News Corp Phone Hacking Scandal is the New Watergate

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 9, 2012, 12:08:47 AM5/9/12

to

More and more it looks like the News Corp phone hacking scandal is the
new Watergate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_hacking_scandal_comparisons_with_Watergate

While it is early for broad historical perspective, many commentators
have pointed out similarities between the "UK phone hacking scandal of
2011", involving illegal acquisition of confidential information by
news media companies, and the scandal over bugging the Democratic
National Committee headquarters in 1972, commonly referred to as the
"Watergate Scandal."

So when will the FCC pull Faux News licenses?

Not soon enough.

TMT

Padraigh ProAmerica

unread,

May 9, 2012, 12:11:53 AM5/9/12

to

Fox News doesn't have licenses, dumbass.

Individual broadcast stations have licenses. Unless Murdoch's name is on
the license, they can't be pulled for anything he did.

Cable networks are not licensed.

"Too Many Tools= a box of hammers, which you are even dumber than.

--
"A good march should make a man with a wooden leg want to step out."--

John Phillip Sousa

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 9, 2012, 12:37:59 AM5/9/12

to

LOL...looks like you are the dumbass.

The FBI is already investigating News Corp...criminal charges to
follow.

TMT

Ed Huntress

unread,

May 9, 2012, 1:04:17 AM5/9/12

to

Fox Broadcasting Company, a subsidiary of News Corp., owns 27 TV
stations in the US. News Corp. is publicly traded but Murdoch owns
most of the voting shares. He also is Chairman and CEO.

So, in theory, the licenses could all be pulled on a "character"
decision against Murdoch. But the FCC very rarely has used that
provision of the Communications Act of 1934 to actually revoke a
license.

--
Ed Huntress

Bret Cahill

unread,

May 9, 2012, 1:41:07 AM5/9/12

to

> >> Fox News doesn't have licenses, dumbass.
>
> >> Individual broadcast stations have licenses. Unless Murdoch's name is on
> >> the license, they can't be pulled for anything he did.
>
> >> Cable networks are not licensed.
>
> >> "Too Many Tools= a box of hammers, which you are even dumber than.
>
> >> --
> >> "A good march should make a man with a wooden leg want to step out."--
>
> >> John Phillip Sousa
>
> >LOL...looks like you are the dumbass.
>
> >The FBI is already investigating News Corp...criminal charges to
> >follow.
>
> >TMT
>
> Fox Broadcasting Company, a subsidiary of News Corp., owns 27 TV
> stations in the US. News Corp. is publicly traded but Murdoch owns
> most of the voting shares. He also is Chairman and CEO.
>
> So, in theory, the licenses could all be pulled on a "character"
> decision against Murdoch. But the FCC very rarely has used that
> provision of the Communications Act of 1934 to actually revoke a
> license.

A simple new law could solve all these problems:

Whenever a media mogul testifies that he "can't figger out how he made
billions by not knowing what was going on" his assets are immediately
seized and liquidated and used to pay off public debt.

It's 100% certain that he never did any honest work for his money.

Bret Cahill

de...@dudu.org

unread,

May 9, 2012, 9:47:04 AM5/9/12

to

Oh dear, what will we ever do without Fox telling us their own version
of reality?

>
>Not soon enough.
>
>TMT

JohnJohnsn

unread,

May 9, 2012, 9:46:04 AM5/9/12

to

On May 8, 11:08 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> More and more it looks like the News Corp phone hacking scandal is the
> new Watergate
>

Actually, the one thing that the author of the below article
_conveniently_ missed is a connection to the current presidential
candidate and the scandal, as existed in the real "Watergate scandal."

Did you, and he, _conveniently_ forget that?

However, the _current_ presidential candidate _does_ have a direct
connection to a "Watergate-type" scandal; multiple, actually:

"Fast & Furious", "White Gun," "SolarGate" and "CronyGate:" the ones
we _do_ know about. Maybe even "NBPP in Philly-gate:" that was caused
by an Obama minion: Eric "The Red" Holder.

Yet all you Liberals want to ignore _that_ "Inconvenient Truth."

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_hacking_scandal_comparisons_with_W...
>
"This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it.
Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions
may be available. (November 2011)"

I view this as a PsyOp trying to divert attention from _this_
"Inconvenient Truth":

GALLUP DAILY POLLS

May 5-7, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change

Obama Job Approval

Approval: 46% -1
Disapproval: 47% -

Presidential Election

Romney: 47% +1
Obama: 44% -1

7-day rolling average

"Fast & Furious", "White Gun," "SolarGate" and "CronyGate": Obama's
Watergate(s)

Barack Hussien Obama, Jr.:
-All the answers as a candidate;
-No solutions as the president!

"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the
least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,
and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or
succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the
confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
See: Obama Administration, 2009-2013

"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"

Obama "GONE" 1-20-2013
http://tinyurl.com/Obama-Gone-2013

Fried Dog And Poke Weed

unread,

May 9, 2012, 9:26:19 AM5/9/12

to

In article <63bd135b-c023-4bcf-86b4-
1c3c4c...@e9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> More and more it looks like

You're an idiot.

http://thetrenches.us/2012/05/10000-to-anyone-who-provides-the-
college-transcripts-of-president-barack-obama/

You’ve failed, media.

You’ve had over three years to vet President Barack Obama. Yet
in three years in office and over a year of campaigning
beforehand, you have either been oddly uninterested or
purposefully ignorant of Barack Obama’s educational history. You
were, however, quite interested in George Bush’s transcripts.

This uncharacteristic absence of curiosity about an American
president alarms us. At $15 trillion, our nation’s debt is the
highest it has ever been – and it keeps growing. We’re not
convinced that Barack is as smart as you media elitists keep
insisting he is.

We therefore offer in reward $10,000 to anyone who provides the
college transcripts of President Barack Obama. Occidental,
Harvard, Columbia…any would represent more intellectual
curiosity about the leader of the free world than the media has
demonstrated since Obama won the Democrat primary.

Upon obtaining any of these transcripts, please contact
war[at]thetrenches[dot]us for verification and payment. This
offer goes into effect immediately.

Media, your stranglehold on the truth ends NOW. Let the vetting
begin.

Bellum Letale

Let’s “spread the wealth around” to vet the prez. If you’d like
to donate to this initiative (so we can increase the bounty) or
our upcoming initiatives, click the donate button.

https://www.wepay.com/donations/102129

Flint

unread,

May 9, 2012, 2:01:46 PM5/9/12

to

When Obama pulls a Hitler, and declares himself 'Fuehrer'...

--
Flint

Flint

unread,

May 9, 2012, 2:02:59 PM5/9/12

to

Sounds more like a wet dream...

--
Flint

Jon Elson

unread,

May 9, 2012, 2:23:20 PM5/9/12

to

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

>
> So when will the FCC pull Faux News licenses?
>
> Not soon enough.

Well, the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK.
And, I haven't heard about much of this phone message
hacking in the US, so far.

Jon

Tranny Annie loves frothy mix of lube and fecal matter

unread,

May 9, 2012, 2:19:11 PM5/9/12

to

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 12:04:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
> the FCC very rarely has used that
> provision of the Communications Act of 1934 to actually revoke a
> license.
>

The FCC is a spineless fuck .. Now .. if FOX had shown
a woman's titty on TV .. or let the word FUCK out on the
airwaves, it would be a major issue. But federal offensives
like fraudulent advertisers over public airwaves go completely unnoticed.
.. go figure.

True story ..

Staying down in Big Ben Park,TX -- ran into a guy who use to
run a outlaw radio station for the community - a multi-disk
CD player that plugged into a FM transmitter - home brew gear .
( Big Ben is so large - bigger than RI, and away from
*anything* there is absolutely no broadcast radio for *miles* ...)
- FCC sent down radio tracking trucks, found && arrested this guy .. he is banned from owning anything that transits !

"Heard it on the X" .

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 9, 2012, 2:29:33 PM5/9/12

to

> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree Ed...and so the FCC does have a historical hook into Murdoch.

And this is a never say never case....Murdoch had to shut down the 168
year old paper he had (a very profitable paper) to try to save his
cable deal...which has not defused the situation. I expect when it
hits the American shores, it will be like sh*t hitting the fan.

Bribing foreign officials is illegal in the United States and we have
yet to see those charges bought.

What I am really interested in seeing is what the FBI
uncovers...within a large company it is common to do stuff in a common
way...do you really think that the American side of News Corp is any
different from the British counterpart when they are joined at the
head by Murdoch?

The other really damning point is that Murdoch is an on hands guy...he
was involved in the editorial content of the British press and you can
damn well bet that he has his fingers in it here in the United States.

One only needs to see the increase of Pro-Murdoch articles by right
wing hacks that are poured into the news stream now to see that News
Corp is very worried about what is coming their way in the United
States.

TMT

Fried Dog And Poke Weed

unread,

May 9, 2012, 3:01:59 PM5/9/12

to

In article <92141e30-4202-4121-a97a-
25269d...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> LOL...looks like I'm the dumbass.
>

Yep, looks that way.

Lookout

unread,

May 10, 2012, 2:36:22 AM5/10/12

to

That was his OPONENTS job, not the media.

And they couldn't prove shit.

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

pyotr filipivich

unread,

May 10, 2012, 11:07:21 AM5/10/12

to

Let the Record show that Flint <age...@section21.org> on or about Wed,
09 May 2012 14:01:46 -0400 did write, type or otherwise cause to
appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

Too Many Tools is really really, really reaching. Or does he
somehow believe that Rupert Murdoch is President of the United
Kingdom, wiretapping his political opponents?

Ignorance can be cured, but this is beyond ignorance.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Next Month's Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.

Sir Ray

unread,

May 10, 2012, 11:49:21 AM5/10/12

to

On May 10, 11:07 am, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Too Many Tools is really really, really reaching. Or does he
> somehow believe that Rupert Murdoch is President of the United
> Kingdom, wiretapping his political opponents?

Well, David Cameron is Prime Minister of the UK (no such title as
President of the UK, Petey-boi), and he seems to think Murdoch had
influence:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-25/world/world_europe_uk-phone-hacking_1_james-murdoch-rupert-murdoch-media-baron?_s=PM:EUROPE
"At the same time, Cameron was saying politicians from across the
political spectrum had been too close to the powerful media baron.
"I think we all, on both sides of this house, did a bit too much
cozying up to Mr. Murdoch," he told the House of Commons as his
government was battered over testimony Murdoch's son had given the day
before.

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 10, 2012, 1:59:31 PM5/10/12

to

On May 10, 10:07 am, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Let the Record show that Flint <age...@section21.org> on or about Wed,
> 09 May 2012 14:01:46 -0400 did write, type or otherwise cause to
> appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/9/2012 12:08 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> >> More and more it looks like the News Corp phone hacking scandal is the
> >> new Watergate
>

> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_hacking_scandal_comparisons_with_W...

>
> >> While it is early for broad historical perspective, many commentators
> >> have pointed out similarities between the "UK phone hacking scandal of
> >> 2011", involving illegal acquisition of confidential information by
> >> news media companies, and the scandal over bugging the Democratic
> >> National Committee headquarters in 1972, commonly referred to as the
> >> "Watergate Scandal."
>
> >> So when will the FCC pull Faux News licenses?
>
> >> Not soon enough.
>
> >> TMT
>
> >When Obama pulls a Hitler, and declares himself 'Fuehrer'...
>
> Too Many Tools is really really, really reaching. Or does he
> somehow believe that Rupert Murdoch is President of the United
> Kingdom, wiretapping his political opponents?
>
> Ignorance can be cured, but this is beyond ignorance.
>
> tschus
> pyotr
>
> --
> pyotr filipivich

> Next Month's Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Many Brits do believe exactly that.

And it is changing the political structure at the top there.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 10, 2012, 2:08:13 PM5/10/12

to

On May 10, 12:28 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Hawke
>
>
>
>
>
> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

> >On 5/8/2012 10:04 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 May 2012 21:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
> >> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On May 8, 11:11 pm, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
> >>>> Fox News doesn't have licenses, dumbass.
>
> >>>> Individual broadcast stations have licenses. Unless Murdoch's name is on
> >>>> the license, they can't be pulled for anything he did.
>
> >>>> Cable networks are not licensed.
>
> >>>> "Too Many Tools= a box of hammers, which you are even dumber than.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> "A good march should make a man with a wooden leg want to step out."--
>
> >>>> John Phillip Sousa
>
> >>> LOL...looks like you are the dumbass.
>
> >>> The FBI is already investigating News Corp...criminal charges to
> >>> follow.
>
> >>> TMT
>
> >> Fox Broadcasting Company, a subsidiary of News Corp., owns 27 TV
> >> stations in the US. News Corp. is publicly traded but Murdoch owns
> >> most of the voting shares. He also is Chairman and CEO.
>
> >> So, in theory, the licenses could all be pulled on a "character"
> >> decision against Murdoch. But the FCC very rarely has used that
> >> provision of the Communications Act of 1934 to actually revoke a
> >> license.
>

> >And this is America where we have a legal system that never holds
> >corporations accountable for anything they do. We also don't prosecute
> >most politicians that commit crimes either. Super rich people are also
> >in a protected class. So the chances of Newscorp actually getting in
> >hot water over this scandal are very slim indeed.
>
> >Hawke
>
> Before any of that would be raised as an issue, you have to look at
> the FCC's responsibility to the public and how they implement their
> responsibilities to ensure that broadcasters "serve the public
> interest."
>
> Given their charge, which includes promoting a diversity of opinion
> and sources of broadcast information, FOX is pretty well shielded.
> Without them there would not be nearly as much diversity of opinion on
> the air. And regarding their cable operation, that's a free-for-all,
> anyway, because there are few access limitations as there are with
> broadcast spectrum.
>
> From any angle, I don't see the FCC revoking the 27 licenses owned by
> News Corp., even if they convicted Murdoch of child molestation.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I understand your opinion but as I have said this is a "Never Say
Never" case.

No one ever expected the closure of the168 year old News of the World
newspaper either.

Or the arrests of dozens of News Corp employees.

Or Murdoch's BSkyB bid of $12 billion to be cancelled.

Or...well you get the trend...the list is long...

Murdoch is in damage control mode...and after the Brits get done with
him, the United States Government will start in and there is no reason
to doubt that News Corp is any cleaner here than in England.

TMT

TMT

Elton Chrisman

unread,

May 10, 2012, 6:23:18 PM5/10/12

to

Lookout ran away after several severe beatings... And has returned for
more beatings.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:10:01 GMT, Buster Norris <bus...@buster.com>
>wrote:
>>Cor...@Blue.net wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 03:46:52 GMT, Buster Norris <bus...@buster.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>A real President would have promised victory and return with honor.
>>>Like Bush?
>>Great example. Both, in fact.
>>George Bush I promised victory in the Gulf War, he delivered, we returned with
>>honor.
>Uh..we had to go back. We DIDN'T win. We just put it off for a few
>more years.

No, LIAR. Bush promised the liberation of Kuwait. He delivered.

>>George Bush II promised victory in OIF, he delivered, we're returning with
>>honor.
>
>Define "honor". Losing 4,000+ lives and $15 dollars for what?

For the liberation of Iraq from tyranny. Bush promised it, he
delivered.

>Please..define "honor" for us.

Go read a dictionary.

>>Too bad your Magic Negro is a wuss loser..........
>
>And then the 3rd grade insult. How typical.

It took just 2 posts to catch you lying...

How typical.

You're inferior to dogshit.

Fuck off now.

Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 10, 2012, 10:13:33 PM5/10/12

to

On May 10, 2:21 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote innews:0cunq7d2bk2c14r67...@4ax.com:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Hawke
> > <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> >>On 5/8/2012 10:04 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> >>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 21:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools

> >>> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>And this is America where we have a legal system that never holds
> >>corporations accountable for anything they do. We also don't prosecute
> >>most politicians that commit crimes either. Super rich people are also
> >>in a protected class. So the chances of Newscorp actually getting in
> >>hot water over this scandal are very slim indeed.
>
> >>Hawke
>
> > Before any of that would be raised as an issue, you have to look at
> > the FCC's responsibility to the public and how they implement their
> > responsibilities to ensure that broadcasters "serve the public
> > interest."
>
> > Given their charge, which includes promoting a diversity of opinion
> > and sources of broadcast information, FOX is pretty well shielded.
> > Without them there would not be nearly as much diversity of opinion on
> > the air. And regarding their cable operation, that's a free-for-all,
> > anyway, because there are few access limitations as there are with
> > broadcast spectrum.
>
> > From any angle, I don't see the FCC revoking the 27 licenses owned by
> > News Corp., even if they convicted Murdoch of child molestation.
>

> Besides, the FCC doesn't control cable news stations.....only over the
> air ones. The real target of this is Fox News and the FCC has no
> licensing power over it.
>
> --
>
> It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
> country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!
>
> George Burns
>
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...so you have proof that Faux News has not tapped phones like News
of the World did?

And that they have not bribed foreign officials?

If so then please present it.

Murdoch is sweating for a reason.

TMT

dca...@krl.org

unread,

May 10, 2012, 10:25:50 PM5/10/12

to

So do you have proof that you have not murdered anyone? I bet you do
not. But if you do please present it.

Dan

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 10, 2012, 10:30:11 PM5/10/12

to

> Dan- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Meanwhile you can provide the proof that Obama was not born an
American.

Laugh..laugh..laugh...

TMT

dca...@krl.org

unread,

May 10, 2012, 10:38:30 PM5/10/12

to

On May 10, 10:30 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Meanwhile you can provide the proof that Obama was not born an
> American.
>
> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
> TMT

I am pretty sure I can find a copy of Obama's birth certificate
proving that he was born in the U.S.

Dan

JohnJohnsn

unread,

May 10, 2012, 11:36:01 PM5/10/12

to

I'm sure you can; but can you find one that Obama's lawyers haven't
already testified under oath to being fake?

Obama Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate Is A Forgery

A lawyer representing U.S. President Barack Obama has admitted the
long-form birth certificate presented by the White House last year is
a forgery...

http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/04/15/obama-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

Tom Gardner

unread,

May 13, 2012, 11:26:36 AM5/13/12

to

https://www.iardc.org ( IARDC stands for Illinois Attorney Registration
And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline
in Illinois.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and [current] U.S. President Makes Up
Constitutional Quotes during State of The Union (SOTU) Address. Big
surprise.

Consider these:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review , is
no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order
to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary
Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not
really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your
license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've
been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license
five seconds before the state suspends you.
2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993,
after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her
license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady [trained
lawyers, but] who don't actually have licenses to practice law - Facts.
Source:http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
4. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University
of Chicago . A senior lecturer is one thing; a fully ranked law
professor is another.
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school -
but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never
held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008. "He did not hold the
title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant
Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago
School of Law . Source:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html
6. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S.
Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address .
Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of
Independence ... not the Constitution (the B-Cast posted the video:
http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/).
7. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama
said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise
enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr.
President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named
them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence
and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.
8. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later
in the same speech?

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,

May 13, 2012, 11:43:13 AM5/13/12

to

Offering money to commit a crime is a criminal act.

The transcripts have been sealed by Harvard, Columbia and other
institutions.

-Ramon

M.I. Wakefield

unread,

May 13, 2012, 12:01:06 PM5/13/12

to

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
news:BsqdnVqaackwTzLS...@giganews.com...

> https://www.iardc.org ( IARDC stands for Illinois Attorney Registration
> And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in
> Illinois.
>
> Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and [current] U.S. President Makes Up
> Constitutional Quotes during State of The Union (SOTU) Address. Big
> surprise.
>
> Consider these:

Or we could consider this:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

... and come to the conclusion that you are an idiot, or a troll, or both.

unread,

May 13, 2012, 12:31:01 PM5/13/12

to

"M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in news:PjRrr.36756$Yn4.26988
@unlimited.newshosting.com:

No, lies are. And Dems and liberals are nothing but lies. All day every
day.

Gray Guest

unread,

May 13, 2012, 12:32:07 PM5/13/12

to

fa...@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote in news:jooncq$g2v$2@blue-
new.rahul.net:

> In article <XnsA0527ADCE7BA3We...@88.198.244.100>,
> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>>MSNBC.
>
> People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>
> All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
> my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
> that it is, so they're liars".
>
> So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>

Thye claim to be neutral. First and biggest.

Besides I'm holding back until President Knappy hair releases his school
records.

Gunner Asch

unread,

May 13, 2012, 2:09:15 PM5/13/12

to

On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

>In article <XnsA0527ADCE7BA3We...@88.198.244.100>,
>Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>>MSNBC.
>
>People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>
>All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
>my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
>that it is, so they're liars".
>
>So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.

Google "snopes lies" and we have some 602,000 hits

Now was there anything else you wished to look stupid about?

Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

Gunner Asch

unread,

May 13, 2012, 2:10:04 PM5/13/12

to

On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:29:35 -0400, "M.I. Wakefield" <none@present>
wrote:

"The Truth" is now something Snopes is concerned with?

Klaus Schadenfreude

unread,

May 13, 2012, 2:26:34 PM5/13/12

to

>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>Falk) wrote:
>
>>In article <XnsA0527ADCE7BA3We...@88.198.244.100>,
>>Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>>>MSNBC.
>>
>>People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>>
>>All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
>>my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
>>that it is, so they're liars".
>>
>>So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>
>Google "snopes lies" and we have some 602,000 hits

With THAT many hits, you should be able to come up with just one
"lie."

Let's see it.

Jeff M

unread,

May 13, 2012, 2:33:43 PM5/13/12

to

On 5/13/2012 11:04 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
> "M.I. Wakefield"<none@present> wrote in news:6VQrr.154111$275.67619
> @unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>> "Tom Gardner" wrote in message
>> news:BsqdnVqaackwTzLS...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> https://www.iardc.org ( IARDC stands for Illinois Attorney Registration
>>> And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline
> in
>>> Illinois.
>>>
>>> Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and [current] U.S. President Makes Up
>>> Constitutional Quotes during State of The Union (SOTU) Address. Big
>>> surprise.
>>>
>>> Consider these:
>>
>> Or we could consider this:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp
>>
>> ... and come to the conclusion that you are an idiot, or a troll, or
> both.
>>
> Sophistry and bullshit.

constitute the sum total of who you are and all you know.

Jeff M

unread,

May 13, 2012, 2:40:26 PM5/13/12

to

On 5/13/2012 11:27 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<XnsA0527ADCE7BA3We...@88.198.244.100>,
> Gray Guest<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>> MSNBC.
>
> People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>
> All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
> my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
> that it is, so they're liars".
>
> So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.

Their agenda is simply to ferret out the truth and counter the lies.
This is, however, very galling to those who's agenda is the opposite.

Jeff M

unread,

May 13, 2012, 2:41:33 PM5/13/12

to

No. But creating and spreading lies is, and for those people the truth
is their enemy.

Message has been deleted

Jeff M

unread,

May 13, 2012, 2:51:12 PM5/13/12

to

I Googled "Gunner lies" and got "About 3,650,000 results (0.25 seconds)"
I suppose that means he's about six times the liar Snopes is.

George Plimpton

unread,

May 13, 2012, 3:00:15 PM5/13/12

to

Fawning leftists during the 2008 campaign and since have shit themselves
over Obama supposedly having been a "Constitutional Law" [sic] professor
at Chicago, and take this to be a measure of his brilliance. First of
all, he wasn't a professor, he was a lecturer. He was not a scholar.
Professors do original research in their fields; Obama did not. Anyone
who has graduated law school apparently can lecture in law - Obama is
the proof. He never did post graduate study in the law, never did any
original research. Obama teaching in law school is akin to someone who
just graduated with a BS in chemistry teaching first year college chemistry.

Second, the fawning leftists keep gushing incoherently over the fact it
was "Constitutional Law" [sic], as if that's the only intellectually
worthy dimension to law school. Typically for leftists, they imagine
torts, civil procedure, contracts, intellectual property, and all the
other areas of study in law school are just grubby trash. That's a
silly and almost juvenile belief - but as I said, it's typical for leftists.

George Plimpton

unread,

May 13, 2012, 3:01:54 PM5/13/12

to

"1965 - Vietnamese machine gunner lies dead in foxhole after Viet Cong
overran his position at Michelin Rubber Plantation."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13476480@N07/6098960634/

Lookout

unread,

May 13, 2012, 3:03:05 PM5/13/12

to

On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

>In article <XnsA0527ADCE7BA3We...@88.198.244.100>,
>Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>>MSNBC.
>
>People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>
>All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
>my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
>that it is, so they're liars".
>
>So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>

They don't take sides. They simply post what facts they can and reach
a logical conclusion.

But..if you think the whole world is against you as conservatives do
then you understand the whining.

Donn Messenheimer

unread,

May 13, 2012, 3:21:40 PM5/13/12

to

On 5/13/2012 9:27 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article<XnsA0527ADCE7BA3We...@88.198.244.100>,
> Gray Guest<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>> MSNBC.
>
> People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>
> All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
> my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
> that it is, so they're liars".
>
> So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.

I don't think Snopes lies. What they do is shade things.

There is an unmistakable left-wing tilt to the site and to the
Mikkelsons. Barbara Mikkelson, who does most of the writing for the
Snopes site, used to be a regular poster on a number of Usenet groups,
including alt.support.childfree, where her comments gave not terribly
subtle clues to her liberal orientation.

Gunner Asch

unread,

May 13, 2012, 3:33:51 PM5/13/12

to

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/tag/snopes-lies/

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/bill-oreilly-lies-and-misinformation-snopes-lies-and-misinformation-carol-bengle-gilbert-obama-supporter-or-paid-orwellian-editor/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2307857/posts

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48-911-commentary/5365-snopescom-lies-continues-the-911-cover-up.html

Just a random sampling, I didnt read any of them.

Your next magic claim will be?

Gray Guest

unread,

May 13, 2012, 4:24:54 PM5/13/12

to

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:35uvq7h320vc322ql...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
> Falk) wrote:
>
>>In article <XnsA0527ADCE7BA3We...@88.198.244.100>,
>>Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>>>MSNBC.
>>
>>People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>>
>>All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
>>my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
>>that it is, so they're liars".
>>
>>So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>
> Google "snopes lies" and we have some 602,000 hits
>
> Now was there anything else you wished to look stupid about?
>
> Gunner

That's all? I got 1,200,000 from Yahoo.

>
> --
> "The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
> capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
> It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
> Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
> and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
> such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
> fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
> fools that made him their prince".
>

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 13, 2012, 4:25:47 PM5/13/12

to

On May 13, 1:51 pm, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 1:26 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> >> Gunner Asch<gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >> On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
> >> Falk) wrote:
>
> >>> In article<XnsA0527ADCE7BA3Wereofftoseethewi...@88.198.244.100>,
> >>> Gray Guest<No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:

>
> >>>> Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
> >>>> MSNBC.
>
> >>> People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>
> >>> All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
> >>> my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
> >>> that it is, so they're liars".
>
> >>> So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>
> >> Google "snopes lies" and we have some 602,000 hits
>
> > With THAT many hits, you should be able to come up with just one
> > "lie."
>
> > Let's see it.
>
> I Googled "Gunner lies" and got "About 3,650,000 results (0.25 seconds)"

> I suppose that means he's about six times the liar Snopes is.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL...good boy Jeff.

I wondering who would come up with that angle.

As Gummer would say...

<VBG>

TMT

unread,

May 13, 2012, 4:42:21 PM5/13/12

to

On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:46:59 -0400, Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:09:15 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>
>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>>Falk) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <XnsA0527ADCE7BA3We...@88.198.244.100>,
>>>Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>>>>MSNBC.
>>>
>>>People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>>>
>>>All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
>>>my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
>>>that it is, so they're liars".
>>>
>>>So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>>
>>Google "snopes lies" and we have some 602,000 hits
>

>Google "gunner lies" and we have some 3,650,000 hits.
>
>>

Google "douche bag lies" and we have About 6,540,000 results (0.24
seconds)

unread,

May 13, 2012, 5:54:48 PM5/13/12

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 13, 2012, 9:06:44 PM5/13/12

to

On May 13, 3:31 pm, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 3:24 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > Gunner Asch<gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:35uvq7h320vc322ql...@4ax.com:

>
> >> On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
> >> Falk) wrote:
>
> >>> In article<XnsA0527ADCE7BA3Wereofftoseethewi...@88.198.244.100>,

> >>> Gray Guest<No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:

>
> >>>> Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
> >>>> MSNBC.
>
> >>> People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>
> >>> All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
> >>> my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
> >>> that it is, so they're liars".
>
> >>> So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>
> >> Google "snopes lies" and we have some 602,000 hits
>
> >> Now was there anything else you wished to look stupid about?
>
> >> Gunner
>
> > That's all? I got 1,200,000 from Yahoo.
>
> I got "About 9,370,000 results (0.27 seconds)" for "Grey Guest lies"

> from Google.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Only?

I guess that Google is having an off day.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 13, 2012, 9:07:29 PM5/13/12

to

On May 13, 3:45 pm, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 3:37 PM, Benny Fishhole wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:51:12 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 5/13/2012 1:26 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> >>>> Gunner Asch<gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>
> >>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
> >>>> Falk) wrote:
>
> >>>>> In article<XnsA0527ADCE7BA3Wereofftoseethewi...@88.198.244.100>,

> >>>>> Gray Guest<No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
> >>>>>> MSNBC.
>
> >>>>> People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>
> >>>>> All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
> >>>>> my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
> >>>>> that it is, so they're liars".
>
> >>>>> So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>
> >>>> Google "snopes lies" and we have some 602,000 hits
>
> >>> With THAT many hits, you should be able to come up with just one
> >>> "lie."
>
> >>> Let's see it.
>
> >> I Googled "Gunner lies" and got "About 3,650,000 results (0.25 seconds)"
> >> I suppose that means he's about six times the liar Snopes is.
>
> > I Googled "Jeff M lies" and got "About 17,800,000 results (0.20
> > seconds)" I suppose that means you are about 5 times the liar Gunner
> > is, and about 30 times the liar Snopes is, LOL :)
>
> No, it's much higher than that; I can lie at least a thousand times
> better than Gunner can. Google itself lies, of course. It's all part

> of their notorious right wing bias.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That damn conservative Google.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 13, 2012, 9:21:02 PM5/13/12

to

On May 13, 6:24 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:13:08 +0000 (UTC), Gray Goat (the other white
>
>
>
>
>
> meat) <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> >Benny Fishhole <be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote in
> >news:lk60r7tshvi3taqdb...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:51:12 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On 5/13/2012 1:26 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> >>>>> Gunner Asch<gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>
> >>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
> >>>>> Falk) wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In article<XnsA0527ADCE7BA3Wereofftoseethewi...@88.198.244.100>,

> >>>>>> Gray Guest<No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:

> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well said Ed.

And we still see it here on Usenet...

A little experiment anyone can do...for a month count how many
rightwing spams are posted in a newsgroup versus the leftwing ones.

The number of Right wing spams will be greater...far greater.

TMT

TMT

Harold Burton

unread,

May 13, 2012, 9:54:09 PM5/13/12

to

In article <x5udnd-kFPLkhC3S...@giganews.com>,

Leftard rule #1: lie, lie again, then lie about lying.

Try another lie.

snicker

Harold Burton

unread,

May 13, 2012, 9:58:41 PM5/13/12

to

In article <Ro2dnZx9-YkQvS3S...@giganews.com>,

which makes them different from Dubya critics, how?

BTW still waiting for the Current Resident's College Transcripts, why is
he afraid to release them?

snicker

Edward A. Falk

unread,

May 14, 2012, 3:00:11 AM5/14/12

to

In article <9m20r7hlt1p6es6g2...@4ax.com>,
Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>http://twg2a.wordpress.com/tag/snopes-lies/
>
>http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/bill-oreilly-lies-and-misinformation-snopes-lies-and-misinformation-carol-bengle-gilbert-obama-supporter-or-paid-orwellian-editor/

Birther blog reporting that Obama Sr. did not move to Connecticut as Snopes
reports. It looks like Snopes confused Boston with Connecticut. Mistake,
not a lie. Also not particularly important.

>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2307857/posts

Previously covered: Snopes classifies a story of a particularly
difficult school test as 'false', stating "What nearly all
these pundits fail to grasp is "I can't answer these questions" is not
the same thing as "These questions demonstrate that students in earlier
days were better educated than today's students." Just about <I>any</I>
test looks difficult to those who haven't recently been steeped in the
material it covers."

>http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/911-facts/48-911-commentary/5365-snopescom-lies-continues-the-911-cover-up.html

9/11 conspiracy theory stuff that falls squarely in the "Snopes said X
is false, but I believe X so Snopes must be lying." Note also, that if
Snopes *were* lying in this case, it would be in defense of the Bush
administration; not exactly an example of left-wing bias.

>Just a random sampling, I didnt read any of them.

Obviously.

--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

Gunner Asch

unread,

May 14, 2012, 4:28:53 AM5/14/12

to

On Mon, 14 May 2012 07:00:11 +0000 (UTC), fa...@rahul.net (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

>In article <9m20r7hlt1p6es6g2...@4ax.com>,
>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>http://twg2a.wordpress.com/tag/snopes-lies/
>>
>>http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/bill-oreilly-lies-and-misinformation-snopes-lies-and-misinformation-carol-bengle-gilbert-obama-supporter-or-paid-orwellian-editor/
>
>Birther blog reporting that Obama Sr. did not move to Connecticut as Snopes
>reports. It looks like Snopes confused Boston with Connecticut. Mistake,
>not a lie.

Odd that you call a lie a mistake.

Is there some reason for your redefining what a lie is?

Or is it some wierd Leftwing effort to cover ones ass?

unread,

May 14, 2012, 7:35:51 PM5/14/12

to

On 5/13/2012 3:25 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> On May 13, 1:51 pm, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 1:26 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Gunner Asch<gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>

>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:27:06 +0000 (UTC), f...@rahul.net (Edward A.
>>>> Falk) wrote:
>>
>>>>> In article<XnsA0527ADCE7BA3Wereofftoseethewi...@88.198.244.100>,

>>>>> Gray Guest<No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Plus Snopes is known to have an agenda. On politics they lie as much as
>>>>>> MSNBC.
>>
>>>>> People keep saying that, but they never provide any examples.
>>
>>>>> All the criticisms I see of Snopes boil down to either "they didn't cover
>>>>> my pet peeve, so they're biased" or "they say X isn't true but I believe
>>>>> that it is, so they're liars".
>>
>>>>> So put up: post some examples of Snopes actually lying.
>>

>>>> Google "snopes lies" and we have some 602,000 hits
>>

>>> With THAT many hits, you should be able to come up with just one
>>> "lie."
>>
>>> Let's see it.
>>
>> I Googled "Gunner lies" and got "About 3,650,000 results (0.25 seconds)"

>> I suppose that means he's about six times the liar Snopes is.- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

> LOL...good boy Jeff.
>
> I wondering who would come up with that angle.
>
> As Gummer would say...
>
> <VBG>

As I've explained before, I've taken up trying to meet them at their own
level, even if it is a bit of a strain to stoop that low.

Scout

unread,

May 14, 2012, 8:30:28 PM5/14/12

to

<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:aad0a37a-8300-458d...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 10:30 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Meanwhile you can provide the proof that Obama was not born an
>> American.
>>
>> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>>
>> TMT
>
> I am pretty sure I can find a copy of Obama's birth certificate
> proving that he was born in the U.S.

Sorry, but a copy is only as good as it has been verified against the
original.

unread,

May 15, 2012, 6:22:29 AM5/15/12

to

On 5/9/2012 2:29 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> On May 9, 12:04 am, Ed Huntress<huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 21:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On May 8, 11:11 pm, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
>>>> Fox News doesn't have licenses, dumbass.
>>

>>>> Individual broadcast stations have licenses. Unless Murdoch's name is on

>>>> the license, they can't be pulled for anything he did.
>>
>>>> Cable networks are not licensed.
>>
>>>> "Too Many Tools= a box of hammers, which you are even dumber than.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> "A good march should make a man with a wooden leg want to step out."--
>>
>>>> John Phillip Sousa
>>
>>> LOL...looks like you are the dumbass.
>>
>>> The FBI is already investigating News Corp...criminal charges to
>>> follow.
>>
>>> TMT
>>
>> Fox Broadcasting Company, a subsidiary of News Corp., owns 27 TV
>> stations in the US. News Corp. is publicly traded but Murdoch owns
>> most of the voting shares. He also is Chairman and CEO.
>>
>> So, in theory, the licenses could all be pulled on a "character"
>> decision against Murdoch. But the FCC very rarely has used that
>> provision of the Communications Act of 1934 to actually revoke a
>> license.
>>

>> --
>> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

> I agree Ed...and so the FCC does have a historical hook into Murdoch.
>
> And this is a never say never case....Murdoch had to shut down the 168
> year old paper he had (a very profitable paper) to try to save his
> cable deal...which has not defused the situation. I expect when it
> hits the American shores, it will be like sh*t hitting the fan.
>
> Bribing foreign officials is illegal in the United States and we have
> yet to see those charges bought.
>
> What I am really interested in seeing is what the FBI
> uncovers...within a large company it is common to do stuff in a common
> way...do you really think that the American side of News Corp is any
> different from the British counterpart when they are joined at the
> head by Murdoch?
>
> The other really damning point is that Murdoch is an on hands guy...he
> was involved in the editorial content of the British press and you can
> damn well bet that he has his fingers in it here in the United States.
>
> One only needs to see the increase of Pro-Murdoch articles by right
> wing hacks that are poured into the news stream now to see that News
> Corp is very worried about what is coming their way in the United
> States.
>
> TMT
>

Romney will win 2012, he'll appoint a new AG and probably issue an
order to cease any and all frivolous claim investigations of NewsCorp.
Shades of DoJ vs Microsoft after Bush/Ashcroft stepped in office.

Get over it... EOS.

--
MFB

max headroom

unread,

May 15, 2012, 9:46:59 AM5/15/12

to

Harold Burton <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hal.i.burton-13B1...@news.newsguy.com:

> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Been there, done that, leftard spams inundate right wing spams. Just
> look at YOUR newsgroup headers: rec.crafts.metalworking

And talk.politics.GUNS

Gunner Asch

unread,

May 15, 2012, 11:11:46 AM5/15/12

to

A Censored Race War?

Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell

May 15, 2012

A Censored Race War?

When two white newspaper reporters for the Virginian-Pilot were driving
through Norfolk, and were set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks
-- beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work -- that
might seem to have been news that should have been reported, at least by
their own newspaper. But it wasn't.

"The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel was the first major television
program to report this incident. Yet this story is not just a Norfolk
story, either in what happened or in how the media and the authorities
have tried to sweep it under the rug.

Similar episodes of unprovoked violence by young black gangs against
white people chosen at random on beaches, in shopping malls or in other
public places have occurred in Philadelphia, New York, Denver, Chicago,
Cleveland, Washington, Los Angeles and other places across the country.
Both the authorities and the media tend to try to sweep these episodes
under the rug as well.

In Milwaukee, for example, an attack on whites at a public park a few
years ago left many of the victims battered to the ground and bloody.
But, when the police arrived on the scene, it became clear that the
authorities wanted to keep this quiet.

One 22-year-old woman, who had been robbed of her cell phone and debit
card, and had blood streaming down her face said: "About 20 of us stayed
to give statements and make sure everyone was accounted for. The police
wouldn't listen to us, they wouldn't take our names or statements. They
told us to leave. It was completely infuriating."

The police chief seemed determined to head off any suggestion that this
was a racially motivated attack by saying that crime is colorblind.
Other officials elsewhere have said similar things.

A wave of such attacks in Chicago were reported, but not the race of the
attackers or victims. Media outlets that do not report the race of
people committing crimes nevertheless report racial disparities in
imprisonment and write heated editorials blaming the criminal justice
system.

What the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that
the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on
whites in public places. If there is anything worse than a one-sided
race war, it is a two-sided race war, especially when one of the races
outnumbers the other several times over.

It may be understandable that some people want to head off such a
catastrophe, either by not reporting the attacks in this race war, or
not identifying the race of those attacking, or by insisting that the
attacks were not racially motivated -- even when the attackers
themselves voice anti-white invective as they laugh at their bleeding
victims.

SaPeIsMa

unread,

May 15, 2012, 2:47:24 PM5/15/12

to

<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:aad0a37a-8300-458d...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 10:30 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Meanwhile you can provide the proof that Obama was not born an
>> American.
>>
>> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>>
>> TMT
>
> I am pretty sure I can find a copy of Obama's birth certificate
> proving that he was born in the U.S.
>
>

> Dan
>

LOL
But is it a credible one ?

Too_Many_Tools

unread,

May 15, 2012, 3:17:54 PM5/15/12

to

> MFB- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Nope...Romney will be a footnote in history...like the GOP is quickly
becoming.

TMT

JohnJohnsn

unread,

May 15, 2012, 6:38:34 PM5/15/12

to

Dallas police: Katy Trail robbery suspects may be tied to more than a
dozen area attacks
By Scott Goldstein / Reporter
sgold...@dallasnews.com
1:39 pm on May 14, 2012

Dallas police now say the same men are likely behind more than a dozen
attacks, including three armed robberies on or near the Katy Trail
over the weekend.

In a statement released minutes ago, Dallas police said that on Friday
they first identified at least 11 attacks in the city’s Central Patrol
Division that were likely connected. Four of those attacks were
reported to be near the Katy Trail.

But police officials did not alert the public to those attacks until
after three more armed attacks were reported on or near the popular
trail over the weekend.

Dallas police said they have leads. They provided this description of
the two suspects:

The first suspect is described as a black male, approximately
20 to 30 years old. He is 5’8 – 6’2 tall and weighs 150-160
pounds.
He has been armed with a blue steel semi-automatic handgun.

The second suspect is described as a black male, approximately
20 to 22 years old. His is 5’8 -5’10 tall and weighs
approximately
160 pounds. He may have a gold tooth and moles near his eyes.
He has been armed with a silver colored semi-automatic handgun.

The suspect vehicle is gray/silver 4-door sedan.
The vehicle may be a Chrysler or Chevy Impala.

As for why Dallas police opted not to alert the public about this
series of linked crimes until after three more people were attacked
over the weekend, police said they didn’t want to compromise the
ongoing investigation.

“The Police Department must continually balance the need to inform the
public against releasing information that could jeopardize the
investigation and potential suspect identification,” the statement
said. “Future apprehension could be made more difficult and dangerous
if suspects are alerted to the details of the police investigation.”

-30-

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/05/dallas-police-katy-trail-robbery-suspects-may-be-tied-to-more-than-a-dozen-area-attacks.html/

JohnJohnsn

unread,

May 15, 2012, 6:59:50 PM5/15/12

to

On May 15, 2:17 pm, The_DNC_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools_&_Too_Few_Brains

<too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 15, 5:22 am, Flint <agent...@section31.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2012 2:29 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
>>> On May 9, 12:04 am, Ed Huntress<huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 21:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>>>> <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 11:11 pm, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fox News doesn't have licenses, dumbass.
>
>>>>>> Individual broadcast stations have licenses.
>>>>>> Unless Murdoch's name is on the license, they can't be pulled
>>>>>> for anything he did.
>
>>>>>> Cable networks are not licensed.
>

>>>>>> "Too Many Tools = a box of hammers, which you are even dumber than.

>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "A good march should make a man with a wooden leg want to step out."

>>>>>> --John Phillip Sousa

>
>>>>> LOL...looks like you are the dumbass.
>
>>>>> The FBI is already investigating News Corp...criminal charges to
>>>>> follow.
>
>>>>> TMT
>
>>>> Fox Broadcasting Company, a subsidiary of News Corp., owns 27 TV
>>>> stations in the US. News Corp. is publicly traded but Murdoch owns
>>>> most of the voting shares. He also is Chairman and CEO.
>
>>>> So, in theory, the licenses could all be pulled on a "character"
>>>> decision against Murdoch. But the FCC very rarely has used that
>>>> provision of the Communications Act of 1934 to actually revoke a
>>>> license.
>>>> --
>>>> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>

Tell us, you Useful Idiot of the DNC; since you constantly demonstrate
that you are Too_Stupid_To_Post_To_Usenet, seeing as how you _still_
haven't figured out how to deal with something as simple as that pesky
"Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy, why in the wide wide world
of sports do you think that anyone here would believe you are "smart"
enough to discuss politics, finance, government policy _or_ (T.P.G.-
relevance) GUNS???

^More Tool Fool stupidity^.

>
> Nope...Romney will be a footnote in history...like the GOP is quickly
> becoming.
>

“None so blind as those that will not see.”
--Matthew Henry (1662-1714)

Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 45%, Democrats 38%
Monday, May 14, 2012

Republicans hold a seven-point lead on the Generic Congressional
Ballot for the week ending Sunday, May 12.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% of
Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican in their district’s
congressional race if the election were held today, while 38% would
choose the Democrat instead. This gap is much larger than it has been
for the past three weeks when Republicans led by three but is
consistent with the level of support the GOP has been earning since
early March.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Gray Guest

unread,

May 15, 2012, 7:56:19 PM5/15/12

to

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:760221ad-e640-4207...@ec4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

You know what's going to happen don't you. A pack of these yos is gonna
fuck with the wrong little white girl at some point and you'll have 1 live
white girl and 3 or 4 dead yos. Then what?

Michael A. Terrell

unread,

May 15, 2012, 10:52:26 PM5/15/12

to

SaPeIsMa wrote:

>
> <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
> >
> > I am pretty sure I can find a copy of Obama's birth certificate
> > proving that he was born in the U.S.
>

> LOL
> But is it a credible one ?

Only if you will accept one drawn with a crayon.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.