Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Depends on the truth of the testimony, doesn't it?
Your blind partisanship is so deep that you don't find this to be worthy of answers. You know where this originated in your gut, and you're with Lerner, willing to do anything to protect your chosen one.
I would hang a conservative out to dry in a second if they did something like this. Our Constitution was written precisely to prevent government from being used like this.
And the evidence isn't weak. That's just wishful thinking on your part, and if it was, Lerner and her ilk wouldn't be running from it. Same goes for Holder and the DoJ, the NSA, Benghazi, and the other umpteen scandals that have rocked these past six years. It makes Nixon look like he forgot to tie his shoes.
So in effect, the government can do whatever it wants to without fear of recourse whatsoever. I mean, who are we going to get to do something about it?
That's called institutional authoritarianism.
This is what the left is all about, they are pocket statists. Ideas so good they need to force everyone to do it.
This is what the left is all about, they are pocket statists. Ideas so good they need to force everyone to do it.
Let the people believe they are in charge and they'll be easier to govern.
Isn't what they say about an educated populace that they are easy to govern but impossible to rule?
I can't see an educated populace voting for Barrack Obama a second time.
NRO shocking.
There is no real conclusion from that, but things but out in a partisan way. it will impress one set of partisans and not another. Too often this is how we do pretend discourse today. Any thing like the NRO or The Nation or Fox or MSNBC or any of these partisan nonsense things should ever really be used. They're just singing spin to the choir. The trouble for the a partisan is that they see anything not singing to the choir as biased. The partisan pretends there is nothing possible but the rancor they feed themselves. And are blind to any other possibility.
I know it's just terrible that anyone would see this as a problem. The Bastard. But, I do. Sorry.
I can't see an educated populace voting for Barrack Obama a second time.
Ok Joe, Lord knows I have dismissed articles from you in the past with partisan leanings, but what specifically in those bullet points from NRO is "wrong", or "embellished"? I'd like you here to go point, by point in what I laid out from NRO, and show me proof where they are fabricating things.
That's what I said about Bush.
That's because your partisanship blinds. Romney was a poor candidate. Your pool was weak. No educated candidate would have voted for anyone other than Romney, and he was weak.
Romney was a weak candidate? How so?
He was incredibly more qualified than Barrack Obama and everyone with any intelligence should have known that. When the MSM reported after months of research that Romney may have been a bully one time in high school or that they had their dog on top of their vehicle during a family holiday, the left went wild. This is how the low information voters decide elections, not with issues but with long dead anecdotes.
It would have been a far better thing had the MSM researched Obama's past the way they did Romney's but the LIVs called this 'racism'.
Well, anyine could lie. But I'm not the one making unsupported claims. Think about how much of a partisan it takes to think unsupported claims are the gospel, and the person saying lets see the evidence is a partisan hack. If you can't see the problem with that, you're more far gone than even I think.
Romney was a weak candidate? How so?
He was incredibly more qualified than Barrack Obama and everyone with any intelligence should have known that. When the MSM reported after months of research that Romney may have been a bully one time in high school or that they had their dog on top of their vehicle during a family holiday, the left went wild. This is how the low information voters decide elections, not with issues but with long dead anecdotes.
It would have been a far better thing had the MSM researched Obama's past the way they did Romney's but the LIVs called this 'racism'.
If you know anything about how legal matters work, then you would know that they already have the evidence in hand. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
However, they have to have it substantiated, and Lerner can substantiate everything. But, she won't. No way Obama lets her.
Actually no, that's not how it works. If they had evidence the claims made in this thread, they'd pull it out and use it at this point. They have suspicion. That's not evidence.
To be accurate, you have complained that mainstream accurate stories are biased. This is humorous for me when I read it.
But to NRO, I've shown their inaccuracies to you many times before. Bias is a given. But when an article uses this type of language: liberal progressives have closed ranks, and feckless republican leadership doesn't have the fortitude to institute a joint select committee. Well, that's a clue it can't be trusted. This is argument studies 101.
Oh, lord. No, they have the goods. But Lerner holds the key to blowing it wide open.
On the facts that NRO lays out concerning this story, not before, not in other editorials, not anything else but THIS story, and the 8 things I posted from it...Prove it wrong....I don't think you can, so I really don't care what you find humorous or not.
I asked a specific question, and you failed to answer it...As usual.
No, when you use that language, it's an editorial and not a news story. It's steep with opinion and verifiable fact.
The only failure is you don't like the answer. I tell you what, if you really want to break this down. Pick your single strongest piece of evidence from that "article" and present it. I'll answer it specifically and in detail.
That's weak Joe, I gave you 8 points....Show what you believe is untrue, or give it up. That's the way this works...
And I showed you the problem. It paints it in an inaccurate light with biased language. It's called slanting. Now, your option is to address that or try to present something you think is true. I'd love to see you do it without the slanted language.
Oh for God's sake....I'll just take that as your admission that you can't address the points made.
I think you're dreaming. But until we actually see something concrete, it's merely speculation. You do realize you guys have been disappointed a lot when it comes to reaching Obama on these things. You're always thinking there is more there than has ever panned out.
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?