Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 92gator, Mar 14, 2014.
No, calling a media outlet and criticizing its coverage is not like Nazi Germany.
I tend to think some believe Obama invented calling/leaning on media outlets when it's a practice as old as media and politics. And it's not just trying to lean on them either, it's trying to plant stories, spin, etc....but it must be Gestapo like if Obama does it...
Why not? After all, he invented executive orders, signing statements, czars, free cell phones, the NSA, celebrating Ramadan .....
Huh, do what? Did you even read my entire post?
I'm pretty sure you haven't proved anything
Your thought was rather myopic to think I was only referring to THFSG and not broader masses. I know some liberals that are above this nonsense however the overwhelming majority have read and practice the guidelines.
hahaha. If it's something negative, Obama invented it. Seems though that Jindal wants to get in on the act...
I'd vote for Condi in a heartbeat, and in fact suggested her as a candidate in the post you quoted, so I don't really think that's it...
I don't like him as a potential candidate because he's just the latest of the GOP's political clowns trotted out to make absurd statements to appeal to the part of the base that cares about absolutely nothing other than being mad and having someone agree with them over being mad, no matter how illogical that agreement may be. And it seems a bit strange coming from someone who, other than his recent political flame-throwing, seems quite intelligent.
The problem I have with your second paragraph is just how belittling it is and really, is just inaccurate. You paint the picture as if Ben Carson has a script he's reading that's been authored by some secret committee of dastardly Republicans who have meticulously planned comments for specific events. He's not being "trotted out" by anyone, he's a well-respected guy that I believe is saying what he truly thinks. He's not some Frankensteinesque-creature being used by the Republicans to do their bidding - he's an intelligent well-though of professional simply voicing his opinion. Why can't he just be a citizen who Republicans like and have rallied behind because they respect him and like his views? It can't be that, it has to be that he's being "trotted out," as if he's some lap-dog.
For all I know he's trotting himself out because he enjoys the attention, but he's said a number of absolutely absurd things for someone of his intelligence. The "trotting out" reference is more that he seems to be the choice of the day amongst the flamethrower crowd (a lineup that also includes Newt, who I also think is far more intelligent than some of the absolutely nutty things that he has said recently).
The GOP has a wing out there that will eat up absolutely any bizarre claim you want to make, as long as it's directed at Obama. Maybe it's just that people really enjoy the guaranteed attention from that bloc which you can get by saying anything critical of Obama - the more outlandish the better - and that's why they do it, but if so it's a bit sad to see that politics has reached the point of very bright people going out and acting for the idiots just because it sells.
(And if they actually are his views, at least in terms of politics and history it would suggest that he's not nearly as intelligent as I believe him to be. "This is just like Nazi Germany!" is the kind of opinion I expect to hear from a nut who forwards chain emails, not someone who actually has any situational awareness and sense of perspective.)
I think it's a lot less mindless than you're making it out to be. Perhaps these guys, whom you admitted are both pretty intelligent, really mean what they're saying, have no intention of saying things for sake of being a publicity whore, and just want people to delve further into the topics. As I said earlier and River completely misquoted me; Let's say the IRS scandal is true, Obama knew, and he was using the IRS to punish Tea Partiers, let's say his Administration is knowingly being pushy with journalists, essentially limiting their freedom of speech, to prevent criticism of him - personally I wouldn't compare that to Nazi Germany, but I think I could see how it would be reasonable to. The reality is - he hasn't elaborated to great depth on the comments, so really, we're all just speculating. But interesting that your initial reaction is that they're essentially saying things solely because they "enjoy the attention," I think it's kind of an illogical conclusion. Ben Carson is pretty damn esteemed, I don't think he's feel the inclination to have to sell anything to anyone. The guy himself is a walking success story, what would even be the point in him selling "absurd statements?" Just do it? Just for fun? So a guy who has spent his life dedicated to education and helping others all of the sudden has turned in for the worst and has become an attention-hound? Come on.
Perhaps it warrants its own thread, but since it has become so relevant to this one, I'll just post this here:
REPORT: Emails Prove IRS Targeted Tea Party to Help Democrats
The emails show concern from Lerner about the Citizens United case decision hurting Democrats in the upcoming Senate elections. One document shows Lerner saying the Supreme Court gave the issue to the IRS “to fix the problem.”
She said, “The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they don’t like it. The Federal Election Commission can’t do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.”
After a senior advisor emailed her about the political danger Democrats could be placed in, she replied in an e-mail, “Perhaps the FEC will save the day.”
It is abundantly clear that the IRS abused their power in targeting Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. It is just as clear that the orders for this targeting came from the top, and were not the work of a handful of rogue agents in a regional office.
Lois Lerner pleading the 5th and refusing to testify before Congress only confirms that she has committed illegal activities. If she were innocent and had nothing to hide, she would not invoke her right against self-incrimination.
People need to be arrested for their illegal actions and IRS abuse. Those involved need to be subpoenaed and compelled to testify. Administration officials that are involved need to be publicly identified and dealt with accordingly.
Perhaps the Nazi Germany comparison was a bit much due to all of the connotations it carries with it, particularly vis a vis the Holocaust, but the type of abuse of government authority exemplified by the 'IRS scandal' was certainly Nazi-esque--at the very least, typical of tyrannical governance, be it fascist, communist, dictatorial, colonial, or otherwise. It was/is beyond bush league; it is, downright abusive.
...as for the objections concerning Dr. Carson's experience vis a vis Barry--it's a fair point, though distinctions are certainly relevant.
e.g.--Barry's inexperience hasn't been nearly as big a problem, as his shear arrogance about it; there is ZERO acknowledgement on his part, concerning his grotesque lack thereof--quite the contrary--with Barry, there has been a complete and total arrogance of "I know better than anyone", and "my way or the highway". Both are potential 'side effects' or consequences of inexperience--but not necessarily so. Both are curable, with sincere and adequate humility, which Dr. Carson has demonstrated an abundance of. And his resistance to run for office is also indicative of his humility, in this regard.
Secondly, Barry was reared up in Chicago style politics, which he brought with him. Again, Dr. Carson has shown no such 'corruption'.
Thirdly, Barry hasn't just failed to show concern about the debt and fiscal irresponsibility--he has actually even gone beyond championing such as benign, and championed the *virtue* of extravagant government spending. Dr. Carson is at least recognizing fiscal irresponsibility for what it is--just that.
Fourthly, experience was necessary for what Barry was attempting to do (and did--albeit horribly)--re-write the health care laws, and take down the existing system. Not so much, to repeal the monstrosity. (Getting the ball rolling on a better 're-write', would take experience--but the first and highest virtue in this regard, is humility--recognizing that the task at hand is huge, and soliciting as much input as possible--which of course, was grotesquely lacking, the last go around);
Finally, it should be worth noting that Barry's inexperience was in the executive arena--he had ZERO (Barry was experienced in politics--not necessarily a plus, other than for obtaining the office; not for discharging executive duties); Dr. Carson, OTOH, while admittedly inexperienced in the arena of politics--at least has some experience in the executive arena, through his scholarship fund--(perhaps more that we're not aware of).
Too early to 'crown' him heir apparent, sure--but also too early to write him off.
sadly, I've not the time as I work to support the lazy masses who live off the teat.and go to school at night., if you have been critical of prezbo, I don't recall it .
Surely you must be referring to Republican voters who have voted for two-term Presidents who have quadrupled and doubled the debt.
As for me, the last two Presidents I've helped elect have left the budget at a near-surplus and cut the Republican-inherited deficit in half.
When is the last time YOU voted for a President who cut the deficit ? Don't answer - we know. NEVER.
Thoughtful answer, 92. Thanks.
Yeah, this president has really sliced the debt, big time
Deficit, my friend, deficit. As I stated.
That's the first step for ANY President to reduce the debt - cutting the deficit they've inherit from a Republican.
The President can't raise the deficit on his own. This is one issue you need to take the hey team jersey off, because they're both complicit in this mess.
Actually, my point was that you used two different metrics. You complained about prior presidents and debt, but then shifted the argument to make Obama look good when, in fact, our debt continues to soar.
I've actually stated nothing but fact.
Regarding both Republican Presidents doubling and quadrupling the debt, and Democrat Presidents reducing the federal deficit. While Republican Presidents have NEVER done so.
Facts are easy to understand. Why can they be so hard to come to terms with ?