Bush is a hero

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168419 Sep 14, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
‘Disgusting’: Matt Drudge Blasts Senator Feinstein for Trying to Define Journalist
Internet news pioneer Matt Drudge on Friday issued a scathing criticism of a Senate bill that will provide a narrow definition of the term journalist.
Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein insisted on liming protections for a new “media shield” law to “real reporters” and not that of a hypothetical 17-year old with his or her own website.
“I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she reportedly said.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/14/di...
So where would you draw that line?

Since: Sep 10

United States

#168420 Sep 14, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
‘Disgusting’: Matt Drudge Blasts Senator Feinstein for Trying to Define Journalist
Internet news pioneer Matt Drudge on Friday issued a scathing criticism of a Senate bill that will provide a narrow definition of the term journalist.
Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein insisted on liming protections for a new “media shield” law to “real reporters” and not that of a hypothetical 17-year old with his or her own website.
“I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she reportedly said.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/14/di...
Sludge.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168422 Sep 14, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>So where would you draw that line?
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It appears that the founding fathers thought the definition of a 'non-journalist' would be anybody that doesn't report news for others to view, or doesn't have any viewers of the news they report. They didn't seem to think that size mattered.

How about if we define 'journalist' as 'a person writing or reporting for a media where the customer base is increasing'?

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168423 Sep 14, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>So where would you draw that line?
I wouldn't, simple as that. I do think within my lifetime the day will come, perhaps after another 9-11 or worse where in the name of security and to crack down on so called hate speech we will see the bill of rights thrown out. Right now we have a potus that doesn't make it a secret his feelings. Some of his supporters like the guy across the street has said outright he would love the government by force to shut up certain people. People with far more wisdom than most in government right now thought our Constitution should apply.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168424 Sep 14, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It appears that the founding fathers thought the definition of a 'non-journalist' would be anybody that doesn't report news for others to view, or doesn't have any viewers of the news they report. They didn't seem to think that size mattered.
How about if we define 'journalist' as 'a person writing or reporting for a media where the customer base is increasing'?
And our founders knew well what tyranny was. Strange that some these days seem to have a sick longing for it. I welcome them to go embrace it elsewhere.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168425 Sep 14, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>So where would you draw that line?
Btw I think the only reason for this legislation is because a good portion of the nation no longer has any trust in most reporters. Our local paper here, The Tampa Bay times (former St. Pete times) has always had a bias. But like most big media they went from a bias to outright agenda. So people have gone elsewhere and what a shock some that don't like it have to smear them like your boy Chaser just proved. Anyone see this?

Florida Reporter Explodes on Guest Speaker at Council Meeting Because She Didn’t Like What He Had to Say

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/12/fl...

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168426 Sep 14, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
And our founders knew well what tyranny was. Strange that some these days seem to have a sick longing for it. I welcome them to go embrace it elsewhere.
So you'd be okay if Obama took the same approach to the press as, say, founding father and President John Adams did?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168427 Sep 14, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Btw I think the only reason for this legislation is because a good portion of the nation no longer has any trust in most reporters. Our local paper here, The Tampa Bay times (former St. Pete times) has always had a bias. But like most big media they went from a bias to outright agenda. So people have gone elsewhere and what a shock some that don't like it have to smear them like your boy Chaser just proved. Anyone see this?
Florida Reporter Explodes on Guest Speaker at Council Meeting Because She Didn’t Like What He Had to Say
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/12/fl...
Whether you want to believe it or not, the reason for this legislation is Manning and Wikileaks.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168428 Sep 14, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It appears that the founding fathers thought the definition of a 'non-journalist' would be anybody that doesn't report news for others to view, or doesn't have any viewers of the news they report. They didn't seem to think that size mattered.
How about if we define 'journalist' as 'a person writing or reporting for a media where the customer base is increasing'?
This is from an LA Times article on the bill passed out of committee in the Senate:

"Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a "covered journalist" as someone who gathers and reports news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information." The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any "legitimate news-gathering activities."

"But the bill also makes it clear that the legal protection is not absolute. Federal officials still may "compel disclosure" from a journalist who has information that could stop or prevent crimes such as murder, kidnapping or child abduction or prevent "acts of terrorism" or significant harm to national security."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-shield-la...

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I have a problem extending journalistic protection to, say, Wikileaks.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168429 Sep 14, 2013
Paul Harvey, 1965 - If I Were the Devil

"If I were the devil … If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I’d have a third of it’s real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve:‘Do as you please.’

“To the young, I would whisper that ‘The Bible is a myth.’ I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’ And the old, I would teach to pray, after me,‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’

“And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

“If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

“Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography — soon I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

“If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And what do you bet? I could get whole states to promote gambling as thee way to get rich? I would caution against extremes and hard work, in Patriotism, in moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were the devil I’d just keep right on doing on what he’s doing. Paul Harvey, good day.”

Paul Harvey, 1965 - If I Were the Devil
By Onan Coca - 14 September 2013

Paul Harvey is an American icon. In 1965 he read his short essay, "If I were the Devil" and while at the time it seemed rather a stretch... today it strikes me as almost prophetic.

http://eaglerising.com/1762/paul-harvey-1965-...

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168430 Sep 14, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>This is from an LA Times article on the bill passed out of committee in the Senate:
"Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a "covered journalist" as someone who gathers and reports news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information." The definition includes freelancers, part-timers and student journalists, and it permits a judge to go further and extend the protections to any "legitimate news-gathering activities."
"But the bill also makes it clear that the legal protection is not absolute. Federal officials still may "compel disclosure" from a journalist who has information that could stop or prevent crimes such as murder, kidnapping or child abduction or prevent "acts of terrorism" or significant harm to national security."
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-shield-la...
I don't disagree with anything you said, but I have a problem extending journalistic protection to, say, Wikileaks.
I have a problem extending journalistic protection to, say,'The New York Times'.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#168431 Sep 14, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't, simple as that. I do think within my lifetime the day will come, perhaps after another 9-11 or worse where in the name of security and to crack down on so called hate speech we will see the bill of rights thrown out. Right now we have a potus that doesn't make it a secret his feelings. Some of his supporters like the guy across the street has said outright he would love the government by force to shut up certain people. People with far more wisdom than most in government right now thought our Constitution should apply.
What are your thoughts on same sex marriage, Chris?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168432 Sep 14, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a problem extending journalistic protection to, say,'The New York Times'.
Of course you do.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168433 Sep 14, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you do.
Can you say Pentagon Papers?

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/060...

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168434 Sep 15, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you say Pentagon Papers?
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/060...
1. The article isn't about the Pentagon Papers, although it does mention them.

2. I specifically mentioned Wikileaks and Manning, not Snowden and the NSA revelations. The article is relevant to the latter, not the former. My concern is the type of information released, and the difference between journalists and hackers.

3. The author of the article you linked to was very concerned about the release of information about NSA surveillance programs in 2006, but doesn't appear to have written about the Snowden revelations under this administration. A search of the author's name + Snowden does turn up a Facebook page questioning whether Snowden is a hero, traitor, or both. My money's on both, but if I had to pick one or the other it would be traitor because heroes don't run to Russia.
Lost In Transition

United States

#168435 Sep 15, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>1. The article isn't about the Pentagon Papers, although it does mention them.
2. I specifically mentioned Wikileaks and Manning, not Snowden and the NSA revelations. The article is relevant to the latter, not the former. My concern is the type of information released, and the difference between journalists and hackers.
3. The author of the article you linked to was very concerned about the release of information about NSA surveillance programs in 2006, but doesn't appear to have written about the Snowden revelations under this administration. A search of the author's name + Snowden does turn up a Facebook page questioning whether Snowden is a hero, traitor, or both. My money's on both, but if I had to pick one or the other it would be traitor because heroes don't run to Russia.
I think you'd have to have insight into motive to put a final stamp on Snowden's actions. I believe what he did was right, but it could have been for nefarious reason. The fact that he must now hide in a communist nation of one flag or another says as much about this country as it does about him.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168436 Sep 15, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>1. The article isn't about the Pentagon Papers, although it does mention them.
I mentioned the Pentagon Papers, because the NYT was the low tech version of WikiLeaks. Same results... leaked secret government documents.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
2. I specifically mentioned Wikileaks and Manning, not Snowden and the NSA revelations. The article is relevant to the latter, not the former. My concern is the type of information released, and the difference between journalists and hackers.
3. The author of the article you linked to was very concerned about the release of information about NSA surveillance programs in 2006, but doesn't appear to have written about the Snowden revelations under this administration. A search of the author's name + Snowden does turn up a Facebook page questioning whether Snowden is a hero, traitor, or both. My money's on both, but if I had to pick one or the other it would be traitor because heroes don't run to Russia.
They do if they want to hide in plain sight where pResident obama is completely impotent, and has absolutely no chance of getting to you. I don't see barry launching a drone strike inside the Russian Federation's borders, nor do I see him launching a Seal Team strike either, do you? Same with China, where he first went.

I'm thinking Snowden realized something that you probably haven't, obama is only 'tough' picking fights with 'little' guys. The big guys tend to ignore him, and his feeble, powerless, rants.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168437 Sep 15, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I mentioned the Pentagon Papers, because the NYT was the low tech version of WikiLeaks. Same results... leaked secret government documents.
<quoted text>
They do if they want to hide in plain sight where pResident obama is completely impotent, and has absolutely no chance of getting to you. I don't see barry launching a drone strike inside the Russian Federation's borders, nor do I see him launching a Seal Team strike either, do you? Same with China, where he first went.
I'm thinking Snowden realized something that you probably haven't, obama is only 'tough' picking fights with 'little' guys. The big guys tend to ignore him, and his feeble, powerless, rants.
I know why you mentioned the Pentagon Papers, but the article you linked to was an expression of disgust by a conservative/libertarian about the NY Times printing the sort of information Snowden released.

Freudian on your part, maybe?

As to the rubbish about Seal Teams and drone strikes ... uhhhh, okay, then. Not sure where you think you're going with that nonsense, but you can go nowhere by yourself.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168438 Sep 15, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>So you'd be okay if Obama took the same approach to the press as, say, founding father and President John Adams did?
Are you speaking of how Adams ignored the press? If so yes but at this point little matters. President Obama has proved countless times how worthless his words are. I view most in the press, like for example a so called reporter by the name of Christi Parsons as not reporters but blind cheerleaders. I just happened to be watching a speech Obama gave and she couldn't help but worship her idol in front of the world.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#168439 Sep 15, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Whether you want to believe it or not, the reason for this legislation is Manning and Wikileaks.
Thankfully she (he?) will most likely spend the rest of her life in jail.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min It aint necessari... 48,232
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Phooey 646,430
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 22 min Brian_G 445,706
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Buck Crick 971,607
Would a Somali girl marry a non-Somali man in L... (Dec '13) 1 hr LMH1983 96
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 44,650
Moving companies provide a Shifting solution th... (Sep '15) 1 hr PaykasaKartBozdurma 7
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr Neville Thompson 281,234
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 hr Annaleigh 105,560
More from around the web