ACORN Document Dumps

christiefan915 said:
What I read is that Acorn dumped a bunch of documents that they admit should have been shredded. According to Breitbart, "BigGovernment.com has learned that not only did this document dump occur, but the documents in question were irresponsibly and brazenly dumped in a public dumpster, without considering laws and regulations as to how sensitive information should be treated."

And then Breitbart posted these sensitive documents all over the internet.

What the hell is wrong with these people? Why didn't they turn these sensitive documents over to the authorities, rather than sit on the info for almost two months and then post the sensitive documents on their website?
Click to expand...

Gee, that's what I was thinking when the liberal NY Times printed sensitive information when Bush was in office and the Left didn't say squat.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Gee, that's what I was thinking when the liberal NY Times printed sensitive information when Bush was in office and the Left didn't say squat.
Click to expand...

Breitbart redacted the personal information, neither ACORN nor NYTimes did the same with sensitive documents.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Gee, that's what I was thinking when the liberal NY Times printed sensitive information when Bush was in office and the Left didn't say squat.
Click to expand...

"...Thirty-five years ago yesterday, in the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people...."

"...No article on a classified program gets published until the responsible officials have been given a fair opportunity to comment. And if they want to argue that publication represents a danger to national security, we put things on hold and give them a respectful hearing. Often, we agree to participate in off-the-record conversations with officials, so they can make their case without fear of spilling more secrets onto our front pages..."

"...each of us, in the past few years, has had the experience of withholding or delaying articles when the administration convinced us that the risk of publication outweighed the benefits. Probably the most discussed instance was The New York Times's decision to hold its article on telephone eavesdropping for more than a year, until editors felt that further reporting had whittled away the administration's case for secrecy..."

"...We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/01/opinion/01keller.html?pagewanted=print
 
christiefan915 said:
"...Thirty-five years ago yesterday, in the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people...."

"...No article on a classified program gets published until the responsible officials have been given a fair opportunity to comment. And if they want to argue that publication represents a danger to national security, we put things on hold and give them a respectful hearing. Often, we agree to participate in off-the-record conversations with officials, so they can make their case without fear of spilling more secrets onto our front pages..."

"...each of us, in the past few years, has had the experience of withholding or delaying articles when the administration convinced us that the risk of publication outweighed the benefits. Probably the most discussed instance was The New York Times's decision to hold its article on telephone eavesdropping for more than a year, until editors felt that further reporting had whittled away the administration's case for secrecy..."

"...We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/01/opinion/01keller.html?pagewanted=print
Click to expand...

Wow, totally ignoring relevant in between. You're da man/wimp.
 
Originally Posted by christiefan915
"...Thirty-five years ago yesterday, in the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote: "The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people...."

"...No article on a classified program gets published until the responsible officials have been given a fair opportunity to comment. And if they want to argue that publication represents a danger to national security, we put things on hold and give them a respectful hearing. Often, we agree to participate in off-the-record conversations with officials, so they can make their case without fear of spilling more secrets onto our front pages..."

"...each of us, in the past few years, has had the experience of withholding or delaying articles when the administration convinced us that the risk of publication outweighed the benefits. Probably the most discussed instance was The New York Times's decision to hold its article on telephone eavesdropping for more than a year, until editors felt that further reporting had whittled away the administration's case for secrecy..."

"...We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/01/op...gewanted=print
Click to expand...

Annie said:
Wow, totally ignoring relevant in between. You're da man/wimp.
Click to expand...

Wow....you haven't a clue with regards to the differences of what the Times was doing and what Briebart did. Either that or you are purposely ignoring the logical conclusions. Just like Blabba.
 
Watermark said:
Never has so much been owed by so many to so few, ACORN.
Click to expand...

coming from the guy who supports obama's latter half bailout and his stimulus.....

tell me.....how MUCH has been GIVEN by so few to so many?

and tell us, what government works by your philosophy? past, present.....and because i like you....future
 
Yurt said:
coming from the guy who supports obama's latter half bailout and his stimulus.....

tell me.....how MUCH has been GIVEN by so few to so many?

and tell us, what government works by your philosophy? past, present.....and because i like you....future
Click to expand...

bump watermark.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top