The whole "socialism" scaremongering was coming from the Republicans.
Good. Obama is a socialist, and his socialism is scary.
McCain, not Obama, was shoving Joe into the spotlight
It was both, actually.
There's nothing that suggest that Obama drug Joe's name through the dirt.
I love how when Republicans do something, McCain was to blame, but when Dems do, Obama had nothing to do with it.
That said, I agree. Obama used Joe a lot, but not to smear him, but to try to make the case that his plan was GOOD for Joe, and even if not good for Joe, that's only because Joe was so well off he didn't need help. (A case which is essentially socialist in nature, of course.)
I don't have the impression (yet?) that he supports the government in it's legal pursuit against Tamm.
As I said, I believe in prosecutorial discretion, and as I don't know anything more about it than anyone else here, I don't have nearly enough information to say whether legal action against him should be pursued.
It could be that Tamm handled this very poorly and that he should be prosecuted for his mishandling; it could be that he tried to handle it better and found this was his only avenue available and he should not be pursued at all; it could be that the program was actually legal and he harmed our security and should be prosecuted.
It seems obvious to me that we don't really know and that people who are prone to think the worst about Bush or the federal government are going to see this as a terrible thing, while in reality we are ill-equipped to come to any serious judgments.
Going to proper channels in this case would seem futile. It's like having the police investigate themselves. Going to the news media seems more expedient.
It's not about expediency, it's about being responsible, and no, there are always plenty of ways to do this through proper channels. First, there's probably plenty of U.S. Attorneys who would listen to you, and if they won't, then there's certainly plenty of members of Congress you can talk to, and Congress, having oversight and subpoena power, can look into it.
You are right though: he is less interested in doing things the right way than he is with just sticking it to a President whose decisions he disagrees with.
You should know quite well by now that the terminology used in your original post made it seem like it was an NSA program that bush merely gave the go ahead to.
Also, and this is part of the legal system in the US, you have to look at the circumstances of his actions.
And often that is a matter left up to the court to consider.
The man is apparently far from alone from people that were working in those departments in feeling that what has been going on is wrong.
His "feeling" does not mitigate his crime. It has to actually be justified based on the system actually being illegal, and so far it has not been found to be illegal.
Bush isn't really an American
You're not really intelligent.
because he thinks is "just a damn piece of paper" (his words)
Nope. He never said that. There is not a single person who has gone on the record who was there who says he heard him say it. It's not in any transcript. That you want it to be true doesn't make it true.
It is chilling knowing he may face the death penalty potentially for his actions
Howso?
It is chilling knowing how liberal the Bush administration has been with the death penalty
Howso?
It is chilling not knowing if he will really get a fair trial
Only in the sense that no one EVER knows whether anyone will get a fair trial, which has nothing to do with any particular politician or political party.
This story is very chilling indeed
Yet you didn't give me any reason to believe you. Simply saying something is chilling doesn't make it so.
I will elaborate and rephrase that: "For me the real issue here is hypocrisy."
OK. I couldn't care less about that, though.
Not that I don't care about hypocrisy in general, but I care far more about doing the right thing in each situation. For example: I am against the warrantless wiretapping. I am for civil telco immunity. I am for whistleblowing illegal activity. I am a against individual civil servants deciding for themselves what is legal and illegal and going to the press instead of proper channels. And so on.
I sincerely hope that was ignorance not spin you were displaying there.
With the knowledge and implied consent of the leaders of both houses of Congress (including Democrats); with the stated legal approval of the head of the FISA Court of Appeals; with the legal justification written by the Clinton Justice Department.
I am not in favor of the practice. I'm against it. But I am not blind enough to say this was all Bush.
It _is_ chilling. The man revealed a major set of constitutional violations, by the NSA, in collaboration with AT&T. There are various basic laws that _required_ him to report such felonies. And it is exactly such abuses that the freedom of the press was designed to encourage the revelation of.
He means that if an activity is illegal then it's classified status should be voided automatically.
That's obviously silly. It's unpracticable. Imagine an activity where we have a covert op to find a nuclear weapon device, but someone in that op does something illegal. The whole op should be declassified? Well, you may argue, the op wasn't illegal, so it wouldn't apply. But these things are never completely cut-and-dried. And besides, this warrantless wiretapping system itself has never been found to be illegal.
Look at history: COINTELPRO, agents provocateurs, enemies lists, McCarthyism.
And this has what to do with this guy?
Six years ago a radio station had children stomping on and setting fire to Dixie Chicks albums... Who knew how stupid and paranoid the government would become?
Um. That had nothing to do with the government. You actually think the CIA orchestrated the burning of Dixie Chicks albums? You think they give a damn about the Dixie Chicks?
It's only a felony if it is determined that what he was told not to reveal was legal.
False.
That's in the godam Uniform Code of Military Justice fer gawdsakes.
Since this has nothing to do with the military, and hence nothing to do with the UCMJ, I wonder why you think that's relevant. And even then you're still wrong: blowing the whistle on illegal activity is a defense in trial. It is not a defense against being prosecuted, or against charges being filed.
He believed he WAS defending the constitution!
And he can present evidence to that effect at trial. This is how the legal system works.
Now, I am not saying he should be prosecuted: that is up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney and so on. If the government feels his "illegal activity" defense is strong enough, then they shouldn't bother filing charges. And further, there are other reasons to not bother filing charges.
But he committed a crime. Period. And purusing him for that is not "chilling," it's following the law.
It should not be possible to classify illegal government activity.
Huh? I don't know what that sentence means. The obvious literal meaning doesn't seem to be what you mean.
This man took a chance to protect my freedom and yours
That's your opinion. I hope you are not so naive to believe this one-sided retelling of the facts. Remember Deep Throat: it turns out that Mark Felt had significant self-serving motivations.
But the point is that he committed a felony. To say it is "chilling" that he is being pursued for his crime is stupid.
Dude commits a felony and they go after him for it and that is "chilling"? Howso?
I'll share my personal story to show how quickly a thriving democracy can turn into an oppresive regime, here in the US.... I stood very quiet, very silent. Who knows who was listening and how far the goverment was willing to go to silence dissent.
Wow. So you think that your own baseless decision to be "very slient" is evidence of an "oppressive regime."
Think about this for a second: the best place on earth, and still scared of what the government might do to me. Call me paranoid
You're paranoid.
It's only in the last two years or so, with Obama rising, that the oppressive feeling has left.
That's a typo. But I just went through everyone who has a show this week. NONE of them were conservatives.
If [Dobb]'s a populist, then he must not be an evil liberal.
Correct. You asked how many were conservatives, and I went through everyone. He is not a conservative.
Larry King is also a reporter
No, he is not. He never reports. He is an interviewer, not a reporter.
He's had numerous interviews in the past year that would never go to evil, evil, evil liberals.
False.
Anderson Cooper is not a commentator.
Yes, in fact, he is. Unlike Blitzer who keeps his views close to the chest, Cooper, like Lou Dobbs, often injects his view into his "reporting." Cooper is a commentator.
You were ranting about evil, evil, evil, evil liberal commentators.
You are lying. I never did any such thing.
Let's go over what actually happened.
I said I get some of my news from CNN, when you said I took my news from right-wing sources. YOU incorrectly said that CNN is conservative. I said no, it has more liberals than conservatives. Then you tried to limit it to commentators. I never was talking about merely commentators, that was your invention, so then I went over the people actually on CNN.
I have seen him agree with conservatives more than liberals.
I have seen him agree with liberals more than conservatives.
Remember when he came out with a bag of half-truths in response to Sicko?
No. I remember him talking about Sicko, and being mostly correct.
There's Roland Martin, definitely on the left
I'm not familiar with him, but I see in his background that he is a Christian reporter from Texas. I'll leave that one as a wash.
Um. It's not. He is a huge Obama fan, and as a Christian he is on the Tony Campolo wing of the church: decidedly Democrat and Liberal. Just because you're ignorant of him doesn't mean you get to dismiss him as "a wash."
So really, you came up with one actual liberal commentator on CNN that we could verify.
False.
And we're talking about someone who doesn't even have his own show outright.
Martin and Cooper are liberal commentators who have their own shows. And while Cafferty does not have his own show, he is the only regularly featured commentator who has his own segment on the show, so obviously this tilts the whole show to the left. If they had a conservative to balance it out, then you could dismiss it.
In contrast, CNN made a huge deal out of hiring Glenn Beck.
Who does not have a show on CNN, so that's irrelevant.
He often gets short spots in the morning news on both CNN
So do many liberal commentators, so that's irrelevant.
So you falsely attack my "methods" out of the blue, and then say you aren't interested in them.
Did you read the title of the thread? It says Not sure I would want his methods.
Yes. And then you proceeded to falsely attack them, insinuating they were biased.
For every conservative on there, I can name two liberals
That is only true if you include the anchors and reporters, who are there to present the news, as opposed to the commentators like Beck and Gupta, who are there to provide commentary on the news.
No, it's not. There are more liberal commentators on there than conservatives. But that said, anchors often DO provide commentary, and reporters sometimes do as well -- did you watch the debate? CNN reporter John King was providing his opinion on the debate as it happened (though I couldn't say what his particular political leanings are) -- and even when not providing commentary their biases affect their reporting.
How many liberal commentators has CNN given their own shows to?
On a weekday, the shows are Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Campbell Brown, Larry King, Anderson Cooper. Wilf Blitzer, and even moreso his sidekick Jack Cafferty, are on the left. Lou Dobbs is a populist who straddles both sides of the fence. Campbell Brown seems to play it down the middle; I haven't detected a significant bias in her reporting over the years. Larry King doesn't count because no one cares about him. Anderson Cooper is on the left.
On Saturday: there's Gupta, who is not a conservative, even if he agrees with conservatives on some issues (similarly to Lou Dobbs). Indeed, he has donated money solely to Democrats. There's Tom Foreman, who seems to me to be on the left, but I don't watch him enough to know. There's Roland Martin, definitely on the left. Fareed Zakaria, definitely on the left.
So... you were saying? I see not a SINGLE conservative with his own show on CNN, and several well-known liberals. (Glenn Beck's show is on Headline News.)
I merely said I wasn't interested in your methods. I came to the conclusion that I am not interested in your methods by reading the journal entries that you have made here on slashdot.
So you falsely attack my "methods" out of the blue, and then say you aren't interested in them. OK, that makes... um, sense...
despite what you said in a comment below, I do not read any conservative news sources
Except that I didn't actually say that.
Yes, you did. You wrote that "it would seem reasonable to expect that he just takes feeds straight from conservative news sources." This obviously implies that I access such sources on a regular basis. I do not.
My main sources of news are CNN.com
You aren't actually trying to claim that CNN is a liberal, or even a non-conservative news source, are you?
It absolutely is not a conservative news source. For every conservative on there, I can name two liberals. Gupta certainly is no conservative, though he has some free-market leanings. Neither is Lou Dobbs a conservative: though he agrees with conservatives on immigration, he agrees with liberals on trade. Glenn Beck is a conservative, but one of the worst advocates for conservativism on TV, and Anderson Cooper and Jack Cafferty and most of the anchors have a distinct liberal bent.
Besides, I never watch Glenn Beck, Anderson Cooper, Lou Dobbs, and the other pundits and talk shows if I can help it. I watch their straight news programming during the day sometimes.
I haven't seen you cite PBS NewsHour in your journal entries anytime in the past month.
Irrelevant, of course.
If I was ignoring you...
You directly implied that what I presented should be ignored because of your (false) perception of my biases.
Slashdot Mirror
If you had been convicted of a felony, like this guy will likely be, you wouldn't be eligible for a green card.
Exactly. Tamm actually committed a felony. The commenter trying to get a Green Card -- to our knowledge -- did not.
This is what people are missing. :-)
I never said that
Sorry, I meant that "you are right" facetiously, I should have been more clear with a smiley or something.
I'm not aware how you know what his motivations are.
From the article: "Tamm concedes he was also motivated in part by his anger at other Bush-administration policies at the Justice Department ..."
the Republicans and Libertarians twisted into "OMG Socialism! Obama is after your mooooniiiiiiiessssss!!11!one"
Obama IS a (little-s) socialist. By definition. At least, the definition I've used forever, the one that Bastiat used 150 years ago.
The whole "socialism" scaremongering was coming from the Republicans.
Good. Obama is a socialist, and his socialism is scary.
McCain, not Obama, was shoving Joe into the spotlight
It was both, actually.
There's nothing that suggest that Obama drug Joe's name through the dirt.
I love how when Republicans do something, McCain was to blame, but when Dems do, Obama had nothing to do with it.
That said, I agree. Obama used Joe a lot, but not to smear him, but to try to make the case that his plan was GOOD for Joe, and even if not good for Joe, that's only because Joe was so well off he didn't need help. (A case which is essentially socialist in nature, of course.)
I don't have the impression (yet?) that he supports the government in it's legal pursuit against Tamm.
As I said, I believe in prosecutorial discretion, and as I don't know anything more about it than anyone else here, I don't have nearly enough information to say whether legal action against him should be pursued.
It could be that Tamm handled this very poorly and that he should be prosecuted for his mishandling; it could be that he tried to handle it better and found this was his only avenue available and he should not be pursued at all; it could be that the program was actually legal and he harmed our security and should be prosecuted.
It seems obvious to me that we don't really know and that people who are prone to think the worst about Bush or the federal government are going to see this as a terrible thing, while in reality we are ill-equipped to come to any serious judgments.
Going to proper channels in this case would seem futile. It's like having the police investigate themselves. Going to the news media seems more expedient.
It's not about expediency, it's about being responsible, and no, there are always plenty of ways to do this through proper channels. First, there's probably plenty of U.S. Attorneys who would listen to you, and if they won't, then there's certainly plenty of members of Congress you can talk to, and Congress, having oversight and subpoena power, can look into it.
You are right though: he is less interested in doing things the right way than he is with just sticking it to a President whose decisions he disagrees with.
You should know quite well by now that the terminology used in your original post made it seem like it was an NSA program that bush merely gave the go ahead to.
No, that was not my comment you are referring to.
You are wrong.
No, I'm not.
the methods they have used are excessive.
Howso?
What you have here is a show of force.
Every criminal investigation or prosecution is.
Also, and this is part of the legal system in the US, you have to look at the circumstances of his actions.
And often that is a matter left up to the court to consider.
The man is apparently far from alone from people that were working in those departments in feeling that what has been going on is wrong.
His "feeling" does not mitigate his crime. It has to actually be justified based on the system actually being illegal, and so far it has not been found to be illegal.
Bush isn't really an American
You're not really intelligent.
because he thinks is "just a damn piece of paper" (his words)
Nope. He never said that. There is not a single person who has gone on the record who was there who says he heard him say it. It's not in any transcript. That you want it to be true doesn't make it true.
It is chilling knowing he may face the death penalty potentially for his actions
Howso?
It is chilling knowing how liberal the Bush administration has been with the death penalty
Howso?
It is chilling not knowing if he will really get a fair trial
Only in the sense that no one EVER knows whether anyone will get a fair trial, which has nothing to do with any particular politician or political party.
This story is very chilling indeed
Yet you didn't give me any reason to believe you. Simply saying something is chilling doesn't make it so.
'Nuff said.
Since none of it contradicts me in any way, no, it's not.
Still, it sucks to see Slashdot staff drinking the FBI's "National Security" kool-aid.
I never said anything like that.
He did what he believed was the right thing, and that was to call attention to illegal activity within the intelligence services.
Yes, he believed that. The question is whether it's true. That is why we investigate and possibly prosecute, to find out.
Would you, Pudge, help the feds round up all of the Slashdotters who have been known to post subversive opinion?
Is posting a subversive opinion illegal? Nope. But leaking classified information is.
Weak attempt there.
I will elaborate and rephrase that:
"For me the real issue here is hypocrisy."
OK. I couldn't care less about that, though.
Not that I don't care about hypocrisy in general, but I care far more about doing the right thing in each situation. For example: I am against the warrantless wiretapping. I am for civil telco immunity. I am for whistleblowing illegal activity. I am a against individual civil servants deciding for themselves what is legal and illegal and going to the press instead of proper channels. And so on.
You ... misconstrue what he said
False.
Everything else aside, how is it not?
I cannot easily answer a negative. I don't see how it is chilling. Your job is to say how it IS chilling. That's how we do this. :-)
Half of the purpose of having a legal system is to "chill" illegal activity.
That is a different sense in which he used the word "chilling."
On what grounds do you label his decision baseless?
That he provided no basis for it. He may have had it, but he didn't share it. But yes, as you say, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, obviously.
I sincerely hope that was ignorance not spin you were displaying there.
With the knowledge and implied consent of the leaders of both houses of Congress (including Democrats); with the stated legal approval of the head of the FISA Court of Appeals; with the legal justification written by the Clinton Justice Department.
I am not in favor of the practice. I'm against it. But I am not blind enough to say this was all Bush.
It _is_ chilling. The man revealed a major set of constitutional violations, by the NSA, in collaboration with AT&T. There are various basic laws that _required_ him to report such felonies. And it is exactly such abuses that the freedom of the press was designed to encourage the revelation of.
You forgot to say how it is chilling.
He means that if an activity is illegal then it's classified status should be voided automatically.
That's obviously silly. It's unpracticable. Imagine an activity where we have a covert op to find a nuclear weapon device, but someone in that op does something illegal. The whole op should be declassified? Well, you may argue, the op wasn't illegal, so it wouldn't apply. But these things are never completely cut-and-dried. And besides, this warrantless wiretapping system itself has never been found to be illegal.
The real issue here is hypocrisy.
No, it's not.
It's chilling because you have to break the law in order to even report another (arguably greater) crime
How could it be any other way?
and there is absolutely no consideration for the whistleblower during his own persecution.
Yes, there is. There's whole laws about using "whistleblowing" as a defense.
Look at history: COINTELPRO, agents provocateurs, enemies lists, McCarthyism.
And this has what to do with this guy?
Six years ago a radio station had children stomping on and setting fire to Dixie Chicks albums ... Who knew how stupid and paranoid the government would become?
Um. That had nothing to do with the government. You actually think the CIA orchestrated the burning of Dixie Chicks albums? You think they give a damn about the Dixie Chicks?
It's only a felony if it is determined that what he was told not to reveal was legal.
False.
That's in the godam Uniform Code of Military Justice fer gawdsakes.
Since this has nothing to do with the military, and hence nothing to do with the UCMJ, I wonder why you think that's relevant. And even then you're still wrong: blowing the whistle on illegal activity is a defense in trial. It is not a defense against being prosecuted, or against charges being filed.
He believed he WAS defending the constitution!
And he can present evidence to that effect at trial. This is how the legal system works.
Now, I am not saying he should be prosecuted: that is up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney and so on. If the government feels his "illegal activity" defense is strong enough, then they shouldn't bother filing charges. And further, there are other reasons to not bother filing charges.
But he committed a crime. Period. And purusing him for that is not "chilling," it's following the law.
It should not be possible to classify illegal government activity.
Huh? I don't know what that sentence means. The obvious literal meaning doesn't seem to be what you mean.
This man took a chance to protect my freedom and yours
That's your opinion. I hope you are not so naive to believe this one-sided retelling of the facts. Remember Deep Throat: it turns out that Mark Felt had significant self-serving motivations.
But the point is that he committed a felony. To say it is "chilling" that he is being pursued for his crime is stupid.
why do you hate America's freedoms?
When did you stop beating your mother?
Very chilling.
Dude commits a felony and they go after him for it and that is "chilling"? Howso?
I'll share my personal story to show how quickly a thriving democracy can turn into an oppresive regime, here in the US. ... I stood very quiet, very silent. Who knows who was listening and how far the goverment was willing to go to silence dissent.
Wow. So you think that your own baseless decision to be "very slient" is evidence of an "oppressive regime."
Think about this for a second: the best place on earth, and still scared of what the government might do to me. Call me paranoid
You're paranoid.
It's only in the last two years or so, with Obama rising, that the oppressive feeling has left.
You're also utterly delusional.
It wasn't me, it was my uncle. Well, it wasn't me YET.
Maybe the Internet can invent a time machine, send a robot back in time to kill Hitler's mother and save us all from the horrors of WWII?
Dude, we tried that, and it SORTA worked. In the original WWII, Hitler won.
That Wolf Blitzer.
That's a typo. But I just went through everyone who has a show this week. NONE of them were conservatives.
If [Dobb]'s a populist, then he must not be an evil liberal.
Correct. You asked how many were conservatives, and I went through everyone. He is not a conservative.
Larry King is also a reporter
No, he is not. He never reports. He is an interviewer, not a reporter.
He's had numerous interviews in the past year that would never go to evil, evil, evil liberals.
False.
Anderson Cooper is not a commentator.
Yes, in fact, he is. Unlike Blitzer who keeps his views close to the chest, Cooper, like Lou Dobbs, often injects his view into his "reporting." Cooper is a commentator.
You were ranting about evil, evil, evil, evil liberal commentators.
You are lying. I never did any such thing.
Let's go over what actually happened.
I said I get some of my news from CNN, when you said I took my news from right-wing sources. YOU incorrectly said that CNN is conservative. I said no, it has more liberals than conservatives. Then you tried to limit it to commentators. I never was talking about merely commentators, that was your invention, so then I went over the people actually on CNN.
I have seen him agree with conservatives more than liberals.
I have seen him agree with liberals more than conservatives.
Remember when he came out with a bag of half-truths in response to Sicko?
No. I remember him talking about Sicko, and being mostly correct.
There's Roland Martin, definitely on the left
I'm not familiar with him, but I see in his background that he is a Christian reporter from Texas. I'll leave that one as a wash.
Um. It's not. He is a huge Obama fan, and as a Christian he is on the Tony Campolo wing of the church: decidedly Democrat and Liberal. Just because you're ignorant of him doesn't mean you get to dismiss him as "a wash."
So really, you came up with one actual liberal commentator on CNN that we could verify.
False.
And we're talking about someone who doesn't even have his own show outright.
Martin and Cooper are liberal commentators who have their own shows. And while Cafferty does not have his own show, he is the only regularly featured commentator who has his own segment on the show, so obviously this tilts the whole show to the left. If they had a conservative to balance it out, then you could dismiss it.
In contrast, CNN made a huge deal out of hiring Glenn Beck.
Who does not have a show on CNN, so that's irrelevant.
He often gets short spots in the morning news on both CNN
So do many liberal commentators, so that's irrelevant.
So you falsely attack my "methods" out of the blue, and then say you aren't interested in them.
Did you read the title of the thread? It says Not sure I would want his methods.
Yes. And then you proceeded to falsely attack them, insinuating they were biased.
I never attacked said methods.
You're lying.
For every conservative on there, I can name two liberals
That is only true if you include the anchors and reporters, who are there to present the news, as opposed to the commentators like Beck and Gupta, who are there to provide commentary on the news.
No, it's not. There are more liberal commentators on there than conservatives. But that said, anchors often DO provide commentary, and reporters sometimes do as well -- did you watch the debate? CNN reporter John King was providing his opinion on the debate as it happened (though I couldn't say what his particular political leanings are) -- and even when not providing commentary their biases affect their reporting.
How many liberal commentators has CNN given their own shows to?
On a weekday, the shows are Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Campbell Brown, Larry King, Anderson Cooper. Wilf Blitzer, and even moreso his sidekick Jack Cafferty, are on the left. Lou Dobbs is a populist who straddles both sides of the fence. Campbell Brown seems to play it down the middle; I haven't detected a significant bias in her reporting over the years. Larry King doesn't count because no one cares about him. Anderson Cooper is on the left.
On Saturday: there's Gupta, who is not a conservative, even if he agrees with conservatives on some issues (similarly to Lou Dobbs). Indeed, he has donated money solely to Democrats. There's Tom Foreman, who seems to me to be on the left, but I don't watch him enough to know. There's Roland Martin, definitely on the left. Fareed Zakaria, definitely on the left.
So ... you were saying? I see not a SINGLE conservative with his own show on CNN, and several well-known liberals. (Glenn Beck's show is on Headline News.)
I merely said I wasn't interested in your methods. I came to the conclusion that I am not interested in your methods by reading the journal entries that you have made here on slashdot.
So you falsely attack my "methods" out of the blue, and then say you aren't interested in them. OK, that makes ... um, sense ...
despite what you said in a comment below, I do not read any conservative news sources
Except that I didn't actually say that.
Yes, you did. You wrote that "it would seem reasonable to expect that he just takes feeds straight from conservative news sources." This obviously implies that I access such sources on a regular basis. I do not.
My main sources of news are CNN.com
You aren't actually trying to claim that CNN is a liberal, or even a non-conservative news source, are you?
It absolutely is not a conservative news source. For every conservative on there, I can name two liberals. Gupta certainly is no conservative, though he has some free-market leanings. Neither is Lou Dobbs a conservative: though he agrees with conservatives on immigration, he agrees with liberals on trade. Glenn Beck is a conservative, but one of the worst advocates for conservativism on TV, and Anderson Cooper and Jack Cafferty and most of the anchors have a distinct liberal bent.
Besides, I never watch Glenn Beck, Anderson Cooper, Lou Dobbs, and the other pundits and talk shows if I can help it. I watch their straight news programming during the day sometimes.
I haven't seen you cite PBS NewsHour in your journal entries anytime in the past month.
Irrelevant, of course.
If I was ignoring you ...
You directly implied that what I presented should be ignored because of your (false) perception of my biases.