It's great to no longer...
 

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.

It's great to no longer...
 

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should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'.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's great to no longer...
 

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should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'.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...

It's great to no longer...
 

On 10/27/09 9:26 PM, Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500,
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...


You dumb fool. Bush and Cheney didn't give a tinker's dam about "our
boys over there." They lied us into two wars over there because on 9/11
they had their hands on each other's dicks and didn't have a clue about
what to do next. Those wars were initiated to "show" the American people
we were "tough" on the 9/11 terrorists. We got and will get nothing for
our losses and efforts there.

You probably think there was some sort of real justification for our war
against Vietnam.

That war was bull****, too.

It's great to no longer...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
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.


The great (new) canard of the right. Except, it didn't happen. Fox lied
about it happening, but it didn't happen.

--
Nom=de=Plume

It's great to no longer...
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:39:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
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.


The great (new) canard of the right. Except, it didn't happen. Fox lied
about it happening, but it didn't happen.

That doesn't matter because we all know that Liberal writers want to
do it. They should all be shot and replaced with more strident,
goosestepping corporate opinion journalists who will support our great
regime (and arms manufacturers).

It's great to no longer...
 

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:43:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

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'.

During WWII the Japanese were not setting the depth charges nearly
deep enough. A congressman told that Top Secret info to the press, and
whores that they are, the newspapers in Hawaii published it. Admiral
Lockwood estimated that business cost the US Navy ten submarines.

Casady

It's great to no longer...
 

On 10/27/09 11:02 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:43:20 -0400, John H.
wrote:

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'.

During WWII the Japanese were not setting the depth charges nearly
deep enough. A congressman told that Top Secret info to the press, and
whores that they are, the newspapers in Hawaii published it. Admiral
Lockwood estimated that business cost the US Navy ten submarines.

Casady


I think vice presidents who lie this country into a war should be jailed.

It's great to no longer...
 

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.

It's great to no longer...
 

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.