• 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!

Emails Show WH Tried to Muzzle Sharyl Attkisson

Jack Hays said:
The story has since been picked up broadly in the MSM.
Click to expand...
1) Breitbart and TheBlaze qualify as MSM? Fascinating.

CBS (who runs her column) didn't mention it. NBC doesn't seem to have anything. Not seeing it in CNN. NPR draws a blank.


2) Did you subsequently check the information?

Seriously, dude, it would take you all of 30 seconds to find the relevant emails. Download the PDF (as linked in the 2nd post in this thread), search for "out of control" and you can read it.

I.e. instead of reading tons of right-wing spin about it, would it kill you to actually read it for yourself?
 
Visbek said:
1) Breitbart and TheBlaze qualify as MSM? Fascinating.

CBS (who runs her column) didn't mention it. NBC doesn't seem to have anything. Not seeing it in CNN. NPR draws a blank.


2) Did you subsequently check the information?

Seriously, dude, it would take you all of 30 seconds to find the relevant emails. Download the PDF (as linked in the 2nd post in this thread), search for "out of control" and you can read it.

I.e. instead of reading tons of right-wing spin about it, would it kill you to actually read it for yourself?
Click to expand...

Fox and Daily Mail both picked it up.
 
Jack Hays said:
Fox and Daily Mail both picked it up.
Click to expand...
So that would be "no, I have not read the 3 lines in the emails, I've read lots of spin instead." Thanks for clarifying. :mrgreen:
 
Visbek said:
So that would be "no, I have not read the 3 lines in the emails, I've read lots of spin instead." Thanks for clarifying. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You are free to deny the accuracy of the report if you wish. I fear you will only embarrass yourself.
 
BWWzfc said:
So if Judicial Watch didn't draw the conclusion, then it isn't likely true. Thanks, Mr. Logic. That's about in keeping with the quality of the rest of your argument.



Right, because obviously there's nothing at all to hide. Or something. And we'll just forget about Attkisson being one of the most aggressive journalists going after the F&F story.

Yeah, you appear to just be making stuff up as you go along.
Click to expand...

Who came to this conclusion besides you? Not even Hot Air did. If you came up with something new, tell FoxNews about it.
 
BWWzfc said:
It looks over and over again like you don't process what you read very well and subsequently argue based on ignorance.

Again, read.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...muzzle-sharyl-attkisson-6.html#post1064018219
Click to expand...

I Read it Dude.

If you really think you were correct with what you wrote in your first post, then you need to report it to the media. Here is what you wrote: "So what's the likely explanation? The WH likely screened out all references to "Sharyl" and "Attkisson" before releasing these emails." You can be a hero to right wing.
 
Fast and Furious? Really?

Why does this attempt to hang on to such idle fantasy remind me so much of Linus and the Great Pumpkin?

Great Pumpkin.jpg

The story had zero traction when it was fresh (a zillion news cycles ago)..... it has even less today. Are you out of serious charges to level against the Obama administration? Apparently.
 
Jack Hays said:
One of the documents provides smoking gun proof that the Obama White House and the Eric Holder Justice Department colluded to get CBS News to block reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson was one of the few mainstream media reporters who paid any attention to the deadly gun-running scandal.
Click to expand...

The tragic thing about this story is that this has been going on since the Vietnam War, Air America transporting guns and heroin. Reagan era Iran Contra. Etc.

The war on drugs involves three things, money, drugs, and weapons. Take one away, and the war is won. You got to wonder who the real puppet master is on this issue.
 
TBone said:
The tragic thing about this story is that this has been going on since the Vietnam War, Air America transporting guns and heroin. Reagan era Iran Contra. Etc.

The war on drugs involves three things, money, drugs, and weapons. Take one away, and the war is won. You got to wonder who the real puppet master is on this issue.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that Air America transported drugs.
 
upsideguy said:
Fast and Furious? Really?

Why does this attempt to hang on to such idle fantasy remind me so much of Linus and the Great Pumpkin?

View attachment 67176506

The story had zero traction when it was fresh (a zillion news cycles ago)..... it has even less today. Are you out of serious charges to level against the Obama administration? Apparently.
Click to expand...
The issue isn't whether or not it DID have traction. The issue is whether or not it SHOULD HAVE had traction.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no evidence that Air America transported drugs.
Click to expand...

Of course there is no evidence, it's the CIA. Also, heroin was transported in the coffins of the KIA.
 
pbrauer said:
I Read it Dude.

If you really think you were correct with what you wrote in your first post, then you need to report it to the media. Here is what you wrote: "So what's the likely explanation? The WH likely screened out all references to "Sharyl" and "Attkisson" before releasing these emails." You can be a hero to right wing.
Click to expand...

I'll make myself a hero to the right wing for reporting a "likely" explanation that I plainly said I got from somebody else?

If you read what I wrote and understood it then your subsequent comments count as bizarre.
 
BWWzfc said:
I'll make myself a hero to the right wing for reporting a "likely" explanation that I plainly said I got from somebody else?

If you read what I wrote and understood it then your subsequent comments count as bizarre.
Click to expand...

Where did you get your explanation from somebody else? Here is your first post in this thread:

BWWzfc said:
This quotation is quite damning by implication.

I'm sorry to say I didn't think of this first:
Why is that line so damning of the administration? Because Attkisson's first name is misspelled. And it's the only reference to her, yet she's mentioned as though the subject is an ongoing matter.

So what's the likely explanation? The WH likely screened out all references to "Sharyl" and "Attkisson" before releasing these emails. But what gets through past the screening? The misspelled version of Attkisson's first name.
Click to expand...
 
mpg said:
The issue isn't whether or not it DID have traction. The issue is whether or not it SHOULD HAVE had traction.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have traction because its complete silliness, even sillier than Benghazi or the IRS issue. Look, the government does lots of stupid and silly things. They do not all elevate to "scandal" status.

It amazes me that people wander down these rabbit holes, probably because they get their news from WND and other political porn sites that are there so to manipulate them, knowing they lack the education and/or gray matter to argue the real issues.
 
pbrauer said:
Where did you get your explanation from somebody else? Here is your first post in this thread:
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks for quoting the post I already linked after you spend quite a long time ignoring the part that said "I'm sorry to say I didn't think of this first."

With respect to our conversation, it doesn't matter where I got it (I got it from Power Line blog). What matters is whether it makes sense (it does). People who don't accept those two propositions may be inclined to try to focus on distractions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom