AG Holder fires back

[Mike1234567]

I agree that, in this case, racism is a completely separate issue. If it's present then deal with it swifty and harshly... but separately.

 

[Neverwinter]

Your reference to every substantiation as being unsubstantiated because you say so is duly noted.

A reminder to the readers of the initial claims regarding coverage of OF&F:

The L.A. Times has had some front-page coverage of OF&F also. But these infrequent spurts of coverage do not mitigate either the perception or the reality that the "news" services, by and large, are ignoring a story that, had the sitting administration been Republican, would have been trumpeted day-in and day-out as the Federal Crime of the Century.

Despite the fact that criminal laws were broken and we have an incompetent and corrupt person sitting as Attorney General, the News Media is downplaying the story. Just pretend, that this had happened under President Bush and the Attorney General was John Ashcroft? Do you really think the News Media would be soft pedaling the story then?

I have provided my counterexample to disprove those claims: Gonzales was caught in a similarly questionable position leading to his resignation, yet with so little media coverage that posts showed complete ignorance of those facts. Making a personal attack claiming that I am "simply delusional in a viewing-world-through-leftist-prism sort of way" does nothing to refute the counterexample. The hypothesis supported by the counterexample can be easily invalidated; the posters could admit that they are so disconnected from media coverage that they were never subjected to the day-in-day-out trumpeting that which they claim to have occurred. The supposed insufficient coverage of OF&F seems to share the same characteristic as the Gonzales scandals.

By the way -- interesting lack of denial on your part as to your leftist world-view...

It's not very THR to make personal attacks, or to respond to them seriously.

In other words, previous GOP AG's took bipartisan heat, while Democrats circle their wagons around their AG in the face of outrageous conduct...That also is duly noted.

They did this before the closing of the Congressional hearings, but it involved reasons which were not under consideration for the hearings.

The fact that Holder attempted to blame the fallout on race...or at least partially on race...is irrelevant. It just hows his desperation, but the truth of the matter is, even if some of the criticism of his operations come from those with racist beliefs....the criticisms themselves are largely valid. Rather than address the validity of that criticism, he attempts to deflect it with the race card....which, to me, speaks volumes about the man's character...or lack thereof.

Is the willingness to comment to a reporter on the racism faced by the administration is a deflection of OF&F? The NYTimes article is one story. By now, the news media who are such willing puppets of the administration should have amped up coverage to facilitate the deflection of the criticisms...

 

[JFrame]

A reminder to the readers of the initial claims regarding coverage of OF&F:

Andrea Mitchell -- is that you?

Only one who is either willfully blind or a dedicated leftist would even attempt to argue that there is no left-wing media bias in regard to the coverage (or lack thereof) of OF&F, or pretty much any other issue.

Fortunately, I doubt anyone on this thread or elsewhere is swayed by your attempts at obfuscation.


.

 

[LongTimeGone]

Andrea Mitchell -- is that you?

Perfect!!

 

[Neverwinter]

Andrea Mitchell -- is that you?

Only one who is either willfully blind or a dedicated leftist would even attempt to argue that there is no left-wing media bias in regard to the coverage (or lack thereof) of OF&F, or pretty much any other issue.

Fortunately, I doubt anyone on this thread or elsewhere is swayed by your attempts at obfuscation.

Checking claims and catching people in their own contradiction is obfuscation?

Let me warn you now, there's no threshold at which ad homs transform into valid arguments, mate.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[JFrame]

Checking claims and catching people in their own contradiction is obfuscation?

Let me warn you now, there's no threshold at which ad homs transform into valid arguments, mate.

Sent using Tapatalk

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah -- and, oh yeah -- blah.

Our respective positions have been captured, ad nauseum, on this thread, and can stand on their own merits, or lack thereof.

Based on the observations being posted by others on this thread, your position has no credibility or traction -- mate.


.

 

[PowerG]

Checking claims and catching people in their own contradiction is obfuscation?

Let me warn you now, there's no threshold at which ad homs transform into valid arguments, mate.

Sent using Tapatalk

Indeed.

In fact the "Gonzalez-Gate" scandal was either at or near the top of the news rotation for much of the duration of the story.

"The people paying the most attention are journalists, according to PEJ’s News Coverage Index. The fallout over the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys was not only the biggest story last week, March 18-23, it really amounts at this point to a mega story. Filling 18% of the overall newshole, it was the second-biggest story of the year. The only one to receive more coverage was the debate over the Iraq war, which filled 34% of the newshole the week in January when President Bush announced his troop “surge” plan."

http://www.journalism.org/node/4733

A snapshot of the New York Times coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21mon1.html?ref=albertorgonzales

And all this uproar over the fact that Gonzalez requested the resignation of eight (8) U.S. Attorneys, despite the fact that in 1993 Janet Reno did the same for all but one of the 93 people occupying the same position at the time Clinton assumed the Presidency.

The media coverage, by any measure, is radically different.

 

[publius]

Gonzales was caught in a similarly questionable position leading to his resignation, yet with so little media coverage that posts showed complete ignorance of those facts.

Not all that similar, apparently. The New York Times called for Gonzales to be impeached.

Here is what they had to say, all of which applies equally to Holder (except they will never call for his impeachment)

The right of Congress to demand explanations imposes on the president, and on inferior executive officers who speak for him, the obligation to be truthful. An attorney general called before Congress to discuss the workings of the Justice Department can claim the protection of “executive privilege” and, if challenged, can defend the (doubtful) legitimacy of such a claim in the courts. But having elected to testify, he has no right to lie, either by affirmatively misrepresenting facts or by falsely claiming not to remember events. Lying to Congress is a felony — actually three felonies: perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.

 

[jerkface11]

Gonzales was caught in a similarly questionable position leading to his resignation, yet with so little media coverage that posts showed complete ignorance of those facts.

Firing people is similar to arming drug gangs??????

 

[pistolero guy]

Holder firing back

I do not believe, not for one minute, that the ATF would undertake such a bold operation as "Fast And Furious" with out Eric Holders knowledge or approval. they have proved that he did at least get memos on the operation. His answer to that when it came out was: "Oh! I didnt read the memos" (yea right) but in my opinion it was designed from the begining to insulate the higher ups incase it became public knowledge.

 

[1911Tuner]

We may not be lookin' at this thing right. Fast and Furious may be a good thing.

The drug gangs would have gotten the weapons from somebody, and the agent would probably have been killed, no matter where they got'em.

Let's look at the upside.

A few American gun dealers made a tin of money, thus stimulating the local economy.

The agenda and corruption of this administration have been exposed for all to see, and even the staunchest supporters are running for cover and pointing fingers.

It's also demonstrated the smoke screen of claiming racism in the attempt to deflect the heat...even when you're busted dead to rights.

 

[Neverwinter]

Indeed.

In fact the "Gonzalez-Gate" scandal was either at or near the top of the news rotation for much of the duration of the story.

"The people paying the most attention are journalists, according to PEJ’s News Coverage Index. The fallout over the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys was not only the biggest story last week, March 18-23, it really amounts at this point to a mega story. Filling 18% of the overall newshole, it was the second-biggest story of the year. The only one to receive more coverage was the debate over the Iraq war, which filled 34% of the newshole the week in January when President Bush announced his troop “surge” plan."

http://www.journalism.org/node/4733

A snapshot of the New York Times coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21mon1.html?ref=albertorgonzales

And all this uproar over the fact that Gonzalez requested the resignation of eight (8) U.S. Attorneys, despite the fact that in 1993 Janet Reno did the same for all but one of the 93 people occupying the same position at the time Clinton assumed the Presidency.

The media coverage, by any measure, is radically different.

Indeed. You have shown incontrovertibly that there was a scandal in the administration and that there was thorough media coverage of it. I am willing to withdraw my primary hypothesis regarding the unawareness of the Gonzales coverage as due to the lack of it, and fall back on the alternative hypothesis mentioned:

the poster in question was so far divorced from actual media coverage that they never got the message.

.

However, the mention of the Janet Reno first year dismissals in response to the Gonzales midterm dismissals does support an additional hypothesis which has not been considered: the information has been cut to fit a faulty cognitive model(History of first year term dismissals, Pressure for Gonzales firings due to unwillingness to pursue baseless claims). The fundamental differences between the nature of the dismissals are discarded in order to consider them normal. In retrospect, this does fit with the previous posts here which jumped to the conclusion of Holder and Obama being guilty of OF&F when the story first broke and the ATF was implicated.

Firing people is similar to arming drug gangs??????

The point under consideration was the coverage regarding congressional investigation of and AG for professional misconduct. Both Holder and Gonzales were/are under investigation which did/could result is resignation. A fact which had received professed unawareness in previous posts.

 

[PowerG]

There are no "fundamental differences between the nature of the dismissals", both were done to re-align political appointees ideologically. The mere fact that the media ignored one, while making the other one of the top stories of the year, is at least anecdotal evidence of bias in news reporting.

 

[jerkface11]

Is there a button I can press to ignore all the lawyers?

 

[we are not amused]

There are no "fundamental differences between the nature of the dismissals", both were done to re-align political appointees ideologically. The mere fact that the media ignored one, while making the other one of the top stories of the year, is at least anecdotal evidence of bias in news reporting.

Neverwinter is well aware of the news media bias. I think he is just a partisan hack that has no interest in the RTKBA, but a big interest in supporting Obama and his administration. When I am in a less charitable mood, I think he is just being a troll.

 

[Pilot]

It's also demonstrated the smoke screen of claiming racism in the attempt to deflect the heat...even when you're busted dead to rights.

Exactly right. You know when Holder plays that card he is losing, desperate, and has nowhere else to go.

This is worse than Watergate IMHO yet we here little from the media about it.

 

[Neverwinter]

There are no "fundamental differences between the nature of the dismissals", both were done to re-align political appointees ideologically. The mere fact that the media ignored one, while making the other one of the top stories of the year, is at least anecdotal evidence of bias in news reporting.

The history of first year dismissals disputes that assessment. Was there matching coverage of it when Reagan and Bush Sr. did it which would suggest bias when it wasn't covered in Clinton?

Neverwinter is well aware of the news media bias. I think he is just a partisan hack that has no interest in the RTKBA, but a big interest in supporting Obama and his administration. When I am in a less charitable mood, I think he is just being a troll.

A deflecting personal attack which depends on ignoring a considerable portion of my posts.

 

[JFrame]

The history of first year dismissals disputes that assessment. Was there matching coverage of it when Reagan and Bush Sr. did it which would suggest bias when it wasn't covered in Clinton?

So you are also contending that there has been no meaningful and/or fundamental shift in the news media (and the associated entertainment industry in general) in the last 25 years?


.

 

[Neverwinter]

So you are also contending that there has been no meaningful and/or fundamental shift in the news media (and the associated entertainment industry in general) in the last 25 years?


.

There was a published book studying the implications of liberal bias in the media from 1986, which found positively for the presence of bias, although there are critics of it such as Chomsky. (Lichter, S. R. Rothman, S., & Lichter, L. (1986). The Media Elite: America's New Power- brokers. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.) It could explain the meteoric rise of current lead reporters on OF&F in the 1990s: AM talk radio and FNC who capitalized on the neglected market segment by balancing out the news by presenting a skewed position in the opposite direction.

 

[JFrame]

There was a published book studying the implications of liberal bias in the media from 1986, which found positively for the presence of bias, although there are critics of it such as Chomsky. (Lichter, S. R. Rothman, S., & Lichter, L. (1986). The Media Elite: America's New Power- brokers. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.) It could explain the meteoric rise of current lead reporters on OF&F in the 1990s: AM talk radio and FNC who capitalized on the neglected market segment by balancing out the news by presenting a skewed position in the opposite direction.

Okay -- it does seem that you are, in fact, conceding that there is an imbalance in the media portrayal of events and issues, for which FNC and talk radio were able to take advantage...It would be counter-intuitive to maintain that these sources were filling a void that didn't exist.

Now, I certainly hope you agree that together, FNC and talk radio do not have the collective market share and financial backing of all the other media resources that can be defined as left-of-center to totally left (the Big 3, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NYT, Time, Newsweek, etc.).

So if we drop talk radio and FNC from the discussion, we can agree that the media is overwhelmingly left-leaning in its bias, up to and including the coverage of OF&F?



.

 

[publius]

The point under consideration was the coverage regarding congressional investigation of and AG for professional misconduct. Both Holder and Gonzales were/are under investigation which did/could result is resignation.

And the New York Times called for Gonzales to be impeached, but not Holder.

 

[we are not amused]

deleted

 

[jerkface11]

A while back, I urged this thread be closed because of Neverwinter's trolling.
I have not changed my mind.

Closing these threads is what he is going for.

 

[we are not amused]

Won't argue against you a bit. He and a few others have made a concerted effort to shut down certain threads before.
It is all up to the moderators. They could delete his or anyone else's comments at will.

Perhaps you are right, and we shouldn't close the thread just because of his trolling.

But I note that there hasn't been anything really new for a while, and probably won't be till the next hearing, which I believe is in February, I forget the exact date, but early.
It will almost certainly open a new thread.

 

[Mike1234567]

What were we discussing?