May 4, 2011 UPDATED: White House asked California paper to take out unflattering remark about first

reply to post by butcherguy


Ah, well, of course you can set your own terms, but then again so can I. I'm familiar with the theory that public figures are fair game; however, my objection isn't fairness but accuracy. Since I don't see what you see, naturally I assume the flaw must lie with you somehow. Surely it's not me, because I'm right about everything, of course. I don't know why everybody insists on arguing.

Obviously, what you look like wouldn't change what she looks like anyway. I just think it's a cheap shot, I suppose. But as you say, or at least imply -- it's up to you how much it costs to buy you.

reply to post by sepermeru
I gave you a star for being an insomniac.

Now that I see that you are not a mean person, I am going to go look at your profile and friend you.
BTW: You are right, I can be had for next to nothing.

Originally posted by shadwgirl


I found this article interesting for a few reasons. The main reason being on how the government knows what a newspaper, especially a small town paper, is going to print before it makes copy. In the interest of fairness, in this article the white house denies this ever happened. The second reason, if this is true, is that the white house is trying to control the news even on minor issues such as this.

dailycaller.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Nothing new. Gary Webb is rolling over in his grave.