2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

I don't recall anybody calling for Reagan's impeachment when terrorists blew up the Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut. I don't believe Shultz or Weinberger resigned either.

Were they calling for Carter's impeachment when terrorists took hostages in Tehran? We may just be in different times. I do remember hearing some calls for the impeachment of GWB.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Were they calling for Carter's impeachment when terrorists took hostages in Tehran? We may just be in different times. I do remember hearing some calls for the impeachment of GWB.

I think it is the times. Back then Congress was more forgiving because we were more united (the big, bad Soviets were always a worse enemy than anyone else) and everyone back then were friends. Tip O'Neill might rail against a policy of Reagan's on the floor of the House then drive over to the White House and have drinks with the man. I don't think we have been this polarized as a people since 1861.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

I think it is the times. Back then Congress was more forgiving because we were more united (the big, bad Soviets were always a worse enemy than anyone else) and everyone back then were friends. Tip O'Neill might rail against a policy of Reagan's on the floor of the House then drive over to the White House and have drinks with the man. I don't think we have been this polarized as a people since 1861.

This is true. The other day, I read a conspiracy theory where the government is intentionally trying to have the populace turn on each other and start another civil war so they can come in and mop up with their drones and hollow-point bullets. I don't know if their point was population control, NWO related, who knows. I have doubts, but wouldn't put it past them.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

I think I had my laugh for today... the Huckster thinks Benghazi will cause Obama to resign. http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obamas-d...-congress-focuses-on-cover-up/?cat_orig=world

 

[joecct]

I think I had my laugh for today... the Huckster thinks Benghazi will cause Obama to resign. http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obamas-d...-congress-focuses-on-cover-up/?cat_orig=world

Not going to happen. only way he gets impeached would be if somebody has pictures of him praying at a Mosque with Imadinnerjacket.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Not going to happen. only way he gets impeached would be if somebody has pictures of him praying at a Mosque with Imadinnerjacket.

And even then, the Senate will never remove him.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Not going to happen. only way he gets impeached would be if somebody has pictures of him praying at a Mosque with Imadinnerjacket.

He says not that Obama will be impeached, but that he will resign...because Dictators often resign from office

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

He says not that Obama will be impeached, but that he will resign...because Dictators often resign from office

I'm actually shocked to all heck that Spitzer resigned after the Client #9 debacle. I thought absolutely NOTHING could get him out of office. I suppose it's possible.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

I remember reading a Dilbert comic once about how you can blow off any budgeting error with the Big Picture argument. Basically you compare whatever money you squandered away to a much bigger total, like the total expenses of the firm, and explain that your error is just "noise" compared to that.

The parallel is when rigthies try to use the "Both sides do it" argument. In fact I'm sure they do to some extent, but excusing away brainless investigations purely for partisan purposes doesn't do your "side" any favors. A long time ago in a land far away (the 80's), Republicans were actually considered the party of morals. The Clinton impeachment trail pretty much laid that to waste, as it turned out about half of House Republicans were banging their secretaries/mistressess/male bathroom attendents/etc.

Fast forward to Benghazi. Yes, an exhaustive and independent investigation should take place. Problem is, it already happened. I really doubt Ted Cruz is going to have a better ability to get to the bottom of things than Admiral Mullen. So, what happens is once again conservatives are playing to a vocal but dwindling base of old people or people who aren't getting any, while the rest of the country is either shaking their head or laughing. Really, if the Libya tragedy had any legs politically, wouldn't it have shown up on Election Day?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Agreed, it probably is the biggest problem with the current state of politics, but its very hard for either side to back off this stance because the losing side is always pushing so hard against the winner to find any little thing to complain about. Its extremely likely the winning side will get defensive regardless of the merits to protect their candidate and attempt to prevent the other side from winning next time.

This "current state of politics" has been going on for over 210 years. The Adams / Jefferson race in 1800 was much rougher than anything we've seen lately. Tip O'Neil said far worse things against Reagan than McConnell ever said about Obama. Gingrich was a far more formidable opponent for Clinton than Boehner is for Obama. Cleveland had to deal with allegations that he fathered a child with a woman not his wife. We've had some pretty rough stuff for a long time.

Most losing sides engage in extreme chest-thumping rhetoric to bolster their morale after a loss. Mature seasoned politicians know this. Leaders know this and don't let it distract them.

The only thing new is that the Obama team took it personally, and behaved as if the things said in the aftermath of '08 and '12 were the very first time those things ever were said in history. It merely demonstrates their inexperience and immaturity and Obama's lack of leadership skills. They actually believed that the other side meant it! and then shrugged their shoulders and said "we can't deal with these people."

Funny how Clinton could deal with Gingrich though.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

There might be some value in an even-handed look at Benghazi, but we're not going to get that. Even assuming nothing else being covered up (and there are interesting rumors of a CIA arms operation), nobody in the administration wants to look bad for allowing it to happen. On the other side of the aisle, the GOP seems to be more interested in finally having an opportunity to hang something on Obama (and possibly of equal or greater importance, Hillary) than in a measured investigation.

Really, if the Libya tragedy had any legs politically, wouldn't it have shown up on Election Day?

Romney spiked the issue for the campaign by opening with a statement that conflated the ambassador's death with conciliatory tweets from Egypt. It came off as completely insensitive and classless, and I think he would have been skewered over it if he'd really tried to make hay on the attacks. As it was, I think it played to both sides' advantage to not press the matter—Romney because of his statement, Obama for the obvious reasons.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Really? You don't see any difference between someone who preaches family values having an affair and trying to cover it up, and some one else just having an affair without preaching about their morals? Or the party of family values electing a known adulterer?

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I kind of have to agree with shirtless on this one. This is the great dilemma that adults, and some would argue the boomers more than anyone, have to face. How do you tell your kids not to engage in behavior that you yourself did?

Let's say we all accept that doing drugs, driving drunk, texting while driving, committing adultery, etc..., are all bad, and that we don't want people to do them. Even if you have, or are, committing some of these "sins" I still want you, and everyone else to to preach the correct course of action. Someone might listen. I'd rather live in a world in which people preach and teach the correct values, even though they may not follow them 100% themselves, than live in a world where the teaching of any values is ignored on the chance that you might be deemed a hypocrite.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

I kind of have to agree with shirtless on this one. This is the great dilemma that adults, and some would argue the boomers more than anyone, have to face. How do you tell your kids not to engage in behavior that you yourself did?

Let's say we all accept that doing drugs, driving drunk, texting while driving, committing adultery, etc..., are all bad, and that we don't want people to do them. Even if you have, or are, committing some of these "sins" I still want you, and everyone else to to preach the correct course of action. Someone might listen. I'd rather live in a world in which people preach and teach the correct values, even though they may not follow them 100% themselves, than live in a world where the teaching of any values is ignored on the chance that you might be deemed a hypocrite.

So you would say it's a good idea to pander for votes by preaching that homosexuality is wrong and demonizing those who openly live a homosexual lifestyle, all while you are secretly living that same lifestyle?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

So you would say it's a good idea to pander for votes by preaching that homosexuality is wrong and demonizing those who openly live a homosexual lifestyle, all while you are secretly living that same lifestyle?

Ah, yes--hypocrisy, the greatest crime of all. Let's revue the Rover Theorum: Mark Foley, who never had sex with a congressional page but preached family values, is far worse than Gerry Studds who actually cornholed pages but never spoke out against being gay. Got it.

 

[Patman]

There might be some value in an even-handed look at Benghazi, but we're not going to get that. Even assuming nothing else being covered up (and there are interesting rumors of a CIA arms operation), nobody in the administration wants to look bad for allowing it to happen. On the other side of the aisle, the GOP seems to be more interested in finally having an opportunity to hang something on Obama (and possibly of equal or greater importance, Hillary) than in a measured investigation.

Remember a personal attempt to remain neutral and striking a middle may not square against the facts

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/08/seven-things-we-learned-from-the-benghazi-whistleblower-hearing/?singlepage=true

Remember, here, there are choices that were made to directly lie, to go after some unrelated lout with vigor (Nakoua), and to straight out intimidate witnesses. Squaring this against the political need to avoid blame in order not to give republicans a vector of attack is inexcusable and its why these upper echelon people will allowed to operate in such a decietful manner.

Why did they need it to be this way? What were the machinations here? All are relevant and all important to evaluate the proper fitness of those in power to remain in power.

The compelling thing here is for more information. It's only partisan because one side has decided to build a massive wall around the whole deal, and the more information comes out the further the wall crumbles and the need for a new wall begins.

This isn't business as usual.

Edit: this wouldn't be a problem for Obama if very high ranking persons and the president himself did not feel a need just to lie to the American people but the world at large. That was a conscious decision and a provable one.

Doesn't it bother you that they are still so cynical to think they can do this?

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

Ah, yes--hypocrisy, the greatest crime of all. Let's revue the Rover Theorum: Mark Foley, who never had sex with a congressional page but preached family values, is far worse than Gerry Studds who actually cornholed pages but never spoke out against being gay. Got it.

So you would say it's a good idea to pander for votes by preaching that homosexuality is wrong and demonizing those who openly live a homosexual lifestyle, all while you are secretly living that same lifestyle?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

So you would say it's a good idea to pander for votes by preaching that homosexuality is wrong and demonizing those who openly live a homosexual lifestyle, all while you are secretly living that same lifestyle?

I do not approve of hypocrisy. Neither do I approve of members of congress violating their responsibilities to act in loco parentis with pages. You seem to think one behavior is reprehensible, the other acceptable. I disapprove of both.

It's a good thing Hitler wasn't a "hypocrite" about hating the Jews, otherwise the Holocaust would have been way worse.

 

[SJHovey]

So you would say it's a good idea to pander for votes by preaching that homosexuality is wrong and demonizing those who openly live a homosexual lifestyle, all while you are secretly living that same lifestyle?

Or pandering for votes by purporting to tax the rich, then using high priced legal and accounting help to shelter your wealth. Vote pandering knows no bounds.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

This "current state of politics" has been going on for over 210 years. The Adams / Jefferson race in 1800 was much rougher than anything we've seen lately. Tip O'Neil said far worse things against Reagan than McConnell ever said about Obama. Gingrich was a far more formidable opponent for Clinton than Boehner is for Obama. Cleveland had to deal with allegations that he fathered a child with a woman not his wife. We've had some pretty rough stuff for a long time.

My favorite is still the Election of 1828. Andrew Jackson and his wife were labeled adulterers/bigamists because her divorce from husband #1 was considered "common law" and not made official until after they had been together for quite some time. They were absolutely hammered over this by the Quincy Adams campaign.

Charles Hammond, in his Cincinnati Gazette, asked: "Ought a convicted adulteress and her paramour husband be placed in the highest offices of this free and Christian land?"

Today, the American public would hardly blink about this. In the realm of the ridiculous as far as modern context, was a charged laid by the Jackson campaign against Adams that he had purchased "gambling devices" (revealed to be a pool table and chess set) for the White House with government funds. Scandalous!

As for Rachel Jackson, she became severely depressed over the media coverage and public scorn, and weeks later Jackson bitterly blamed his opponents and the media for her untimely death. Just imagine if that was still a major issue today, with 24/7 coverage on the disaster-athon cable news networks. Poor woman might have outright offed herself.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!

I do not approve of hypocrisy. Neither do I approve of members of congress violating their responsibilities to act in loco parentis with pages. You seem to think one behavior is reprehensible, the other acceptable. I disapprove of both.

Where have I said the behavior is acceptable? I'm saying demonizing gays publicly while actually being gay is hypocritical. Preaching about family values while you're having an affair is hypocritical. Denying that it's hypocritical is quite comical.

Anthony Weiner resigned because he took a picture of his (clothed) dick. Mark Sanford just got elected to Congress despite using state funds to have an affair with a South American woman. Family values!