Nobama..Plausible Deniability

[boedicca]

Oh come on.. There must be a limit even for Democrats...sheesh...

For some Dems there is a limit...and the cracks in the party are beginning to show.

For the diehard true believer Obamacrats, however, the ends justify the means, friends are to be rewarded, and enemies are to be punished...so they don't see anything wrong with what he has done.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Oh come on.. There must be a limit even for Democrats...sheesh...

Let us know when he is making deals with terrorist nations to win an election or finance south american death squads.

Or lying about the nuclear (nucular) ambitions of a US puppet state to knock it over.

Then we can talk.

The subject changed?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Oh come on.. There must be a limit even for Democrats...sheesh...

Lumpalito, after today, I have come to the conclusion there is not.

Lumpalito...

and "after today"..?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Blumpy..

 

[MondoBongo]

And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time is ok with them as well.

*couch* Iran/Contra *cough* *cough*

 

[salem.hills]

Looks like they're mostly all agenda driven tyrannical criminals

 

[Seawytch]

What is it y'all think the President was "in on"?

Honestly, you don't think Democrats have learned their lesson from the Clinton witch hunts? Keep the Prez out of the loop.

 

[salem.hills]

What is it y'all think the President was "in on"?

Honestly, you don't think Democrats have learned their lesson from the Clinton witch hunts? Keep the Prez out of the loop.

Obama is a pretty agenda driven guy and the amount of scandals is another dead giveaway he knows.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time is ok with them as well.

*couch* Iran/Contra *cough* *cough*

Alright. I've heard just about enough about the Iran Contra scandal. We live in the year 2013, the President is Barack H. Obama. This isn't 1986. When Democrats are called out for the failures of their leaders, they deflect to the failures of leaders from the opposing party. If it's true, take responsibility for it.

If you realize, Reagan was never implicated for any wrongdoing in the affair, the investigative reports issued afterwards made clear that officials in his administration acted without his authorization in sending aid to the contras. Reagan was never informed because they never chose to inform him, although he took the shot to the chin, the Congressional Investigation and the Tower Commission ultimately cleared him of any misdeeds.

We need to live in the present people. When Obama was grilled by the press about these brewing scandals, his answer was merely "I didn't know until I found out about these things on the news." When Holder was grilled about his involvement with the AP and James Rosen, his answer was "I don't know." When Lois Lerner was subpoenaed to testify before Congress, she pleaded her innocence, and the 5th. Obama is either the most ill-informed president in history, or he's the master at keeping secrets.

 

[MondoBongo]

And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time is ok with them as well.

*couch* Iran/Contra *cough* *cough*

Alright. I've heard just about enough about the Iran Contra scandal. We live in the year 2013, the President is Barack H. Obama. This isn't 1986. When Democrats are called out for the failures of their leaders, they deflect to the failures of leaders from the opposing party. If it's true, take responsibility for it.

If you realize, Reagan was never implicated for any wrongdoing in the affair, the investigative reports issued afterwards made clear that officials in his administration acted without his authorization in sending aid to the contras. Reagan was never informed because they never chose to inform him, although he took the shot to the chin, the Congressional Investigation and the Tower Commission ultimately cleared him of any misdeeds.

We need to live in the present people.

So, when a person makes a statement like this:

"And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time"

...it's supposed to go unrebutted regardless of how utterly lacking in facts it is?

And if you claim Reagan wasn't informed, doesn't that make him "uninformed?" And shouldn't he have been informed? Imagine if it turned out we were secretly waging a war in Syria and the public found out about it and Obama claimed ignorance of the matter? Holy Christ, the collective apoplectic fit by the right would be heard on Mars.

 

[edthecynic]

*couch* Iran/Contra *cough* *cough*

Alright. I've heard just about enough about the Iran Contra scandal. We live in the year 2013, the President is Barack H. Obama. This isn't 1986. When Democrats are called out for the failures of their leaders, they deflect to the failures of leaders from the opposing party. If it's true, take responsibility for it.

If you realize, Reagan was never implicated for any wrongdoing in the affair, the investigative reports issued afterwards made clear that officials in his administration acted without his authorization in sending aid to the contras. Reagan was never informed because they never chose to inform him, although he took the shot to the chin, the Congressional Investigation and the Tower Commission ultimately cleared him of any misdeeds.

We need to live in the present people.

So, when a person makes a statement like this:

"And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time"

...it's supposed to go unrebutted regardless of how utterly lacking in facts it is?

And if you claim Reagan wasn't informed, doesn't that make him "uninformed?" And shouldn't he have been informed? Imagine if it turned out we were secretly waging a war in Syria and the public found out about it and Obama claimed ignorance of the matter? Holy Christ, the collective apoplectic fit by the right would be heard on Mars.

Exactly, and while St Ronnie was unaware of what was going on right under his nose in the White House, Obama is supposed to know what goes on in a department he is supposed to stay away from at an arms length.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Alright. I've heard just about enough about the Iran Contra scandal. We live in the year 2013, the President is Barack H. Obama. This isn't 1986. When Democrats are called out for the failures of their leaders, they deflect to the failures of leaders from the opposing party. If it's true, take responsibility for it.

If you realize, Reagan was never implicated for any wrongdoing in the affair, the investigative reports issued afterwards made clear that officials in his administration acted without his authorization in sending aid to the contras. Reagan was never informed because they never chose to inform him, although he took the shot to the chin, the Congressional Investigation and the Tower Commission ultimately cleared him of any misdeeds.

We need to live in the present people.

So, when a person makes a statement like this:

"And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time"

...it's supposed to go unrebutted regardless of how utterly lacking in facts it is?

And if you claim Reagan wasn't informed, doesn't that make him "uninformed?" And shouldn't he have been informed? Imagine if it turned out we were secretly waging a war in Syria and the public found out about it and Obama claimed ignorance of the matter? Holy Christ, the collective apoplectic fit by the right would be heard on Mars.

Exactly, and while St Ronnie was unaware of what was going on right under his nose in the White House, Obama is supposed to know what goes on in a department he is supposed to stay away from at an arms length.

Perhaps Democrats should collectively give the American people an example of their of outrage in these matters, stop hiding behind the indiscretions of the other party and kick some Democrat leadership butt, after-all they voted them into office and honorably should take responsibility......

 

[konradv]

Oh come on.. There must be a limit even for Democrats...sheesh...

Is it plausible that things are going much better, but you MUST deny it? All three major stock indices were up 0.63-0.86% today. Home sales are on the rise. Any wonder Americans are looking at the Republicans and wondering why they've lost their minds on this "scandal-a-day" kick?

 

[TemplarKormac]

*couch* Iran/Contra *cough* *cough*

Alright. I've heard just about enough about the Iran Contra scandal. We live in the year 2013, the President is Barack H. Obama. This isn't 1986. When Democrats are called out for the failures of their leaders, they deflect to the failures of leaders from the opposing party. If it's true, take responsibility for it.

If you realize, Reagan was never implicated for any wrongdoing in the affair, the investigative reports issued afterwards made clear that officials in his administration acted without his authorization in sending aid to the contras. Reagan was never informed because they never chose to inform him, although he took the shot to the chin, the Congressional Investigation and the Tower Commission ultimately cleared him of any misdeeds.

We need to live in the present people.

So, when a person makes a statement like this:

"And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time"

...it's supposed to go unrebutted regardless of how utterly lacking in facts it is?

And if you claim Reagan wasn't informed, doesn't that make him "uninformed?" And shouldn't he have been informed? Imagine if it turned out we were secretly waging a war in Syria and the public found out about it and Obama claimed ignorance of the matter? Holy Christ, the collective apoplectic fit by the right would be heard on Mars.

Other than referring to a passe scandal that took place all of 27 years ago, you didn't provide much of a rebuttal. I didn't suggest you couldn't provide one; which ironically, I am still waiting for you to issue forth. Can you folks not acknowledge the missteps of those who are in power at this very instant, who brandish the values of the party you affiliate yourself with? Or do we simply have a problem with holding them accountable? I could simply say how bad Carter was and how badly he botched the Iran Hostage Crisis, but hey, that was a long time ago. The consequences were exacted, and the problem was resolved, by Reagan coincidentally.

At any rate, I fail to see how Iran Contra and the current actions of one President Obama have anything to do with one another. In one case you had an administrative staff that Reagan trusted acting without him, without his knowledge; on the other hand, you have an entire administration acting as one coherent unit, perpetrating injustice.

And we're apoplectic? Yes, there's a reason for us to be. In fact I hope our apoplexy reaches the ears of the almighty himself. This liberal nonchalant attitude towards government overreach is to be expected, but nonetheless disturbing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Alright. I've heard just about enough about the Iran Contra scandal. We live in the year 2013, the President is Barack H. Obama. This isn't 1986. When Democrats are called out for the failures of their leaders, they deflect to the failures of leaders from the opposing party. If it's true, take responsibility for it.

If you realize, Reagan was never implicated for any wrongdoing in the affair, the investigative reports issued afterwards made clear that officials in his administration acted without his authorization in sending aid to the contras. Reagan was never informed because they never chose to inform him, although he took the shot to the chin, the Congressional Investigation and the Tower Commission ultimately cleared him of any misdeeds.

We need to live in the present people.

So, when a person makes a statement like this:

"And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time"

...it's supposed to go unrebutted regardless of how utterly lacking in facts it is?

And if you claim Reagan wasn't informed, doesn't that make him "uninformed?" And shouldn't he have been informed? Imagine if it turned out we were secretly waging a war in Syria and the public found out about it and Obama claimed ignorance of the matter? Holy Christ, the collective apoplectic fit by the right would be heard on Mars.

Exactly, and while St Ronnie was unaware of what was going on right under his nose in the White House, Obama is supposed to know what goes on in a department he is supposed to stay away from at an arms length.

Hey, did Obama not appoint the leaders of the Justice Department, The IRS and the State Department? What now? You simply don't think he appointed them without knowing what they were capable of, now do you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh come on.. There must be a limit even for Democrats...sheesh...

Is it plausible that things are going much better, but you MUST deny it? All three major stock indices were up 0.63-0.86% today. Home sales are on the rise. Any wonder Americans are looking at the Republicans and wondering why they've lost their minds on this "scandal-a-day" kick?

Plausible.

As in plausible deniability. The economy is a deflection from the issue at hand. If you are incapable of grasping the seriousness of these issues, you seriously have your head buried in the sand.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Oh come on.. There must be a limit even for Democrats...sheesh...

Is it plausible that things are going much better, but you MUST deny it? All three major stock indices were up 0.63-0.86% today. Home sales are on the rise. Any wonder Americans are looking at the Republicans and wondering why they've lost their minds on this "scandal-a-day" kick?

Just wondering.. are you saying that if the economy is improving, the Constitution becomes toilet paper, laws need not be followed and anything goes (lies, deception, moral responsibility..etc) with Democrats and their leadership?

 

[edthecynic]

So, when a person makes a statement like this:

"And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time"

...it's supposed to go unrebutted regardless of how utterly lacking in facts it is?

And if you claim Reagan wasn't informed, doesn't that make him "uninformed?" And shouldn't he have been informed? Imagine if it turned out we were secretly waging a war in Syria and the public found out about it and Obama claimed ignorance of the matter? Holy Christ, the collective apoplectic fit by the right would be heard on Mars.

Exactly, and while St Ronnie was unaware of what was going on right under his nose in the White House, Obama is supposed to know what goes on in a department he is supposed to stay away from at an arms length.

Hey, did Obama not appoint the leaders of the Justice Department, The IRS and the State Department? What now? You simply don't think he appointed them without knowing what they were capable of, now do you?

Not one person in the IRS scandal was appointed by Obama. So you are saying that Bush appointed them knowing what they would do under Obama.

 

[Caroljo]

*couch* Iran/Contra *cough* *cough*

Alright. I've heard just about enough about the Iran Contra scandal. We live in the year 2013, the President is Barack H. Obama. This isn't 1986. When Democrats are called out for the failures of their leaders, they deflect to the failures of leaders from the opposing party. If it's true, take responsibility for it.

If you realize, Reagan was never implicated for any wrongdoing in the affair, the investigative reports issued afterwards made clear that officials in his administration acted without his authorization in sending aid to the contras. Reagan was never informed because they never chose to inform him, although he took the shot to the chin, the Congressional Investigation and the Tower Commission ultimately cleared him of any misdeeds.

We need to live in the present people.

So, when a person makes a statement like this:

"And the fact that obama is the least informed Pres of all time"

...it's supposed to go unrebutted regardless of how utterly lacking in facts it is?

And if you claim Reagan wasn't informed, doesn't that make him "uninformed?" And shouldn't he have been informed? Imagine if it turned out we were secretly waging a war in Syria and the public found out about it and Obama claimed ignorance of the matter? Holy Christ, the collective apoplectic fit by the right would be heard on Mars.

Was Reagan as uninformed about everything as Obama is? Ok...maybe out of ALL of these scandals, I'll admit Obama MAY HAVE not known about 1 of them. That I could accept. But when there's so many going on at the same time....there is NOTHING you can say to make me believe he didn't know about any of them! That's just idiotic!

 

[Seawytch]

What is it y'all think the President was "in on"?

Honestly, you don't think Democrats have learned their lesson from the Clinton witch hunts? Keep the Prez out of the loop.

Obama is a pretty agenda driven guy and the amount of scandals is another dead giveaway he knows.

So no specifics? Just as I thought.