By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The three headed dragon against Obama

If Benghazi didn't stick during the election, it isn't going to stick now. The Republicans will back off when they realize they're spending all their political capital on something that's ultimately inconsequential to their agenda (e.g. when the budget fight kicks back in at the end of summer, Benghazi will melt away, at least until Clinton starts running for president)

The really damning one is the Justice Department thing. That's some Valerie Plame shit right there, and unequivocally not cool.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
If Benghazi didn't stick during the election, it isn't going to stick now. The Republicans will back off when they realize they're spending all their political capital on something that's ultimately inconsequential to their agenda (e.g. when the budget fight kicks back in at the end of summer, Benghazi will melt away, at least until Clinton starts running for president)

Probably still not going anywhere in any meaningful sense, but it would actually be more likely to stick now because (a) there's more information available now, none of which is exculpatory for the administration, and (b) the media has less reason to run interference when there isn't an election looming. The press may be a little ticked about the AP thing, too, possibly even to the point of doing their jobs for a change just to fire a shot across the bow of the USS Obama.



You guys do realize that Obama isn't originally from Chicago, right?

I just wanted to point that out...



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

amp316 said:
You guys do realize that Obama isn't originally from Chicago, right?

I just wanted to point that out...

You do realize that it's a reference to the place of his political gestation, not his biological gestation, right?



badgenome said:
amp316 said:
You guys do realize that Obama isn't originally from Chicago, right?

I just wanted to point that out...

You do realize that it's a reference to the place of his political gestation, not his biological gestation, right?

Oh that's fine.  I just get a little upset when people talk about the place where I was born as the asshole of the universe.  Sure, there has been a lot of corruption but we're not all crooks and it definitely isn't as bad as Washington.  

Anyhow, I usually stay out of these political debates and will leave so carry on...



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

Around the Network
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
If Benghazi didn't stick during the election, it isn't going to stick now. The Republicans will back off when they realize they're spending all their political capital on something that's ultimately inconsequential to their agenda (e.g. when the budget fight kicks back in at the end of summer, Benghazi will melt away, at least until Clinton starts running for president)

Probably still not going anywhere in any meaningful sense, but it would actually be more likely to stick now because (a) there's more information available now, none of which is exculpatory for the administration, and (b) the media has less reason to run interference when there isn't an election looming. The press may be a little ticked about the AP thing, too, possibly even to the point of doing their jobs for a change just to fire a shot across the bow of the USS Obama.

pretty sure the press already does that, pretty much every single day.
Fox is still the press even though they say they're not, and there is plenty of media that scrutinizes him.

If it's ALL the press you are looking for to criticize him, maybe stop and ask "why does one half criticize him on everything, and the other half criticizes him on important matters that concern them, like the AP?"

Is it because they're all paid shills? Or because the shit fox likes to criticize him on is all rubbish, and this other thing is actually important?

It's funny how conservatives say that liberals are biased, yet several times, liberals have criticized some such direction or law, while the conservatives criticize every single thing. Maybe the liberals aren't so biased. Maybe we should be looking somewhere else to find the biases.

Fox would have me believe that the entire media is obama lovers, and biased shills. Occam's Razor would tell me that issues such as bengazi simply aren't a big deal to the press( or the majority of Americans for that matter; see: election 2012), and some other issues are.



amp316 said:

Oh that's fine.  I just get a little upset when people talk about the place where I was born as the asshole of the universe.  Sure, there has been a lot of corruption but we're not all crooks and it definitely isn't as bad as Washington.  

Anyhow, I usually stay out of these political debates and will leave so carry on...

Don't let it get to you, man. It doesn't matter where you were born as the asshole of the universe. You are, and no one can take that away from you.



theprof00 said:
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:
If Benghazi didn't stick during the election, it isn't going to stick now. The Republicans will back off when they realize they're spending all their political capital on something that's ultimately inconsequential to their agenda (e.g. when the budget fight kicks back in at the end of summer, Benghazi will melt away, at least until Clinton starts running for president)

Probably still not going anywhere in any meaningful sense, but it would actually be more likely to stick now because (a) there's more information available now, none of which is exculpatory for the administration, and (b) the media has less reason to run interference when there isn't an election looming. The press may be a little ticked about the AP thing, too, possibly even to the point of doing their jobs for a change just to fire a shot across the bow of the USS Obama.

pretty sure the press already does that, pretty much every single day.
Fox is still the press even though they say they're not, and there is plenty of media that scrutinizes him.

If it's ALL the press you are looking for to criticize him, maybe stop and ask "why does one half criticize him on everything, and the other half criticizes him on important matters that concern them, like the AP?"

Is it because they're all paid shills? Or because the shit fox likes to criticize him on is all rubbish, and this other thing is actually important?

It's funny how conservatives say that liberals are biased, yet several times, liberals have criticized some such direction or law, while the conservatives criticize every single thing. Maybe the liberals aren't so biased. Maybe we should be looking somewhere else to find the biases.

Fox would have me believe that the entire media is obama lovers, and biased shills. Occam's Razor would tell me that issues such as bengazi simply aren't a big deal to the press( or the majority of Americans for that matter; see: election 2012), and some other issues are.

Sometimes the little things become the big issues even when there are bigger fish to fry, but the problem is everyone has only so much energy, so much sway, hence "political capital."

Monica Lewinsky became a big stinking deal, but it was bad for the Republicans because it went nowhere and exhausted their capital.

Much the same could be said of Benghazi.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

theprof00 said:

pretty sure the press already does that, pretty much every single day.
Fox is still the press even though they say they're not, and there is plenty of media that scrutinizes him.

If it's ALL the press you are looking for to criticize him, maybe stop and ask "why does one half criticize him on everything, and the other half criticizes him on important matters that concern them, like the AP?"

Is it because they're all paid shills? Or because the shit fox likes to criticize him on is all rubbish, and this other thing is actually important?

It's funny how conservatives say that liberals are biased, yet several times, liberals have criticized some such direction or law, while the conservatives criticize every single thing. Maybe the liberals aren't so biased. Maybe we should be looking somewhere else to find the biases.

Fox would have me believe that the entire media is obama lovers, and biased shills. Occam's Razor would tell me that issues such as bengazi simply aren't a big deal to the press( or the majority of Americans for that matter; see: election 2012), and some other issues are.

What am I reading? Did you just have a breakdown of some sort? You sound distraught and rambling.

- Fox News is not half of the press.

- Liberals are biased. Conservatives are also biased. Everyone is biased. I'm not sure where you're even going with that. On that note...

- If the media only cares about the AP because it's something that affects the media, then that doesn't make it the most important story in actual reality. It may or may not be, but that's incidental. That it will probably get the most attention is the result of the media being biased towards stories about the media.

- Benghazi wasn't a big deal to the majority of Americans because the majority of Americans are, to put it very charitably, not well informed. To the extent that they are informed, they're informed by... well, the press.



theprof00 said:

The government performs millions of actions everyday. Why would we assume that obama is specifically tied to them?
In massachusetts there was a scandal with one of the higher ups involved withcases where drugs were tested and thousands of criminals got retrials or were let go. Should we blame him for it becayse his friend is the governor?

Because they're very specific actions that the government should have things in place to detect.


As for the bolded... it's written sort of incoherently so i don't understand what your saying.

 

It sounds like a higher up government official was faking drug tests and was found out... and that said official was a friend of the govonor... but you wordered it the other way in the last sentence so i'm not 100% sure.


If that is the case... hell yeah you should blame the governor... espiecally if he apointed him there.  That's a big problem in his administration he clearly didn't have the right people in place to do the job.