If I listened long enough to you
I’d find a way to believe that it’s all true
Knowing that you lied straight faced while I cried
Still I look to find a reason to believe
— Tim Hardin
PINING FOR LOST LOVE AFTER TRUST BETRAYED — these words surely apply to those who remain loyal to the Democratic Party. They must be finding it increasingly difficult to stay loyal.
Recent revelations, far beyond Benghazi, indicate that Democrats, acting in support of President Obama, have taken actions once deemed by future Democratic leaders to be an offense of the highest order.
The reaction by Democratic supporters to the wave of scandals has been to ridicule Republicans, in editorials, cartoons or on “Saturday Night Live.” All of which demonstrates not just a loss of soul on their part, but an acceptance of such loss on the part of party leaders.
Today’s Democratic leadership has two strong opposing factions: the Clintons and the Obamas. There is no love lost between these camps; and both have contributed to the loss of the soul of the party, a descent that began years ago — further back than most realize.
Hillary Clinton’s history of low integrity was realized long before she became a household name, during her first years in Washington when she was working on the Nixon impeachment as a legal aide to the staff of Sen. Peter Rodino’s Judicial Committee. Quoting from Jerry Zeifman, the man to whom she reported during the investigation:
“At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices, I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.” He even considered reporting Ms. Rodham for disbarment proceedings.
During this time the young Ms. Rodham helped to write Article II of the impeachment charges against President Nixon, which stated that Nixon “endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service … confidential information contained in income tax returns for purpose(s) not authorized by law …”
Nixon was never accused of actually using the IRS for political advantage, thus the picayune charge was weakly supported by some staff members, while Hillary remained adamant.
That side note on young Ms. Rodham’s work with the committee foreshadowed a lack of integrity that later became evident as she and Bill Clinton rose in political power. As described at the time by Henry Ruth, the lead Watergate prosecutor: “The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.”
If the Clintons corrupted the soul, actions by Obama supporters working inside government bureaucracies confirm that the soul has been altogether lost.
The Washington Post recently reported that senior IRS officials, including Bush-appointed IRS commissioner and donor to Democratic candidates Douglas Shulman, “knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011, nine months before the IRS commissioner assured Congress the targeting was not happening.”
The targets were any nonprofits with a name “containing ‘tea party’ and ‘patriot’ as well as “‘We the People,’ ‘Take Back the Country’ and ‘9/12,’ a group founded by political commentator Glenn Beck …”
The original cover story for the IRS’ actions placed responsibility on low-level bureaucrats in Cincinnati. Recall that the original cover story for Benghazi placed blame on a video; considering the veracity of that fabrication, the IRS cover was justifiably viewed by skeptics as implausible, which has now been proved.
Thus we see that today’s actions by Democratic leadership — actions Hillary Clinton once considered impeachable offenses — have been taken to the next level: actually using the IRS to punish and harass the political opposition. White House spokesman Jay Carney, whose reputation has been permanently sullied after multiple misleading statements, said that the White House supports formal investigations and that “the American people … deserve to have the very best public servants with the highest levels of integrity working in government agencies.”
Would that it were so.
Using the words of Gertrude Stein, the president predictably claimed “There is no there there” regarding the Benghazi murders. Subsequent information has laid that statement to waste, possibly indicating that investigations into the matter will not be as fruitless as other Republican investigations into this administration’s malfeasance.
Last week was indeed a rough week for both the president and Carney, who were unable to keep their stories straight regarding the IRS scandal. Asked when the president became aware of the potentially illegal actions by the IRS, Carney stated:
“A notification is appropriate and routine and that is what happened and that happened several weeks ago.”
But the day before the president stated: “I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.”
It is possible that both statements are true. But to claim that the president is not involved in the corruption is to claim he’s so breathtakingly incompetent that he’s oblivious to it. Unfortunately, that may be the most plausible explanation we’ve heard in recent days.
The truth is, these scandals, long suspected by many, have been downplayed, ridiculed, stonewalled and ignored by those who have indeed lost their souls, preferring advancement of agenda over integrity.
Regardless of your position on the issues, all voters deserve integrity from their elected officials, and all should rise up in protest against these actions.
Dennis Lund graduated from California State University-Long Beach with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1981 and has resided in Benicia since 1992.
Sharing is caring!
Dennis, great job reminding readers of what’s happening in “District of Corruption” these days. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Bruce, nice to see intelligent responses.
Where are those intelligent responses, Dennis? I don’t see any above or below, and certainly your slanted cant doesn’t give rise to any. Your treatment of Hillary’s past amounts to undocumented hearsay about hearsay. Build real cases or be quiet.
RMS Stated: Your treatment of Hillary’s past amounts to undocumented hearsay about hearsay
I quoted directly the man who hired her and to whom she reported Robert. He wrote a book on the subject, one which I read years ago.
Your comment is 180 degrees off the mark.
Dennis have you ever had a boss who didn’t like you? What if that person wrote a book about you? Do you think that book would be fair? Or do you expect you might disagree with the characterization in some ways?
The proof is in the pudding: there was no disbarment, and in fact Hillary was praised for her work on the Nixon impeachment.
RA, had you read Zeifman’s book, or the article from which the quote was taken, you would recognize that it was not about ‘liking her’ or not liking her, it was about respecting her, as well as discussing specific actions she did, while on the committee, that he found to be outside the bounds of legal ethics.
One can have respect for some aspects of a person whom they do not like.
As far as the decision to not go forward with the disbarment there were a lot of other factors beyond the scant statements made here that came into play.
“As far as the decision to not go forward with the disbarment there were a lot of other factors beyond the scant statements made here that came into play.” Perhaps like the fact that she didn’t deserve at all to be disbarred? And so wasn’t.
Dennis, you need to recognize that this stuff is coming out in response to her poll numbers. Why have we never heard of this before? Because the effort to derail her candidacy is now taking shape. Her numbers are stratospheric. She trounces all GOP comers (please, please let them nominate Rand Paul!) That’s the reason for the Benghazi drumbeat, too. Try not to be such a water carrier for the forces of darkness.
RA Stated: this stuff is coming out in response to her poll numbers. Why have we never heard of this before?
Two separate issues, I will take the later first:
I read Zeifman’s book 15 years (or so) ago, the information has long been available.
As to the former; almost all Presidential candidates deservedly get much closer scrutiny as they rise in the polls. That is as it should be, given the present system, as well as its weaknesses. One of which is the two 4 year term structure. With that system, a President spends way too much effort in his first term, to secure a second. Consideration should be given to six year terms, with the proviso given that a President could not serve consecutive terms. Consider: Under that scenario, it is probable that Bill Clinton would have served ’92-98 and again ’04 to ’12.
As repulsive as that may be to me, at least it would have saved us from the incompetency of the current occupant.
As usual!
As even Mitch McConnell is now admitting, there’s nothing to Benghazi. What does Lund make of the edited e-mails Rethugs passed along to ABC? Hillary is up near 70% in approval ratings, and it’s killing Lund, so he reaches deep into his bag of right-wing talking points that don’t pass the smell test. He oughta be more worried about Rethug leadership…you know, the people who would rather see the country fail than support the President, even on positions they formerly had. The people who think democracy is achieved by having fewer people vote. The people that refuse to support a bill that has 90% public approval. The people who will say nary a negative word toward Rush Limbaugh, no matter how deep into the gutter he falls. If ignorance is bliss, Lund is in Eden.
Benician stated:Mitch McConnell is now admitting, there’s nothing to Benghazi
Since when has Mitch McConnell become an authority for Lib-progs?
Regarding Benghazi: Sounds like you are still believing the ‘it was the video’ BS that we were fed for almost a month.
No, sounds like I’m still believing there’s no there there. As was the case…no matter how you wish there were.
Benician stated: I’m still believing there’s no there there
Here is what we know now about Benghazi:
Hillary Clinton – Lied
Jay Carney – lied
Susan Rice – Lied
Barack 0bama – Lied
The Video had nothing to do with it.
The assault was termed an attack from the very beginning by members of the State Department.
A career diplomat was demoted for telling the truth.
Another was fired.
Rescue/assault response teams were ready to go help.
The President refused to issue the go order.
The President was not in the situation room.
An innocent man was rounded up by gendarmes in the dead of night, and was jailed.
All of the above seems to meet with your approval.
Oh and of course four Americans are dead.
Nothing unless you happen to BE A DEAD AMERICAN because of the abandonment of the WH administration! You are a real cold and uncaring person!
It wasn’t the White House who rejected increasing funding for security. It was the hypocrites on your side.
a href= http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html >The WaPo Pinocchio Test
Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security
Boxer would have been on firmer ground if she had echoed the broad point made by the Accountability Review Board that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress repeatedly have failed to provide the State Department with the requested resources. Instead she narrowly tailored her critique to the two-year period when Republicans were in control of the House, failing to mention that Democrats have also “cut” the president’s budget request. Thus her remarks lacked significant context.
Indeed, it is almost as if Boxer is living in a time warp, repeating talking points from six months ago that barely acknowledge the fact that extensive investigations have found little evidence of her claim that “there was not enough security because the budget was cut.”
State Department officials repeatedly told Congress that a lack of funds was not an issue. Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy.
Three Pinocchios
Error in the HTML posting, the above info is taken directly from the link provided.
Oh, Boy, Dennis, jump on this bandwagon quick!…Finally, after all the hallucinations about Ronald Reagan, the Contra Affair, Impeachable Nixon and Watergate, Cheney and Bush (in that incompetent order) and their phony roll-out to war over WMD, finally we can nail those Evil Democrats for some perversion…Show me a politician anywhere without human flaws and I’ll show you an egg without a yolk… You could be one of the Black Crow brothers, seeking villains under every pillow and blanket and toadstool…Sorry, you’re not quite on target yet, look for brilliance occasionally and not mediocre villains…300 bureaucratic agencies all editing anything for talking points are bound to screw up every 4th hour of the day…But jump on it, it could be great news for Repubs!–pb
The Examiner on line is reporting on a Cincinnati IRS worker, who remains anonymous out of fear of retribution:
”We’re not political. We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”
Thank goodness we have a man like Issa on board, now all we need is a John Dean to come out of the woodwork.
Yes, Issa should be able to identify criminal activity when he sees it. Talk about “low integrity”.
Yes, a man like Issa. A man with his own corrupt record. A man who slurred 9/11 rescue workers. A man who asked big business to ‘tell me what to change’ in a bill. A man who attacked families of killed Blackwater contractors. A man who declared Blackwater hearings an attack on Davide Petreaus. A man who claimed Petraeus was carrying water for President Obama. A man who blamed his brother for his own criminal transgressions. Etc., etc., etc. Yeah…what a man, that Issa.
I see the Liberals want a pass on not being responsible even when they admit it. President Obama is now facing a test by the press and even his beloved Liberals. It does not appear the Obama administration is holding up well and it is going to get worse.
A reader previously posted:We’ll see what happens the next time we have a Jerry Page or Matt Talbot or Bob Shelby column and the right wing trolls come crawling out of their holes.
Bob, the above comment was made in reference to the new guidelines that the editor asked for: courtesy, civility, no personal attacks.
I notice that the poster who made the above comment has been proved wrong, as I saw no attacks on the Talbot or Page pieces that have run since the comment was made. But the usual suspects have come out on this thread, and did so rather quickly. By doing so, they have also proved one of the secondary points made regarding the willingness of Obamaphants to accept not only his lies, but now the use of the IRS to punish and harass his enemies.
Nice try. The trolls were quickly deleted at both the Page and Talbot pieces. Ask your editor. You’ve been proved wrong, again.
Name the ‘trolls’ whose posts were deleted, and I will ask them.
So you’re friends with the trolls? Or are you coordinating their activities? This would explain a lot.
Ask your editor. I didn’t memorize their names, though Mr. “DeMars,” speculating on Jerry Page’s longevity, was one of them.
“ask them” = ask them in this forum.
You have leaped to another erroneous conclusion.
Mine was a hypothesis, as yet unproven. Yours was an erroneous conclusion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/19/republican-wolves-obama-scandal-luck
Blah, blah, blah…look under the bed for more Boogeymen…Boo!–pb
Obama will be fine. The “scandals” are just more fishing by the GOP, which the public rightly has come to recognize as the traitors they are.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/19/republican-wolves-obama-scandal-luck
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/maher-gop-has-moved-beyond-obstruction-to-treason/
I will see your Bill Maher and raise you a Michelle Malkin.
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/06/07/10-of-the-worst-examples-of-michelle-malkins-in/186230
I notice they do not dispute the facts presented in the column linked to in my post, they just don’t like the way she says it.
I see you have not disputed a number of facts in this comment thread: to wit: McConnell, Issa, trolls or the substance of Maher’s complaint.
I see you have not disputed a number of facts in this comment thread
I see no “facts” presented regarding Issa. As to McConnell it was addressed, as to Maher, isn’t he the one who complained about paying too much in federal income tax, as well as referring to Palin as a slut?.
I see no “facts” … You might have ended there. As for complaining about taxes, sorry, that’s not the sole province of conservatives.
Tell you what, you list the five worst things you can find that Maher has said and I’ll find the five worst that Rush Limbaugh has said and we’ll compare. We can even put it to a vote. What do you say?
RA said:you list the five worst things you can find that Maher has said
Unfortunately I cannot post them here due to the content. But feel free to view this list, if you wish. Finish with #2.
Top Ten Bill Maher Obnoxious quotes
Those are hilarious! Thanks.
Here’s Rush, in all seriousness:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/08/35-hateful-and-stupid-rush-limbaugh-quotes/
Also:
“I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people ‘terrorist’ and ‘unAmerican’… The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts,” Maher said.
We don’t answer all of Ann Coulter’s vile trash, either, but not because we agree with it.
A little bit of info on “Media Matters” for consideration:
One of the single largest donors to the embattled Media Matters for America is a controversial far-left clearinghouse that funds groups like MoveOn.org, ACORN and a litany of antiwar organizations…
The organization in question, the Tides Foundation, is funded in part by billionaire George Soros, himself a prominent Media Matters donor.
Tides functions as a money tunnel where major leftist donors provide large sums that are channeled to hundreds of radical groups.
So? someone has to counter the misinformation on the right.
Speaking of which, this seems far more sinister: A little on Roger Ailes, Malkin’s employer and head of Fox “News”:
http://m.rollingstone.com/?redirurl=/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525&seenSplash=1
No groups on the Left are more “radical” today than the Tea Party “Patriots” on the wrong side of Right.
RMS stated:No groups on the Left are more “radical” today than the Tea Party “Patriots”
Your levity is appreciated Robert. OWS vs. Tea Party Warning Some of the images are graphic and potentially offensive.
The OWS may be “left” in an unconventional way but they do not vote for Democrats, at least not in a bloc like the tea party votes for the GOP.
OK. And your point is…… what?
The tea party’s fanatical adherence to an extremist conservative agenda is far more dangerous than any nebulous leftist group. I say audit them all good and hard.
I am curious … Other than blather and lies put forth by leftist hatchet organizations …. What has the Tea Party associates done that is so radical?
As far as I can see they believe in smaller government, reduced federal spending and adherence to the rule of law as stipulated by the Constitution.
That is “extremist” and “radical”? If so, then count me as a radical!
I guess opposing anything Obama does these days is considered radical by the left.
I’ll expect the IRS audit next week.
Since you asked…
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/SayNoToTea/comment.html?entrynum=14
Curious name chosen for a website to link to in which to define the Tea Party is radical and extremist, more so when one considers the name and the logo brings to mind :
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1848763,00.html>
The Weather Underground
Some highlights from the above link:
While SDS promoted nonviolent protests, the Weathermen (aka Weather Underground) aligned themselves with violent groups like the Black Panthers. “There is no example of a peaceful road to fundamental social change,” wrote Weatherman-founder David Gilbert.
The founding Weathermen came from comfortable, highly-educated backgrounds and felt the need to escape their sheltered bourgeoisie life. They moved into collectives, practiced forced sexual rotation, took weapons training, and planned attacks on the wealthy and powerful.
By October 1969, the group was ready for its first major attack:…. Six Weathermen were shot and 287 arrested. The riots were deemed a failure.
Subsequent bombings of government buildings, banks and police departments lead the FBI to declare the Weathermen a domestic terrorist group.
On March 6, 1970, several Weatherman gathered in the basement of a four-story Greenwich Village townhouse, preparing for an upcoming dynamite attack on an officer’s dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Due to an improperly attached wire, the townhouse exploded. Three Weathermen were killed, including Ayers’ (William Ayers, long time Obama associate) then-girlfriend Diana Oughton.
In 1971, they detonated several small bombs around the U.S. Capitol, in protest of the U.S. invasion of Laos. Several more followed: the 1972 Pentagon bombing (for the U.S. bombing of Hanoi); the 1973 bombing of ITT Headquarters in New York (protesting the government-backed coup in Chile); and the 1975 bombing of the U.S. Department of State (escalation in Vietnam).
Three years later, the Weather Underground had split into two ideological factions: those that wanted to continue a campaign of violence, and those — including Ayers — who urged members to “resurface” and participate in society.
End of excerpts.
Now that is what I would call radical and extremist.
One wonders why anyone would debate the author of this piece when he engages in such dishonest distraction as the above comment. The Weather Underground of the 70s has nothing to do with the substance of the story linked to above. But addressing that (even deflecting it, a more likely approach given who we’re talking about) would be much more difficult.
Here try this one:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/21/the-right-s-scandal-hypocrisy.html
Wunderground???? Are you kidding me? I meant legitimate sources. None of those “looney left” Tea Party accusations are real. That article is just what the left wants to believe about the Tea Party.
I have been to many Tea Party events in CA and DC. None of what is reported in that article is real. Every get together was about federal deficits, federal spending, and the size and scope of the government. With recent events concerning the IRS and spying on journalists it would appear some of the concerns are real.
The Tea Party movement is a legitimate force because it is what I have stated. That scares the left. So they have to make up lies and demonize. It’s too bad people believe such distortions and fabrications. Like it or not, just because someone believes the government is too big, spending is out of control, and the debt is dangerous, it does not make that person extreme or dangerous. It’s too bad legitimate points of view are demonized.
Shooting blanks? Attack the source!
Maybe it’s things like this that earn the tea party such dubious titles as extremist and radical:
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/05/20/santilli-doubles-down-on-clinton-attack-i-want/194158
Please please please try to defend this guy. Make my year.
Media matters? No thanks.
Media Matters is an exemplary watchdog in every way.
RA stated: ”The tea party’s fanatical adherence to an extremist conservative agenda”
Matter asked: ”What has the Tea Party associates done that is so radical?”
The real distraction is contained in the fact that the two above quotes ask two differing questions: RA addresses Tea Party policy, “Matter” addresses individuality within the Tea Party. While “Benician” responds to the question, asked by Matter, there is no response to the statement posed by “Real American”.
Specifically; Matters link deals primarily with beliefs held by some members of the Tea Party and does not address specific issues proposed by a “conservative agenda” one which has been falsely labeled as “extremist”.
All organizations have members with opinions that are not supported by the majority of the membership, Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, etc. Because extremist elements exist within an organization does not mean that the organization itself is extreme.
Unless of course one ones to make generalizations of the collective, based on actions of the individual, which is a course a form of bigotry. Naturally we all recognize that our friends on the left, bless their hearts, would never stoop to ideological bigotry.
The real question to be asked is what specific policies promoted by the Tea Party represent an “extremist” point of view?
Correction: Unless of course one ones to make generalizations
Should read: Unless of course one “wants” to make generalizations
“Naturally we all recognize that our friends on the left, bless their hearts, would never stoop to ideological bigotry.” Thanks for the textbook demonstration of a generalization.
Media matters??? C’mon guys. Find a real source.
Would you laugh if I quoted Rush Limbaugh as legitimate source? Same thing.
Next you will be posting Comedy Central as a source.
Media Matters is very serious. But I get it — can’t refute the point, attack the source.
Did Media Matters make that story up, Matter? Are you saying it’s fiction?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/05/18/pete-santilli-hillary-clinton_n_3299247.html
So tell me how great this guy is.
Real American, I 100% refute the story. I have attended many Tea Party events and I categorically deny the claims made in the article. And regarding Media Matters … Everyone Google the name and read the background info.. Media Matters is a self described liberal hit machine specifically funded to attack conservative media and organizations. And you use that as a legitimate source? And then you list a disgusting story on Huffington Post.
The Tea Party movement was founded to counteract the destructive spending programs put forward by this administration. They are good people and believe in America. the people I have met are solid and good. I understand and respect that you disagree with their legitimate concerns. I am sure I disagree with your positions but I do not resort to personal attacks and label you falsely as a hater, a racist, an extremist. you choose to wallow in the mud and promote lies and political slime in order to destroy legitimate debate, you really support these methods?
So you do not challenge the facts of the story. Or you are unable to. You don’t like Media Matters — fine. I understand — they are very effective at throwing the right’s inflammatory and false rhetoric back at them. But the facts are the facts. Media Matters did not make up this story. Again, do you agree with Pete Santilli or don’t you? Leave the outrage behind just this once. Try to answer unemotionally.
Media Matters does not matter
Here is a perfect example of why I rarely look at Media Matters. The above link is their take on the Boston Terrorists and the welfare/government assistance these guys received.
In a nutshell, for those who wish not to be sullied by this site:
They demonize everyone on the right who has pointed out that the Boston Jihadist were receiving government money, a fact they do not deny. They term this to be “politicalization” and “demonization” to attack all forms of government assistance.
They fail to mention one simple fact:
We all should be outraged, that people who were on the FBI and NHS watch list, were being financially supported by our government while they bought Pressure cookers at the local store.
Those responsible for our safety dropped the ball on these Jihadi’s, yet anyone on the right who mentions this is deemed evil.
Media Matters warps and distorts issue towards their very slanted direction.
Do they guys on the right sensationalize this to improve ratings? Yes.
Did the Jihadi’s receive funds – yes.
The reason you don’t read MMFA isn’t because of what they said about Boston. The reason you don’t read MMFA is because they successfully and accurately bust the right for its lies and distortions. You first tried to character assassinate them because of where they get their funding, until RA destroyed you on that point…citing your lack of any examples of inaccuracies. So, you did a quick MMFA google search looking for something…anything to try to make a case, and you choose the Boston thing, for which MMFA makes a completely sound point. You’re suggesting being on an FBI watch list should disqualify one from government assistance? Even if no crime has been charged or committed? Wow…glad I’m not living in your view of what America should be. And, of course, these same people should be able to buy/carry weapons in your world.
Good one, Benician! This is why I don’t spend any time anymore on these back pages…it’s like right wing duck gas on the waterfront…they used to upset me, but even waterfront fowl have bad gas…so I try to stay out of the Adolescent Slumber Party Mindset of bashing Obama as if he was he only employee of the US Govt and was responsible for every dumb, bureaucratic move of every second of every day. I don’t recall any right wingers applauding every stupid move that Cheney and his assistant George W. Bush made in their 8 year reign of stupidity…Over and definitely OUT, Good Luck, Wingman/pb
“Do they (sic) guys on the right sensationalize this to improve ratings? Yes.”
Yet you choose to focus only on the left’s sins. Wonder why.
Wonder why.
For the good of the country.
Ha! Thanks for the laugh.
Benician stated: You first tried to character assassinate them because of where they get their funding, until RA destroyed you on that point…citing your lack of any examples of inaccuracies…
Again we have an example of the churlishness we see too often from the prog-libs.
Far from ‘destroying’ me, I chose not to engage in the discussion any further, as someone who refers to Media Matters as an “exemplary watchdog in every way.” clearly is so obviously partisan that no amount of evidence could be produced that would dissuade them.
I recall some time ago someone cited Brent Bozell’s website as a source and was immediately attacked for doing so. No evidence was produced against Bozell to support the charges made.
Now the reverse is applied to Media Matters and evidence produced is discounted or ridiculed and George Soros is laughably hailed as a “philanthropist” for his propaganda work in support of a prog-lib paradise.
It is the changing set of rules and the hypocrisy of these actions that makes rational discussions impossible.
There’s a problem with philanthropist G. Soros? Yeah, he’s the right-wing whipping boy…because, well, how dare someone on the left have money!! What does he do with his money and what do creeps like the Koch brothers do with theirs? And, all you can come up with against MMFA is who funds it? Of course, because they’re reporting is spot on, and even you can’t come up with evidence where they’ve been off base.
<benician asked: what do creeps like the Koch brothers do with (Money)?
As long as you asked:
Cancer Research Before Activism, Billionaire Conservative Donor Says
Mr. Koch, a billionaire who is perhaps best known for his family’s contributions to conservative causes, got a standing ovation from scientists, Nobel laureates and politicians of various political stripes as he opened the new David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which he gave $100 million to help build. And in a brief, and rare, interview, Mr. Koch, 70, spoke of his hopes for the new center, his prostate cancer and the prank call heard around the world.
For all the cancer Koch Industries causes, that’s just a drop in the bucket. And, no mention of ALEC? No mention of university donations which allow them to dictate curricula and professors? No mention of the lobbying? No mention of the politicians they own? Shocking.
The Koch brothers were addressed in this piece from 2011.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/September/573enrd.htm
Explain your comment in detail. We all would like to know what you are talking about.
Bob,
The story posted is misleading. The indictment was for 97 counts from Bill Clinton’s Justice department, who a year later dropped 89 of the counts. Koch settled out of court for $35 million.
I think Obama thought “we are sorry” was gonna cover it.
I think he knows, like the rest of us, that nothing will “cover it” to the satisfaction of Republicans. But we also know that nothing will come of it, except millions in taxpayer dollars wasted on fruitless investigations.
‘I Could Take Up a Whole Afternoon Talking About’ Barack Obama’s Failures’ — Michelle Obama, May 18, 2013
I could say the same thing about my husband — and your wife could say the same thing about you.
Could be done with just one word ~ TOTAL!
Hey, here’s an idea: Instead of your repetitive, baseless attacks against any Dem you fear…tell us something positive about the GOP. Tell us about what they’re doing to help the economy…or the environment…or to promote world peace…or to end corruption…or to improve health care…or to protect kids in schools…or to help the middle class…or to increase oversight over the banksters. Tell us their policies that have the support of the majority of Americans. Oh, that’s right…it would be an extremely short column.
Fracking, Keystone Pipeline to help the economy. Defeat Dems to end corruption. Overturn Obamacare and go to a staff model like Kaiser to improve Healthcare. Natural Gas to improve the enviroment. All of those have the support of the majority of Americans..Just a start.
Yes frack it and tap it, natural gas is presently the realistic way to help the environment and help our energy needs. I’m all for green energy when it is economically feasible.
A friend of mine in Australia just had a 20 panel solar energy system with inverter installed on his home and it only cost 5000 dollars AU. and he has a big house in Queensland . When I can get a whole house system installed here for a similar price I’ll go green
Must read. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/21/the-right-s-scandal-hypocrisy.html
Dennis my comment was for Benician to answer questions about what she was saying.
Thanks Bob!
Good catch Bob. I appreciate that you are paying attention.
From RA’s Link:Bush White House should come clean about what Scooter Libby did in relation to the Valerie Plame matter I stopped reading at that point.
Seriously? Scooter Libby? The guy that went to jail for ‘lying’ about a crime that was never committed?
LOL
Thanks for the laugh.
Here is an Interesting take from Jon Stewart regarding the most transparent Presidency in history.
RA statedSo tell me how great this guy is.
The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts,” — Bill Maher
Not even close to comparable. Are you so blinded by partisanship that you can’t see that?
Partisan ship has nothing to do with this. Bill Maher invoked the First Amendment to protect his rights to say disgusting things. I believe Smith v. Collins settled this issue a long time ago, unless of course one wants to have a variable application of the Constitution. Which really comes back to exactly that which my piece was about; applying the law fairly to both sides, this is not what prog-libs want to do.
Do you believe in the basic premise of the equal protection clause? (it should be a yes or no question.
I
The equal protection clause has nothing to do with this. Santilli’s putrescent rant shouldn’t be outlawed — unless he is deemed to have broken the law by directly threatening someone, which is an outstanding question at the moment — but it should be reviled by all listeners. He should be condemned by all decent persons. There is no comparison with what Maher said — it’s a question of judgment. Do you or do you not agree with what Santilli said? It should be a yes or no question.
I have never (previous to this discussion), heard of Santilli and I do not know what he said. In all probability my opinion on what he said would be the same as what Maher has said and I would likely condemn both. I do note that you found Maher’s misogynistic comments to be humorous. I would point out that the 1st Amendment defense was introduced up thread by you.
BTW – I have asked you two questions on this thread, neither of which were answered, that being the case, my desire to answer any of your questions is extremely low.