Phony Scandals?

[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?

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 affected by what they do in Wasington and who are expected to pay for it.

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.

But see in the OP you are saying Obama has significant connections to all of these issues. You are being disingenuous about this and you know it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 affected by what they do in Wasington and who are expected to pay for it.

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.

But see in the OP you are saying Obama has significant connections to all of these issues. You are being disingenuous about this and you know it.

Another pet peeve of mine is those who insist of ignoring punctuation; i.e. a question mark does not imply the same thing that a period or exclamation mark. That is as annoying as those who ignore qualifiers or put words into the mouth of another so that they can accuse him of what he or she did not say. Be careful that you don't do that here.

Here is the QUESTION from the OP:

- 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?​

Now if you say that he accepts responsibility for what happens in his administration, I sure haven't seen it. I have seen him again and again and again deny that he knew something was happening, nobody told him, he was out of that loop, it wasn't his doing but was somebody else's call, he wasn't directly informed, etc. etc. etc. This despite the fact that we have testimony and/or e-mails etc. showing that people in the Administration knew about the incidents long before it broke in the media.

So again which is it?

1. He did know and is lying about it?. . . .or. . . .

2. He didn't know and therefore doesn't need to concern himself about it even though he is the elected CEO of the country. (Very very few heads have rolled and those that have done so have been in ways that the person came out as well off as they were before.)

So which of those two scenarios is not a scandal?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

It seems to be a secret to the President. It's a secret only to him. Everyone around him is completely aware until they have to testify, then they all claim ignorance as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dana Perino, who served as President Bush's press secretary, for awhile, has candidly talked about what life was like in the White House in those days. While she readily admits President Bush made some serious mistakes and miscalculations, she said he never denied that he was wrong and he never once blamed anybody but himself. And nobody in his Administration was afraid to tell him anything. In fact, they knew they were expected to inform him of anything that would affect anything he was responsible for.

That is a quality I would very much appreciate in President Obama. But we sure don't get it, do we.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder what in government, other than Congress and the Supreme Court, Billy thinks Obama should not be responsible for? Certainly the CEO has to delegate almost everything that happens in government. But delegation does not relieve the CEO from the responsibility for the results. And if his people are hiding the results from him, that alone is a tremendous red flag that he doesn't want to know or they are afraid to tell him. And once he does know, the fact that heads don't roll is a great indication that we are dealing with a weak, ineffective leader who doesn't give a damn whether he does a good job or not, so long as he can stay in office. Or again if he does know, we are dealing with a pathological liar.

Either way, it is a scandal.

 

[mudwhistle]

Dana Perino, who served as President Bush's press secretary, for awhile, has candidly talked about what life was like in the White House in those days. While she readily admits President Bush made some serious mistakes and miscalculations, she said he never denied that he was wrong and he never once blamed anybody but himself. And nobody in his Administration was afraid to tell him anything. In fact, they knew they were expected to inform him of anything that would affect anything he was responsible for.

That is a quality I would very much appreciate in President Obama. But we sure don't get it, do we.

Perhaps they are afraid to tell him because he's such a dick when he hears bad news.

Perhaps they intentionally don't tell him so he can maintain plausible deniablity.

I think he has already told everyone he picks to be in his administration what is expected of them and they are simply doing what the White House demands, and this Obama is fully aware of .

Some say that some of the screwups cannot be by accident. I think they are the cause of incompetence and that the White House feels they can get away with anything, so they simply don't care about the consequences.

 

[BobPlumb]

Job description of president (Obama administration): campaign, make speeches, blame others, play golf, go on vacation.

 

[Billy000]

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 affected by what they do in Wasington and who are expected to pay for it.

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.

But see in the OP you are saying Obama has significant connections to all of these issues. You are being disingenuous about this and you know it.

Another pet peeve of mine is those who insist of ignoring punctuation; i.e. a question mark does not imply the same thing that a period or exclamation mark. That is as annoying as those who ignore qualifiers or put words into the mouth of another so that they can accuse him of what he or she did not say. Be careful that you don't do that here.

Here is the QUESTION from the OP:

- 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?​

Now if you say that he accepts responsibility for what happens in his administration, I sure haven't seen it. I have seen him again and again and again deny that he knew something was happening, nobody told him, he was out of that loop, it wasn't his doing but was somebody else's call, he wasn't directly informed, etc. etc. etc. This despite the fact that we have testimony and/or e-mails etc. showing that people in the Administration knew about the incidents long before it broke in the media.

So again which is it?

1. He did know and is lying about it?. . . .or. . . .

2. He didn't know and therefore doesn't need to concern himself about it even though he is the elected CEO of the country. (Very very few heads have rolled and those that have done so have been in ways that the person came out as well off as they were before.)

So which of those two scenarios is not a scandal?

How about you do some honest to god research to rule out which of these issues Obama has nothing to do with? The ones that are left are the ones you criticize him for. You make an objective judgment how Obama relates to any of them. Use some critical thinking skills. It's not hard.

 

[BobPlumb]

But see in the OP you are saying Obama has significant connections to all of these issues. You are being disingenuous about this and you know it.

Another pet peeve of mine is those who insist of ignoring punctuation; i.e. a question mark does not imply the same thing that a period or exclamation mark. That is as annoying as those who ignore qualifiers or put words into the mouth of another so that they can accuse him of what he or she did not say. Be careful that you don't do that here.

Here is the QUESTION from the OP:

- 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?​

Now if you say that he accepts responsibility for what happens in his administration, I sure haven't seen it. I have seen him again and again and again deny that he knew something was happening, nobody told him, he was out of that loop, it wasn't his doing but was somebody else's call, he wasn't directly informed, etc. etc. etc. This despite the fact that we have testimony and/or e-mails etc. showing that people in the Administration knew about the incidents long before it broke in the media.

So again which is it?

1. He did know and is lying about it?. . . .or. . . .

2. He didn't know and therefore doesn't need to concern himself about it even though he is the elected CEO of the country. (Very very few heads have rolled and those that have done so have been in ways that the person came out as well off as they were before.)

So which of those two scenarios is not a scandal?

How about you do some honest to god research to rule out which of these issues Obama has nothing to do with? The ones that are left are the ones you criticize him for. You make an objective judgment how Obama relates to any of them. Use some critical thinking skills. It's not hard.

Obama is the master of stone walling. Of course he had nothing to do with anything.

 

[mudwhistle]

But see in the OP you are saying Obama has significant connections to all of these issues. You are being disingenuous about this and you know it.

Another pet peeve of mine is those who insist of ignoring punctuation; i.e. a question mark does not imply the same thing that a period or exclamation mark. That is as annoying as those who ignore qualifiers or put words into the mouth of another so that they can accuse him of what he or she did not say. Be careful that you don't do that here.

Here is the QUESTION from the OP:

- 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?​

Now if you say that he accepts responsibility for what happens in his administration, I sure haven't seen it. I have seen him again and again and again deny that he knew something was happening, nobody told him, he was out of that loop, it wasn't his doing but was somebody else's call, he wasn't directly informed, etc. etc. etc. This despite the fact that we have testimony and/or e-mails etc. showing that people in the Administration knew about the incidents long before it broke in the media.

So again which is it?

1. He did know and is lying about it?. . . .or. . . .

2. He didn't know and therefore doesn't need to concern himself about it even though he is the elected CEO of the country. (Very very few heads have rolled and those that have done so have been in ways that the person came out as well off as they were before.)

So which of those two scenarios is not a scandal?

How about you do some honest to god research to rule out which of these issues Obama has nothing to do with? The ones that are left are the ones you criticize him for. You make an objective judgment how Obama relates to any of them. Use some critical thinking skills. It's not hard.

Critical thinking skills?

Give me a fucken break.

 

[Billy000]

Another pet peeve of mine is those who insist of ignoring punctuation; i.e. a question mark does not imply the same thing that a period or exclamation mark. That is as annoying as those who ignore qualifiers or put words into the mouth of another so that they can accuse him of what he or she did not say. Be careful that you don't do that here.

Here is the QUESTION from the OP:

- 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?​

Now if you say that he accepts responsibility for what happens in his administration, I sure haven't seen it. I have seen him again and again and again deny that he knew something was happening, nobody told him, he was out of that loop, it wasn't his doing but was somebody else's call, he wasn't directly informed, etc. etc. etc. This despite the fact that we have testimony and/or e-mails etc. showing that people in the Administration knew about the incidents long before it broke in the media.

So again which is it?

1. He did know and is lying about it?. . . .or. . . .

2. He didn't know and therefore doesn't need to concern himself about it even though he is the elected CEO of the country. (Very very few heads have rolled and those that have done so have been in ways that the person came out as well off as they were before.)

So which of those two scenarios is not a scandal?

How about you do some honest to god research to rule out which of these issues Obama has nothing to do with? The ones that are left are the ones you criticize him for. You make an objective judgment how Obama relates to any of them. Use some critical thinking skills. It's not hard.

Critical thinking skills?

Give me a fucken break.

Leave it to a con to not understand the importance of critical thinking skills.

 

[Foxfyre]

But see in the OP you are saying Obama has significant connections to all of these issues. You are being disingenuous about this and you know it.

Another pet peeve of mine is those who insist of ignoring punctuation; i.e. a question mark does not imply the same thing that a period or exclamation mark. That is as annoying as those who ignore qualifiers or put words into the mouth of another so that they can accuse him of what he or she did not say. Be careful that you don't do that here.

Here is the QUESTION from the OP:

- 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?​

Now if you say that he accepts responsibility for what happens in his administration, I sure haven't seen it. I have seen him again and again and again deny that he knew something was happening, nobody told him, he was out of that loop, it wasn't his doing but was somebody else's call, he wasn't directly informed, etc. etc. etc. This despite the fact that we have testimony and/or e-mails etc. showing that people in the Administration knew about the incidents long before it broke in the media.

So again which is it?

1. He did know and is lying about it?. . . .or. . . .

2. He didn't know and therefore doesn't need to concern himself about it even though he is the elected CEO of the country. (Very very few heads have rolled and those that have done so have been in ways that the person came out as well off as they were before.)

So which of those two scenarios is not a scandal?

How about you do some honest to god research to rule out which of these issues Obama has nothing to do with? The ones that are left are the ones you criticize him for. You make an objective judgment how Obama relates to any of them. Use some critical thinking skills. It's not hard.

Again Billy, which of those issues should Obama not be responsible for? An action in his State Department that HE chose the cabinet member to be in charge?

An action in his Treasury Department that HE appoints the people in charge?

An action by Homeland Security that HE appoints the people in charge?

Gross incompetence and deception in Health and Human Services when HE appointed the cabinet member to oversee that?

Man I want a job in which I get all the perks and advantages, but I'm not expected to be responsible for anything, advised of anythng, in charge of anything, or held accountable for anything that the people I appoint mismanage, overreach, or screw up. What a deal!!!

Critical thinking? How about let's see some of that from you.

 

[mudwhistle]

Another pet peeve of mine is those who insist of ignoring punctuation; i.e. a question mark does not imply the same thing that a period or exclamation mark. That is as annoying as those who ignore qualifiers or put words into the mouth of another so that they can accuse him of what he or she did not say. Be careful that you don't do that here.

Here is the QUESTION from the OP:

- 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?​

Now if you say that he accepts responsibility for what happens in his administration, I sure haven't seen it. I have seen him again and again and again deny that he knew something was happening, nobody told him, he was out of that loop, it wasn't his doing but was somebody else's call, he wasn't directly informed, etc. etc. etc. This despite the fact that we have testimony and/or e-mails etc. showing that people in the Administration knew about the incidents long before it broke in the media.

So again which is it?

1. He did know and is lying about it?. . . .or. . . .

2. He didn't know and therefore doesn't need to concern himself about it even though he is the elected CEO of the country. (Very very few heads have rolled and those that have done so have been in ways that the person came out as well off as they were before.)

So which of those two scenarios is not a scandal?

How about you do some honest to god research to rule out which of these issues Obama has nothing to do with? The ones that are left are the ones you criticize him for. You make an objective judgment how Obama relates to any of them. Use some critical thinking skills. It's not hard.

Again Billy, which of those issues should Obama not be responsible for? An action in his State Department that HE chose the cabinet member to be in charge?

An action in his Treasury Department that HE appoints the people in charge?

An action by Homeland Security that HE appoints the people in charge?

Gross incompetence and deception in Health and Human Services when HE appointed the cabinet member to oversee that?

Man I want a job in which I get all the perks and advantages, but I'm not expected to be responsible for anything, advised of anythng, in charge of anything, or held accountable for anything that the people I appoint mismanage, overreach, or screw up. What a deal!!!

Critical thinking? How about let's see some of that from you.

Bush was accused of mismanaging Walter Reed because of mold, mildew, and peeling paint.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about you do some honest to god research to rule out which of these issues Obama has nothing to do with? The ones that are left are the ones you criticize him for. You make an objective judgment how Obama relates to any of them. Use some critical thinking skills. It's not hard.

Again Billy, which of those issues should Obama not be responsible for? An action in his State Department that HE chose the cabinet member to be in charge?

An action in his Treasury Department that HE appoints the people in charge?

An action by Homeland Security that HE appoints the people in charge?

Gross incompetence and deception in Health and Human Services when HE appointed the cabinet member to oversee that?

Man I want a job in which I get all the perks and advantages, but I'm not expected to be responsible for anything, advised of anythng, in charge of anything, or held accountable for anything that the people I appoint mismanage, overreach, or screw up. What a deal!!!

Critical thinking? How about let's see some of that from you.

Bush was accused of mismanaging Walter Reed because of mold, mildew, and peeling paint.

Yep. And a lot of other stuff that there wasn't money in the budget to address. But you didn't hear him whining about it, or ducking it as something he wasn't supposed to be responsible for.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again Billy, which of those issues should Obama not be responsible for? An action in his State Department that HE chose the cabinet member to be in charge?

An action in his Treasury Department that HE appoints the people in charge?

An action by Homeland Security that HE appoints the people in charge?

Gross incompetence and deception in Health and Human Services when HE appointed the cabinet member to oversee that?

Man I want a job in which I get all the perks and advantages, but I'm not expected to be responsible for anything, advised of anythng, in charge of anything, or held accountable for anything that the people I appoint mismanage, overreach, or screw up. What a deal!!!

Critical thinking? How about let's see some of that from you.

Bush was accused of mismanaging Walter Reed because of mold, mildew, and peeling paint.

Yep. And a lot of other stuff that there wasn't money in the budget to address. But you didn't hear him whining about it, or ducking it as something he wasn't supposed to be responsible for.

NPR was sending out their journalists in black pajamas and red scarves to find discrepancies all over the country on military bases. All they found was a bit of mildew and peeling paint.

Pathetic the way the left lies about us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Let me put the ball back in your court. You pick what you consider a "scandal" and provide the evidence using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", something we afford to criminals, why not to the duly elected President of the United States?

Then, when you have completed your case for the prosecution, I will provide a defense. Fair enough?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Let me put the ball back in your court. You pick what you consider a "scandal" and provide the evidence using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", something we afford to criminals, why not to the duly elected President of the United States?

Then, when you have completed your case for the prosecution, I will provide a defense. Fair enough?

I will refer you to the beginning of the thread and moving forward. I have already posted at least a lot of evidence about a number of the listed scandals in the OP and others have provided much more. You can easily choose any one of those. You are the one who is questioning the thesis of the OP. I've already made my case in good faith. So, if I am wrong, pick one and show me.

I think the first comprehensive argument I offered was re the Benghazi e-mails in Post #6.

 

[mudwhistle]

How about you do some honest to god research to rule out which of these issues Obama has nothing to do with? The ones that are left are the ones you criticize him for. You make an objective judgment how Obama relates to any of them. Use some critical thinking skills. It's not hard.

Critical thinking skills?

Give me a fucken break.

Leave it to a con to not understand the importance of critical thinking skills.

Oh I understand, and I also see the irony in your statement.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Let me put the ball back in your court. You pick what you consider a "scandal" and provide the evidence using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", something we afford to criminals, why not to the duly elected President of the United States?

Then, when you have completed your case for the prosecution, I will provide a defense. Fair enough?

Well, use Obama's stock defense.......we cannot comment on that because of ongoing investigations.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. I'm going to give Wry benefit of the doubt and believe he is sincere in wanting to discuss some of the scandals. At least he isn't trolling and just inserting periodic one-liners that there is 'not a shred of evidence' or some such as that.

But I do believe several people combined in the thread had made some really good posts and some good observations and so far nobody has rebutted any of them. Wouldn't you think that if we were all wrong, somebody would have been able to show us how and why by now?