Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
This story has legs
- Thread starter MeeMie
- Start date
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Using my legs, running the other way.nice legs, you have there LIAR
whatcha doin tonight????????????
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Journolist legitimizes corrupt media claims
When news first broke that The Daily Caller had obtained documents and other such evidence asserting that a left-wing journalist listserv had plotted to cover up controversial stories revolving around then candidate Barack Obama’s pastor, as well conspire to destroy the lives of anyone who opposes their agenda, most Americans probably shrugged it off realizing this is simply old news.
After all, conservatives and traditional Americans alike, have come to accept (like it or not) the reality that they are indisputably hated by the mainstream media.
But something else happened. Professionals all across the so-called journalism industry took a step back and realized just how badly the industry is faltering.
And this new evidence that has been brought to the public’s attention is the most damaging.
This newfound realization came to a pinnacle this week after the truth was let out that mainstream media journalists have in fact abandoned any code of ethic.
Mainstream media outlets including, but not limited to newspapers are struggling badly and have been for a long time. Many experts blame the overall economy but this particular brand of “state-run” media is the biggest reason for the industries hard times. The solution to the problem is not a revised business model, but a revised ethical and ideological structure of fair conduct; something progressives loathe.
In other words, until journalists start reporting the news in an objective manner, the industry can forget about vast financial growth in the near future.
Not only is this kind of journalism bad for business, it is more importantly dangerous for democracy, not because these so-called journalists harbor far-left views, but because they knowingly and unashamedly bury stories that will hurt public figures who share the same beliefs.
Ultimately, this is the kind of behavior that has resulted in scores of Americans canceling their newspaper subscriptions and turning the channel from their once favorite nightly news broadcast.
Americans want fair and objective coverage. They do not want radical progressive activists who pose as objective reporters in order to embark on a journey of leftist social engineering.
Modern journalism in our country today takes a backseat to what was once referred to as a business of integrity. In fact, it ranks up there around that annoying piece of toilet paper stuck to your shoe as you leave the public restroom.
However, for now we have to deal with the very real fact that American media could very well be completely corrupt to an unprecedented level.
Burying controversial stories in order to advance a political agenda doesn’t change the nature of the story or the outcome of the individual or organization. The bad guys will always be the bad guys no matter how many times they are swept under the rug.
In order to get a better picture of the exact level of hatred and disgust American journalists have climbed too, I find myself reflecting back on a very powerful statement a former colleague of mine once said.
“Liberalism is not taught in journalism school, it is expected.”
Ashley Stinnett is registered with the Associated Press, and is a nationally syndicated columnist.
When news first broke that The Daily Caller had obtained documents and other such evidence asserting that a left-wing journalist listserv had plotted to cover up controversial stories revolving around then candidate Barack Obama’s pastor, as well conspire to destroy the lives of anyone who opposes their agenda, most Americans probably shrugged it off realizing this is simply old news.
After all, conservatives and traditional Americans alike, have come to accept (like it or not) the reality that they are indisputably hated by the mainstream media.
But something else happened. Professionals all across the so-called journalism industry took a step back and realized just how badly the industry is faltering.
And this new evidence that has been brought to the public’s attention is the most damaging.
This newfound realization came to a pinnacle this week after the truth was let out that mainstream media journalists have in fact abandoned any code of ethic.
Mainstream media outlets including, but not limited to newspapers are struggling badly and have been for a long time. Many experts blame the overall economy but this particular brand of “state-run” media is the biggest reason for the industries hard times. The solution to the problem is not a revised business model, but a revised ethical and ideological structure of fair conduct; something progressives loathe.
In other words, until journalists start reporting the news in an objective manner, the industry can forget about vast financial growth in the near future.
Not only is this kind of journalism bad for business, it is more importantly dangerous for democracy, not because these so-called journalists harbor far-left views, but because they knowingly and unashamedly bury stories that will hurt public figures who share the same beliefs.
Ultimately, this is the kind of behavior that has resulted in scores of Americans canceling their newspaper subscriptions and turning the channel from their once favorite nightly news broadcast.
Americans want fair and objective coverage. They do not want radical progressive activists who pose as objective reporters in order to embark on a journey of leftist social engineering.
Modern journalism in our country today takes a backseat to what was once referred to as a business of integrity. In fact, it ranks up there around that annoying piece of toilet paper stuck to your shoe as you leave the public restroom.
However, for now we have to deal with the very real fact that American media could very well be completely corrupt to an unprecedented level.
Burying controversial stories in order to advance a political agenda doesn’t change the nature of the story or the outcome of the individual or organization. The bad guys will always be the bad guys no matter how many times they are swept under the rug.
In order to get a better picture of the exact level of hatred and disgust American journalists have climbed too, I find myself reflecting back on a very powerful statement a former colleague of mine once said.
“Liberalism is not taught in journalism school, it is expected.”
Ashley Stinnett is registered with the Associated Press, and is a nationally syndicated columnist.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Absence of integrity characterized Journolist scandal
The Daily Caller’s revelation that hundreds of liberal journalists, professors, and activists had participated in an ongoing dialogue with one another lamenting the treatment of candidate Barack Obama throughout the 2008 presidential election has left an unsettling impression in its wake.
Not surprising is the notion that traditional media outlets and those within academia have long seemed at least tacitly inclined toward a left-of-center position.
Surprising, however, was the extent to which acrimony toward conservatives and outright enthusiasm for liberals distinguished the online correspondence to which many participants within the discussion group known as Journolist engaged.
Our nation has long obtained its information from public sources. In a free, open and democratic society where the people greatly influence the affairs of government, information is of great import. The direction by which public sentiment flows is largely predicated on the information obtained through public sources. When the veracity of that information appears dubious it should mark a moment of collective concern among the people, irrespective of their ideological leanings.
When an individual is unapologetic and open about their political persuasions it is neither extraordinary nor unexpected when the content of their work suggests an obvious political inclination.
When an individual, however, operates under a veil of implied objectivity, as naturally one expects those deemed as “journalists” to operate, the fairness of their work should be presumed.
It is when the distinction between journalism and partisan punditry becomes blurred that faith in the credibility of our system of information dissemination becomes corrupt.
In using their positions within the media to advance a partisan agenda while ostensibly working within the framework of journalistic integrity, those implicated in the Journolist scandal sacrificed both their credibility within the profession and the very integrity upon which one’s standing as a journalist rests.
By Scott Erickson
The Daily Caller’s revelation that hundreds of liberal journalists, professors, and activists had participated in an ongoing dialogue with one another lamenting the treatment of candidate Barack Obama throughout the 2008 presidential election has left an unsettling impression in its wake.
Not surprising is the notion that traditional media outlets and those within academia have long seemed at least tacitly inclined toward a left-of-center position.
Surprising, however, was the extent to which acrimony toward conservatives and outright enthusiasm for liberals distinguished the online correspondence to which many participants within the discussion group known as Journolist engaged.
Our nation has long obtained its information from public sources. In a free, open and democratic society where the people greatly influence the affairs of government, information is of great import. The direction by which public sentiment flows is largely predicated on the information obtained through public sources. When the veracity of that information appears dubious it should mark a moment of collective concern among the people, irrespective of their ideological leanings.
When an individual is unapologetic and open about their political persuasions it is neither extraordinary nor unexpected when the content of their work suggests an obvious political inclination.
When an individual, however, operates under a veil of implied objectivity, as naturally one expects those deemed as “journalists” to operate, the fairness of their work should be presumed.
It is when the distinction between journalism and partisan punditry becomes blurred that faith in the credibility of our system of information dissemination becomes corrupt.
In using their positions within the media to advance a partisan agenda while ostensibly working within the framework of journalistic integrity, those implicated in the Journolist scandal sacrificed both their credibility within the profession and the very integrity upon which one’s standing as a journalist rests.
By Scott Erickson
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
How much transparency can we handle?
We knew that the Internet was going to bring transparency. Now we are seeing concrete examples of what that means in the flesh-and-blood world.
The idea behind the smear campaigns against Governor Palin was to make her feel such shame that she would leave politics behind.
The journalists who described plans to coordinate unjustified charges of racism against selected conservatives need to be held accountable.
They have failed to satisfy the most basic standards not only of journalism (where fairness should be given a special focus) but of civilized human life.
It is by holding such people accountable that we as a society signal what sorts of behavior we will tolerate. Smear campaigns rooted in unjust charges of racism are obviously not to be tolerated.
The Journolist participants were lying to themselves that they were pursuing legitimate journalistic aims when they really were just giving in to the most base human desires — they wanted revenge on a group of people (conservatives) who had come to be viewed as something less than human in their eyes.
The story hits like a strong punch because we have rarely seen such naked contempt for decency given evidence in public speech before.
By Rob Bennett
We knew that the Internet was going to bring transparency. Now we are seeing concrete examples of what that means in the flesh-and-blood world.
The idea behind the smear campaigns against Governor Palin was to make her feel such shame that she would leave politics behind.
The journalists who described plans to coordinate unjustified charges of racism against selected conservatives need to be held accountable.
They have failed to satisfy the most basic standards not only of journalism (where fairness should be given a special focus) but of civilized human life.
It is by holding such people accountable that we as a society signal what sorts of behavior we will tolerate. Smear campaigns rooted in unjust charges of racism are obviously not to be tolerated.
The Journolist participants were lying to themselves that they were pursuing legitimate journalistic aims when they really were just giving in to the most base human desires — they wanted revenge on a group of people (conservatives) who had come to be viewed as something less than human in their eyes.
The story hits like a strong punch because we have rarely seen such naked contempt for decency given evidence in public speech before.
By Rob Bennett
Wrong Element
Sentient Onion
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 24,909
So in what dimension of space/time was the Rev. Wright story "buried?" As conspiracies go, this one was right up there with the Nancy Kerrigan kneecapping in terms of effectiveness.
Luk
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Posts
- 32,404
Keep kicking it, this lame-ass thread is going on iggy after this post. Ha!
Wrong Element
Sentient Onion
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 24,909
Just for the record, and speaking as someone who has been around the edges of journalism for a little while, I don't think journalists should get together and "coordinate" stories, especially when you're talking about a political campaign. After all, you're supposed to be in competition to some extent.
There's nothing wrong with like-minded people chatting about profession-related issues like you see on any other listserv. And you're not going to stop people who write opinions for a living from saying things that further what they believe in. But if you find yourself thinking in terms that go "what's going to help Candidate X get elected?" then you probably should go into opposition research officially.
But let's get a few things straight about this supposed vast left-wing conspiracy:
* It wasn't very widespread.
* It was almost completely ineffective (the Wright story wasn't buried at all).
* Much of what was said privately mirrors stuff that these writers all said publicly. So what if they ripped the infamous ABC Pennsylvania primary debate? So did I. It was almost certainly the worst-moderated debate in history. It would be amazing if no one had said a single critical thing about it.
* Almost everyone referenced in the stories is an avowed liberal that works on the opinion side of journalism, not as a beat reporter. I didn't need the Daily Caller to tell me that Joe Conason and Spencer Ackerman were hoping Obama won the election.
*Finally, it's amusing to see liberals facing these charges of conspiracy, when they couldn't come close to matching the rampant coordination on the right if their lives depended on it (it's not in the liberal temperament to go along with a party line. Remember who it is in our politics that uses the term "dittohead"). Anyone who believes that it's a coincidence that Matt Drudge, talk radio, the Fox News Channel, and Republican congressional offices all just happen to push the exact same stories in the exact same way at the exact same time (often using the exact same words) is kidding themselves.
And for someone who gets nearly all his ideas for new threads from the Drudge Report to be bitching about this alleged conspiracy...well, the irony speaks for itself.
There's nothing wrong with like-minded people chatting about profession-related issues like you see on any other listserv. And you're not going to stop people who write opinions for a living from saying things that further what they believe in. But if you find yourself thinking in terms that go "what's going to help Candidate X get elected?" then you probably should go into opposition research officially.
But let's get a few things straight about this supposed vast left-wing conspiracy:
* It wasn't very widespread.
* It was almost completely ineffective (the Wright story wasn't buried at all).
* Much of what was said privately mirrors stuff that these writers all said publicly. So what if they ripped the infamous ABC Pennsylvania primary debate? So did I. It was almost certainly the worst-moderated debate in history. It would be amazing if no one had said a single critical thing about it.
* Almost everyone referenced in the stories is an avowed liberal that works on the opinion side of journalism, not as a beat reporter. I didn't need the Daily Caller to tell me that Joe Conason and Spencer Ackerman were hoping Obama won the election.
*Finally, it's amusing to see liberals facing these charges of conspiracy, when they couldn't come close to matching the rampant coordination on the right if their lives depended on it (it's not in the liberal temperament to go along with a party line. Remember who it is in our politics that uses the term "dittohead"). Anyone who believes that it's a coincidence that Matt Drudge, talk radio, the Fox News Channel, and Republican congressional offices all just happen to push the exact same stories in the exact same way at the exact same time (often using the exact same words) is kidding themselves.
And for someone who gets nearly all his ideas for new threads from the Drudge Report to be bitching about this alleged conspiracy...well, the irony speaks for itself.
JENisAmoron
Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2010
- Posts
- 68
well stated wrong element...
the "right" preaches from the same "bible" of nonsense...someone types up an opinion piece and then quickly faxes it to the major players...in terms of tactics...is it one talking head that does the thinking?...is editing/discussing allowed?....i think that there probably a few "wizards" that derive their talking points....it is amazing, wrong element, that the same catchy phrases circulate at the same time....lovely timing
two questions for jen - 1. what was your favorite class in college?....and 2. in any given 10 minute exchange with another person...as you speak to them, in person of course, how many times do you say the word "like"...thx in advance for your responses...
the "right" preaches from the same "bible" of nonsense...someone types up an opinion piece and then quickly faxes it to the major players...in terms of tactics...is it one talking head that does the thinking?...is editing/discussing allowed?....i think that there probably a few "wizards" that derive their talking points....it is amazing, wrong element, that the same catchy phrases circulate at the same time....lovely timing
two questions for jen - 1. what was your favorite class in college?....and 2. in any given 10 minute exchange with another person...as you speak to them, in person of course, how many times do you say the word "like"...thx in advance for your responses...
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
why do you hate to read the truth about the liberal media ?
there'll be no consequences , professional or otherwise , for these revelations .
those named should come out and flaunt their bias . they should bask in it . perhaps they'll be toasted in a dinner because of their HATRED for Conservatives and their willingness to DESTROY anyone with an unsubstantiated smear to get their Messiah elected .
You should subscribe to The Baltimore Sun to show your support , Merc.
Make'em a " friend " on Facebook
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
ZZ Top dedicated a song to her I think...
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
I think it was Rod Stewart.
U
unregistered
Guest
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Christ, a journalistic apologia worthy of St. Paul's defense of Christianity.
HAHA!
Crazy, isn't it?
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Journolist Equals Journalistic Corruption
Don't make excuses for the Journolisters. They subverted journalism and the pursuit of truth for politics and the pursuit of power.
John Tabin has entered the fray over Journolist, the now-defunct secret listserve of several hundred liberal journalists, activists and academics. Tabin agrees that much of what the Daily Caller has reported about this cabal is extremely troubling and reprehensible. To wit:
• the Journolisters' attempt, during the 2008 presidential campaign to kill and bury stories about Obama's relationship with "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright;
• their push to deliberately smear innocent conservative journalists and politicos as "racists" and "bigots";
• their twisted passion to see Rush Limbaugh killed off and dead;
• their intolerant desire to have the government censor and shut down Fox News; and
• their baldly partisan effort to coordinate liberal talking points that would discredit Sarah Palin and John McCain, while helping to elect Barack Obama president.
Now, Tabin agrees that this is all very bad and certainly wrong for journalists who purport to be independent and fair-minded. However, he insists, "these people were buffoons." They were "utterly ridiculous" and thus should not be taken seriously.
I might agree with Tabin if the Journolisters were solitary bloggers venting in the backwoods in lonely isolation. But in point of fact, they were not.
The Journolisters are professionally employed journalists who work at some of America's most prestigious and influential newsrooms: the Washington Post, New York Times, National Public Radio, New Republic, Time, Newsweek, et al. Thus, they wield tremendous cultural clout and influence.
Sure, the execution of their efforts may have been "comical," as Tabin suggests; however, their intent clearly was not. It was underhanded, deceptive and antithetical to everything a journalist is supposed to be and to represent.
The Journolisters' intent was underhanded because their listserve and its contents were kept secret and hidden from public view. Yet, the Journolisters engaged the public dialogue, and the American people, under the guise of being nonpartisan truth seekers.
But thanks to the Daily Caller's lone and courageous reporting -- for which Jonathan Strong ought to get (but of course never will get) a Pulitzer Prize -- we now know that this was a complete lie. The Journolisters were essentially political activists and political tools.
Indeed, they viewed themselves as members of an enlightened and progressive Democratic Party team. And they went to Journolist to find political support and intellectual sustenance.
Of course, the problem is not that the Journolisters had decided political opinions. Most journalists do, after all. I certainly do (although unlike the Journolisters, I lean to the right, not the far left). The problem is that these so-called journalists allowed their professional judgment and actions to be co-opted by partisan zeal and partisan hackery. And they did this in secret, unbeknownst, it seems, to their employers and the public.
I'm sorry, but I don't find this "comical." I find it disturbing -- and also sadly telling about the state of the legacy media in America.
Tabin protests that not everyone on Journolist behaved in such an appalling fashion, only its "craziest members" like Spencer Ackerman. This may be true; however, it's utterly irrelevant. Every political group or movement, after all, is led by a vanguard of activists who set its tone and agenda.
The fact is that Journolist was a secret left-wing cabal which deliberately excluded from its ranks anyone with known conservative views. It was an attempt, as even lefty blogger Andrew Sullivan has observed, to socialize liberal journalistic group think and to develop a common journalistic orthodoxy that would serve Barack Obama and the liberal agenda.
Did the Journolisters argue and debate amongst themselves? Of course they did. They sometimes disagreed over political tactics and how best to use their journalistic platforms to advance the goals and objectives of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. They also disagreed about how best to demonize and discredit their (conservative) political opponents. But so what? What does this prove?
Well, Journolist coconspirator Jonathan Chait, for one, thinks this proves their innocence! But in fact, all it proves is that when it comes to propagandizing the public, liberal "journalists" have differing approaches or strategies. Some, like Wired magazine's Spencer Ackerman, advocate a radical, in-your-face approach, while others, such as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, advocate a softer and more subtle approach.
But what Ackerman, Klein and most other Journolisters all have in common is a desire to subvert journalism and the pursuit of truth for politics and the pursuit of power. This makes them corrupt; and this makes the legacy media in which they work equally corrupt.
And, contra Tabin, all of the mundane and inane chatter on Journolist does not negate this corruption. To the contrary: it shows how commonplace and widely accepted such corruption has become in America's elite newsrooms.
But thanks to the Internet, personal computers and smart phones, left-wing control of the media is fast coming to an end. The old order is collapsing; it is about to be overthrown; and a virtual media with new and more promising possibilities is fast emerging. Indeed, Journolist is the last gasp of a dying media empire.
Good riddance.
Don't make excuses for the Journolisters. They subverted journalism and the pursuit of truth for politics and the pursuit of power.
John Tabin has entered the fray over Journolist, the now-defunct secret listserve of several hundred liberal journalists, activists and academics. Tabin agrees that much of what the Daily Caller has reported about this cabal is extremely troubling and reprehensible. To wit:
• the Journolisters' attempt, during the 2008 presidential campaign to kill and bury stories about Obama's relationship with "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright;
• their push to deliberately smear innocent conservative journalists and politicos as "racists" and "bigots";
• their twisted passion to see Rush Limbaugh killed off and dead;
• their intolerant desire to have the government censor and shut down Fox News; and
• their baldly partisan effort to coordinate liberal talking points that would discredit Sarah Palin and John McCain, while helping to elect Barack Obama president.
Now, Tabin agrees that this is all very bad and certainly wrong for journalists who purport to be independent and fair-minded. However, he insists, "these people were buffoons." They were "utterly ridiculous" and thus should not be taken seriously.
I might agree with Tabin if the Journolisters were solitary bloggers venting in the backwoods in lonely isolation. But in point of fact, they were not.
The Journolisters are professionally employed journalists who work at some of America's most prestigious and influential newsrooms: the Washington Post, New York Times, National Public Radio, New Republic, Time, Newsweek, et al. Thus, they wield tremendous cultural clout and influence.
Sure, the execution of their efforts may have been "comical," as Tabin suggests; however, their intent clearly was not. It was underhanded, deceptive and antithetical to everything a journalist is supposed to be and to represent.
The Journolisters' intent was underhanded because their listserve and its contents were kept secret and hidden from public view. Yet, the Journolisters engaged the public dialogue, and the American people, under the guise of being nonpartisan truth seekers.
But thanks to the Daily Caller's lone and courageous reporting -- for which Jonathan Strong ought to get (but of course never will get) a Pulitzer Prize -- we now know that this was a complete lie. The Journolisters were essentially political activists and political tools.
Indeed, they viewed themselves as members of an enlightened and progressive Democratic Party team. And they went to Journolist to find political support and intellectual sustenance.
Of course, the problem is not that the Journolisters had decided political opinions. Most journalists do, after all. I certainly do (although unlike the Journolisters, I lean to the right, not the far left). The problem is that these so-called journalists allowed their professional judgment and actions to be co-opted by partisan zeal and partisan hackery. And they did this in secret, unbeknownst, it seems, to their employers and the public.
I'm sorry, but I don't find this "comical." I find it disturbing -- and also sadly telling about the state of the legacy media in America.
Tabin protests that not everyone on Journolist behaved in such an appalling fashion, only its "craziest members" like Spencer Ackerman. This may be true; however, it's utterly irrelevant. Every political group or movement, after all, is led by a vanguard of activists who set its tone and agenda.
The fact is that Journolist was a secret left-wing cabal which deliberately excluded from its ranks anyone with known conservative views. It was an attempt, as even lefty blogger Andrew Sullivan has observed, to socialize liberal journalistic group think and to develop a common journalistic orthodoxy that would serve Barack Obama and the liberal agenda.
Did the Journolisters argue and debate amongst themselves? Of course they did. They sometimes disagreed over political tactics and how best to use their journalistic platforms to advance the goals and objectives of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. They also disagreed about how best to demonize and discredit their (conservative) political opponents. But so what? What does this prove?
Well, Journolist coconspirator Jonathan Chait, for one, thinks this proves their innocence! But in fact, all it proves is that when it comes to propagandizing the public, liberal "journalists" have differing approaches or strategies. Some, like Wired magazine's Spencer Ackerman, advocate a radical, in-your-face approach, while others, such as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, advocate a softer and more subtle approach.
But what Ackerman, Klein and most other Journolisters all have in common is a desire to subvert journalism and the pursuit of truth for politics and the pursuit of power. This makes them corrupt; and this makes the legacy media in which they work equally corrupt.
And, contra Tabin, all of the mundane and inane chatter on Journolist does not negate this corruption. To the contrary: it shows how commonplace and widely accepted such corruption has become in America's elite newsrooms.
But thanks to the Internet, personal computers and smart phones, left-wing control of the media is fast coming to an end. The old order is collapsing; it is about to be overthrown; and a virtual media with new and more promising possibilities is fast emerging. Indeed, Journolist is the last gasp of a dying media empire.
Good riddance.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Considering that Journolist included journalists from Washington Post, the New York Times, National Public Radio, New Republic, and Time, one has to wonder if the biggest story covered up in 2008 was the illegal coordination between ACORN and the Obama campaign.
Revealed: The Obama Donor List
Below is a screen shot from the newly released Obama 2nd quarter 2007 donor list. ACORN obtained this donor list from the Obama Campaign in 2007 to target maxed out presidential donors.
As a confidential source for the New York Times, I turned this document over to reporter Stephanie Strom months before the 2008 presidential elections and though the list includes information more complete than what the Obama campaign turned over to the Federal Election Commission, the NYT decided to bury the story.
http://emergingcorruption.com/?p=100
Revealed: The Obama Donor List
Below is a screen shot from the newly released Obama 2nd quarter 2007 donor list. ACORN obtained this donor list from the Obama Campaign in 2007 to target maxed out presidential donors.
As a confidential source for the New York Times, I turned this document over to reporter Stephanie Strom months before the 2008 presidential elections and though the list includes information more complete than what the Obama campaign turned over to the Federal Election Commission, the NYT decided to bury the story.
http://emergingcorruption.com/?p=100
U
unregistered
Guest
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Now we have a list of Americans from which we can demand apologies for the election of Barack Obama, the subsequent violence done to the Constitution, and the damage to the nation.
It's a good bet that many on the list are NOT Americans ... or, at least in disquise.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2010/01/25/call-for-an-audit-of-obamas-campaign-finances/
Back when Obama was running for President, I broke a number of campaign donation stories that should have blown the race wide open. The Obama campaign committed the most egregious violations of election contribution laws, and they were dismissed with a wave of the hand. Millions came in from foreign countries — which is illegal: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.”
.... Gaza was not alone. The contributions came from over 50 nations. And many seemed intent on skirting campaign finance laws: Obama’s foreign contributors were making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances — but others were aggregating in excess of the maximums when their contributions were all added up. Other donations came in from donors with names such as “Hbkjb,” “jkbkj,” and “Doodad.” Also, thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents. This was evidence of foreign contributors sending in donations in foreign currencies that exchanged into odd amounts. Americans living overseas would almost uniformly be able to contribute dollars, in set amounts.
.... The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...nce-08-campaign-enables-obama-foreign-campaig
Back when Obama was running for President, I broke a number of campaign donation stories that should have blown the race wide open. The Obama campaign committed the most egregious violations of election contribution laws, and they were dismissed with a wave of the hand. Millions came in from foreign countries — which is illegal: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.”
.... Gaza was not alone. The contributions came from over 50 nations. And many seemed intent on skirting campaign finance laws: Obama’s foreign contributors were making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances — but others were aggregating in excess of the maximums when their contributions were all added up. Other donations came in from donors with names such as “Hbkjb,” “jkbkj,” and “Doodad.” Also, thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents. This was evidence of foreign contributors sending in donations in foreign currencies that exchanged into odd amounts. Americans living overseas would almost uniformly be able to contribute dollars, in set amounts.
.... The Obama campaign received a substantial amount of money from countries that have an interest in seeing a weak American President: $366,708.22 from China; $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates; $7,062.60 from Russia; and $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia. Obama also took in $6,350.00 from Indonesia; $5,000.00 from Kenya; and $1,750.00 from Egypt.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...nce-08-campaign-enables-obama-foreign-campaig
statsultan
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Posts
- 150
Damn straight. Down with Andrew Breitbart!
