Phony Scandals?

[Billy000]

Phony scandals?

By one pundit's account, since his first inauguration, President Obama is on his 17th speech making tour focusing on job creation. This time the catch phrase he uses again and again, and is being picked up by surrogate talking heads, is that the Republicans try to block efforts to create jobs with distractions such as, among other things, 'phony scandals.'

Really?

- The fact that the families of those killed and wounded in Benghazi still can't get straight answers from the administration, and witnesses are ordered into silence is a 'phony scandal'?

- GSA employees spending millions of tax payer dollars having a high old time and making videos of themselves is not a scandal? Ditto federal employees in other agencies?

- IRS blocking hundreds of applications of conservative groups and almost no applications of liberal groups in the years prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections is not a scandal?

- Labeling a news reporters as a possible felon to justify a personal investigation of him, for no reason other than he was investigating some of these things, is not a scandal?

- Collecting e-mails and other personal information from all AP reporters is not a scandal?

- Collecting phone et al information from millions of Americans is not a scandal?

- Federal investigation/continued persecution of one citizen declared not guilty by a jury of his peers when hundreds/thousands of racially motivated henious crimes go unmentioned at the federal level is not a scandal?

- The fact that every single time the President has declared he knew nothing of federal misconduct and found out about it the same way we did--in the media--is not a scandal?

What do you think? Billions of the people's money, our privacy, our civil liberties are at stake in all of these things. Are these phony scandals? Are they worthy of media and citizen attention? How out of the loops should a President be allowed to be before that in itself becomes a scandal?

Okay, what's stupid about this is that you are saying Obama had direct involvement in all of these scandals. That is complete bullshit. Where is the evidence Obama had a hand in all of these? We have two other branches of government. You can't expect Obama to be aware of every alleged case of wrong doing.

Also, let's face facts. When it comes to stories like Benghazi, repubs in office and Fox News have greatly skewed the information surrounding them. That's what they do best. They make scandals seem bigger than they actually are. That really needs to be said.

 

[Foxfyre]

Crickets? Are scandals so routine nobody cares anymore?

They're simply political allegations until the inquisition of General Darryll Issa can prove otherwise. Watching the way Secreatary Clinton's remarks have been twisted to fit the insuisitors from the hoi polloi on the right, I'm less convinced their is anything worth investigating. The author of the OP supports conviction without trial or probative evidence, it seems, and allegations as sufficient proof, as do the members of the Echo Chamber.

Postscript: The above was posted before reading post 499 above. I appreciate Foxfyer's remarks, but still believe Darryll Issa is partisan shit disturbor who bring allegation of wrongdoing foreward for solely partisan purposes.

Thanks you for a reasonable approach to this WC. Would you accept the challenge to choose any one of the alleged scandals mentioned in the OP or subsequently--we are focusing on those things Obama characterized as 'phony scandals' and not on previous administrations--
. . . .take one of those and make an argument for why it is wrongly characterized as a scandal? Is being falsely represented?

 

[Foxfyre]

Phony scandals?

By one pundit's account, since his first inauguration, President Obama is on his 17th speech making tour focusing on job creation. This time the catch phrase he uses again and again, and is being picked up by surrogate talking heads, is that the Republicans try to block efforts to create jobs with distractions such as, among other things, 'phony scandals.'

Really?

- The fact that the families of those killed and wounded in Benghazi still can't get straight answers from the administration, and witnesses are ordered into silence is a 'phony scandal'?

- GSA employees spending millions of tax payer dollars having a high old time and making videos of themselves is not a scandal? Ditto federal employees in other agencies?

- IRS blocking hundreds of applications of conservative groups and almost no applications of liberal groups in the years prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections is not a scandal?

- Labeling a news reporters as a possible felon to justify a personal investigation of him, for no reason other than he was investigating some of these things, is not a scandal?

- Collecting e-mails and other personal information from all AP reporters is not a scandal?

- Collecting phone et al information from millions of Americans is not a scandal?

- Federal investigation/continued persecution of one citizen declared not guilty by a jury of his peers when hundreds/thousands of racially motivated henious crimes go unmentioned at the federal level is not a scandal?

- The fact that every single time the President has declared he knew nothing of federal misconduct and found out about it the same way we did--in the media--is not a scandal?

What do you think? Billions of the people's money, our privacy, our civil liberties are at stake in all of these things. Are these phony scandals? Are they worthy of media and citizen attention? How out of the loops should a President be allowed to be before that in itself becomes a scandal?

Okay, what's stupid about this is that you are saying Obama had direct involvement in all of these scandals. That is complete bullshit. Where is the evidence Obama had a hand in all of these? We have two other branches of government. You can't expect Obama to be aware of every alleged case of wrong doing.

Also, let's face facts. When it comes to stories like Benghazi, repubs in office and Fox News have greatly skewed the information surrounding them. That's what they do best. They make scandals seem bigger than they actually are. That really needs to be said.

Where did I say Obama had direct involvement in all those scandals? I DID say that he has denied involvement in all of them which REALLY stretches his believability to anybody who is the least bit objective.'

We only have two conclusions to choose from.
1. He did have more knowledge or involvement than he admits. . . . or. . . .
2. He is the most clueless, incompetent, detached, ineffective person we have ever elected to high office.

You pick.

 

[mudwhistle]

This was great, Mudwhistle. You gotta love Judge Jeanine.

Okay the latest in the growing scandal of Obamacare, and she laid out the early components:

1. The person who designed it didn't understand what he was designing.
2. The Democrats who passed it didn't read it.
3. And Obama who signed it into law exempts himself, his family, and his buddies and cronies from having to participate in any part of it. And he continues to deny that there are any systemic problems with Obamacare.

The last numbers I heard were that the costs of that non functioning website have passed $600 million dollars now and are escalating.

And this week, our Fearless Leader made another executive decision that overturns the law passed by Congress. This time his papal bull declared that the renewal period in 2014 would be moved from October to November 15 which of course is safely AFTER the election. Why? Because they now know that as bad and expensive as it is now, the sticker shock on those renewals will be eye popping and certain to promote a voter backlash.

So will the mainstream media keep the public apprised of all that? Or will they continue to protect Obama and his image?

Moving it back is a two edged sword.


If the Republicans take care of business they can demonize it to the point that it will become a toxic issue for the voters on election day. If they wanted to be like Democrats and use their own tactics against them, they can make it out to be worse than it really is.

After all, the Dems, and Obama in particular, don't have any credibility anymore.

I hope the Republicans DON'T do that. Obama and the Democrats are doing a fine job shooting themselves in the foot, and don't need any assistance from the GOP. The GOP needs to pick its battles more prudently and focus on the most serious stuff to dig their heels in on. Otherwise they do look like the party of 'no' and are being stubborn and obstinate on purpose and for no realy good reason.

I am sick to death of defending and/or demonizing things based on the party who proposed or passed them or depending on whether the person has a D or an R after his/her name.

But we can't stick our heads in the sand either. Our responsibility as the people is to keep the checks and balances on the government that is supposed to be responsible to US; not the other way around. So we have to keep shining the light of truth on this stuff. Or they'll do any damn thing they want to us and we will be helpless to defend ourselves in any way.

This is a battle that we have to pick. We cannot continue to allow these opportunities to pass us by simply because we don't like to get dirty.

We are in a war with the scum in on the left. They decided to take off the gloves and it's time we fight back with everything we have.

No more Mr Nice Guy.

 

[Billy000]

Phony scandals?

By one pundit's account, since his first inauguration, President Obama is on his 17th speech making tour focusing on job creation. This time the catch phrase he uses again and again, and is being picked up by surrogate talking heads, is that the Republicans try to block efforts to create jobs with distractions such as, among other things, 'phony scandals.'

Really?

- The fact that twhe families of those killed and wounded in Benghazi still can't get straight answers from the administration, and witnesses are ordered into silence is a 'phony scandal'?

- GSA employees spending millions of tax payer dollars having a high old time and making videos of themselves is not a scandal? Ditto federal employees in other agencies?

- IRS blocking hundreds of applications of conservative groups and almost no applications of liberal groups in the years prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections is not a scandal?

- Labeling a news reporters as a possible felon to justify a personal investigation of him, for no reason other than he was investigating some of these things, is not a scandal?

- Collecting e-mails and other personal information from all AP reporters is not a scandal?

- Collecting phone et al information from millions of Americans is not a scandal?

- Federal investigation/continued persecution of one citizen declared not guilty by a jury of his peers when hundreds/thousands of racially motivated henious crimes go unmentioned at the federal level is not a scandal?

- The fact that every single time the President has declared he knew nothing of federal misconduct and found out about it the same way we did--in the media--is not a scandal?

What do you think? Billions of the people's money, our privacy, our civil liberties are at stake in all of these things. Are these phony scandals? Are they worthy of media and citizen attention? How out of the loops should a President be allowed to be before that in itself becomes a scandal?

Okay, what's stupid about this is that you are saying Obama had direct involvement in all of these scandals. That is complete bullshit. Where is the evidence Obama had a hand in all of these? We have two other branches of government. You can't expect Obama to be aware of every alleged case of wrong doing.

Also, let's face facts. When it comes to stories like Benghazi, repubs in office and Fox News have greatly skewed the information surrounding them. That's what they do best. They make scandals seem bigger than they actually are. That really needs to be said.

Where did I say Obama had direct involvement in all those scandals? I DID say that he has denied involvement in all of them which REALLY stretches his believability to anybody who is the least bit objective.'

We only have two conclusions to choose from.
1. He did have more knowledge or involvement than he admits. . . . or. . . .
2. He is the most clueless, incompetent, detached, ineffective person we have ever elected to high office.

You pick.

1. The question would be what scandals specifically and how much. You are unwilling to make that determination.
2. Further proof of the bias in your OP. Why you think Bush was a better president absolutely blows my mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, what's stupid about this is that you are saying Obama had direct involvement in all of these scandals. That is complete bullshit. Where is the evidence Obama had a hand in all of these? We have two other branches of government. You can't expect Obama to be aware of every alleged case of wrong doing.

Also, let's face facts. When it comes to stories like Benghazi, repubs in office and Fox News have greatly skewed the information surrounding them. That's what they do best. They make scandals seem bigger than they actually are. That really needs to be said.

Where did I say Obama had direct involvement in all those scandals? I DID say that he has denied involvement in all of them which REALLY stretches his believability to anybody who is the least bit objective.'

We only have two conclusions to choose from.
1. He did have more knowledge or involvement than he admits. . . . or. . . .
2. He is the most clueless, incompetent, detached, ineffective person we have ever elected to high office.

You pick.

1. The question would be what scandals specifically and how much. You are unwilling to make that determination.
2. Further proof of the bias in your OP. Why you think Bush was a better president absolutely blows my mind.

And in answer: 1. All the scandals are worthy of discussion here and I believe I and others have provided ample documentation for why they deserve to be listed. . . and 2. Only a liberal would even see "Bush" in the OP, much less that I inferred anything about him. It simply isn't there. The OP is focused on the current Administration as that is the only one we can do anything about at this time. There are plenty of threads focused on the previous or other administrations.

You're welcome to accept the challenge I've offered all the others who are attempting to trash me or the thread instead of focusing on the OP. (I still say it must be something in the water you people drink.)

Pick any one of the scandals listed in the OP and make a case for why it shouldn't be there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Crickets? Are scandals so routine nobody cares anymore?

They're simply political allegations until the inquisition of General Darryll Issa can prove otherwise. Watching the way Secreatary Clinton's remarks have been twisted to fit the insuisitors from the hoi polloi on the right, I'm less convinced their is anything worth investigating. The author of the OP supports conviction without trial or probative evidence, it seems, and allegations as sufficient proof, as do the members of the Echo Chamber.

Postscript: The above was posted before reading post 499 above. I appreciate Foxfyer's remarks, but still believe Darryll Issa is partisan shit disturbor who bring allegation of wrongdoing foreward for solely partisan purposes.

Thanks you for a reasonable approach to this WC. Would you accept the challenge to choose any one of the alleged scandals mentioned in the OP or subsequently--we are focusing on those things Obama characterized as 'phony scandals' and not on previous administrations--
. . . .take one of those and make an argument for why it is wrongly characterized as a scandal? Is being falsely represented?

I'm not inclined to take on Scandals, which IMO are not truly scandals. My reasoning is based on not knowing what The President knew and when he knew it, who were the protagonists to promolgate the policy, practice or make the decision or the mistake. Mistakes are not scandals nor our mispeaks unless there is evidence the such words are used with the intent to mislead.

In fact your list is filled with allegations and interpretations made by others with a political agenda. I think history will eventually make clear what were scandalous, if any, and what were not. What were done for a political benefit to the Administration, or done to protect the nation.

 

[Foxfyre]

They're simply political allegations until the inquisition of General Darryll Issa can prove otherwise. Watching the way Secreatary Clinton's remarks have been twisted to fit the insuisitors from the hoi polloi on the right, I'm less convinced their is anything worth investigating. The author of the OP supports conviction without trial or probative evidence, it seems, and allegations as sufficient proof, as do the members of the Echo Chamber.

Postscript: The above was posted before reading post 499 above. I appreciate Foxfyer's remarks, but still believe Darryll Issa is partisan shit disturbor who bring allegation of wrongdoing foreward for solely partisan purposes.

Thanks you for a reasonable approach to this WC. Would you accept the challenge to choose any one of the alleged scandals mentioned in the OP or subsequently--we are focusing on those things Obama characterized as 'phony scandals' and not on previous administrations--
. . . .take one of those and make an argument for why it is wrongly characterized as a scandal? Is being falsely represented?

I'm not inclined to take on Scandals, which IMO are not truly scandals. My reasoning is based on not knowing what The President knew and when he knew it, who were the protagonists to promolgate the policy, practice or make the decision or the mistake. Mistakes are not scandals nor our mispeaks unless there is evidence the such words are used with the intent to mislead.

In fact your list is filled with allegations and interpretations made by others with a political agenda. I think history will eventually make clear what were scandalous, if any, and what were not. What were done for a political benefit to the Administration, or done to protect the nation.

So pick one, please, to use as an example of something "filled with allegations and interpretations." I thought I and others did a pretty good job of supporting our accusations of these things as being scandalous. And so far nobody has rebutted any of that documentation. But if you can, I am open to be educated.

 

[Billy000]

Where did I say Obama had direct involvement in all those scandals? I DID say that he has denied involvement in all of them which REALLY stretches his believability to anybody who is the least bit objective.'

We only have two conclusions to choose from.
1. He did have more knowledge or involvement than he admits. . . . or. . . .
2. He is the most clueless, incompetent, detached, ineffective person we have ever elected to high office.

You pick.

1. The question would be what scandals specifically and how much. You are unwilling to make that determination.
2. Further proof of the bias in your OP. Why you think Bush was a better president absolutely blows my mind.

And in answer: 1. All the scandals are worthy of discussion here and I believe I and others have provided ample documentation for why they deserve to be listed. . . and 2. Only a liberal would even see "Bush" in the OP, much less that I inferred anything about him. It simply isn't there. The OP is focused on the current Administration as that is the only one we can do anything about at this time. There are plenty of threads focused on the previous or other administrations.

You're welcome to accept the challenge I've offered all the others who are attempting to trash me or the thread instead of focusing on the OP. (I still say it must be something in the water you people drink.)

Pick any one of the scandals listed in the OP and make a case for why it shouldn't be there.

You're the one who made this tread. If you think Obama had a hand in any of these, then explain it. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[mudwhistle]

1. The question would be what scandals specifically and how much. You are unwilling to make that determination.
2. Further proof of the bias in your OP. Why you think Bush was a better president absolutely blows my mind.

And in answer: 1. All the scandals are worthy of discussion here and I believe I and others have provided ample documentation for why they deserve to be listed. . . and 2. Only a liberal would even see "Bush" in the OP, much less that I inferred anything about him. It simply isn't there. The OP is focused on the current Administration as that is the only one we can do anything about at this time. There are plenty of threads focused on the previous or other administrations.

You're welcome to accept the challenge I've offered all the others who are attempting to trash me or the thread instead of focusing on the OP. (I still say it must be something in the water you people drink.)

Pick any one of the scandals listed in the OP and make a case for why it shouldn't be there.

You're the one who made this tread. If you think Obama had a hand in any of these, then explain it. The burden of proof is on you.

In order for his programs not to be of his doing he would have to be ether retarded, totally disengaged, or lying about his involvement.

Which is it?

 

[Billy000]

And in answer: 1. All the scandals are worthy of discussion here and I believe I and others have provided ample documentation for why they deserve to be listed. . . and 2. Only a liberal would even see "Bush" in the OP, much less that I inferred anything about him. It simply isn't there. The OP is focused on the current Administration as that is the only one we can do anything about at this time. There are plenty of threads focused on the previous or other administrations.

You're welcome to accept the challenge I've offered all the others who are attempting to trash me or the thread instead of focusing on the OP. (I still say it must be something in the water you people drink.)

Pick any one of the scandals listed in the OP and make a case for why it shouldn't be there.

You're the one who made this tread. If you think Obama had a hand in any of these, then explain it. The burden of proof is on you.

In order for his programs not to be of his doing he would have to be ether retarded, totally disengaged, or lying about his involvement.

Which is it?

You do realize that the federal government has two other branches, right?

 

[mudwhistle]

You're the one who made this tread. If you think Obama had a hand in any of these, then explain it. The burden of proof is on you.

In order for his programs not to be of his doing he would have to be ether retarded, totally disengaged, or lying about his involvement.

Which is it?

You do realize that the federal government has two other branches, right?

Please explain what bearing that has on the actions of the White House and the Department of Justice?

 

[Billy000]

In order for his programs not to be of his doing he would have to be ether retarded, totally disengaged, or lying about his involvement.

Which is it?

You do realize that the federal government has two other branches, right?

Please explain what bearing that has on the actions of the White House and the Department of Justice?

Um, what actions by the White House are we talking about?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Page 35, still no evidence.

But keep hope alive...

 

[Foxfyre]

You do realize that the federal government has two other branches, right?

Please explain what bearing that has on the actions of the White House and the Department of Justice?

Um, what actions by the White House are we talking about?

Now I know it is really difficult for a dedicated Leftist, but please try to read the OP again and focus on what is written there. Then you will be less likely to ask questions that make it appear that you have no clue what the thread is about.

One of the issues is that ALL those scandals have been on the front pages over the last year or so. And it is observed that our Fearless Leader claims to have completely clean hands on every single one of them. He didn't know. He wasn't in that loop. Nobody advised him. That was somebody else's job. He heard about it the same way we did - in the papers.

Do you buy that? Would you if it was anybody other than Barack Obama in the White House?

 

[Billy000]

Please explain what bearing that has on the actions of the White House and the Department of Justice?

Um, what actions by the White House are we talking about?

Now I know it is really difficult for a dedicated Leftists, but please try to read the OP again and focus on what is written there. Then you will be less likely to ask questions that make it appear that you have no clue what the thread is about.

One of the issues is that ALL those scandals have been on the front pages over the last year or so. And it is observed that our Fearless Leader claims to have completely clean hands on every single one of them. He didn't know. He wasn't in that loop. Nobody advised him. He heard about it the same way we did - in the papers.

Do you buy that? Would you if it was anybody other than Barack Obama in the White House?

I'm willing to believe Obama had certain knowledge about some of them and that he hasn't been completley honest about them. Sure. Do you think it is possible that republicans in office and Fox News have greatly exaggerated these issues and made connections to Obama that do not exist?

 

[mudwhistle]

You do realize that the federal government has two other branches, right?

Please explain what bearing that has on the actions of the White House and the Department of Justice?

Um, what actions by the White House are we talking about?

If I have to explain then I don't see the point.

Try wasting someone elses' time.

 

[mudwhistle]

Um, what actions by the White House are we talking about?

Now I know it is really difficult for a dedicated Leftists, but please try to read the OP again and focus on what is written there. Then you will be less likely to ask questions that make it appear that you have no clue what the thread is about.

One of the issues is that ALL those scandals have been on the front pages over the last year or so. And it is observed that our Fearless Leader claims to have completely clean hands on every single one of them. He didn't know. He wasn't in that loop. Nobody advised him. He heard about it the same way we did - in the papers.

Do you buy that? Would you if it was anybody other than Barack Obama in the White House?

I'm willing to believe Obama had certain knowledge about some of them and that he hasn't been completley honest about them. Sure. Do you think it is possible that republicans in office and Fox News have greatly exaggerated these issues and made connections to Obama that do not exist?

Only if it were just one or two isolated cases.......but the problem is the magnitude and the weight of them continues to build. Every demand for accountability has been ignored by this administration.
Nobody can prove anything without witnesses and documented proof, which has resulted in stonewalling from the White House. Many Senators say they have never witnessed such outright arrogance in any administration before.
Insiders have behind the scenes claimed that people's careers have been threatened by Obama and his staff. Obama just the other day tried to get members of the media to push a false story that insurance companies actually sent out renewal notices, not cancellation notices. That Obama himself had told insurance companies to wait before sending out cancellation notices. Some agreed, and some didn't. So now Obama wants his cohorts in the media to blame all of this on the big, bad, insurance companies.

 

[Billy000]

Now I know it is really difficult for a dedicated Leftists, but please try to read the OP again and focus on what is written there. Then you will be less likely to ask questions that make it appear that you have no clue what the thread is about.

One of the issues is that ALL those scandals have been on the front pages over the last year or so. And it is observed that our Fearless Leader claims to have completely clean hands on every single one of them. He didn't know. He wasn't in that loop. Nobody advised him. He heard about it the same way we did - in the papers.

Do you buy that? Would you if it was anybody other than Barack Obama in the White House?

I'm willing to believe Obama had certain knowledge about some of them and that he hasn't been completley honest about them. Sure. Do you think it is possible that republicans in office and Fox News have greatly exaggerated these issues and made connections to Obama that do not exist?

Only if it were just one or two isolated cases.......but the problem is the magnitude and the weight of them continues to build. Every demand for accountability has been ignored by this administration.
Nobody can prove anything without witnesses and documented proof, which has resulted in stonewalling from the White House. Many Senators say they have never witness such outright arrogance in any administration before.
Witness have behind the scenes claimed that people's careers have been threatened by Obama and his staff. Obama just the other day tried to get members of the media to push a false story that insurance companies actually sent out renewal notices, not cancellation notices. That Obama himself had told insurance companies to wait before sending out cancellation notices. Some agreed, and some didn't. So now Obama wants his cohorts in the media to blame all of this on the big, bad, insurance companies.

So far you have not ruled out issues Obama had no hand in. That proves your bias. You WANT Obama to have connection to all of these issues.

 

[Foxfyre]

Um, what actions by the White House are we talking about?

Now I know it is really difficult for a dedicated Leftists, but please try to read the OP again and focus on what is written there. Then you will be less likely to ask questions that make it appear that you have no clue what the thread is about.

One of the issues is that ALL those scandals have been on the front pages over the last year or so. And it is observed that our Fearless Leader claims to have completely clean hands on every single one of them. He didn't know. He wasn't in that loop. Nobody advised him. He heard about it the same way we did - in the papers.

Do you buy that? Would you if it was anybody other than Barack Obama in the White House?

I'm willing to believe Obama had certain knowledge about some of them and that he hasn't been completley honest about them. Sure. Do you think it is possible that republicans in office and Fox News have greatly exaggerated these issues and made connections to Obama that do not exist?

Sure that is possible. But so far there has been no evidence that the e-mails and other connections they have reported as evidence have been in any way fraudulent. That evidence appears to be legitimate and has provided very good evidence that the President has or likely has not been truthful about much that he is said. Certainly when we have excellent video coverage of what he said in 2008, in 2010, compared to the exact opposite in 2013, we can clearly see that he flat out lied on some things. And in others he had zero conviction about what he was saying then when he does a 180 flip flop now.

Such is not a hallmark of a great leader. Such does not generate confidence among the people who are negatively affected by what they do in Washington and who are expected to pay for what should be felonious mismanagement of the people's resources.

And when it is dishonest to the point that it DOES affect people costing them their liberties, their choices, their options, their opportunities, and in some cases like Benghazi, their very lives, THEN it becomes a scandal. And freedom loving people deserve an honest government and MUST call the government to account for its sins.