RI Bills Fan

Okay, so let me get this straight. You're no longer complaining that the "MSM" isn't covering the leaks story properly. You agree with the coverage because Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D)CA came out in unison with some unnamed GOP committee leaders, and said "Leaks Bad!" So this thread is no longer about the liberal MSM giving the current liberal administration favorable non-coverage of the leaks story. Now it's about Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D)CA taking the lead in stopping the leaks and restoring the World's faith in the good old USofA. Nice! I'm with you on this one 3rd old boy.

Yep, that was me. And if he wasn't complaining about how the liberal "MSM" was giving the liberal administration a free pass, what exactly was he saying? I'll give you some help, read what he says in post #63 then get back to me on that. And please spare me the tired semantics arguments. OBTW I "get" exactly what is being discussed here, I just think it's mostly a bunch of partisan whining. "Wah the MSM is giving the WH a free Pass! WAH!" And your appearance in the discussion pretty much proves I was right.

Yeah, quoting Joe deGenova makes it a non-partisan post. The fact that you honestly can't see or understand how unintentionally hilarious your posts are just serves to illustrate my point.

If you're going to compare the two situations then you have to put them into the full context. The Bush Administration got a free pass from the "MSM" from 9/11 till after the fall of Bagdad. Then after the WMD that both the "MSM" and Congress bought into whole heartedly failed to materialize and the full cost of the Iraq War became apparent to all, the "MSM" started hammering away. Don't try to revise history and make it seem like the "MSM" went hard after the Bush Administration immediately. It didn't happen that way. As for the difference in pressure between the two situations, I've already posted my thoughts on why things worked out that way. I shan't repeat them. Should the press hammer the Obama Admin the same way? Yes, they should, but it's easy to see why they haven't and it has nothing to do with the"MSM" "Cheerleading" for a Dem Admin.

When are you going to argue against what I've posted instead of throwing things that I never said or commented on up as smokescreens? All Leaks ARE BAD! Leaks cause bad things to happen to good people. Leakers should be found and proscecuted in all cases! The differnce between what I'm saying and what you guys are saying is basic. You're arguing that the "MSM" coverage of the leaks issue isn't sufficiently vitriolic against the current administration and comparing it to the vitriol directed against President Bush and his administration when the Plame leaks happened. I'm saying that that is easy to understand if you're willing to put aside your partisan nonsense for a few seconds. At no point in this thread did I defend the current administration or cast dispersions on the previous administration, I simply commented on the ridiculous idea that the "MSM" is somehow acting to protect the current administation in this (or any) matter. Right! You started a non-partisan thread about how the leftist "MSM" is not covering serious errors by the leftist administration, I disagree, and I'm the only one making it partisan. I don't care who you are. That's some funny stuff there. [/Larry the Cable Guy]

I am a blind follower? You are unintentionally hilarious. Is Fox News part of the MSM? How about the Wall Street Journal? Would you consider either of them to be public relations firms for the Dems and thier blind followers? Some media outlets lean right, a larger number lean left, and a few try (with varying degrees of success) to present the news with no slant. Your only beef with the "MSM" is that overall they're not all leaning to the right and covering things in the way you think they should be covered. And I'm using the term "you think" loosely as I'm entirely unconvinced that any of your cognitive processes actually meet the definition of independent thought. Fast and Furious is a subject for another thread, and you're only using it here to divert attention from the rest of your losing arguments. But to show you how much of a blind follower I am; that whole matter should be turned over to a special prosecutor and Holder should be fired (and prosecuted if the S.P. uncovers enough hard evidence). Now

If the MSM weren't talking about the leaks you wouldn't know about them. So that part of the question is already answered. The unanswered part is how much should they be talking about this? Would 24/7 non stop bashing of the current administration satisfy you? How about Half of that?

Wonderful use of rationalization, dramatization, and partisan demagoguery there 3rd, bravo! But when you boil away the B.S. You apparently believe that Leaks only matter when it's an election year and the MSM isn't bashing the guy you want them to.

If that's anywhere close to accurate then you should be just as outraged over leaks coming from a Republican administration as you are with leaks coming from a Democratic administration. The fact that you're completely comfortable downplaying one while hyping the other speaks volumes.

why in the world would I need a do over to point out that you were being disingenuous in your previous post? And the fact that you feel justified in grading the seriousness of a security leaks by looking at which party holds the keys to the White House at the time that the leak occurred simply provides further proof that your outrage is entirely partisan in nature. Yes, if you take the partisan viewpoint and either ignore or deny the fact that the Plame leak appeared as if it might be a calculated political maneuver designed to silence a critic of White House policy on Iraq. otherwise see above.

According to the bolded and underlined portion of your post above either you were agreeing with Tom or you were accusing Tom of agreeing with you, yet I'm somehow the one with a reading comprehension problem.

If you honestly cannot understand why the leaks in the Valerie Plame story created a bigger controversy than the current leaks did your partisan blinders way too tight. Not that anyone expected anything else.

Okay, I'm bored. But! Not bored enough to read all of this thread.

Yeah, I'm sitting in The Buffalo airport waiting for a flight to Philly. And I changed my reply to acknowledge that TNB wasn't interested in a discussion.

How big should it be? Would 24/7 coverage on all news media sources be enough? Or would you be criticizing the coverage that you felt wasn't sufficiently critical of the Libs/Dems/WH? Let's face facts. There is coverage of the leaks or else you would't know about them. Your main complaint is that the coverage isn't sufficiently critical of the groups that you want to see demonized in the MSM. So the question remains the same. Do you want to discuss the issue or are you only interested in having your view validated by other posters who share your views? And in answer to your clumsy attempt at a "trap" question: the current level of coverage is adequate unless or until something factual is uncovered which either points to the identity of the "leaker" or a definitive motive for the leaks is factually identified. And The OP attempted to have a discussion with TNB. I get that. But my question is still valid.

The question I ask myself every time I see one of these "bash the MSM" threads is; does the OP want to seriously discuss the issue or is the OP just looking for an endless litany of Libs/MSM/BHO/WH BAD posts? Of course this is PPP, so the answer is obvious.

Cheatriots* record in Super Bowls where there was no question as to whether or not they gained an unfair advantage over their opponent by cheating, 0-4. The record for most Superbowl's lost is shared by three teams, the Cheatriots* are one of the three. What were you Cheatriots* fans measuring with that stick anyway?

Where's Bill?

Has Buddy been reading this board?

Oh Yeah!

Why bother putting me in there? I can't see it because as you know, I have you on ignore.

It's really amuzing to watch you tell other people that they're too thin skinned.

That pretty much describes this entire thread. Which was my original point.

As opposed to the phony outrage of the right? Who's letting the point go over their head? I'd rather not spend much time defending "Liberalism" as defined by this board. One it doesn't have much in common with my views and two it's definition changes way too often depending on which faux conservative is bitching about what. Yep, I've noticed the total lack of people parroting the RNC talking points. Do you ever think about what you're typing? Sorry but I have a real life job. I don't get to sit in front of a computer all day getting paid to read a message board and B word about Govt employees and union members getting too many coffee breaks. And when I do read this board I'm usually laughing too hard at the asinine arguments used to justify totally indefensible positions to be able to type. Next time? When was the first?

So you throwing Shultz and Maher into the argument wasn't the same thing? You found the right word but you applied it to the wrong argument.