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 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 05:45:03 PM
i1353.photobucket.com
 
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.

/plonk
 
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 21 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