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.

(Washington Post)   Looking for a bigger scandal than IRS, Benghazi, and the 9/11 cover-up?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 201
    More: Obvious, Benghazi, IRS, cover up, senate rules  
•       •       •

9898 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 May 2013 at 11:14 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-14 12:29:54 PM

zappaisfrank: No one Republican ever did anything wrong ever and if they did, it was the Democrats' fault.

THIS is what Republicans really believe...


I'm a Republican.  I don't believe that.  So, you can automatically discount the claim that all Republicans believe that.  Some do, some don't.

Of course, "THIS is what SOME Republicans actually believe" doesn't have the same oomph.  I'd advise avoiding that slogan entirely, perhaps in favor of actually engaging with other viewpoints.
 
2013-05-14 12:30:10 PM
it just keeps piling on for the white house... yikes
 
2013-05-14 12:32:08 PM
All of this is because of the fact that republicans refuse to allow America to be America. They want to impose some sort of irrational, violent, and unworkable regime upon nearly all of us.

Republicans, please, listen to me. I know I don't have a billion dollars but please listen to me anyway.

The poor don't want to be starved.
The old don't want to be homeless.
Women do not want to be raped and forced to give birth against their will.
Soldiers do not want to be cannon-fodder.
Hispanics don't want to be your butlers and landscapers forever.
Children deserve a better education than being told "Cuz God said so!".


Your world is horrible and brutal. It is ugly and vile! It is a nightmare filled with despair and death. No sane person would want to live in such a Hell. Why do you insist on forcing us to live in it?
 
2013-05-14 12:32:23 PM

Maud Dib: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Now this was a farking scandal

[i11.photobucket.com image 193x169]


Oregon Game?
 
2013-05-14 12:32:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Pelosi and Reid did similar things and hel up and delayed and refused to approve a whole crap-ton of Bush's nominations too, especially judge


If we agree that both sides are bad, then the amount of bad matters.

img.fark.net

2001 was a banner year, but it tailed off within two. This has not been the case for Obama's first term, and going into his second.
 
2013-05-14 12:33:35 PM
img267.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-14 12:34:08 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: My favorite was the other day when some butthurt Congressman was demanding the head of the IRS be fired...only to be reminded that the GOP hasn't allowed a person to take that job since Bush's nominee left office.


That was Marco Rubio, the frontrunner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.  He is a buffoon.

Our system of government wasn't set up to deal with hyper-Balkanized political parties. This may not be a "scandal," but it could signal the beginning of the end.

It's more like the middle of the end.  In fact, there are only a few possible plot developments left before the end.  Not raising the debt ceiling, not passing a budget, using impeachment as a fundraiser... there's not much left.
 
2013-05-14 12:37:30 PM

the_dude_abides: it just keeps piling on for the white house... yikes


You didn't read the article did you?
 
2013-05-14 12:39:33 PM
You know, with the Benghazi talking points emails, IRS political targeting and massive sweep of AP phone records I was just thinking to myself, the Republican obstructionism in Congress is the truly big story.

I wish the administration would stop diverting attention elsewhere.
 
2013-05-14 12:40:32 PM

the_dude_abides: it just keeps piling on for the white house... yikes


You're so special.
 
2013-05-14 12:43:37 PM
So...bigger than a 0 and a 2?

I mean I wouldn't say I'm LOOKING, but I guess I'll hear about one...
 
2013-05-14 12:45:23 PM
As despicable as it is - both on the GOP for doing it, and on the Democrats for failing to avail themselves of the solution - it's hardly a scandal.
 
2013-05-14 12:50:54 PM
jacobsmedia.typepad.com
There's more. Get out your notebook.
 
2013-05-14 12:51:56 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 2001 was a banner year, but it tailed off within two. This has not been the case for Obama's first term, and going into his second.


And?

Why do we have to "prove" that one "side" is better or worse than the other? I'm perfectly content to agree that both parties are good and terrible in their own special ways. I have no allegience to either one, and I think most people who do are ... intellectually stunted.

What do you think your graph actually shows? Different times, different circumstances. For instance, notice that sudden change in behavior begining in 2001, where the congress for some unknown reason sharply reduced opposition to nominations? I wonder if something happened than that caused a brief and dramatic drop in partisan politics? Is there a comparable circumstance during Obama's term so far? Notice how in 2006, when Pelosi and crew got control of both houses, how it went up? And how in 2010, when the teabaggers got control of one house it went up again? But why didn't it go down when democrats had control of both houses? And why did it go down immediately following the TeaBaggers taking control of the house in 2010? What is the difference between the number of appointees actually offered by each president? What is the variance of approval rates as a percentage?

I won't argue that the republicans seem to be much better at leveraging the system to achieve their goals, but I doubt that was what you were advocating for.
 
2013-05-14 12:53:41 PM

Captain Dan: I'm a Republican


So I'm curious. You seem rational. What is there that remains for you in the Republican party that you can't find in the conservative end of the Democratic party?
 
2013-05-14 12:54:20 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Danger Mouse: ScandalGate!!!!

Quick get all the libtards in a circle...start the jerking....ahhhh.

Ok...now mock anyone who critizes Obama...you over there...get ready to call someone a racist. Are we all set with the Bush references?  Ok. Good.

pass the lube...

Don't you have a show to do Rush?


Don't you have a circle to kneel in the middle of ?
 
2013-05-14 12:56:25 PM

Captain Dan: zappaisfrank: No one Republican ever did anything wrong ever and if they did, it was the Democrats' fault.

THIS is what Republicans really believe...

I'm a Republican.  I don't believe that.  So, you can automatically discount the claim that all Republicans believe that.  Some do, some don't.

Of course, "THIS is what SOME Republicans actually believe" doesn't have the same oomph.  I'd advise avoiding that slogan entirely, perhaps in favor of actually engaging with other viewpoints.


memedepot.com
 
2013-05-14 12:58:15 PM

Danger Mouse: Don't you have a circle to kneel in the middle of ?


Isn't it amazing how obsessed with gay sex and group sex so many conservative idiots apparently are? It's like they can't stop thinking about it ever, and bring it up constantly at inappropriate times with the slightest of provocation. I wonder why that happens...

/just asking questions
//amidoinitrite?
 
2013-05-14 12:58:35 PM

BojanglesPaladin: And?


Both sides are bad, both sides are not equally bad.
 
2013-05-14 01:00:33 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Dr Dreidel: // not 7 or 8 or 9, but 10!

Actually whenever someone uses caps lock I hear it in Gary Oldman's voice. More screaming nutcase from the Professional Gary Oldman not screaming psychopath from the Fifth Element Gary Oldman.

[img811.imageshack.us image 160x69]


I prefer screaming Gary Oldman from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

At least that's how I remember it.
 
2013-05-14 01:04:12 PM
www.buddytv.com
 
2013-05-14 01:05:08 PM

Vectron: That's Bernstein setting the softball on tee. That's Fark on the left.

[www.mscc.edu image 600x358]


OK, that was funny. I'm stealing that.

Meanwhile, the modern GOP is the most anti-American, anit-freedom faction this country has ever seen. It would be fair but too complicated to try them for treason and execute them, so the American people should just wise up and vote them out of power.
 
2013-05-14 01:10:47 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Notice how in 2006, when Pelosi and crew got control of both houses, how it went up?


No. The 2006 bar is SLIGHTLY higher than 2005's and identical to 2007's - if Democrats were impeding Bush's nominations the way the GOP has impeded Obama's, the 2006 line would be huge compared to 05, and 07 would be even higher than that (Congress technically had some time for old business before the Teabaggy Congress was sworn).

Your analysis on this graph is way off. The 2001-02 drop-off continues through the 04 election cycle (which is longer, by more than a year, than Bush's post-9/11 approval ratings bump lasted), where it stayed until 2009. The 2006-08 bars are about in line with the GOP-led Congress of 2003. If the Dems were "obstructing" in '06-08, they were doing a piss-poor job of it.

// and there were more vacancies in 2000 and 2008 because I bet president don't like to nominate a shiatton of people as they're heading out the door

img.fark.net
 
2013-05-14 01:11:34 PM

MrBallou: Meanwhile, the modern GOP is the most anti-American, anit-freedom faction this country has ever seen. It would be fair but too complicated to try them for treason and execute them, so the American people should just wise up and vote them out of power.


So not the Loyalists?!

Your hyperbole is hyperbole
 
2013-05-14 01:11:34 PM
What's especially funny about the headline is that none of the things mentioned actually ARE scandals, so anything, by definition, is a bigger scandal than those three are...
 
2013-05-14 01:19:51 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: the desperation of the left.
this is so funny.
do everything you can to divert from 0bamagate, Benghazi-gate, AP-gate and the soon to arrive Sebellius-gate.


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


The Republicans and the Conservative Right are evil, and are trying to obstruct everything Obama does because they hate him. That said, it is not a scandal, but it needs to be addressed.
 
2013-05-14 01:21:39 PM
Deflection is never a pretty thing in politics.
 
2013-05-14 01:22:51 PM
Mark my words: The Republican Party will cease to exist in the next ten years.
 
2013-05-14 01:24:24 PM
It's probably been said before but: Republicans are shiatting the bed with joy because the initial memo was edited. EDITED!

Can you imagine if it were leaked that Obama ignored a report saying "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S"? Holy farking shiat! We would be in 24 hour news cycle impeachment talk.

That's how absurd this Benghazi shiat is.
 
2013-05-14 01:25:56 PM

KiltedBastich: So I'm curious. You seem rational. What is there that remains for you in the Republican party that you can't find in the conservative end of the Democratic party?


There are some views I hold that are unwelcome in Democratic circles, including opposition to public sector collective bargaining, the belief that all men are unequal and should have unequal outcomes, a belief that the elderly are getting more than their fair share of health care, and an unapologetic sense of American nationalism (willingness to privilege American lives over non-American lives).

The views I hold most anathema to Republicans - environmentalist, acknowledging anthropogenic climate change and willing to combat it at considerable expense (but only through a multilateral treaty with India and China), supporting gay marriage and abortion, opposing the Iraq War, and placing a high value on education - are going to be accepted into the mainstream of Republican thought one day.  The desire for power will trump ideology, and the party will moderate.

In the meanwhile, I'm under no obligation to support a Republican candidate if he or she is the worse candidate.
 
2013-05-14 01:28:12 PM

Nabb1: but I do find it unforgivable (not impeachable) that the Administration was blaming some silly little YouTube video for the attacks apparently knowing full well what this was.


Other than them NOT knowing "full well" what it was, sure. Some in intelligence thought it MIGHT be, could POSSIBLY be, something else, but no one knew "full well". I see nothing wrong with taking out a paragraph that was only a supposition. Let's, you know, wait until we have some facts before we pass on info. Kinda like KNOWING there are WMD's before you actually KNOW there are WMD's.
 
2013-05-14 01:29:28 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Both sides are bad, both sides are not equally bad.


Good. Then we agree that neither side is better than the other?

Dr Dreidel: Your analysis on this graph is way off.


I think you overestimate my comments on this graph if you think they constitute an analysis or that I was arguing a specific stance. I was simply pointing out that there are any number of ways to parse that single-point data set, and even then, it is of limited value becasue the circumstances were intrinsically different.
 
2013-05-14 01:30:14 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: MrBallou: Meanwhile, the modern GOP is the most anti-American, anit-freedom faction this country has ever seen. It would be fair but too complicated to try them for treason and execute them, so the American people should just wise up and vote them out of power.

So not the Loyalists?!

Your hyperbole is hyperbole


When they start to do things to help the country instead of just their re-election chances, then I'll show them some respect.
 
2013-05-14 01:30:45 PM

mediablitz: Other than them NOT knowing "full well" what it was, sure. Some in intelligence thought it MIGHT be, could POSSIBLY be, something else, but no one knew "full well".


I believe this same rationale was used a few years ago regarding criticisms about certain WMDs and some foreign country....
 
2013-05-14 01:30:56 PM

Captain Dan: a belief that the elderly are getting more than their fair share of health care


A truly American position. Better said, ONLY in America do we see "fark the elderly" as a position someone thinks is moral.
 
2013-05-14 01:34:39 PM

mediablitz: Better said, ONLY in America do we see "fark the elderly" as a position someone thinks is moral.


Not to dignify your hyperbole with a response, but I would be curious to see if you could provide any examples of who, exactly, has taken a moral position of "farking the elderly".
 
2013-05-14 01:35:29 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dusk-You-n-Me: Both sides are bad, both sides are not equally bad.

Good. Then we agree that neither side is better than the other?


I'm sorry about your head injury.

In the meantime, if two viable candidates are in an election, and one of them is sort of unappealing, and the other is a pile of stupid from the bottomless pit of whargarrbl, I'm voting for "sort of unappealing".
 
2013-05-14 01:36:47 PM
www.the80sman.com
 
2013-05-14 01:38:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: mediablitz: Other than them NOT knowing "full well" what it was, sure. Some in intelligence thought it MIGHT be, could POSSIBLY be, something else, but no one knew "full well".

I believe this same rationale was used a few years ago regarding criticisms about certain WMDs and some foreign country....


Nope not what happened.
 
2013-05-14 01:38:40 PM

mediablitz: A truly American position. Better said, ONLY in America do we see "fark the elderly" as a position someone thinks is moral.


I didn't say "fark the elderly."  I don't want to do that, anyway.  I think that they are collecting health care benefits that are much more generous than they paid for in taxes, which will end up forcing younger generations to pay for it.  That doesn't strike me as a fair arrangement, which is why I'd like the elderly to pay a bit more for the care they receive.

I'm fine with a modest amount of redistribution within a generational cohort from the wealthy to the poor, because I don't want Americans dying from relatively inexpensive ailments, but I'm opposed to huge leaving fiscal obligations to future generations.
 
2013-05-14 01:40:05 PM

mediablitz: Nabb1: but I do find it unforgivable (not impeachable) that the Administration was blaming some silly little YouTube video for the attacks apparently knowing full well what this was.

Other than them NOT knowing "full well" what it was, sure. Some in intelligence thought it MIGHT be, could POSSIBLY be, something else, but no one knew "full well". I see nothing wrong with taking out a paragraph that was only a supposition. Let's, you know, wait until we have some facts before we pass on info. Kinda like KNOWING there are WMD's before you actually KNOW there are WMD's.



So why would you blame it on a video ?  There was just as much, if not more information suggesting it was a terrorist group than a half baked video.

It's kinda like making the statment that you didn't send forces in because you knew at that moment they couldn't get there in time. Even though you claim you didn't really understand what was going on, you knew whatever it was it was going ot be over before you got there.
 
2013-05-14 01:41:37 PM

chimp_ninja: In the meantime, if two viable candidates are in an election, and one of them is sort of unappealing, and the other is a pile of stupid from the bottomless pit of whargarrbl, I'm voting for "sort of unappealing".


I'm sorry about your unrelated hypothetical, but let me ask anyway:

Would their political affiliation would have no bearing at all for you?
 
2013-05-14 01:41:59 PM

Cross Speak: Mark my words: The Republican Party will cease to exist in the next ten years.



They have been marked.
 
2013-05-14 01:45:46 PM

Cross Speak: Mark my words: The Republican Party will cease to exist in the next ten years.


I'm guessing you're not a political scientist.
 
2013-05-14 01:49:56 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I think you overestimate my comments on this graph if you think they constitute an analysis or that I was arguing a specific stance. I was simply pointing out that there are any number of ways to parse that single-point data set, and even then, it is of limited value becasue the circumstances were intrinsically different.


You tried to interpret it so you could make snide posts about both sides being bad. It's your usual concern trolling m.o.
 
2013-05-14 01:51:04 PM
Danger Mouse:
....So why would you blame it on a video ?  There was just as much, if not more information suggesting it was a terrorist group than a half baked video.

It's kinda like making the statment that you didn't send forces in because you knew at that moment they couldn't get there in time. Even though you claim you didn't really understand what was going on, you knew whatever it was it was going ot be over before you got there.



THIS
 
2013-05-14 02:12:31 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: Your analysis on this graph is way off.

I think you overestimate my comments on this graph if you think they constitute an analysis or that I was arguing a specific stance. I was simply pointing out that there are any number of ways to parse that single-point data set, and even then, it is of limited value becasue the circumstances were intrinsically different.


You offered an interpretation of the data that does not seem to comport with the data. You "analyzed" it cursorily, and got it wrong.

Which is fine, lord knows I've made many of the same kind of mitsake.
 
2013-05-14 02:26:17 PM

Captain Dan: There are some views I hold that are unwelcome in Democratic circles, including opposition to public sector collective bargaining, the belief that all men are unequal and should have unequal outcomes, a belief that the elderly are getting more than their fair share of health care, and an unapologetic sense of American nationalism (willingness to privilege American lives over non-American lives).


While I disagree with you on public sector collective bargaining, I recognize that there is room for rational debate on that topic, fine. I personally do not feel that teachers and police and so on should be undervalued, rather that they are very important and all too often given short shrift.

The idea that humans are unequal and should have unequal outcomes is fine within a narrowly defined context of true meritocracy, and requires also recognizing the large role played by society in individual success - something usually ignored completely in ideological debates on this topic, but which is extremely well understood in the social sciences, since Durkheim first explored the concepts of mechanical vs. organic solidarity as the basis of social stability (I recognize those look like buzzwords, but they are the terms of art used).

 Furthermore, equality of opportunity should be promoted as much as possible - everyone should have the chance to make the most of their talents and skills, even while fully expecting that the outcomes of those efforts will be necessarily unequal. This also requires recognizing that the use of social power by humans to protect that social power for themselves, their loved ones and descendants and their cronies is normal and to be expected, but runs counter to the good of society by promoting social stratification based on inherited wealth and privilege rather then merit.

Long story short, that is a much more complicated topic than you may be aware, and the Republicans are not the ones having conversations with the social scientists who study those patterns in human social behaviour.. The idea that the Democrats want a touchy-feely everyone-wins no-one loses society is false. There were certain advocates of that pattern on the left, but few among any actual social scientists who understand how pointless and corrosive it is, and the social experiments promoted around self-esteem building were deeply unscientific and roundly decried by most credible psychologists.

As for the notion that the elderly are getting more than their fair share being a Democratic position, I find myself bemused. The elderly are generally far more conservative and lean strongly Republican, and it is the Democrats who have been pushing for efforts to reform health care in your nation so as to lower the costs of medical care to the elderly. In fact, Republicans have offered budget solutions that expressly protect the current elderly's right to exorbitant medical expenses of limited utility, most recently Paul Ryan's budget. I respectfully suggest therefore that your perception and understanding of this issue (one that I generally agree needs addressed) is distorted.

As for American nationalism, I'll point out that I am a Canadian. Are you logically consistent enough to accept the notion of other nations treating Americans as second-class persons if you do the same for them? I note that your Declaration of Independence at the very least does not make provisions for Americans only, but speaks of all men. I would further note that it is well established in the social sciences that nationalism is a variant on tribalism, and therefore a bias to be suspicious of, for it distorts your perceptions of others which leads to poorer evaluations and understandings of said others, whether they be allies or adversaries.
 
2013-05-14 02:31:27 PM

BojanglesPaladin: mediablitz: Better said, ONLY in America do we see "fark the elderly" as a position someone thinks is moral.

Not to dignify your hyperbole with a response, but I would be curious to see if you could provide any examples of who, exactly, has taken a moral position of "farking the elderly".


Seriously? With "we need to cut SS benefits" as a platform, you have to ask that question? You haven't seen a multitude of people saying the elderly are just getting "too much", like the guy I was responding to?
 
2013-05-14 02:32:04 PM

KiltedBastich: equality of opportunity should be promoted as much as possible - everyone should have the chance to make the most of their talents and skills, even while fully expecting that the outcomes of those efforts will be necessarily unequal.


Problem: Unequal outcomes in generation N lead to unequal opportunities in generation N+1. From college/business connections, down to prenatal nutrition.

We'll never have a true meritocracy unless we outlaw the family, Brave New World-style. (Even then there are genetics to consider, but there's a limit to how far one can take this idea).

Can we approximate a meritocracy? Probably not IMO.
 
Displayed 50 of 201 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report