# Old Infatuations.



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

It might just be me or even some wishful thinking, certainly I'm an outsider, but looking in I cant help but think the Obama infatuation, despite unimaginable support from the US media, has run its course. Its possible, and I hope, we will look back at the events between the election and the Boston bombings as the pinnacle from which the high and mighty fell. The once distant and fog shrouded double digit health insurance premium increases are clearly in view. I believe increasing numbers are realizing the Emporer's tailor held back some important cloth.

But then I predicted Obama as a one term president...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Hitch said:


> It might just be me or even some wishful thinking, certainly I'm an outsider, but looking in I cant help but think the Obama infatuation, despite unimaginable support from the US media, has run its course. Its possible, and I hope, we will look back at the events between the election and the Boston bombings as the pinnacle from which the high and mighty fell. The once distant and fog shrouded double digit health insurance premium increases are clearly in view. I believe increasing numbers are realizing the Emporer's tailor held back some important cloth.
> 
> But then I predicted Obama as a one term president...


Yes. The reality that just another politician lied in order to gain is slowly dawning on many in the U.S. It always amazes me that people believe a word out of any politician running for office. All those "hopey changy" things get quickly pushed to the side when you enter the corrupt world of big money and international politics.. To be fair, even if Obama believed half the BS he spouted, he wouldn't be able to accomplish much of any of it with the U.S. political system being the way it is. A 2 party demagoguery that has accomplished virtually nothing other than further restrictions on the civil liberties of its citizens.

Of course Obama was re-elected...After the Bush fiasco the Republicans needed to field someone not classified as a whacko and they failed to do so. There are very few politcal parties that can contend on a national level due to financial restrictions. Campaigns cost what nowadays?

I suppose the Nobel Peace Prize committee may be rethinking things in light of the extensive drone program and the inevitable result of high civilian casualties.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Interesting to see just how far this rope will unravel.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Funny thing is, his anti-terror drone campaighn and press snooping reveals the only side of Obama I find appealing!!

(provided Justice got subpoenas, which it appears they had)


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Funny thing is, his anti-terror drone campaighn and press snooping reveals the only side of Obama I find appealing!!
> 
> (provided Justice got subpoenas, which it appears they had)


Oh? What exactly is appealing in killing a building full of women & children to get at 2-3 "terrorists"? I guess it would be ok if your neighborhood was carpet bombed to get to a suspected criminal (as long as they had subpoenas/warrants of course)?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
You seem to be comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes. Warfare and law enforcement represent two very different and distinct activities we see occurring on this grand stage we call life! While your comment clearly confuses the two, very different rules of engagement apply.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> You seem to be comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes. Warfare and law enforcement represent two very different and distinct activities we see occurring on this grand stage we call life! While your comment clearly confuses the two, very different rules of engagement apply.


Thanks Eagle. My comment was meant to be a bit sarcastic in response to an earlier post on this thread and therefore the mixing of the 2 was done on purpose.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

hmmmmmmm


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Oh? What exactly is appealing in killing a building full of women & children to get at 2-3 "terrorists"? I guess it would be ok if your neighborhood was carpet bombed to get to a suspected criminal (as long as they had subpoenas/warrants of course)?


If I were harboring terroists and placing my children and family at risk, that's exactly what I would expect.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

So being in the same building or neighbourhood as a "terrorist" is automatically the same as harbouring one? Or was that just a big, fat straw man?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

You tell us, which "terrorists" are being targeted when an unguided rocket is launched out of Gaza toward Israel??


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> If I were harboring terroists and placing my children and family at risk, that's exactly what I would expect.


I once lived in a 15 story building with 4 apartments on each floor. Let's assume each unit housed 4 people. We'd have 240 people. I discussed political and religious topics with perhaps 1 of these 240. I guess if a couple of suspected terrorists moved in, you'd think we would all know about it and it would justify killing 238 people because we were "harboring terrorists"? Perhaps it would actually be our fault for not moving out of the neighborhood as soon as we saw someone Muslim? I'm sure we all have the funds to just pick up and move every time someone suspicious moves into the building?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You tell us, which "terrorists" are being targeted when an unguided rocket is launched out of Gaza toward Israel??


Sorry? I didn't think that Israeli/Palestinian relations were the topic of the current debate. Wasn't the issue more as to the expanded use of drones & the resulting increase in civilian casualties? I believe you were advocating the program as being beneficial. You had decided that should you ever harbor terrorists, that you would happily forego any type of courtroom intervention and have your whole block blown off the map. I think you also said you'd have no problem, even if it was to the detriment of your own wife and children. I wonder, would they agree to being killed because it was you who harbored the terrorist? Would your neighbors? Would you accept having your whole family killed because your neighbor harbored a terrorist?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Would you accept having your whole family killed because your neighbor harbored a terrorist?


I simply have no choice in the matter.

Islamic Terrorists find Westerners, Jews and anyone who isn't them, including their own, as tagets.

I accept that.

That's why they need to go first!!


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You tell us, which "terrorists" are being targeted when an unguided rocket is launched out of Gaza toward Israel??


Adding another fat straw man does not make up even one good point.


----------



## yen157 (Feb 16, 2012)

I agree, but it's sad due to the respect I have for the office. Unfortunately, he hardly does his post justice.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

From Ropers; Nixon approve/disapprove spring '73.


4/6-9/73Gallup5436


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Perhaps Albion may have an issue regulating cutlery. Straw man or chicken and the egg; utter nonsense.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Hitch said:


> It might just be me or even some wishful thinking, certainly I'm an outsider, but looking in I cant help but think the Obama infatuation, despite unimaginable support from the US media, has run its course....
> 
> But then I predicted Obama as a one term president...


I think Obama has done as well as could be expected considering the the enormous sub-prime mortgage mess that he inherited from Bush. Obama has spent a lot of time and political capital dealing with the problems that Bush's incompetence created. Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden was found and killed on Obama's watch; a very important accomplishment. Moreover, the Republicans in Congress keep obstructing progress on nearly everything and then blame Obama and hope no one notices who's filibustering bills, appointees, etc. The House has had, what, 37 votes to repeal all or part of Obamacare - which was a complete waste of time since the Supreme Court upheld it. Obama's going through a rough patch now but he'll emerge from it okay because it was staffers (IRS, State Dept.) who messed up - not him. The Republicans will hunt in vain for clear evidence that Obama authorized the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups and interfered with the Benghazi non-response. The Republicans keep blowing smoke and hope that people think Obama's on fire. Come the elections of 2014 and 2016 we'll see who's rope has unraveled - the Republicans or the Democrats.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Regillus said:


> I think Obama has done as well as could be expected considering the the enormous sub-prime mortgage mess that he inherited from Bush. Obama has spent a lot of time and political capital dealing with the problems that Bush's incompetence created.


 Im curious regarding the specifics of the sub-prime mortgage mess you would attribute to Bush?


> Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden was found and killed on Obama's watch; a very important accomplishment. Moreover, the Republicans in Congress keep obstructing progress on nearly everything and then blame Obama and hope no one notices who's filibustering bills, appointees, etc.


 Would that Barney&Bills strongarming sub- prime mortgages had been blocked eh?


> The House has had, what, 37 votes to repeal all or part of Obamacare - which was a complete waste of time since the Supreme Court upheld it.[


LOL See Reg you're a little backward here, it would make no sense to vote for repeal of ObamaCare had the Supreme Court struck it down.


> Obama's going through a rough patch now but he'll emerge from it okay because it was staffers (IRS, State Dept.) who messed up - not him.


 Well reg both of those you mentioned answer to the Executive , do you know who runs that branch ?


> The Republicans will hunt in vain for clear evidence that Obama authorized the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups and interfered with the Benghazi non-response.


 You could be correct, and Im sure you will support a painstakingly thorough investigation to make certain no one could ever reasonably implicate the President .Certainly a year or two of work for a Special Prosecutor could only result in the absolute clearing of any knowledge and/or involvement on Obama's part right ?


> The Republicans keep blowing smoke and hope that people think Obama's on fire. Come the elections of 2014 and 2016 we'll see who's rope has unraveled -


 hey you got that one right 


> the Republicans or the Democrats.


 Note that more that 90% of the 'scandal' news broke well after May 5th.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Hey was that a Grand Slam at Brandenburg last week or what???


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

When I read the heading of this thread I thought it was about whom gents were infatuated with back in the day. Alas, it was old political debate.


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

efdll said:


> When I read the heading of this thread I thought it was about whom gents were infatuated with back in the day. Alas, it was old political debate.


And very dull at that. Same players, same droll comments and perspectives that should have died in the late 19th century but are still with us...


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)




----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^You just have to admire Trey Gowdy. As a prosecutor that man could make the criminals he was after soil their shorts! We can only hope those "Obamamanians" continue to underestimate the outrage regarding Benghazi that still simmers and demands real answers from those accountable for the cover-up!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I'm going to disagree with the OPs contention that any infatuation with Obama has been fueled by the media.

First off, I think that we all can agree that a black person becoming president is a huge deal in the United States. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves. It's a bigger deal than a woman becoming president--I don't think that anyone would have expected that a black man would be in the White House before a woman. And so the media, very properly, treated this as the big deal that it was back in 2008.

Since then, however, I think that the media has done a pretty good job of holding Obama's feet to the fire. The recently departed Jill Abramson of the NYT is just one example. She called him out, pointedly, for obsessive secrecy and breaking one promise after another regarding government transparency. The media has also done a fairly good job, I think, in exposing/reporting the administration's lies when it comes to the proclivities of the NSA--the obsessive and illegal spying was reported long before Snowden came along, but it didn't make any difference. The media was slower than a lot of people, including myself, would have liked when it came to exposing the inherent, and what will ultimately be fatal, flaws of Obamacare, but that has happened and is still happening. The media has also done a good job, I think, in reporting just how weak of a politician Obama has proven himself when it comes to accomplishing anything of substance. His failure to enact meaningful gun control in the wake of mass shootings is one example.

I have a problem with people who blame the media for any given issue. If you think the media is so awful, try to imagine life in America without the press, comrade.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> ... a black person becoming president is a huge deal in the United States.


This is a very important point, and it underscores why I voted for the man in 2008.

I'm conflicted about that decision to this day, and I didn't repeat the error in 2012, for all the good it did. I've hated most of the policies he's put forth, and I think he's been inept in most executive duties. But I still believe that, long-term, the fact we've had an African-American POTUS will be a good thing, overall, for our nation.

I should note that Barack Obama is the first Democrat candidate for POTUS that I've ever voted for. Since my first Presidential election in 1972, I've voted GOP every other time.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> This is a very important point, and it underscores why I voted for the man in 2008.
> 
> I'm conflicted about that decision to this day, and I didn't repeat the error in 2012, for all the good it did. I've hated most of the policies he's put forth, and I think he's been inept in most executive duties. But I still believe that, long-term, the fact we've had an African-American POTUS will be a good thing, overall, for our nation.
> 
> I should note that Barack Obama is the first Democrat candidate for POTUS that I've ever voted for. Since my first Presidential election in 1972, I've voted GOP every other time.


Im curious Max, which of his policies did you think would be different from the way they turned out?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I think he's been inept, grossly inept. A huge disappointment. Not as bad as his predecessor, but that's hardly a meaningful benchmark. It's been said before, but I think that he might have been a decent president if he had paid a few more dues. He was still a Chicago politician when he took office (and a middling one at that), and that pretty much says it all. I don't think that he was ready. Obamacare was a good example. He wanted Medicare for everyone, which I think is the right thing to do (others, of course, are free to disagree, but let's not have that debate now). A politician as skilled as LBJ might have gotten it done, a politician as practical as Clinton would have walked away upon seeing the writing on the wall. But Obama ended up with a mess, then turned used-car salesman to convince everyone that the Yugo really would burn rubber. His immigration policy, or lack thereof, is another example. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, he says one thing and does another, and I'll be damned if I can figure out what he stands for.

My wife is a fan of Barbara Walters, and so we watched the career retrospective tonight, and there was an excerpt of an Obama interview. She asked him--I'm paraphrasing here--about what he thought of the fact that people regarded him as a person who couldn't be trusted (see, the media has held his feet to the fire). He disputed that people thought that he couldn't be trusted. Malarkey. He started out with everything going for him--they gave him the Nobel freaking Peace Prize just for showing up. People filled football stadiums on the 2008 campaign trail to see him. He ended up a president who'll go down in history as giving good speeches and nothing beyond that, the ultimate hollow man. He could have been so much more, I think, if he hadn't risen so high so fast. We'll never know.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Excellent post, 32RNR. Your's is perhaps the best description of Obama's evolutionary development and actual performance as President that I have yet read! In short, he seems a potentially nice guy who simply got in over his head...and it shows. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

> Since then, however, I think that the media has done a pretty good job of holding Obama's feet to the fire.




Without aid from mega media ,Holder would have long since been gone, the IRS scandal would have been opened up and displayed like a smoker's ravaged lungs , and Benghazi and the silly bit about the video, which Obama took to the UN, among a host of other problems would have proven fatal.
Bush would have never been allowed to play 'producer' in an interview setting, picking the everything from the venue to the speaker's questions beforehand. For anyone to seriously believe  the media has done a pretty good job of holding Obama's feet to the fire it is obvious the trees are obstructing the view of the forest.
Obama has not turned used car salesman, it is rather that part of him that got to this point (Two auto biographies? ) That he has been overwhelmed by the puppeteers I can agree, but like any victim of a good con, it is his own ethical and moral failures that made it all possible.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

> The key to everything Obama does is that he truly is a committed, 99-44/100[SUP]ths[/SUP] pure progressive. That fact explains not only the content of his views but why he keeps stumbling over one controversy after the next. As Jonah Goldberg expressed it in _Liberal Fascism_, progressivism is "a totalitarian political religion," and Barack Obama is one of its most faithful acolytes. He's simply acting in accordance with his personal theology.
> Unlike even semi-rational philosophies, progressivism is built on sheer fantasy. Other doctrines may make errors, some of them very serious, but most are built on at least some foundation of real-world evidence and logical analysis. Progressivism is one of the few that is actually anti-evidence and anti-logic.




https://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-playbook-why-he-keeps-saying-dumb-things/

I think what we have witnessed over the last few years was the last gasps of journalism as it was known before the age of television. It was an extraordinarily short leap from realizing any one with a computer could post a 'blog' with or with out real connections to facts and fact checking, to finding out the reveared print media and network television news, were following the same practices, and had been for quite some time. We are correct to warn that much of what is called news on the net is false , biased and agenda driven, but the same net reflects the light back to traditional media and exposes many more similarities than differences.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> Im curious Max, which of his policies did you think would be different from the way they turned out?


I thought that Obama was, above everything else, a pragmatist of similar stripe to Bill Clinton, whom I regard as possibly the best POTUS in my lifetime. Kept us out of conflicts, didn't get in the way of economic growth, put his ideology well in the background behind simply being the effective CEO of the nation. Presided over unprecedented federal fiscal responsibility, aided by a similarly cautious GOP Congress.

Rather than being a pragmatist, I now see Obama as being an opportunist with little real leadership ability and an almost sociopathic tendency to push blame onto others. His astonishing geopolitical naivete continues to frustrate me, and foreign affairs is where I find the most to criticize him. He's basically managed only to tread water in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his responses to Putin's adventurism and the Syrian parties-in-conflict have been laughably inept. Though Bush2 made us, to some degree, an international laughingstock for his own blustery and warmongering incompetence, Obama has done nothing to improve our image overseas. In short he strikes me as being "all hat and no cattle" as the Texans say. I'd certainly have been much better pleased had our first African-American POTUS been Colin Powell, but that man wisely recognized the demands of the job as being more than he was willing to put up with.

Oddly enough, Obamacare is not one of the things I'm most exercised about, especially as it is quite similar to the plan first trotted out by the conservative Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s. The fact it falls short of the market-based discipline of the Heritage plan IMO rests primarily on the failure of the GOP to embrace the idea and insist that it incorporate more of the kinds of cost-saving provisions that Heritage proposed originally. Instead, they tried to scuttle the thing entirely, and in so doing left the details up to a bunch of redistributionist Democrats who were interested in bestowing more benefits onto the poor but not much interested in cost-effectiveness. To the extent Obama was the executive partner of those Congressional Democrats, I hold him responsible for the failures of the ACA but also have to give him credit for its successes. (It's a bit early yet to judge entirely what all those might be, of course.)


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Meh. This is the sort of tripe that the black-helicopter types have been throwing for practically forever. The media isn't perfect. That said, the media--at least the element of the media that is responsible--doesn't throw stuff around unless and until it can be proven. Full disclosure, I work in the media. I hear this sort of stuff--the media is lazy, the media is in cahoots with the government, the media is bought-and-paid-for by big corporations--practically every day. It isn't true, and the reason that it isn't true is that the media remains an extremely competitive field of endeavor. Now, you might not like what the media reports, or doesn't report, and it's your right to hold opinions. But there is not another nation on this planet that has as diverse and as competitive media as exists in the United States, and that's a good thing for democracy.

Now, go ahead and say a lot of stuff about Benghazi, et al. You'll find a few failures, sure, but, on whole and on balance, the media does a pretty good job of keeping people educated and informed.



Hitch said:


> Without aid from mega media ,Holder would have long since been gone, the IRS scandal would have been opened up and displayed like a smoker's ravaged lungs , and Benghazi and the silly bit about the video, which Obama took to the UN, among a host of other problems would have proven fatal.
> Bush would have never been allowed to play 'producer' in an interview setting, picking the everything from the venue to the speaker's questions beforehand. For anyone to seriously believe  the media has done a pretty good job of holding Obama's feet to the fire it is obvious the trees are obstructing the view of the forest.
> Obama has not turned used car salesman, it is rather that part of him that got to this point (Two auto biographies? ) That he has been overwhelmed by the puppeteers I can agree, but like any victim of a good con, it is his own ethical and moral failures that made it all possible.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Meh. This is the sort of tripe that the black-helicopter types have been throwing for practically forever. The media isn't perfect. That said, the media--at least the element of the media that is responsible--doesn't throw stuff around unless and until it can be proven. Full disclosure, I work in the media. I hear this sort of stuff--the media is lazy, the media is in cahoots with the government, the media is bought-and-paid-for by big corporations--practically every day. It isn't true, and the reason that it isn't true is that the media remains an extremely competitive field of endeavor. Now, you might not like what the media reports, or doesn't report, and it's your right to hold opinions. But there is not another nation on this planet that has as diverse and as competitive media as exists in the United States, and that's a good thing for democracy.
> 
> Now, go ahead and say a lot of stuff about Benghazi, et al. You'll find a few failures, sure, but, on whole and on balance, the media does a pretty good job of keeping people educated and informed.


You had a great opportunity to show off the fantastic bulldog investigative reporting that's gone on and washed the place clean. Instead you followed lead and went for the personal slam. As per script. Strike two.
Since you're an insider and you mentioned Benghazi, could you explain to me doesn't throw stuff around unless and until it can be proven regarding the famous incendiary video? Or does every major news network in TV land fail your responsibility test?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hitch said:


> You had a great opportunity to show off the fantastic bulldog investigative reporting that's gone on and washed the place clean. Instead you followed lead and went for the personal slam. As per script. Strike two.
> Since you're an insider and you mentioned Benghazi, could you explain to me doesn't throw stuff around unless and until it can be proven regarding the famous incendiary video? Or does every major news network in TV land fail your responsibility test?


OK, I'll bite. Let's go...

I don't give a rat's patoot about the "famous" incendiary video. I've never seen it. I don't care about it. Here's what I know about Benghazi: What was initially reported as a spontaneous demonstration was, in fact, a terrorist operation, and it's possible that it might have been prevented if the folks we pay to prevent such things had done a better job. Someone lied in the government to cover up the lie, and in an election year to boot. I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that gambling is going on here. And Hillary--Hillary!!!!--is involved.

Do I have the basics, which I have learned through the media, straight? If so, let's proceed.

Ever heard of swift boats? Did the media fall down there? Let's review the basics: Kerry volunteered for combat duty--he voluntarily put himself in harm's way, then gets painted the coward while Bush pulled strings to avoid Vietnam. Those are unassailable facts, and that's pretty much anyone really needs to know. Instead, we end up parsing words and splitting hairs about who-did-what-when. Did Kerry puff his military record? I don't know and I don't care--politicians, in case you haven't noticed, are prone to puffing. I know he won a medal. I know he spoke out against the war when it was not politically advantageous to do so. I know that there was zero political upside in deciding to place himself in harm's way when he made the decision to do so--and if you insist, we can do a compare-and-contrast with Kennedy and PT109. How did media outlets respond? It varied. To its eternal discredit, Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns more television stations than anyone else, bought into this clap trap--and much more, as anyone who has the misfortune to live in a community where Sinclair owns the airwaves. But a ton of others did not. You can look it up. NYT, among others, has no blood on its hands when it comes to the swift boat fiasco. Of course, you might be amongst those who still don't get it and squawk about Kerry being a coward.

Let's move on.

Frontline is doing a dynamite, in my view, two-part series on the post 9/11 history of the NSA illegally spying. Included in the first segment is a piece on James Risen standing up to his bosses at the NYT and giving them an ultimatum: If you won't publish stories about the NSA's illegal activities, then I will write and publish a book saying so (the NYT, by way of background, had spiked the story under pressure from Bush). Eric Lichtbau, also a NYT journalist, joined him. The NYT, which had initially made the wrong call, did the right thing and published the stories. Did it make a difference? No. More importantly, neither Risen nor Lichtbau were fired.

The thing is, when it comes to the media, credibility matters. You can look it up--go to any SEC filing by any publicly traded media company and you'll see that the number one asset is "good will." Not buildings or cars or investments, but good will, which translated means "credibility." Now, I'm not going to defend corporate media here--Gannett, among others, trumpets one thing while doing another. But the basic premise applies. The media's biggest asset on balance sheets is credibility. When you add the element of competitiveness--there are a boat load of media companies, not to mention bloggers in underwear, out there--you have an industry that, moreso than ever in U.S. history, keeps itself honest. Because if it is not honest, it is going to get pay where it matters most, and that is in balance sheets.

Let's move on.

Asbestos? Folks would still be dying in hordes, and with no compensation, had it not been for the efforts of the media, which overcame efforts by big business and the government to deliver the truth. Workplace danger? Look at the Las Vegas Sun, which won a Pulitzer by exposing unsafe working conditions in Sin City construction projects. Lives were saved as a result--more lives, I daresay, than were lost in Benghazi. And there was plenty of pressure in a town built on tourism to not tell the truth. Kid diddling at Penn State? It would never have been exposed absent the media, and the back story there is worth telling. The reporter who broke the story couldn't get anything done at the paper (edited by a Penn State apologist) where she worked, so she got a job at a different paper, broke the story and won the Pulitzer Prize. Look at Elizabeth Rosenthal's series on the cost of medical care in the NYT. It's amazing stuff, and, in my view, undercuts entirely the fallacy that Obamacare is worth snot.

The list goes on and on, and we can, if you insist on propagating this nonsense that the media is lazy/corrupt/pick-an-adjective. It isn't perfect--I know that--but it is remarkably self correcting, thanks to the First Amendment and capitalism. And transparent. When something goes sideways, say a Janet Cooke or a Judith Miller or a Jayson Blair, stuff gets fixed, and in public--if the media outlet in question won't come clean, there are plenty of other media outlets that will 'splain it.

Any questions?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Any questions?

Should I not expect you to explain the failure of ,doesn't throw stuff around unless and until it can be proven as it relates to Benghazi? The thing is, when it comes to the media, credibility matters, right?

I'll remind you ,that you mentioned Benghazi and the underscored above is your quote. IT seems the trouble you have with this particular issue is the difficulty of framing your response within a IHATEBUSHMORETHANYOU box.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

So, I've got the rest right and we're now down to quibbling about Benghazi?



Hitch said:


> Any questions?
> 
> Should I not expect you to explain the failure of ,doesn't throw stuff around unless and until it can be proven as it relates to Benghazi? The thing is, when it comes to the media, credibility matters, right?
> 
> I'll remind you ,that you mentioned Benghazi and the underscored above is your quote. IT seems the trouble you have with this particular issue is the difficulty of framing your response within a IHATEBUSHMORETHANYOU box.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> So, I've got the rest right and we're now down to quibbling about Benghazi?


 LOL Taking lessons from justonemore eh? Too bad for you. Do you plan on answering or not? Your tired change the subject tactics wont work on me, but its kind of fun to watch, for a little while. I dont care one way or the other but you're intent on expending so much energy ,to not answer, there must be some reason.
Hint:If the 'media' reports correctly on the time of the sun going down :its nice but it has no relation to or bearing on the OP.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

LMAO


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Let me know when the tea party's over.



Hitch said:


> LMAO


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> LMAO


Well, I'm not sure what a fixation on what happened in Benghazi proves, aside from you're far right of center or have family members who perished in that inexcusable FUBAR.

With that said, inexcusable FUBARs happen with disquieting frequency in American foreign policy (and have for many years, under administrations of both parties). Aside from illustrating it as another example of Obama's foreign-policy fecklessness, I don't know what spending millions to "investigate" the incident is going to accomplish. I felt the same way about the ridiculous witch-hunt over splooge on Monica Lewinski's dress, and honestly I felt the same about Watergate. Much wasted expenditure over pretty much routine business in US government.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Well, I'm not sure what a fixation on what happened in Benghazi proves, aside from you're far right of center or have family members who perished in that inexcusable FUBAR.
> 
> With that said, inexcusable FUBARs happen with disquieting frequency in American foreign policy (and have for many years, under administrations of both parties). Aside from illustrating it as another example of Obama's foreign-policy fecklessness, I don't know what spending millions to "investigate" the incident is going to accomplish. I felt the same way about the ridiculous witch-hunt over splooge on Monica Lewinski's dress, and honestly *I felt the same about Watergate*. Much wasted expenditure over pretty much routine business in US government.


I'll disagree--Watergate was qualitatively different than the blue dress. I don't know how routine WG type stuff is, but when it happens, I want to know about it. Same principle with Benghazi. When it happens, I want to know about it and decide for myself how seriously to take it. It may be business as usual, but it is still the public's business.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Well, I'm not sure what a fixation on what happened in Benghazi proves, aside from you're far right of center or have family members who perished in that inexcusable FUBAR.
> 
> With that said, inexcusable FUBARs happen with disquieting frequency in American foreign policy (and have for many years, under administrations of both parties). Aside from illustrating it as another example of Obama's foreign-policy fecklessness, I don't know what spending millions to "investigate" the incident is going to accomplish. I felt the same way about the ridiculous witch-hunt over splooge on Monica Lewinski's dress, and honestly I felt the same about Watergate. Much wasted expenditure over pretty much routine business in US government.


I wonder if you would be so calm had the full weight of the Unites States Department of State ,in the person of he Secretary of State , had personally announced her intention to prosecute you for the crime of making a video, and claimed ,as did the POTUS that your video had caused and uprising in the Middle East that resulted in the death of 4 Americans including the Ambassador. Adding that POTUS then carried the story to the floor United Nations. Provided it happened to you I'd say 'so what' business as usual. Its common for the President and the SoS to blame individual American citizens for the deaths of embassy personnel. You should be happy the most transparent administration in history is so keenly interested in you.
Your comparisons of Watergate and the Lewinsky mess are disturbing, but hey Ambassadors are killed every day,pretty much routine business.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Let me know when the tea party's over.


I dont know if those interviews are real or contrived but it cracked me up regardless.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hitch said:


> I dont know if those interviews are real or contrived but it cracked me up regardless.


I'm still trying to get over the arms for hostages deal...


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> I wonder if you would be so calm had the full weight of the Unites States Department of State ,in the person of he Secretary of State , had personally announced her intention to prosecute you for the crime of making a video, and claimed ,as did the POTUS that your video had caused and uprising in the Middle East that resulted in the death of 4 Americans including the Ambassador.


If you believe that video did nothing to aggravate the feelings of Muslims who might have been on the fence relative to their willingness to engage in violent acts against Western targets, I have some beachfront property in New Mexico I'd like to talk to you about.

As regards the claims of the SoS and POTUS, it's clear they made absurd (and false) comments relative to causation of the Benghazi mess. But if we were to investigate every false statement made by a politician as a means of deflecting blame, we'd do nothing *but* such investigations.

The GOP needs to quit their whining and go on the offensive with this simple message: the ineptitude of the Obama administration's foreign policy and intelligence analysis led to its failure to identify a serious threat to the Benghazi mission until it resulted in the deaths of American diplomats at the hands of Islamic extremists. It doesn't take some multi-million dollar investigation to figure that one out.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

At the risk of poking dead or sleeping things, consider this, the opening sentence in a NYT story published today about how Obama has dealt, or rather failed to deal, with problems in VA hospitals:

WASHINGTON - Growing allegations of mismanagement at veterans hospitals across the country are threatening to engulf President Obama in another scandal that brings into question his ability to make government work.

Seems to me that the media here is holding his feet to the fire, connecting the dots and concluding that there's a lot more woof to this guy than bite.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> If you believe that video did nothing to aggravate the feelings of Muslims who might have been on the fence relative to their willingness to engage in violent acts against Western targets, I have some beachfront property in New Mexico I'd like to talk to you about.


 First tell me if you have seen that video, I never have but I'll wager just about any network comedy /drama offends Muslims,one good thing about television.


> As regards the claims of the SoS and POTUS, it's clear they made absurd (and false) comments relative to causation of the Benghazi mess. But if we were to investigate every false statement made by a politician as a means of deflecting blame, we'd do nothing *but* such investigations.(


 How about just the ones POTUS takes to the UN?


> The GOP needs to quit their whining and go on the offensive with this simple message: the ineptitude of the Obama administration's foreign policy and intelligence analysis led to its failure to identify a serious threat to the Benghazi mission until it resulted in the deaths of American diplomats at the hands of Islamic extremists. It doesn't take some multi-million dollar investigation to figure that one out.


 It didnt take the Watergate hearings for me to believe and be proven correct that Nixon conspired to obstruct justice. Bit it concerns me Max that you complain about the waste of millions wrt Lewinsky, while forgetting that your favorite President could have stopped that hemorrhage instantly by just telling the truth. Gotta wonder where your head is.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> At the risk of poking dead or sleeping things, consider this, the opening sentence in a NYT story published today about how Obama has dealt, or rather failed to deal, with problems in VA hospitals:
> 
> WASHINGTON - Growing allegations of mismanagement at veterans hospitals across the country are threatening to engulf President Obama in another scandal that brings into question his ability to make government work.
> 
> Seems to me that the media here is holding his feet to the fire, connecting the dots and concluding that there's a lot more woof to this guy than bite.


I think it will be interesting to see whether 'media' makes anything of why Shinseki was given this plum and how much they will echo Obama's heart felt outrage, ya know not the pretend kind those rightwingers feel about Benghazi


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Well, I'm not sure what a fixation on what happened in Benghazi proves, aside from you're far right of center or have family members who perished in that inexcusable FUBAR.
> 
> With that said, inexcusable FUBARs happen with disquieting frequency in American foreign policy (and have for many years, under administrations of both parties). Aside from illustrating it as another example of Obama's foreign-policy fecklessness, I don't know what spending millions to "investigate" the incident is going to accomplish. I felt the same way about the ridiculous witch-hunt over splooge on Monica Lewinski's dress, and honestly I felt the same about Watergate. Much wasted expenditure over pretty much routine business in US government.


It proves that Obo and OJ have the same furious passion to find the real killers


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Documents obtained by the _Washington Times_ revealed that the Bush Administration warned the Obama Administration about problems within the Veterans Administration as early as 2008, yet both the ABC and NBC evening news broadcasts ignored the story on Monday, May 19. 

Read more:

Well,,, now we know.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hitch said:


> Documents obtained by the _Washington Times_ revealed that the Bush Administration warned the Obama Administration about problems within the Veterans Administration as early as 2008, yet both the ABC and NBC evening news broadcasts ignored the story on Monday, May 19.
> 
> Read more:
> 
> Well,,, now we know.


Boy, you just can't let it go, can you?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> Bit it concerns me Max that you complain about the waste of millions wrt Lewinsky, while forgetting that your favorite President could have stopped that hemorrhage instantly by just telling the truth. Gotta wonder where your head is.


The questions posed to Clinton were inappropriate for Congress to be asking of a POTUS. Perhaps they were more properly posed by Hillary, but that's beside the point. Huge waste of resources.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> ... I'll wager just about any network comedy /drama offends Muslims,one good thing about television.


So it's a *good* thing to insult a group of people? What a disappointing thing to read from a fellow forum member.

I'd prefer that we respect one another, quite frankly.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> If you believe that video did nothing to aggravate the feelings of Muslims who might have been on the fence relative to their willingness to engage in violent acts against Western targets, I have some beachfront property in New Mexico I'd like to talk to you about.
> 
> As regards the claims of the SoS and POTUS, it's clear they made absurd (and false) comments relative to causation of the Benghazi mess. But if we were to investigate every false statement made by a politician as a means of deflecting blame, we'd do nothing *but* such investigations.
> 
> The GOP needs to quit their whining and go on the offensive with this simple message: the ineptitude of the Obama administration's foreign policy and intelligence analysis led to its failure to identify a serious threat to the Benghazi mission until it resulted in the deaths of American diplomats at the hands of Islamic extremists. It doesn't take some multi-million dollar investigation to figure that one out.


Sure it's political theater, but just because it serves as that it doesn't detract from the necessity of doing so. What did the President know? What did the SoS know? Why was there an effort to deceive? Your statement assumes that we know the answers, but the fact is that we only know part of it.

I think the American taxpayer has a right to know and if there was an effort to deceive. Anytime the executive leverages its tremendous power in order to cover up then it becomes corrosive to the republic.

As for Mr. Clinton, it may have been scurrilous and some may have thought that the whole Lewinsky ordeal was nonsense, and perhaps some of it, but I want to know if the man whose salary I'm paying is receiving fellatio in the chair and office I'm providing him and what he could have been doing instead during that time. Could he have been, let's say, looking for OBL? Just a thought.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Since then, however, I think that the media has done a pretty good job of holding Obama's feet to the fire. The recently departed Jill Abramson of the NYT is just one example. She called him out, pointedly, for obsessive secrecy and breaking one promise after another regarding government transparency.


...and got canned for her efforts??

I understand that made her real popular with her Manhattan news buddies!!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> So it's a *good* thing to insult a group of people? What a disappointing thing to read from a fellow forum member.
> 
> I'd prefer that we respect one another, quite frankly.


No you dont, if you had such 'respect' you wouldnt have tried putting words in my mouth,you would have admitted that you've never seen the video .


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Boy, you just can't let it go, can you?


 Whats your trouble Rock? You made a point that the media is doing well at holding Obama's feet to the fire . I pointed out that as of yesterday the latest scandal was reported by but one of the three major television networks. See, unlike your meandering regarding fire proof fabric, my post was timely and directly related to the OP

_at the risk of poking dead or sleeping things, consider this, the opening sentence in a NYT story published today about how Obama has dealt, or rather failed to deal, with problems in VA hospitals:__

WASHINGTON - Growing allegations of mismanagement at veterans hospitals across the country are threatening to engulf President Obama in another scandal that brings into question his ability to make government work.

Seems to me that the media here is holding his feet to the fire, connecting the dots and concluding that there's a lot more woof to this guy than bite. __:_


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> The questions posed to Clinton were inappropriate for Congress to be asking of a POTUS. Perhaps they were more properly posed by Hillary, but that's beside the point. Huge waste of resources.


 Bovine excrement.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Trigger alert, information from a non left wing internet source, cover your eyes run for the FIMA tent;


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

The point is, you--and people like you--who have bought the Rush line or the Tea Party line or whatever line is for sale at the moment will always be able to say "See? There's a major news outlet that didn't report what I consider to be news," no matter how many other major news outlets HAVE reported it, and then draw the erroneous conclusion that the fix is in. You'll always "win" with that line of thinking because the media, contrary to some people's beliefs, isn't monolithic. They don't have big meetings every day to figure out what's going to be reported.

It would be nice if you would, at least on occasion, say that someone has brought up an interesting point instead of continually employing the Shiny Balloon style of rhetoric wherein when someone brings up a valid point (in this case, that the NYT published a story critical of the president and, front and center, put it the context of a deeper pattern within the administration), you say "Look at this shiny balloon over here! (in this case, what broadcasters who have nothing to do with NYT did or did not do) in an attempt to divert attention from the valid point. That sort of thing might be cool in a right-wing echo chamber, but, in my experience, folks on this forum have a bit more sophistication.



Hitch said:


> Whats your trouble Rock? You made a point that the media is doing well at holding Obama's feet to the fire . I pointed out that as of yesterday the latest scandal was reported by but one of the three major television networks. See, unlike your meandering regarding fire proof fabric, my post was timely and directly related to the OP
> 
> _at the risk of poking dead or sleeping things, consider this, the opening sentence in a NYT story published today about how Obama has dealt, or rather failed to deal, with problems in VA hospitals:__
> 
> ...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and got canned for her efforts??
> 
> I understand that made her real popular with her Manhattan news buddies!!


Yup, that's exactly what happened. The people who control the media (there are fewer than six, don't you know) got together and decided that she'd gone too far and needed to be fired. Happens all the time with the media, you know. I hate those people, how they all decide how our minds should be controlled and then conspire to accomplish the mission. I hate it when that happens, and it happens all the time, don't you know, because it's the media. Ask Hitch. He's up on this sort of thing.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> The point is, you--and people like you--who have bought the Rush line or the Tea Party line or whatever line is for sale at the moment will always be able to say "See? There's a major news outlet that didn't report what I consider to be news," no matter how many other major news outlets HAVE reported it, and then draw the erroneous conclusion that the fix is in. You'll always "win" with that line of thinking because the media, contrary to some people's beliefs, isn't monolithic. They don't have big meetings every day to figure out what's going to be reported.
> 
> It would be nice if you would, at least on occasion, say that someone has brought up an interesting point instead of continually employing the Shiny Balloon style of rhetoric wherein when someone brings up a valid point (in this case, that the NYT published a story critical of the president and, front and center, put it the context of a deeper pattern within the administration), you say "Look at this shiny balloon over here! (in this case, what broadcasters who have nothing to do with NYT did or did not do) in an attempt to divert attention from the valid point. That sort of thing might be cool in a right-wing echo chamber, but, in my experience, folks on this forum have a bit more sophistication.


Somebody kick your dog Rock? I did bring up an interesting point Rock ist just one you didnt like it.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Yup, that's exactly what happened. The people who control the media (there are fewer than six, don't you know) got together and decided that she'd gone too far and needed to be fired. Happens all the time with the media, you know. I hate those people, how they all decide how our minds should be controlled and then conspire to accomplish the mission. I hate it when that happens, and it happens all the time, don't you know, because it's the media. Ask Hitch. He's up on this sort of thing.


 He is? Got some examples Sweetie?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I'm out. Have fun with yourself, Hitch.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> I'm out. Have fun with yourself, Hitch.


 Now that was sophisticated.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> I think the American taxpayer has a right to know and if there was an effort to deceive. Anytime the executive leverages its tremendous power in order to cover up then it becomes corrosive to the republic.


I respect your opinion, but first, there obviously was an effort to deceive the public. Guess what? Politicians have been routinely deceiving the public for thousands of years. (I suspect the Senators of ancient Rome were not always entirely forthcoming with the facts, though I suppose I can't prove it.) As to "wanting to know" whether the POTUS is getting blowjobs, that's quite different from having any right to know.

Second, I don't think the public really wants to know the details of actual governance any more than they really want to know all the details of the raising and slaughtering of chickens for their dinner table.

I understand my position is a somewhat elitist one, but am happy to acknowledge that fact. The fact that, as a republic, we potentially owe our future to people like those who shop at Wal-Mart, bothers me greatly.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> Bovine excrement.


Yeah, that's what I thought of the Clinton-Lewinsky witchhunt, too.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> No you dont, if you had such 'respect' you wouldnt have tried putting words in my mouth ...


You flat said that offending Muslims was a "good thing" about television. So don't start avoiding responsibility for your own words; I put nothing "in your mouth."

Actually, that last clause doesn't sound very good at all, but I don't really know another way of phrasing it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> I respect your opinion, but first, there obviously was an effort to deceive the public. Guess what? Politicians have been routinely deceiving the public for thousands of years. (I suspect the Senators of ancient Rome were not always entirely forthcoming with the facts, though I suppose I can't prove it.) As to "wanting to know" whether the POTUS is getting blowjobs, that's quite different from having any right to know.
> 
> Second, I don't think the public really wants to know the details of actual governance any more than they really want to know all the details of the raising and slaughtering of chickens for their dinner table.
> 
> I understand my position is a somewhat elitist one, but am happy to acknowledge that fact. The fact that, as a republic, we potentially owe our future to people like those who shop at Wal-Mart, bothers me greatly.


There are different levels of deception, much like the circles of Hell! To deceive on a matter of strict political import (this tax will create 10,000,000 new jobs; this tax will bring our economy to a grinding halt), I can deal with and at that point I need to use my common sense and get the facts and figures straight.

A lie such as a video was to blame for the killing of our ambassador, goes to matters of incompetency and a breaking of the covenant between the government and the people who authorize and empower that government. There was a systematic effort to hide the truth about a matter of national security and the executive used it's ability to leverage the machinery of the state to hide the truth.

As for POTUS getting a BJ, if he can't keep it in his pants then he should stay a private citizen and he can get away with whatever his little perverted heart desires. But he is the most public of public figures. If his judgment cannot be relied upon for something as simple as where, when and from whom he should be receiving sexual favors, then where else is his judgment lacking? Once someone becomes president, then he/she gives up a certain measure of privacy. That's the price for having the ultimate private jet!


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Once someone becomes president, then he/she gives up a certain measure of privacy. That's the price for having the ultimate private jet!


There's absolutely no arguing with that. But my view is that uncovering those salacious details, if they are to become public, is properly the purview of TMZ.com rather than the US Senate.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> There's absolutely no arguing with that. But my view is that uncovering those salacious details, if they are to become public, is properly the purview of TMZ.com rather than the US Senate.


Salacious it was indeed! Everything is fair game in politics and POTUS should have thought about that when he was living out his little fantasy.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> You flat said that offending Muslims was a "good thing" about television. So don't start avoiding responsibility for your own words; I put nothing "in your mouth."
> 
> Actually, that last clause doesn't sound very good at all, but I don't really know another way of phrasing it.


*First tell me if you have seen that video, I never have but I'll wager just about any network comedy /drama offends Muslims,one good thing about television.*

There is the entire line in bold. * You are correct and I was WRONG. 
*
Now , when did you see that video ?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

*Advance to the rear*

The BEA blamed the "collapse in growth" on a drop in exports and domestic investment, according to the International Business Times' Finbarr Bermingham, who called it a "dramatic slowdown." Despite the significance, the broadcast networks almost completely ignored the story at the time and continued to ignore the revision.
ABC and NBC morning and evening news shows hadn't mentioned GDP at all since April 30. Both CBS news programs briefly covered the April 30 announcement. CBS reported the number on "Evening News" May 29.
This downward revision underscored the need for the networks to report on the initial GDP data, rather than ignore bad economic news. Private forecasts had already predicted negative growth.
The Wall Street Journal's Ben Leubsdorf cited very troubling data that foreshadowed economic contraction. According to Leubsdorf, J.P. Morgan Chase found a contraction of 0.8 percent, while Macroeconomic Advisers calculated a decline of 0.6 percent.

https://mrc.org/articles/abc-nbc-ig...ebook&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=gdp


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Tuesday night's _The_ _O'Reilly Factor_, Bill O'Reilly opened his show with a "Talking Points Memo" in which he blasted the media as "corrupt" and "biased." In a passionate monologue, he showed the clear and undeniable disparity between the media's obsessive coverage of Chistie's "Bridgegate" scandal and its virtual silence around the IRS scandals and the VA scandal.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ this is always the case though. Or they simply ignore the story. Or, better yet, they simply repeat the dem talking points. 

Remember all the "teachable moments" we had during the campaigns. Remember how "clinging to their guns and religion" was seen as an opportunity for all of us to self reflect?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Its good to have such concise evidence presented so well.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Bill O'Reilly is an opportunistic, pandering idiot. But he's right: I've heard nary a peep about the VA or the IRS from the media. Nothing. Nothing at all. Ahem.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)




----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ speaking of old infatuations! 

What an absolute bore she is.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

*Obo lecturing against POTUS power grab no kidding*


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

https://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/155813-media-claims-obama-went-border-except-didnt/

It is safe to say that some media outlets are in the tank for Barack Obama. However, Reuters takes the prize for the most slavish devotion to the Obama fan club.
As reported by Twitchy, Reuters and Yahoo! News invented a non-existent border visit.
President Obama is on a fundraising tour to Denver, Dallas, and Austin to raise money for the Democrat Party and its candidates. However, Reuters had this headline:

PRESIDENT OBAMA VISITS BORDER


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

A side of Harry you might have forgotten.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Court filings are normally public, but the Justice Department said the emails from the accounts of nine White House staffers and an additional number of Agriculture Department officials should be kept under wraps in part because the public already has enough information through official statements about Sherrod's forced resignation and the ensuing events.
In the July 13 motion (posted here), the Justice Department lawyers also invoke a deference to "Presidential confidentiality" as a basis for keeping the contents of the emails secret.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

In a historically illiterate _Salon_piece, writer Heather Digby Parton argued that "right-wing hatred" of John F. Kennedy ultimately led to his death, and that a climate of hate is once again growing because of the right's reaction to President Obama. Of course, the entire premise of Parton's piece is false because JFK was not assassinated by any crazy 'gun nut' right-winger, as she might have you believe.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a proud Communist who adored the Soviet Union. But one wouldn't know that from the article. In fact, the words "Lee Harvey Oswald" are never mentioned. Parton cited some evidence that there was extreme rhetoric directed toward Kennedy from the right, and connects that to the fact that he was ultimately killed. She asserted that "*The right-wing hatred for John F. Kennedy was in some ways as extreme as the hatred for Barack Obama and nowhere was it more energized than Dallas in 1963."*

Read more:

Emphasis added.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

_Obstinate, hopelessly partisan and incapable of problem-solving, Congress is a mess. But that doesn't grant the president license to tear up the Constitution. As Mr. Obama himself said last fall: "If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we're also a nation of laws." , the president said, would violate those laws._

_Mr. Obama now seems to be jettisoning that stance in the name of rallying his political base. He is considering extending temporary protection from deportation to millions of illegal immigrants, including the parents of U.S.-born children and others who have lived in the United States for years. Conceivably, this would give Democrats a political boost in 2016. Just as conceivably, it would trigger a constitutional showdown with congressional Republicans, who could make a cogent argument that Mr. Obama had overstepped his authority.

https://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/07/even-the-washington-post-sees-obamas-tyranny-sort-of/_


----------

