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  
•       •       •

9904 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 May 2013 at 11:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-14 09:23:49 AM
Left wing scum grasping at straws to divert attention from their failure and chief? Say it isn't so.
 
2013-05-14 09:26:20 AM
That's not so much a scandal as a disgrace.
 
2013-05-14 09:30:38 AM
Scandal implies that not only has there been a breach, but it is also shocking.
 
2013-05-14 09:32:22 AM
And remember that this is entirely unprecedented.
And remember that this is entirely unprecedented.
And remember that this is entirely unprecedented.
 
2013-05-14 09:35:24 AM
And we can't even hang them for treason, because Harry Reid would want 60 votes to approve that, too.
 
2013-05-14 09:37:24 AM
 
2013-05-14 09:42:16 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-14 09:47:29 AM
From Merriam-Webster:

scan·dal  noun  \ˈskan-dəl\

1 a : discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person
   b : conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another

2 : loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety

3 a :
a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it
   b : a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality

4 : malicious or defamatory gossip

5 : indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion

sas-origin.onstreammedia.com
 
2013-05-14 09:47:53 AM
Maybe Democrats should be blaming Harry Reid for giving the GOP the idea
 
2013-05-14 09:49:53 AM
This is indeed awful, but for it to be scandalous would require that it be shocking.

Nobody is shocked that Republicans are destroying congress.  Half the country is pleased by that, and a quarter want more destruction.

/Vote for Republican in 2014!  It's too dangerous to have them in opposition.
 
2013-05-14 09:52:55 AM
That's not a scandal.  This is a Scandal.
 
2013-05-14 10:00:19 AM

I_C_Weener: That's not a scandal.  This is a Scandal.


No, THIS is a scandal.
 
2013-05-14 10:01:08 AM
I am actually surprised this is coming from the WP
 
2013-05-14 10:05:24 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So it's a scandal when someone fails to do their constitutional duty?!


/pats head
 
2013-05-14 10:08:27 AM

Mentat: /pats head


I don't get it, but you better know I demand dinner first. And I ain't cheap
 
2013-05-14 10:12:46 AM

James!: I_C_Weener: That's not a scandal.  This is a Scandal.

No, THIS is a scandal.


No, THIS is a scandal.

i.huffpost.com
 
2013-05-14 10:13:43 AM
Weak sauce. Is it farked of the GOP to do this? Yes. But scandalous? Hardly. They are traitorous pricks and everyone knows it, but this isn't news or even slightly illegal.
 
2013-05-14 10:16:31 AM
Things That Are Criminal Scandals:

* being convicted of tax fraud related to bribery charges
* sending operatives to break into the other guy's headquarters, to see what sort of campaign he wants to run
* and then lying about it, and obstructing justice whenever and wherever possible
* secretly selling arms to an avowed enemy state despite an arms embargo, in order to funnel funds to a group that you have been specifically prohibited by law from funding 
* lying to Congress and the American about WMDs to start a needless war
* forging evidence to back those false claims
* deliberately and knowingly outing an agent of the CIA, then perjuring oneself about it
* approving the use of torture, extradition to places that torture, and the creation of places to hold people without charges or access to due process for years on end

Things That Are NOT Criminal Scandals:

* being caught boinking the fat girl that brings in the mail. Lying about it under oath kinda/sorta is.
* being President when a facility gets attacked in an unsettled place, in such a way that the details get hazy in the fog of war

Look at this nice list of federal political scandals in the United States. Remember that Harding is generally considered the worst and most corrupt President in history. Now see which Presidents since his time have the most scandals under their names, and remind yourself of which party they have in common. It's a remarkable correlation.

It's not about the party, it's about the facts. Sorry, Republicans, but this is yet another circumstance in which the facts seem to be biased against you.
 
2013-05-14 10:19:07 AM
 
2013-05-14 10:21:30 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mentat: /pats head

I don't get it, but you better know I demand dinner first. And I ain't cheap


yeah, at least a Big Mac.   nothing off the dollar menu.
 
2013-05-14 10:37:32 AM
It's f*cked up for sure.  The actions of petulant, butthurt losers.  I don't know that it's a "scandal" per se.
 
2013-05-14 10:44:03 AM
imageshack.us

OJ gets stoned in jail. And wears shades while sun tanning. oooooh
 
2013-05-14 10:52:11 AM
The Republicans being shiatheads does not mean the President has not been trampling the Bill of Rights.  I think Benghazi is a tempest in a teapot for the most part, 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.  And the IRS thing, while awful, does not appear to be Obama's fault and I agree with his assessment of the situation thus far.  But the recent sweeping, secretive investigation of the AP is startling.  So, between the Benghazi response and bullying the AP, we see he's not a fan of the First Amendment.  The Second Amendment is an obvious one.  He supported renewal of the Patriot Act, continued warrantless wiretaps, signed a bill authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens if they are labeled as "terror suspects", is only just now getting around to maybe, possibly closing our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and let's not forget the thousands of deaths from drone strikes that were carried out for the purpose of extra-judicial executions of American citizens overseas.  So, he's not real big on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, either.  Yes, the Republicans are acting like petulant spoiled brats and they need to stop blocking every appointment willy-nilly, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are some troubling expansions of unchecked executive power going on.
 
2013-05-14 10:54:28 AM

whistleridge: Look at this nice list of federal political scandals in the United States. Remember that Harding is generally considered the worst and most corrupt President in history. Now see which Presidents since his time have the most scandals under their names, and remind yourself of which party they have in common. It's a remarkable correlationIt's not about the party, it's about the facts. Sorry, Republicans, but this is yet another circumstance in which the facts seem to be biased against you.


It looks like your saying that the presidents were responsible for the scandals listed under their names. You do know that list has Democrat scandals while under Republican presidents and vice versa? I like a good witch hunt as much as the next guy but you can't blame GWB for the actions of a William J. Jefferson just as you cant blame Obama for the actions of Tom Delay. And the simple count of sandals doesn't mean much. There is tax evasion and there is blowing up an aspirin factory just so you can help your poll numbers.
 
2013-05-14 10:56:37 AM
hahah your you're


proofreading is necessary
 
2013-05-14 10:58:12 AM

Nabb1: but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are some troubling expansions of unchecked executive power going on.


My problem with all the rabble around these "scandals" is that not once has anyone said "Hey, maybe we shouldn't have given the Feds all this power and authority in the first place, and maybe we should probably do something about that"

Nobody has offered any solutions for that or even really acknowledged the source of the problem because they don't want to give up the power when they're in charge, and because the only concern nowadays is whether or not the abuse benefits "your team"
 
2013-05-14 10:59:35 AM
Actually do you know what I'm looking for?

Cohesive and productive politics.

I'll keep looking.
 
2013-05-14 11:00:09 AM

Aarontology: Nabb1: but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are some troubling expansions of unchecked executive power going on.

My problem with all the rabble around these "scandals" is that not once has anyone said "Hey, maybe we shouldn't have given the Feds all this power and authority in the first place, and maybe we should probably do something about that"

Nobody has offered any solutions for that or even really acknowledged the source of the problem because they don't want to give up the power when they're in charge, and because the only concern nowadays is whether or not the abuse benefits "your team"


And you likely won't see any real movement from within Washington to change that.  Bush left Obama a lot of nice playthings for an ambitious President.  I mean, look at the only thing the Republicans and Democrats have managed to come together on recently: gutting insider trading laws that apply to themselves.  It's disgusting.
 
2013-05-14 11:03:57 AM

Nabb1: And you likely won't see any real movement from within Washington to change that. Bush left Obama a lot of nice playthings for an ambitious President. I mean, look at the only thing the Republicans and Democrats have managed to come together on recently: gutting insider trading laws that apply to themselves. It's disgusting.


I liked how they all were saying that was a bad law to start with, yet only modified the parts that allow us to see what they're up to.
 
2013-05-14 11:16:27 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
I got your scandal right here!

 
2013-05-14 11:20:01 AM
That is the most desperate thing I've heard that wasn't said in a bar after last call.
 
2013-05-14 11:21:42 AM
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...
 
2013-05-14 11:22:14 AM

Nabb1: The Republicans being shiatheads does not mean the President has not been trampling the Bill of Rights.  I think Benghazi is a tempest in a teapot for the most part, 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.  And the IRS thing, while awful, does not appear to be Obama's fault and I agree with his assessment of the situation thus far.  But the recent sweeping, secretive investigation of the AP is startling.  So, between the Benghazi response and bullying the AP, we see he's not a fan of the First Amendment.  The Second Amendment is an obvious one.  He supported renewal of the Patriot Act, continued warrantless wiretaps, signed a bill authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens if they are labeled as "terror suspects", is only just now getting around to maybe, possibly closing our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and let's not forget the thousands of deaths from drone strikes that were carried out for the purpose of extra-judicial executions of American citizens overseas.  So, he's not real big on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, either.  Yes, the Republicans are acting like petulant spoiled brats and they need to stop blocking every appointment willy-nilly, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are some troubling expansions of unchecked executive power going on.


The President isn't trampling the Bill of Rights.  He's ignoring it completely while he trashes the Constitution.  Try to keep up.
 
2013-05-14 11:22:28 AM
But the GOP is the party of God. They are only trying to do God's will in a world of evil. They are Armageddon warriors; let them fight the battle God has placed around them and let them win BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

s3.amazonaws.com

/famous Republican leader
 
2013-05-14 11:22:48 AM
Flailing away like a spoiled little boy.
 
2013-05-14 11:23:42 AM
Holding the economy hostage (via the various debt ceiling clusterfarks) is worse IMO. And Obama's been awfully slow to nominate people (not that that would have made a difference, I guess).
 
2013-05-14 11:26:47 AM
That's Bernstein setting the softball on tee. That's Fark on the left.

www.mscc.edu
 
2013-05-14 11:29:01 AM

Danger Mouse: you over there...get ready to call someone a racist


Good point. I remember when sitting Congress members questioned Jimmy Carter's eligibility to be President. And how every conservative was convinced Carter was "bad" in multiple contradictory dimensions simultaneously (he was a do-nothing empty suit who was about to implement martial law too, IIRC...).

/he was very articulate though
 
2013-05-14 11:29:19 AM
25.media.tumblr.com

Thirteen. THIRTEEN THREADS AH HA HA. Ha ha ha. Ahem. Shew.
 
2013-05-14 11:30:09 AM

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

[www.mscc.edu image 600x358]


That can't be Fark. She's not wearing a Chief Noc-a-homa t-shirt.
 
2013-05-14 11:32:04 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: But the GOP is the party of God. They are only trying to do God's will in a world of evil. They are Armageddon warriors; let them fight the battle God has placed around them and let them win BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

[s3.amazonaws.com image 218x320]

/famous Republican leader


Unfortunately I think you're on to something - the reality bubble's so pervasive that now the GOP politicans actually believe their own propaganda. If you truly believed Obamacare would be the death of freedom as we know it and doom us all to Death Panels, surely you'd also threaten to implode the economy unless it was repealed, right?

/Karl Rove seemed to actually believe in unskewed polls, after all
 
2013-05-14 11:33:18 AM
It's only a scandal if a Democrat can be blamed for it, duh!
 
2013-05-14 11:34:25 AM
scandal wars!!!!
 
2013-05-14 11:34:40 AM
I'm just plain outraged.


/subtle
 
2013-05-14 11:35:29 AM
watergate =

knoji.com

taxghazi =

files.dnr.state.mn.us
files.dnr.state.mn.us
files.dnr.state.mn.us
files.dnr.state.mn.us
 
2013-05-14 11:37:30 AM
Don't think it's a scandal? It's pretty basic: Republicans, by abusing their Constitutional powers, are - deliberately, in several cases - preventing the government from carrying out duly passed laws.

Oh fer fark's sake, get a grip.
 
2013-05-14 11:38:48 AM

RyogaM: Oh fer fark's sake, get a grip.


IOKIYAR
 
2013-05-14 11:39:21 AM
Oh, so this must be one of those days where he's a horrible tyrant instead of a weak empty suit.
 
2013-05-14 11:39:38 AM

RyogaM: Don't think it's a scandal? It's pretty basic: Republicans, by abusing their Constitutional powers, are - deliberately, in several cases - preventing the government from carrying out duly passed laws.

Oh fer fark's sake, get a grip.


Agreed.

If it wasn't these scandals, the GOP members of Congress would just be trying to repeal Obamacare for the 38th time.
 
2013-05-14 11:40:06 AM

Gaseous Anomaly: Danger Mouse: you over there...get ready to call someone a racist

Good point. I remember when sitting Congress members questioned Jimmy Carter's eligibility to be President. And how every conservative was convinced Carter was "bad" in multiple contradictory dimensions simultaneously (he was a do-nothing empty suit who was about to implement martial law too, IIRC...).

/he was very articulate though


Joe Biden believed so much in Obama's articulateness that he ran against him in the primaries.
 
2013-05-14 11:42:12 AM

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?
 
2013-05-14 11:43:49 AM
There could be a dozen actual scandals originating in the Obama administration and it wouldn't matter. Republicans lost all their credibility years ago and no one trusts them to approach issues seriously and in good faith.
 
2013-05-14 11:45:21 AM

I_C_Weener: Gaseous Anomaly: Danger Mouse: you over there...get ready to call someone a racist

Good point. I remember when sitting Congress members questioned Jimmy Carter's eligibility to be President. And how every conservative was convinced Carter was "bad" in multiple contradictory dimensions simultaneously (he was a do-nothing empty suit who was about to implement martial law too, IIRC...).

/he was very articulate though

Joe Biden believed so much in Obama's articulateness that he ran against him in the primaries.


Eh, being more articulate than Biden isn't hard :-)

This does remind me - during the 2008 primaries we all assumed that the "secret Muslim" and/or "foreign born" rumors were started by Hillary's people. (McCain tried a "fathered a black child" rumor but it never took off). I wonder if anyone ever found out.
 
2013-05-14 11:47:41 AM

I_C_Weener: Joe Biden believed so much in Obama's articulateness that he ran against him in the primaries.


The fark does that matter? Not every primary race is acrimonious (remember Cain and Gingrich almost making interracial gay porn during the primaries?), and not every fight ends with the combatants pissed at each other. I hear Joe and Obama work pretty well together these days, even though Obama couldn't bear to be seen with Joe since December of 2007 (when Biden's chances at the nomination were seen to be zero).

There's even a well-known term for this phenomenon, whereby you show respect and honor to the effort by affording the same to your adversary.
 
2013-05-14 11:48:33 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Now this was a farking scandal




i11.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-14 11:49:44 AM

Gaseous Anomaly: This does remind me - during the 2008 primaries we all assumed that the "secret Muslim" and/or "foreign born" rumors were started by Hillary's people. (McCain tried a "fathered a black child" rumor but it never took off). I wonder if anyone ever found out.


Did you ever check out the website "Hillaryis44" during the primaries?  Holy mother of God, those people were Townhall-commenter-level insane.
 
2013-05-14 11:50:27 AM
Meh. I like Obama and I'm done with his presidency.

I'm not even blaming him, but unless the GOP gets destroyed in the mid terms, we'll just keep plodding along like this for at least another decade. And nothing good is waiting at the end of that decade.

I'm advocating for Balkinization from here on. We've done a commendable job of purging GOP derp from my section of the nation. Still work to be done for sure, but we're on the path.
 
2013-05-14 11:50:40 AM
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
 
2013-05-14 11:50:49 AM
Scandals?  Scandals?  You want scandals?

Here is a complete history of all the Federal scandals in DC (District of Contempt).  A massive staff is required to keep it up to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_t he _United_States
 
2013-05-14 11:51:05 AM
All is well


t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-14 11:51:34 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Sebellius-gate.


What the hell is this one?
 
2013-05-14 11:52:42 AM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Sebellius-gate.

What the hell is this one?


Study it out libulardo
 
2013-05-14 11:57:33 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I'm not even blaming him, but unless the GOP gets destroyed in the mid terms, we'll just keep plodding along like this for at least another decade. And nothing good is waiting at the end of that decade.


Considering the only thing that saved their happy asses in 2012 was gerrymandering, with a potential impeachment to keep the base from staying at home or worse, another debt ceiling fight, and more women's and minority rights issues coming down the pike, that may very well yet happen.
 
2013-05-14 11:58:14 AM
Oh, the desperation to deflect.

It's very entertaining.
 
2013-05-14 11:58:19 AM
Oh yeah.  I remember hearing about this story on Fox.
 
2013-05-14 11:58:36 AM
I thought Republicans were focused on creating jobs... for prosecutors.
 
2013-05-14 11:59:24 AM
That a very amazingly lame argument.
 
2013-05-14 11:59:32 AM

Danger Mouse: pass the lube...


Dude, you're phoning it in.  You can do better than that.
 
2013-05-14 12:00:43 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Oh, the desperation to deflect.

It's very entertaining.


I know, the GOP has ginned up so many fake scandals to deflect from their election failures. It's so funny.
 
2013-05-14 12:03:08 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Sebellius-gate.

What the hell is this one?


It turns out her legal name is spelled with two l's instead of one, so Sarah Palin is automatically Secretary of HHS and Obamacare is dead.
 
2013-05-14 12:03:24 PM
I think it's scandalous there are so many scandals.
 
2013-05-14 12:03:40 PM

Nabb1: The Republicans being shiatheads does not mean the President has not been trampling the Bill of Rights.  I think Benghazi is a tempest in a teapot for the most part, 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.  And the IRS thing, while awful, does not appear to be Obama's fault and I agree with his assessment of the situation thus far.  But the recent sweeping, secretive investigation of the AP is startling.  So, between the Benghazi response and bullying the AP, we see he's not a fan of the First Amendment.  The Second Amendment is an obvious one.  He supported renewal of the Patriot Act, continued warrantless wiretaps, signed a bill authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens if they are labeled as "terror suspects", is only just now getting around to maybe, possibly closing our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and let's not forget the thousands of deaths from drone strikes that were carried out for the purpose of extra-judicial executions of American citizens overseas.  So, he's not real big on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, either.  Yes, the Republicans are acting like petulant spoiled brats and they need to stop blocking every appointment willy-nilly, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are some troubling expansions of unchecked executive power going on.


The trouble is the opposition doesn't actually give a shiat about most of that
 
2013-05-14 12:05:28 PM

Nabb1: 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.


I don't understand this argument.

This wasn't a case like Iraqi WMD when the administration spent months and months deliberately misleading the Congress, the people and the world to gain support for a policy they'd already decided on.

This was a case in which events were ACTUALLY confusing.  And, when clarity had been brought to the situation, the White House made that information public.  This happened over the course of a few days (a couple of weeks at most).  The White House had no incentive to misidentify the nature of the attack -- and, if they did, they certainly LOST whatever benefit they could have derived by correcting the record.  Keep in mind this happened well before the election...so, if there was some sort of deliberate misinformation, one would expect the White House to have maintained it at least until Nov. 7.

To claim that the White House knew "full well" what the attacks were when the administration made its initial public statements seems to me to be taking things much too far.
 
2013-05-14 12:07:29 PM

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...


Remember, folks. Asking them to actually back up the words they say is "mocking" now. What poor little victims you are.
 
2013-05-14 12:08:30 PM
The Boy Who Cried Wolf is such an established Jungian archetype.

Doesn't excuse any Executive misdeeds, if there are any.  But it's hard to blame the villagers when they turn a deaf ear at this pint.
 
2013-05-14 12:09:38 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I think it's scandalous there are so many scandals.


I know. How can I separate the crap ones from the legitimate ones?
 
2013-05-14 12:12:10 PM
Wow, conservatives are in meltdown mode over their lack of of actual scandals to pin on Obama, aren't they?

Just remember goppers:  your party sat back and did nothing, leading the 3,000 people dying in the streets, and then you started, and basically failed at runnign two wars for eight years, then crashed the economy and cost us a credit downgrade.

Nothing Obama can do can come remotely close to that level of failure.
 
2013-05-14 12:12:24 PM

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

[i11.photobucket.com image 193x169]


I dont need no farking help biatch about that effing call!!! 10 YARDS 10 EFFING YARDS 10 YARDS NOT 9 DIFFERENTLY NOT 8 BUT IT HAS TO TRAVEL 10 YARDS!!!!


see
 
2013-05-14 12:12:26 PM

seniorgato: That a very amazingly lame argument.


I know, right. The same people who complain about government incompetence demonstrate their perfect application of it.
 
2013-05-14 12:12:56 PM

Mrtraveler01: I know. How can I separate the crap ones from the legitimate ones?


Look at who pushes the scandal.  If it's a group with "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in the name, it's probably a fake scandal.
 
2013-05-14 12:13:19 PM

Nabb1: I think Benghazi is a tempest in a teapot for the most part, 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.


Stop. Farking. Lying.
 
2013-05-14 12:13:39 PM

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: Study it out libulardo


img2u.info

"EL LIBULARDO IS SPANISH FOR....THE LIBULARDO"
 
2013-05-14 12:13:58 PM

moothemagiccow: The trouble is the opposition doesn't actually give a shiat about most of that


Hell, the opposition  started it and they're practically salivating at the opportunity to get back in the hot seat again, buttressed by eight years of Obama doing the same crap[1] in both precedent and the ability to silence opposition by pointing out "but Obama did it!". Anyone who thought Obama, or any other Democratic, Republican, or independent candidate for that matter, was going to use his presidency as an opportunity to roll back executive privilege and the unitary executive was deluding themselves -- no president in his or her right mind is going to deliberately roll back the power of the office, and in fact many of our most famous/highest-rated presidents in history greatly expanded the power of the presidency.

It's very similar to the "filibuster" issue -- nobody's going to repeal or reform it, when they have the opportunity in the future to wield it themselves. Get used to it, that's contemporary American politics.

[1] "The same crap" here has a very loose definition. Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but was blocked by Congress thrice over. Signing NDAA'12 did absolutely nothing the right wing claims it does, having exemptions for U.S. citizens and merely shoring up post-SCOTUS developments to the 2001 AUMF, and moreover  those who complain about the "troubling language" in the 2012 NDAA are the ones who introduced it, and voted for it.
 
2013-05-14 12:14:45 PM

Diogenes: The Boy Who Cried Wolf is such an established Jungian archetype.

Doesn't excuse any Executive misdeeds, if there are any.  But it's hard to blame the villagers when they turn a deaf ear at this pint.


Like this?
 
2013-05-14 12:14:51 PM

Antimatter: Wow, conservatives are in meltdown mode over their lack of of actual scandals to pin on Obama, aren't they?

Just remember goppers:  your party sat back and did nothing, leading the 3,000 people dying in the streets, and then you started, and basically failed at runnign two wars for eight years, then crashed the economy and cost us a credit downgrade.

Nothing Obama can do can come remotely close to that level of failure.


All of things you mentioned can somehow be blamed on Democrats. All of them. Believe me, I've gone toe to toe with enough right wing morons to know how they think.

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

THIS is what Republicans really believe...

/wish I were kidding.
 
2013-05-14 12:17:38 PM
This is the worst thing since the last worst thing we talked about here!
 
2013-05-14 12:18:11 PM

Erix: Diogenes: The Boy Who Cried Wolf is such an established Jungian archetype.

Doesn't excuse any Executive misdeeds, if there are any.  But it's hard to blame the villagers when they turn a deaf ear at this pint.

Like this?


LOL.  Bet you she gives a mean blowie.  Can probably breathe through them, too.
 
2013-05-14 12:19:26 PM

zappaisfrank: Antimatter: Wow, conservatives are in meltdown mode over their lack of of actual scandals to pin on Obama, aren't they?

Just remember goppers:  your party sat back and did nothing, leading the 3,000 people dying in the streets, and then you started, and basically failed at runnign two wars for eight years, then crashed the economy and cost us a credit downgrade.

Nothing Obama can do can come remotely close to that level of failure.

All of things you mentioned can somehow be blamed on Democrats. All of them. Believe me, I've gone toe to toe with enough right wing morons to know how they think.

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

THIS is what Republicans really believe...

/wish I were kidding.


You're right, but partisan assholes are loud and common on both sides of the aisle.
 
2013-05-14 12:19:29 PM

cabbyman: This is the worst thing since the last worst thing we talked about here!


This has nothing on Justin Bieber
 
2013-05-14 12:20:35 PM

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

[i11.photobucket.com image 193x169]

I dont need no farking help biatch about that effing call!!! 10 YARDS 10 EFFING YARDS 10 YARDS NOT 9 DIFFERENTLY NOT 8 BUT IT HAS TO TRAVEL 10 YARDS!!!!


images.wikia.com

// not 7 or 8 or 9, but 10!
 
2013-05-14 12:22:20 PM

James!: That's not so much a scandal as a disgrace.

 
2013-05-14 12:22:40 PM

Erix: zappaisfrank: Antimatter: Wow, conservatives are in meltdown mode over their lack of of actual scandals to pin on Obama, aren't they?

Just remember goppers:  your party sat back and did nothing, leading the 3,000 people dying in the streets, and then you started, and basically failed at runnign two wars for eight years, then crashed the economy and cost us a credit downgrade.

Nothing Obama can do can come remotely close to that level of failure.

All of things you mentioned can somehow be blamed on Democrats. All of them. Believe me, I've gone toe to toe with enough right wing morons to know how they think.

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

THIS is what Republicans really believe...

/wish I were kidding.

You're right, but partisan assholes are loud and common on both sides of the aisle.


So vote Republican..?
 
2013-05-14 12:24:03 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So it's a scandal when someone fails to do their constitutional duty?!


Funny how bigoted Tea Baggers don't understand how the constitution works......yet love to claim it is being abused when they aren't allowed to discriminate against minorities.  Fark off you twat.
 
2013-05-14 12:24:19 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?


I caught him on the way back from picking up lunch.  Apparently Rush is proud as a peacock Obama said his name at some fundraiser.
 
2013-05-14 12:24:51 PM
Just wait 'til the Scandal Bubble bursts, you and your irrational exuberance.

dealbreaker.com
 
2013-05-14 12:25:54 PM
It's bullshiat, and I'm sure that in "George Sargent's take from a liberal perspectiveTM" it is scandelous, but it's not really a "scandal".

Scandal implies some attempt to keep it secret. The Teabaggers ran for election based on the promise that they would do anything and everything to stop "Obamacare and the librul government takeover". Nearly half of the country voted against Obama, and these politicians know just how red their home states vote.

This isn't a scandal, this is just hyper-partisan annoying bullshiat. 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 judges, but when they got control of both houses they didn't have to be so tricksy to gum up the works.

Without supporting the right-wingers and teabaggers who are taking it a bit too far, every time I read one of these articles I keep thinking that too many pundits are under the age of 30, and too may pundits are shocked, I say SHOCKED! to see how the sausage is actually made.
 
2013-05-14 12:25:55 PM

zappaisfrank: Erix: zappaisfrank: Antimatter: Wow, conservatives are in meltdown mode over their lack of of actual scandals to pin on Obama, aren't they?

Just remember goppers:  your party sat back and did nothing, leading the 3,000 people dying in the streets, and then you started, and basically failed at runnign two wars for eight years, then crashed the economy and cost us a credit downgrade.

Nothing Obama can do can come remotely close to that level of failure.

All of things you mentioned can somehow be blamed on Democrats. All of them. Believe me, I've gone toe to toe with enough right wing morons to know how they think.

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

THIS is what Republicans really believe...

/wish I were kidding.

You're right, but partisan assholes are loud and common on both sides of the aisle.

So vote Republican..?


Hell no.  Just don't think it's a one sided problem.  And maybe vote third party.
 
2013-05-14 12:26:43 PM

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
 
2013-05-14 12:27:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: Lt. Cheese Weasel: I think it's scandalous there are so many scandals.

I know. How can I separate the crap ones from the legitimate ones?


Nothing about n0Bummer is legitimate!

/wait...
 
2013-05-14 12:29:11 PM
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.

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.
 
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.
 
2013-05-14 02:33:59 PM

Captain Dan: 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.


The elderly require more health care than the young. They have put in their time. It's part of the social contract (or should be), and it is simply the right, moral thing to do. Not "fair" would be young people shirking their responsibility to society, based on the almighty dollar as a guide.
 
2013-05-14 02:36:45 PM

Nabb1: So, he's not real big on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, either. Yes, the Republicans are acting like petulant spoiled brats and they need to stop blocking every appointment willy-nilly, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are some troubling expansions of unchecked executive power going on.


Hillary told a slain marine's father she would work to jail the mean man who made the awful Islam video that she knew was not the cause of the embassy attack.  That doesn't strike me as being too 1st amendment-friendly.  Granted, Hillbillary isn't Obama, and we did find that the videographer had violated the terms of his parole or something (isn't that how the Iraq war v2.0 started?), but for her to seemingly suggest to the father they would go get the guy for making a video is farked.   But, Obama isn't any more responsible for her statements than anyone else that reports to him.
 
2013-05-14 02:40:30 PM
I think the IRS thing is a genuine problem. There are enough nuts out there who already believe the government is out to get them, that providing factual evidence that it is indeed occurring is going to inspire serious backlash to the tune of Waco and Ruby Ridge, if we're lucky. And Oklahoma City if we're not.

The Republican party has long used fear as a tactic to motivate voters. As a result, we have a number of fractured, separatist groups in the US who believe what they were spoon fed and see the Democratic-lead government as 'out to get them.' These people already on the fringe socially have no one honestly challenging their view point and now have a pretty serious motivation to respond in very unpleasant ways.

I am Jack's genuine concern for how the next 2-6 years could go if things continue down this track.
 
2013-05-14 02:42:26 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: 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.


Perfect meritocracy is impossible and probably not a good idea, for the reasons you outline. We need families for socialization of the young into healthy functional adults. It's normal for parents to want to provide the best they can for their children, and to a large extent it is moral, ethical and practical - advantageous to society in general. The problem is that it tends to be a positive feedback loop, and allowed to run unchecked it's very dangerous to a society on the long term.

The idea is not to force a perfect meritocracy, but rather to provide a counterbalance to the positive feedback loop whereby wealth and privilege magnify themselves from generation to generation leading to strict class stratification and aristocracies, de facto or de jure, and to provide avenues whereby the talented from underprivileged groups have the opportunity to use those talents, both for their own betterment but also for the larger good of society as a result of the products of their talents. It is appropriate to have an ongoing conversation about this topic, and to apply efforts towards that end in a tentative manner, contingent on changing circumstances. What's not appropriate is ideological extremism that either fellates the rich and denigrates the poor, or that advocates stealing everything from the successful to give to the imporverished. Neither is at all practical or useful.
 
2013-05-14 02:44:17 PM

Danger Mouse: 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.


It's kinda like people who think Fox News has properly trained them to be arm-chair generals and know the first thing about the topics they're always spouting off about to people who don't give a shiat.  If we wanted to know what you and tenpoundsoftard thought about it, we'd just turn on Limbaugh.
 
2013-05-14 02:51:36 PM
We get it. You really hate to lose elections.
 
2013-05-14 02:53:45 PM

MrBallou: When they start to do things to help the country instead of just their re-election chances, then I'll show them some respect.


I really dont think they care if you show them respect. I was just pointing out your ignorance of history.

Why didn't you just go with "Must un-american faction evar?! LOL"
 
2013-05-14 02:55:31 PM

slayer199: [www.the80sman.com image 320x240]


Now THAT'S obscure even for Fark.

/Unless you were around in the 80s (70s?) when that band had their one hit.
 
2013-05-14 03:02:11 PM

Flaming Yawn: now THAT'S obscure even for Fark.

/Unless you were around in the 80s (70s?) when that band had their one hit.


I figured some old guy would get it.  :P

I was around in the 80's.  Scandal actually had 2 big hits:  "Goodbye to You" and "Warrior" while Patti Smyth had one on her own, "No Mistakes."
 
2013-05-14 03:06:18 PM

KiltedBastich: 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.


I don't want teachers or police to be undervalued either.  I'm quite fond of most of the teachers I learned from.  I have lots of teachers in my family, and I'm pro-education by temperament.  A good teacher is more important to society than most other professions.

Despite my pro-teacher sympathies, I am uncomfortable with a bargaining structure which is fundamentally designed to privilege union interests, rather than teachers' interests, or students' interests, or citizens' interests.  A union's first order is to maximize its own power.

In the private sector, unions are a healthy part of the natural give-and-take between employees and employer.  In the public sector, there is no equivalent power to hold unions in check.  Politicians find it expeditious to give unions what they want and pass the costs onto future taxpayers.

I favor a system that gives the best teachers more than they are currently receiving, the average teacher about the same, and the worst teachers a pink slip.  Job security for subpar teachers is not a priority that I share with unions.

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).

This is moderately condescending.  I don't know a single person who believes that society doesn't play a great role in shaping an individual's fortune.

 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 than merit.

No disagreements so far...

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.

Remember that I was discussing equality within the context of what the two political parties espouse.  The "everyone-gets-a-trophy" mentality is more prevalent on the political left than on the political right, which is why my view of "to hell with the trophies" puts me out of step with the left.  My rapport with sympathetic liberal social scientists is immaterial, at least until they shift the culture on the political left.

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.

Not distorted at all!  I dislike the Republican posturing on Medicare immensely.  Few things made me more nauseous than the Republican attacks on Obamacare for its cuts to Medicare.

What allows me to circle the square is my faith that Republicans are lying.  I have no doubt that they will campaign on preserving Medicare benefits, but will cut them (more than Democrats would) once in power.

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.

Nationalism is obviously morally indefensible.  From any modern philosophical point of view, it's immoral to privilege an in-group.

That's what makes me so unapologetic!  I know it's immoral, and I don't mind.  I have no issue with privileging my family over a stranger's, and no issue with privileging my country over a foreign country.  I expect other countries to do the same.

I agree that favoritism should not interfere with rational, unsentimental evaluation, and aim for that goal to the extent that I can control for my own biases.  I'm pretty good, but everyone has blind spots.  To counteract bias, I make a concerted effort to seek outside input and weigh it seriously.
 
2013-05-14 03:12:31 PM

mediablitz: The elderly require more health care than the young. They have put in their time. It's part of the social contract (or should be), and it is simply the right, moral thing to do. Not "fair" would be young people shirking their responsibility to society, based on the almighty dollar as a guide.


Let me clear something up: I don't mean that the elderly - as a timeless class of different peoples who are always ages 65-100 - have always underpaid for health care.  I mean that the current (and impending) cohort of elderly Americans - those born between 1930 and 1960 - have grossly underpaid for the healthcare that they will receive.  This is a form of wealth redistribution from younger generations to older generations, which was never an intended feature of health insurance.  Socialized health care has always been based on the notion of an intergenerational compact that no generation would leave the system worse than they found it.
 
2013-05-14 03:16:58 PM

Citrate1007: James!: That's not so much a scandal as a disgrace.


scan·dal[skan-dl] Show IPA noun, verb, scan·daled, scan·dal·ing or ( especially British  ) scan·dalled, scan·dal·ling. noun 1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc. 2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed. 3. damage to reputation; public disgrace. 4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip. 5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense.
 
2013-05-14 03:35:32 PM
TFA doesn't seem to understand what a scandal is.
 
2013-05-14 03:52:29 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".


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-14 03:55:46 PM

HighOnCraic: BojanglesPaladin: ...I would be curious to see if you could provide any examples of who, exactly, has taken a moral position of "farking the elderly".

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 790x1006]


Well played sir, well played indeed,

/ I knew someone would go there.
 
2013-05-14 04:03:17 PM
Even if you think that any one of F&F, Benghazi, IRS, AP information gathering has any weight.  You have to admit that it is starting to pile up and people are starting to notice.
 
2013-05-14 04:03:55 PM

mediablitz: 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?


Seriously.  One can take a postion on expanding or curbing the current rate of benefits which the elderly recieve, particualrly as it pertains to contriobutions versus entitlements without claiming any morality or an effort to "fark the elderly".

YOU may see that effort as having the end result of "farking the elderly", but I have not seen anyone arguing that the GOAL they are seeking on moral grounds is to "fark the elderly over".

Your hyperbole is hyperbolic.
 
2013-05-14 04:09:55 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: MrBallou: When they start to do things to help the country instead of just their re-election chances, then I'll show them some respect.

I really dont think they care if you show them respect. I was just pointing out your ignorance of history.

Why didn't you just go with "Must un-american faction evar?! LOL"


You're saying the CSA was worse, so that makes it OK? A variation on "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican", huh?

Sorry, I'm woefully ignorant of history.
 
2013-05-14 04:11:01 PM

pxsteel: Even if you think that any one of F&F, Benghazi, IRS, AP information gathering has any weight. You have to admit that it is starting to pile up and people are starting to notice.


I doubt it will make much difference, except perhaps if it tips very, very close mid-term elections (if there are any after all the gerrymandering from both sides to build solid red and blue districts).

As we see here on Fark every day on every thread, there are some people who will refuse with their dying breath that ANY criticism of Obama has merit. And there are some who have completely bought into the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy, and there are some who are simply blind binary politicos, who don't know or want to know about "the details" and just vote for their favorite team regardless.

Of course the same is true on the other side. There's probably much less than 10% of the voting population who are even susceptable to changing their vote based on changing information. And do you honestly think that even 6 months from now, much less in late 2014 that these "scandalettes" will be fresh on anyone's minds?
 
2013-05-14 04:16:24 PM

pxsteel: Even if you think that any one of F&F, Benghazi, IRS, AP information gathering has any weight.  You have to admit that it is starting to pile up and people are starting to notice.


People are starting to notice that the GOP will make a controversy over literally everything?
 
2013-05-14 04:21:15 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: BojanglesPaladin: ...I would be curious to see if you could provide any examples of who, exactly, has taken a moral position of "farking the elderly".

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 790x1006]

Well played sir, well played indeed,

/ I knew someone would go there.


You know who else would go there?

www1.pictures.zimbio.com
 
2013-05-14 04:24:01 PM

Captain Dan: This is moderately condescending.  I don't know a single person who believes that society doesn't play a great role in shaping an individual's fortune.


Internet libertarians tend to espouse this view (to be fair, internet libertarians tend to be their own strawmen, somehow). Take the "taxation is theft" contingent as an example.
 
2013-05-14 04:36:19 PM
I'm hearing both sides are bad so vote Democrat.

/"he's doing it too!"--first grader's defense when confronted with their own mistakes
 
2013-05-14 04:40:17 PM

HighOnCraic: You know who else would go there?


cdn.sheknows.com
 
2013-05-14 04:43:53 PM

BojanglesPaladin: As we see here on Fark every day on every thread, there are some people who will refuse with their dying breath that ANY criticism of Obama has merit


Not really. It's more that you guys tend to throw up a lot of shiat to see what sticks. Hell I remember you being concerned about Obama's birf certificate. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
 
2013-05-14 04:46:39 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: You know who else would go there?

[cdn.sheknows.com image 450x300]


I thought about that one, but she's, um, unavailable for comment.

How about:

www.celebitchy.com
 
2013-05-14 04:52:35 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Internet libertarians tend to espouse this view (to be fair, internet libertarians tend to be their own strawmen, somehow). Take the "taxation is theft" contingent as an example.


As a courtesy to mankind, I don't consider opinions on the internet to be representative of anything.
 
2013-05-14 05:13:06 PM

Captain Dan: I favor a system that gives the best teachers more than they are currently receiving, the average teacher about the same, and the worst teachers a pink slip.  Job security for subpar teachers is not a priority that I share with unions.


An excellent idea, in theory.  In practice, how do you measure the quality of teaching?  Test scores? Subjective evaluations by their management or other teachers?  Fewest in-class stabbings?
 
2013-05-14 05:13:49 PM

TV's Vinnie: 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?


TV's Vinnie: 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?


0/10
 
2013-05-14 05:38:02 PM

badaboom: 0/10

images.sodahead.com
 
2013-05-14 05:44:11 PM

TV's Vinnie: badaboom: 0/10
[images.sodahead.com image 552x377]


More like LOL and sorry for a pathetic human being.
 
2013-05-14 05:57:14 PM

badaboom: TV's Vinnie: badaboom: 0/10
[images.sodahead.com image 552x377]

More like LOL and sorry for a pathetic human being.


i435.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-14 06:23:37 PM

MisterRonbo: An excellent idea, in theory.  In practice, how do you measure the quality of teaching?  Test scores? Subjective evaluations by their management or other teachers?  Fewest in-class stabbings?


Fewest in-class stabbings, controlling for prior stabbing achievement and for demographic variables.
 
2013-05-14 06:52:58 PM
Funny, I thought people wanted gridlock in Washington. Now you've got it.

Also, it's not a scandal if the right-wingers who still vote Republican want their kooky Congress Critters to act like that.
 
2013-05-14 06:56:18 PM

whistleridge: Things That Are Criminal Scandals:

* being convicted of tax fraud related to bribery charges
* sending operatives to break into the other guy's headquarters, to see what sort of campaign he wants to run
* and then lying about it, and obstructing justice whenever and wherever possible
* secretly selling arms to an avowed enemy state despite an arms embargo, in order to funnel funds to a group that you have been specifically prohibited by law from funding 
* lying to Congress and the American about WMDs to start a needless war
* forging evidence to back those false claims
* deliberately and knowingly outing an agent of the CIA, then perjuring oneself about it
* approving the use of torture, extradition to places that torture, and the creation of places to hold people without charges or access to due process for years on end

Things That Are NOT Criminal Scandals:

* being caught boinking the fat girl that brings in the mail. Lying about it under oath kinda/sorta is.
* being President when a facility gets attacked in an unsettled place, in such a way that the details get hazy in the fog of war

Look at this nice list of federal political scandals in the United States. Remember that Harding is generally considered the worst and most corrupt President in history. Now see which Presidents since his time have the most scandals under their names, and remind yourself of which party they have in common. It's a remarkable correlation.

It's not about the party, it's about the facts. Sorry, Republicans, but this is yet another circumstance in which the facts seem to be biased against you.


bias  noun

a :
b : an inclination ofespecially  : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment  :
c : an instance of such prejudice
d(1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates(2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
 
2013-05-14 06:57:05 PM

whistleridge: Things That Are Criminal Scandals:

* being convicted of tax fraud related to bribery charges
* sending operatives to break into the other guy's headquarters, to see what sort of campaign he wants to run
* and then lying about it, and obstructing justice whenever and wherever possible
* secretly selling arms to an avowed enemy state despite an arms embargo, in order to funnel funds to a group that you have been specifically prohibited by law from funding
* lying to Congress and the American about WMDs to start a needless war
* forging evidence to back those false claims
* deliberately and knowingly outing an agent of the CIA, then perjuring oneself about it
* approving the use of torture, extradition to places that torture, and the creation of places to hold people without charges or access to due process for years on end

Things That Are NOT Criminal Scandals:

* being caught boinking the fat girl that brings in the mail. Lying about it under oath kinda/sorta is.
* being President when a facility gets attacked in an unsettled place, in such a way that the details get hazy in the fog of war

Look at this nice list of federal political scandals in the United States. Remember that Harding is generally considered the worst and most corrupt President in history. Now see which Presidents since his time have the most scandals under their names, and remind yourself of which party they have in common. It's a remarkable correlation.

It's not about the party, it's about the facts. Sorry, Republicans, but this is yet another circumstance in which the facts seem to be biased against you.


bias  noun

a : BENT  TENDENCY
b : an inclination ofespecially  : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment  :
c : an instance of such prejudice
d(1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates(2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
 
2013-05-14 07:00:42 PM

BojanglesPaladin:
As we see here on Fark every day on every thread, there are some people who will refuse with their dying breath that ANY criticism of Obama has merit.


As mentioned elsewhere, it's the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". 5 years of conflicting partisan biatchery. Political leaders announcing happily that their primary concern is to depose the President. So don't blame others for the bed you farking made.
 
2013-05-14 07:08:24 PM

RevMercutio: BojanglesPaladin:
As we see here on Fark every day on every thread, there are some people who will refuse with their dying breath that ANY criticism of Obama has merit.

As mentioned elsewhere, it's the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". 5 years of conflicting partisan biatchery. Political leaders announcing happily that their primary concern is to depose the President. So don't blame others for the bed you farking made.


Poor analogy. In the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" the wolf eventually shows up.
 
2013-05-14 10:51:03 PM
Patriotic GOPers stopping that Jihad-loving nazi Obama from appointing communists to high office isn't a so-called "scandal".
 
2013-05-14 10:59:56 PM

strapp3r: watergate =

[knoji.com image 400x265]

taxghazi =

[files.dnr.state.mn.us image 300x200]
[files.dnr.state.mn.us image 300x200]
[files.dnr.state.mn.us image 300x200]
[files.dnr.state.mn.us image 300x200]


Lest we forget



wwwimage.cbsnews.com

Tricky Dick's Taint

What: Nixon's legacy of outright treason, rat-farking, dirty tricks, blackmail, enemies lists, burglary, bribery, wire tapping, McCarthyism, red-baiting, misuse of the IRS, corporate payoffs, money laundering, electoral and voter fraud, perjury, mafia ties, domestic spying by the CIA, anti-Semitism, racism, and war crimes.

Who: Taint carried by members of Nixon's administration who continue to infect others. Such as

Roger Ailes (Der Leader of Fox News)
Pat Buchanan (Chardonnay-drinking, Brie-eating culture warrior)
Robert Bork (invented "original intent" as cover for reactionary social engineering and judicial activism)
Antonin Scalia (SCOTUS wild man)
Dick Cheney (war criminal)
Donald Rumsfeld (war criminal)
George H.W. Bush (took money from illegal Nixon slush fund and later gave us Clarence Thomas)
Karl Rove (member of CREEP and current GOP bagman)
David Gergan
John Warner
William Safire (a congenital liar)
Alan Greenspan (Ayn Rand devotee who enginered the housing/banking bubble)
Gerald Ford (eaten by wolves)
Warren Burger
Alexander Haig (war criminal)
George Schultz (has tatoo on his ass)
Caspar Weinberger (war criminal)
Spiro Agnew (a nattering nabob of negativity and outright racist)
William Renquist (Bush v. Gore)
Henry Kissinger (war criminal)
Ben Stein (creationist nutbag)
Hank Paulson (the Wall Street bailout was his idea)
Peter Peterson (Peterson Foundation and balanced budget jihadist)
G. Gordon Liddy (bagman and burglar turned propagandist)
E. Howard Hunt
Richard Helms (lied to Congress and given medal by Ronald Reagan)
H.R. Haldeman (crook)
John Ehrlichman (crook)
Charles Colson (convicted felon & advocate of theocracy)
 
2013-05-14 11:01:45 PM

I_C_Weener: Gaseous Anomaly: Danger Mouse: you over there...get ready to call someone a racist

Good point. I remember when sitting Congress members questioned Jimmy Carter's eligibility to be President. And how every conservative was convinced Carter was "bad" in multiple contradictory dimensions simultaneously (he was a do-nothing empty suit who was about to implement martial law too, IIRC...).

/he was very articulate though

Joe Biden believed so much in Obama's articulateness that he ran against him in the primaries.


and now works for him. odd how these things work out.
 
2013-05-14 11:11:27 PM
Scandal?
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-14 11:59:47 PM
And here I thought it was going to be the Democratic-controlled Senate waiting to submit a budget bill for 4 years and when it finally did it was a piece of lib-crap.
 
2013-05-15 12:06:32 AM

BojanglesPaladin: 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.


And yet you spend 85% of your time here trying to do just that.
 
2013-05-15 01:27:50 AM

Teikiatsu: And here I thought it was going to be the Democratic-controlled Senate waiting to submit a budget bill for 4 years and when it finally did it was a piece of lib-crap.


You were expecting the Democrats to pass a teahadist budget?

[waityou'reseriousletmelaughharder.jpg]
 
2013-05-15 02:01:28 AM

rzrwiresunrise: Scandal?
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x252]


Hey, if something as laboriously manufactured as Benghazi-gate gets to be a "scandal", then this surely qualifies.  Of course, both the result of utterly useless Republican assclowns.  They just love scandal.
 
2013-05-15 09:20:33 AM

whistleridge: It's not about the party, it's about the facts. Sorry, Republicans, but this is yet another circumstance in which the facts seem to be biased against you


your wall of text, or keeping score, parlaying the failures of scum like Nixon and Harding against democrats in no way excuses their behavior.

"But bush did it too!" is not an excuse, nor is it an explanation for this administration's constant attempts to silence opposition and subvert the Constitution
 
2013-05-15 09:28:32 AM

o5iiawah: whistleridge: It's not about the party, it's about the facts. Sorry, Republicans, but this is yet another circumstance in which the facts seem to be biased against you

your wall of text, or keeping score, parlaying the failures of scum like Nixon and Harding against democrats in no way excuses their behavior.

"But bush did it too!" is not an excuse, nor is it an explanation for this administration's constant attempts to silence opposition and subvert the Constitution


I just threw up in my mouth a little.
 
2013-05-15 01:44:01 PM

Gyrfalcon: BojanglesPaladin: 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.


And yet you spend 85% of your time here trying to do just that.

If that is your understanding, then your comprehension skills need some work, or your partisan filter needs adjusting.
 
2013-05-15 07:07:10 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Gyrfalcon: BojanglesPaladin: 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.

And yet you spend 85% of your time here trying to do just that.

If that is your understanding, then your comprehension skills need some work, or your partisan filter needs adjusting.


It's pretty much general agreement from people reading your posts. You just pretend you aren't a blatant GOP shill.
 
2013-05-15 09:31:21 PM
Keep forwarding that two party system, though.
 
Displayed 201 of 201 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report