That's the question I'm focusing on -- the media policy.

Then your article is misleading. You said that you "question whether in a free society it is acceptable to put someone on trial and potentially imprison them while never revealing the person's name to the public." The accused is not being put on trial and imprisoned by the AP, who is the only party shown not to be revealing this person's name.

RCade:

I question whether in a free society it is acceptable to put someone on trial and potentially imprison them while never revealing the person's name to the public.

I don't see any evidence that this is a "John Doe" trial or that the criminal justice system has taken any measure aimed at protecting this man's identity. It looks like the AP has done so which is a separate question.

I went to an extremely attractive female doctor today for my annual checkup.

She told me that I had to quit masturbating. I asked "why?" and she said, "Because I'm trying to examine you."

now the tea baggers will have one more illogical argument to insinuate that Obama is not doing what he promised

This was proposed in the House of Representatives. Is Obama serving there? If not, what has he done to support or drive this legislation?

Roberts is still sore...Since when do Justices make comments regarding a sitting Presidents SOTU address?

Since they are specifically asked about it during a question-and-answer session at a University. Let's not pretend that Roberts went out to the media and brought this up on his own

Someone needs a history adjustment on corporate personhood.....

Yeah, because a book with chapters called "Why Corporate Personhood is Bad for Society" and "How to Revoke Corporate Personhood" is a great source for an unbiased history lesson. Dorky never fails to disappoint.

Danni, were Obama to urge the public to sign a constitutional amendment to override the court's decision, I would not have seen that as offensive as calling out the court and suggesting there was no basis for their decision in the first place.

Did he call out the entire court, or just 5 of the members? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

He called out the court in general, but proceeded to rip their decision. So in essence, he was not calling out the 4 members of the court who did not vote in favor of that decision.

Presidents have spoken out regarding the judicial branch in their state of the unionion addresses before

Link?

Again, your mere opinion which really carries no influence as it pertains to this matter.

Nearly everything posted in this thread is "merely someone's opinion." Bringing that up is a cop-out by someone who has no legitimate defense of the person they are attempting to defend.

And I would once again say that is merely your opinion which is influenced by the fact that this was a conservative bench being called out by a democratic executive.

And you'd be a dumbass for saying so. This has nothing to do with the particular set of justices whose ruling was criticized. If Bush stood there and ripped the Stevens/Ginsburg faction of the Court, and all the grandstanding Congressional jerkoffs stood up hooting and hollering, I'd be saying the same thing. The fact that you'd rather speculate as to my motives than actually address the so obviously unprofessional conduct by our president is indicative of your inability (but strong desire) to defend the President.

So is Congress, and they are subject to ridicule and rebuke as well.

And calling out five particular members of Congress in a forum in which they cannot respond, while every other scumbag in Congress stands up, pretends they are any better and starts cheering, I'd once again say that it was an inappropriate an unprofessional act.

Many president's have used that forum to ridicule opponents or state displeasure with practices of Congress. Those subject to ridicule aren't allowed to respond in said forum, so why is the Supreme Court any different?

Because the justices were sitting right there in the room. Do you really not see the difference?

There was nothing unclassy about the President's comments

Nobody said his comments as written or spoken were unclassy. His choice to deliver said comments in the forum he did is what was unclassy.

I guess I didn't get the memo which stated that the Supreme Court is free from ridicule or rebuke.

Nobody said they are free from rebuke. Roberts' point is that to criticize them in a forum in which they cannot respond, and are surrounded by a bunch of cheerleading buffoons from Congress, is tacky and appears aimed more at embarrassing or insulting the Justices than actually opening a constructive dialogue on the point.

Why didn't he seal the bottles?

Probably because he's the type of guy who builds a house out of shit he found in the road.

How is this guy a conservative hero?

He's not. But lefties like to pretend that such hyperbole is true until they actually believe it themselves, just like yesterday's "Somalia is a Libertarian Paradise" thread.

This is the thread where lefties get bent out of shape because it's Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Had it been a democrat, lefties would probably shrug it off as outlandish, paranoid rantings of an unstable mind.
#5 | Posted by Axiom

Since we'll never know for sure, how about you comment on the subject matter rather than make partisan deflections?

We will know for sure, since the bill "tasks the President to determine criteria for designating an individual as a "high-value detainee." If Obama (a Democrat) opposes this bill, he can simply make the criteria so narrow that nobody would ever be considered a "high value detainee." You and I both know that won't happen.

She deserved a Peace Prize more than the doofus-in-chief did.

Somalia is no more the libertarian's ideal than Russia is a liberal's ideal. Typical strawman bullshit that morons like Null Set buy hook, line and sinker.

What I don't quite understand is why lefties are content to bitch about global warming on the internet rather than actually do anything about it. For every 1,000 or so people who like to talk about how big a deal global warming is, there are maybe 5 who make the same effort to conserve energy.

Don't you people know that computers and servers waste massive amounts of energy? Energy that is produced by pumping big, polluting puffs of smoke into the air? Why are you here on drudge? Why aren't you doing something more productive if you actually care about the planet? Watching you whine is like watching some hippie from Greenpeace litter the streets with flyers. It's more about telling people what your message is than actually acting on that message, isn't it?

Adults Have No Idea What Sex Is

Would you also require men to watch a video on parenting and the costs, and then wait 24 hours before having sex?

If you think intercourse is analogous to an abortion, I feel sorry for you.

These pantspissing morons only know what Glen Beck tells them.
Posted by axe at 2010-03-08 11:47 AM

Chances are you don't even know what a "progressive" is, beyond what Glenn Beck tells you to think.
Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-03-08 06:27 AM

Why don't you find this for me as expressed by anyone but Mao or expressed in the ravings of Glenn Beck in the "progressive" world.
Posted by BetelG at 2010-03-08 01:59 PM

Who brought Glenn Beck into this???
Posted by danni at 2010-03-08 01:29 PM

As soon as the nice library lady finishes changing his Depends, the Babbler will be along to parrot some nonsence from Glen Beck about how unions were the reason of September 11, 2001 or some other insane bullshit.
Posted by axe at 2010-03-08 02:39 PM

Flag: Obsessed

On the other hand, you have a fresh diaper and are filling the thread with shit in a very timely fashion.