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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
slayer199: Use of Force in Libya without congressional approval? No problemBecause 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.
cman: Obama, IRS, Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews, Warren: IRS was in the wrong.
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.
TsukasaK: o let's see, false equivalence, outright lies, willful misinterpretation.. yup, smells like right wing scumbaggery to me!
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.
Vlad_the_Inaner: /guessed someone else would do "Dont_blame_me_I_voted_for_Kodos.gif"
slayer199: but it's ok because it's legal.
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.
slayer199: The administration's argument? That it didn't rise to the level of full hostilities so the War Powers Act doesn't apply.
slayer199: How convenient. Again, you give this administration a pass on something you find problematic.
slayer199: Do you not read the posts here?
slayer199: You have no problem with the ATF walking guns into Mexico to see where they ended up?
slayer199: Again, this is the same crap that Nixon did
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you like these links, you'll love
More Farking, less working
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 23 2018 23:26:54
Runtime: 0.367 sec (366 ms)