Zipp0 1
SkyDekker 1,152
QuoteThey were protecting their own asses not Nat'l Security.
And how do you know it is only National Security they are protecting now?
SkyDekker 1,152
QuoteI provided plenty of rebuttals and back up including SCOTUS decisions and US Code.
Except that that SCTUS decision and the portion of the US Code you cited leave plenty important questions unanswered. To the point where they really don't mean anything unless taken to court and ruled on. You always seem to conveniently ignore that part.
Here is one for you, since you have all the proof. Who requested the information?
QuoteQuoteI provided plenty of rebuttals and back up including SCOTUS decisions and US Code.
QuoteExcept that that SCTUS decision and the portion of the US Code you cited leave plenty important questions unanswered. To the point where they really don't mean anything unless taken to court and ruled on. You always seem to conveniently ignore that part.
Apparently you have very little knowledge of law if you think a SCOTUS means nothing unless it's taken to court and ruled on. The SCOTUS I cited is the ruling. Why do you think a part of the U.S. Code is invalid. Unless there is a reason to believe it's unconstitutional, there's no reason to have a judicial review. Please point me to your legal source where you got these ideas from.QuoteHere is one for you, since you have all the proof. Who requested the information?
Who requested what information? WTF are you talking about?
The only thing that I am willing to correct in my statement is that Alias and "24" are techinically not situational comedys although the plots are funny. Anyway, I said illegal subject matter, not activities. Besides, I thought only KNOWN or suspected criminals and terrorists are supposed to have their phones tapped. Have you not learned anything from watching the Sopranos.
Is there someting you would like to share with everybody here about your illegal activities? Let's test the system to see if an episode of Cops will be filmed at your house.
Is there someting you would like to share with everybody here about your illegal activities? Let's test the system to see if an episode of Cops will be filmed at your house.
Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415
D S #3.1415
you in a sarcastic mood today?
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Yes, sometimes the government goes a bit overboard, but order is better than anarchy."-------------I'd take anarchy over this pos administaration ANYDAY. 
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
QuoteThe only thing that I am willing to correct in my statement is that Alias and "24" are techinically not situational comedys although the plots are funny. Anyway, I said illegal subject matter, not activities. Besides, I thought only KNOWN or suspected criminals and terrorists are supposed to have their phones tapped. Have you not learned anything from watching the Sopranos.
Is there someting you would like to share with everybody here about your illegal activities? Let's test the system to see if an episode of Cops will be filmed at your house.
If they did come by they might not like the reception they get from their bosses, after being interrupted whilst having coffee at a friends house.
"voted for Bush are etc."----------------------------------Defend, Defend, Defend. BUSH. You guys are so blind it's not funny
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Quote
Advocating some sort of crackdown on media freedom is the scariest and most irresponsible thing I have seen posted in SC to date. There are a few, very small steps between a fearful, controlled, or intimidated media and a totalitarian state.
Zipp0
I can't even begin to get into this thread. I'll just say that I agree with your above statement. These folks are bad. They assume massive executive power, they won't allow any checks and balances, and if you question them then you get attacked. There is no transparency. Everything has been reduced to "I can't tell you, just trust us. It's for your own good". These are troublesome times.
rushmc 18
>Immune to retrobution? Well... almost. Except when the administration counters articles in the NYT by releasing classified details of the identity of a CIA agent, when her husband writes a story.
Another perfect example of not knowing the fact, media misrepresentation, distrotion and lies. Thanks for bring up an example that proves my point! What is sad however is you have bought into it......![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]")
>Oh, and when they jail reporters for protecting a source - a tradition since the founding of our country
Perfect example of someone not having to follow the law if it supports your viewpoint.
Again sad.....
>Advocating some sort of crackdown on media freedom is the scariest and most irresponsible thing I have seen posted in SC to date. There are a few, very small steps between a fearful, controlled, or intimidated media and a totalitarian state.
You have learned the media tactics well I see. I have not advocated a media crackdown. I have only advocated responcible truthful reporting.
Have a problem with that?
Another perfect example of not knowing the fact, media misrepresentation, distrotion and lies. Thanks for bring up an example that proves my point! What is sad however is you have bought into it......
>Oh, and when they jail reporters for protecting a source - a tradition since the founding of our country
Perfect example of someone not having to follow the law if it supports your viewpoint.
Again sad.....
>Advocating some sort of crackdown on media freedom is the scariest and most irresponsible thing I have seen posted in SC to date. There are a few, very small steps between a fearful, controlled, or intimidated media and a totalitarian state.
You have learned the media tactics well I see. I have not advocated a media crackdown. I have only advocated responcible truthful reporting.
Have a problem with that?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Zipp0 1
Quote>Immune to retrobution? Well... almost. Except when the administration counters articles in the NYT by releasing classified details of the identity of a CIA agent, when her husband writes a story.
Another perfect example of not knowing the fact, media misrepresentation, distrotion and lies.
Which part is the lie? Oh, wait.... Are you thinking about Scooter's lies? That MUST be it.
Quote
>Oh, and when they jail reporters for protecting a source - a tradition since the founding of our country
Perfect example of someone not having to follow the law if it supports your viewpoint.
What are you talking about? A reporter protecting a source has been an accepted aspect of 'freedom of the press' for time immemorial.
Quote
>Advocating some sort of crackdown on media freedom is the scariest and most irresponsible thing I have seen posted in SC to date. There are a few, very small steps between a fearful, controlled, or intimidated media and a totalitarian state.
You have learned the media tactics well I see. I have not advocated a media crackdown.
What tactics? Persuasive speech? Appreciation for liberty?
QuoteI have only advocated responcible truthful reporting.
Like Fox News?
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Amazon 7
QuoteThere should be penalties for irresponsible journalism, irresponsible gun ownership can be lethal but journalism can be far more devastating when the story is untrue
Great call there...putting journalists in jail. Lots of fascist right wing governments around the world do this regularly when the opposition press prints things that the government does not like. They shut down those news outlets.. and put the people with those attitudes in jail.
So it seems there are at least 3 of our own right wing here already who would support this.. great.....nice to know....
QuoteQuoteThere should be penalties for irresponsible journalism, irresponsible gun ownership can be lethal but journalism can be far more devastating when the story is untrue
Great call there...putting journalists in jail. Lots of fascist right wing governments around the world do this regularly when the opposition press prints things that the government does not like. They shut down those news outlets.. and put the people with those attitudes in jail.
I was talking about posting blatantly untrue stories PERIOD.
That amounts to yelling "FIRE" in a theater basically
Zipp0 1
Quote
I was talking about posting blatantly untrue stories PERIOD.
That amounts to yelling "FIRE" in a theater basically
C'mon man. Who gets to decide what gets published? You? Bush? Hillary Clinton?
99% of the time the media does a fairly decent job in reporting what they believe to be the truth.
Just go ahead and admit that you are wrong on this one. Your mouth just got ahead of your brain, didn't it? That's OK. We won't hold it aginst you.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
QuoteQuote
I was talking about posting blatantly untrue stories PERIOD.
That amounts to yelling "FIRE" in a theater basically
C'mon man. Who gets to decide what gets published? You? Bush? Hillary Clinton?
99% of the time the media does a fairly decent job in reporting what they believe to be the truth.
Just go ahead and admit that you are wrong on this one. Your mouth just got ahead of your brain, didn't it? That's OK. We won't hold it aginst you.
Zipp0
The media has a habit of publishing stories that are untrue and crediting it to "sources".
The strange thing is when they actually get facts presented THEN they choose to fully vett all sources in an effort to either cover their asses or discredit the FACTS.
Ask Dan Rather, and others
Lucky... 0
QuoteThis is precisely why the media should not be allowed to print anything they want. They print something about the government recording terrorists' calls, add in some of the media sensationalism saying now everybody has to be worried, and it sets the entire public into mass hysteria. All it takes is one nutcase who thinks he is Tyler Durden to pick a government building and blow it up. Only after thousands of innocent lives are lost will it come out that the government was only monitoring terrorists' calls, and people who have nothing to hide don't have to worry.
Freedom of speech is good and all, but there's a limit. Just like it is reckless and a crime to scream 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater, it should be a crime to print some of the stuff newspapers get away with these days.
QuoteThis is precisely why the media should not be allowed to print anything they want.
I agree, freedom of the press is far overrated and over used. There should be federal editors that work at every media outlet that must approve of any media before it goes to press. This way, the media wouldn;t be lying to us, the US Gov would be, and the gov has our best interests in mind. Beautiful
Katz v US was a 60's case that established, "People have rights to privacy, not places." With that, are saying screw the US Sup Ct? That was a major decison having to do with bugging a phonebooth - very relevant - gov now says people don't have rights to privacy.
Lucky... 0
QuoteGod forbid anyone bashes on GW in front of you.
Hey, soneone has to be part of the 20 something percent....
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is precisely why the media should not be allowed to print anything they want.
Yes. All that 'freedowm of the press' stuff is a bunch of bullshit!
Zipp0
Freedom of the press is important, but not freedom to lie and send the public into mass hysteria. Should the New York Times be allowed to print that China has declared war on the US?
No. Looking at past history, that is exactly how Hitler garnered support to invade Poland. He sent out a new bulletin saying Poland had attacked Germany when it wasn't the case.
In the event, it was the government propagating the lies. Now, however it is the media, in an attempt to defame our government. We are in a time of war, and certain measures need to be taken to protect our nation.
Have we had an attack since 9/11?
No, and that is perfect evidence that this is working.
If the public would just shut the hell up and let the government do its job, to govern, we'd be much better off.
Yes, sometimes the government goes a bit overboard, but order is better than anarchy. There was a wise man, although I can't quite remember his name, who once said, "The best government is one who governs the most, as the people are unable to discipline themselves."
QuoteFreedom of the press is important, but not freedom to lie and send the public into mass hysteria.
But enough about the WMD claim....
Zipp0 1
QuoteQuoteQuote
I was talking about posting blatantly untrue stories PERIOD.
That amounts to yelling "FIRE" in a theater basically
C'mon man. Who gets to decide what gets published? You? Bush? Hillary Clinton?
99% of the time the media does a fairly decent job in reporting what they believe to be the truth.
Just go ahead and admit that you are wrong on this one. Your mouth just got ahead of your brain, didn't it? That's OK. We won't hold it aginst you.
Zipp0
The media has a habit of publishing stories that are untrue and crediting it to "sources".
The strange thing is when they actually get facts presented THEN they choose to fully vett all sources in an effort to either cover their asses or discredit the FACTS.
Ask Dan Rather, and others
Sources sometimes lie for their own purposes.
Ask the Iraqi opposition groups.
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
You bring up a great point here. I have been saying the biggest threat to the US is media distortions. They need only say that "we thought it was true when we printed/broadcasted the story. Since there is no consiquece for bad reporting they now feel imune to retrobution. So now (in some cases) the media does it purposly
Add to that the terrible SC ruling that politions basicly can be sued for slander and we have what we have today. It is BS regardless of your political stance
Immune to retrobution? Well... almost. Except when the administration counters articles in the NYT by releasing classified details of the identity of a CIA agent, when her husband writes a story.
Oh, and when they jail reporters for protecting a source - a tradition since the founding of our country.
If that's not retribution, what is?
Advocating some sort of crackdown on media freedom is the scariest and most irresponsible thing I have seen posted in SC to date. There are a few, very small steps between a fearful, controlled, or intimidated media and a totalitarian state.
Oh, and should I even mention Jeff Gannon?
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.