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 31
    More: Obvious, Benghazi, IRS, cover up, senate rules  
•       •       •

9902 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-14 10:16:31 AM
4 votes:
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 12:33:35 PM
2 votes:
img267.imageshack.us
2013-05-14 12:32:08 PM
2 votes:
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 11:43:49 AM
2 votes:
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 11:03:57 AM
2 votes:

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 10:51:03 PM
1 votes:
Patriotic GOPers stopping that Jihad-loving nazi Obama from appointing communists to high office isn't a so-called "scandal".
2013-05-14 04:52:35 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:17 PM
1 votes:

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 01:40:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:10:47 PM
1 votes:

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 12:54:20 PM
1 votes:

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 12:32:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:14:51 PM
1 votes:

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 12:12:26 PM
1 votes:

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 12:08:30 PM
1 votes:
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 12:07:29 PM
1 votes:

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 12:05:28 PM
1 votes:

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 11:59:24 AM
1 votes:
That a very amazingly lame argument.
2013-05-14 11:50:27 AM
1 votes:
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 11:37:30 AM
1 votes:
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 11:22:14 AM
1 votes:

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 11:21:42 AM
1 votes:
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 11:20:01 AM
1 votes:
That is the most desperate thing I've heard that wasn't said in a bar after last call.
2013-05-14 11:00:09 AM
1 votes:

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 10:58:12 AM
1 votes:

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 09:47:53 AM
1 votes:
Maybe Democrats should be blaming Harry Reid for giving the GOP the idea
2013-05-14 09:47:29 AM
1 votes:
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 09:42:16 AM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2013-05-14 09:32:22 AM
1 votes:
And remember that this is entirely unprecedented.
And remember that this is entirely unprecedented.
And remember that this is entirely unprecedented.
2013-05-14 09:26:20 AM
1 votes:
That's not so much a scandal as a disgrace.
2013-05-14 09:23:49 AM
1 votes:
Left wing scum grasping at straws to divert attention from their failure and chief? Say it isn't so.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report