It's not interesting, it's a predictable opinion piece by a Trump reporter. I don't think your continued posts are having the effect you hope they are. You made your point two or three posts ago.

Trump reporter? I don't think so. She worked at CBS news for 20 years.

She knows both universes:

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201...ews-184836

Whatever could have led to my conclusion?

From your article, in 2014: "But Attkisson had become a polarizing figure at the network, sources there said. While some championed her relentless dedication to investigations — ranging from defective Firestone tires to the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal — others saw evidence of a political agenda, particularly against President Barack Obama. (The bulk of Attkisson’s work since 2009 has focused on the failures or perceived failures of the Obama administration, including its failed green-energy investments and the attack in Benghazi, though she has reported on several Republican failures as well.)"

She left CBS for the Sinclair Broadcast Group. "Sinclair has faced scrutiny from media critics, as well as some of its station employees, for the conservative slant of their stations' local news reporting and other programming decisions, and how the company's rapid growth has aided its dissemination of content that appeal to these views."

Most recent books: Stonewalled: One Reporter's Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington
The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote

The link from thehill.com you posted is an opinion piece, not an article. It represents her opinions, not investigative reporting.

This is my last post on this thread. I'd recommend it be locked, because it's devolved into nonsense.

I linked the whole article for folks to read and contemplate, and didn't just cite portions of the article which support the usual media universe point of view. Information is a good thing.

You've called the veteran reporter out as a "Trump reporter", and you've called me out as my posts not having the effect that I hoped they would. You do realize that you are shooting the messengers, and ignoring the message?

As for your call to block the thread, this isn't Twitter. Are you really joining in the call for censorship of the other universe's point of view? This is an evolving situation, and the final disposition of same is going to have ramifications for a very long time. Nope, can't discuss it here! Really?

Finally, if you are calling for censorship, and non-consideration of the other universe's point of view, more decisions like W&M just made will continue to be made, and that is the point of this thread.

I think that he is not calling for censorship. He is calling for closing the thread. Reason being everyone already has an opinion on the direction of politics in America before even reading further. Anything posted, no matter how "unbiased", whether an opinion piece or article is going to fall one of two ways along the political aisle. One man's information is another man's propaganda. Its human nature to cite articles that support our views and minimize the counterpoint or label it fake news. Not to put words in his mouth, but it isn't censorship. It just isn't productive and the only possible end result is rubbing folks the wrong way.

Maybe we should discuss something less polarizing like religion?

I understand your point, and I'm not looking to rub anyone the wrong way. I'm not even trying to persuade. Just trying to inform.

However, think about what you just wrote.

We are not talking about political parties.

We are talking about the Department of Justice and the FBI. They are supposed to be above politics. They are supposed to be squeaky clean. They are supposed to act ethically. They are supposed to have ethical leadership. After all, that is what Jim Comey's proposed course is all about.

If the DOJ and FBI have become politicized, and haven't acted ethically, is Jim Comey's course going to discuss that? But for us, we can't talk about it as everything is seen through partisan political lenses?

In some ways, this thread is participating in the course in ethical leadership before it occurs by providing information and different points of view. Socratic method comes to mind.

Furthermore, it's okay for the school to hire Jim Comey because politics was not involved, but it's not okay for alumni to question the timing because that is political?

There is another universe out there with information that the usual media is not conveying to those who rely upon the usual media. Simply trying to inform.

But, hey, that's fine. I'll stop.

Maybe I can monitor the class.

:-)

P.S. If this is such a hot potato that we can't talk about it without rubbing each other the wrong way, what was the school thinking in unilaterally making this hire at this time? This is a hot potato, no doubt.

(01-27-2018 10:42 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I think that he is not calling for censorship. He is calling for closing the thread. Reason being everyone already has an opinion on the direction of politics in America before even reading further. Anything posted, no matter how "unbiased", whether an opinion piece or article is going to fall one of two ways along the political aisle. One man's information is another man's propaganda. Its human nature to cite articles that support our views and minimize the counterpoint or label it fake news. Not to put words in his mouth, but it isn't censorship. It just isn't productive and the only possible end result is rubbing folks the wrong way.

Maybe we should discuss something less polarizing like religion?

If it is this "polarizing" to even discuss this announcement hire and job title, then that should be a signal to the College right there, maybe this isn't such a good idea.

A different time, a different job title, likely no issue.

Sorry but, regardless of your politics, W&M DID make a political statement, not really by the hire itself, but the title we bestow on Mr. Comey.

Alums and posters have every right to be outspoken on this.

(01-27-2018 10:42 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I think that he is not calling for censorship. He is calling for closing the thread.

Bingo. This stopped being about Comey, and stopped being worthwhile before that. Probably somewhere around:

(01-24-2018 07:29 AM)nj alum Wrote:  I am not going to get into a political back and forth with you.

followed by immediately getting into a political back and forth. There's been no earnest attempt to discuss anything since you brought up different "universes". That's why I called for the thread to be closed.

I know I said I had already made my last post. I'm not going to let you intentionally misinterpret my words without a response. Maybe your universal translator is broken.

SB, alums and posters do have every right to be outspoken about the Comey hiring. This thread stopped being about that around page 2. I agree with you, though. Probably the idea should have been floated at a couple of alumni functions and after all the fistfights stopped they would have made a better decision.

For some levity....

I think we can agree at least the timing here was "extremely careless".

Time will tell whether this decision was "grossly negligent".

Let's go Tribe!

Famous people are seldom great; and, great people are seldom famous. Believe it. People like Comey are actually low life’s.

(02-02-2018 09:15 PM)SoCal Frank Wrote:  Famous people are seldom great; and, great people are seldom famous. Believe it. People like Comey are actually low life’s.

Nothing has really changed. You either like the man or you don't. Washington Times reported that nothing has changed. William & Mary still plan on hiring him. Apparently they don't put much stock in the partisan memo either. Thanks for your opinion though.

Things have changed, and not for the better. Surely, someone at William & Mary has to have an inkling. The genie is out of the bottle.

According to one article below, six FBI/DOJ officials have been re-assigned or been fired. The IG's report is on the horizon, and the IG's investigation was started under President Obama. It will not be pretty.

If the IG's report report is worse than the Nunes' memo, what will be the excuse to ignore the total breakdown of law and order on the federal level?

Nunes batted first. Grassley is batting second. Goodlatte is batting third. IG Horowitz is batting clean-up. Nunes is on first base, and Grassley is at the plate.

If you're interested:

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3720...atic-truth

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/371...department

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-2...xpose-caba

If you read the memo, it was not a Section VII FISA warrant.

Apparently, it was a Section I FISA warrant. The FBI got a warrant on Page as an alleged foreign agent, and that enabled the FBI to do surveillance on ANYONE who came into contact with Page to try to found out Page's entire "spy network". Furthermore, the FBI signed several renewals which, according to the timeline, occurred after Trump became President. In essence, a sitting President was probably under active FBI surveillance.

The FBI avoided oversight by the legislative branch, misled the judicial branch, tried to effect a change at the top of the executive branch, and wants to deny the public it's right to know. A good argument can be made that it went / has gone rogue.

The press? On the side of the FBI, and not the three branches of government, and the public's right to know.

Pelosi warns of constitutional crisis; a Republican charges treason.

As any Trump supporter will tell you, it was inevitable that this would be a battle to the death between the insiders and the outsiders. It's really not a partisan issue as lots of R's are insiders, and despised by Trump supporters. There will be a lot of casualties. W&M should have stayed out of it, and not become a casualty.

If only our fellow alum would graciously put this teaching assignment on hold until the smoke clears ...

You should probably stop posting, unless you're reiterating, "I think W&M hiring Comey was bad." The place for your rantings is here: http://csnbbs.com/forum-498.html There's lots of people there who will yell with/at you.

We've had at least 3 pages of nonsense on this thread, with everybody's thoughts being posted early and nothing changing beyond acquiescence that probably this hire should have been delayed for a year or four.

I have stopped posting on this issue.

Just responding to the post that "nothing has really changed". Just pointing out that I disagree, and why.

Resisting the urge to post again realizing that it is pointless

I happened to watch Face the Nation Sunday, the 20 minute piece that featured Trey Gowdy. Now here is someone who is more than qualified to teach Ethical Leadership.

If you haven't seen it, you should check it on youtube.

He mentioned he is leaving politics and may take a teaching job at Clemson. Is it too late for a trade?

Again, Resisting the urge to post again realizing that it is pointless

Nunes and Grassley have hit.

Goodlatte is at the plate.

On deck, Horowitz:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...inton-case

(02-03-2018 08:34 AM)nj alum Wrote:  I have stopped posting on this issue.

What happened to this?

Mr. Joolius has more self-control!

Cold turkey is hard.

I fall off the bandwagon every now and then.

:-)