• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe

Eric Holder:
"This was a very serious — a very serious leak, a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among — if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk."

<pause>

"Other than that, I really don't know a thing about it."


Heya Taylor. :2wave: It was more like this.....

Holder: I Don't Really Know How Many Times We've Secretly Monitored Reporters

"I'm not sure how many of those cases ... I have actually signed off on," Holder said. "I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications."

And note that Holder isn’t saying that he’s unclear about the operations within his executive purview, as Carney tried yesterday on Obama’s behalf — he’s unclear on how many times he himself has approved those seizures.....snip~

Holder: I Don't Really Know How Many Times We've Secretly Monitored Reporters - Katie Pavlich

They are grilling him now.....as we speak. ;)
 
"I'm not sure how many of those cases ... I have actually signed off on," Holder said. "I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications."
So... too many to count, but does remember the few he actually refused to sign.

You sure this was Holder talking about cases and not Obama talking about spending bills? :2razz:
 
Come on, man, you are being obtuse. At the very least the Administration consists of the President, Vice President, and the President's Cabinet.
Yeah, right. Now you and the others show me proof that the President, Vice President and every member of the Cabinet had foreknowledge of this act; go ahead show it. :waiting:
 
By definition you do not retain tax exempt status if you advocate a party or a member of a party so you dont target them but you dont allow them to retain tax exempt either.

What do taxes have to do with political advocacy?
 
What do taxes have to do with political advocacy?

Tax exempts have to work in the public interest and not advocate political candidates or parties. If they do so they are working in the interest of one of the parties, not the public good. Its the same reason why churches cannot endorse candidates.
 
Tax exempts have to work in the public interest and not advocate political candidates or parties. If they do so they are working in the interest of one of the parties, not the public good. Its the same reason why churches cannot endorse candidates.

Thats not an answer to my question. What does speech have to do with taxation? The purpose of speech is to express thoughts. The purpose of taxation is to fund govt. One has nothing to do with the other, so I dont see any reason for taxation to be relative to the content of ones speech.
 
Tax exempts have to work in the public interest and not advocate political candidates or parties. If they do so they are working in the interest of one of the parties, not the public good. Its the same reason why churches cannot endorse candidates.
That's not actually true of all tax exempt organizations.
 
I'm not trivializing anything. I just think that it won't be long before the Limbaugh's of the world are singing the praises of the AP. That's when it will become trivialized.

Predicting trivialization makes it trivial already. That's not what should be happening.
 
Supposedly? LOL come on. The GOP defended Bush, but attack Obama for the same thing... there is no supposedly. As for these boards, there are many who defended everything from the Bush election to GITMO and ignored the 10+ American's killed at diplomatic missions during the Bush administration.
You are still referring to some nebulous group of people that supposedly did something. Which has nothing to do with this topic. Pretty cut and dried, enjoy your strawmen unless you can actually point to the members who did as you say, at this forum, it means nothing and addresses nothing outside of excuse making/justification on your part. Then even if you can point us to who did as you say, you are only diverting and deflecting from the topic. Yeah no crap there are always sicophants acting as flak vest for the dog they have in the hunt. Duh.

supposedly again.. sorry but there is no supposedly when it comes to Bush and you know it. He did spy on the American people without a warrant. He did lock up hundreds of people based on no evidence. He did torture. He did start a war based on lies and so on and so on.
Supposedly this is supposed to excuse what? Oh let me guess, you don't know two (insert number here) wrongs don't make a right? The issue here is not Bush or any prior administration but what is afoot with the Obama administration. Since you have already stated that if these allegations if true should be punished, we are left with and your constant Bush axe to grind. In 2013 it a pretty dull and rusty one too.

At least I am consistent and have criticized both Bush and Obama when they do similar things.
I don't think you have ever been accused of not consistently dragging Bush in to as many threads and topics as you can. So aside from your need to drag Bush into this topic, it seems arguing this further is just an infatuation you can't help but indulge. Fine by me. Has nothing to do with the current event, is not an excuse for them either. So yeah, all those "murders" you were going on about? Really just a murder of logic and focus. :shock:
 
The US Supreme Court has stated it is constitutional.... deal with it.



It was there days after Bush so called won the 2000 election.. with the fewest votes. Where were you?

The Supreme Court said he won, DEAL WITH IT!
 
Back
Top Bottom