Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Obama cannot claim executive privilege over a scandal he owns lock, stock, and barrel because the papers requested never involved the White House   (nationalreview.com) divider line 274
    More: Ironic, President Obama, executive privilege, White House, D.C. Circuit, Furious, executive branches, DOJ, checks and balances  
•       •       •

2259 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2012 at 3:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



274 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-21 05:53:23 PM  

qorkfiend: Your argument is wrong because you're ugly.


Actually that is such a stupid argument that it doesn't have a name. I hereby dub it the Retarded 3 year old Nose Picker fallacy (named after it's creator).
 
2012-06-21 05:54:15 PM  

paygun: Mikey1969: Yeah, I didn't fall for that one, either.

So do you think you're smarter than the average slack jawed retard, or dumber? It sure seems like you're smarter to me.


Well, considering that I didn't buy what turned out to be a total sack of lies from day 1, I must be smarter.
 
2012-06-21 05:57:57 PM  

paygun: qorkfiend: He didn't say they weren't liberals. He said they aren't active within the Democratic party.

yeah totally different


They are different. the democratic party has liberals, but not all liberals are democrats. People like ALF, ELF, etc are not traditionally in the democratic party, nor do they have any sort of power in the party's policies.

Compare that to say, the tea party, who are fairly radical, and control a lot of GOP national policy and state policy.
 
2012-06-21 05:58:23 PM  

Welfare Xmas: jcooli09: It works for people that repeat him, too.

What? You ad homonym attacks. You may want to try an argument style that is not false by construction.


What's a homonym attack? Using words that sound the same but have entirely different meanings? Example: "I'm a-gonna chute ewe!".

And you left a 'd' off of 'add'.
 
2012-06-21 05:58:26 PM  

Mikey1969: paygun: Mikey1969: I'm cusious as to how your logic equates 'The goverrnment farked up and watched people buy guns illegally' with 'Assault weapons ban'... That's like having a program to demonstrate the effects of drunk driving by paying people to get wasted and then drive home, and then when people die and you are caught, you pass a law to put breathalyzer ignition interlocks on eveyone's car in the country.

"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"

Yeah, I didn't fall for that one, either.


"The war will pay for itself"

"We will be greeted at liberators"

"Mushroom cloud of uncertainty and fear"

And, my personal favorite, "We don't need an exit strategy"

How could you be so cynical as to doubt the veracity of these claims, and see their subsequent lack of fruition as anything other than the fault of the unpatriotic?

During the run up to the war, I wanted to save every article I could. Anything at all that came out of the Bush administration, and scrapbook it. It isn't that I didn't know I was being lied to, it's that I knew that even just a few years later, the absolute extent of the dishonesty would be either forgotten or denied.
 
2012-06-21 06:00:14 PM  

Welfare Xmas: jcooli09: It works for people that repeat him, too.

What? You ad homonym attacks. You may want to try an argument style that is not false by construction.


That wasn't an argument, it was a shortcut. I've listened to Rush on and off for years, and he is predictable: he never draws any conclusions that aren't bullshiat.

I've found that people that repeat him usually let other people do their thinking for them, so that's another shortcut. This one is not quite as reliable, occasionally someone proves it wrong. I'll wait for you to.
 
2012-06-21 06:00:27 PM  

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


It was called Project Gunrunner and began in 2006
 
2012-06-21 06:01:00 PM  

Mikey1969: What's a homonym attack? Using words that sound the same but have entirely different meanings? Example: "I'm a-gonna chute ewe!".

And you left a 'd' off of 'add'.


OMFG, I got pwned by the spell checker. All my arguments are therefore invalid (Non-Sequitur).

You need to come up with a better argument strategy you're still in the realm of "false by construction."
 
2012-06-21 06:02:11 PM  

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: I couldn't find ammo anywhere for 2+ years.

Given your intelligence level and apparent emotional instability I'd say that's a good thing.


Not sure where you're supposedly getting the "emotional instability" thing, but since I can spell ad hominem (And know how to look it up if I'm not sure), actually know what it means, and don't automaically believe everything CBS tells me, I'm willing to bet that Im at least a little bit more intelligent than you are, and that's all that matters at the moment.
 
2012-06-21 06:04:07 PM  

Mikey1969: Not sure where you're supposedly getting the "emotional instability" thing, but since I can spell ad hominem (And know how to look it up if I'm not sure), actually know what it means, and don't automaically believe everything CBS tells me, I'm willing to bet that Im at least a little bit more intelligent than you are, and that's all that matters at the moment.


Oh and I forgot the whole tin-foil-hat-bat-shiat-crazy-conspiracy-nut thing. Hopefully your local ammo shop is out of bullets for a good long while.
 
2012-06-21 06:09:16 PM  
The executive has also argued that because candor is the principal value served
by the exemption, its protection should extend beyond predecisional deliberations to
deliberations involving decisions already made. "Moreover, even if the decision at
issue had already been made, disclosure to Congress could still deter the candor of
future Executive Branch deliberations."63 Executives have also taken the position
that the privilege covers confidential communications with respect to policymaking
well beyond the confines of the White House and the President's closest advisors.
The Eisenhower Administration took the most expansive approach, arguing that the
privilege applied broadly to advice on official matters among employees of the

executive branch.64 The Nixon Administration appears to have taken a similar view,
arguing that the privilege applied to decisionmaking at a "high governmental level,"
but conceding that the protected communication must be related to presidential
decisionmaking.65 The Reagan Justice Department appears to have taken a slightly
narrower view of the scope of the privilege, requiring that the protected
communications have some nexus to the presidential decisionmaking process.66
The George H. W. Bush Administration took the position that recommendations
made to senior department officials and communications of senior policymakers
throughout the executive branch were protected by executive privilege without regard
to whether they involved communications intended to go to the President
.67 Finally,
the Clinton Administration took a similarly expansive position that all
communications within the White House68 or between the White House and any
federal department or agency69 are presumptively privileged.

The George W. Bush Administration, through presidential signing statements,
70 executive orders71, and opinions of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) has articulated a legal view of the breadth and reach of presidential
constitutional prerogatives that if applied to information and documents often sought
by congressional committees, would stymie such inquiries.72 In OLC's view, under
the precepts of executive privilege and the unitary executive, Congress may not
bypass the procedures the President establishes to authorize disclosure to Congress
of classified, privileged, or even non-privileged information by vesting lower-level
officers or employees with a right to disclose such information without presidential
authorization
Thus, OLC has declared that "right of disclosure" statutes
"unconstitutionally limit the ability of the President and his appointees to supervise
and control the work of subordinate officers and employees of the Executive
Branch."73 The OLC assertions of these broad notions of presidential prerogatives
are unaccompanied by any authoritative judicial citations.
 
2012-06-21 06:12:03 PM  

paygun: Mikey1969: Saying that they "favor" it doesn't mean that they are in the process of trying to put a ban in place.

When the president meets with a group whose stated goal is banning all handguns, and reportedly claimed to be working on more gun control, people take notice.

The campaign site that Obama put up during the election outright claimed that he sought a renewal of the assault weapons ban. It's not like any of this is a secret.

To say that just because he hasn't done anything yet that means he never will, is kind of like saying Lindsay Lohan isn't going to do any more coke because she's not high as a giraffe ass right this moment.


Not a good analogy... You're comparing someone who has said he would support doing something if it came up with someone that HAS done something over and over and over and over and over... Replace LiLo with Romney, and it's a little better. You have two people who haven't actually done the activity they are talking about...
 
2012-06-21 06:16:53 PM  

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: What's a homonym attack? Using words that sound the same but have entirely different meanings? Example: "I'm a-gonna chute ewe!".

And you left a 'd' off of 'add'.

OMFG, I got pwned by the spell checker. All my arguments are therefore invalid (Non-Sequitur).

You need to come up with a better argument strategy you're still in the realm of "false by construction."


Oh, so you actually just had a little typo there? Bullshiat. You didn't get a letter wrong, you got the WHOLE WORD wrong, you also have no clue as to what it meant.

You got owned by people who don't just regurgitate what they hear, but actually listened in school, and have continued to pay attention throughout life.

But hey, if you want to use the 'I'm rubber, you're glue!' tactic, be my guest. I'll just sit back and poke fun at you when it suits me.
 
2012-06-21 06:17:34 PM  

downpaymentblues: Mikey1969: Jesus people, you may not like him, but please DO try and have just a smidgen of journalistic integrity for a change.

However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.

I was not aware of this. Thank you for the link. I have seen many people claiming Reagan used executive privilege during Iran-Contra.


He wasn't facing re-election at the time, iirc.
 
2012-06-21 06:18:46 PM  
The Eisenhower Administration took the most expansive approach, arguing that the
privilege applied broadly to advice on official matters among employees of the executive branch.


Should have bolded that part too.

Presidential administrations beginning with Eisenhower have taken the view that executive privilege extends beyond the scope of communications with the president himself, to communications among executive branch officials, and even employees.

I.e., the premise that invocation of executive privilege here indicates Obama's personal knowledge of Fast and Furious is... bullsh*t.

"Wait, are you saying Daryl Issa lied when he said invocation of executive means Obama personally delivered automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels?"

I'm saying Issa's public statement inferring Obama's personal knowledge of Fast and Furious from invocation of executive privilege conclusively proves either a) that Issa is ignorant of executive privilege's long history, or b) that Issa knows the history, and dishonestly argued for a faulty inference. In the first case, Issa is unfit for his chairmanship by virtue of ignorance of matters critical to the exercise of its powers. In the second case, Issa is unfit for his chairmanship by his proven character for dishonesty. At the minimum, no reasonable person believes anything Daryl Issa says anymore.
 
2012-06-21 06:19:57 PM  

Mikey1969: You didn't get a letter wrong, you got the WHOLE WORD wrong, you also have no clue as to what it meant.


Yes Mikey you are the smartest one in the room. Nobody but you knows the meaning of complicated logic terms. (pats Mikey on the head)

//Mikey's mom clearly didn't give him enough, "my little man is the cutest smartest little man ever"
 
2012-06-21 06:20:17 PM  

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: Not sure where you're supposedly getting the "emotional instability" thing, but since I can spell ad hominem (And know how to look it up if I'm not sure), actually know what it means, and don't automaically believe everything CBS tells me, I'm willing to bet that Im at least a little bit more intelligent than you are, and that's all that matters at the moment.

Oh and I forgot the whole tin-foil-hat-bat-shiat-crazy-conspiracy-nut thing. Hopefully your local ammo shop is out of bullets for a good long while.


Hey, dumbass, YOU'RE the one with the whole 'Obama is using Fast and Furious to push an assault weapons ban!! I know because I heard it on CBS!' conspiracy. I'm saying that I don't buy it, and that I also didn't buy all the shiat leading up to the Iraq war, which turned out to be lies wrapped in pigshiat and bundled up inside of half-truths. In other words, I was right.

I guess the interwebs are going to have to teach you the definition of both 'ad hominem' and 'conspiracy'. Do you need me to Google those for you?
 
2012-06-21 06:22:47 PM  

Mikey1969: Do you need me to Google those for you?


Could you please do that for me Mikey. You are soooooooo much smarter than I am.

I'm soooooooo stupid I bet you'll need to look up about an elevently million links for me before I understand. Now run along and do that while us stupid people talk among ourselves.
 
2012-06-21 06:31:37 PM  

MBrady: BritneysSpeculum: And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.

Republicans do it: OUTRAGE!

Democrats do the same thing: Ho-hum....nothing to see here.

If 0bama and Holder have nothing to hide, then why invoke executive privilege?


Because the requested documents implicate ongoing international law enforcement operations and United States foreign policy.
 
2012-06-21 06:39:56 PM  

Welfare Xmas: This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we've seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico. Eric Holder testifying to congress about Fast & Furious

But no Obama isn't trying to ban guns and that non-existant ban would never be sold by referencing all of the guns going across the border a large percentage of which were ferried across the border by the Obama administration.


What guns did Obama ban again? After four years there must be something.
 
2012-06-21 06:41:44 PM  

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: Do you need me to Google those for you?

Could you please do that for me Mikey. You are soooooooo much smarter than I am.

I'm soooooooo stupid I bet you'll need to look up about an elevently million links for me before I understand. Now run along and do that while us stupid people talk among ourselves.


You ARE pretty dense. I don't think him doing that for you would help since you would just keep throwing your poop like a good troll.
 
2012-06-21 06:55:32 PM  

downpaymentblues: Mikey1969: Jesus people, you may not like him, but please DO try and have just a smidgen of journalistic integrity for a change.

However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.

I was not aware of this. Thank you for the link. I have seen many people claiming Reagan used executive privilege during Iran-Contra.


Well, lets not get all too excited. All his people did was go before congress and repeat "I can not recall" thousands of times.
 
2012-06-21 07:31:16 PM  
Also it was a program created and staffed by another administration. So there's that.
 
2012-06-21 07:32:24 PM  

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: Do you need me to Google those for you?

Could you please do that for me Mikey. You are soooooooo much smarter than I am.

I'm soooooooo stupid I bet you'll need to look up about an elevently million links for me before I understand. Now run along and do that while us stupid people talk among ourselves.


Look dude, when you can't use words or phrases correctly, and people call you out on it, you should really just try to learn from the experience. Not only did you use ad hominem and non sequitur incorrectly, you couldn't even spell them correctly, it just makes you look like a tool. Then you turn around and accuse me of being a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut specifically because I don't believe YOUR tinfoil hat conspiracy? Hell, it's not like you even have an argument to begin with.

You're either extremely stupid, or you're currently residing in some kind of managed care facility and are dosed up to the eyeballs on Thorazine, strapped snugly into a straitjacket, and are typing by banging your forehead on the keyboard...
 
2012-06-21 07:34:26 PM  

Fart_Machine: What guns did Obama ban again?


He did attempt the Assault Weapons ban, but that did not work out too well for him. Since that debacle, he has kept his distance.
 
2012-06-21 07:36:36 PM  

Garble: Also it was a program created and staffed by another administration.


Actually, Fast and Furious was not. That was a different program called Wide Receiver. There were some pretty big differences between the two programs. The main difference was that Wide Receiver attempted to apprehend the straw purchaser before they got to the border. Fast and Furious made no attempt to do so.
 
2012-06-21 07:47:51 PM  

Mikey1969: Obama is using Fast and Furious to push an assault weapons ban!!


While I don't know if the F&f was ever conceived to be used to 'push' the AWB, it sure looks pretty stupid when the first time they pushed it they used 'all those damn guns going to Mexico' as the main reasoning. A few years later they were caught doing pretty much the same thing they were earlier railing about.
 
2012-06-21 07:48:43 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: What guns did Obama ban again?

He did attempt the Assault Weapons ban, but that did not work out too well for him. Since that debacle, he has kept his distance.


When did he put that before Congress?
 
2012-06-21 07:51:59 PM  

Fart_Machine: When did he put that before Congress?


It did not get that far. After 31 Dems signed a letter telling him to stick it, he saw this as a loosing policy for him and quickly backed off.
 
2012-06-21 07:52:41 PM  
Dull comment warning:

I finally went and read up about this, and was pretty shocked. American security services and law enforcement are quite clearly a law unto themselves. I don't feel like it's wrong for Obama being tarred with this scandal, because if he can't put a stop to it, who can? This kind of shiat is just going to increase in the future. I see no way in which it can be reigned in.

Incidentally, I live in Australia, and I've never heard about this scandal through our media. Our media is absolute garbage.
 
2012-06-21 07:54:18 PM  

Fart_Machine: HeadLever: Fart_Machine: What guns did Obama ban again?

He did attempt the Assault Weapons ban, but that did not work out too well for him. Since that debacle, he has kept his distance.

When did he put that before Congress?


No no no - you just don't understand. Everybody knows that "debacle" is short for, he said while campaigning he'd like to renew the AWB, among many other things he'd like to do, but then when elected he found he had to choose what he was going to push for and the AWB renewal got set aside.

Geez, what part of "debacle" don't you understand?

Right, HeadLever?
 
2012-06-21 07:57:16 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: When did he put that before Congress?

It did not get that far. After 31 Dems signed a letter telling him to stick it, he saw this as a loosing policy for him and quickly backed off.


Sooooo never then.
 
2012-06-21 07:58:07 PM  

spamdog: Our media is absolute garbage.


So is ours.
 
2012-06-21 07:59:34 PM  

El Pachuco: No no no - you just don't understand. Everybody knows that "debacle" is short for, he said while campaigning he'd like to renew the AWB, among many other things he'd like to do, but then when elected he found he had to choose what he was going to push for and the AWB renewal got set aside. too much opposition (much of it from his own side) and quickly dropped the issue.


/fixed for accuracy
 
2012-06-21 08:01:49 PM  

Fart_Machine: Sooooo never then.


Correct. But that does not mean the he never attempted to institute said policy. It just means that it never got very far.
 
2012-06-21 08:02:34 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: No no no - you just don't understand. Everybody knows that "debacle" is short for, he said while campaigning he'd like to renew the AWB, among many other things he'd like to do, but then when elected he found he had to choose what he was going to push for and the AWB renewal got set aside. too much opposition (much of it from his own side) and quickly dropped the issue.

/fixed for accuracy


Total debacle! It will probably cost him the re-election, it was so debacley! You are a veritable wordsmith.
 
2012-06-21 08:03:40 PM  

muck4doo: RexTalionis: Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"

Exactly. NRO is wrong. Fast and Furious does belong to Obama and cronies.


Do I really need to cite the constitution, the part about one of Congress' duties being Executive Oversight? Or are you going to post Wikipedia articles?

You do know that what sank Nixon was not Watergate, but the cover up, and more importantly the claims of Executive Privilege to cover it up.
 
2012-06-21 08:06:40 PM  

El Pachuco: It will probably cost him the re-election,


I would not go that far. However, it was pretty funny to watch him be admonished by his own party and then tuck his tail between his legs in retreat. Kind of like the Farm Labor issue here a few months back.

In his defense, I'll say that he quickly sees a loser policy pretty quickly. He also does not push them as an ideologue would. He may be out of touch with a pretty large segment of the population, but in some sense, I think he recognizes this and acts accordingly.
 
2012-06-21 08:09:54 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Sooooo never then.

Correct. But that does not mean the he never attempted to institute said policy. It just means that it never got very far.


Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
2012-06-21 08:11:03 PM  

Descartes: Obama and Holder have both said they knew nothing about the operation.
And everyone knows that the Bush administration started this.

Since there is nothing to hide, this must be a clever plot to trick the right-wingers, and then Obama will say "okay" and release all the documents that blame Bush.


FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT THE SAME PROGRAM AS WIDE RECEIVER YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF CRAP.

God some of you are retarded. One used controlled delivery while the other relied on uncontrolled, pretty substantial difference.
 
2012-06-21 08:14:05 PM  

Fart_Machine: Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.


No evidence of the attempt? I hope you are joking.

No evidence of attempting to bring it before congress? That you would be correct because, as I mentioned, it never got that far.
 
2012-06-21 08:23:48 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No evidence of the attempt? I hope you are joking.

No evidence of attempting to bring it before congress? That you would be correct because, as I mentioned, it never got that far.


It never got that far because it was never really a priority except to the nitwits who were stockpiling ammo back in 2008.
 
2012-06-21 08:26:40 PM  

MyRandomName: Descartes: Obama and Holder have both said they knew nothing about the operation.
And everyone knows that the Bush administration started this.

Since there is nothing to hide, this must be a clever plot to trick the right-wingers, and then Obama will say "okay" and release all the documents that blame Bush.

FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT THE SAME PROGRAM AS WIDE RECEIVER YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF CRAP.

God some of you are retarded. One used controlled delivery while the other relied on uncontrolled, pretty substantial difference.


I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. I understand that it is important for you that these be somehow different on an important fundamental level but to any objective viewer the differences are not substantial. How did the "control" the guns in "wide receiver" after they crossed the border?
 
2012-06-21 08:28:48 PM  
Mikey1969:

Not a good analogy... You're comparing someone who has said he would support doing something if it came up with someone that HAS done something over and over and over and over and over... Replace LiLo with Romney, and it's a little better. You have two people who haven't actually done the activity they are talking about...

You're right, Romney is a much better comparison, because he actually signed an assault weapons ban.

Right up until he signed it, the fact that he wanted one means absolutely nothing of course. You can't use anyone's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do.
 
2012-06-21 08:30:16 PM  

Fart_Machine: It never got that far because it was never really a priority except to the nitwits who were stockpiling ammo back in 2008.


If it was a priority enough to trot Holder out in front of the Media to indicate a 'few changes he would like to make' it was a priority. Maybe not the highest, but a priority nonetheless.
 
2012-06-21 08:32:21 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No evidence of the attempt? I hope you are joking.

No evidence of attempting to bring it before congress? That you would be correct because, as I mentioned, it never got that far.


Wrong citation, buddy - the article you posted was just Holder saying the AWB was something Obama would like to renew, but gave no examples of anything other than talk. By Holder.

Given that you seem to have as solid a grasp of politics as you do economics, it should be child's play for you to show us a big speech where Obama got heckled as he tried to push for the AWB, or maybe a letter signed by many senators and congresscritters saying "no AWB!" in response to an O letter asking for it.

'Cause it was a debacle for Obama, right? Should be pretty easy to demonstrate the solid thumping Obama got for trying that, right? There were seven whole weeks between your Holder remarks and Obama saying he wasn't going to do AWB after all, so there should be like a metric ton of debacles putting egg on the president's face.

You certainly at least could provide evidence of an attempt, right?
 
2012-06-21 08:32:30 PM  

mrshowrules:

I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. I understand that it is important for you that these be somehow different on an important fundamental level but to any objective viewer the differences are not substantial. How did the "control" the guns in "wide receiver" after they crossed the border?


I think it was best that people went to jail over Wide Receiver. I agree that people should go to jail over Fast & Furious too.
 
2012-06-21 08:35:22 PM  

mrshowrules: I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico.


As I understand it, WR was actually a controlled delivery program where F&F was not. That is what caused the whistleblowing of the program.
 
2012-06-21 08:38:09 PM  

paygun: You can't use anyone's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do.


I think you can't use Romney's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do. Although politicians flip and flop all of the time, I don't think I've ever seen ANYONE as happy on both sides of ANY issue as Romney is. The amazing thing is that people keep on supporting him. You'd think the smart ones wouldn't trust him and the less smart ones would at least be insulted by his blatant pandering.
 
2012-06-21 08:41:35 PM  

Mikey1969: paygun: You can't use anyone's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do.

I think you can't use Romney's explicitly stated goals as any indicator of what they want to do. Although politicians flip and flop all of the time, I don't think I've ever seen ANYONE as happy on both sides of ANY issue as Romney is. The amazing thing is that people keep on supporting him. You'd think the smart ones wouldn't trust him and the less smart ones would at least be insulted by his blatant pandering.


I can't think of anything you can say along the lines of Romney being a slimy dick that I won't agree with.

I still believe Obama when he stated he wanted an assault weapon ban. You're effectively calling Obama a liar if you don't think so.

Any more deflections?
 
Displayed 50 of 274 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report