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

(Salon)   Media Matters sends out talking points defending Obama's DOJ obtaining AP phone logs so dumb and partisan that even Salon is forced to blush   (salon.com) divider line 171
    More: Amusing, Media Matters, U.S. state abbreviations, Obama Justice Department, DOJ, obama, Salon, David Brock, Jonathan Haidt  
•       •       •

2635 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2013 at 9:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-17 11:59:30 AM  

Giltric: But FOX News?

WTF

Anyone have the cartoon of the donkey and the elephant jumping over different sized hurdles with the word hypocrite coming out of the Donkeys mouth?


It's filed under "cartoonists who have no grasp of reality".
 
2013-05-17 11:59:32 AM  
The correct, non-partisan view is:  AP surveillance = seriously wrong, Benghazi and IRS = partisan bullshiat
 
2013-05-17 12:11:46 PM  

Nem Wan: The correct, non-partisan view is:  AP surveillance = seriously wrong, Benghazi and IRS = partisan bullshiat


surveillance without a court order/judgement is wrong period but the GOP pretty much can't go there
 
2013-05-17 12:14:57 PM  

mrshowrules: Nem Wan: The correct, non-partisan view is:  AP surveillance = seriously wrong, Benghazi and IRS = partisan bullshiat

surveillance without a court order/judgement is wrong period but the GOP pretty much can't go there


It opens them up to all manner of flanking attacks on their own activities in that area, so yeah.
 
2013-05-17 12:17:51 PM  
I don't see the problem in suggesting that the DoJ investigation of AP include discussion of what the investigation is about.  News media, even lefty news media, has circled the wagons to protect the sanctity of the first amendment but as they themselves were saying a month ago there are upper boundaries to our freedoms, we shouldn't give bazookas to prison inmates and presumably we shouldn't give away national security secrets.
 
2013-05-17 12:27:48 PM  
www.investors.com
 
2013-05-17 12:32:47 PM  
Of course, this could just be the difference between left-leaning and right-leaning press. The thing that makes the AP phone log mess legal (not right, legal) is the Patriot Act. Most lefties don't like the Patriot Act no matter who's in charge. The mainstream press has either been pretty quiet or favored the Patriot Act. Even now, I haven't seen anything in the mainstream press that points to the Patriot Act as the main problem here (and it is). The mainstream press just seems to want a special press exemption, to hell with the rest of the public. And the right-leaning press would marry the Patriot Act and have its baby if it were possible.
 
2013-05-17 12:33:06 PM  
I'm sorry, but I automatically ignore people who do nothing more than post stupid political cartoons.  It's habit.
 
2013-05-17 12:35:36 PM  
progressive talkers and influentials

Whatever way your political leanings lie, I think we can all agree on one thing:  making up labels for things by using adjectives as nouns and then pluralizing them makes one sound like a giant douche-nozzle.
 
2013-05-17 12:36:07 PM  

DeaH: Of course, this could just be the difference between left-leaning and right-leaning press. The thing that makes the AP phone log mess legal (not right, legal) is the Patriot Act. Most lefties don't like the Patriot Act no matter who's in charge. The mainstream press has either been pretty quiet or favored the Patriot Act. Even now, I haven't seen anything in the mainstream press that points to the Patriot Act as the main problem here (and it is). The mainstream press just seems to want a special press exemption, to hell with the rest of the public. And the right-leaning press would marry the Patriot Act and have its baby if it were possible.


Obama extended the Patriot Act twice thus far.  Where is your derp-rage then?
 
2013-05-17 12:37:13 PM  
I can only imagine the spittle-spewing from the right that would have resulted had DOJ not used every legal means at its disposal to investigate the leaks. Eric Cantor would have been screaming about Obama's gross negligence regarding our national security. Mitch McConnell would have been demanding a thorough investigation of everyone from the Attorney General himself down to the janitors. A drunk John Boehner would have been demanding jail time for anyone found to have been involved in the decision making process. There would have been hearings at which everyone from Louis Gohmert to Michelle Bachmann could have their ten minutes in the spotlight, insisting that Obama has eviscerated the effectiveness of our intelligence community. Say what you will about the propriety of the subpoena issued in this matter, but you must concede that at least it spared us the media circus that surely would have followed had DOJ proceeded otherwise.
 
2013-05-17 12:39:32 PM  

mrshowrules: -Narrow scope of the subpoena...
AP has 3,400 employees so 20 phones does in fact seem pretty narrow to me plus it is also limited to 2 months, so also narrow in that sense.


"Narrow" relates to the proportion of information extraneous to the investigation that could be anticipated to be received under the subpoena.  Clearly the DoJ didn't know what it was looking for or where to find it.

-Seeking information from alternative sources...
Apparently they did in fact exhaust these alternate sources of information first


Regardless of their statements, the breadth of the subpoena suggests otherwise.

-Obligation to inform and negotiate...
not sure about this one


Not debatable.  DoJ informed AP literally seconds before they received the records.

-Attorney General approval...
He recused himself for some reason but the Deputy Attorney General approved. (Typically the term "deputy" indicates an equivalency of vested authority)


From what I understand, the guidelines restrict authorization solely to the AG and it is not a delegable function, i.e. whether or not he was conducting the investigation he still should have signed off on the subpoena because the specific intent of the guidelines is to hold the highest officer at the DoJ accountable for this process.

-Balancing of interests...
GOP wanted the leaks investigated, they tried to investigate it without AP records and they couldn't. So long as AP is not the target of the investigation, I would say interests are balanced. AP not giving up the records willingly also protects there reputation.


The guidelines are not there to respect a balancing of political interests. It's about a balance between the investigative need for the records and the public's right to information from a free press, unencumbered by punitive governmental actions for exercising their constitutional rights. By demonstrating it is willing to use it's subpoena power in this broad of a manner, the DoJ gives any person who is in a position of knowing  governmental misdeeds, serious pause about giving that information to reporters, which according to multiple members of the media is already severely hampering the their ability to report on newsworthy events.  It's part and parcel of this administrations historic and undemocratic attempt to clampdown on information that liberals like myself have been complaining about for years, but this event extends further than simply punishing those speaking to reporters about classified information, in that it serves to intimidate sources from discussing anything with reporters.
 
2013-05-17 12:47:20 PM  
Did Media Matters steal all of the talking points from Fark?  Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.
 
2013-05-17 12:51:54 PM  

mrshowrules: Let me just say that I think it was wrong because they did have a court ordered judgement to get these records


pretty sure they had one of those fancy secret court warrants though?
 
2013-05-17 12:51:55 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: mrshowrules: -Narrow scope of the subpoena...
AP has 3,400 employees so 20 phones does in fact seem pretty narrow to me plus it is also limited to 2 months, so also narrow in that sense.

"Narrow" relates to the proportion of information extraneous to the investigation that could be anticipated to be received under the subpoena.  Clearly the DoJ didn't know what it was looking for or where to find it.

I still have to take issue with this one.  One news agency, 20 phones, 2 months.  This seems narrow to me.  They have narrowed it to a period when the leak happened, to the news agency they suspect is involved, and the employees working on those subjects.  It isn't a fishing expedition.

-Seeking information from alternative sources...
Apparently they did in fact exhaust these alternate sources of information first

Regardless of their statements, the breadth of the subpoena suggests otherwise.

-Obligation to inform and negotiate...
not sure about this one

Not debatable.  DoJ informed AP literally seconds before they received the records.
fair enough

-Attorney General approval...
He recused himself for some reason but the Deputy Attorney General approved. (Typically the term "deputy" indicates an equivalency of vested authority)

From what I understand, the guidelines restrict authorization solely to the AG and it is not a delegable function, i.e. whether or not he was conducting the investigation he still should have signed off on the subpoena because the specific intent of the guidelines is to hold the highest officer at the DoJ accountable for this process.
If the Attorney General is hit by a bus, the Deputy has all the necessary powers to run the DoJ.  Recusing himself would logically have the same result but that is just what I would guess

-Balancing of interests...
GOP wanted the leaks investigated, they tried to investigate it without AP records and they couldn't. So long as AP is not the target of the investigation, I would say interests are balanced. AP not giving up the records willingly also protects there reputation.

The guidelines are not there to respect a balancing of political interests. It's about a balance between the investigative need for the records and the public's right to information from a free press, unencumbered by punitive governmental actions for exercising their constitutional rights. By demonstrating it is willing to use it's subpoena power in this broad of a manner, the DoJ gives any person who is in a position ...


Got it.  This seems the most subjective criteria of all.  Of course, the DoJ would say the interests of a free press were balanced against the eminent threat of a terrorist blowing up American airlines.  They would have to back that up of course.

Anyways, my primary issue about his whole thing is that it was done without a court order/judgement.  That's why it sucks especially when it involves a news agency.  However, this is not a glass house the GOP can throw rocks even though I would be happy if they did.
 
2013-05-17 12:52:48 PM  

slayer199: Did Media Matters steal all of the talking points from Fark?  Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.


False equivalency.......these aren't really scandals.  The worst is the AP one, but sadly it was legal.
 
2013-05-17 12:52:54 PM  

slayer199: Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.


Do go on...  please...
 
2013-05-17 12:54:06 PM  

cheyanne9: [www.investors.com image 800x549]


Oh look!  Someone thinks that this will sway opinion~! Isn't this that "conservative humor" I've been hearing about?
 
2013-05-17 12:56:29 PM  

Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.


In this case, the right is supporting the DOJ, since the AP is a dirty liberal org.
 
2013-05-17 12:59:59 PM  

un4gvn666: We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.


There are sooo many things wrong with your list of assumptions.

Here's a hint: I'm a big fan of Colbert and I don't like the teabaggers.

But I also am not so blind as to think that "the left" is somehow immune from the same idiocy as "the right". As demostrated in this very article.

Citrate1007: The left has it's portion of dumb ass in its base; however, it is not anti-intellectual and idiots are shunned out of the spotlight. That is the general notion I was going for.


I would agree with that in general terms. I am old enough to remember a time when conservatives were mostly intellectual and pragmatic, and liberals were "bleeding heart emotionalists". The elevation of the anti-intellectualism within the GOP (as a result of the over-emphasis of evengelicals, I believe) is one of the most serious flaws with the Republican party of today. fark Palin and her ilk.
 
2013-05-17 01:00:26 PM  

slayer199: Did Media Matters steal all of the talking points from Fark?  Fark libs are almost as bad as the neo-cons defending Bush at the height of his stupidity.


"I'm above it all" posts always crack me up. You go girl!!!
 
2013-05-17 01:00:27 PM  
The problem with Partisans is that they never think their being partisan.

/Both sides are bad/ You sound tired/ Derp Derp Derp/ Blah blah blah.
 
2013-05-17 01:01:33 PM  

HortusMatris: Whatever way your political leanings lie, I think we can all agree on one thing: making up labels for things by using adjectives as nouns and then pluralizing them makes one sound like a giant douche-nozzle.


I CAN agree with that.
 
2013-05-17 01:04:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: un4gvn666: We're the people that actually realize Colbert is making fun of you.

There are sooo many things wrong with your list of assumptions.

Here's a hint: I'm a big fan of Colbert and I don't like the teabaggers.

But I also am not so blind as to think that "the left" is somehow immune from the same idiocy as "the right". As demostrated in this very article.

Citrate1007: The left has it's portion of dumb ass in its base; however, it is not anti-intellectual and idiots are shunned out of the spotlight. That is the general notion I was going for.

I would agree with that in general terms. I am old enough to remember a time when conservatives were mostly intellectual and pragmatic, and liberals were "bleeding heart emotionalists". The elevation of the anti-intellectualism within the GOP (as a result of the over-emphasis of evengelicals, I believe) is one of the most serious flaws with the Republican party of today. fark Palin and her ilk.


So you're one of the sane ones.  I thought most of you had disappeared by now.

Regardless, until/unless the pragmatics and intellectuals left in the GOP step up and push out the lunatics, your party is going to crash and burn in a bad way and that's horrible for this country's political set up.

So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.
 
2013-05-17 01:04:57 PM  

Marshal805: The problem with Partisans is that they never think their being partisan.

/Both sides are bad/ You sound tired/ Derp Derp Derp/ Blah blah blah.


You, or course, are COMPLETELY impartial, highly non-partisan.

You have an unreasoned allegiance to non-partisanship. High five!
 
2013-05-17 01:07:36 PM  

Citrate1007: False equivalency.......these aren't really scandals. The worst is the AP one, but sadly it was legal.


So, I guess that makes it ok then.

Point is that liberals defend Obama for things they would have excoriated Bush for.

Use of Force in Libya without congressional approval?  No problem
Drone strikes against American citizens with targeting done in secret and without trial?  Not a problem, they had it coming.
Lack of transparency?  No problem, we trust the administration.
DOJ wiretaps against the press?  It's ok, it was legal.
Fast and Furious?  No biggie.  It was a legitimate operation,
IRS targeting political enemies of the President?  He didn't know, so it's ok...and besides, the asked for the resignation of the guy that was leaving anyway.

I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy.  I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system.  If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what.  The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.
 
2013-05-17 01:10:27 PM  

slayer199: Citrate1007: False equivalency.......these aren't really scandals. The worst is the AP one, but sadly it was legal.

So, I guess that makes it ok then.

Point is that liberals defend Obama for things they would have excoriated Bush for.

Use of Force in Libya without congressional approval?  No problem
Drone strikes against American citizens with targeting done in secret and without trial?  Not a problem, they had it coming.
Lack of transparency?  No problem, we trust the administration.
DOJ wiretaps against the press?  It's ok, it was legal.
Fast and Furious?  No biggie.  It was a legitimate operation,
IRS targeting political enemies of the President?  He didn't know, so it's ok...and besides, the asked for the resignation of the guy that was leaving anyway.

I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy.  I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system.  If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what.  The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.


Congressional approval for moving against Libya wasn't required.  We are fully authorized to honor our commitments to NATO, and since this was a NATO originated mission, the Congressional GOP can go fark itself.
 
2013-05-17 01:12:05 PM  

cheyanne9: [www.investors.com image 800x549]


I must say, that caricature of Obama has a remarkably skinny head.
 
2013-05-17 01:14:10 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: cheyanne9: [www.investors.com image 800x549]

I must say, that caricature of Obama has a remarkably skinny head.


Nice.
 
2013-05-17 01:18:51 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: cheyanne9: [www.investors.com image 800x549]

I must say, that caricature of Obama has a remarkably skinny head.


*citizenkaneapplause.jpg*
 
2013-05-17 01:19:56 PM  

Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.


slayer199: I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy. I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system. If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what. The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.


I think many conservatives or republicans here have no problem voting for a democrat when the republican is a shiat sandwich....but the democrats here have stated that they will never vote for a republican ever.

Sort of makes the side that screams about partisan right wingers even more partisan than those right wingers they scream about.

Look at all the BUT BUSH AND THE PATRIOT ACT!!!!!! type dems who are forgetting that it was a democrat controlled house, senate and executive branch that extended the Patriot Act during Obamas first term..
 
2013-05-17 01:20:20 PM  

Infernalist: Congressional approval for moving against Libya wasn't required. We are fully authorized to honor our commitments to NATO, and since this was a NATO originated mission, the Congressional GOP can go fark itself.


BS.  The administration's rationale was that it didn't rise to full-blown hostilities required in the War Powers Act...nothing to do with NATO (which is a defensive pact and none of the signatories were threatened).

Ask yourself this honestly, if Bush had acted unilaterally with the same justification...what would your reaction be?
 
2013-05-17 01:22:23 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

slayer199: I hate BOTH parties (and vote for neither), but especially the hypocrisy of either side defending their guy. I'll admit that I hate the GOP much more these days for oh so many reasons, but I'm disgusted with liberals for defending this administration no matter WHAT he does.

This really just highlights the problem with the 2-party system. If you're on one side you feel like the other side is so unpalatable the only option is to defend the guy on your side of the political equation no matter what. The result is that we as citizens, fail to hold our politicians accountable.

I think many conservatives or republicans here have no problem voting for a democrat when the republican is a shiat sandwich....but the democrats here have stated that they will never vote for a republican ever.

Sort of makes the side that screams about partisan right wingers even more partisan than those right wingers they scream about.

Look at all the BUT BUSH AND THE PATRIOT ACT!!!!!! type dems who are forgetting that it was a democrat controlled house, senate and executive branch that extended the Patriot Act during Obamas first term..


As long as the GOP embraces people like Bachmann, King, Rand/RON PAUL and Santorum, they'll never get another vote from me.

They are toxic.  Until they reject their lunatics, no sane soul will touch them.
 
2013-05-17 01:22:29 PM  

Infernalist: Regardless, until/unless the pragmatics and intellectuals left in the GOP step up and push out the lunatics, your party is going to crash and burn in a bad way and that's horrible for this country's political set up.

So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.


Why would you assume I am a Republican? I've been here long enough for that to be pretty clear. I am opposed to the very concept of party membership, much less allegience. I think that choosing a candidate based on party is a sign of mental infirmity, and indicates an unwillingness or inability to differentiate individual candidates. I voted against both Sheila Jackson Lee and Ted Cruz. I have voted for democratic lesbian mayors, and against liberal presidents.

So please. Enough with this " you guys" and "your party" nonsense. Binary politicos are the lest intersting political comentators there are.
 
2013-05-17 01:22:58 PM  
Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?
 
2013-05-17 01:23:05 PM  

mediablitz: Marshal805: The problem with Partisans is that they never think their being partisan.

/Both sides are bad/ You sound tired/ Derp Derp Derp/ Blah blah blah.

You, or course, are COMPLETELY impartial, highly non-partisan.

You have an unreasoned allegiance to non-partisanship. High five!


Jon Stewart is not going sleep with you.
 
2013-05-17 01:24:11 PM  

Infernalist: As long as the GOP embraces people like Bachmann, King, Rand/RON PAUL and Santorum, they'll never get another vote from me.


So you are completely comfortable with everyone the DNC "embraces"?
 
2013-05-17 01:28:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: As long as the GOP embraces people like Bachmann, King, Rand/RON PAUL and Santorum, they'll never get another vote from me.

So you are completely comfortable with everyone the DNC "embraces"?


Completely comfortable? No. Relatively sure that they won't have a psychotic break and shoot up the gallery? Yes. And I couldn't say that if I were a Republican.
 
2013-05-17 01:28:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: As long as the GOP embraces people like Bachmann, King, Rand/RON PAUL and Santorum, they'll never get another vote from me.

So you are completely comfortable with everyone the DNC "embraces"?


In my district/state/nation, so far so good.

If I lived in the district of some moon-bat loony like Jackson Lee, I'd work within the party, with like-minded sane folk to try and get her minimized, marginalized and appropriately silenced on the fringe.

Because that's what Democrats do, for the most part.  Not always successfully, else we'd not have Jackson Lee to face-palm about every so often, but we do TRY to keep the nutballs out of elected office.

The GOP embraces their fringe nutballs, and that's why they'll never get a vote from me.
 
2013-05-17 01:30:07 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?


Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.
 
2013-05-17 01:33:18 PM  

Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?

Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.


So you take responsibility for Shiela "Neil Armstrong landed on Mars why didnt opportunity take a picture of the flag he placed their" Jackson Lee

Or Cynthia "the WTC were brought down with thermite and all those people on the planes were taken somewhere and imprisoned" McKinney?
 
2013-05-17 01:36:59 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?

Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.

So you take responsibility for Shiela "Neil Armstrong landed on Mars why didnt opportunity take a picture of the flag he placed their" Jackson Lee

Or Cynthia "the WTC were brought down with thermite and all those people on the planes were taken somewhere and imprisoned" McKinney?


I would say you're missing the point, but "missing" is different than "actively avoiding."
 
2013-05-17 01:37:13 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?

Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.

So you take responsibility for Shiela "Neil Armstrong landed on Mars why didnt opportunity take a picture of the flag he placed their" Jackson Lee

Or Cynthia "the WTC were brought down with thermite and all those people on the planes were taken somewhere and imprisoned" McKinney?


Remind me again what public office Cynthia "The Jews ruined my chances at re-election" McKinney holds?
 
2013-05-17 01:37:36 PM  

BMulligan: Completely comfortable? No. Relatively sure that they won't have a psychotic break and shoot up the gallery? Yes. And I couldn't say that if I were a Republican.


I'm curious who you think is in dager of doing that.

Infernalist: Because that's what Democrats do, for the most part. Not always successfully, else we'd not have Jackson Lee to face-palm about every so often, but we do TRY to keep the nutballs out of elected office.

The GOP embraces their fringe nutballs, and that's why they'll never get a vote from me.


If you think that Sheila Jackson Lee is abberation in the DNC, you might want to review the rolls a bit more carefully.

Whether or not the GOP will ever get your vote is your own business. I think the whole concept of not voting or not voting for a suitable candidate in Butcher's Holler Tennessee, because of something someone(s) with the same letter by their name did in Berkely California is retarded.

I'm sad to see you are a party allegience person.
 
2013-05-17 01:40:01 PM  

Giltric: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: So, no one can get rid of the Palins in the GOP except for people like you.

You really think we have a say?

Then perhaps you're better off not being a Republican if they're not listening to you anymore.

So you take responsibility for Shiela "Neil Armstrong landed on Mars why didnt opportunity take a picture of the flag he placed their" Jackson Lee

Or Cynthia "the WTC were brought down with thermite and all those people on the planes were taken somewhere and imprisoned" McKinney?


If either of those two nutballs were my reps or national figures in the Democratic Party, I'd have to agree with you.

But, they're not.  They're fringe nutballs that'll never come close to the national stage BECAUSE of their fringe nutball status.  Their constituents should be ashamed of themselves, but hey, that's the price of local democracy.  If I were in a district with that level of nutball that claimed the same party as me, I'd either move or drop my membership rather than be in the same party.

So.  Again.  The Democratic Party makes sincere efforts to keep their fringe ON THE FRINGE and not on the main stage of the party.

The Republicans embrace their lunatic nutballs and run them as nominees for the RNC nomination for the White House.

Do you see why people have sworn off the GOP?
 
2013-05-17 01:44:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: BMulligan: Completely comfortable? No. Relatively sure that they won't have a psychotic break and shoot up the gallery? Yes. And I couldn't say that if I were a Republican.

I'm curious who you think is in dager of doing that.


There are several Republican members of Congress whom, I believe, are holding on to some semblance of sanity only by a thread - Gohmert, Paul, and Bachmann are among the most obvious examples - but the guy who scares me most is Dave Reichert. Dude suffered a serious closed-head injury and every now and then he just skips a groove. He has great hair, though, and all the old rich ladies in Bellevue think he's almost as dreamy as Neil Diamond.
 
2013-05-17 01:44:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: BMulligan: Completely comfortable? No. Relatively sure that they won't have a psychotic break and shoot up the gallery? Yes. And I couldn't say that if I were a Republican.

I'm curious who you think is in dager of doing that.

Infernalist: Because that's what Democrats do, for the most part. Not always successfully, else we'd not have Jackson Lee to face-palm about every so often, but we do TRY to keep the nutballs out of elected office.

The GOP embraces their fringe nutballs, and that's why they'll never get a vote from me.

If you think that Sheila Jackson Lee is abberation in the DNC, you might want to review the rolls a bit more carefully.

Whether or not the GOP will ever get your vote is your own business. I think the whole concept of not voting or not voting for a suitable candidate in Butcher's Holler Tennessee, because of something someone(s) with the same letter by their name did in Berkely California is retarded.

I'm sad to see you are a party allegience person.


If they were a couple of aberrations, we wouldn't keep seeing the same names crop up again and again and again.  Other than McKiney(sp?) and Jackson Lee, what nutballs call the Democratic Party home?

Because off the top of my head, I can think of Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and SARAH PALIN that call the GOP home AND HAVE MASSIVE SUPPORT from both the base and the leaders of the party.

Do you not see the difference?  Democrats reject extremist lunatics, the GOP runs them for President.
 
2013-05-17 01:54:55 PM  

Infernalist: Do you not see the difference?


I see that you very quickly jumped out of elected officials and listed off a bunch of paid provacatuers in a coversation about congressional whackadoos. And while no one argues that Ron Paul is a bit of a nut, It's a bit of a stretch to say that the GOP "embraces" him.

A Better example of a GOP whackjob might be Hank "The naval base will tip over Guam' Johnson. ... wait...Crap he's a Democrat.

How about Allen West ? That guys certifiable and he's GOP.

I'm just curious why you feel the need to insist that the DNC has some special ability to prevent idiocy in its elected ranks.
 
2013-05-17 01:59:47 PM  

Citrate1007: This is the primary difference between the right and left.  The left calls out bullshiat like this........the right repeats it until their dumb ass base no longer remembers the truth.


Yes, because there are no editorials from the NYTimes defending this and the IRS.  Democrats always calling out bullshiat like this... except for NYTimes, Media Matters, Senators at today's IRS hearing, fark left.
 
2013-05-17 02:02:48 PM  
sorry,

I have to wait to hear what Rush tells me to think about this.

///ditto's!!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report