Where’s Elon on this?
- Thread starter mnole03
- Start date
He didn't mean what he tweeted.
And if he did you misunderstood him
And if you didn't you're just a dumb lib who hates america
And if he did you misunderstood him
And if you didn't you're just a dumb lib who hates america
What you guys don't like transparency?
-Northern probably
-Northern probably
Kiriakou offered a harsh but accurate judgment about Obama’s conduct. “President Obama has been unprecedented in his use of the Espionage Act to prosecute those whose whistleblowing he wants to curtail. The purpose of an Espionage Act prosecution, however, is not to punish a person for spying for the enemy, selling secrets for personal gain, or trying to undermine our way of life. It is to ruin the whistleblower personally, professionally and financially. It is meant to send a message to anybody else considering speaking truth to power: challenge us and we will destroy you.”
In addition to its vendetta against whistleblowers, Obama’s administration waged a robust campaign to harass and intimidate journalists, even mainstream journalists, who utilized leaked material. In May 2013, the Justice Department seized the records of phone lines that Associated Press employees used. AP confirmed that the records were from personal home and cell phones of reporters and editors, as well as phones that AP used in the press quarters of the House of Representatives. The administration’s contempt for the basic requirements of due process was alarming. As CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson noted, such a seizure was “unheard of.” Beyond the abusive display of power that those raids embodied, she was outraged that no advance notice was given to the AP about the subpoena. “Advance notice would have given AP the chance to challenge the move in court.” Of course, that predictable response likely was the reason the Justice Department did not follow such a procedure.
A coalition of 50 news organizations, including ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Committee for Freedom of the Press, submitted a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric Holder about the raid. It stated that “none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for newsgathering materials was deployed by the Department [of Justice], particularly without notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicial review. The scope of this action calls into question the very integrity of the Department of Justice policies toward the press and its ability to balance, on its own, its police powers against the First Amendment rights of the news media and the public’s interest in reporting on all manner of conduct, including matters touching on national security which lie at the heart of this case.” Holder summarily rebuffed the protest, and there was no indication that it inhibited in the slightest the administration’s crackdown on leaks and news organizations using such information.
The dragnet raid against the Associated Press was not the extent of the administration’s assault on the press. Officials also conducted electronic surveillance of both New York Times reporter James Risen and Fox News correspondent James Rosen in an effort to identify their sources. The government even named Rosen as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in an espionage case brought against his source. Similarly, the administration asserted that it had the right to prosecute Risen, although it chose not to take that step. Those were all ominous warning signals of a government campaign to erase even the limited protections that the Pentagon Papers ruling had provided.
In addition to its vendetta against whistleblowers, Obama’s administration waged a robust campaign to harass and intimidate journalists, even mainstream journalists, who utilized leaked material. In May 2013, the Justice Department seized the records of phone lines that Associated Press employees used. AP confirmed that the records were from personal home and cell phones of reporters and editors, as well as phones that AP used in the press quarters of the House of Representatives. The administration’s contempt for the basic requirements of due process was alarming. As CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson noted, such a seizure was “unheard of.” Beyond the abusive display of power that those raids embodied, she was outraged that no advance notice was given to the AP about the subpoena. “Advance notice would have given AP the chance to challenge the move in court.” Of course, that predictable response likely was the reason the Justice Department did not follow such a procedure.
A coalition of 50 news organizations, including ABC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Committee for Freedom of the Press, submitted a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric Holder about the raid. It stated that “none of us can remember an instance where such an overreaching dragnet for newsgathering materials was deployed by the Department [of Justice], particularly without notice to the affected reporters or an opportunity to seek judicial review. The scope of this action calls into question the very integrity of the Department of Justice policies toward the press and its ability to balance, on its own, its police powers against the First Amendment rights of the news media and the public’s interest in reporting on all manner of conduct, including matters touching on national security which lie at the heart of this case.” Holder summarily rebuffed the protest, and there was no indication that it inhibited in the slightest the administration’s crackdown on leaks and news organizations using such information.
The dragnet raid against the Associated Press was not the extent of the administration’s assault on the press. Officials also conducted electronic surveillance of both New York Times reporter James Risen and Fox News correspondent James Rosen in an effort to identify their sources. The government even named Rosen as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in an espionage case brought against his source. Similarly, the administration asserted that it had the right to prosecute Risen, although it chose not to take that step. Those were all ominous warning signals of a government campaign to erase even the limited protections that the Pentagon Papers ruling had provided.
He was being sarcastic according to all of the "I voted on principles", folks who just couldn't vote for someone as unqualified as the WOC lady
SpaceX would have went bankrupt if not for NASA bailing them out.
Elon's goal here is to deny the same benefits his company got from the government to other small rocket companies. Kill any competion before it can get going.
The thing is, SpaceX isn't going to spend time just sending probes out to other planets or random locations just to see what they find. There's no money in that. It's the whole reason NASA exists. NASA has their moon missions, but it looks like another example of how a new administration scraps a NASA plan that existed from the previous administration so nothing ever gets accomplished. It's too bad because at least Biden had the sense to say "good enough" and didn't mess with much from what the previous Trump administration had ok'd. But here we go again and if he eliminates NASA then we won't even be out there to discover new things either.
Read: will stop shoveling billions in taxpayer money to Boeing for nothing to show.
NASA can still fund those missions, but instead of paying contractors like Boeing to deliver nothing, they can offer contracts they pay upon delivery.
SpaceX can deliver.
Goodbye to things like James Webb and probes to planets. Elon's gotta make money.
elon is a net negative on the united states. He is concerned for population over planet which means he is soley concerned with making money and himself.
Need more kids. Also need you to dedicate more of your life to work more hours. He isn't going to pay you more though. He's a terrible parent, you can be too.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep 121 Iowa BBall SLUMP: Women Lose 5 in a Row, Men Drop 2 in LA
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
