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 171
    More: Amusing, Media Matters, U.S. state abbreviations, Obama Justice Department, DOJ, obama, Salon, David Brock, Jonathan Haidt  
•       •       •

2633 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2013 at 9:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report