Octopus Overlords

If that proves to be the case, and there aren't widespread and pernicious problems with voting in Texas (which we did see plenty of signs of last Tuesday, by the way), then I'll have been wrong about that. So far, there's no evidence that I am wrong, and plenty of evidence that I am right.

Since it is more of a random thought than on topic for the other discussions going on I decided to put it here.

It is both fascinating and hilarious to watch people claim that when the party they favor has an iron fist on an area it is the will of the people, but when the other party has a zone like that it is because they are cheating (gerrymandered districts, voter fraud, etc...). The level of blinders people put on when talking about politics is astounding at times. That is all.

Arcanis wrote:Since it is more of a random thought than on topic for the other discussions going on I decided to put it here.

It is both fascinating and hilarious to watch people claim that when the party they favor has an iron fist on an area it is the will of the people, but when the other party has a zone like that it is because they are cheating (gerrymandered districts, voter fraud, etc...). The level of blinders people put on when talking about politics is astounding at times. That is all.

Having a region of a state or a city, or even a whole state (hello, Oklahoma!), lean dramatically towards one party is very different than gerrymandering, wherein swooping, strangely-shaped districts are drawn specifically to advantage a particular party.

Fireball wrote:

Arcanis wrote:Since it is more of a random thought than on topic for the other discussions going on I decided to put it here.

It is both fascinating and hilarious to watch people claim that when the party they favor has an iron fist on an area it is the will of the people, but when the other party has a zone like that it is because they are cheating (gerrymandered districts, voter fraud, etc...). The level of blinders people put on when talking about politics is astounding at times. That is all.

Having a region of a state or a city, or even a whole state (hello, Oklahoma!), lean dramatically towards one party is very different than gerrymandering, wherein swooping, strangely-shaped districts are drawn specifically to advantage a particular party.

I'm not saying you are wrong that there was some kind of BS enabling one party to dominate, in most cases they are right. I'm saying people only see it as "cheating" when it is the other party and that is how it should be if it is theirs.

Gerrymandering is the new "in" reason why politics are the way they are. It was never done apparently in previous decades.

Scuzz wrote:Gerrymandering is the new "in" reason why politics are the way they are. It was never done apparently in previous decades.

This seems like something testable. It should be easy to see, for instance, if there are more "safe," totally-unlikely-to-swing-other-way congressional seats now than in the past. And it should be easy to see whether the balances thus created favor the party doing the shaping of districts.

Scuzz wrote:Gerrymandering is the new "in" reason why politics are the way they are. It was never done apparently in previous decades.

The degree and accuracy of gerrymandering has scaled with technology. Until the 1980s, it was a rather slapdash thing. In recent decades it's become dramatically more effective. That gerrymandering is poisonous to moderation and democracy can be seen in the comparative polarization of gerrymandered states, and the less polarized non-gerrymandered states. It's not the only problem, not by far, but it is a major one. It has to be fixed.

Used to be that voters chose politicians. Now politicians choose voters.

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-fak ... bs-report/

Rip wrote:

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-fak ... bs-report/

Interesting. The author cites his distrust of the Census Bureau, going all the way back to his 2010 articles. Which, according to the link below, is based on no evidence at all:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/0 ... sus/165898" target="_blank

On Your World, Neil Cavuto and the New York Post's John Crudele repeatedly falsely suggested that the Census Bureau is hiring, firing, and rehiring workers to artificially boost national employment figures, despite the fact that they acknowledged not having evidence that this is true.

How does that saying go again - 'no evidence is good evidence'? Wait, that's not right...

raydude wrote:

Rip wrote:

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-fak ... bs-report/

Interesting. The author cites his distrust of the Census Bureau, going all the way back to his 2010 articles. Which, according to the link below, is based on no evidence at all:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/0 ... sus/165898" target="_blank

On Your World, Neil Cavuto and the New York Post's John Crudele repeatedly falsely suggested that the Census Bureau is hiring, firing, and rehiring workers to artificially boost national employment figures, despite the fact that they acknowledged not having evidence that this is true.

How does that saying go again - 'no evidence is good evidence'? Wait, that's not right...

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.
The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

So are you saying Buckmon didn't happen? Or are you suggesting he is a lone offender?

So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

If this person falsified data, he should be fired, as should anyone who knew about it. The Labor Department and the Census Bureau should remove the data he submitted and recalculate unemployment rates without those data.

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

If this person falsified data, he should be fired, as should anyone who knew about it. The Labor Department and the Census Bureau should remove the data he submitted and recalculate unemployment rates without those data.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

pr0ner wrote:

AWS260 wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Obenshain is currently up by a mere 55 votes over Herring in the Virginia Attorney General race.

Crazy close. Now Herring is up by a hairsbreadth.

Back to Obenshian by 17!

The recount for this race will be fascinating to watch.

Just checked again today and Herring is up by 164. I wonder how much that's going to change during the recount.

Rip wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

If this person falsified data, he should be fired, as should anyone who knew about it. The Labor Department and the Census Bureau should remove the data he submitted and recalculate unemployment rates without those data.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

Anonymous source, without verification, in a Rupert Murdoch publication. In an article that regurgitates the "churning census hires to lower unemployment" myth. We'll see.

But I'll go ahead and expand: if the folks under a lot of pressure to get to 90% response rates for their employment surveys forged data to achieve their quota, all those doing so should be fired, as should any supervisors who were aware of this. And, again, if this is a real issue and not something made up by a Murdoch paper not known for its integrity, then the unemployment rate for affected months should be recalculated.

I wonder about the impact of this allegedly falsified data. The Post is asserting that it was sufficient to warp national unemployment ratings, and that data was falsified by the person collecting data for Philadelphia. However, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly outstanding about Philadelphia's own unemployment data in 2012, compared to other years for which data is available. In other words, there's nothing in the Philadelphia data to indicate that an inordinate number of reports were being filled out as "employed" as opposed to being filled out randomly, which would introduce inaccuracy, but not bias, to the final national data.

It's an incredibly long trip from "this person falsified some of the data he reported" to "this person's falsified data reduced the national unemployment rate", and even farther to "the Obama administration cooked the books on unemployment". *Nothing* asserted in the Post article provides support for this final assertion. But, of course, Fox News and Rep. Issa won't be constrained by such things as logic or facts.

Rip wrote:

raydude wrote:

Rip wrote:

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-fak ... bs-report/

Interesting. The author cites his distrust of the Census Bureau, going all the way back to his 2010 articles. Which, according to the link below, is based on no evidence at all:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/0 ... sus/165898" target="_blank

On Your World, Neil Cavuto and the New York Post's John Crudele repeatedly falsely suggested that the Census Bureau is hiring, firing, and rehiring workers to artificially boost national employment figures, despite the fact that they acknowledged not having evidence that this is true.

How does that saying go again - 'no evidence is good evidence'? Wait, that's not right...

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.
The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

So are you saying Buckmon didn't happen? Or are you suggesting he is a lone offender?

The point being - that if the author is citing previous articles as part of his case, articles that he himself already said were not substantiated by evidence - it calls his entire case into question. Including the validity of an anonymous source. Why should I trust his word about his anonymous source when he already has said he had no evidence for prior cases - YET STILL BRINGS THEM UP AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!?

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Poor Pwesident can't catch a bweak.

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Poor Pwesident can't catch a bweak.

I'm personally more concerned about how all of the red herrings Congress and Conservative media lob at the president bury executive branch wire tapping and force whistle blowers to be exiled while we expand "the failed policies of the Bush administration" though increased symbioses between the executive branch and wallstreet lobbying but I concur with premise. The President and his staff slide by because of Mafia like ignorance of his operation.

If the extreme right would stop with the bullshit, I have naive hope that people would give a shit about the stuff they let Eric Holder and the DoJ and the DEA and closed door overseers, unaccountable to congress get away with. Transparency my ass.

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Poor Pwesident can't catch a bweak.

From the article. Last sentence even:

Obama is a Teflon President because no one in the media seems willing or able to go over his head and report on what's really going on in in his criminal cartel.

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

So are you asserting that any of these "scandals" are actually legitimate? Seriously? Are you that stupid?

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Fast and Furious was another bullshit "scandal". The health care quote is obviously legitimate; the President shouldn't have said it, even when it was true (all plans in place before the law was passed *are* completely grandfathered in), since it being true relies on insurance companies and state insurance commissioners continuing or allowing to continue those same policies, which was never mandated in the law.

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Poor Pwesident can't catch a bweak.

I just went to that website and I'm fairly certain I'm dumber than I was before I clicked.
The comments in there are all kind of creepy... I backed out very slowly to make sure nobody saw me in there, a Canadian, they'd probably burn me like the evil witch I am.

Fireball wrote:

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

So are you asserting that any of these "scandals" are actually legitimate? Seriously? Are you that stupid?

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Fast and Furious was another bullshit "scandal". The health care quote is obviously legitimate; the President shouldn't have said it, even when it was true (all plans in place before the law was passed *are* completely grandfathered in), since it being true relies on insurance companies and state insurance commissioners continuing or allowing to continue those same policies, which was never mandated in the law.

And you are contending that there is absolutely no blame to be had by the administration on any of the 'bullshit' scandals? Seriously? Are you really that naive?

EDIT: Like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't think the administration is a 'cartel'

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North- ... B_DFWBrand" target="_blank

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is spending $7.9 million on the survey over three years, said participation was "100 percent voluntary" and anonymous.

But Cope said it didn't feel voluntary to her -- despite signs saying it was.

"I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but he wouldn't let me and forced me into a parking spot," she said.

Redfive wrote:
Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Poor Pwesident can't catch a bweak.

You really need to come up with a better name for this scandal. It lacks the punch of something like OMG! Benghazi!

I'll offer up, "Obama lied, people cried."

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

So are you asserting that any of these "scandals" are actually legitimate? Seriously? Are you that stupid?

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Fast and Furious was another bullshit "scandal". The health care quote is obviously legitimate; the President shouldn't have said it, even when it was true (all plans in place before the law was passed *are* completely grandfathered in), since it being true relies on insurance companies and state insurance commissioners continuing or allowing to continue those same policies, which was never mandated in the law.

And you are contending that there is absolutely no blame to be had by the administration on any of the 'bullshit' scandals? Seriously? Are you really that naive?

There are two things at issues: the actual incidents, and the scandals.

The IRS "Scandal": Had nothing to do with the President. It was a bunch of IRS hacks cutting corners. They did searches for "Tea Party," but also for terms like "progressive." It was wrong. The supervisor was fired, and his supervisor was forced to resign. That's an appropriate response.

The Fast and Furious "Scandal": This was an ATF program that began under the Bush Administration that aimed to track gun sales to Mexican cartels. It went off the rails, and the officers in charge of it were fired. Republicans have since turned this into a witch hunt against the Attorney General.

The Acorn "Scandals": This one doesn't involve Obama, but it is a cookie cutter right-wing "scandal." A Republican twit named James O'Keefe, who makes dishonest "gotcha" videos for a living, selectively edited videos he shot in order to imply illegal activity by ACORN. And then ACORN was attacked for "voter fraud" for properly flagging and turning in suspect forms returned as part of their voter drive. These scandals were just flat lies, with nothing to support them, and ended up destroying a hardworking, effective organization that advocated for the poor. Which, to Republicans, was ACORN's real crime.

The Benghazi "Scandal": This was a tragedy. But even before the bodies of the four victims were cold, Republicans were trying to blame the President. They claimed that the White House was intentionally lying in its initial statements, but emails later revealed that Ambassador Rice's statements were in line with the guidance coming from the intelligence community. Republicans continue to assert that the President for some reason didn't care about these Americans, when there is no evidence that he could have prevented the tragedy.

These "scandals" are all smoke. There's no fire here. And the same is true about this NY Post story.

Too close to Obama lied. The Economy died. which was already taken.

Redfive wrote:Too close to Obama lied. The Economy died. which was already taken.

Of course, out here in reality, the economy has gotten markedly better under President Obama.

Fireball wrote:

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

So are you asserting that any of these "scandals" are actually legitimate? Seriously? Are you that stupid?

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Fast and Furious was another bullshit "scandal". The health care quote is obviously legitimate; the President shouldn't have said it, even when it was true (all plans in place before the law was passed *are* completely grandfathered in), since it being true relies on insurance companies and state insurance commissioners continuing or allowing to continue those same policies, which was never mandated in the law.

And you are contending that there is absolutely no blame to be had by the administration on any of the 'bullshit' scandals? Seriously? Are you really that naive?

There are two things at issues: the actual incidents, and the scandals.

The IRS "Scandal": Had nothing to do with the President. It was a bunch of IRS hacks cutting corners. They did searches for "Tea Party," but also for terms like "progressive." It was wrong. The supervisor was fired, and his supervisor was forced to resign. That's an appropriate response.

The Fast and Furious "Scandal": This was an ATF program that began under the Bush Administration that aimed to track gun sales to Mexican cartels. It went off the rails, and the officers in charge of it were fired. Republicans have since turned this into a witch hunt against the Attorney General.

The Acorn "Scandals": This one doesn't involve Obama, but it is a cookie cutter right-wing "scandal." A Republican twit named James O'Keefe, who makes dishonest "gotcha" videos for a living, selectively edited videos he shot in order to imply illegal activity by ACORN. And then ACORN was attacked for "voter fraud" for properly flagging and turning in suspect forms returned as part of their voter drive. These scandals were just flat lies, with nothing to support them, and ended up destroying a hardworking, effective organization that advocated for the poor. Which, to Republicans, was ACORN's real crime.

The Benghazi "Scandal": This was a tragedy. But even before the bodies of the four victims were cold, Republicans were trying to blame the President. They claimed that the White House was intentionally lying in its initial statements, but emails later revealed that Ambassador Rice's statements were in line with the guidance coming from the intelligence community. Republicans continue to assert that the President for some reason didn't care about these Americans, when there is no evidence that he could have prevented the tragedy.

These "scandals" are all smoke. There's no fire here. And the same is true about this NY Post story.

So you've confirmed that, in fact, you are that naive.

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:

Redfive wrote:

Fireball wrote:So here we go, another trumped-up Republican scandal in the making. This will be brought up forever, even if it proves to be a bunch of trumped-up nothing like the IRS "scandal", a dishonest portrayal of events like the ACORN "scandals" or the Benghazi "scandal", or just something that the President gets slimed for even though there was no wrongdoing on his part like the Solyndra "scandal".

Classic Limbaugh Theorem. Nice Breitbart link to offset oft-linked Huff Post.

So are you asserting that any of these "scandals" are actually legitimate? Seriously? Are you that stupid?

You left out Fast and Furious and The Grandaddy: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period"

Fast and Furious was another bullshit "scandal". The health care quote is obviously legitimate; the President shouldn't have said it, even when it was true (all plans in place before the law was passed *are* completely grandfathered in), since it being true relies on insurance companies and state insurance commissioners continuing or allowing to continue those same policies, which was never mandated in the law.

And you are contending that there is absolutely no blame to be had by the administration on any of the 'bullshit' scandals? Seriously? Are you really that naive?

There are two things at issues: the actual incidents, and the scandals.

The IRS "Scandal": Had nothing to do with the President. It was a bunch of IRS hacks cutting corners. They did searches for "Tea Party," but also for terms like "progressive." It was wrong. The supervisor was fired, and his supervisor was forced to resign. That's an appropriate response.

The Fast and Furious "Scandal": This was an ATF program that began under the Bush Administration that aimed to track gun sales to Mexican cartels. It went off the rails, and the officers in charge of it were fired. Republicans have since turned this into a witch hunt against the Attorney General.

The Acorn "Scandals": This one doesn't involve Obama, but it is a cookie cutter right-wing "scandal." A Republican twit named James O'Keefe, who makes dishonest "gotcha" videos for a living, selectively edited videos he shot in order to imply illegal activity by ACORN. And then ACORN was attacked for "voter fraud" for properly flagging and turning in suspect forms returned as part of their voter drive. These scandals were just flat lies, with nothing to support them, and ended up destroying a hardworking, effective organization that advocated for the poor. Which, to Republicans, was ACORN's real crime.

The Benghazi "Scandal": This was a tragedy. But even before the bodies of the four victims were cold, Republicans were trying to blame the President. They claimed that the White House was intentionally lying in its initial statements, but emails later revealed that Ambassador Rice's statements were in line with the guidance coming from the intelligence community. Republicans continue to assert that the President for some reason didn't care about these Americans, when there is no evidence that he could have prevented the tragedy.

These "scandals" are all smoke. There's no fire here. And the same is true about this NY Post story.

So you've confirmed that, in fact, you are that naive.

And you've confirmed that, in fact, you are stupid.

.

Fireball wrote:

Redfive wrote:Too close to Obama lied. The Economy died. which was already taken.

Of course, out here in reality, the economy has gotten markedly better under President Obama.

....

Grow up people. Consider this an official request.

ImLawBoy wrote:Grow up people. Consider this an official request.

Noted.

I love being the guy (at least twice in recent months) standing up to FB's unprovoked personal shots and then subsequently getting called on it.

No need to take it any further though--my desire to hang out on this board far outweighs any need to participate in this sub forum.

Redfive wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:Grow up people. Consider this an official request.

Noted.

I love being the guy (at least twice in recent months) standing up to FB's unprovoked personal shots and then subsequently getting called on it.

No need to take it any further though--my desire to hang out on this board far outweighs any need to participate in this sub forum.

You weren't the only one being called out on it - that was directed to all.

Fair enough, thanks.

For the record FB is only naive under Democrat administrations, when Bush was in office he was as cynical as they come.

Rip wrote:For the record FB is only naive under Democrat administrations, when Bush was in office he was as cynical as they come.

Yes, I've noticed a fascinating pattern whereby Liberals tend to defend liberal administrations and attack conservative ones. Likewise, Conservatives tend to attack liberal administrations while defending conservative ones. WTF is up wif dat??!!

Rip wrote:For the record FB is only naive under Democrat administrations, when Bush was in office he was as cynical as they come.

I'm with LM - I'm pretty annoyed that Republicans spend so much time on the faux scandals that they ignore the drone war and the completely out-of-control NSA. The Obama administration is guilty of massively expanding the reach of government into our private lives and yet Republicans want to focus on an embassy attack that took place over a year ago.


I assume it's because they have no intention of changing those policies if they ever retake power.

Exodor wrote:

Rip wrote:For the record FB is only naive under Democrat administrations, when Bush was in office he was as cynical as they come.

I'm with LM - I'm pretty annoyed that Republicans spend so much time on the faux scandals that they ignore the drone war and the completely out-of-control NSA. The Obama administration is guilty of massively expanding the reach of government into our private lives and yet Republicans want to focus on an embassy attack that took place over a year ago.


I assume it's because they have no intention of changing those policies if they ever retake power.

To be fair the Democrats spent plenty of time blasting those things and the lack of transparency.

How's that working out now they could actually do something about it?

Myself I don't care for saying one thing and doing another anymore than I like doing and saying things I don't want.

Exodor wrote:I assume it's because they have no intention of changing those policies if they ever retake power.