the flag he placed their" Jackson Lee

Or Cynthia "the WTC were brought down with thermite and all those people on the planes were taken somewhere and imprisoned" McKinney?


I would say you're missing the point, but "missing" is different than "actively avoiding."
 
2013-05-17 01:37:13 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?

Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.

So you take responsibility for Shiela "Neil Armstrong landed on Mars why didnt opportunity take a picture of the flag he placed their" Jackson Lee

Or Cynthia "the WTC were brought down with thermite and all those people on the planes were taken somewhere and imprisoned" McKinney?


Remind me again what public office Cynthia "The Jews ruined my chances at re-election" McKinney holds?
 
2013-05-17 01:37:36 PM  

BMulligan: Completely comfortable? No. Relatively sure that they won't have a psychotic break and shoot up the gallery? Yes. And I couldn't say that if I were a Republican.


I'm curious who you think is in dager of doing that.

Infernalist: Because that's what Democrats do, for the most part. Not always successfully, else we'd not have Jackson Lee to face-palm about every so often, but we do TRY to keep the nutballs out of elected office.

The GOP embraces their fringe nutballs, and that's why they'll never get a vote from me.


If you think that Sheila Jackson Lee is abberation in the DNC, you might want to review the rolls a bit more carefully.

Whether or not the GOP will ever get your vote is your own business. I think the whole concept of not voting or not voting for a suitable candidate in Butcher's Holler Tennessee, because of something someone(s) with the same letter by their name did in Berkely California is retarded.

I'm sad to see you are a party allegience person.
 
2013-05-17 01:40:01 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?

Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.

So you take responsibility for Shiela "Neil Armstrong landed on Mars why didnt opportunity take a picture of the flag he placed their" Jackson Lee

Or Cynthia "the WTC were brought down with thermite and all those people on the planes were taken somewhere and imprisoned" McKinney?


If either of those two nutballs were my reps or national figures in the Democratic Party, I'd have to agree with you.

But, they're not.  They're fringe nutballs that'll never come close to the national stage BECAUSE of their fringe nutball status.  Their constituents should be ashamed of themselves, but hey, that's the price of local democracy.  If I were in a district with that level of nutball that claimed the same party as me, I'd either move or drop my membership rather than be in the same party.

So.  Again.  The Democratic Party makes sincere efforts to keep their fringe ON THE FRINGE and not on the main stage of the party.

The Republicans embrace their lunatic nutballs and run them as nominees for the RNC nomination for the White House.

Do you see why people have sworn off the GOP?
 
2013-05-17 01:44:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: BMulligan: Completely comfortable? No. Relatively sure that they won't have a psychotic break and shoot up the gallery? Yes. And I couldn't say that if I were a Republican.

I'm curious who you think is in dager of doing that.


There are several Republican members of Congress whom, I believe, are holding on to some semblance of sanity only by a thread - Gohmert, Paul, and Bachmann are among the most obvious examples - but the guy who scares me most is Dave Reichert. Dude suffered a serious closed-head injury and every now and then he just skips a groove. He has great hair, though, and all the old rich ladies in Bellevue think he's almost as dreamy as Neil Diamond.
 
2013-05-17 01:44:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: BMulligan: Completely comfortable? No. Relatively sure that they won't have a psychotic break and shoot up the gallery? Yes. And I couldn't say that if I were a Republican.

I'm curious who you think is in dager of doing that.

Infernalist: Because that's what Democrats do, for the most part. Not always successfully, else we'd not have Jackson Lee to face-palm about every so often, but we do TRY to keep the nutballs out of elected office.

The GOP embraces their fringe nutballs, and that's why they'll never get a vote from me.

If you think that Sheila Jackson Lee is abberation in the DNC, you might want to review the rolls a bit more carefully.

Whether or not the GOP will ever get your vote is your own business. I think the whole concept of not voting or not voting for a suitable candidate in Butcher's Holler Tennessee, because of something someone(s) with the same letter by their name did in Berkely California is retarded.

I'm sad to see you are a party allegience person.


If they were a couple of aberrations, we wouldn't keep seeing the same names crop up again and again and again.  Other than McKiney(sp?) and Jackson Lee, what nutballs call the Democratic Party home?

Because off the top of my head, I can think of Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and SARAH PALIN that call the GOP home AND HAVE MASSIVE SUPPORT from both the base and the leaders of the party.

Do you not see the difference?  Democrats reject extremist lunatics, the GOP runs them for President.
 
2013-05-17 01:54:55 PM  

Infernalist: Do you not see the difference?


I see that you very quickly jumped out of elected officials and listed off a bunch of paid provacatuers in a coversation about congressional whackadoos. And while no one argues that Ron Paul is a bit of a nut, It's a bit of a stretch to say that the GOP "embraces" him.

A Better example of a GOP whackjob might be Hank "The naval base will tip over Guam' Johnson. ... wait...Crap he's a Democrat.

How about Allen West ? That guys certifiable and he's GOP.

I'm just curious why you feel the need to insist that the DNC has some special ability to prevent idiocy in its elected ranks.
 
2013-05-17 01:59:47 PM  

Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.


Yes, because there are no editorials from the NYTimes defending this and the IRS.  Democrats always calling out bullshiat like this... except for NYTimes, Media Matters, Senators at today's IRS hearing, fark left.
 
2013-05-17 02:02:48 PM  
sorry,

I have to wait to hear what Rush tells me to think about this.

///ditto's!!!!
 
2013-05-17 02:02:51 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: Do you not see the difference?

I see that you very quickly jumped out of elected officials and listed off a bunch of paid provacatuers in a coversation about congressional whackadoos. And while no one argues that Ron Paul is a bit of a nut, It's a bit of a stretch to say that the GOP "embraces" him.

A Better example of a GOP whackjob might be Hank "The naval base will tip over Guam' Johnson. ... wait...Crap he's a Democrat.

How about Allen West ? That guys certifiable and he's GOP.

I'm just curious why you feel the need to insist that the DNC has some special ability to prevent idiocy in its elected ranks.


Yeah, Hank Johnson is a moron if he was being serious about that 'capsizing' thing, though his people insist that he was being deadpan sarcastic in an effort to elaborate on how adding more troops to the island.

But, let's assume he was serious and sincerely thought an island could tip over and capsize like a boat.

He remains a regional player in Georgia politics in a solidly safe Democratic district and has exactly ZERO chance of being anything more than that.

What I'm saying is that the Democrats aren't immune to stupid politicians in their ranks, but they DON'T EMBRACE LUNATICS like Bachmann, Santorum and the like.  They don't run crazies for the Presidency and they sure as hell don't put someone on the ticket as completely useless and moronic as Sarah Palin.

GOP = Embraces stupid and crazy.  Democrats = Ignores and marginalizes crazy and stupid.
 
2013-05-17 02:09:19 PM  

Infernalist: slayer199: Citrate1007: False equivalency.......these aren't really scandals. The worst is the AP one, but sadly it was legal.

So, I guess that makes it ok then.

Point is that liberals defend Obama for things they would have excoriated Bush for.

Use of Force in Libya without congressional approval?  No problem
Drone strikes against American citizens with targeting done in secret and without trial?  Not a problem, they had it coming.
Lack of transparency?  No problem, we trust the administration.
DOJ wiretaps against the press?  It's ok, it was legal.
Fast and Furious?  No biggie.  It was a legitimate operation,
IRS targeting political enemies of the President?  He didn't know, so it's ok...and besides, the asked for the resignation of the guy that was leaving anyway.

I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy.  I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system.  If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what.  The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.

Congressional approval for moving against Libya wasn't required.  We are fully authorized to honor our commitments to NATO, and since this was a NATO originated mission, the Congressional GOP can go fark itself.


The left didn't like Bush because of the false pretenses used to start wars and unnecessary tax cuts which greatly contributed to the fiscal clusterfark we are in now.  Everything else was because that Bush farker eats crackers like a biatch.
 
2013-05-17 02:10:45 PM  

MyRandomName: Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.

Yes, because there are no editorials from the NYTimes defending this and the IRS.  Democrats always calling out bullshiat like this... except for NYTimes, Media Matters, Senators at today's IRS hearing, fark left.


There is a huge difference between a nobody writing a rant to a paper, and the leaders/spokesmen/congressmen of the party parroting the idiocy.
 
2013-05-17 02:20:21 PM  

Infernalist: BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: Do you not see the difference?

I see that you very quickly jumped out of elected officials and listed off a bunch of paid provacatuers in a coversation about congressional whackadoos. And while no one argues that Ron Paul is a bit of a nut, It's a bit of a stretch to say that the GOP "embraces" him.

A Better example of a GOP whackjob might be Hank "The naval base will tip over Guam' Johnson. ... wait...Crap he's a Democrat.

How about Allen West ? That guys certifiable and he's GOP.

I'm just curious why you feel the need to insist that the DNC has some special ability to prevent idiocy in its elected ranks.

Yeah, Hank Johnson is a moron if he was being serious about that 'capsizing' thing, though his people insist that he was being deadpan sarcastic in an effort to elaborate on how adding more troops to the island.

But, let's assume he was serious and sincerely thought an island could tip over and capsize like a boat.

He remains a regional player in Georgia politics in a solidly safe Democratic district and has exactly ZERO chance of being anything more than that.

What I'm saying is that the Democrats aren't immune to stupid politicians in their ranks, but they DON'T EMBRACE LUNATICS like Bachmann, Santorum and the like.  They don't run crazies for the Presidency and they sure as hell don't put someone on the ticket as completely useless and moronic as Sarah Palin.

GOP = Embraces stupid and crazy.  Democrats = Ignores and marginalizes crazy and stupid.


But Cynthia Mckinney!  And Byrd was in the KKK!!!

So both sides are equally bad so vote lizard people.

I can't even believe people are still using Mckinney as an equalizer to today's plethora of nutjobs and miscreants in the Republican party.  It's absolutely farking pathetic.
 
2013-05-17 02:37:56 PM  

Tor_Eckman: So both sides are equally bad so vote lizard people.


No, vote for a 3rd party.  Anything to reduce the stranglehold the 2-party system has on American politics.
 
2013-05-17 02:42:10 PM  
I can't think of a single reason why the DOJ should ever get access to AP phone logs.
 
2013-05-17 02:43:07 PM  

slayer199: Tor_Eckman: So both sides are equally bad so vote lizard people.

No, vote for a 3rd party.  Anything to reduce the stranglehold the 2-party system has on American politics.


No, one side is significantly worse than the other side.  If you like one side more than the other, vote in the primary.  If you don't like either side, vote 3rd party.
 
2013-05-17 02:46:48 PM  

lennavan: I can't think of a single reason why the DOJ should ever get access to AP phone logs.


You can't image a reporter suspected of committing a Federal crime or having information regarding a Federal crime?
 
2013-05-17 02:55:45 PM  

lennavan: slayer199: Tor_Eckman: So both sides are equally bad so vote lizard people.

No, vote for a 3rd party.  Anything to reduce the stranglehold the 2-party system has on American politics.

No, one side is significantly worse than the other side.  If you like one side more than the other, vote in the primary.  If you don't like either side, vote 3rd party.


THANK YOU!!!!
 
2013-05-17 02:57:41 PM  

mrshowrules: lennavan: I can't think of a single reason why the DOJ should ever get access to AP phone logs.

You can't image a reporter suspected of committing a Federal crime or having information regarding a Federal crime?


Wait, so a reporter is suspected of committing a federal crime, therefore you think the DOJ needs phone logs from the entire AP?  I'm gonna disagree.
 
2013-05-17 03:08:13 PM  
     un4gvn666
We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.

So witty yet so, so wrong.
I love the conservative stereotyping on Fark. It warms my heart that these wonderful forums can host more sheep than a graze-fest in Idaho.
 
2013-05-17 03:14:15 PM  

torr5962: un4gvn666
We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.

So witty yet so, so wrong.
I love the conservative stereotyping on Fark. It warms my heart that these wonderful forums can host more sheep than a graze-fest in Idaho.


http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract

Hmm maybe you should read this.
 
2013-05-17 03:20:03 PM  

lennavan: mrshowrules: lennavan: I can't think of a single reason why the DOJ should ever get access to AP phone logs.

You can't image a reporter suspected of committing a Federal crime or having information regarding a Federal crime?

Wait, so a reporter is suspected of committing a federal crime, therefore you think the DOJ needs phone logs from the entire AP?  I'm gonna disagree.


You said "can't think of a single reason"?  Not in this instance.  Who knows what happened.

But, in theory, if they believed a person was giving National security secrets to a reporter and the reporter's phone records would be evidence of this, that would be a reason.

My only issue is that they can do this without a court order/judgement.
 
2013-05-17 03:20:19 PM  

Halli: torr5962: un4gvn666
We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.

So witty yet so, so wrong.
I love the conservative stereotyping on Fark. It warms my heart that these wonderful forums can host more sheep than a graze-fest in Idaho.

http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract

Hmm maybe you should read this.


I'd be surprised if he responded at all.
 
2013-05-17 03:29:57 PM  

Nemo's Brother: DeaH: Of course, this could just be the difference between left-leaning and right-leaning press. The thing that makes the AP phone log mess legal (not right, legal) is the Patriot Act. Most lefties don't like the Patriot Act no matter who's in charge. The mainstream press has either been pretty quiet or favored the Patriot Act. Even now, I haven't seen anything in the mainstream press that points to the Patriot Act as the main problem here (and it is). The mainstream press just seems to want a special press exemption, to hell with the rest of the public. And the right-leaning press would marry the Patriot Act and have its baby if it were possible.

Obama extended the Patriot Act twice thus far.  Where is your derp-rage then?


Obama is currently president, and I am raging about the Patriot Act, as I did all along. Are your derp-colored glasses affecting your reading comprehension? Or is it your ability to reason that is impaired? Please the third sentence in my original post - this time with the derp-enhanced shades off.
 
2013-05-17 03:31:15 PM  

mrshowrules: But, in theory, if they believed a person was giving National security secrets to a reporter and the reporter's phone records would be evidence of this, that would be a reason.


I could not possibly disagree more.  It goes to the very core of why the free press exists in the first place.
 
2013-05-17 03:32:49 PM  

DeaH: Nemo's Brother: DeaH: Of course, this could just be the difference between left-leaning and right-leaning press. The thing that makes the AP phone log mess legal (not right, legal) is the Patriot Act. Most lefties don't like the Patriot Act no matter who's in charge. The mainstream press has either been pretty quiet or favored the Patriot Act. Even now, I haven't seen anything in the mainstream press that points to the Patriot Act as the main problem here (and it is). The mainstream press just seems to want a special press exemption, to hell with the rest of the public. And the right-leaning press would marry the Patriot Act and have its baby if it were possible.

Obama extended the Patriot Act twice thus far.  Where is your derp-rage then?

Obama is currently president, and I am raging about the Patriot Act, as I did all along. Are your derp-colored glasses affecting your reading comprehension? Or is it your ability to reason that is impaired? Please the third sentence in my original post - this time with the derp-enhanced shades off.



I'd just like to echo this sentiment.  My derp-rage about the Patriot act is just as high as it was when it was first passed.  I'd just like you all to know, Russ Feingold was (one of) my Senator at the time.  Yes, I think I'll take some credit for that, thanks.
 
2013-05-17 03:35:59 PM  

lennavan: mrshowrules: But, in theory, if they believed a person was giving National security secrets to a reporter and the reporter's phone records would be evidence of this, that would be a reason.

I could not possibly disagree more.  It goes to the very core of why the free press exists in the first place.


National security secrets is a pretty broad umbrella.  Too much stuff can fit under that heading.

How about, top secret information that jeopardizes the safety and security of Americans.

Keep in mind that it isn't necessarily AP which is the target of the investigation.  I think they are going after the source of the leak.

Think of Plamegate.  A reporter was rotting in jail protecting her source who outed an active CIA agent.  I don't recall Liberals (including myself) bemoaning this.
 
2013-05-17 03:46:11 PM  

mrshowrules: lennavan: mrshowrules: But, in theory, if they believed a person was giving National security secrets to a reporter and the reporter's phone records would be evidence of this, that would be a reason.

I could not possibly disagree more. It goes to the very core of why the free press exists in the first place.

National security secrets is a pretty broad umbrella. Too much stuff can fit under that heading.


Yup.  Some things that I think deserve to be publicized and some that do not.  But because of the very reason the free press exists and must be protected and free, we should err on the side of more transparency.

mrshowrules: How about, top secret information that jeopardizes the safety and security of Americans.


That's part of the price of living in a free society.  There are very few things I would restrict our country in doing to protect the security of Americans.  Keeping a free press is one of them.

mrshowrules: Keep in mind that it isn't necessarily AP which is the target of the investigation. I think they are going after the source of the leak.


I have no doubt they are.  It doesn't matter.  They need to go about finding the source of the leak in another way.  If that means they never find it and more top secret info gets out, well so be it.

mrshowrules: Think of Plamegate. A reporter was rotting in jail protecting her source who outed an active CIA agent. I don't recall Liberals (including myself) bemoaning this.


I was.  I have never come across a scenario where a reporter was in jail for protecting a source that I did not side with the reporter.  Even if it for 100% sure would save lives.  The confidentiality and trust between a reporter and a source must be secure, for a very specific reason - so people are willing to leak information to reporters.  Without leaks, how will we know what our government is doing?  How will we find out about shiat like Abu Ghraib?
 
2013-05-17 03:47:23 PM  

Infernalist: GOP = Embraces stupid and crazy.  Democrats = Ignores and marginalizes crazy and stupid.


Again, I am sure you see it that way. We both agree that both parties produce morons in congress, but you seem convinced that the DNC ones are somehow equivelant to your eccentric aunt, and the RNC ones are somewhow equivelant to that pervy guy that runs the ice cream truck. And certainly we can debate it for another four hours and swap examples about how it's DNC whackjobs who punch policemen, but its RNC whackjobs who advocate killing abortionists, but DNC whackjobs write letters of apology to Fidel Castro, but RNC loons have ties to white supremacist groups but DNC congressmen used to recruit for the KKK, but RNC guys have hookers, but DNC guys have gay prostitution rings run out of their basement, but RNC guys have bribe money frozen in blocks of ice in theri freezers, and on and on.

So I am content to accept that you think the DNC is somehow imbued with a higher moral standard than the RNC, but I don't agree myself. Becasue, again, I think the artificial conceit of party affiliation and loyalty is fundementally absurd.

And I can't help but wonder exactly how much of your definaition of "crazy and stupid" includes "has a different political ideology than my own".
 
2013-05-17 03:51:47 PM  

BMulligan: There are several Republican members of Congress whom, I believe, are holding on to some semblance of sanity only by a thread - Gohmert, Paul, and Bachmann are among the most obvious examples - but the guy who scares me most is Dave Reichert. Dude suffered a serious closed-head injury and every now and then he just skips a groove. He has great hair, though, and all the old rich ladies in Bellevue think he's almost as dreamy as Neil Diamond.


By the way, meant to say that's a fair answer. Especially Bachmann, though you should specify which Paul. I assume you mean Rand, but I wouldn't consider him mentaly unstable as much as unconventionaly radical. But less so than his dad.
 
2013-05-17 03:54:17 PM  

Kibbler: So what stacks up against that?  Bush fabricated WMD evidence?  Bush spent more time on vacation than any other president?

How many Republicans, when polled, still believe that WMDs were found, that Saddam was connected to 9/11, that Kerry was a deserter, that Obama is not an American?


Well, there's a lot of people, myself included who believe that HIllary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry testified on the floor of congress that WMD's were in Iraq and that we needed to send our boys in to go get em' so calling it all Bush's quagmire is pretty dishonest.
 
2013-05-17 04:08:10 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: And certainly we can debate it for another four hours and swap examples about how it's DNC whackjobs who punch policemen, but its RNC whackjobs who advocate killing abortionists, but DNC whackjobs write letters of apology to Fidel Castro, but RNC loons have ties to white supremacist groups but DNC congressmen used to recruit for the KKK, but RNC guys have hookers, but DNC guys have gay prostitution rings run out of their basement, but RNC guys have bribe money frozen in blocks of ice in theri freezers, and on and on.


What a great debate you just had.  Let's list them off for clarity:

DNA Whackjobs
Recruit for KKK - You mean back when the DNC was actually the Republican Party, before they switched ideologies, circa 1920ish?
Gay Prostitution Rings - You mean back in 1989?
Letters of Apology to Fidel Castro - I'm missing this citation.  It probably exists but all I get is Ozzie Guillen.
Punch Policemen - You mean the thing in 1968?

RNC Loons
Killing abortionists - Yeah, in 2009.
Ties to White Supremacist Groups - Yeah you mean the people currently in Arizona who helped write and pass SB1070?
Have Hookers - You mean David Vitter in 2007?
Bribe Money frozen in freezers - Yeah, in 2007.
 
2013-05-17 04:09:13 PM  

lennavan: I was.  I have never come across a scenario where a reporter was in jail for protecting a source that I did not side with the reporter.  Even if it for 100% sure would save lives.  The confidentiality and trust between a reporter and a source must be secure, for a very specific reason - so people are willing to leak information to reporters.  Without leaks, how will we know what our government is doing?  How will we find out about shiat like Abu Ghraib?


There is a problem with your absolute position on freedom of the press.  Hypothetically, a terrorist or criminal would simply need to work for a news agency to avoid the scrutiny

More realistically, so long as government official releases information directly to the press, if would hamper investigation into that crime.

Looking up information on this, it seems like the 1st Amendment concern is about punishing the press for releasing military secrets (for instance).  If there is no goal to punish the press, I don't see how it could constitute a an attack on the 1st Amendment.  There should be no protection to government authorities leaking the information because that is clearly illegal and a very serious crime on top of that.
 
2013-05-17 04:19:07 PM  

o5iiawah: Kibbler: So what stacks up against that?  Bush fabricated WMD evidence?  Bush spent more time on vacation than any other president?

How many Republicans, when polled, still believe that WMDs were found, that Saddam was connected to 9/11, that Kerry was a deserter, that Obama is not an American?

Well, there's a lot of people, myself included who believe that HIllary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry testified on the floor of congress that WMD's were in Iraq and that we needed to send our boys in to go get em' so calling it all Bush's quagmire is pretty dishonest.


It was a mutual effort. But trying to minimize the role Bush had in it just shows how much I shouldn't take you seriously.
 
2013-05-17 04:22:55 PM  

lennavan: mrshowrules: lennavan: I can't think of a single reason why the DOJ should ever get access to AP phone logs.

You can't image a reporter suspected of committing a Federal crime or having information regarding a Federal crime?

Wait, so a reporter is suspected of committing a federal crime, therefore you think the DOJ needs phone logs from the entire AP?  I'm gonna disagree.


They didn't get logs for the entire AP - just the phones they believed were used by the individuals they were looking into.
 
2013-05-17 04:22:56 PM  

lennavan: Let's list them off for clarity:


Leave it to lennavan to completely miss the point, but come out swinging anyways.
 
2013-05-17 04:27:47 PM  

Biological Ali: They didn't get logs for the entire AP - just the phones they believed were used by the individuals they were looking into.


And how many was that again? In this investigation into certain individuals for a specific purpose?\

"It was a very large number of records that were obtained, including phone records from Hartford, New York, Washington, from the U.S. House of Representatives and elsewhere where AP has bureaus. It included home and cellphone numbers from a number of AP reporters,"

"The government seized the records for more that 20 separate phone lines assigned to AP staff in April and May of 2012, the AP reported."

Twenty seperate phone lines from multiple different reporters at multiple different locations. That's quite a conspiracy ring.
 
2013-05-17 04:35:24 PM  

mrshowrules: There is a problem with your absolute position on freedom of the press. Hypothetically, a terrorist or criminal would simply need to work for a news agency to avoid the scrutiny


Wait, what?  Avoid the scrutiny?  That's preposterous.  Oh that guy works for the AP, so we should ignore him?  I didn't say anything like that at all.  And in your hypothetical, a terrorist gets a job at the AP and then what?

It is possible a hypothetical exists where you can illustrate to me where the increased danger is and we can discuss how bad it is.  But for now, I just don't see it.  The worst I can think of is a spy works at the AP to steal national secrets for some country like Russia.  But:

1) If the only way we have to counter that is to subpeona AP phone records, we're farked anyway.
2) By the time we're subpoenaing AP records, it's probably too late anyway.
3) If you suspect him, the FBI is decent at sting operations.  I'm sure they could try one of those.
4) I'm not really worried about the United States being attacked or invaded in any relevant manner.  What attacks (9/11) we will have happen, we really can't stop.
5) Spies will more likely just work directly for the government rather than at the AP and sit back and wait, crossing their fingers.

mrshowrules: There should be no protection to government authorities leaking the information


Couldn't agree more.  Secrets should stay secret.  As a country, we should be able to expect secrecy from the relevant government employees and give severe punishments to those who leak.  You've got two parties here - the leaker and the press.  Put the hammer down on the leaker but do so in a way that leaves the press entirely unintruded.  That way you won't get jackasses leaking random shiat.  You'll only really get people leaking secrets when they're having something like a significant moral crisis.  You have to do it that way or we'll never find out about shiat like Abu Ghraib.
 
2013-05-17 04:36:18 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: Let's list them off for clarity:

Leave it to lennavan to completely miss the point, but come out swinging anyways.


Leave it to Bojangles to support his point with data that actually contradicts it but come out swinging anyways.
 
2013-05-17 04:37:15 PM  

lennavan: I have never come across a scenario where a reporter was in jail for protecting a source that I did not side with the reporter.


Even Judith Miller? I'd like to see a pretty strict reporter shield law in place, but when you're not just gathering news but rather taking an actively complicit role in the vindictive outing of a CIA agent because her husband dared call into question the basis for the war that you, the reporter, played a key part in starting - well, you can rot in jail for all I care.

Of course that's not the situation here. Had an AP reporter been subpoenaed and directed to reveal his or her sources, that reporter is entitled to withhold cooperation in my opinion. However, it wasn't the reporter or reporters who received the subpoena - it was the phone company. For better or worse, there are laws that cover this precise situation, and it appears so far that DOJ complied with those laws. I might wish that the laws provided otherwise, but since that's not the case I can't fault DOJ for making use of every legal option available to investigate these leaks.
 
2013-05-17 04:38:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Biological Ali: They didn't get logs for the entire AP - just the phones they believed were used by the individuals they were looking into.

And how many was that again? In this investigation into certain individuals for a specific purpose?\

"It was a very large number of records that were obtained, including phone records from Hartford, New York, Washington, from the U.S. House of Representatives and elsewhere where AP has bureaus. It included home and cellphone numbers from a number of AP reporters,"

"The government seized the records for more that 20 separate phone lines assigned to AP staff in April and May of 2012, the AP reported."

Twenty seperate phone lines from multiple different reporters at multiple different locations. That's quite a conspiracy ring.


Maybe 7 employees of AP's 3,400 employees.  That is 2 tenths of 1%.  Sweeping indeed.
 
2013-05-17 04:42:45 PM  

lennavan: mrshowrules: There should be no protection to government authorities leaking the information

Couldn't agree more.  Secrets should stay secret.  As a country, we should be able to expect secrecy from the relevant government employees and give severe punishments to those who leak.  You've got two parties here - the leaker and the press.  Put the hammer down on the leaker but do so in a way that leaves the press entirely unintruded.  That way you won't get jackasses leaking random shiat.  You'll only really get people leaking secrets when they're having something like a significant moral crisis.  You have to do it that way or we'll never find out about shiat like Abu Ghraib.


That's my point though.  This constitutes more of a protection to the leaker than the press.

Let's say you work for DoD and you take the nuclear launch codes and give them to Katie Couric.  Katie Couric reads them on air.  Now you need to find out who did it but you can't look at Katie Couric's phone records.  There is not crime until you can show that it went to Katie Couric so it is impossible to prove a crime unless you can show the link to Katie Couric.  See the problem.
 
2013-05-17 04:43:07 PM  

BMulligan: lennavan: I have never come across a scenario where a reporter was in jail for protecting a source that I did not side with the reporter.

Even Judith Miller?


Even Judith Miller.  The crime was leaking the CIA agent's name.  By all means, the person who leaked the name should rot in jail.

BMulligan: For better or worse, there are laws that cover this precise situation


I said previously in the thread, I have no doubt this was legal.  I also have no doubt assassinating US citizens abroad with drones is legal.  It shouldn't be.

BMulligan: I can't fault DOJ for making use of every legal option available to investigate these leaks.


I'm not faulting the DOJ, I'm saying the law is bullshiat.
 
2013-05-17 04:44:35 PM  

lennavan: Leave it to Bojangles to support his point with data that actually contradicts it but come out swinging anyways.


You're just adorable. I'm sorry though. No slap-fight for you.

mrshowrules: Maybe 7 employees of AP's 3,400 employees.That is 2 tenths of 1%. Sweeping indeed.


Why would you choose that metric? Has anyone suggested that ALL of AP was in on this?
Why not point out what a small percentage of Verizon's client base it is? Or what percentage of them were left handed?
 
2013-05-17 04:48:34 PM  

lennavan: Secrets should stay secret.  As a country, we should be able to expect secrecy from the relevant government employees and give severe punishments to those who leak.  You've got two parties here - the leaker and the press.  Put the hammer down on the leaker but do so in a way that leaves the press entirely unintruded


The whole problem here is identifying the leaker. All we know about this individual is that he or she contacted an AP reporter and burned a CIA asset. Now, we could ask the reporter to identify the individual, but that puts the reporter in a bind - no reporter wants to reveal a source, because then all your sources dry up. It actually works to the reporters' benefit that DOJ proceeded in the manner they did. The reporter's integrity remains unblemished, but the FBI finds the otherwise anonymous source of the leaks.
 
2013-05-17 04:50:05 PM  

mrshowrules: That's my point though. This constitutes more of a protection to the leaker than the press.


So?  It's not a give and take.  You protect the press 100%, after that do what you like to the leaker.  By the way, I got no beef with asking the press and them voluntarily helping.

mrshowrules: Let's say you work for DoD and you take the nuclear launch codes and give them to Katie Couric.


You just committed a huge crime.  I'd say treason, though we can debate that another day.

mrshowrules: Katie Couric reads them on air.


And hopefully they get auto-tuned.

mrshowrules: Now you need to find out who did it but you can't look at Katie Couric's phone records. There is not crime until you can show that it went to Katie Couric so it is impossible to prove a crime unless you can show the link to Katie Couric. See the problem.


Katie Couric reading nuclear launch codes on air isn't enough proof that someone must have given her them?  You think a jury will think it's reasonably likely that she had personal access to them or what?

I'd just like to make a teenie change to your scenario: the person never called Katie Couric.  Maybe they walked it over and personally handed it to her, maybe they mailed it anonymously, maybe they emailed her it from s­exykins6­969­[nospam-﹫-backwards]liam­toh*c­o­m.  But they never called.  Is it now impossible to prove a crime ever occurred?
 
2013-05-17 04:50:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: Leave it to Bojangles to support his point with data that actually contradicts it but come out swinging anyways.

You're just adorable. I'm sorry though. No slap-fight for you.


Last time you got biatch slapped pretty hard.  I'm still waiting on that Obama quote by the way.
 
2013-05-17 04:52:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: Leave it to Bojangles to support his point with data that actually contradicts it but come out swinging anyways.

You're just adorable. I'm sorry though. No slap-fight for you.

mrshowrules: Maybe 7 employees of AP's 3,400 employees.That is 2 tenths of 1%. Sweeping indeed.

Why would you choose that metric? Has anyone suggested that ALL of AP was in on this?
Why not point out what a small percentage of Verizon's client base it is? Or what percentage of them were left handed?


You do realize you're sounding like a crazy person right now, right?
 
2013-05-17 04:55:27 PM  

BMulligan: The whole problem here is identifying the leaker. All we know about this individual is that he or she contacted an AP reporter and burned a CIA asset.


How is that the AP's problem?  A husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife.  Do you think that's okay?  What if he knows his wife is a terrorist or knows who the terrorists are that his wife pals around with and whatnot?  Why does it seem more important to protect marriage and not the press?

BMulligan: It actually works to the reporters' benefit that DOJ proceeded in the manner they did. The reporter's integrity remains unblemished, but the FBI finds the otherwise anonymous source of the leaks.


No, it really doesn't.  Well, I mean sure the FBI will subpoena the phone records and bust me but that reporter's integrity is unblemished so I guess I'll leak some info?
 
2013-05-17 04:55:32 PM  

lennavan: BMulligan: lennavan: I have never come across a scenario where a reporter was in jail for protecting a source that I did not side with the reporter.

Even Judith Miller?

Even Judith Miller.


We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this point. While I'm in pretty close agreement with what I take to be your general point - that reporters ought to enjoy far more protection than they do - I think the evidence indicates that Miller was no innocent dupe, but rather a co-conspirator.
 
2013-05-17 04:56:28 PM  

Biological Ali: You do realize you're sounding like a crazy person right now, right?


I have no doubt a LOT of people sound like crazy people to you. Was there some comment you wished to make?

lennavan: Last time you got biatch slapped pretty hard. I'm still waiting on that Obama quote by the way.


You're just adorable. I'm sorry though. No slap-fight for you.
 
2013-05-17 05:02:21 PM  

slayer199: Did Media Matters steal all of the talking points from Fark?  Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.


It might be the other way around. Some days this place seems like an echo chamber.
 
2013-05-17 05:07:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Biological Ali: You do realize you're sounding like a crazy person right now, right?

I have no doubt a LOT of people sound like crazy people to you. Was there some comment you wished to make?

lennavan: Last time you got biatch slapped pretty hard. I'm still waiting on that Obama quote by the way.

You're just adorable. I'm sorry though. No slap-fight for you.


No - you're definitely the only person sounding crazy in this thread at the moment. Now, maybe you don't care whether or not you sound crazy; that's up to you. I'm just letting you know.
 
2013-05-17 05:12:07 PM  

Biological Ali: No - you're definitely the only person sounding crazy in this thread at the moment. Now, maybe you don't care whether or not you sound crazy; that's up to you. I'm just letting you know.


Well! From such an unimpeachable authority, and with such non-specific references, I will be sure to write that down in my notebook.
 
2013-05-17 05:13:50 PM  

BMulligan: We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this point. While I'm in pretty close agreement with what I take to be your general point - that reporters ought to enjoy far more protection than they do - I think the evidence indicates that Miller was no innocent dupe, but rather a co-conspirator.


I never said or thought she was an innocent dupe.  But the crime was leaking the name.  The decision was entirely on Libby to leak or not leak the name.  That was the crime and once it happened, it was then went from a secret to public.  That she made it "more public" is irrelevant because there isn't such a thing as that CIA operatives name is only "sorta public."

It seems you're arguing you think another crime (or another part of the crime) was when she published the story in retaliation.  But I don't think you actually believe that.  Watch the Sunday morning politics talk shows, or read your favorite politically slanted source.  There are countless examples of people getting their names dragged through the mud in retaliation for something they did/said.

By the way, I'm not against Miller being sued in civil court, considering leaking the name ruined her CIA career.
 
2013-05-17 05:23:32 PM  

lennavan: No, one side is significantly worse than the other side. If you like one side more than the other, vote in the primary. If you don't like either side, vote 3rd party.


So basically in your mind the choices are:
Suck
Suck harder

Great 2-party system we have here.
 
2013-05-17 05:25:01 PM  

slayer199: lennavan: No, one side is significantly worse than the other side. If you like one side more than the other, vote in the primary. If you don't like either side, vote 3rd party.

So basically in your mind the choices are:
Suck
Suck harder

Great 2-party system we have here.


I'm actually pretty content with my representatives and their voting record.  Unfortunately politicians who represent the idiots in the South get an equal voice.
 
2013-05-17 05:36:02 PM  

lennavan: mrshowrules: But, in theory, if they believed a person was giving National security secrets to a reporter and the reporter's phone records would be evidence of this, that would be a reason.

I could not possibly disagree more.  It goes to the very core of why the free press exists in the first place.


I could not possibly disagree more. Being a journalist or a member of the press does not confer blanket immunity.
 
2013-05-17 05:36:10 PM  

IlGreven: ...another "liberal" site heard from.

/Much like The Raw Story, Salon is barely left of center.  Glenn Greenwald has to baselessly call Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins "islamophobes" just to keep up his librul street cred.


Uhh, Harris  isan Islamophobe. A disgusting one.
 
2013-05-17 05:41:59 PM  

qorkfiend: lennavan: mrshowrules: But, in theory, if they believed a person was giving National security secrets to a reporter and the reporter's phone records would be evidence of this, that would be a reason.

I could not possibly disagree more.  It goes to the very core of why the free press exists in the first place.

I could not possibly disagree more distort your argument more. Being a journalist or a member of the press does not confer blanket immunity.


That's true.  I thought about it for a bit and could not come up with any ways to distort what I was saying more than what you actually did.  Which I'll admit was surprising, given it came from you.  Not that you're stupid, you're certainly smart enough to wildly distort someone's argument.  You're just not usually that dishonest.
 
2013-05-17 05:57:03 PM  

lennavan: qorkfiend: lennavan: mrshowrules: But, in theory, if they believed a person was giving National security secrets to a reporter and the reporter's phone records would be evidence of this, that would be a reason.

I could not possibly disagree more.  It goes to the very core of why the free press exists in the first place.

I could not possibly disagree more distort your argument more. Being a journalist or a member of the press does not confer blanket immunity.

That's true.  I thought about it for a bit and could not come up with any ways to distort what I was saying more than what you actually did.  Which I'll admit was surprising, given it came from you.  Not that you're stupid, you're certainly smart enough to wildly distort someone's argument.  You're just not usually that dishonest.


Well, I did jump into the thread late, and I don't have time to familiarize myself with the rest of the discussion.

From what I have seen, it sounds like you're saying that simply being a reporter means that the government cannot obtain appropriate information from you about criminal investigations, based on your statement that you vehemently disagree with the idea that the government could obtain phone records that were evidence of security leaks. I disagree with this interpretation of the First Amendment; freedom of speech (and of the press) does not mean the government cannot compel testimony or production of evidence. The government can obtain the phone records of individuals under similar circumstances; there's no reason the press should be treated differently.

My interpretation of the First in this context is that the government cannot shut your newspaper down for publishing an article critical of government policy, not that anything said to a reporter somehow becomes privileged information.
 
2013-05-17 06:28:16 PM  
Obama, IRS, Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews, Warren: IRS was in the wrong. Partisan left farkers: fark them. IRS targeted a group we despise, so the IRS was right
 
2013-05-17 07:36:45 PM  

Kibbler: PawisBetlog: Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.

inb4 the trolls and dittos start chanting "ONLY CUZ U GOT CAUGHT LOLOBAMABENGHAZIIRSAPBIGGESTSCANDALEVARZ"

But srsly, even though it's being called out and refuted, Media Matters should have scrutiny and ridicule heaped upon it at least as much as all the libbiest libs heap onto Foxnews and the like.

Because Media Matters is a 24/7 cable news channel.  Because Media Matters and Fox News have equal influence.  Because Media Matters claims to report all of "the news."  Because Media Matters constantly stresses that they're "fair and balanced."  Because Media Matters claims that all other news outlets are biased lamestream driveby media, but they, the single largest news media organization, are different.  Pure.  Good.
American.  Because one of Media Matters' best-known talking heads has been boycotted by numerous advertisers because so many people have expressed disgust with him.  Because liberal politicians jump from the "I HATEZ ME SOME MEDIA" bandwagon to well-paying positions within Media Matters, where they leave behind all semblance of reasonable debate and instead simply regurgitate "ZOMG Republican Monster Scandal" talking points.


Guy, I don't think Media Matters is going to fark you.
 
2013-05-17 09:11:59 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Vlad_the_Inaner: Dr Dreidel: our president is from a minority group...

in 2008?   Are Connecticut born Texans a protected class?

Seems like someone missed a joke.


hmm  perhaps I'm not the only one.
 
2013-05-17 09:26:08 PM  

slayer199: Tor_Eckman: So both sides are equally bad so vote lizard people.

No, vote for a 3rd party.  Anything to reduce the stranglehold the 2-party system has on American politics.


i.imgur.com

/guessed someone else would do "Dont_blame_me_I_voted_for_Kodos.gif"
 
2013-05-17 09:40:53 PM  

slayer199: Use of Force in Libya without congressional approval? No problem
Because sending in an air support team is exactly equivalent to a decades-long occupation that has killed hundreds of our soldiers and hundreds of civilians.
Drone strikes against American citizens with targeting done in secret and without trial? Not a problem, they had it coming.
Problematic, but I'm having trouble dredging enough care from giveafark bay for an AQ operative on foreign soil in a war zone...
Lack of transparency? No problem, we trust the administration.

Find me a liberal who is actually saying this.
DOJ wiretaps against the press? It's ok, it was legal.
Actually, the consensus seems to be here that it was legal, (and it was) but still not right, you lying cock.
Fast and Furious? No biggie. It was a legitimate operation,
What.
IRS targeting political enemies of the President? He didn't know, so it's ok...and besides, the asked for the resignation of the guy that was leaving anyway.

IRS targeting groups who advertise their involvement with politics. Yknow, because it's ILLEGAL to be a nonprofit that's politically active.

So let's see, false equivalence, outright lies, willful misinterpretation.. yup, smells like right wing scumbaggery to me!
 
2013-05-17 09:44:09 PM  

cman: Obama, IRS, Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews, Warren: IRS was in the wrong.


Last I checked, a bunch of people saying something doesn't make them necessarily right.

Let me just go on record here that if you name your group something like "Tea Party (something)", I would fully expect the IRS to investigate your nonprofit application more fully due to possible issues regarding political neutrality. In fact, they wouldn't be doing their damn job if they didn't.

I'd also expect a group named "Occupy (something)" to receive the same level of extra scrutiny. You take on the label of a political cause, you take on all the baggage that comes with it.
 
2013-05-18 12:32:29 AM  

Mrtraveler01: It was a mutual effort. But trying to minimize the role Bush had in it just shows how much I shouldn't take you seriously.


I'm, not trying to minimize anything, just point out in clear plan facts that the brass of the DNC wanted to go into Iraq as badly as Bush did. That mean, evil, patriot act that was all Bush's fault??  98-1 in the Senate.  So much of what Bush did in terms of taxes, laws and military policy was done with the gung-ho support of the Dems.

So you ignoring this is probably why nobody takes you seriously.
 
2013-05-18 01:38:21 AM  

TsukasaK: o let's see, false equivalence, outright lies, willful misinterpretation.. yup, smells like right wing scumbaggery to me!


Typical of a fark lib.   Apparently you fail at reading comprehension because you couldn't get past the fact that I was critical of the actions of this administration and completely ignored the rest of the post.
  I wasn't talking about Bush...I've castigated him repeatedly as well as the rest of the GOP.  The point I was making is if Bush did those things you'd be up in arms about it....but because it's YOUR guy, no biggie. You'll defend him no matter what.

Just because it's YOUR guy doesn't make it right.  Wrong is wrong...period.  The real problem is the 2-party system.  That's fine if you hate the GOP...hell, I do.  But that doesn't excuse citizens NOT holding politicians accountable for their actions just because it's YOUR guy.  The GOP did that crap with Bush...defend no matter what.

TsukasaK: Because sending in an air support team is exactly equivalent to a decades-long occupation that has killed hundreds of our soldiers and hundreds of civilians.


Where did I say Bush's actions dragging us into a war was ok?  I was talking about President Obama acting unilaterally and without Congressional approval using military force in Iraq.  The administration's argument?  That it didn't rise to the level of full hostilities so the War Powers Act doesn't apply.

Drone strikes against American citizens with targeting done in secret and without trial? Not a problem, they had it coming.
Problematic, but I'm having trouble dredging enough care from giveafark bay for an AQ operative on foreign soil in a war zone...


How convenient.  Again, you give this administration a pass on something you find problematic.

Lack of transparency? No problem, we trust the administration.
Find me a liberal who is actually saying this.


Do you not read the posts here?  People are buying into the national security arguments for the lack of transparency.  The SAME lack of transparency that occurred during the Bush administration is happening under Obama.

DOJ wiretaps against the press? It's ok, it was legal.
Actually, the consensus seems to be here that it was legal, (and it was) but still not right, you lying cock.


How was I lying?  You just proved my point.  You AGREE that it was wrong, but it's ok because it's legal.  So was the Iraq war (which did have Congressional approval)...but I'm guessing you had a problem with that (as did I).

Fast and Furious? No biggie. It was a legitimate operation,
What.


You have no problem with the ATF walking guns into Mexico to see where they ended up?

IRS targeting political enemies of the President? He didn't know, so it's ok...and besides, the asked for the resignation of the guy that was leaving anyway.
IRS targeting groups who advertise their involvement with politics. Yknow, because it's ILLEGAL to be a nonprofit that's politically active.


Again, this is the same crap that Nixon did....and you are excusing it to because it's Obama.

I'm not saying a liberal should vote Republican or a conservative should vote Democrat, what I AM saying is that if citizens fail to hold their own party and the leader of their own party accountable for their actions...then there will be no constraints on power.  Hell, Congress abandoned their check on Presidential power long ago...so it falls on the People to make noise about these things.
 
2013-05-18 01:40:05 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: /guessed someone else would do "Dont_blame_me_I_voted_for_Kodos.gif"


I've voted 3rd party since '92.  I hate both parties (though the insanity of the GOP a bit more these days)
 
2013-05-18 03:09:15 AM  

slayer199: but it's ok because it's legal.


Please quote me where I said "It's okay" I said "It's wrong, but legal".

You can't, because I DIDNT SAY THAT, YOU FARKING LIAR.

Legal != Okay.

In fact, whether something is legal or not usually has dick all to do with whether its okay or not.

slayer199: Typical of a fark lib. Apparently you fail at reading comprehension because you couldn't get past the fact that I was critical of the actions of this administration and completely ignored the rest of the post.


No, I ignored the rest of your post because you willfully misinterpreted and put words in my mouth. You lie. Why should I attempt to argue in good faith with you?

slayer199: The administration's argument? That it didn't rise to the level of full hostilities so the War Powers Act doesn't apply.


And again we come to legality vs. morality. However, in this instance, I'm having a hard time raising the moral angle too, since that mission is long since done and did what it was set out to do, unlike some others. It also wasn't started on false pretenses with no exit plan.

Trying to compare this in any way to the actions of Busho is just plain dishonest.

And what of the administration's argument? Does that hold water legally or not?

slayer199: How convenient. Again, you give this administration a pass on something you find problematic.


How convenient, you twisting words again. I look at it this way. While I don't think that pedophiles should be raped in prison, and that prison rape is bad, the same dredger dredging the same bay will come up empty in that case too.

That doesn't make it okay, that means I don't give a fark about the guy. Cool? Call me when we're drone-striking people who aren't actual terrorists and I'll hop on the outrage wagon. As far as I'm concerned, he was a military target in a military location. You don't get to run off to a foreign country and train terrorists and then hide behind your home country's laws.

slayer199: Do you not read the posts here?


Then you'll have no trouble quoting some that are not made by trolls.

slayer199: You have no problem with the ATF walking guns into Mexico to see where they ended up?


I'd have had less of an issue with it if the program had produced tangible results (law enforcement letting smaller crimes slide for surveilance to have a chance at taking down bigger fish isn't exactly new), but it was mismanaged and got people killed. Therefore, I have a problem with it.

slayer199: Again, this is the same crap that Nixon did


And there you go twisting shiat again. This isn't watergate, this is the IRS doing their job. What part of "nonprofits are not allowed to be politically active" don't you grok?

TsukasaK: Let me just go on record here that if you name your group something like "Tea Party (something)", I would fully expect the IRS to investigate your nonprofit application more fully due to possible issues regarding political neutrality. In fact, they wouldn't be doing their damn job if they didn't.

I'd also expect a group named "Occupy (something)" to receive the same level of extra scrutiny. You take on the label of a political cause, you take on all the baggage that comes with it.


The Tea Party and Occupy movments are de facto political operations. Any corporation taking up that banner should be prepared to defend that branding.
 
2013-05-18 09:19:46 AM  
The only talking point I can ever see myself parroting would be from now on to refer to all scandals as Ghazi-gate, regardless of what they're about.

/perhaps more of a meme than a talking point
 
2013-05-18 12:41:56 PM  

slayer199: The administration's argument? That it didn't rise to the level of full hostilities so the War Powers Act doesn't apply.


You do realize that the same definition of hostilities has been used by pretty every administration since the Act was signed, right? I get that there's some amusing novelty value in comparing that definition with what a layperson imagines when they think of "hostilities", but that's hardly something to base a political argument on.
 
2013-05-18 04:02:59 PM  

Biological Ali: slayer199: The administration's argument? That it didn't rise to the level of full hostilities so the War Powers Act doesn't apply.

You do realize that the same definition of hostilities has been used by pretty every administration since the Act was signed, right? I get that there's some amusing novelty value in comparing that definition with what a layperson imagines when they think of "hostilities", but that's hardly something to base a  there's imagines when they think of "hostilities", but that's hardly something to base a political argument on


That's really the point isn't it?   That the definition keeps shifting and each President gains more power because people are reluctant to take their guy to task...because criticism is now considered to be support of the other party.  That is the inherent flaw with the 2-party system.  Hell, if you look at the original intent of the Constitution, every military action that the U.S. has been a part of since WW2, has been in violation of the Constitution.  Why?  Because we as citizens have not held our elected officials accountable.  The result is the expansion of Presidential power.
 
2013-05-18 06:24:43 PM  

slayer199: That's really the point isn't it? That the definition keeps shifting and each President gains more power because people are reluctant to take their guy to task...because criticism is now considered to be support of the other party. That is the inherent flaw with the 2-party system. Hell, if you look at the original intent of the Constitution, every military action that the U.S. has been a part of since WW2, has been in violation of the Constitution. Why? Because we as citizens have not held our elected officials accountable. The result is the expansion of Presidential power.


The definition has stayed the same pretty much since Ford (or since Carter, depending on how significant you consider the small change his administration made). More to the point, the War Powers Act itself is a shiatty law that really shouldn't even exist, so a perceived violation of it - a violation which itself would exist only in the minds of pundits and assorted political commentators, since the only entity with the power to meaningfully make that charge (Congress) hasn't done so - isn't the most sensible basis for a criticism of this administration.
 
2013-05-18 09:08:45 PM  

Biological Ali: The definition has stayed the same pretty much since Ford (or since Carter, depending on how significant you consider the small change his administration made). More to the point, the War Powers Act itself is a shiatty law that really shouldn't even exist, so a perceived violation of it - a violation which itself would exist only in the minds of pundits and assorted political commentators, since the only entity with the power to meaningfully make that charge (Congress) hasn't done so - isn't the most sensible basis for a criticism of this administration.


My basis of criticism is for our government in general...and not specific to Obama.  The point I was making is that Obama is just as guilty of moving the goalposts in favor of increasing Presidential power as every preceding administration.
 
2013-05-18 09:10:53 PM  
TsukasaK:

Thanks for proving my point.  You're so focused on defending YOUR guy that you attack anyone that disagrees with this administration...no matter what they do.
 
2013-05-18 09:15:51 PM  

slayer199: Thanks for proving my point.  You're so focused on defending YOUR guy that you attack anyone that disagrees with this administration...no matter what they do.


Sorry, I don't deal with liars.

/favorited!
 
2013-05-18 10:35:56 PM  

slayer199: My basis of criticism is for our government in general...and not specific to Obama. The point I was making is that Obama is just as guilty of moving the goalposts in favor of increasing Presidential power as every preceding administration.


The only legitimate criticism to be made here about "government in general" would be that they passed the War Powers Act to begin with.
 
Displayed 170 of 170 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  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