Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gosh, I live to stick it to Republicans. However, I can't do as good a job as the Republicans do to themselves!!
"So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, [and don't forget that Bush had the Plame affair and the Abramoff scandal! –ed] and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's nothing there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy."
Gosh, I live to stick it to Republicans. However, I can't do as good a job as the Republicans do to themselves!!
"So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, [and don't forget that Bush had the Plame affair and the Abramoff scandal! –ed] and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's nothing there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy."
That term infers guilt in itself, odd choice of words in that context..
Denying a scandal does not make it not there.
Wishing it were not there makes one an accomplice in defending it and pushing for it not to be looked into.
Yep, the Repubs keep trying to make stuff up in order to gin up a controversy but all that is doing is damaging their creditability. They've just lied so many times no one believes their conspiracy theory of the week any more.
They don't have to make anything up. It's all right there for all to see. Problem is nobody cares anymore as long as the check keeps coming in the mail and the phone card is renewed every month.
They don't have to make anything up. It's all right there for all to see. Problem is nobody cares anymore as long as the check keeps coming in the mail and the phone card is renewed every month.
You mean something like this?
Quote:
Adding to this fallacy are the assumptions surrounding Mitt Romney’s now infamous comments about the indolent “47 percent” of Americans who regard themselves as victims and therefore pay no taxes. As the American Conservative magazine (no less) pointed out recently, nine of those 10 states are in the red-as-ruby Old Confederacy.*
Quote:
Put another way, again by the American Conservative, “On the other hand, eight of the ten states with the highest non-payment rates are solidly Republican. The exceptions are New Mexico and Florida.”
Is your mouth agape?
Now, one more cross-reference: these facts compared with the know-nothing rhetoric of the Tea Party. There are only two ways to parse that result: one is ignorance—which we should be willing to forgive in anyone as long as they revise their views when faced with reality.
And the second? Selfish hypocrisy. How else can you explain the fact that the denizens of the most welfare dependent states in the country—dare we say, those who enjoy the most benefits from socialism—profess to abhor welfare?
This is a far cry from what most people think. My sense is that, if you asked the average American, they would assume that states benefiting most from federal spending are exactly the opposite—you know, those populated with Ronald Reagan’s “ welfare queens” and lazy unionized auto workers.
I’ll be the first to admit this isn’t a black-and-white exercise. Plenty of questions need to be settled before clear judgments can be made. For instance, does an Army base and the federal money that goes into keeping it running and paying its troops count as a benefit? (It does in my book.) What about a federal prison? (Yeah, jobs and the tax revenues they generate should count there, too.) A private university that is showered with federal research dollars? (Again, yes, those funds count, too.)
But those questions get harder.
Agricultural subsidies? How do we count them—and do we subtract the tax revenues generated by the jobs the farm creates or the export earnings it provides?
And what about defense contractors? Connecticut, Washington state, and California are chock full of weapons merchants. They provide jobs, export income, and many other benefits. Should we count as a federal inflow to those states the money spent, say, on Sikorsky aircraft contracts in Connecticut? And how do we factor in the taxes those companies paid (assuming, unlike nearby General Electric, they actually paid taxes)?
And I admit, maybe we should dock Connecticut and New Jersey for the remaining outstanding balance of the TARP program?
All these accounting issues are over my head, I’ll freely admit. But I trust the figures above, compiled by the rock solid economists at the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group—as a good indicator of the general state of our fiscal reality. When the reality has veered so far from the prevailing political bull****, it’s time for someone to point it out.
So spare me all that red state angst about the federal deficits and national debt. When you stop spending New Jersey’s money, Tex, and produce a plan to replace it with your own revenue stream, then you've earned an opinion in the matter
That term infers guilt in itself, odd choice of words in that context..
Denying a scandal does not make it not there.
Wishing it were not there makes one an accomplice in defending it and pushing for it not to be looked into.
Oh boy we've got mr wordsmith here again implying guilt through a misunderstanding of turn of phrase.
Gosh, I live to stick it to Republicans. However, I can't do as good a job as the Republicans do to themselves!!
"So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, [and don't forget that Bush had the Plame affair and the Abramoff scandal! –ed] and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's nothing there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy."
Repubs have never gotten over the "injustice" done to them over Watergate - meaning dems and the media exposing it to Americans. One defense was "If this is made public it will be bad for America".
Gosh, I live to stick it to Republicans. However, I can't do as good a job as the Republicans do to themselves!!
"So what's going on here? I can sum it up in two words: scandal envy. Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, [and don't forget that Bush had the Plame affair and the Abramoff scandal! –ed] and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's nothing there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy."
Gulf oil disaster and lack of response
Black Panthers voting
Reznik scandal
Fast and Furious
Libya scandal
Perhaps the last will result in impeachment. The nation will not survive another four years of Obama.
Gulf oil disaster, courtesy of republican deregulation of its big-oil base!
Lack of response meaning no quick taxpayer money? Poor BP not bailed out?
How shameless and desperate you righties have become.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Republicans Desperately Need a Scandal
