Washington Scandals

[Bean Bag]

Ok... I'm a little creeped out in the US right now...

• Benghazi has slipped beyond the happy magazine cover of "Terrorism Under Control - Vote for Obama!" and into the realm of:  It's ok to kill people to re-elect a politician.
• The IRS is officially what now?  The Nixonian wing of the SS?
• The Justice Dept has decided it's cool to tap the phones of the Press -- business AND private.

I've stayed away from the Politickin' here lately, because I think people need to come to their senses on their own.  I can't help anybody that don't want help.  But... sh-t... I'm really blown away lately.  This sh-t's got really dark. 


What'yall think 

[18thofMay]

Just dont mention Iraq and the many, many other attacks on Emabassies whilst W was in the seat!

[Steve Mayo]

Ok... I'm a little creeped out in the US right now...

• Benghazi has slipped beyond the happy magazine cover of "Terrorism Under Control - Vote for Obama!" and into the realm of:  It's ok to kill people to re-elect a politician.
• The IRS is officially what now?  The Nixonian wing of the SS?
• The Justice Dept has decided it's cool to tap the phones of the Press -- business AND private.

I've stayed away from the Politickin' here lately, because I think people need to come to their senses on their own.  I can't help anybody that don't want help.  But... sh-t... I'm really blown away lately.  This sh-t's got really dark. 


What'yall think 

impeach the bastard

[Bean Bag]

Just dont mention Iraq and the many, many other attacks on Emabassies whilst W was in the seat!

But you just did...     Strange.   

We'll have to see if this stuff upsets people.  That's my point.  Are they going to hold him accountable.  Not whether they're going to have contest, see which President in history was worse, and if they find one... go "okay... this one was more bad.  Therefore, no charges will be made.  Nothing to see here."  That would be silly.  Silly Kangaroo justice.  (aka:  what also floats?  A duck!)

I believe this President has been involved in doing all the creepy things that many have fantasized and projected onto "their W."  The press has sat on this stuff... but now things are bursting.  Oozing.  And they're bad things:  Nixon on roids.

[Heysaboda]

And so, let me guess, you’re getting this from Fox “News”, right?  LOL

 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This is obscene. There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, from whence these particular criticisms come from, and the reason is obvious: the extreme right support the far worse crimes. Obama has expanded and escalated the war in the Middle East, radically expanding in Afghanistan and committing acts of terrorism in Pakistan; he signed into a law a Bush doctrine that legitimized the indefinite detention of American citizens, a violation of basic human rights that has existed since human rights existed as a thing; he has brazenly worked to attack freedom of speech rights with the Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project; he increased global assassinations, which began under Bush; he vetoed a resolution to call an end to illegal settlement expansion in Israel/Palestine.

This is criminal activity on a scale far greater than any of the cases you mention. But there are two exceptions to these cases – one, as mentioned, the scale is far greater and far worse, and two, the extreme right support these far worse crimes. They supported them when their favourite leaders were carrying out similar actions and therefore have to avoid hypocrisy for critiquing crimes that they have previously supported but they also support them on principle – the principle being, I assume, that enormous crimes are acceptable as long as the United States is carrying them out. After all, Obama’s crimes are about as on par with any other US President since WWII. In that case, it is necessary to pick apart the comparatively minor and trivial “scandals” since they are particular, rather than general. No one could accuse a future President, for example, of being slow to call a the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack since it only happened under Obama’s watch. However, you do have to avoid condemning Obama for far worse crimes, like war crimes and serious breaches of human rights, since that is the domain of every US President. And this is why there's virtually no reporting on the above far more serious crimes but a field day on the trivial issues Bean Bag brings up.

[Michael Edwards Love]

This is obscene. There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, from whence these particular criticisms come from, and the reason is obvious: the extreme right support the far worse crimes. Obama has expanded and escalated the war in the Middle East, radically expanding in Afghanistan and committing acts of terrorism in Pakistan; he signed into a law a Bush doctrine that legitimized the indefinite detention of American citizens, a violation of basic human rights that has existed since human rights existed as a thing; he has brazenly worked to attack freedom of speech rights with the Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project; he increased global assassinations, which began under Bush; he vetoed a resolution to call an end to illegal settlement expansion in Israel/Palestine.

This is criminal activity on a scale far greater than any of the cases you mention. But there are two exceptions to these cases – one, as mentioned, the scale is far greater and far worse, and two, the extreme right support these far worse crimes. They supported them when their favourite leaders were carrying out similar actions and therefore have to avoid hypocrisy for critiquing crimes that they have previously supported but they also support them on principle – the principle being, I assume, that enormous crimes are acceptable as long as the United States is carrying them out. After all, Obama’s crimes are about as on par with any other US President since WWII. In that case, it is necessary to pick apart the comparatively minor and trivial “scandals” since they are particular, rather than general. No one could accuse a future President, for example, of being slow to call a the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack since it only happened under Obama’s watch. However, you do have to avoid condemning Obama for far worse crimes, like war crimes and serious breaches of human rights, since that is the domain of every US President. And this is why there's virtually no reporting on the above far more serious crimes but a field day on the trivial issues Bean Bag brings up.

I think you raise very important issues, but I wonder if these acts are "criminal" in the legal sense.  One could argue the morality of these acts but I don't think that the Presidents broke the law, as such.  In defense of Presidents Obama and Bush, I do wonder sometimes if we aren't being protected from far worse than we realize.  But, that's just speculation.

As to the IRS and Justice dept. issues revealed over the last few days, there may be some actual law-breaking going on.  And, if nothing else, it smacks of the same paranoia that the Nixon administration operated under.  I just watched "The US vs. John Lennon" a few weeks back and while it falls prey to hero-worship of a flawed guy, the cultural atmosphere brought out in it is very reminiscent of today.  The political sides are very polarized and both sides see conspiracies all over the place.  Like Nixon, did Obama run a "win at all costs" campaign?  Maybe every 40 years or so, we need to clean house and re-set the game.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think you raise very important issues, but I wonder if these acts are "criminal" in the legal sense.

Absolutely they are but they are rarely brought to any kind of legal setting because of the enormous power that the United States has. It happens rarely - so for example, Nicaragua brought a case to the International Court of Justice who found the US (under Reagan at the time) guilty of terrorism in the region. Such was the power of the US though that the ruling had zero effect:

The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

And this is fairly standard - the US breaks major laws constantly but there's not much anyone can do about it.

[KittyKat]

This thread should be deleted because this guy deliberately originally posted this on the main board and he knows damn well it doesn't belong there. Why move it, just get rid of it for that rule violation alone. And no, most of us aren't paranoid enough to be "worried" or call this "Nixon on 'roids." But I shouldn't even bother saying that, because the person who started this thread is clearly being a troll who want attention.

[Mahalo]

You seem very angry about this thread even existing.

It's settled- Let's delete it, Kitty doesn't like it.

[Bean Bag]

This thread should be deleted because this guy deliberately originally posted this on the main board and he knows damn well it doesn't belong there. Why move it, just get rid of it for that rule violation alone. And no, most of us aren't paranoid enough to be "worried" or call this "Nixon on 'roids." But I shouldn't even bother saying that, because the person who started this thread is clearly being a troll who want attention.

None of what you said is true. 


Now... what's really bothering you?

[Bean Bag]

And so, let me guess, you’re getting this from Fox “News”, right?  LOL

 

... but, where do you go from there?  Are you going to criticize my penmanship?

And the answer is no.  You're wrong.   

[Bean Bag]

I think you raise very important issues, but I wonder if these acts are "criminal" in the legal sense.  One could argue the morality of these acts but I don't think that the Presidents broke the law, as such.  In defense of Presidents Obama and Bush, I do wonder sometimes if we aren't being protected from far worse than we realize.  But, that's just speculation.

As to the IRS and Justice dept. issues revealed over the last few days, there may be some actual law-breaking going on.  And, if nothing else, it smacks of the same paranoia that the Nixon administration operated under.  I just watched "The US vs. John Lennon" a few weeks back and while it falls prey to hero-worship of a flawed guy, the cultural atmosphere brought out in it is very reminiscent of today.  The political sides are very polarized and both sides see conspiracies all over the place.  Like Nixon, did Obama run a "win at all costs" campaign?  Maybe every 40 years or so, we need to clean house and re-set the game.

That's a good point -- every 40 years, etc.  That's basically inline with the generational time-table.  I'm huge into that stuff... because, sh-t who's playing the game?  Exactly... new kids every 40 years.

I always thought we saw the the beginning of the end of this cycle with Clinton.  A bad man with a smile.  The emergence of a new, dastardly style of politickin'.  The Alinsky/Chicago model:  blame your opponent of whatever -- killing grandma, who cares -- just ruin their career, and win the election and raise cash, yo!

And now we've completed the cycle.  We're right back in the Nixon saddle.  The reset button is here.

It is what it is.  Be cool with it folks.  It ain't got sh-t to do with you anyway.  We're better than this.

[smile-holland]

This thread should be deleted because this guy deliberately originally posted this on the main board and he knows damn well it doesn't belong there. Why move it, just get rid of it for that rule violation alone. And no, most of us aren't paranoid enough to be "worried" or call this "Nixon on 'roids." But I shouldn't even bother saying that, because the person who started this thread is clearly being a troll who want attention.

None of what you said is true. 

In all honesty, you did originally post it in the wrong section (General Music Discussion, not the main board), but as that happens all the time here I'd hardly call that a crime.     So I moved it to the Sandbox.
Anyway, no reason to end this topic. Resume please!

[Moon Dawg]

And so, let me guess, you’re getting this from Fox “News”, right?  LOL

 

 Believe it or not, these stories are also being addressed by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. I think even MSNBC may have mentioned them once or twice.

 I'd like to know the justification for the seizure of the AP phone records.

And did some mid-level functionary at the IRS make these decisions independently?

As for Benghazi, bad things do happen in bad places, but the talking points were an attempt to spin the story. It's murky at best.

Withholding judgement, but none of this is good. 

[Mendota Heights]

And so, let me guess, you’re getting this from Fox “News”, right?  LOL

 

Where do you get your news from?

[GreatUrduPoet]

Worse than Watergate.
Worse Than Iran-Contra.
Worse than Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski etc.
Worse than Whitewater

This President is just one 'Kent State' away
from being the worst U.S. President ever.

[rab2591]

The government has just gotten far too big for its own good. The overreach into privacy is getting out of hand. Obama needs to take this opportunity to hold these agencies accountable. Don't make a fall-guy - just admit that these agencies are doing more harm than good - and then fix the problem.

I do have to give props to Obama for threatening to veto CISPA had it passed, but then there's the signing of the Patriot Act and other privacy intrusions he's been rather flip about. As Moon Dawg says, none of this is good.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Worse than Watergate.
Worse Than Iran-Contra.
Worse than Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski etc.
Worse than Whitewater

This President is just one 'Kent State' away
from being the worst U.S. President ever.

Again - none of what you mention there was even close to the worst thing those Presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) did in their administration - including commiting acts of terrorism, supporting acts of terrorism, illegally spying on American citizens, carrying out assassination campaigns against US citizens, etc. Those are far worse than what is being attributed to Obama though Obama himself has done far worse than these trivial scandals that are being applied to him and they all together make Watergate, Lewinski etc. look about as tame as an issue could possibly be. I repeat: There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, because the extreme right support the far worse crimes. The reason why you think Obama is "one 'Kent State' away from being the worst President ever" is because the extreme right supports the massive terror campaigns, call for genocides, extreme support of genocides, bloodbaths, etc., extreme support for the ongoing destruction of civilizations, and the illegal ideological repression of political groups within the national borders. Those things don't count as bad things because we are doing them in they are done in the name of our value system. So since these horrific crimes are a-ok, then something as trivial as Benghazi must seem like the worst possible thing that could happen.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The government has just gotten far too big for its own good.

Too big? Comparatively speaking, the government is almost as small as it has ever been - with the exception of the horrifying days before the stock market crash of 1929.

[Mendota Heights]

Again - none of what you mention there was even close to the worst thing those Presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) did in their administration - including commiting acts of terrorism, supporting acts of terrorism, illegally spying on American citizens, carrying out assassination campaigns against US citizens, etc. Those are far worse than what is being attributed to Obama though Obama himself has done far worse than these trivial scandals that are being applied to him and they all together make Watergate, Lewinski etc. look about as tame an issue as one could possibly have. I repeat: There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, because the extreme right support the far worse crimes. The reason why you think Obama is "one 'Kent State' away from being the worst President ever" is because the extreme right supports the massive terror campaigns, call for genocides, extreme support of genocides, bloodbaths, etc., extreme support for the ongoing destruction of civilizations, and the illegal ideological repression of political groups within the national borders. Those things don't count as bad things because we are doing them. So since these horrific crimes are a-ok, then something as trivial as Benghazi must seem like the worst possible thing that could happen.

What's your definition of "extreme right"? I am a libertarian myself and as much "right" (don't like that term) as one can possibly be. I know of no libertarian who supports any of the current traditional wars (Afghanistan) or covert wars (Libya, Syria and so on).

If you consider the Republican party "extreme right", please reconsider. Both parties are the same party - the party of financial oligarchs.

[Mendota Heights]

The government has just gotten far too big for its own good.

Too big? Comparatively speaking, the government is almost as small as it has ever been - with the exception of the horrifying days before the stock market crash of 1929.

How about presenting some actual numbers, rockandroll?



As you can see government spending of GDP was less than 7 per cent in 1900. Now it is close to 40 per cent. 40 is a bigger number than 7 in my book.

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

[rab2591]

The government has just gotten far too big for its own good.

Too big? Comparatively speaking, the government is almost as small as it has ever been - with the exception of the horrifying days before the stock market crash of 1929.

True, I should have said it has become too powerful for its own good.

[rab2591]

The government has just gotten far too big for its own good.

Too big? Comparatively speaking, the government is almost as small as it has ever been - with the exception of the horrifying days before the stock market crash of 1929.

How about presenting some actual numbers, rockandroll?



As you can see government spending of GDP was less than 7 per cent in 1900. Now it is close to 40 per cent. 40 is a bigger number than 7 in my book.

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

Spending is up (*waiting for a correction from RockandRoll ), but the amount of gov't employees is down by quite a bit from 4 years ago.

[Jason]

I would probably be considered "right-wing" and I don't support the warmongering or calls for genocide or assassinations of U.S. citizens. I think if presidents in this country (especially in the last sixty, seventy years or so) were actually held accountable, they all would have been tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity. But the American people in general are too ignorant - they don't want to hold "their guy" accountable. The GOP didn't want to do it with Bush, and the Democrats don't want to do it with Obama. And it runs on party lines.

I'd say abolishing the state would achieve better ends than letting it grow or shrink, but hey...