Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "The seizure of AP's phone records is legal" [View all]"Fine with it being legal. But your misleading title is more proof of, well you know what."
...how is the title "misleading"? Is it "misleading" people about the legality?
I mean, the "acceptable" is subjective, an opinon about policy, and in no way changes the fact that the action is legal.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fine with it being legal. But your misleading title is more proof of, well you know what. n-t
Logical
May 2013
#3
You cut it off only to show the legal part, not the doesn't make it an acceptable part, and....
Logical
May 2013
#9
Are you disputing the "doesn't make it an acceptable" part? If not then why not include it? You...
Logical
May 2013
#15
LOL, not accurate but makes your point I guess. You have PLENTY of room! Just add the....
Logical
May 2013
#17
You posted a misleading title on purpose. And refuse to change it. Totally your right but....
Logical
May 2013
#19
I posted their current stance on this incident. With an accurate title. Here you go....
Logical
May 2013
#21
LOL, many things Bush did was legal also. I guess that makes it OK with you. n-t
Logical
May 2013
#24
One DU poster is falling all over himself to show that it isn't. But I have yet to read one good
bluestate10
May 2013
#7
Well if you've put the fear of God in whistle blowers and sources you don't need to tap anyone.
dkf
May 2013
#8
If you are only aiming at 1 story you don't need 20 phone lines over 2 months reaching 100+
dkf
May 2013
#14
And don't forget they were to tell the AP about BEFORE they did it.
Lady Freedom Returns
May 2013
#43