Which Scandal is the worse for the President & Country

[HUSKER FREAK]

If the tables were turned and liberal organizations and citizens were targeted how loud would the out cry be?? My guess - much louder.

 

How much louder would you like the outcry to be? Everyone here, every news organization, every pundit, everyone everywhere except the most jaded liberal whackjobs are decrying this and demanding answers. What more needs to be said?

Maybe so, maybe not all;

http://townhall.com/...others-n1593081

 

No it would be above and beyond louder. Could you imagine the majority of Hollywood and/or Music (artists) and the constant TV coverage and listening to them. You know cause they are really important because they know how to entertain so we all should listen to their political views. Well I guess we had one bad actor become a really good political figure.

[knapplc]

No it would be above and beyond louder.

 

From whom? Where?

 

These scandals are all over every news outlet. They are front-page headlines everywhere, the lead or near the top story on every TV and radio news program. They are mentioned daily, if not hourly.

 

This could be/should be bigger, and would be if the target was a liberal. Give me examples of where/when this has happened.

 

Because I'm thinking this is yet more word doctoring from the Right, like when Fox calls every other news outlet "the mainstream media" despite being the most-watched news channel out there. They are the very definition of "mainstream" yet they have their viewers convinced they're part of some persecuted minority.

[sd'sker]

One of the biggest reasons besides the obvious that we can not afford to have this douche as our President is the simple fact that he has caused My family's small business thousands and thousands of dollars that we can not afford to lose anymore. I am sure that we are not alone in this even though some people seem to want to turn a blind eye.

sounds like your family's small business just needs to earn more or they need to find different jobs. easy solution.

 

 

Wow.......just.....wow........

i was just using your advice:

 

I wouldn't be happy either. But, you can sit and stew about it and be pissed or go find another job.

[TGHusker]

If the tables were turned and liberal organizations and citizens were targeted how loud would the out cry be?? My guess - much louder.

 

How much louder would you like the outcry to be? Everyone here, every news organization, every pundit, everyone everywhere except the most jaded liberal whackjobs are decrying this and demanding answers. What more needs to be said?

Maybe so, maybe not all;

http://townhall.com/...others-n1593081

 

What's your takeaway from this piece?

 

Honestly, I'm not sure. It appears the reporter, Attkisson, has ended up publishing a good portion of her work on line because it wasn't picked up my

the CBS TV news shows. Part of bias can - (doesn't mean it is so in this case) - be seen by what is left on the cutting room floor - what stories don't

get into the news.

 

From the end of the article (after Brit Hume tweet that says news guy Rhodes was not considered a liberal when he was at Fox): Quote:

So if David Rhodes is a down-the-middle guy, or even has conservative leanings, that changes the calculus a bit. If Politico is right and Attkisson is being targeted by CBS News higher-ups, there are a few possibilities worth considering, given this additional information from Hume: (1) If Attkisson is being punished for politically-motivated reasons, perhaps Rhodes isn't involved. (2) If he is involved, Rhodes' interests may be personal, not political. (3) Attkisson's conduct has crossed some line of professionalism, although I've seen zero evidence that even hints at that conclusion. Finally, there's option (4), wherein Politico got the story wrong, and this is all much ado about nothing. I notice that David Rhodes has just followed me on Twitter, so I will reach out to him and see if we can get to the bottom of this. As I mentioned in the original post, we don't know what the truth is here, but questions abound.

 

UPDATE (May 15) - Attkisson says her bosses have been supportive of her work on Benghazi. CBS News' shows and producers? Not so much. end Quote (This links to the video with these comments from the reporter:)

Quote

CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson: "I've received a lot of encouragement from the top executives who I consider Jeff Fager, who is our CEO and David Rhodes who is our president who have certainly never said anything to try and interfere with the coverage. They’ve complimented a lot of my work and strongly supported it. On the other hand, every story that you present as a reporter has to be bought by a broadcast meaning, not purchased for money but you have to get them interested in it so maybe the evening news wants one story, morning news wants a story and there hasn’t been an appetite for the stories that I’ve offered on Benghazi so I’ve published a lot online because there’s unlimited content space and I’ve done a lot of my reporting there. Until recently there hasn’t been as you said much of a market for on the air and that’s for a variety of reasons I can’t speak to. I don’t know all of the decision-making that’s involved except that on a given day there’s a finite amount of time to put stories on and there are plenty of stories happening every day that obviously someone’s judging to be more important or more urgent." (Interview with David Brody of CBS News, May 15, 2013) end quote

 

Now this story: Her computers are being hacked - the plot thickens - stories from 2 left leaning sites:

http://www.politico....sed-164456.html

http://www.huffingto..._n_3313199.html

 

Of course, she was active in the news investigation of Fast and Furious as well. So, we got Libya, F&F, and now maybe the DOJ wire tap all tied to one reporter (as the last article speculates. Another Huffington posts states the DOJ denies knowledge of it)

 

[knapplc]

How does that relate to the discussion of whether there would be greater or less outcry if the victims of the IRS targeting were liberals? I'm really not following where you're going here.

 

Even, presuming, you're talking about that still, this is one reporter, from one news source. Again, the IRS story, Benghazi, F&F, etc, are all over TV and the internet. They're front page topics right here on little ol' HuskerBoard. How does this reporter being muzzled (arguendo) equate to the premise that there would be greater outrage if the IRS targets were liberals?

[carlfense]

Nothing I said was wrong. I simply sumarized.

This part was/is wrong:

 

Apparently, having the ATF give a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords is no big deal.

^^^^^As far as I can tell this hasn't happened. Are you confusing F&F with Iran-Contra?

 

Please tell me exactly what was incorect and cite sources.

That's not the way it works. If you want to claim that the ATF gave a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords you need to show that the ATF gave a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords.

 

I can't disprove something that has never (to my knowledge) happened.

 

What you are providing links for doesn't seem to support your original claim. That would be the hyperbole and falsehood that I was referring to.

 

 

 

 

 

Also . . .

 

If it happened under Bush, the dems would be screaming. Since it happened under Obama, the republicans are (were) screaming. It was a dismal failure, and was a poor idea.

Uhhhhh . . . hey. It did happen under Bush. I can't imagine why you would be focusing on Obama only . . .

[Ziggy]

Nothing I said was wrong. I simply sumarized.

This part was/is wrong:

 

Apparently, having the ATF give a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords is no big deal.

^^^^^As far as I can tell this hasn't happened. Are you confusing F&F with Iran-Contra?

 

Please tell me exactly what was incorect and cite sources.

That's not the way it works. If you want to claim that the ATF gave a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords you need to show that the ATF gave a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords.

 

I can't disprove something that has never (to my knowledge) happened.

 

What you are providing links for doesn't seem to support your original claim. That would be the hyperbole and falsehood that I was referring to.

 

 

 

 

 

Also . . .

 

If it happened under Bush, the dems would be screaming. Since it happened under Obama, the republicans are (were) screaming. It was a dismal failure, and was a poor idea.

Uhhhhh . . . hey. It did happen under Bush. I can't imagine why you would be focusing on Obama only . . .

 

I don't suppose you have any evidence that this (IRS) happened during the GWB presidency?

[carlfense]

I don't suppose you have any evidence that this (IRS) happened during the GWB presidency?

I wasn't talking about the IRS and neither was saunders45. We were both referring to so called "gunwalking."

 

 

The IRS issue is a real problem. In fact, I might have mentioned that before. http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/65007-irs-targets-tea-party/

[Saunders]

Nothing I said was wrong. I simply sumarized.

This part was/is wrong:

 

Apparently, having the ATF give a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords is no big deal.

^^^^^As far as I can tell this hasn't happened. Are you confusing F&F with Iran-Contra?

 

Please tell me exactly what was incorect and cite sources.

That's not the way it works. If you want to claim that the ATF gave a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords you need to show that the ATF gave a couple thousand guns to Mexican drug lords.

 

I can't disprove something that has never (to my knowledge) happened.

 

What you are providing links for doesn't seem to support your original claim. That would be the hyperbole and falsehood that I was referring to.

 

Oh come on...... They ignored the SOP and it blew up in their face. Instead of getting the guns back when they still could, they let them "walk" in hopes to catch higher ups, i.e. they let them have them. If I put a bunch of candy on the floor, and my two year old starts eating it, technically I didn't "give it to him" but it's sure as hell my fault for letting him have it.

 

 

 

Also . . .

 

If it happened under Bush, the dems would be screaming. Since it happened under Obama, the republicans are (were) screaming. It was a dismal failure, and was a poor idea.

Uhhhhh . . . hey. It did happen under Bush. I can't imagine why you would be focusing on Obama only . . .

 

Um, because this discussion is about Obama? Why don't we talk about Clinton or Eisenhower too? I think Bush was an idiot. Trying to drag Bush into this is just lols though.

[Someone]

One of the biggest reasons besides the obvious that we can not afford to have this douche as our President is the simple fact that he has caused My family's small business thousands and thousands of dollars that we can not afford to lose anymore. I am sure that we are not alone in this even though some people seem to want to turn a blind eye.

sounds like your family's small business just needs to earn more or they need to find different jobs. easy solution.

He could ask his family why they are blaming it on Obama and Obamacare when the regulations won't affect their small business. Maybe that wouldn't fit their agenda against Obama, or they wouldn't have anyone to blame their failed business on but themselves.

 

Our business is 100 years old and we like the size it is. It has nothing to do with whether we will be forced to carry or not carry Group insurance but more the fact of the rising premiums. Thanks though

Premium increase have been occuring for many years before Obamacare. Further, the rate of increase really hasn't change dramatically with the introduction of Obama care.

 

If you tell me what state you are in, I bet I can find some data to confirm what I just posted.

 

What have been the premium increase % for the past 10 years for your family business policy?

Freak: What state are you in?

 

Also, did you read the good news?

 

Rates not as high as expected.

No rate shock.

[carlfense]

Oh come on...... They ignored the SOP and it blew up in their face. Instead of getting the guns back when they still could, they let them "walk" in hopes to catch higher ups, i.e. they let them have them. If I put a bunch of candy on the floor, and my two year old starts eating it, technically I didn't "give it to him" but it's sure as hell my fault for letting him have it.

You didn't think that reality was incriminating enough so you rephrased it?

 

 

If it happened under Bush, the dems would be screaming. Since it happened under Obama, the republicans are (were) screaming. It was a dismal failure, and was a poor idea.

Uhhhhh . . . hey. It did happen under Bush. I can't imagine why you would be focusing on Obama only . . .

 

Um, because this discussion is about Obama? Why don't we talk about Clinton or Eisenhower too? I think Bush was an idiot. Trying to drag Bush into this is just lols though.

 

If it's just "lols" why did you do it? See the bolded underlined section.

[Saunders]

Oh come on...... They ignored the SOP and it blew up in their face. Instead of getting the guns back when they still could, they let them "walk" in hopes to catch higher ups, i.e. they let them have them. If I put a bunch of candy on the floor, and my two year old starts eating it, technically I didn't "give it to him" but it's sure as hell my fault for letting him have it.

You didn't think that reality was incriminating enough so you rephrased it?

 

I summarized it for you since you don't care for the details.

 

 

If it happened under Bush, the dems would be screaming. Since it happened under Obama, the republicans are (were) screaming. It was a dismal failure, and was a poor idea.

Uhhhhh . . . hey. It did happen under Bush. I can't imagine why you would be focusing on Obama only . . .

 

Um, because this discussion is about Obama? Why don't we talk about Clinton or Eisenhower too? I think Bush was an idiot. Trying to drag Bush into this is just lols though.

 

If it's just "lols" why did you do it? See the bolded underlined section.

 

Operation F&F did not happen under Bush. Me stating "if it happened under Bush" is different than you directly blaming Bush. It's not that hard to comprehend...

[carlfense]

I summarized it for you since you don't care for the details.

"Summary" would imply accuracy. You didn't provide a summary.

 

Operation F&F did not happen under Bush. Me stating "if it happened under Bush" is different than you directly blaming Bush. It's not that hard to comprehend...

Ah hah! Gunwalking in F&F=terrible. Gunwalking in WR=meh. If that sort of thing happened under under Bush, the dems would have been screaming.

 

I didn't "directly blame Bush" for F&F. Are you trying to summarize again?

[Saunders]

I summarized it for you since you don't care for the details.

"Summary" would imply accuracy. You didn't provide a summary.

 

Sure I did. Read the reports.

 

Operation F&F did not happen under Bush. Me stating "if it happened under Bush" is different than you directly blaming Bush. It's not that hard to comprehend...

Ah hah! Gunwalking in F&F=terrible. Gunwalking in WR=meh. If that sort of thing happened under under Bush, the dems would have been screaming.

 

I didn't "directly blame Bush" for F&F. Are you trying to summarize again?

 

We were discussing F&F:

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1162495

 

You said it happend under Bush:

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1162644

 

We are discussing the current administration. My example was to point out that if F&F happened under Bush, the dems would be screaming, instead of the reps screaming at Obama. Any questions?

[knapplc]

My example was to point out that if F&F happened under Bush, the dems would be screaming, instead of the reps screaming at Obama.

 

I believe this to be true.