RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


TheHeretic -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 4:36:58 PM)

It's a report that isn't full of bile and vendetta, Ken. Maybe you should try exploring that genre.

Hmmm. Trying to convince you to either quit pretending ignorance, or persuade you to gain some comprehension of the historical record before saying "ever," or off to the tractor races, and food guaranteed to cause indigestion.




DomKen -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 4:50:00 PM)

I gave you a simple metric and you choose to argue that you opinion should supercede facts. I gave you a chance to make some rebuttal and all you could do was complain about US Grant. Honestly if you wanted to argue for an administration more corrupt than Reagan's you should make the argument for Harding. Teapot Dome was a very messy scandal involving high level officials.




TheHeretic -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 5:01:19 PM)

Right, Ken. Your standard game when you get called on bullshit. You'll invent some highly specific challenge, and keep changing the definitions when it still doesn't work. I'm off to the fair, preferring at least three awful trips to the bathroom in the night, to your company.

Perhaps while I'm gone, you'd like to Google up Credit Mobilier (convert that 1872 money into todays and see what you get!), and maybe check Grant's secretary in the Whiskey Ring scandal.

Maybe you can ask yourself too, why the prospect of President Obama and his administration being scrutinized scares you so badly that you must try to derail the thread with this.





pogo4pres -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 5:09:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Right, Ken. Your standard game when you get called on bullshit. You'll invent some highly specific challenge, and keep changing the definitions when it still doesn't work. I'm off to the fair, preferring at least three awful trips to the bathroom in the night, to your company.

Perhaps while I'm gone, you'd like to Google up Credit Mobilier (convert that 1872 money into todays and see what you get!), and maybe check Grant's secretary in the Whiskey Ring scandal.

Maybe you can ask yourself too, why the prospect of President Obama and his administration being scrutinized scares you so badly that you must try to derail the thread with this.



The both of you are fucking incorrect, totally and completely, the single most corrupt presidency was that of the Republican dude from Whittier California, not the Republican dude that was from Tampico, Illinois. 


Historically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ




DomKen -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 5:42:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Right, Ken. Your standard game when you get called on bullshit. You'll invent some highly specific challenge, and keep changing the definitions when it still doesn't work. I'm off to the fair, preferring at least three awful trips to the bathroom in the night, to your company.

Perhaps while I'm gone, you'd like to Google up Credit Mobilier (convert that 1872 money into todays and see what you get!), and maybe check Grant's secretary in the Whiskey Ring scandal.

Maybe you can ask yourself too, why the prospect of President Obama and his administration being scrutinized scares you so badly that you must try to derail the thread with this.



Actually you started this with your little smack at Chicago. And for the record I've applied a single objective standard while you've demanded that your opinion take precedence.




Sanity -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 5:47:45 PM)


I disagree Heretic. That Black Panther call really smells bad and Id like to see what lead to the decision to drop that case. There are several things that have every appearance of corruption and we fully deserve to know if our leaders are crooks.

Candidate Obama promised transparency and Im of the opinion that we should have just that even if we have to take it from him forcibly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

To the OP;

It sounds like a really awful idea to me, Sanity. That is not the mandate I want to send to the potential congessional leadership. They should not go there to "get" President Obama.

Let's just remember that this are very precarious times, and our President is already in way over his head. Do we need a presumed Repubican congress going above and beyond to push him down further? I'll sometimes ask more extreme Republicans if they think the added pressure of the investigations kept the Clinton administration from focusing more attention on the growing Al Qaeda thing. They don't seem to like that question. Bill denies it, of course.

No. There are lots of good reasons to want single-party rule ended. This isn't one of them.

Don't get me wrong. This adminstration is from Chicago. There might very well be a need for a congressional investigation or two, but I don't think that should be seen as a plank in the agenda.




truckinslave -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 5:59:07 PM)

quote:

Candidate Obama promised transparency


Do you remember who said: "Candidate Obama promised a lot of things"? Nancy Pelosi [:D] [:D] [:D]




truckinslave -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 6:01:24 PM)

This will be what fighter pilots call a "target rich environment". Eric Holder and Janet the Nappy both read the polls in the morning and stain their panties.




DarkSteven -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 6:04:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Did you miss the people who voted for 0bama0 because he was black?
There are a million things that go into an election; his race was one of them, and imo it helped him.


I'm not convinced that it was that big of a factor.  Although I agree that there are people who voted for him because he's black, I suspect that they would have supported a Dem candidate anyway.  In other words, a wash.  Likewise, anyone who voted against him for his race would have been conservative enough to not vote Dem anyway.




Sanity -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 6:14:55 PM)


Youre really trying to claim there are no racist Liberals / Communists / Progressives / Socialists / Democrats? [:D]

Even among the Union Goon corps? [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I'm not convinced that it was that big of a factor.  Although I agree that there are people who voted for him because he's black, I suspect that they would have supported a Dem candidate anyway.  In other words, a wash.  Likewise, anyone who voted against him for his race would have been conservative enough to not vote Dem anyway.





willbeurdaddy -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 7:05:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Did you miss the people who voted for 0bama0 because he was black?
There are a million things that go into an election; his race was one of them, and imo it helped him.


I'm not convinced that it was that big of a factor.  Although I agree that there are people who voted for him because he's black, I suspect that they would have supported a Dem candidate anyway.  In other words, a wash.  Likewise, anyone who voted against him for his race would have been conservative enough to not vote Dem anyway.



This doesnt square with the facts. Blacks alone voted for Obama far more than they normally go Dem, and their turnout was a higher proportion of the total than normal. Add into that the aging hippie chicks and youve got a decent size proportion of the vote.

I'll go with Ferraro and Clinton.




truckinslave -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 7:31:44 PM)

quote:

Although I agree that there are people who voted for him because he's black, I suspect that they would have supported a Dem candidate anyway.


my very nephew got all caught up in it and talked to me about how "cool" it would be to have a black president. Voted for him (and after all I've done for him!!! [sm=eeew.gif] [sm=anger.gif])

No I didnt fire him, but Christmas was a little light. He was just young and dumb and has since repented [:D] [sm=banana.gif][sm=iwin.gif]




Hippiekinkster -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:18:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain


I wouldn't vote for either party. The Democrats are better than the Republicans but if there is a good progressive candidate I would vote for that candidate. There are some good progressives Democrats like Dennis Kucinich but not enough.

Endangered species these days are not the polar bears it’s the moderate Republican.


quote:


If ever you needed a reason to vote GOP here it is:

You couldn't vote for either, Sparky. You're Canadian. Why don't you go to Ottawa and straighten your own country out? I'm sure you have issues with some things.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:20:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



This doesnt square with the facts. Blacks alone voted for Obama far more than they normally go Dem, and their turnout was a higher proportion of the total than normal.
Proof?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:27:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



This doesnt square with the facts. Blacks alone voted for Obama far more than they normally go Dem, and their turnout was a higher proportion of the total than normal.
Proof?



Google is your friend. Turnout proportion increased from about 11% of total to about 13% of total votes and their Dem vote was 95% compared to 88% in 2004.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:32:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres


The both of you are fucking incorrect, totally and completely, the single most corrupt presidency was that of the Republican dude from Whittier California, not the Republican dude that was from Tampico, Illinois. 


Historically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ

Can I get a Witness? [8D]

Funny how that right-wankers never bring up Nixon's Treason:
"Tipped off in advance by Henry Kissinger[24] of the bombing halt and the possible peace deal, and fearing this 'October surprise' might cost them the election, the Richard Nixon campaign [25][26] “set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam.[27] (…) [Via Anna Chennault] [28] they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one.[29][30][31][32][33][34] (…) The tactic "worked", in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign.” [35] Intelligence sources gave President Johnson reason to suspect Nixon of such "political sabotage".[36] In a private conversation with Republican Senator Everett Dirksen, he went as far as to call it "treason".[37] Ultimately, no investigations ensued, and no one was prosecuted.[38][39][40]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

And the twofaced sonuvabitch ran the war for nearly 5 more years, reneging on his campaign promise to end the draft. Fuckhead. My draft number was 8, and there was no fucking way I was going to go get MY ass shot off for those pigfucker Rethugs.




TheHeretic -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/29/2010 12:21:32 AM)

And there's another of your standard ploys, Ken, when you decide to make your stand anyway, on an already broken position. I put out a a very common knowledge, widely accepted, interpretation of a historical event, you call it "opinion," and claim your stupid little made up test is the new standard of reality and accuracy.

Here's a nice top 10 list of all time Presidential scandals. Three of them were on Grant's watch. He wasn't a crook, personally, but he was inattentive and ineffective, and a lousy judge of character and competency. Do feel free to google up the rankings. (You might have been better off going with Harding to counter my reference to Grant as the worst President ever. Hell, I might have given you that one. a Reagan-bash? Don't even think about it.)





tazzygirl -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/29/2010 12:33:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Candidate Obama promised transparency


Do you remember who said: "Candidate Obama promised a lot of things"? Nancy Pelosi [:D] [:D] [:D]


Having trouble getting the quote right?

quote:


It was pointed out to Pelosi by reporters today that President Obama, on the campaign trail, promised the health reform process would happen in front of TV cameras.

"There are a number of things that he swore on the campaign trail," Pelosi said jokingly.


And to take that further....

quote:

Besides, she argued that the process has been transparent up until now.

"There has never been a more open process for any legislation," she said, also arguing that placing legislation on the Internet before it is voted on represents “another town venue.”

She and Rep. Chris van Hollen, who is in charge of plotting House Democrats’ reelection strategy, argued that hearings on health reform throughout the year, markups in the Spring and town hall meetings in August make the reform process unprecedented in its openness.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/01/-did-pelosi-jab-obama-on-cspan-promise-speaker-distances-herself-from-public-option.html




tazzygirl -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/29/2010 12:52:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Google is your friend. Turnout proportion increased from about 11% of total to about 13% of total votes and their Dem vote was 95% compared to 88% in 2004.


Question. Since voting is by secret ballot, how do you know the figures you have are accurate to begin with?




truckinslave -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/29/2010 3:31:20 AM)

quote:

My draft number was 8, and there was no fucking way I was going to go get MY ass shot off for those pigfucker Rethugs.


8. That explains so much. Still angry, after all these years. My condolences.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125