General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

34. Evidently

Reply to woo me with science (Reply #31)

Fri May 24, 2013, 07:41 PM

May 2013

"As you can see above, the OP is embarrassingly and disturbingly serious, and if she were employed by me to do PR for any organization seeking to increase trust in any government-based group, I would be in horror at what she has posted here."

...you have no argument except silly innuendo.

I mean, " if you were employed by me to do PR for any organization seeking to increase trust in any government-based group," I'd laugh at the incompetence.

Alas, you're not, but I can still...

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist [View all] ProSense May 2013 OP

K&R Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #1

And, very possibly matt819 May 2013 #2

I see no difference in what a Russian spy would ask for.. trumad May 2013 #5

Interesting Point matt819 May 2013 #21

Proceed ...the news came out tonight that FOX was informed of this investigation THREE YEARS AGO. nt kelliekat44 May 2013 #125

thanks ProSense Cha May 2013 #3

K&R! hrmjustin May 2013 #4

Kick and Rec! sheshe2 May 2013 #6

How will the media spin this? Probably won't change anything since they hate the Obama admin, kelliekat44 May 2013 #7

They won't even cover it. hrmjustin May 2013 #9

We need to make sure they do. Calling into two talk shows as I type. nt kelliekat44 May 2013 #15

Very interesting but who are Alex and Leo?? kentuck May 2013 #8

A reporter -a good one- would only care about facts. randome May 2013 #12

nonsense, all reporting is a political. Reporters should attempt to reveal government secrets. limpyhobbler May 2013 #85

Not when you blow the cover of an operative brush May 2013 #90

Are you saying James Rosen "blew the cover of an operative"? limpyhobbler May 2013 #91

Read up on it. brush May 2013 #94

Did you just make that up? What "operative"? woo me with science May 2013 #106

What he did was totally legal. nt limpyhobbler May 2013 #128

It's undeniable proof that he was NOT acting as a "journalist." nt kelliekat44 May 2013 #13

Who would he be working for? kentuck May 2013 #16

This organization ProSense May 2013 #17

That is believable. kentuck May 2013 #18

If ProSense May 2013 #19

I would like to know? kentuck May 2013 #36

Journalists don't need to be "neutral" or any such thing. It's OK for Fox "News" to hate Obama. limpyhobbler May 2013 #87

K and R for the Cave people Kingofalldems May 2013 #10

K&R nt kelliekat44 May 2013 #11

Rosen is a special kind of stupid. randome May 2013 #14

This is ridiculous, woo me with science May 2013 #20

You know ProSense May 2013 #22

We are talking about government surveillance based on allegations of criminal conspiracy. woo me with science May 2013 #23

Speaking of ProSense May 2013 #24

Unreal. woo me with science May 2013 #25

Drivel ProSense May 2013 #26

ha! you got that one just squirming and kicking Whisp May 2013 #27

Well, ProSense May 2013 #30

No, the government *used* accusations of criminal conspiracy in order to *obtain* the warrant, woo me with science May 2013 #29

What ProSense May 2013 #32

There is no valid reasonable suspicion here. woo me with science May 2013 #33

Maybe, ProSense May 2013 #35

"..expose muddle-headed policy.."?? kentuck May 2013 #38

Are you ProSense May 2013 #40

I would rather take my chances with a muddled-headed press.... kentuck May 2013 #69

Sometimes ProSense May 2013 #72

So if one reporter had exposed it? kentuck May 2013 #76

Wait ProSense May 2013 #78

The statute involved here does cover that. However, the information must be SlimJimmy May 2013 #116

It wasn't okay to look but it was okay to report. Luminous Animal May 2013 #122

Again, we are talking about government surveillance based on accusations of criminal conspiracy, woo me with science May 2013 #39

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #41

There is nothing criminal about a journalist's soliciting information. Or receiving it. woo me with science May 2013 #44

So ProSense May 2013 #47

What facts? You haven't offered anything at all. woo me with science May 2013 #51

You want ProSense May 2013 #52

Exactly what part of the US Code you cited would apply in this case? The statute you are using SlimJimmy May 2013 #53

"He released information pertaining to the North Korean response to sanctions." ProSense May 2013 #55

What was provided to him had nothing to do with the statute you cited. That statute concerns the SlimJimmy May 2013 #59

Absurd. woo me with science May 2013 #54

Dismissive nonsense. ProSense May 2013 #58

Show me where this is illegal under the appropriate US Code. Obtaining classified information SlimJimmy May 2013 #60

Wait ProSense May 2013 #61

Did you read anything I wrote? SlimJimmy May 2013 #64

Well ProSense May 2013 #67

You have really missed the mark here. And your cut and paste reply tells me all I need to know. SlimJimmy May 2013 #75

An ProSense May 2013 #77

So the government misrepresented their intent to the court woo me with science May 2013 #79

Nonsense, and ProSense May 2013 #80

It is the necessary and usual step when accusing someone of a crime. The federal government SlimJimmy May 2013 #84

You know ProSense May 2013 #88

What is nonsense is *your* assertion that a search warrant is not issued against a targeted person SlimJimmy May 2013 #99

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #101

The warrant may be issued to a person or business, but the affidavit must show probable cause SlimJimmy May 2013 #107

You ProSense May 2013 #109

Yes they did, In the affidavit they named him as a co-conspirator and wanted his records SlimJimmy May 2013 #111

Do you ProSense May 2013 #114

Wow, the ignorance you are showing relating to the facts here is stunning. Is it really that hard SlimJimmy May 2013 #119

More obfuscation with a touch of disingenuous shock. n/t ProSense May 2013 #121

Excellent summary. woo me with science May 2013 #124

I was just as appalled when Nixon targeted the Pentagon Paper reporters. I remember SlimJimmy May 2013 #126

I would agree that it is not as cut and dried as the OP would suggest. kentuck May 2013 #42

The government had no justification to make the accusation they did woo me with science May 2013 #45

"Paranoia strikes deep. DevonRex May 2013 #81

Please pass that information on to Prosense. I'm getting tired of explaining it to her. (nt) SlimJimmy May 2013 #113

Bullshit! maxrandb May 2013 #43

There was no evidence or even suggestion of criminal behavior here. woo me with science May 2013 #46

Some folks seem to be of the opinion... kentuck May 2013 #49

Actually it's not illegal for a reporter to obtain classified information, except in very well SlimJimmy May 2013 #50

"Whoever is paying you for good PR might want to rethink that decision" Number23 May 2013 #56

Nailed that one. Bobbie Jo May 2013 #65

+ 1000 ^^^This!^^^ BlueCaliDem May 2013 #86

Sure, that's why the DOJ shopped a judge to sign the search warrant. SlimJimmy May 2013 #135

love ya, PS and I'll get my ass kicked but here goes: elehhhhna May 2013 #62

The problem ProSense May 2013 #63

I assume the OP is being ironic marshall May 2013 #28

As you can see above, the OP is embarrassingly and disturbingly serious, woo me with science May 2013 #31

Evidently ProSense May 2013 #34

I still think it is online street theatre marshall May 2013 #57

+100. Nothing but spin from the OP, as if that changes reality. Skip Intro May 2013 #68

Aren't ProSense May 2013 #70

Clearly Skip Intro May 2013 #71

When ProSense May 2013 #74

What Skip Intro May 2013 #82

No, what's ridiculous is that once again you side with Fox DevonRex May 2013 #73

Baseless government targeting of journalists is never hilarious. woo me with science May 2013 #83

But ProSense May 2013 #89

K & R Scurrilous May 2013 #37

It wouldn't surprise me Aerows May 2013 #48

k&r... spanone May 2013 #66

I wonder if you'll be so blase when it's a Republican WH going after reporters? Marr May 2013 #92

Again, ProSense May 2013 #95

You keep repeating this: woo me with science May 2013 #97

And ProSense May 2013 #98

You are repeating yourself in arguments woo me with science May 2013 #102

Why ProSense May 2013 #105

I'm still waiting for Prosense to excerpt the part of the applicable US Code that SlimJimmy May 2013 #100

+1 woo me with science May 2013 #103

I see ProSense May 2013 #104

No, I'm waiting for you to show me something in writing that you contend here repeatedly. SlimJimmy May 2013 #108

Hey, ProSense May 2013 #110

In other words, you can't provide the simple bit of information I requested that would prove SlimJimmy May 2013 #112

No, the "other words" are your desperate obfuscation. n/t ProSense May 2013 #115

Look, I've documented every contention I've made. It's all here in the thread. You, on the SlimJimmy May 2013 #117

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #118

All I've done is document facts. That you don't like that is not my problem. SlimJimmy May 2013 #120

You mean ProSense May 2013 #123

Said poster will not put up nor shut up. Facts are irrelevant. Skip Intro May 2013 #130

I understand. I've not only made my points, but documented them. All anyone has to do is read SlimJimmy May 2013 #132

Indeed. Skip Intro May 2013 #133

If it means anything, I did read the exchange-- and Marr May 2013 #136

Sometimes we have to put up with the smoke bombs in our attempt to educate. I appreciate SlimJimmy May 2013 #137

newsCORPSE ? limpyhobbler May 2013 #93

? ProSense May 2013 #96

Scraping the bottom of the barrel I guess. nt limpyhobbler May 2013 #127

LOL woo me with science May 2013 #129

To be fair, they are having a difficult week. limpyhobbler May 2013 #131

"I don't envy the job have having to defend the indefensible. " ProSense May 2013 #134

OK that was funny. limpyhobbler May 2013 #138

Kicking for ProSense May 2013 #139