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.

(Washington Post)   Turns out AP wasn't the only news outlet Obama was tapping, FOX News also was spied on. Come on Obama, you just completed the right-wing conspiracy trifecta in just two weeks, At least make it hard for them   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 241
    More: Asinine, right-wing, rosen, press freedom, conspiracy  
•       •       •

6154 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-20 04:03:23 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: I'm afraid that between this, the IRS screw up, Benghazi and a whole host of other issues the Democratic Party will have a very very difficult time in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. There are also yet to happen crisis in the next 3 years to add to this pile as well.
Perhaps it is wise that Hillary might not run afterall because she will come in as a liability and will almost certainly concede the WH to a Republican.


I noticed that the GOP has been a lot quieter about Benghazi since it was revealed that it was the emails used to prove the administration was lying were actually altered by the GOP, and it was the GOP that was lying.
 
2013-05-20 04:07:14 PM  

Zasteva: SuperNinjaToad: I'm afraid that between this, the IRS screw up, Benghazi and a whole host of other issues the Democratic Party will have a very very difficult time in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. There are also yet to happen crisis in the next 3 years to add to this pile as well.
Perhaps it is wise that Hillary might not run afterall because she will come in as a liability and will almost certainly concede the WH to a Republican.

I noticed that the GOP has been a lot quieter about Benghazi since it was revealed that it was the emails used to prove the administration was lying were actually altered by the GOP, and it was the GOP that was lying.


Gee, I wonder why....
 
2013-05-20 04:15:52 PM  

Zasteva: SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Uh, no, it's not "ok".

It is, however, legal. Just like it is legal for a judge to jail a reporter who won't reveal a source. The freedom of the press does not include the right to hide information from the authorities during an investigation of a criminal action.

Also, your memory of the Valerie Plame case is faulty. The Dems were in an uproar because the members of the Bush administration apparently leaked classified information to get revenge on an administration critic. It was clear almost right away that the more important question was who were the senior administration officials that were Novak's sources, yet the GOP seemed to want to focus on punishing Novak.

So, you are comparing the uproar over a criminal leak that outed a CIA agent, resulting in the convention of the top aide who leaked the info (Scooter Libby) and a presidential commutation of that aide's sentence with the entirely legal hunt for information to track down a leak.

No wonder you guys have a hard time understanding what is and is not a scandal.


They know exactly what a scandal is. A scandal is "Any time someone in a Democratic administration does absolutely anything".
 
2013-05-20 04:27:55 PM  
a57.foxnews.com

Ever since Obama thought up The Patriot Act and forced it into law (despite Republican outrage), Fox news has been the only media outlet willing to stand up to this gross abuse of AMERICA'S FREEDOMS.
 
2013-05-20 04:28:44 PM  
Who farking cares?

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?
 
2013-05-20 04:34:53 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?


Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice




Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.
 
2013-05-20 04:39:56 PM  

super_grass: Who farking cares?

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?


Because the GOP are pretty terrible people and their outrage or nonoutrage shouldn't steer your decisions?
 
2013-05-20 05:03:51 PM  

Profedius:
Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor.
Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.)


A head of state or head of government and their ministers shouldn't be personally involved in or monitor a criminal investigation. It will always raise suspicion of impropriety.

injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press.

Can you describe how press freedom was interfered with? I don't think the journalist has been charged with anything, and legally obtaining phone records in a criminal investigation with possible national security implications can hardly be described as intimidation.
Obviously the concept of "national security implications" can be abused to cover criminal behaviour and injustice, but I can't see where it happened in this case.
 
2013-05-20 05:05:20 PM  

Ned Stark: super_grass: Who farking cares?

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?

Because the GOP are pretty terrible people and their outrage or nonoutrage shouldn't steer your decisions?


Yes, but they're usually Obama's biggest critics. Therefore, whenever anyone criticizes Obama I will associate them with the Neo-Cons of the last administration who were okay with Bush's abuses. Obviously those people are hypocrites, and I'm going to summarily dismiss any criticism of Obama that they make.

QED: Any criticism of this president is done by lackeys of the last one, and their opinions don't matter because they didn't speak about this kind of abuse then their guy did the same thing (and their guy is a major asshole).

And no suggestions of how this is a race to the bottom. It's a stupid argument for reasons that I will not say.
 
2013-05-20 05:22:24 PM  

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


.08/10

/they would have to be legally drunk to fall for this troll.
 
2013-05-20 05:26:44 PM  

Profedius: Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.


Is it more or less injust than for news organizations in search of a scoop to be able to publicly disclose classified information about active intelligence operations that put people's lives in danger?
 
2013-05-20 05:35:58 PM  

Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.


And, still, no call from the Media to repeal the Patriot Act. It's like they are incapable of seeing the connection.
 
2013-05-20 05:44:21 PM  

Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.


The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?
 
2013-05-20 05:46:00 PM  

super_grass: Ned Stark: super_grass: Who farking cares?

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?

Because the GOP are pretty terrible people and their outrage or nonoutrage shouldn't steer your decisions?

Yes, but they're usually Obama's biggest critics. Therefore, whenever anyone criticizes Obama I will associate them with the Neo-Cons of the last administration who were okay with Bush's abuses. Obviously those people are hypocrites, and I'm going to summarily dismiss any criticism of Obama that they make.

QED: Any criticism of this president is done by lackeys of the last one, and their opinions don't matter because they didn't speak about this kind of abuse then their guy did the same thing (and their guy is a major asshole).

And no suggestions of how this is a race to the bottom. It's a stupid argument for reasons that I will not say.


[Funny]ed.

Because anything else is too horrifying.
 
2013-05-20 05:47:21 PM  
C'mon Barry, just say the safe words and everyone will back off, it's that simple. Just say it. Say it!!!!!

Hint: "Patriot Act"
 
2013-05-20 05:47:49 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?


Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.
 
2013-05-20 06:23:38 PM  

Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.


It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?
 
2013-05-20 06:42:16 PM  

Ned Stark: Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.


If by "Given", you mean "Actively assisted in leaking".

The press cannot break into your house, steal your records, publish them and hide behind "Freedom of the press".
 
2013-05-20 07:07:21 PM  

RexTalionis: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?


Or the names and addresses of everyone who applied for a gun permit.

/ fwoosh!
 
2013-05-20 07:07:27 PM  

Ned Stark: Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.


You mean information that was illegally leaked and compromised a major terrorist investigation? The one that actively endangered a deep cover operative?
 
2013-05-20 07:21:03 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Ned Stark: Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

You mean information that was illegally leaked and compromised a major terrorist investigation? The one that actively endangered a deep cover operative?


yes, that one.
 
2013-05-20 07:37:45 PM  

SilentStrider: Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.


That's the real scandal.  Power should be taken from the executive branch but only the partisan bullshiat gets air time.
 
2013-05-20 07:46:11 PM  

whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.


www.slate.com
 
2013-05-20 08:25:05 PM  
And the next president will do all the same things plus a little more.  Voters will tolerate it as long as it's there guy in office.
 
2013-05-20 08:25:22 PM  

socoloco: Hope and change was sold to idiots who have to believe in something rather reality.

Ron Paul!

/obligatory


Yeah. That's because they don't believe in Jesus.

/wants to play too
//isn't proud
low-hanging fruit and all that
 
2013-05-20 09:31:43 PM  
Donna always noticed when Josh got a new suit.

/maybe it was Sam. Or, Tobey. NOT TOBEY!
 
2013-05-20 10:00:15 PM  
www.troll.me
 
2013-05-20 11:20:55 PM  

RobertBruce: PreMortem: jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA:  Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.


Reading is hard, for you anyway.

You have to remember how warrants are given out after the patriot act.  it's sort of like finding the right doctor when you need your next oxy fix.  Hell, there are even retroactive warrants.


Was not

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. "

part of FISA well before the Patriot act?
 
2013-05-20 11:35:16 PM  

Jake Havechek: Obtaining phone records is not the same as phone tapping, you stupid piece of farking garbage!


Those who think they should be the same, can blame SCOTUS, class of 1979

/VoIP via onion routing, coming soon to a news room near you
//or burner phones if you're really lazy
///I've missed a season.  did Dexter ever get caught because of his fondness for using cell phones from kill rooms?
 
2013-05-20 11:37:35 PM  
Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?
 
2013-05-20 11:48:21 PM  

mrexcess: Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?


It is also not the duty of the media to actively aid in leaking information. Which this dipsh*t did.

Would you be OK with a reporter giving a burglar a lockpick and having him steal your various personal records, which that reporter then publishes? Would prosecuting that reporter infringe on freedom of the press?
 
2013-05-20 11:53:08 PM  

Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.


So if the press were doing a documentary on gang rape, and actually participated in a gang rape during research of the story, it wouldn't be a crime because it was for publication?
 
2013-05-21 12:15:38 AM  

mrexcess: Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?


They leaked classified information that put lives in danger. It is illegal.
 
2013-05-21 12:58:58 AM  

LowbrowDeluxe: PreMortem: jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA:  Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.


Reading is hard, for you anyway.

Someone should just quote this every 4th or 5th post in this thread.  There really isn't a whole lot else to be said.


Pfft, like judges aren't crooked.
 
2013-05-21 02:24:50 AM  

sendtodave: Pfft, like judges aren't crooked.


Secret judges.  You'll never be able to find out if that's true or not

intrada.net.
 
2013-05-21 08:02:06 AM  

RexTalionis: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?


That wouldn't be news.
 
2013-05-21 08:04:05 AM  

LordJiro: Ned Stark: Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

If by "Given", you mean "Actively assisted in leaking".

The press cannot break into your house, steal your records, publish them and hide behind "Freedom of the press".


That's breaking and entering... hardly a press issue.
 
2013-05-21 08:04:51 AM  

super_grass: RexTalionis: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?

Or the names and addresses of everyone who applied for a gun permit.

/ fwoosh!


Public Record

/buzzed and pointing out the obvious this morning...
 
2013-05-21 08:07:22 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

So if the press were doing a documentary on gang rape, and actually participated in a gang rape during research of the story, it wouldn't be a crime because it was for publication?


/notsureifserious

The false comparisons on page 5 are hysterical!
 
2013-05-21 08:14:30 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: mrexcess: Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?

They leaked classified information that put lives in danger. It is illegal.


LordJiro: mrexcess: Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?

It is also not the duty of the media to actively aid in leaking information. Which this dipsh*t did.

Would you be OK with a reporter giving a burglar a lockpick and having him steal your various personal records, which that reporter then publishes? Would prosecuting that reporter infringe on freedom of the press?


Holy shiat you guys are retarded. It is not illegal for the press to print information that was leaked to them. The government employee (you know, the one person in this mess who actually signed a NDA) leaked the information. Did you idiots learn nothing from the wikileaks fiasco? In that case, Manning broke the law. Assange did not. Is it really that farking hard to understand?
 
2013-05-21 08:47:21 AM  

thetubameister: RexTalionis: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?

That wouldn't be news.


It's Fark?
 
Displayed 41 of 241 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report