Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on May 15, 2013, 11:25:59 AM
-
So plenty of hypocrisy on both right and left but quite likely no laws were broken so just more crying from Repubs when something that had previously opposed when their guy was POTUS that now comes back to haunt them
http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/gop-congressmen-killed-a-media-shield-law-that-wou-4xje
Darrell Issa is outraged that the Department of Justice secretly obtained phone records through a subpoena of the AP's telecommunications provider. He's right to condemn the action, but as nycsouthpaw points out, it's worth remembering that Issa voted against legislation that would have protected the AP:
Issa was one of 21 House members who opposed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, a measure that would have forbidden federal investigators from compelling journalists to give evidence without first obtaining a court order. The bill included a section that specifically forbid subpoenaing journalists’ phone records from “communication service providers” to the same extent that the law protected the journalists themselves.
The legislation passed the House, but it was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate and opposed by the Bush Administration. Barack Obama, at the time a U.S. Senator, didn't vote on the bill, but was a co-sponsor. So you have a situation where Issa and Senate Republicans opposed legislation that would have prevented a government action they now decry, and you have a president who supported the legislation but whose administration is now responsible for taking the actions his legislation was supposed to prevent.
Thus far, the president hasn't addressed the DOJ's actions. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to take a neutral posture, saying that the White House was unaware of the subpoena until the AP announced it yesterday and referring all questions to the DOJ.
Given the president's support for the press shield legislation in the Senate, he's at risk of being as hypocritical on this issue as Issa and most Senate Republicans—without having the added virtue of being right. But if he wasn't involved in the decision to subpoena the records, he could help make up for the government's overreach not only by saying it was wrong to subpoena copies of AP phone records, but also by harnessing the GOP's new civil libertarian streak to push through the legislation that they killed just a few short years ago.
-
Taking his talking points from Media Mutters. Not surprised.
Too bad this was already DESTROYED by NBC's Chuck Todd.
During the press conference, NBC News’ Chuck Todd got into a spirited debate with Carney over proposed legislation to protect journalists — legislation that the reporter argued would have prevented the most recent incident surrounding the AP.
After initially supporting federal shield laws before becoming president, Todd claimed that Obama inevitably killed the Free Flow of Information Act, which would have protected journalists from situations like we see developing this week between the AP and the administration. Here’s a transcript of the spirited debate between Todd and Carney — one that explains the overarching issues at length:
Todd: You keep talking about then Sen. Obama supported a certain piece of legislation that, in fact, as president he killed that piece of legislation in October of 2009 — and made it so that the protections he supported, having judicial review … there was an opportunity to have this bill passed … and he said the White House had problems with it and he killed it.
Carney: First of all, you’re talking about separate pieces of legislation and a legislative history that bears a little more looking into. The president’s position on this is what it was as a senator. But the fact is I cannot then appropriately apply his support for that measure –
Todd: If he supported that piece of legislation, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today because he supported a judicial review that seemed to settle this –
Carney: And what happened to it in 2007?
Todd: I’m asking you what happen in 2009 when he was president of the United States.
Carney: The legislative history here is a little more complicated that you represent.
Todd: Who cares about 2010, we know what he said on the campaign trail in 2008 in front of the Associated Press when it came to this issue. He had a chance to support this and make this bill happen … The admin said that essentially the president changed his position because of certain things on national security. Can you explain why?
Carney: Broadly speaking, the president does support the ability of journalists in an unfettered way to pursue investigative journalism. He believes we have to find a balance between that goal –
Todd: …He believed it in ’08, but he didn’t believe it once he was president. [...]
BOOM! Dems had complete control of congress and could have passed this had Obama not killed it himself. Now fuck off.
-
^^^^^^
like I said in my first post
plenty of hypocrisy to go around on BOTH sides
Doesn't change the fact that Repubs filibustered this in 2007 so how can the very same people then bitch about it now?
Also doesn't change the fact that it's quite likely that no laws were broken
-
^^^^^^
like I said in my first post
plenty of hypocrisy to go around on BOTH sides
Doesn't change the fact that Repubs filibustered this in 2007 so how can the very same people then bitch about it now?
Also doesn't change the fact that it's quite likely that no laws were broken
What they did in 2007 doesn't matter. Obama killed it and then exploited the opportunity.
No one except leftists trying to make excuses for Nixon Obama care about what the GOP did in 2007.
Obama had a chance to pass this and he killed it HIMSELF.
-
What they did in 2007 doesn't matter. Obama killed it and then exploited the opportunity.
No one except leftists trying to make excuses for Nixon Obama care about what the GOP did in 2007.
Obama had a chance to pass this and he killed it HIMSELF.
It was Democrats in all three branches, correct? If that is so, then the bill should have passed.
It didn't.
-
^^^^^^
like I said in my first post
plenty of hypocrisy to go around on BOTH sides
Doesn't change the fact that Repubs filibustered this in 2007 so how can the very same people then bitch about it now?
Also doesn't change the fact that it's quite likely that no laws were broken
No, the entire blame falls on the demotwats.
Fury explained it to you in a very simple manner. Lets try again.
Read closely:
Dems had complete control of congress and could have passed this had Obama not killed it himself.
-
No, the entire blame falls on the demotwats.
Fury explained it to you in a very simple manner. Lets try again.
Read closely:
Dems had complete control of congress and could have passed this had Obama not killed it himself.
when did I say that didn't happen
what I've pointed out is that Repubs have no reason to complain since they opposed it as well when their guy was POTUS
no laws were broken so just a bunch of phony outrage from Repubs and certainly no shortage of hypocrisy on all sides
-
when did I say that didn't happen
what I've pointed out is that Repubs have no reason to complain since they opposed it as well when their guy was POTUS
no laws were broken so just a bunch of phony outrage from Repubs and certainly no shortage of hypocrisy on all sides
::)
-
::)
piss and moan all you want but it doesn't change anything I said
all are facts
-
piss and moan all you want but it doesn't change anything I said
all are facts
How would obama have protected it when he was the one who killed it and watered down so much it was meaningless and still had the national security exemption he used to justify this?
-
when did I say that didn't happen
what I've pointed out is that Repubs have no reason to complain since they opposed it as well when their guy was POTUS
no laws were broken so just a bunch of phony outrage from Repubs and certainly no shortage of hypocrisy on all sides
OH, you mean in the same way that Obama the clown should not complain about the sequester.
-
How would obama have protected it when he was the one who killed it and watered down so much it was meaningless and still had the national security exemption he used to justify this?
feel free to point out anything I've written which is not a fact
-
feel free to point out anything I've written which is not a fact
What matters are ACTIONS not words. When obama had a chance to act - he did not do as he said he would. What obama says and does are very often the exact opposite.
-
What matters are ACTIONS not words. When obama had a chance to act - he did not do as he said he would. What obama says and does are very often the exact opposite.
so you agree then that nothing I've said is false
let's review
both Obama and Repubs are hypocrites
no laws were broken
-
Feel free to point out why when Democrats had control of Congress they did not pass a similar legislation.
If they felt so strongly about it, why didn't Obama make it an issue in 2009?
This is so stupid.
In your demented mind the GOP is excluded from making an issue of what the DOJ did, yet you give Obama a pass when he blamed the GOP for the sequester. The same policy he supported.
-
So plenty of hypocrisy on both right and left but quite likely no laws were broken so just more crying from Repubs when something that had previously opposed when their guy was POTUS that now comes back to haunt them
http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/gop-congressmen-killed-a-media-shield-law-that-wou-4xje
Im with the republicans on this one.
Obama is the president it he owns this more than the GOP.
-
Im with the republicans on this one.
Obama is the president it he owns this more than the GOP.
that's fine but like I've said it's almost certain that no laws were broken so all they got are a bunch of hurt feelings and phony indignation
-
The reason cited by many Republicans was national security. They wanted prosecutors to have the ability to get those records when faced with such situation.
The problem with Obama's DOJ is that it uses national security as an excuse to get such records when no such threat exists. GOP killing the measure in 2007 is not the same as GOP endorsing abuse of power by the DOJ.
-
The reason cited by many Republicans was national security. They wanted prosecutors to have the ability to get those records when faced with such situation.
The problem with Obama's DOJ is that it uses national security as an excuse to get such records when no such threat exists. GOP killing the measure in 2007 is not the same as GOP endorsing abuse of power by the DOJ.
I assume you're aware of the alleged national security issue that prompted the subpoena for the phone records
here is what the AP speculates
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/13/heres-the-story-the-ap-suspects-led-to-sweeping-justice-dept-subpoena/
-
I assume you're aware of the alleged national security issue that prompted the subpoena for the phone records
here is what the AP speculates
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/13/heres-the-story-the-ap-suspects-led-to-sweeping-justice-dept-subpoena/
Nonsense. This was about a story the AP was working weith them on as it was and had already happened.
Additionally, how on the one hand can DOJ argue this was so important and so crucial blah blah and then Holder says he had no idea about it.
Please.
-
Nonsense. This was about a story the AP was working weith them on as it was and had already happened.
Additionally, how on the one hand can DOJ argue this was so important and so crucial blah blah and then Holder says he had no idea about it.
Please.
did you read the link with info directly from the AP
where is your link to support your claim?
-
did you read the link with info directly from the AP
where is your link to support your claim?
Yes - it was about the story in Yemen. AP was working w DOJ to hold back the story and agreed not to run it. DOJ completely hood winked them and never even gave them the chance to respond to the subpoena - DOJ just simply swooped in like jackals on this.
-
did you read the link with info directly from the AP
where is your link to support your claim?
im sure his sources told him :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
that's fine but like I've said it's almost certain that no laws were broken so all they got are a bunch of hurt feelings and phony indignation
Yup.
-
Yes - it was about the story in Yemen. AP was working w DOJ to hold back the story and agreed not to run it. DOJ completely hood winked them and never even gave them the chance to respond to the subpoena - DOJ just simply swooped in like jackals on this.
so where you link ?
-
so where you link ?
It was in the original AP story.
-
It was in the original AP story.
you know your habit of just "seeing" and "hearing" things that don't actually exist
if you don't have a link then I will just assume you're having another one of your hallucinations
-
lol...Fury and Dario bringing down the hammer in this thread.
What a pathetic way to distract from this flunkie administration.
-
Im with the republicans on this one.
Obama is the president it he owns this more than the GOP.
I can respect that. At least you can call it out when they fuck up without pathetically trying to point everywhere else.
-
LMFAO the ends to which the fundy libtards will go to deflect for this man are simply astounding!!!
-
LMFAO the ends to which the fundy libtards will go to deflect for this man are simply astounding!!!
only a fundy libtard such as yourself would think calling someone a hypocrite is defending them
I guess fundy libtards like yourself think being called a hypocrite is a compliment
-
only a fundy libtard such as yourself would think calling someone a hypocrite is defending them
I guess fundy libtards like yourself think being called a hypocrite is a compliment
LMFAO you didnt start this thread to call out obama you started this thread to draw a moral equivilent to the GOP and the Obama admins despicable actions...
LOL if you were simply calling obama out you would have done it in any number of the other threads about this.
hahaha but hey deflect away, you are only making yourself look like more of a fundy moron with every post
-
LMFAO you didnt start this thread to call out obama you started this thread to draw a moral equivilent to the GOP and the Obama admins despicable actions...
LOL if you were simply calling obama out you would have done it in any number of the other threads about this.
hahaha but hey deflect away, you are only making yourself look like more of a fundy moron with every post
I started this thread to point out once again the phony outrage from the right and I also said in the first post that there was hypocrisy on both sides
why am I not surprised that you only see the hypocrisy from Obama yet are willfully blind the the hypocrisy from the Republicans
-
I started this thread to point out once again the phony outrage from the right and I also said in the first post that there was hypocrisy on both sides
why am I not surprised that you only see the hypocrisy from Obama yet are willfully blind the the hypocrisy from the Republicans
thank you for admitting that you started this thread to draw a moral equivilent and help deflect from obama by using the GOP...
-
Straw is right.
If the GOP had just passed legislation to protect the courageous, hardworking and impartial members of our media, Obama never would have broken the law and violated the public trust by spying on them.
Makes perfect sense.
::)
-
Straw is right.
If the GOP had just passed legislation to protect the courageous, hardworking and impartial members of our media, Obama never would have broken the law and violated the public trust by spying on them.
Makes perfect sense.
::)
Ha ha ha ha ha. Obama needs a law banning him from criminal activity.
-
Straw is right.
If the GOP had just passed legislation to protect the courageous, hardworking and impartial members of our media, Obama never would have broken the law and violated the public trust by spying on them.
Makes perfect sense.
::)
Lol
-
Straw is right.
If the GOP had just passed legislation to protect the courageous, hardworking and impartial members of our media, Obama never would have broken the law and violated the public trust by spying on them.
Makes perfect sense.
::)
lol
-
Straw is right.
If the GOP had just passed legislation to protect the courageous, hardworking and impartial members of our media, Obama never would have broken the law and violated the public trust by spying on them.
Makes perfect sense.
::)
Hey Georgie
Tell us exactly what law he broke
Oh yeah, while you're at it please show that Obama was personally involved in anything to do with the AP story
-
Hey Georgie
Tell us exactly what law he broke
Oh yeah, while you're at it please show that Obama was personally involved in anything to do with the AP story
he appointed holder, according to you it was bush's fault for the IRS debacle as it was his appointee over the IRS at the time.
do you not hold that same opinion here?
-
he appointed holder, according to you it was bush's fault for the IRS debacle as it was his appointee over the IRS at the time.
do you not hold that same opinion here?
the people responsible for the IRS "scandal" are the people in the field office who made the decision to scrutinize "tea party" etc..
fact of the matter is that no group was denied 501c4 status and the IRS rule on 501c4 is contradictory so this again will almost assuredly be much ado about nothing
Now, if you want to answer for Georgie then try answering the questions I asked
what law was broken
show exactly how Obama was personally involved in the AP story
-
the people responsible for the IRS "scandal" are the people in the field office who made the decision to scrutinize "tea party" etc..
fact of the matter is that no group was denied 501c4 status and the IRS rule on 501c4 is contradictory so this again will almost assuredly be much ado about nothing
Now, if you want to answer for Georgie then try answering the questions I asked
what law was broken
show exactly how Obama was personally involved in the AP story
LOL thats not what you were saying a week ago, why the sudden change in attitude?
LMFAO
-
LOL thats not what you were saying a week ago, why the sudden change in attitude?
LMFAO
go back and read my posts
I said exactly the same thing
the two people in the field office are to blame and I don't think it's even a scandal (once again - Obama capitulating and throwing someone under the bus just like he did with Shirely Sherrod, Van Jones, etc..)
-
go back and read my posts
I said exactly the same thing
the two people in the field office are to blame and I don't think it's even a scandal (once again - Obama capitulating and throwing someone under the bus just like he did with Shirely Sherrod, Van Jones, etc..)
Lmfao!!! Ha ha ha ha.
-
go back and read my posts
I said exactly the same thing
the two people in the field office are to blame and I don't think it's even a scandal (once again - Obama capitulating and throwing someone under the bus just like he did with Shirely Sherrod, Van Jones, etc..)
Bush's Fault
Seriously
The head of the IRS at the time this happened was a Bush Appointee
IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting groups based on their political views.
"There's absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people" who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman told a House Ways and Means subcommittee.
Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack Obama has yet to nominate a successor. The agency is now being run by acting Commissioner Steven Miller.
yup, LMFAO you said exactly the same thing hahahhaha what a fuking tool!!!!
-
pelosi and straw parroting the same talking points LMFAO
http://www.examiner.com/article/nancy-pelosi-blames-bush-for-irs-scandal-says-obama-great-president
-
So according to that pig, the appointee of a republican president ordered the targeting of conservative groups. The same constituents of the republican party.
Yeah, that makes sense.
-
Nope nope-- Nothing to see here
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-in-charge-during-tea-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-in-charge-during-tea-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/)
The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today. Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit. Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.
As the House voted to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act Thursday evening, House Speaker John Boehner expressed “serious concerns” that the IRS is empowered as the law’s chief enforcer.“Fully repealing ObamaCare will help us build a stronger, healthier economy, and will clear the way for patient-centered reforms that lower health care costs and protect jobs,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
“Obamacare empowers the agency that just violated the public’s trust by secretly targeting conservative groups,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “Even by Washington’s standards, that’s unacceptable.”
Sen. John Cornyn even introduced a bill, the “Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013,” which would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate, including the IRS, from enforcing the Affordable Care Act. “Now more than ever, we need to prevent the IRS from having any role in Americans’ health care,” Cornyn, R-Texas, stated. “I do not support Obamacare, and after the events of last week, I cannot support giving the IRS any more responsibility or taxpayer dollars to implement a broken law.”Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also reacted to the revelation late Thursday, stating the news was “stunning, just stunning.”
ABC News’ Abby D. Phillip contributed to this report.
-
So according to that pig, the appointee of a republican president ordered the targeting of conservative groups. The same constituents of the republican party.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Bush appointed the guy but guess what? The guy was a democrat who donated money to obama in 2008.
-
go back and read my posts
I said exactly the same thing
the two people in the field office are to blame and I don't think it's even a scandal (once again - Obama capitulating and throwing someone under the bus just like he did with Shirely Sherrod, Van Jones, etc..)
Bush's Fault
Seriously
The head of the IRS at the time this happened was a Bush Appointee
IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting groups based on their political views.
"There's absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people" who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman told a House Ways and Means subcommittee.
Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack Obama has yet to nominate a successor. The agency is now being run by acting Commissioner Steven Miller.
hmmm, no deflecting this huh?
-
AP CEO calls records seizure unconstitutional
Email this Story
May 19, 12:54 PM (ET)
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
(AP) In this Sunday, May 19, 2013, photo provided by CBS News, Gary Pruitt, the President and CEO of the...
Full Image
WASHINGTON (AP) - The president and CEO of The Associated Press says the government's seizure of AP journalists' phone records was "unconstitutional" and already has had a chilling effect on newsgathering.
Gary Pruitt says the Justice Department's secret subpoena of reporters' phone records has made sources less willing to talk to AP journalists.
The Justice Department disclosed the seizure of two months of phone records in a letter the AP received May 10. The letter did not state a reason, but prosecutors had said they were conducting a leaks investigation into how the AP learned about an al-Qaida bomb plot in Yemen before it was made public last year. Pruitt said the AP story contradicted the government's claim at the time there was no terrorist plot.
Pruitt spoke on CBS'"Face the Nation."