Obviously once the cat is out of the bag more news agencies are going to feel willing to do it.
So the first one is the prick of the litter.
I’ll help you out John, just cut and paste this, it will make your posts quicker and more efficient:
BOTH SIDES ARE EQUAL!!111
Didn’t say that.
Well, it would still streamline posting. 
Eh. I’m on record here bashing conservative positions plenty of times. If you have any posts bashing liberal positions, I’d be surprised.
When Fox News has to face death for what they did, then, yeah, maybe I’ll defend them.
Oh, wait, I guess the motives would have to be as pure as Assange’s, too: he believes very strongly that transparency is vital to government. Fox outed this guy at best to get ratings, and at worse to punish the guy who did something Obama told him to do.
Fox has been very critical of Assange, so obviously they don’t believe in some motive that the news has to be given, no matter how dangerous. It is in fact the hypocrisy that makes it where I might not mind if there were criminal sanctions against Fox.
And I still say that, when I saw Assange’s leaks, there were a lot of black boxes, specifically over names. What happened–did I get a cleaned up copy? (I didn’t actually get it from the Wikileaks site.)
Yes, you fucking did. Your entire argument is that the other side would have done the exact same thing if they’d have figured it out first. It’s the only way your argument that Fox is not to blame for this makes a lick of sense.
If the other side would not have done it, then there would be nothing wrong with writing a tell-all book that didn’t give any identifying details, because it would never leak.
If you’re not going to think through the implications of what you say, why say it?
You think Assange was responsible for any of those black boxes? If so, you’re even more stupid than most people think you are.
And just for the record, as I’ve said in multiple threads, I have no problem with what Assange did. I probably wouldn’t have done it myself, but he’s not a US citizen and he has no reason to defer to the US government.
Time to have an impression affirmed, or discarded. I am under the impression that the same people who were spreading the stuff about Obama being indecisive and weak about the mission were nodding towards this guy for confirmation. Like they already know what it says? Or are the two entirely unconnected?
Is there any “backstory” connection between those rumors and this book? Or sheer coincidence?
While the leaked information may have been censored already, the WikiLeaks documentary claims they had a team of people redacting certain things in order to protect identities. That may have been after the first wave of criticism though.
As for the dog thing: it’s a cultural artefact. A friend said he couldn’t touch anything with a wet nose and there are hadith about angels not entering houses with dogs, but it appears Malaysians are particularly strict on this point.
Cite?
Actually, this might be a fun game. **John **names one post of his bashing a conservative position, and I come up with two posts of his bashing liberal positions. First person who comes up short in a two-day period agrees to quit posting for a year. Deal?
So you don’t get the outrage? I don’t get your point. Since the guy wrote the book (and I agree he shouldn’t have) this revelation of his identity is fine and dandy?
Fox News has been criticizing the guy for writing the book because it could possibly put his family, his team members, and their families in danger; and then they themselves greatly increased that danger through their own actions. And you don’t get the outrage?
And you believe that they would have done so even if it wasn’t already public knowledge?
I don’t think that the Navy Seal should have written a tell-all in the first place. Nor do I think FoxNews should have reported his real name.
However, the Navy Seal was really stupid if he thought that his name wouldn’t eventually be uncovered. I assume he’s made the necessary precautions.
I post when I have something to say. I don’t particularly feel the need to pile on when some Dem does something stupid so I can maintain some bizarre bullshit balance aura.
You want to know where I diverge from Dem policy? I like nuclear power. I happen to agree with them on social and economic issues, because I’m sane and educated. Recently the Dems have become the party of moderate policy. There literally isn’t much to hate in their platform. Whereas the Pubs want to make America into a The Handmaid’s Tale Themepark and in a time of vast income disparity they want to pursue tax policy that would make it worse and raise the deficit, and go to war with Iran and start a trade war with China!
So if it seems like I harp on the Pubs more, its because they’re actively pursuing stupid policy across the board.
You, on the other hand, have some pathological need to defend the right when they are actively engaged in stupidity. You’re the most reasonable of the conservative posters on this board, but I suspect you just can’t stand it when you see liberals circling the party you used to love.
In summation, FOX News is a bunch of shitheels and you don’t need to defend them. Kay?
I was going to quote certain sections of Lobohans post, but I agree with all of it. I was going to mention that I don’t totally agree with them on gun control, immigration, and drug laws, but I either don’t agree with the GOP on those issues either, or they are not a very high agenda item at the moment. But in general, it’s not a left versus right issue any more. It’s a sane versus insane issue.
Its low and despicable. Its unacceptable.
[slight-hijack]
FOX is more than news; its a network and over the years I’ve enjoyed more than a few shows they’ve had. They employ some truly cool and talented people in their entertainment divisions and I’ve loved their performances and work in the past. But in the past 15 years,
the news division has been a cancer in the US. Its spoils, distorts and destroys everything it touches, and it is funded by a handful of those same amazing shows.
I can’t watch FOX now. It would be like snorting coke, smiling, & whining about all those ‘bad cartels’ killing people south of the border. Someday, when I find a way to see some of these programs without putting money into the pockets of an organization
who would do this (and tap your phones with impunity, by the way), I hope to see them & post how good this or that episode of that show was.
People, its not You. Its who you work for.
[/slight-hijack]
“Its not Treason; its FOX…!”
Thank you Lobohan. Ludovic also. At this point this is an issue of sanity versus insanity.
A year ago I might have thought that mention of The Handmaid’s Tale was a bit of hyperbole, but no more.
I agree. I don’t think you’re one of the posters who just follows whatever is the conservative line.
But I disagree with you on this issue. I think Fox made the wrong call. The author of this book isn’t a major public figure and there are legitimate reasons to think his life would be endangered by having his identity revealed. Under those circumstances, I don’t see how Fox felt revealing his name was a necessary and newsworthy decision. What does knowing his real name add to the reporting that wouldn’t exist if they used his pseudonym?
It’s a SCOOP, duh.