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.

(Guardian)   President Obama's assault on the First Amendment continues   (theguardian.com) divider line 337
    More: Obvious, Obama administration, 1st amendment, shield laws, press freedom, First Amendment Center, Espionage Act, duty of care  
•       •       •

5434 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Aug 2013 at 11:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-12 04:21:49 PM

coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.


Yeah but Snowden didn't expose anything illegal, cuz it's impossible to challenge them in court with them being secret and whatnot.

...until someone leaked their existence, the bastard!
 
2013-08-12 04:21:53 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?


Do you have any proof that you are the libbiest lib who ever libbed?
 
2013-08-12 04:23:46 PM

coyo: vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a r ...


The Supreme Court has not ruled that PRISM/etc. violates the letter of the law (agreed with you that it violates the spirit of the Constitution at least), but failing an act of Congress do you really think there is any legal mechanism that can be used to get rid of it? Challenge: don't forget that Congress will stoop to any new low depth to hurt the President on any petty thing they can even when he's doing something awesome.
 
2013-08-12 04:26:09 PM

imontheinternet: Biological Ali: imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.

Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?

How does the judge's final sentence change anything?  The DOJ ruined his life and tried to throw him in jail for 35 years for something the administration says it supports.


The Obama administration has never said it supported exposing the entirely legal operation of its surveillance programs no matter how unethical they may be. FAIL
 
2013-08-12 04:27:53 PM

super_grass: coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

Yeah but Snowden didn't expose anything illegal, cuz it's impossible to challenge them in court with them being secret and whatnot.

...until someone leaked their existence, the bastard!


OK finally a legally sound reason to bash the administration! Despite my other posts in this thread I approve!
 
2013-08-12 04:28:10 PM

PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.


Wait!   People get PAID to post on FARK?!

What have I been doing all this time??!!??

Who are the idiots enterprising businesses who would pay for play on Fark?
 
2013-08-12 04:29:39 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: imontheinternet: Biological Ali: imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.

Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?

How does the judge's final sentence change anything?  The DOJ ruined his life and tried to throw him in jail for 35 years for something the administration says it supports.

The Obama administration has never said it supported exposing the entirely legal operation of its surveillance programs no matter how unethical they may be. FAIL


Drake never gave out any classified information, and his leaks were also about waste and fraud.  The official position was not to retaliate against people who protect classified information while revealing things like waste, fraud, and abuse.  When it actually came time to have principles, they ruined his life and tried to send him to jail for the rest of his life to make him an example.
 
2013-08-12 04:32:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.


What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.
 
2013-08-12 04:36:58 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: super_grass: coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

Yeah but Snowden didn't expose anything illegal, cuz it's impossible to challenge them in court with them being secret and whatnot.

...until someone leaked their existence, the bastard!

OK finally a legally sound reason to bash the administration! Despite my other posts in this thread I approve!


Massive invasions of privacy.

Done.

And don't give me that "legally sound" crap. One of the reasons why these surveillance programs are so obnoxious is the wall of shady legal technicalities used to shield them from scrutiny.
 
2013-08-12 04:38:07 PM

imontheinternet: The Obama Administration is hostile to whistleblowers.


The administration is not hostile towards whistleblowers, nor has it "reversed its position" on whistleblower protections as you earlier claimed. Indeed, whistleblower protections have actually been enhanced under the administration.

The problem is, you seem to be operating under some novel definition of "whistleblower" that would be foreign to many people (I suspect most people, but it's hard to say). Certainly the Obama administration never subscribed by this definition that you're putting forward.

Drake and the others may have been whistleblowers in 2002 when they followed the proper channels, but if you're suggesting that he was prosecuted for whistleblowing you either need to read up on what he was actually charged with (the fact that the charges were dropped and may have been inappropriate doesn't have any bearing on the basic fact of what he was prosecuted for), or be up-front about what exactly you mean when you say "whistleblower", because clearly it's something very different from the commonly-accepted meaning of the term.
 
2013-08-12 04:38:18 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?

Really, would you mind explaining one time I've lied? And your quote actually comes from the thread where you said, and I quote: "But just curious, does anyone really post here without getting paid? Why would you do that?"

It was an epic thread.

You lied in this thread.
You said I am getting paid to post.
I am not.
The fact that I asked a question does not mean that I am getting paid.  For some reason people think people who disagree with them must be getting paid for those posts because there is no other reason people could possibly disagree with them.

Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.


...I really have absolutely no idea how to respond to someone this delusional.
 
2013-08-12 04:41:14 PM

mediablitz: Cletus C.: The Supreme Court has ruled that the administration must crack down on leakers, sometimes going to extreme measures such as threatening to jail reporters? Now, that's an activist court. Interesting.

You are commenting in the wrong thread. This story is about a reporter refusing to divulge his source, as directed by a court of law. This thread includes dozens of examples of this happening in the past, long before evil Obama came along.

I realize staying "on topic" isn't your thing, because it requires you to admit facts, but can you at least try?


Huh? I was responding to a comment. You might have included that. And this is a story about a reporter facing jail unless he testifies in an illegal disclosure case. How is it not on topic?

I know you're trying to play a variation of the Bush card but you're making no sense, dude.
 
2013-08-12 04:44:06 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: super_grass: coyo: Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.

Yeah but Snowden didn't expose anything illegal, cuz it's impossible to challenge them in court with them being secret and whatnot.

...until someone leaked their existence, the bastard!

OK finally a legally sound reason to bash the administration! Despite my other posts in this thread I approve!


Well, not really. The "can't challenge in court" refers to the ACLU case about warrantless wiretaps of foreign communications which was dismissed due to lack of standing. The information Snowden leaked (as far as I can see) was about different surveillance mechanisms and programs entirely, and the legal distinctions between content and metadata are such that no court challenge  is likely to do particularly well regardless of how much classified information related to it is leaked.
 
2013-08-12 04:44:44 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.


Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").


Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk
 
2013-08-12 04:44:55 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: The Obama Administration is hostile to whistleblowers.

The administration is not hostile towards whistleblowers, nor has it "reversed its position" on whistleblower protections as you earlier claimed. Indeed, whistleblower protections have actually been enhanced under the administration.

The problem is, you seem to be operating under some novel definition of "whistleblower" that would be foreign to many people (I suspect most people, but it's hard to say). Certainly the Obama administration never subscribed by this definition that you're putting forward.

Drake and the others may have been whistleblowers in 2002 when they followed the proper channels, but if you're suggesting that he was prosecuted for whistleblowing you either need to read up on what he was actually charged with (the fact that the charges were dropped and may have been inappropriate doesn't have any bearing on the basic fact of what he was prosecuted for), or be up-front about what exactly you mean when you say "whistleblower", because clearly it's something very different from the commonly-accepted meaning of the term.


When I hear whistleblower, someone who points out wrongdoing comes to mind. However, whistleblowing is not really relevant here. What is relevant is the extent of survelance that is taking place that certainly violates the spirit if the bill of rights. That is where we must focus on. Any distraction from that is a tacit acceptance of the violations.
 
2013-08-12 04:46:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.


http://www.fark.com/comments/7883683/85861477#c85861477
 
2013-08-12 04:46:17 PM

Zafler: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk


Well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or not...it was even  in the comment quoted. Holy hell, this is amazing.
 
2013-08-12 04:46:43 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: The Obama Administration is hostile to whistleblowers.

The administration is not hostile towards whistleblowers, nor has it "reversed its position" on whistleblower protections as you earlier claimed. Indeed, whistleblower protections have actually been enhanced under the administration.

The problem is, you seem to be operating under some novel definition of "whistleblower" that would be foreign to many people (I suspect most people, but it's hard to say). Certainly the Obama administration never subscribed by this definition that you're putting forward.

Drake and the others may have been whistleblowers in 2002 when they followed the proper channels, but if you're suggesting that he was prosecuted for whistleblowing you either need to read up on what he was actually charged with (the fact that the charges were dropped and may have been inappropriate doesn't have any bearing on the basic fact of what he was prosecuted for), or be up-front about what exactly you mean when you say "whistleblower", because clearly it's something very different from the commonly-accepted meaning of the term.


No, it didn't reverse position, it just deleted it.

Seriously, the lengths people will go to defend this idiocy is just beyond me. Obama heavily criticized Bush for not being transparent, and said he would change things to encourage, not discourage whistleblowing... that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue... the idea that he has been consistent on this is... as Condoleeza Rice would say, counter-factual.
 
2013-08-12 04:48:01 PM

Zafler: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk


I expect it will all go down the memory hole soon.
 
2013-08-12 04:48:51 PM

firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue


And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.
 
2013-08-12 04:50:27 PM

firefly212: No, it didn't reverse position, it just deleted it.

Seriously, the lengths people will go to defend this idiocy is just beyond me. Obama heavily criticized Bush for not being transparent, and said he would change things to encourage, not discourage whistleblowing... that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue... the idea that he has been consistent on this is... as Condoleeza Rice would say, counter-factual.


You're not referring to that thing where Obama's 2008 campaign website was taken down in its entirety, are you? Because it would be silly if you were.
 
2013-08-12 04:51:46 PM

Biological Ali: The administration is not hostile towards whistleblowers, nor has it "reversed its position" on whistleblower protections as you earlier claimed. Indeed, whistleblower protections have actually been enhanced under the administration.


The Administration publicly says it will protect whistleblowers and even supported legislation doing so, but when it comes to actual practice, it does everything it can to deter it, including undermining the same protections it once said it supported.

Please note that these stories of lack of transparency and lashing out at reporters and their sources is not coming from American Thinker or Blaze, it's coming from NYT, HuffPo, Mother Jones, and other leftist sources.  These are not partisan goons looking for points to score.
 
2013-08-12 04:52:13 PM

LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.


You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.

Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs, and even he's starting to offer concessions to make things right(er).
 
2013-08-12 04:53:30 PM

super_grass: LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.

You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.


Ah, the old "psh duh common sense" gambit.

super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs


"Programs"?
 
2013-08-12 04:54:40 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.

You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.

Ah, the old "psh duh common sense" gambit.

super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs

"Programs"?


Pogroms?
 
2013-08-12 04:55:24 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7883683/85861477#c85861477

Thank you for proving I never said "the libbiest lib who ever libbed "
Got anything else?


Yeah. My paraphrase was pithier. Now why don't you take this little mental breakdown you're having and get it over with as quickly as possible?
 
2013-08-12 04:56:12 PM

PsiChick: Well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or not...it was even  in the comment quoted. Holy hell, this is amazing.


someonelse: I expect it will all go down the memory hole soon.



Bwahahahah, now he's going for exact wording. As if the understanding of the 2 statements weren't precisely aligned. This troll has gone plaid.
 
2013-08-12 04:56:22 PM
The trolls have pretty much threadjacked this thread.
 
2013-08-12 04:57:58 PM
Oh, and on a side note, this is 5th or 6th person I've been accused of being an alt of, even though my log-in is 5 years+ older than most of them, and I have a fairly unique grammatical structure and turn of phrase.
 
2013-08-12 04:58:48 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: Zafler: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk

Well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or not...it was even  in the comment quoted. Holy hell, this is amazing.

You really are not doing a good job with your alt management.  you keep responding to the wrong ones.

In the commented quote it did not say "the libbiest lib who ever libbed"  someone who libbed is not necessarily a liberal.


I don't know what's up with you but describing yourself as a liberal was weird. Please explain why you did that, if you don't mind.
 
2013-08-12 04:59:37 PM

RexTalionis: The trolls have pretty much threadjacked this thread.


Sorry, between his initial offering in the thread and his continued denial of it, I'm getting great amusement out of this particular instance of someone owning themselves. Usually only get to laugh at those in climate change threads.
 
2013-08-12 04:59:44 PM

Cletus C.: I don't know what's up with you


He's an obvious troll who will ALWAYS say whatever will annoy the most people/get the biggest rise?
 
2013-08-12 05:00:09 PM

chrismurphy: vygramul: chrismurphy:Gets you fired, usually.

That's why there are usually formal channels outside the immediate chain of command.

Well except in the Snowden case everyone in that chain of command up to the president has defended the government keeping secrets. And once ratted out, they're all slowly starting to come around, in one form or another, and admit changes are needed (while being vague and circumspect on the details of such changes). Changes are needed is the whole premise of blowing the whistle in the first place.


There's a difference between saying that you need more transparency to prove what you're doing is lawful, and admitting what you're doing is unlawful. Snowden didn't make the former accusation, he made the latter. And, frankly, I think Snowden is just an idiot and doesn't even understand what he was looking at.
 
2013-08-12 05:00:24 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.

You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.

Ah, the old "psh duh common sense" gambit.

super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs

"Programs"?


Flank?

I think you're looking for the Joe Biden steak thread.
 
2013-08-12 05:00:29 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: firefly212: that promise got deleted from his website right in the midst of the Snowden issue

And we all know that deletions from websites override literally everything else that has happened in reality related to the concepts.

You know, it doesn't take that much to put two and two together.

Ah, the old "psh duh common sense" gambit.

super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs

"Programs"?


Are you being dense on purpose or what?

Domestic surveillance was a huge slap to the face for a whole swath of privacy advocates, including Obama circa '08, who promised to rein this kind of stuff in. Despite the quibbling and the playing dumb and the technicalities, what the government did was not okay with the public.

The administration saw that. It decided to pull down statements that would be used to contradict its current stances.
 
2013-08-12 05:02:08 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: someone who libbed is not necessarily a liberal.

 
2013-08-12 05:02:42 PM

Cletus C.: super_grass: Obama is getting a lot of well-deserved flank for his programs

"Programs"?

Flank?

I think you're looking for the Joe Biden steak thread.


D'oh!

super_grass: Domestic surveillance


Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."
 
2013-08-12 05:03:02 PM

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: I don't know what's up with you

He's an obvious troll who will ALWAYS say whatever will annoy the most people/get the biggest rise?


I've been accused of being a troll and having alts, as well. Those accusations are kind of a go-to thing with some around here.

But this guy, who goes far right on most of what he said, described himself as very liberal today. It was odd, for sure.
 
2013-08-12 05:03:29 PM
Sorry, I just had to quote that to make sure it was real.
 
2013-08-12 05:04:28 PM

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: I don't know what's up with you

He's an obvious troll who will ALWAYS say whatever will annoy the most people/get the biggest rise?

I've been accused of being a troll and having alts, as well. Those accusations are kind of a go-to thing with some around here.

But this guy, who goes far right on most of what he said, described himself as very liberal today. It was odd, for sure.


Lots of people get accused of being trolls, sure. But some actually, you know, ARE.
 
2013-08-12 05:04:46 PM

imontheinternet: The Administration publicly says it will protect whistleblowers and even supported legislation doing so, but when it comes to actual practice, it does everything it can to deter it, including undermining the same protections it once said it supported.


First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case - are you conceding the arguments you were making about those things before moving onto this new one?

And, with regards to the link you've just posted: Insinuating that Obama's somehow responsible for court rulings is silly. I mean, I'm sure it's an interesting and controversial topic but framing it as "Obama Poised to Deliver Another Blow to Whistleblower Protections" is really very silly and does a great disservice to anybody trying to encourage meaningful discourse on these topics.
 
2013-08-12 05:04:59 PM

RexTalionis: The trolls have pretty much threadjacked this thread.


I mean, this "cheese claims to be a liberal" thing can no longer be ignored.
 
2013-08-12 05:05:50 PM
Guys, you are missing the whole point. Its ok that this is happening. Its not a Republican who is doing it, its a Democrat, and you know we can trust them to always do the right thing.
 
2013-08-12 05:07:01 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: Domestic surveillance

Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."


I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were about the bigger trend in how government is subverting transparency and rule of law under Obama. You're the one who insists on focusing on legal labels rather than the big picture.
 
2013-08-12 05:07:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: Zafler: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: Keep with your lies, I am used to it by now.

What with being the libbiest lib who ever libbed and all.

See, there you go lying again.
I never said that.

Wow, this alt-troll is going to implode today I think. What "I never said that" looks like:

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Wonder how many people will pipe in just to point and laugh at your delusional act?

/relurk

Well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or not...it was even  in the comment quoted. Holy hell, this is amazing.

You really are not doing a good job with your alt management.  you keep responding to the wrong ones.

In the commented quote it did not say "the libbiest lib who ever libbed"  someone who libbed is not necessarily a liberal.


Dude. I don't have alts--and how the hell is 'someone who libbed not necessarily a liberal'?

Zafler: Oh, and on a side note, this is 5th or 6th person I've been accused of being an alt of, even though my log-in is 5 years+ older than most of them, and I have a fairly unique grammatical structure and turn of phrase.


I get accused of having alts almost every time someone agrees with me. I think my writing patterns are too average. :p
 
2013-08-12 05:07:15 PM
cman: Stupid butthurt crap I made up to imply a double standard
 
2013-08-12 05:08:07 PM

LasersHurt: cman: Stupid butthurt crap I made up to imply a double standard


LOL OMG YOU ARE farkING FUNNY
 
2013-08-12 05:08:26 PM

Biological Ali: First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case ...


Amanda Bynes really did ask for it, which makes a huge difference.


Is that trolling or just joking around?
 
2013-08-12 05:08:50 PM

super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: Domestic surveillance

Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."

I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were about the bigger trend in how government is subverting transparency and rule of law under Obama. You're the one who insists on focusing on legal labels rather than the big picture.


No, I insist on accurate and honest discussion. Constantly going asking "wheres the change Obama removed promises about whistleblowers etc" and using NSA spying (which BTW is not a Domestic Spying Program anyway) is disingenuous and distracting. The two are not one in the same, and "well I wouldn't put it past them with the recent news" is not proof of anything.
 
2013-08-12 05:10:21 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: Domestic surveillance

Is not Whistleblowing. You're once more conflating different things and going "Psh that Obama and his dick-slapping of whistleblowers."

I never implied anything of the sort. My posts were about the bigger trend in how government is subverting transparency and rule of law under Obama. You're the one who insists on focusing on legal labels rather than the big picture.

No, I insist on accurate and honest discussion. Constantly going asking "wheres the change Obama removed promises about whistleblowers etc" and using NSA spying (which BTW is not a Domestic Spying Program anyway) is disingenuous and distracting. The two are not one in the same, and "well I wouldn't put it past them with the recent news" is not proof of anything.


We get it. He's a Democrat.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report