It's great to no longer...
 

In article e742c656-ce26-4947-b354-
, says...

On Oct 27, 7:43*pm, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote:

Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed.

On what charge? *The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the
press. *Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it
about "classified" information. *There's a reason for that. *

If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing
classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate
country for your ideological bent. *China, perhaps?

But it's OK to squelch Fox News for disagreeing with Obama?

Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be
jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which,
if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security
should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'.

Amen.

John, you're listening to Rush too much. The administration has done
NOTHING to "squelch" Fox. That's pure propaganda lying.

Oh man Loog.. Go to youtube and type in Whitehouse vs FOX.. Really,
inform yourself before making a fool out of yourself.. The video doesn't
lie...

It's great to no longer...
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:26:51 -0400, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote:


Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed.

On what charge? The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the
press. Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it
about "classified" information. There's a reason for that.

If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing
classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate
country for your ideological bent. China, perhaps?

But it's OK to squelch Fox News for disagreeing with Obama?

Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be
jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which,
if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security
should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'.

Amen.

It isn't even because it makes a good story, they do it just to support
a political agenda and hurt the opposition party. I was so proud of the
Bush administration for sitting back and taking the **** leaks and lies
based on classified info brought out by the likes of the New York Lies,
that knew Bush couldn't fight it without hurting American interest... In
the interest of our boys over there, Bush/Cheney just sat back and took
the kicks in the balls...

Amen to that too.

It's great to no longer...
 

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:43*pm, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote:

Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed.

On what charge? *The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the
press. *Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it
about "classified" information. *There's a reason for that. *

If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing
classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate
country for your ideological bent. *China, perhaps?

But it's OK to squelch Fox News for disagreeing with Obama?

Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be
jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which,
if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security
should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'.

Amen.

John, you're listening to Rush too much. The administration has done
NOTHING to "squelch" Fox. That's pure propaganda lying.

Loogy, I will reply only to tell you that the trash you just posted
isn't worth a reply. Get your head out of the sand.

It's great to no longer...
 

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:20*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:26*am, Tosk wrote:
In article fd64f073-8eb4-4d46-89c9-

There's more to Bush's efforts to gag the press:

Thin skinned: Bush tries to stifle his critics
One of the most disturbing things about Bush is that he consistently
snipped

Again, Bush's transgressions, real or imagined have NO FRIGGIN'
BEARING ON OBAMA'S.

Never heard of Case Law, huh?

Does case law permit criminal behavior because it was practiced
earlier? Wow. I didn't know that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No. I didn't say that. It's case law. Where when you are being blamed
for something, someone else's transgressions certainly DO have a
"friggin bearing on" whoever is being accused.

Does case law excuse the transgression because someone else committed
a like transgression?

If not, then get your damn head out of the sand, 'cause that's what
I'm talking about.