- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
What a hack! If Obama sent Woodward a valentine card, you would deem it a threat.
Don't call me a hack!
I would certain not be saying that Bush was elected by "most Americans" as shrubnose contends about Obama.
I might add that you have inflated the numbers as did Texmex...though not by near as much as he did. Perhaps you should use a calculator instead of rose-colored guesstimates.
Less than half is not most. Most, by definition, would have to be a sum greater than half of those voting.
At least I didn't accuse Obama of 'scraping' out a victory as you did.
As far as Gore v. Bush, I would say Gore was elected by most Americans who bothered to vote - and certainly received more votes than Bush. Oh yeah, I'm sure you were complaining bitterly about the unfairness of all of that at the time.
LOL!!! Talk about tap dancing...
Your first post quoted nobody. You were having a conversation with the thread...of which I've been a part. I simply addressed your post as is my right.
I'll tell you what...you go ahead with your hyper-partisan defense of that disgusting Obama by trying to dredge up any irrelevant information and innuendo if you want. It is YOUR right, after all.
Your claim is that Obama did not receive more than half of the votes cast for President? By what stretch of bizarre right wing mathematics do you arrive at that conclusion?
2012 General Election Presidential Results for all Candidates
What in the hell are you talking about?
Moderator's Warning: |
shrug...I call less than 4% margin...scraping by...but you can call it whatever you want. The fact is, though, Obama knows he has to use every deceitful trick he can come up with...including threatening a respected journalist to get the people to go along with his bull****. He knows he can't say most Americans agree with him.
I don't recall Obama threatening a 'respected journalis'. When exactly did that happen?
And yes, according to most polls, most americans actually do agree with him. Not the lunatic Right, of course. But most americans.
Attention span is everything. You miss the flow of the conversation and jumped in as if no one had spoken before you. Your right wing friends brought those other two into this conversation, guess you missed that. :roll:
LMAO, not defending Obama or his administration. but am noting the 'threat' wasn't really there and at the time Woodard seems completely at ease with the exchange. His response sure was meek at the very least. Mr. Woodward has jumped the shark.
Now funny thing about the radical right and I called you on it.... you keep saying there is nothing to be learned from the BushII years when Bush's folks were very heavy handed on troublesome reporters, claiming the past is the past yet the radical right drags Hitler/appeasement/pre-war german gun control into our far more democratic system when it suits them.
If 4 years ago doesn't count then what about 60 years ago?
Oh, I'm sure...if you try real hard...you can find something useful to your purpose from 100...or even 200...years ago. shrug...
LOL!!!
Actually it seems to be the 'conservatives' who want to go back over 200 years ago to try and solve today's problems with 18th century philosophy... :roll:
It is the 'conservatives' who go back to to 'tween wars Germany in an attempt to convince us that could happen here. Love using appeasement and jack booted thugs. Have to bring Hitler into comparisons with President Obama...
Again my point on that is if YOU want to forget the very recent past and the Debacle that was BushII then it has to be time to drop the gun confiscation in 1930's Germany-
right?
Actually it seems to be the 'conservatives' who want to go back over 200 years ago to try and solve today's problems with 18th century philosophy... :roll:
It is the 'conservatives' who go back to to 'tween wars Germany in an attempt to convince us that could happen here. Love using appeasement and jack booted thugs. Have to bring Hitler into comparisons with President Obama...
Again my point on that is if YOU want to forget the very recent past and the Debacle that was BushII then it has to be time to drop the gun confiscation in 1930's Germany-
right?
What does any of that have to do with a White House attack dog being stupid enough to use e-mail to send a veiled threat to anyone? Let alone a reporter.
Another BS lie! No one was threatened, you know it.
LOL!!
Still fixated on Hitler and Bush, eh?
Anybody wondering why Lanny Davis is jumping in on this? He claims he was threatened but cannot reveal the source, even though he cannot reveal the source even though the source was revealed today. He had no answers for O'Reilly and we all know he supports Obama 99% of the time. He claims that Obama's senior aids threatened him the one time he did criticize them, so where's the proof Lanny? Woodward showed us, and now we need to see yours!
That they will not be dictated by fact checkers answers everything.No, just trying to get you to agree if 4 years ago is 'the past' then the 1930's must be 'ancient' history for 'conservatives'.
It is an interesting quirk of 'conservatives' the past still fresh on our minds and the fallout still playing out is 'the past' but what happened in a chaotic European country in the 30's is on every 'conservative' tongue.
And while you seem quick to forget the entire 'fixation' as it suits you... let's not forget the constant 'conservative' drumbeat to try and use 18th century mindset to lead us into the 21st century.... :2wave:
No, I don't know that...And if that were true, then why'd Woodward feel the need to bring it out in the way he did? Certainly Bob Woodward is not scared of these types of veiled threats, nor is he some newby cub reporter that interprets these things wrongly...:note: this is where you attack Woodward personally.
No, I don't know that...And if that were true, then why'd Woodward feel the need to bring it out in the way he did? Certainly Bob Woodward is not scared of these types of veiled threats, nor is he some newby cub reporter that interprets these things wrongly...:note: this is where you attack Woodward personally.
The story is NOT the one created by the press of "threat." The story is a senior White House staff RAGING at a reporter stating he was going to publish the truth that it was the White House that created the sequester - which extensively the White House lied about until finally caught in the lie and admitting it.
Obamaniacs will try to divert to the "threat" creation to divert from the truth that the White House created the sequester - while trying to blame Republicans now for it.
So far none.I think certain people thought Woodward somehow wouldn't do his job...reporting.
The implied threat, as I understand it, was no access to the White House.
I'm going to be curious which journalists stand up with Woodward.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?