The Librarian
Banned
Oh, dear. Nobody lied. It's just that nobody knew what was going on.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Could you elaborate ? I was under the impression that there was either very small net or none at all in the period when US became superpower.
CyclopsRock
Member
I was responding to someone that said that people should get over being lied to - I didn't make that assertion myself. As I said above, I should have quoted that post, however.
The Librarian
Banned
Bye, bye, Gomez!
Sanky Panky
Banned
I haven't posted in a PoliGAF thread for a loooong time, but what is GAF's opinion of Sen. Elizabeth Warren?
To me, she's the only politician with balls these days, and my only beacon of hope left in politics. Is she getting enough attention from both liberals and conservatives?
To me, she's the only politician with balls these days, and my only beacon of hope left in politics. Is she getting enough attention from both liberals and conservatives?
To me, her and Bernie Sanders come off as being the only two who stand up for what the believe in and not what donors or their parties believe in. At least they seem to be the only two who are visible to me. I'd have more faith in government if I knew there were more of them out there and being elected.
rocketknight
Member
There was a lot of discussion about her around when her "you didn't build that" speech was taped, and a lot more when she was either going to be the head of the CFPB or in the Senate. I think that the general consensus is that she's awesome and she has more of a platform to be awesome in the Senate than she would embroiled in the appointment nonsense surrounding the CFPB director.
I'm pretty sure PoliGAF loves her. She reminds me a bit of Sanders. I wish either of them would or could run for president and have a shot at winning.
But her position now in the Senate is, I think, a pretty good one for her talents. She'll do good work and ask tough questions of people. Hopefully she gets attention from the mainstream about some of those questions, too.
RustyNails
Member
It's clear as a day that Ambassador Chris Stevens was sending emails to Obama pleading for his life to send some help but Obama (and Hillary) replied with "lol" and let Stevens die.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Link
The Autumn Wind
That's gonna be very hard to do thanks to gerrymandering.
If PoliGAF were the electorate, Warren would be the next president.
(And Huntsman would probably be her vice president.)
Link
The Autumn Wind
The GOP is just sad at this point. Even when they have legitimate issues, they can't help but overreach and try to use them against policies they don't like.
Boston bombing? "The problem is immigration and welfare!"
IRS hullabaloo? "How can we go forward with Obamacare knowing this?!"
It's like they're playing a demented game of Madlibs.
Boston bombing? "The problem is immigration and welfare!"
IRS hullabaloo? "How can we go forward with Obamacare knowing this?!"
It's like they're playing a demented game of Madlibs.
1. Hindsight that was NOT 20/20
2. Subpoena'd phone records as part of an investigation into the release of classified mateiral.
3. An IRS audit filtering criteria that contained selection bias and was implemented without management approval.
THESE are the defining "scandals" of "the most corrupt administration ever", and the hindsight scandal is the biggest scandal of them all!
LOL @ our political discourse.
2. Subpoena'd phone records as part of an investigation into the release of classified mateiral.
3. An IRS audit filtering criteria that contained selection bias and was implemented without management approval.
THESE are the defining "scandals" of "the most corrupt administration ever", and the hindsight scandal is the biggest scandal of them all!
LOL @ our political discourse.
Giant Panda
Member
I would like to point out that Obama gave these e-mails to Congress months ago but Republicans in Congress have still been pretending for months that there's been a massive cover-up. Fuck them.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Look how bipartisan we are!
TacticalFox88
Banned
What's fucking infuriating is that there was none of this outrage during the Bush years. They're all hypocritical sacks of shit.
Imagine if you will, Obama's first term mirrored Bush's.
- His very first election, hes elected President when the United States Supreme Court overrules
- Floridas Supreme Court call for a statewide recount, thus becoming President of the United Stateseven though he lost the popular vote.
- 8 months after he took office we experienced the worst terrorist attack in United States history,
- and there was solid evidence presented that he had intelligence saying that a terrorist group was planning on attack on United States soilbut did nothing.
- Video was shown of his reaction to being told that the United States was under attack, and he sat there for a few minutes with a blank look on his facedoing nothing.
- Our economy went from a balanced budget, and a budget surplus, back to deficitsevery year he had been President.
- The longest period of economic growth in American historycame to an end.
- We started a war with Iran. About 2 months after the start of the war he then decidesto land on an aircraft carrier (in a flight suit) to declare Mission Accomplished. Yet 2 years later, over 10,000 American soldiers had died and not a single weapon of mass destruction had been found.
- 12 years after the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Ladin has still not been captured.
- Reports, and photos, of abuse by the U.S. Army against Iranian prisoners surfaces at the Abu Ghraib prison.
- We see 5 different attacks on American embassies.
- Attorney General Eric Holder appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the first leaked pieces coming to light of communication within the intelligence community about the authorization of torture on prisoners of war to extract information
- Told Iranian insurgents to Bring it on.
Just imagine if President Obama did all of thatwhat would the likes of Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh be saying? How many investigations and impeachment hearings would Republicans be calling for?
If theyre shocked by some of the events that have occurred during Obamas first 4 years, most of which had nothing to do with President Obama and were completely right-wing fabricated controversies, just imagine what they would be like if Obama pulled the same kind of crap Bush did in his first 4 years.
But we all know how they reacted to Bushs antics. They werent appalled, shocked, or disgusted and they never called for an impeachmentoh, no
They re-elected him.
Seriously, I hate it! He was the governor of UTAH! WAKE UP SHEEPLE
NYCmetsfan
Banned
hahaha I know the dude holding the umbrella for the president. Saw that on TV and was like WTF.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Edit: disregard, misread.
Aaron Strife
Banned
That's Warner, as in Mark Warner, Senator/former Governor of Virginia.
I find it pretty fucking ridiculous how blown out of proportion this "trio of White House scandals" has become.
The IRS thing may have some legitimacy (though I think they definitely should have been giving more scrutiny to groups labeling themselves with politically inclined names like "Tea Party." If anything, I think the wrongdoing may have been not also targeting more liberal political groups as well") but doesn't even tie in to the higher ups at the IRS, let alone the White House. There were no laws broken in the AP thing, so I'm not sure what the scandal there is, unless you agree with the White House that the law ought to be changed.
And Benghazi is still nothing, as far as I can tell. It doesn't seem like any new revelations or evidence of lying have come about (please correct me if I'm wrong) and I still don't see what political advantage the Obama administration would have gained by supposedly lying about the cause of the attack for a few days. It makes no fucking sense and the much less convoluted answer is that they just legitimately didn't know exactly what happened immediately after the attack.
I get the impression that all of the furor over these mostly manufactured and overblown scandals has two main factors:
1. The media has been dying for an Obama scandal since he won reelection. I remember tons of stories shortly after his inauguration such as "Second term curse: Will Obama be plagued by scandals?" and "What will Obama's scandal be?!" With gun control dead, talks on the Grand Bargain dead, and immigration reform looking less and less likely, the media needs something to talk about, and a White House plagued by scandal is perfect for the narrative they've been building since November. These are the same people who wonder why Obama can't pass his entire agenda by just having a drink and game of golf with John Boehner.
2. Republicans have nothing to run on. They have no popular policy positions other than tax cuts, and they've just helped to successfully scare independents about the deficit enough to make tax cuts seem irresponsible. The Republicans can't run on anything, they only run against things. They've successfully killed gun control and look to have no interest in passing immigration reform, so how do they scare their base into voting in 2014 if they can't fear monger about those two pieces of legislation? With manufactured scandals and pending impeachment proceedings of course! They're already promising that the hearings will last until the 2014 midterms.
The IRS thing may have some legitimacy (though I think they definitely should have been giving more scrutiny to groups labeling themselves with politically inclined names like "Tea Party." If anything, I think the wrongdoing may have been not also targeting more liberal political groups as well") but doesn't even tie in to the higher ups at the IRS, let alone the White House. There were no laws broken in the AP thing, so I'm not sure what the scandal there is, unless you agree with the White House that the law ought to be changed.
And Benghazi is still nothing, as far as I can tell. It doesn't seem like any new revelations or evidence of lying have come about (please correct me if I'm wrong) and I still don't see what political advantage the Obama administration would have gained by supposedly lying about the cause of the attack for a few days. It makes no fucking sense and the much less convoluted answer is that they just legitimately didn't know exactly what happened immediately after the attack.
I get the impression that all of the furor over these mostly manufactured and overblown scandals has two main factors:
1. The media has been dying for an Obama scandal since he won reelection. I remember tons of stories shortly after his inauguration such as "Second term curse: Will Obama be plagued by scandals?" and "What will Obama's scandal be?!" With gun control dead, talks on the Grand Bargain dead, and immigration reform looking less and less likely, the media needs something to talk about, and a White House plagued by scandal is perfect for the narrative they've been building since November. These are the same people who wonder why Obama can't pass his entire agenda by just having a drink and game of golf with John Boehner.
2. Republicans have nothing to run on. They have no popular policy positions other than tax cuts, and they've just helped to successfully scare independents about the deficit enough to make tax cuts seem irresponsible. The Republicans can't run on anything, they only run against things. They've successfully killed gun control and look to have no interest in passing immigration reform, so how do they scare their base into voting in 2014 if they can't fear monger about those two pieces of legislation? With manufactured scandals and pending impeachment proceedings of course! They're already promising that the hearings will last until the 2014 midterms.
There is no fucking way the GOP loses the House
Gerrymandering: Allowing lying, cheating, Argentinean Ass Chasing disgraced Governors and other wackadoos to determine the fate of your country since 2010.
In regards to the AP wiretap scandal/issue: Does the Dept. of Justice need Obama's approval to do this or can they do it on their own accord? Granted this is something that shouldn't be legal, but I'm wondering how Obama is to blame.
Here's a decent history lesson on the issue if you can stomach Rachel Maddow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/rachel-maddow-obama-ap-irrevocable-harm_n_3284975.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
Here's a decent history lesson on the issue if you can stomach Rachel Maddow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/rachel-maddow-obama-ap-irrevocable-harm_n_3284975.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
They do not need the President's approval at all, and if investigating a leak within the Government, I'd imagine people shouldn't want him to be involved.
They didn't wiretap the AP, they just got phone records for 20 lines. There is a huge difference, what the Justice Department did had nothing to do with the Patriot Act wiretapping shit.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Probably not, though I think if the Republicans lose even 1 House seat (in a year where everyone expects them to gain), it'd be enough to force Boehner into resignation of his post.
Not that it'll make anything better, Cantor would be less likely to play ball with Obama. But it'd be funny as hell to watch!
Fair point. Thanks
Right. My bad. They obtained months and months of phone records though. They weren't listening in real time.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Its worth noting also that the records didn't contain content like audio files or transcripts or anything, they were just dialer, reciever, and duration information. They got more then they probably neaded, and should be reprimanded, but its not really a travesty of justice.
So it's safe to say that the media, even the liberal side, is overreacting a bit? After watching the Maddow piece I linked above, she insinuates that the DoJ got transcripts and all. Good info GaF. Thanks again.
There was no wiretapping. The DoJ was looking at call records (timestamps of calls placed, numbers, and call length).
And to answer your question:
No. Obama is the chief executive of government. He wouldn't be involved in the particulars of a DoJ investigation into the AP for leaking classified info. At least, he shouldn't be.
If you work for a large corporation, does everything you do at work involve the CEO's input?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
They weren't listening at all.
Sanky Panky
Banned
I'm glad to hear about the positive responses to Elizabeth Warren.
As the establishment candidate, I'll likely be voting for Hillary in 2016, but if they go head to head in the primaries, I'll be on the ground supporting the campaign for Warren.
As the establishment candidate, I'll likely be voting for Hillary in 2016, but if they go head to head in the primaries, I'll be on the ground supporting the campaign for Warren.
That's been the title of a thread over at RaptureReady for a while.
People will believe anything if it comes from Fox News.
Edit:
Speaking of which,
http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?186514-Dept-of-Justice-Wiretaps-Associated-Press/page2
THose images. My GOD.
I'd rather see Al Franken.
Policy wonks like him deserve to be in leadership positions in the legislature.
How badass would a Clinton/Warren ticket be?
Heh, she'd probably get more done in the Senate, though...
Al Franken is more of a policy wonk than Warren?
TacticalFox88
Banned
I wonder if every Democratic Senator was like Warren back in 09-10 what would've happened.
Oh what could be.
Oh what could be.
MATRIARCHAL DYSTOPIA
- Status