With JW's record, I am confident this will go a long ways, lol!One can only hope, though.
My thanks to Traumer, Arrowhead1952 and Conspiracy Guy for the concept of the above pic
Posted on 08/18/2004 2:58:40 PM PDT by Petronski
Where did the old nutcase go?
In-depth results from that poll, measuring reaction to the Swift Boat Vets ad today, are available here in PDF form. An interesting nugget:
In the most important aspect of advertising – effectiveness – the Swift Boat ad significantly outperformed the Kerry ad. Not only did Independent viewers consciously attest to the persuasiveness of the Swift Boat ad, but they also reconsidered intentions to vote for Kerry at startling levels after viewing the video. In overall persuasiveness, Independents were more convinced by the attacks of the Swift Boat ad than by the supporting message of the Kerry ad. 53.89% of Independent viewers agreed to some extent that the Swift Boat ad was persuasive. Meanwhile, 43.25% felt so about the Kerry ad. Also, the Swift Boat ad managed to outperform the Kerry ad yet again in the intensity with which viewers accepted its message. 15.03% of Swift Boat ad viewers chose the strongest level of agreement with the notion that the ad is persuasive, while only 7.30% of Kerry ad viewers did so.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27075.htm
LOL!!!
so, thats all the rats are doing
I think another approach would be to get all of Kerry's records under the FOIA. Yes there is an exemption for privacy act, however he has IMO relinquished that right by 1) making his record a public issue for the highest office in the land and 2) by saying he has already released his records.
IMO The publics right to know now exceeds his right to privacy and he has brought it on himself, not by mistake or accident.
I want to know how the government allowed this individual to perpetrate his deception on the government and the American Public. I want to see all the reports Kerry submitted.I want to know if Navy regulations were circumvented as to witnesses. I want to see witness reports. I think Unfit for Command could also be titled "Anatomy of A Fraud...
http://www.foiadvocates.com/exemptions.html
Exemption 6
Documents which are "personnel and medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
This exemption protects the privacy interests of individuals by allowing an agency to withhold personal data kept in government files. Keep in mind that by the plain terms of the statute, only individuals can have privacy interests. By definition, corporations and other "legal persons" can have no privacy rights under the Exemption 6 because there can be no objective expectation attaching against an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Occasionally, agencies or business submitters of information will assert Exemption 6 when, in fact, the proper analysis should sound under Exemption 4.
(a) The Supreme Court has reviewed the application of this exemption. It noted: First, in evaluating whether a request for information lies within the scope of a FOIA exemption, such as Exemption 6, that bars disclosure when it would amount to an invasion of privacy that is to some degree 'unwarranted, 'a court must balance the public interest in disclosure against the interest Congress intended the [e]xemption to protect."
Department of Defense v. F.L.R.A., 114 S.Ct. 1006, 1012 (1994).
(b) The Court continued:
Second, the only relevant "public interest in disclosure" to be weighed in this balance is the extent to which disclosure would serve the "core purpose of the FOIA," which is "contribut[ing] significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. Id.
In other words, the requested materials must in some way illuminate "what the government is 'up to'" in order to justify disclosure. A request for information from the government which illustrates what you neighbor, or business competitor, is "up to" will not meet the public interest balancing test under exemption 6. The exemption requires agencies to strike a balance between an individual's privacy interest and the public right to know. However, since only a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy is a basis for withholding, there is a perceptible tilt in favor of disclosure in the exemption. "In the Act generally, and particularly under Exemption (6), there is a strong presumption in favor of disclosure." Local 598 v. Department of Army Corps of Engineers, 841 F.2d 1459, 1463 (9th. Cir. 1988) (emphasis added). In that case, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the context of applicable Exemption 6 case law:
The Freedom of Information Act embodies a strong policy of disclosure and places a duty to disclose on federal agencies. As the district court recognized, 'disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the Act.' Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 1599, 48 L.Ed.2d 11 (1976).
'As a final and overriding guideline courts should always keep in mind the basic policy of the FOIA to encourage the maximum feasible public access to government information....'
Nationwide Bldg. Maintenance, Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704, 715 (D.C.Cir.1977). As a consequence, the listed exemptions to the normal disclosure rule are to be construed narrowly. See Rose, 425 U.S. at 361, 96 S.Ct. at 1599. This is particularly true of Exemption (6). Exemption (6) protects only against disclosure which amounts to a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.' That strong language 'instructs us to 'tilt the balance [of disclosure interests against privacy interests] in favor of disclosure.'" Id. (emphasis added), citing Washington Post Co. v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 690 F.2d 252, 261 (D.C.Cir.1982) (quoting Ditlow v. Shultz, 517 F.2d 166, 169 (D.C. Cir.1975)).
Moreover, the Privacy Act of 1974 regulates the disclosure of personal information about an individual. The FOIA and the Privacy Act partially overlap in this regard, but there is no real inconsistency. An individual seeking records about herself should cite both laws when making a request. This will ensure that the maximum amount of disc losable information will be released. Also remember that records which can be denied to an individual under the Privacy Act are not necessarily exempt under the FOIA.
With JW's record, I am confident this will go a long ways, lol!One can only hope, though.
My thanks to Traumer, Arrowhead1952 and Conspiracy Guy for the concept of the above pic
they're the only people who send me more requests for money
than the NRA.
He'll be back as soon as he loses that primary.
The Swifties should stay away from this, IMO.
It's unlikely that the 5gon would say, "Yep...everything was a screwed up..."
It's unlikely that the 5gon would say, "Yep...everything was ALL screwed up..."
There is when you never win in court. Heck, when you never GO to court.
and the hits... just keep right on coming!!!
Even if Jwatch doesn't do much with the issue legally, maybe some more of the press other then Fox will get involved... The more press gets into this we may finally get the records released and Kerry definately doesn't want his med records released... he has to explain purple hearts for scratches fixed with band aids.... Won't be good...
Now you've figured it out.
JW has no legal standing.
THE DAM IS CRACKING!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
