|by Anonymous||reply 129||05/18/2013|
Oh jeeze, the GOP is trying so hard to make this non-scandal a story.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||05/14/2013|
Like Nixon, it's apparent that Obama HATES his political opponents. I'm remembering Nixon's mauldlin swan song to his staff the morning of his resignation when he said something to the effect that when you start to hate your politial opponents you sow the seeds of your destruction.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||05/14/2013|
Benghazi, IRS, Wiretapping Reporters... why are all these scandals hitting at the same time? Were Republicans sitting on this? Do they have insiders they're paying off?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||05/14/2013|
Yes, because they know that the worst insult to Obama is to compare him to one of their own.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||05/14/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 5||05/14/2013|
Well, 1 of the articles of impeachment against Nixon pertained to the abuse by the IRS to harm political enemies.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||05/14/2013|
It feels almost like a concerted effort in the mainstream media to take down Obama. Why now?
Benghazi is a non-scandal. Republicans made it up. If someone in the IRS targeted the Tea Party groups, he or she should be fired. If it came from within the White House, that person should be hung out to dry. (It actually reeks of Rahm Emmanuel, but he was long gone by then, wasn't he?)
Is this the GOP's attempt to get rid of Obamacare by smearing the President?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||05/14/2013|
I think the WH released the IRS story to sink the Justice Dept story. The Justice Dept spying is ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||05/14/2013|
If this is terms for impeachment what was Bush and Cheney dragging us into Iraq?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||05/14/2013|
[quote]The wiretapping of reporters is WORSE than Watergate.
Why? Bush made wiretapping without a court order legal.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||05/14/2013|
I don't mean to defend the wiretapping, but the stated reason for it was to identify the source of a leak about a terrorist threat, on the argument that leaking the information posed a danger to public safety.
With Watergate, the wiretapping was conducted purely to smear political opponents or for Nixon's own paranoid purposes.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||05/14/2013|
r18 Bush was an idiot and corrupt in many ways but you're kind of proving my point with that remark, don't you think?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||05/14/2013|
Isn't seizing the AP's phone records different from wiretapping?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||05/14/2013|
[quote]If this is terms for impeachment what was Bush and Cheney dragging us into Iraq?
You've got that right, but the ditzy bitch from California announced, "Impeachment is off the table." She should have been dropped from the Speaker position immediately.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||05/14/2013|
As Marco Rubio recently found out after calling for his resignation, there is no current IRS Commissioner. He resigned last year, and he was a Republican. It was a Republican in place when the lower level guys began giving tea party groups a hard time at the IRS. Which only proves that no one higher up knew about it: not the Republican Commissioner and not Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||05/15/2013|
I crushed the competition, and as soon as my trial ended, this is all ya got?!
|by Anonymous||reply 26||05/15/2013|
Interesting, r25. And I wonder if those IRS reps were ordered by leading republicans to get some dirt on their competition. This makes perfect sense. The non-tea party Repubs are behind the IRS actions because they needed something to help them at the voting booth. To stave off the Tea Party.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||05/15/2013|
"if the Repugs had a chance to do the same, they would",
No ifs about it. They took their chance and did it. Republicans trying to create outrage over something this administration does, when they themselves implimented the practice in their administration is hypocritical at best, pathetic at worst. (Or is it the other way around?) In any case, they got the public to give them a pass. They're going to have a hell of a time to make the public care now.
I said it before: Obama has sold torture and murder to the Liberals. BushCo already sold it to everyone else. Who's left?
Good luck, Republicans. You'll need all you can get.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||05/15/2013|
For some of us who remember the times, they feel quite Nixony right now. And Obama is definitely acting that way. Barricade the windows, deny everthing, throw blame elsewhere, stonewall. Think fellow Dems won't turn on him? Wait and see, as soon as he becomes more of a liability.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||05/15/2013|
Bush wasn't impeached for embarking on an illegal war. He wasn't impeached for false intelligence. He wasn't impeached for cutting counterterrorism funding months before 9/11. He wasn't impeached for ignoring multiple White House memos warning that Bin Laden was determined to fly planes into the Twin Towers. He wasn't impeached for flying the Bin Laden family out of the United States 2 days after the attacks. He wasn't impeached for election fraud in the states of Florida (Jeb and co. tampered with the results) and Ohio (Rove & his trusty voter suppression techniques of minorites). He wasn't impeached for being an unelected president who bankrupted our country. Can you imagine if he were Obama's complexion?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||05/15/2013|
I'm not one to pull the race card at all but it's very obvious that the general public would easily give Obama a pass & the benefit of the doubt if he was an old, white man. The vitriol directed toward him, and the freeper faux outrage makes the Clinton years look like child's play. The Tea Party is all about the preservation of white privilege. It's not about "taxes", "Obamacare", "socialism", or "Benghazi." We need to have an honest conversation about race in this country. A large amount of Americans have a fear of anything that isn't lilly white. 4 people died in Benghazi and carnival barker idiots are screaming "Bloody Murder!" Over 2,000 people died on 9/11 yet Bush gets the highest approval ratings a president has ever had after the biggest attack in our nation's history. I hate this country sometimes.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||05/15/2013|
[quote]... the preservation of white privilege
The reason that "white privilege" will never be a winning argument is that "privilege" has a connotation of being something held only by a few. The notion that a majority of the population could be "privileged" is seen as inherently nonsensical. Whatever the majority has would just be "ordinary" and not privileged. It would be better presented with a term indicating that non-whites have less opportunity than average or something like that.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||05/15/2013|
"The reason that "white privilege" will never be a winning argument is that "privilege" has a connotation of being something held only by a few."
And yet, connotation is not definition. Nor is it hard cold fact. Esoteric language tricks may work on you, but I doubt you'll impress anyone exept "a few" racist deniers like yourself.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||05/15/2013|
R22, you make it sound like the U.S. has a press worth defending.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||05/15/2013|
R15 = paid rethug troll
|by Anonymous||reply 35||05/15/2013|
The Republicans are desperate. Their election hopes are dire. Hopefully sensible people will just ignore this folly.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||05/15/2013|
Don't you remember "Troopergate," "Lewinskygate," "Whitewatergate" against the Clintons
Even though Bill Clinton always caved into the Republicans, like Obama. That`s not enough for them. The Republicans are mad that they were elected, and reelected. They are made that another party was elected. And they are still thinking about Watergate and how a Republican was taken out of office.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||05/15/2013|
Why is there so little discussion of the actual wire-tapping scandal here? Most posts seem to be pointless name calling. It doesn't indicate a great deal of confidence in Obama if people shy away from the issue.
So did he cross the line? Is he a big old hypocrite? Consider me a clueless outsider.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||05/15/2013|
This will get much worse.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||05/15/2013|
If Obama really doesn't know what's going on at the State Dept, IRS, or Justice, he really is a clueless piece of shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||05/15/2013|
R30 you are an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||05/15/2013|
a. yet another GOP attempt at government via impeachment. As blatant as it is transparent.
b. a transparent attempt to "take Hillary out" for 2016.
Nothing more. The wiretapping is shameful, but perfectly legal under the PATRIOT Act. All the other scandals are ginned-up hysterics, endlessly pushed by wingnut media and trolls like R40.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||05/15/2013|
They have hated him with a red hot passion since day one. More GOP bitterness and not so thinly veiled racism.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||05/15/2013|
It's just the Republicans throwing a tantrum. Try to look impressed while they throw ALL their toys out of the pram.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||05/15/2013|
All not ale. Fucking ipad.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||05/15/2013|
OP, people are just idiots.
Obama has run the most scandal-free administration ever... and Hillary is a lock for 2016 if she runs... so the GOP is madly trying to invent/create scandals in order to tarnish Obama and sink Hillary. That's all this is. Nothing more.
There's no 'there' there.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||05/15/2013|
R49 = delusional brainwashed partisan hack. Ill-informed and ignorant, they can't help braying their gullible stupidity and wishful thinking to the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||05/15/2013|
R48 is ignorant and ill-informed. None of those things he claimed about Obama and Benghazi is actually true.
God forbid people actually consider FACTS before making up their minds.
Please refer to this:
|by Anonymous||reply 52||05/15/2013|
After 8 months of pushing/pimping this Benghazi non-scandal, all the GOP has actually managed to PROVE, is that Obama has kept us more safe than Bush ever did, with far fewer deaths and far fewer embassy attacks.
Never mind that it was the GOP that cut Embassy security funds against the wishes of the administration and Hillary Clinton.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||05/15/2013|
"Those poor Americans begged for more security and protection and our administration did NOTHING."
Republican controlled congress nixed spending that included increased security measures for places like Benghazi.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||05/15/2013|
R15/R19 are the fools here.
Let's recap this AP "scandal", shall we?
AP leaks national security info; GOP demands DOJ investigate; DOJ does; GOP blames POTUS... ?? Seriously? The DOJ subpoena of AP was legal and lawful.
As for the IRS:
IRS agents under GWB appointees give a hard time to Tea Party groups, and... Impeach Obama? (ignoring the fact that the only group to lose its tax exempt status was a liberal group of course)
|by Anonymous||reply 55||05/15/2013|
I heard this great joke yesterday:
The Republicans are lecturing Obama on how to run a scandal-free government.
That's the joke.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||05/15/2013|
ABC made up information to make the administration look bad.
Meanwhile, the deficit is shrinking. And what are we paying attention to? Ginned-up bullshit scandals.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||05/15/2013|
I've heard nothing but disdain for Republicans over this.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||05/15/2013|
When you got nothing-- make something up.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||05/15/2013|
R59 is full of so much shit, it's coming out his mouth.
In no imaginable way is Obama "worse than Bush". You completely discredit anything you might have actually had to say with that bit of hyperbole.
You're wrong on all fronts there, dude. Might want to just give up talking. You've already given up thinking.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||05/15/2013|
troll dar is great r50,51,52,53,55, 56 all the same poster.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||05/15/2013|
Have Dems gone on television yet, and exposed all the embassy deaths that occurred under Bush?
|by Anonymous||reply 63||05/15/2013|
add r 61 to the list above.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||05/15/2013|
Gay wingnuts are sad attempts at people.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||05/15/2013|
It is astounding after everything that happened in the Bush White House that these fucking Rethugs have the nerve to attempt to throw this bullshit they are peddling around as if there is something to it.
A terrorist attack 911 and the war that followed. ENRON. The mortgage crisis. Halliburton's no bid contracts in the Middle East. The list goes on. Someone needs to bring charges the former President and Vice President for treason as well as Carl Rove. There are even members of the Supreme Court that need to be investigated.
If you White folks don't hurry up and get outraged things are going to go down hill rapidly and it's gonna be real ugly.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||05/15/2013|
[quote]The wiretapping of reporters is WORSE than Watergate
Then it's a damn good thing that nobody from the Obama administration wiretapped reporters, isn't it? I repeat: Obama did not "wiretap" reporters. Can we at least get the basic facts right?
[quote]It is, actually, comparable to Watergate.
It isn't, of course, for obvious reasons, such as the simple fact that there is zero evidence that Obama was personally involved in either the AP phone record subpoena or the IRS shenanigans. Nixon, on the other hand, was in it up to his eyeballs.
[quote]But I don't expect the simpletons here to get it.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony....
[quote]You're mindless, sycophantic apologists.
As compared to someone mindlessly spouting provably false partisan drivel? Pot. Kettle. Black.
[quote]Obama is worse than Bush, but you morons will never see that.
Well, mostly because out here in the real world, there is no data to support such an assertion but, hey, why let simple reality intrude on your fantasies?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||05/15/2013|
[quote]troll dar is great [R50],51,52,53,55, 56 all the same poster.
And your point is? Do you disagree with anything he wrote? If so, why? And where is the data to back up your assertions?
|by Anonymous||reply 68||05/15/2013|
I have HLN on. The one bitch is going ballistic. Included was screaming that it took the White House too long to make a statement about it. She ended on a positive note about something that was being done.
Here's the thing. I don't think she's a Republican. This is what happened in the 90s. Reporters are just shilling for Republicans, the Party of Authoritarianism. Remember all the Democrats that even called for Clinton's impeachment? This woman was just a sheep. I'm sure there's going to be a lot more of this in coming months: faux outrage because they believe that that's what the public wants, and it'll get them ratings.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||05/15/2013|
[quote]The wiretapping of reporters is WORSE than Watergate
Claim the ignorant twats who don't know that the reason the Watergate plumbers were called "plumbers" was that they were supposed to stop the leaks to the press (which it turned out were coming from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of all places). Claimed the ignorant twats who don't know that Nixon wanted report Jack Anderson dead. DEAD. As in assassinated.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||05/15/2013|
This is an abuse of trolldar, and the reason many of us don't like it.
R50 is a reasonable, sane poster. Trolling and making multiple reasonable posts are not even slightly equivalent.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||05/15/2013|
Dan Rather said it best on Rachel Maddow last night:
Watergate was a criminal conspiracy of at least 40 people, actively committing crimes like burglary and wiretapping, actively headed by the President of the United States. Anyone who says anything Obama has done compares does not know anything about Watergate.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||05/15/2013|
Let's recap, shall we?
Benghazi - a manufactured "scandal," where it has now been revealed that the ABC story about the edited talking points relied on a Republican staffer's "summary" (read, "doctored") of the relevant emails. Once you read the actual email, you realize that, just as with all other "revelations" in this non-story, there is no "there" there (see link).
IRS - Idiotic and disgusting behavior on the part of low-level staffers in one regional office (with a Bush-appointed IRS chief at the helm). Zero evidence of administration involvement. Widespread condemnation on all sides. The IRS head at the time has already stepped down. Fire and/or prosecute those responsible and the story ends, no matter how much Republicans are desperate to smear Obama.
AP Phone Records - The phone records were subpoenaed from the relevant phone companies, not from the AP, and they consisted only of the lists of phone numbers along with the times and durations of the calls. There was no "wiretapping" involved, the contents of the calls were not asked for and were not revealed, and it was done as part of an ongoing security leak investigation.
Personally, I think the Justice Department cast its net too widely and they went on a fishing expedition instead of narrowly targeting just the people they were interested in. There is no evidence, and no reason to believe, that Obama or Holder (who recused himself from the investigation) were involved. Reprimand or fire those who made this choice and this "scandal" is over, as well.
If there is a "Watergate" here, it's hiding itself pretty damn well.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||05/15/2013|
R72, just more stupidity from the freeper crowd.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||05/15/2013|
Actually, R72, if you look at R62's posts on this thread, what you quickly realize is that if there's a troll here, it's him. For example, he's responsible for R39, where he mindlessly asserts that "This will get much worse." And for R42, where he asserts:
[quote]Seems Obama is more interested in his golf score and basketball than he is about his job, President of the U. S.. It's not just Obama knee deep in it but Holder too.
This is such a laughably idiotic statement that it doesn't even warrant debunking.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||05/15/2013|
Agreed, R75. The hall monitor seems to have finally gone away, and now we have freepers taking his place.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||05/15/2013|
The Republicans only have a shot at the next election if the public believes that these smokescreens are worth pursuing instead of the issues that affect us. They can't vote on the budget and economic issues that the public wants so this is their diversion.
Unfortunately most people in this country are dumb enough to fall for it.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||05/15/2013|
It's Whitewater and the rest all over again. There's no there there.
Anyone who compares this to Watergate doesn't know Watergate, or doesn't care about history.
Not that a lot of the tools here aren't trolls.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||05/15/2013|
Exactly. How else to distract from the fact that the economy has taken a significant surge for the better?
|by Anonymous||reply 80||05/15/2013|
Republicans are racist lowlife pigs and will stop at nothing...trying to get rid of Obama. It's almost June and our congress has done nothing except investigate Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||05/15/2013|
r32 Straight people make up the majority of the population too, and yes they are privileged. White people are just as privileged. I don't see your point.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||05/15/2013|
Thanks, R76. Looks like he's stooping to the nasty old tactic of accusing someone else of what he's doing.
And freepers wonder why we call them shitstains.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||05/15/2013|
You forget the lengths republicans will go to to go after a democratic president. Remember Kenneth Star and Whitewater? Originally a 70's and 80's real estate investiment scandal that ultimately ended up a sex scandal with an intern in the white house. That whole mess cost 60 million dollars - the most expensive blow job in history. The move to impeachment was primarily lying under oath - to which President Obama has not testified under oath on any of the current scandals (non-issues). I find it hysterical that the issue with Benghazi is that supposidly SOS Clinton ignored reports of hightened terrorist activity and that is what cause the attack...umm hello 9.11 anyone? Was Hillary reading a childrens book when Behgazhi happened?
|by Anonymous||reply 84||05/15/2013|
r84 You are right. The GOP was also hysterical during President Clintons reign- even for impeaching him for consensual sex.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||05/15/2013|
Here r32 this link is for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||05/15/2013|
R19 is such a tool!
|by Anonymous||reply 88||05/15/2013|
The AP story is not going away. And many of The Presidents long-time supporters are holding his feet to the fire over it.
Per Glenn Greenwald:
Due to the controversies over the IRS and (especially) the DOJ's attack on AP's news gathering process, media outlets have suddenly decided that President Obama has a very poor record on civil liberties, transparency, press freedoms, and a whole variety of other issues on which he based his first campaign. The first two paragraphs of this Washington Post article from yesterday, expressed in tones of recent epiphany, made me laugh audibly:
"President Obama, a former constitutional law lecturer who came to office pledging renewed respect for civil liberties, is today running an administration at odds with his résumé and preelection promises.
"The Justice Department's collection of journalists' phone records and the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups have challenged Obama's credibility as a champion of civil liberties - and as a president who would heal the country from damage done by his predecessor."
You don't say! The Washington Post's breaking news here is only about four years late. Back in mid-2010, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, speaking about Obama's civil liberties record at a progressive conference, put it this way: "I'm disgusted with this president." In the spirit of optimism, one can adopt a "better-late-than-never" outlook regarding this newfound media awakening.
As a result of the last week, there is an undeniable and quite substantial sea change in how the establishment media is thinking and speaking about Obama. The ultimate purveyors of Beltway media conventional wisdom (CW), Politico's Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei, published an article yesterday headlined "DC turns on Obama", writing that "the town is turning on President Obama - and this is very bad news for this White House" and "reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration." The Washington Post's political reporter, Dan Balz, another CW bellwether, wrote that these controversies "reflect questions about the administration that predate the revelations of the past few days". About the AP story, Balz wrote that "no one can recall anything as far-reaching as what the Justice Department apparently did in secretly gathering information about the work of AP journalists."
This morning, the New York Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote about the AP story and the broader War on Whistleblowers, and said that Obama's presidency is "turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and of unprecedented attacks on a free press." She added:
This isn't just about press rights. It's about the right of citizens to know what their government is doing. In an atmosphere of secrecy and punishment – despite the hollow promises of transparency - that's getting harder every day."
The New York Times itself editorialized today that "the Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification" for its "spying on the AP"; the NYT editors also quoted a letter from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to Attorney General Holder stating that the AP spying "calls into question the very integrity" of the administration's policy toward the press. The New Yorker this morning published an article by its general counsel, Lynn Oberlander, denouncing the DOJ's conduct as "cowardly"; she wrote: "Even beyond the outrageous and overreaching action against the journalists, this is a blatant attempt to avoid the oversight function of the courts." Former New York Times general counsel James Goodale, who represented the paper during its Pentagon Papers fight with the Nixon administration, said in an interview yesterday that Obama is worse than Nixon when it comes to press freedoms.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||05/15/2013|
Those are all media venues generally sympathetic to and supportive of Obama. But this anger has infected even the most Obama-loyal circles. Journalist Jonathan Alter, who has literally written books using what he touts as his "unmatched access" that are paens to Obama's greatness and Goodness, yesterday demanded: "Obama should simply apologize to the AP and its reporters. It's the least he can do to show he still believes in the First Amendment." Even at MSNBC, its most influential host, Rachel Maddow, broadcast a 20-minute segment vehemently condemning the Obama DOJ on the AP matter that featured an interview with an AP lawyer and used Nixon's attacks on Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg as the historical context. Maddow then broadcast another segment on the IRS' targeting of right-wing groups in which she correctly pointed out that there is no evidence of Obama's personal role in that targeting but that it will create serious problems for his administration. Even Harry Reid - the Senate's top Democrat - denounced the DOJ's actions as "inexcusable", saying "there is no way to justify this."
|by Anonymous||reply 91||05/15/2013|
Ready, tan and rested.....
|by Anonymous||reply 92||05/15/2013|
[quote]The New Yorker this morning published an article by its general counsel, Lynn Oberlander, denouncing the DOJ's conduct as "cowardly"; she wrote: "Even beyond the outrageous and overreaching action against the journalists, this is a blatant attempt to avoid the oversight function of the courts."
What oversight function of the courts? I just read this:
[quote]A perfect score! In 2012, all of the government’s 1,856 requests for permission to search the email and monitor the phone calls of Americans presumed to be communicating with foreigners were approved by the secret FISA court authorized in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||05/15/2013|
Reporters do NOT have a right to jeopardize our national security just so they can get a story and win a Pulitzer Prize.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||05/15/2013|
I'm listening to Howard Dean on NPR. He has pointed out that the Repubs may not get far on the IRS matter because the agency has not been able to get a Commissioner. Reason: the republicans keep threatening to filibuster Obama's choices. If they refuse to allow him to appoint someone in charge, then it is run by agency acting heads and not anyone with real responsibility.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||05/15/2013|
I love Howard Dean. He's saying the Republicans are hoist on their own petard.
Apparently they're so incompetent they don't have anyone capable of using if/then logic.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||05/15/2013|
I can't comprehend why anyone would sincerely believe that Obama is worse than Bush. Bush was a complete disaster. Obama has not been a disaster. He has just been a lame duck who is incredibly ineffective mainly due to an incooperative Congress.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||05/15/2013|
R85 Harry Reid (D) submits te budget. You can blame GOP for a lot but not that there hasn't been a budget passed.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||05/15/2013|
R94...no. He's correct.
But one thing I've found about DL...the folks here have no political ethics at ALL. How anyone can excuse what the President has done is inexplicable, and to suggest that the criticism is motivated by racism is just pure evil.
This President has been a nightmare in terms of transparency, and a lot of other issues. But apologists will never acknowledge that, because you guys are no different than the Republicans. You're only interested in your "side" being right. You have no real beliefs or ethics, it's all about who wins and loses. which makes you no different than most freepers.
It's heartbreaking to see how far the Dems have fallen, because our party is the only thing standing for ethics and transparency. Well, WAS the only thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||05/15/2013|
It's not just Republicans criticizing the President on this.
You guys are idiots.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||05/15/2013|
I think we're all supposed to tear out our hair in grief at the horrible sins committed by Obama.
It's not about tit for tat, it's about being tired of the endless badly done Republican drama.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||05/15/2013|
No. We're supposed to care about ethical violations and hold our politicians accountable. ALL of them. You apologists are the ones tearing your hair out here. The Republicans will try to make political hay out of this, but that doesn't absolve Democrats of the responsibility to demand transparency and ethical conduct. We are the gate-keepers of that, after all. If we demand that freepers behave ethically, then we should hold our own to that same standard. Otherwise it's ALL meaningless.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||05/15/2013|
Okay, R103. Please tell me what I should be attacking Obama about specifically.
Should I go after him for the wiretapping that turned out not to be wiretapping?
Should I go after him for the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi litany that was made up of mistruths and outright lies on the part of McCain et al.?
Oh, I know. I should attack Obama for making the IRS go after the Tea Party. Well, except that he didn't and now it has come out the IRS also required some Democratic organizations to provide the same information.
It looks like a lot of noise with no substance.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||05/15/2013|
First of all, anyone who compares any of this nonsense to Watergate is a stupid fucking moron.
Second - the REAL scandal going on right now is sexual assault and harassment in the military by the military personnel in charge of helping the victims of sexual assault and harassment. But we don't see any of the shocked-shocked up in arms Republican shitstains all worked up about that, do we?
The rest of this is a lot of hot air about nothing. Benghazi is nothing. The AP phone records are nothing. The IRS scrutinizing political groups trying to claim tax-exempt status is nothing.
This is all the same old Republican playbook we've seen so many times before. Well it won't work. It won't work on this President and it won't work on Hillary Clinton. So go fuck yourselves.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||05/15/2013|
Go after him for the drone bombing, R104.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||05/15/2013|
the national enquirer?
|by Anonymous||reply 108||05/15/2013|
Sorry, freeps, we see you.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||05/15/2013|
As a liberal it's been extremely difficult to vote for Obama, who is basically Bush Lite.
I don't give an F about Bengazi. It's a red herring. I want to know why we are 12 years into 2 unnecessary and illegal wars and occupations that have cost hundreds of thousands of human lives.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||05/15/2013|
I'm not fond of Obama. Never was, never will be. He moved up too fast and I was never sure where his support came from. I used to be a Democrat, but I'm not sure what that means today. I wish there was a party called Skeptic, because that's who I am politically.
Obama gives up the farm every time he negotiates. Not even down the road when it might be seen as crucial, but right off the bat. It's a strange tactic that makes me think he wants to give it away and the negotiations are an excuse.
I'm assuming that when he ran on "Change," he meant it would get worse for most of us. That's the reality of his administration.
Having said that, he's no GWB. He's not even Nixon. Nixon at least had the excuse of drug-induced paranoia. Bush had the excuse of being a moron and a puppet.
I believe Obama was put in office to continue the dismantling process that was started so effectively by Clinton. If so, he's very good at what he does.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||05/16/2013|
The GOP -- the same party that under Bush set the IRS on the NAACP, targeted ACORN politically and killed it, and even targeted the IRS on a liberal church that was vocally anti-war -- really thinks it's got something with these ludicrous IRS claims?
First prove that the Tea Party organizations shouldn't have been targeted at all. Obviously they should have been.
The Tea Party -- named after a group protesting taxation without representation -- is now of the belief that they deserve representation without taxation, apparently. They're a hyper-partisan political group, not a "charity".
So tell me... where exactly is the "scandal", beyond the fact that the IRS never actually stripped any conservative organizations at all, let alone the Tea Party, of their tax-exempt status?
|by Anonymous||reply 113||05/17/2013|
There are far more Democrats than Republicans. By 2016, three more years of trashing will make Hillary about as electable as Saddam Hussein. But, she WILL be elected - Dems will vote for her just to get even with Refluckians. (Would they really do that?) Of course - just read the 113 posts above. They'd re-elect Obama if there was time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||05/17/2013|
Regarding the IRS chair that was R (before the current impermanent one who is leaving/trashed/thrown under the bus), it was just found out that he gave funds to the D's.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||05/17/2013|
r114 considering that Hillary is the leak for many of the scandals.....hmmm.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||05/17/2013|
Four people died, including an American Ambassador. I think it matters.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||05/17/2013|
It "matters" to the GOP only inasmuch as it can be used to smear Hillary, Obama, or both.
Republicans don't actually care about *people*.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||05/17/2013|
Well it just came out that the Republicans doctored those Benghazi papers. So once again it seems that the party of gay-bashers, immigrant-haters, war-mongers, and so on can't even get a scandal right. Now the scandal is, how could the Republicans do something so vile?
(Of course, the answer is obvious)
|by Anonymous||reply 119||05/17/2013|
How the fuck is Obama being blamed for a couple of IRS agents acting in a discriminatory fashion?
Every year in every city all over this country, police officers commit horrible acts of violence. I don't see mayors or even chiefs of police losing their careers over it! Nor, for the most part, should they. In New York, we even have a clearly discriminatory and ineffective unlawful policy known by the misleading name of "stop and frisk" Everyone says it's wrong. That it's discrimination. Bloomberg and Kelly aren't being run out of town over it.
What a country! The rhetoric is so hypocritical, short-sighted and plain stupid as to be unfathomable.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||05/17/2013|
You're right, R112. They are all puppets, really. Did people think he was really going to bring about real change? That comes from an organized, politically active population, not politicians. It will never come from tweedledum and tweedledee corporate parties and politics.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||05/17/2013|
Yeah, OP. REALLY.
And sadly, the scorn is absolutely justified. Not impeachment worthy and I still love him, but this is serious shit that sets serious precedent and it is indeed Nixonian.
Tapping press lines? Allowing the IRS to run rampant against political foes.. This is Orwellian stuff the President may not be directly responsible for, but, who knows. He's the boss so the ultimate responsibility must end with him.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||05/17/2013|
That sounds exactly like the line FOX is selling, r122.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||05/17/2013|
So we know it's bullshit, R123.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||05/17/2013|
R122, clearly you know nothing about Richard Milhous Nixon. This powderpuff of faux-scandals is nothing. Richard Nixon was a serious fucking criminal.
No press lines were tapped, some phone records were looked at in the investigation of someone outing a mole in Al Qaeda. The President did not direct Cincinnati IRS investigators to go after any "foes" nor any groups. It had nothing to do with him.
Who knows? We know. We know that the President isn't linked to any of this nonsense, nor is he responsible for any of it.
So fuck on off back to freeperville.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||05/17/2013|
R118 and R119 nail it.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||05/17/2013|
[quote]We know that the President isn't linked to any of this nonsense, nor is he responsible for any of it.
You're damn right that we know, but millions of stupid Americans do NOT know and they vote Rethuglican. They listen to the R-thugs in Congress and believe everything bad about Obama.
It seems so very noble to brag that "we know" but that amounts to zilch in the election booth as we watch more R-thugs preparing to move into the Senate in the next election.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||05/17/2013|
Please, Watergate was a criminal breaking and entering that brought to light other somewhat better hidden criminal activities, all of them controlled and managed by President Nixon's inner circle of advisers. Many of us believe there were far more serious crimes committed than were ever prosecuted, because people they didn't like had an odd tendency to drop dead.
The Iran Contra affair was also a series of criminal activities controlled and managed by White House insiders.
Congressional Republicans think they can call their current made-up silliness "Watergate" and that will somehow make it stick.
Until they can prove that Obama has gone along with ordering a hit on a political reporter, it's not Watergate.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||05/18/2013|
OMG, r19; are you for REAL?!
|by Anonymous||reply 129||05/18/2013|