**Shocking** Terror Suspects Buying Guns

[Unisaw]

Next, the Dems will want to revoke the voting rights of people who are only suspected of committing felonies. Oh wait, they're trying to restore the voting rights of actual convicted felons...

 

[Leatherneck]

Lobotomy Boy (SIC)

By sending propoganda to the media disguised as news reporting (got that one straight from Josef Goebells).

So, the GAO, which is the investigative organization that works for, and is tasked by, CONGRESS, issues a report with dubious findings, and you equate the President to Goebells?

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[HankB]

Last night and this morning (3/9/05) the talking heads on most of the networks - including FOX - were throwing hissy fits about this issue. There were a few statements from the usual suspects - Schumer, Lautenberg, etc. - and a very short snippet from Wayne LaPierre for "balance."

The general tone of the reporting was that an adult American citizen who's of sound mind, not a druggie, and who's never been arrested, indicted, prosecuted, or convicted of a crime should not be able to buy a gun if an anonymous bureaucrat in an un-named agency used classified criteria to place his name on a secret list.

I guess we're now at the point where "punishment for possible suspicion" is acceptable to some.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Leatherneck (sic),

I equate Rove to Goebels, not because I think he's evil and wants to engage in genocide, but because he patterns his iron-fisted control of communications after Goebels. I am not comparing him morally, but rather tactically. Rove is not a genocidal monster, but he does have a negative effect on the First Amendment.

But I suspect the very fact that I have to explain this to you means I am wasting my energy.

 

[jfh]

Response From NYTime's Public Editor:

received late last night

Dear jfh,

Thank you for your message.
I have raised your concerns with a senior editor.
If you have not heard anything from us within two weeks please let me know.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor​

That is an encouraging sign. Let's see how it plays out.

 

[buzz_knox]

I equate Rove to Goebels, not because I think he's evil and wants to engage in genocide, but because he patterns his iron-fisted control of communications after Goebels. I am not comparing him morally, but rather tactically. Rove is not a genocidal monster, but he does have a negative effect on the First Amendment.

But I suspect the very fact that I have to explain this to you means I am wasting my energy.

The fact that you have to explain it and that more individuals than just Leatherneck have called you on it means that your initial attempt at asserting your position failed. Basic rule of comedy: if a joke has to be explained, either the joke or the comedian failed, not the audience. But, when one does not explain a position but merely makes a Nazi reference, it's indicative that any effort to explain the position is heading towards failure.

And yes, your attempt to pattern Rove as Goebbels (at least get his name right if you're going to discuss him) fails. If you're discussing Rove's control over information coming out of the White House, please explain how that is different from every administration in recent history? None of them have allowed communications without authorization. Then again, most companies frown on that as well. Do all such companies and administrations goose step in your worldview?

If you're going to speak of Rove's vast control over the popular media, your argument again fails. The media seems very free to raise any issue it wishes, and (as Rathergate indicates) even manufacture those issues when it suits their fancy. Yet, we see no reporters disappearing in the night and the stations aren't being shut down following (or during a broadcast). Every word that Rove sends out into the world is analyzed, discussed, and rebutted (often ineffectually and with less than precise facts).