There is a big difference as far as consequences to the nation but, I would want it to apply to declared candidates for offices where the present office holder can't collude with the press, too. If such a law were to be passed it would need to be inclusive.
Maybe it's just me, but the latest sockpuppet asshole (AKA "hoofhearted") reminds me an awful lot of Peoria Ron. Different writing styles, but the same drawn out "game of semantics" as you called it. The guy will just talk into circles and think that he is getting somewhere.
I can't keep track of all these people as they change usernames. The liberals here seem to re-invent themselves time after time. It just tells me there is a lot of instability in the liberal mind.
Actually, I have very little concern over the matter. I'm not really too concerned about Obama's "parlays with the liberal press", and I'm certainly not concerned about you posting your opinion of it. I could have easily posted your opinion for you. It is pretty obvious though, that you and others seem to be hell bent on judging the situation as Obama and his team of demonic reporters all conniving and conspiring to bamboozle the public with their liberal shenanigans. I'm going to share something with you, because I'm starting to realize your ignorance is playing a part in this- If there is any blatant wrong doing going on, those liberal buffoon reporters will turn on him just as quick as as Fox turned on Bush and Romney for their outlandish escapades. A story is a story, and every one of those involved would love the opportunity to make a name for themselves by exposing it. How are they any more wrong than you for the reporting of lies and propaganda? Or maybe your disgust and hatred is rooted in jealousy... ...just because the other party has a guy that actually has some social skills, and the people seem to like him. He doesn't appear to deliberately try to piss off the media and the people the way Bush and Romney have for the last dozen years or so. This may have some truth, and I'd like to hear some others' views on it, that aren't lathered in the pre-determined hatred. Again here you are judging the actions of a person who you have already made up your mind being as a disgusting and vile dictator. You say that he is up to no good, but without knowing any facts of the particular situation you are posting about. You also forgot to mention that hoping to persuade the media is also a trait of Mitt Romney during yours and his campaign. I already gave my opinion if you would have just taken the time to actually read it and think about it instead of going straight into a typing frenzy. Basically what I'm saying is- IIWII- it is what it is. Let's say you had your way and it was no longer allowed for a politician of high stature to engage with reporters off-the-record... What's next, He can't call another politician friend and ask for a favor? You want to make it so no president can succeed, but you'll be the first to bitch about him, that is unless maybe there is a snowball's chance he is a republican president, or your candidate- then you obviously had no problem with their schmoozing the media. I'm not saying there isn't a code of ethics that should be followed, but c'mon player, you know this guy, Obama, can't win in your book no matter what- that is unless he kills himself or resigns (but not first without taking the entire democratic party down in flames with him). Actually, I have noted that the best way to open the lines of communication with you about any subject in general, is to say something as simple as the truth, and you'll quickly cough up what's really in your heart, which is hatred. You feel free to pump out insults to me and others that have no real bearing, yet you find it repulsive to think that someone else may actually see you as being a sanctimonious hypocrite at times. Hell, aren't we all? I'm not defending Obama, and you know it, so why try to make it seem as such?
Sure, I can see a difference, but you still haven't answered my question to you: Is it ok for your candidate to engage in these activities? If so, wouldn't that put the incumbent at a pretty steep disadvantage if he wasn't allowed the same tactics? I have to say that I find it a bit amusing that so many of you have never even considered this a problem until Obama makes the action. As I have said- this "news" is as old as my grampa's coon skin rubber, but now, all of the sudden, it is considered tyranny? Maybe all I can say about the situation is Welcome to the real world, fellas. I'm not saying this can't be looked at a bit further, but (some of you) let's try to keep our hatred in check before we go flying off the deep end again.
I'm beginning to think you've lost the ability to make a post that doesn't directly involve your sock puppet fantasies. Just go into the feedback section and ask Baron to run my IP, if you have the balls. He may humor you. BTW- Shouldn't you be getting punched in the mouth by Clint Eastwood or his orangutan somewhere right about now?
Right...because every new registrant jumps right in to the P&R and rattles off 50 posts in a row (RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION). Did you just kick the dog when you heard the verdict?
LOL You are the one bent out of shape. Just look at your ridiculous diatribe about nothing. I'm beginning to question your sanity, son. And, what lies and propaganda are you talking about? Are you saying Obama didn't have an off the record meeting with some in the press to hatch a plan to promote his agenda? LMAO. Yeah, that must be it. I'm jealous of Obama. I said earlier that you don't understand and it's obvious that you don't if you can't see how Obama and the MSM are in bed together and it is a hugely dangerous precedent for this country. You must be blinded by your love for the Obama. You mean all worked up and foaming at the mouth like you are? You've already heard from some others, none of whom have supported your posts. Maybe you should learn to read and not just get all worked up over nothing. Oh, we've seen plenty of facts. I would list a few of them here but you aren't interested in facts. You are just an ignorant liberal trying to defend the indefensible. But you are in a typing frenzy. And, no, you've never said if you think presidents should cosy up to the press and plan strategy to advance agendas. And, look at all the gibberish you have posted just to try and say I am sanctimonious. Geez. Get a life, hoofy. All of that bull shit just to say "IT IS WHAT IT IS?" Are you still in grade school? Where did you come up with that? Did I say there was anything next? No. You are just making shit up, as usual. So, if a president can't smooch with the press and plan secret agendas with them they can't succeed? I don't think you can come to that conclusion without taking some serious detours from reality. I did agree with him on something once but I forgot what it was. If he would approve the Keystone Pipeline, I would agree with him on that. Otherwise he has just shown us he is nothing but a destroyer of America and American values. Communicate with me? Isn't that what you are doing by attacking me? Agreed, it is a poor method of communication but it is communication. It seems to me that you are the one expressing hatred here. You have it in your mind to attack me over this matter. Hell, I'm not even the one who wrote the story. You are just a little off in the cerebral area. Just returning the favor. You attack me and so I attack you. See how that works when YOU instigate negativity? Don't lie to us. That is obviously exactly what you are doing. You really need to organize your mind so you don't just post so much bull shit.