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 Examiner)   ProTip: Hey MSNBC, The White House talking points you're using are false   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 116
    More: Sad, Glenn Greenwald, MSNBC, White House, White House talking points, protip, talking points  
•       •       •

2966 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jun 2013 at 8:13 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-10 07:04:36 PM
It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative position here.
 
2013-06-10 07:28:25 PM
Is that the line that the White House is going with?  Is that why he called them the WH Talking Points?  If so, very disturbing, because they are pretty much what Dubya said when he was doing the wiretapping.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
 
2013-06-10 07:54:39 PM
The Washington Examiner makes Andrew Breitbart look like Edward R Murrow.
 
2013-06-10 08:17:06 PM

DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.


quite a quandary
 
2013-06-10 08:23:25 PM
Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?
 
2013-06-10 08:23:39 PM
That read like teenage girl's gossipy phone conversation.
 
2013-06-10 08:27:09 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Is that the line that the White House is going with?  Is that why he called them the WH Talking Points?  If so, very disturbing, because they are pretty much what Dubya said when he was doing the wiretapping.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."


It is legal.  Secret legal, with secret court orders by secret judges.  To me that is the most frightening thing about all this - it is "legal" but the whole system is a black box at the level PRISM and the NSA operate.  If there are checks and balances, those are also secret.
 
2013-06-10 08:28:24 PM

gimmegimme: Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?


Since when is Glenn Greenwald a conservative?
 
2013-06-10 08:29:40 PM

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.

quite a quandary


MSNBC might have a runtime error.  This whole thing is a mess and Obama, a constitutional lawyer, has the gall to say this is legit and keeping us "safe".  Everyone expected this crap from W, but it shows Obama is the same when it comes to citizen rights and the Patriot Act.
 
2013-06-10 08:29:56 PM
Again i say to House Republicans: Pass a bill to repeal the laws that make this "legal", if you think your base won't turn against you - or if you think you can turn them back when you remind them that it'll drive the Democrats and the White House nuts.

/"legal" in quotes because I personally believe they violate the Fourth
//not that I have confidence in the current SC to agree with me
 
2013-06-10 08:30:58 PM

gimmegimme: Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?


Greenwald has always seemed like a civil libertarian to me, not libertarian in other areas. I may be wrong though, I'm no GG expert.
 
2013-06-10 08:33:23 PM

Brontes: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.

quite a quandary

MSNBC might have a runtime error.  This whole thing is a mess and Obama, a constitutional lawyer, has the gall to say this is legit and keeping us "safe".  Everyone expected this crap from W, but it shows Obama is the same when it comes to citizen rights and the Patriot Act.


Or even more terrifying: Dubya was acting in good faith all along.
 
2013-06-10 08:34:22 PM

doyner: Brontes: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.

quite a quandary

MSNBC might have a runtime error.  This whole thing is a mess and Obama, a constitutional lawyer, has the gall to say this is legit and keeping us "safe".  Everyone expected this crap from W, but it shows Obama is the same when it comes to citizen rights and the Patriot Act.

Or even more terrifying: Dubya was acting in good faith all along.


I'm sure he was. Just as I am sure BO is. Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
2013-06-10 08:39:38 PM

skullkrusher:

doyner: Brontes: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.

quite a quandary

MSNBC might have a runtime error.  This whole thing is a mess and Obama, a constitutional lawyer, has the gall to say this is legit and keeping us "safe".  Everyone expected this crap from W, but it shows Obama is the same when it comes to citizen rights and the Patriot Act.

Or even more terrifying: Dubya was acting in good faith all along.

I'm sure he was. Just as I am sure BO is. Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Myself, I'm not so sure BO is acting in good faith.   BO is a putsch.
 
2013-06-10 08:40:26 PM

doyner: Or even more terrifying: Dubya was acting in good faith all along.


Maybe on the wire-tapping.  I don't know that he used it politically or anything, but just as a way to try to stop attacks.  I can let that go a little.  There are so many other ways that Bush/Cheney ass-raped this country and the world.  This one can slide to the back burner.

Obama may be using it the same way, and that's okay too, if only he hadn't opened his yapper about being the "transparent administration" and wanting to stop the trampling on American freedoms etc...
 
2013-06-10 08:40:50 PM

GeneralJim: skullkrusher: doyner: Brontes: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.

quite a quandary

MSNBC might have a runtime error.  This whole thing is a mess and Obama, a constitutional lawyer, has the gall to say this is legit and keeping us "safe".  Everyone expected this crap from W, but it shows Obama is the same when it comes to citizen rights and the Patriot Act.

Or even more terrifying: Dubya was acting in good faith all along.

I'm sure he was. Just as I am sure BO is. Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Myself, I'm not so sure BO is acting in good faith.   BO is a putsch.


Vote beer hall!
 
2013-06-10 08:42:19 PM

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.

quite a quandary


You did that as if there's a difference.
 
2013-06-10 08:42:25 PM

skullkrusher: GeneralJim: skullkrusher: doyner: Brontes: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.

quite a quandary

MSNBC might have a runtime error.  This whole thing is a mess and Obama, a constitutional lawyer, has the gall to say this is legit and keeping us "safe".  Everyone expected this crap from W, but it shows Obama is the same when it comes to citizen rights and the Patriot Act.

Or even more terrifying: Dubya was acting in good faith all along.

I'm sure he was. Just as I am sure BO is. Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Myself, I'm not so sure BO is acting in good faith.   BO is a putsch.

Vote beer hall!


Don't forget to vote out all the R's and D's that voted for the Patriot Act turd in the first place.  Bush and Obama are 1/3 of the problem...
 
2013-06-10 08:43:42 PM

Brontes: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative White House position here.

quite a quandary

MSNBC might have a runtime error.  This whole thing is a mess and Obama, a constitutional lawyer, has the gall to say this is legit and keeping us "safe".  Everyone expected this crap from W, but it shows Obama is the same when it comes to citizen rights and the Patriot Act.


It goes to show the Patriot Act is a shiatty law that authorized the government to engage in this behavior.
 
2013-06-10 08:48:03 PM
I'm reminded of a comedy skit.

[Man stands before a judge]
Judge: How do you plead
Man: Not guilty.
Judge: Okay. Well, I guess you're free to go then
Prosecutor: Oh, come on, you can't simply take his word. He could be lying!
Judge (to Man): Are you lying?
Man: No
Judge: Ok, well I don't see what more I can do here.

(paraphrased)
 
2013-06-10 08:51:29 PM
It is legal under the Patriot Act. That's the problem.
 
2013-06-10 08:52:55 PM

skullkrusher: gimmegimme: Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?

Since when is Glenn Greenwald a conservative?


Maybe if we'd stop putting labels on everyone we could discuss the issues instead of discussing who is supposed to be outraged at any given issue.

I'm really sick of liberals saying "Why weren't you outraged when Bush did it?"  Who cares?!  Why aren't you outraged when Obama does it?  And if you are, then how about you stop letting divide and conquer tactics work so well at protecting the status quo and those in power.
 
2013-06-10 08:54:57 PM

dehehn: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?

Since when is Glenn Greenwald a conservative?

Maybe if we'd stop putting labels on everyone we could discuss the issues instead of discussing who is supposed to be outraged at any given issue.

I'm really sick of liberals saying "Why weren't you outraged when Bush did it?"  Who cares?!  Why aren't you outraged when Obama does it?  And if you are, then how about you stop letting divide and conquer tactics work so well at protecting the status quo and those in power.


oof, you should avoid Fark then
 
2013-06-10 09:00:02 PM

dehehn: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?

Since when is Glenn Greenwald a conservative?

Maybe if we'd stop putting labels on everyone we could discuss the issues instead of discussing who is supposed to be outraged at any given issue.

I'm really sick of liberals saying "Why weren't you outraged when Bush did it?"  Who cares?!  Why aren't you outraged when Obama does it?  And if you are, then how about you stop letting divide and conquer tactics work so well at protecting the status quo and those in power.


We get it.  IOKIYAR.
 
2013-06-10 09:00:45 PM

gimmegimme: Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?


I used to get The Examiner when it started as a free dead-tree paper, and it always amused me that their "Senior White House Correspondent" published word-for-word whitehouse.gov press releases under his byline.

That's some fine journalism there, Lou.
 
2013-06-10 09:01:07 PM

dehehn: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?

Since when is Glenn Greenwald a conservative?

Maybe if we'd stop putting labels on everyone we could discuss the issues instead of discussing who is supposed to be outraged at any given issue.

I'm really sick of liberals saying "Why weren't you outraged when Bush did it?"  Who cares?!  Why aren't you outraged when Obama does it?  And if you are, then how about you stop letting divide and conquer tactics work so well at protecting the status quo and those in power.


I'm a liberal and I never use that argument. I think that only makes sense when you see hypocritical Republicans getting mad NOW when they didn't mind under Bush. Other than that, it really shouldn't matter. This shouldn't be a partisan issue and we only further divide our power as a collective when we rely on such partisan tropes.
 
2013-06-10 09:02:49 PM

skullkrusher: Since when is Glenn Greenwald a conservative?


He seems pretty liberal.

Greenwald is gay, and lives most of the time in Brazil.
 
2013-06-10 09:03:14 PM

dehehn: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: Since when are conservatives against reading party talking points verbatim as news?

Since when is Glenn Greenwald a conservative?

Maybe if we'd stop putting labels on everyone we could discuss the issues instead of discussing who is supposed to be outraged at any given issue.

I'm really sick of liberals saying "Why weren't you outraged when Bush did it?"  Who cares?!  Why aren't you outraged when Obama does it?  And if you are, then how about you stop letting divide and conquer tactics work so well at protecting the status quo and those in power.


Because liberals were saying all along that, once that particular genie was out of the bottle, there was no putting it  back. Nobody who gets the Presidency is going to GIVE UP that kind of power, let alone get a repeal through Congress. And it's not just the PATRIOT act, either; this secret court bullshiat has existed since at least the 70s.

Welcome to the new America. Get used to it, because there is FARK ALL you can do about it.
 
2013-06-10 09:05:40 PM

DamnYankees: It should be made clear MSNBC was taking the conservative position here.


And that matters because...?
 
2013-06-10 09:09:57 PM
In other news, Rachel felt like putting a bunch of slides marked Top Secret up on my TV. Thanks.
 
2013-06-10 09:12:48 PM
Isn't going to be awesome when Cruz's and Paul's emails are leaked online in 2015 ... and their search histories. Can't wait to see which nobody gets blamed or suffers no consequences.
 
2013-06-10 09:12:52 PM

rnld: skullkrusher: Since when is Glenn Greenwald a conservative?

He seems pretty liberal.

Greenwald is gay, and lives most of the time in Brazil.


He's not gay. He just seems gay because he's so liberal.

/he's actually gay
 
2013-06-10 09:16:28 PM
Nation of secrets. The Republic was mostly a good thing.
 
2013-06-10 09:23:55 PM

coco ebert: Greenwald has always seemed like a civil libertarian to me, not libertarian in other areas.


Yes -- the good kind of libertarian.
 
2013-06-10 09:32:58 PM

James F. Campbell: coco ebert: Greenwald has always seemed like a civil libertarian to me, not libertarian in other areas.

Yes -- the good kind of libertarian.


It's the kind of libertarian I am!
 
2013-06-10 09:40:47 PM

Fart_Machine: It is legal under the Patriot Act. That's the problem.


They were doing a lot of this shiat before the Patriot Act.  What the hell do you think they have been doing at Ft. Meade MD all these years?  For years, the gov't denied the NSA even existed.
 
2013-06-10 09:47:20 PM
So...

1) Brzezinski puts forward argument that libertarian douchenozzle disagrees with

2) Said nozzle instinctively plays the "lololol MSNBC is in the tank and reading WH talking points" card before actually attempting to refute the argument, and presents no evidence that she was reading "talking points" at all apart from wild accusation, which Brzezinski immediately denied (not that you'd know from reading TFA).

3) Other republican toolbags run with the "talking points" line (a quick google shows Daily Caller, Newsbusters, and Hot Air have all reported on this), thereby enshrining it in Republican common wisdom that a "liberal" MSNBC host was caught reciting WH talking points and called out instantly by a heroic libertarian guest.

This is how derp spreads, people.
 
2013-06-10 09:48:28 PM
Also, anyone who camel cases "Protip" is an idiot.
 
2013-06-10 09:57:02 PM
yafh.com
 
2013-06-10 09:58:29 PM
coco ebert:

I'm a liberal and I never use that argument. I think that only makes sense when you see hypocritical Republicans getting mad NOW when they didn't mind under Bush.


America went through a poltical awakening; it's not that they didn't mind under things like this under Bush, it   just wasn't a thing back then. It should have been, but it wasn't.  BDS got our attention, now ODS keeps it. I'm hopeful that more people paying attention will be a good thing. So far I'm not so sure.
 
2013-06-10 09:59:17 PM

dookdookdook: Also, anyone who camel cases "Protip" is an idiot.


Got a problem with CamelCases, mrmyusernameisalllowercase?
 
2013-06-10 09:59:47 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: I'm hopeful that more people paying attention will be a good thing. So far I'm not so sure.


Right now we've got everyone knowing there's something going on, which is good. But they're not too interesting in understanding exactly and specifically what, which is kind of troubling.
 
2013-06-10 10:00:51 PM

dookdookdook: This is how derp spreads, people.


I thought it was spread by kissing people with cold sores.
 
2013-06-10 10:05:39 PM

dookdookdook: So...

1) Brzezinski puts forward argument that libertarian douchenozzle disagrees with

2) Said nozzle instinctively plays the "lololol MSNBC is in the tank and reading WH talking points" card before actually attempting to refute the argument, and presents no evidence that she was reading "talking points" at all apart from wild accusation, which Brzezinski immediately denied (not that you'd know from reading TFA).

3) Other republican toolbags run with the "talking points" line (a quick google shows Daily Caller, Newsbusters, and Hot Air have all reported on this), thereby enshrining it in Republican common wisdom that a "liberal" MSNBC host was caught reciting WH talking points and called out instantly by a heroic libertarian guest.

This is how derp spreads, people.


You have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is, do you?
 
2013-06-10 10:08:56 PM
dehehn: I'm really sick of liberals saying "Why weren't you outraged when Bush did it?"  Who cares?!

Well?  Why weren't you?

Why aren't you outraged when Obama does it?

WE ARE.

And if you are, then how about you stop letting divide and conquer tactics work so well at protecting the status quo and those in power.

Someday a Republican will again sit in the Oval Office.  Will you go back to calling us America Hating Traitor Dhimmi Communist Terrorist Sympathizers?  (Speaking of divide and conquer tactics, and as if Scary Mooselimbs have ever had much truck with communism.)
 
2013-06-10 10:09:06 PM

skullkrusher: You have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is, do you?


Nope.  Google showed he writes for Salon, and peoplein this thread say he's a libertarian, so that's all I know.

Anyone who jumps immediately to the "liberal media bias" card isn't worth more than 10 seconds of my time to research.
 
2013-06-10 10:10:58 PM
Saw that it was the Washington Examiner and stopped mid click.
 
2013-06-10 10:13:49 PM

dookdookdook: skullkrusher: You have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is, do you?

Nope.  Google showed he writes for Salon, and peoplein this thread say he's a libertarian, so that's all I know.

Anyone who jumps immediately to the "liberal media bias" card isn't worth more than 10 seconds of my time to research.


perhaps you'd be better served reading a few things about him before you make a whole shiatload of erroneous assumptions?
 
2013-06-10 10:14:48 PM
Can "talking points" please be on the list of banned words/phrases at the end of the year?
 
2013-06-10 10:16:49 PM

TerminalEchoes: Can "talking points" please be on the list of banned words/phrases at the end of the year?


why? Does it cause you ironic cognitive dissonance in your dunning-kreuger effected Overton Window?
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report