May 12, 2013

Michael Tomasky thinks the idea of impeaching Obama is "industrial-strength insane," which is why the GOP will try to do it.

Because they are industrial-strength insane.

I love the way it's his idea that he's calling insane, and he's so sure other people are insane. Isn't that kind of... insane?
But this is my point: utter madness is what today’s Republicans do. You can present to me every logical argument you desire. Benghazi at the end of the day was a terrible tragedy in which mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made, and in which confusion and the CYA reflex led to some bad information going out to the public initially, but none of this remotely rises to the level of high crime. The IRS cock-up was just that, a mistake by a regional office. I get all this, and I agree with you.
Why do people say "logic" when they are obviously not talking about logic? He's talking about what the facts are, how to characterize the facts, and what the standard for impeachment is. None of that is pinned down. We always only have evidence of what the facts are, and currently we don't even have all the evidence of the facts. Whether the facts say "tragedy" and "confusion" and "mistakes" or something more nefarious hasn't been resolved. And the standard for impeachment has never been resolved.

289 comments:

1 – 200 of 289   Newer›   Newest»
edutcher said...

This kind of blather is usually followed by the response, "Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better".

Given things aren't going all that well generally and will get a whole lot worse after New Year's, impeachment may turn out to be one of the best political moves around. People will be mad and who gets blamed when things go wrong?

Paco Wové said...

"mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made"

What mistakes? By whom? I want details.

Paco Wové said...

I guess it's a major concession on Tomasky's part to say that the mistakes didn't make themselves.

Mr Wibble said...

Barack Obama could gut a man on live television and the Democrats in the House and Senate would not only refuse to vote for impeachment, they would blame the GOP.

Impeachment is never going to happen. A censure may possibly happen, since in the end it would have no teeth and merely give red state Dems cover in upcoming elections.

Eric Jablow said...

On the other hand, I can foresee impeachments of other officials who decided to abandon the Ambassador to his fate and who covered up their mistakes.

SteveR said...

Yeah bad mistakes, now move along. It would be nice to get the story, you know like who made the bad mistake. That there is this post election need to keep acting like the election is three weeks away behavior it makes me wonder. Maybe its a trap but I don't think so. I don't want to impeach Obama, I just want the truth.

Lem said...

bad mistakes, were certainly made...

Now its a certainty?

The Drill SGT said...

Though I don't agree with anything Obama did WRT Benghazi, before, during or after. I think every bad decision was just bad policy or lying. I see no crimes by Obama.

Mr Wibble said...



On the other hand, I can foresee impeachments of other officials who decided to abandon the Ambassador to his fate and who covered up their mistakes.


Nope. Abandoning the ambassador was a horrible act, but it would be hard to argue that it was a crime. Furthermore you'll see officials resign and quietly take some cushy private sector job six months later before you see them forcefully removed from office.

RichardS said...

Tomasky, like so many others on the Left, regards himself as a Pragmatist. Pragmatism regards itself as sensible and centrist. Those who have a different understanding of what is sensible and centrist expose the Prgatmatist myth (All sensible people agree . . .) Hence the projection.

YoungHegelian said...

"We're so smart & logical" is the phrase liberals tell themselves every day when they wake up & look in the mirror. It is a major fixed idea of the group identity. Conversely, those who do not see the world in their way are therefore stupid & illogical.

The idea that most socio-political issues are so complicated, and that different folks will come at these issues with moral systems based on completely different sets of assumptions because that's the human condition never seems to enter their heads.

Which makes you wonder just how smart & logical they are if they miss the basic historical fact that there is no "science" of morality.

cubanbob said...

On the other hand, I can foresee impeachments of other officials who decided to abandon the Ambassador to his fate and who covered up their mistakes.

Bingo! And a number of special prosecutors appointed. And just like Watergate just wasn't about a break in there is more to come. Obama on the other hand won't be impeached nevermind removed. The republicans aren't that stupid to try unless they caught him red handed with a serious felony.

Lem said...

I see no crimes by Obama.

That's because the job is managed for him that way.

I don't think Obama is really in charge of anything.

Chip S. said...

Which makes you wonder just how smart & logical they are...

I occasionally wonder how sweet and cuddly brown bears are, but I never wonder about the logical capacity of liberals.

bagoh20 said...

If you are the police chief, and there is a bank robbery, and all the hostages get killed as well as a bunch of bystanders, and the bad guys get away with the money because you fell asleep in the arms of your mistress, then it's also true that no crime was committed by you, so you just have to conclude "what difference now does it make, and get busy selling some tickets to the policeman's ball.

Baron Zemo said...

They need to appoint a bunch of special prosecutors and tie the government up in knots. That will limit the damage that Obama can do since he is lazy fuck and will just make a speech blaming everybody else and go on vacation.

It is the best we can do with the hand we were dealt.

cubanbob said...

Nope. Abandoning the ambassador was a horrible act, but it would be hard to argue that it was a crime. Furthermore you'll see officials resign and quietly take some cushy private sector job six months later before you see them forcefully removed from office.

Dereliction duty. Try that on for size. Then there is lying to congress. But never fear, Zero is safe. Besides if he were to be removed or if he resigned then the only possibly worst guy to be president becomes president.

Michael K said...

The least likely case for impeachment was the Nixon case. He was hated by the left, including Hillary, and that was enough.

It was a mistake to impeach Clinton but he was so dishonest and manipulative that he made it happen.

Andrew Johnson was just drunk.

edutcher said...

Remember, impeachment was never in the cards for Willie until he tried to lecture us on what the meaning of "is" is.

The killer for Barry are those 3 magic words malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.

Apparently, there's a lot more to come out about why Stevens was in Benghazi that particular night and why security was nonexistent

Baron Zemo said...

I second Mr Wibbles point. There is not a crime that Obama could commit that would lead to his impeachment. No crime. Murder. Rape. Theft of millions. Tearing the tags off his mattress. Nothing I tells ya nothing!

Mr Wibble said...

Dereliction of Duty is for military personnel. Additionally it still doesn't work based on the facts. He wasn't incapacitated or willfully failed to follow orders. He made a decision not to send in a rescue team to Benghazi, which may be an awful thing to do but is still a legitimate decision.

bagoh20 said...

Nixon wasn't impeached either, so it's gonna be cool to see what it's like if such a President refuses to do the right thing. We have the perfect actor for the role. He's just what we need to play a President with no principles or character.

Baron Zemo said...

There is only one possible scenario where Obama could be impeached.

That is if he let the ambassador get murdered because he was gay.

Then he would be in trouble.

Otherwise he has nothing to worry about.

Lem said...

At least for once garage cant say the blog does not cater to him ;)

Balfegor said...

When you strike at a king, you must kill him. Impeachment wouldn't be sensible because you need a supermajority of the Senate to convict, and that's just not going to happen unless the political ground shifts dramatically. Drawing up articles of impeachment would accomplish nothing concrete, while allowing Obama play the victim to fire up his base.

Harold said...

You are mistaken. We do know what the grounds for impeachment and conviction in the modern era are.

If a Republican does it, it is impeachable, and conviction will assuredly follow.

If a Democrat does it, it's just a mistake, or "everyone lies about it" and therefore, though it may be perjury, it's really nothing, or it's just an honest mistake by overzealous underlings, nothing to worry about, and those damn Republicans are only playing politics.

Everyone know this.

bagoh20 said...

This is why it was so important to insist on getting the truth before the election, why a vigorous press is needed, and why the deflection by Obama, and the fanboy nature of the press should have been reason enough all by itself to vote against him. A lot of Independents are idiots.

Paco Wové said...

"utter madness is what today’s Republicans do"

And yet they control 60% of governorships. And over 50% of state legislatures. And the House. And have a pretty big minority in the Senate.

So what does that say about the voters that put them there, Mr. Tomasky?

edutcher said...

Nixon wasn't impeached because John Tower, Hugh Scott, and Barry Goldwater got to him first and talked him into resignation.

Had that not happened, the Demos would have gone after him, and on evidence shakier than what we have here. Remember "unindicted co-conspirator"?

The real issue is things like this take a while to reach critical mass and what finally pushes everything over the cliff isn't always what's obvious earlier on. It could be the IRS thing that becomes the big issue. It could be something that isn't even on the radar now, but impeachment is a political procedure and, as I said earlier, if things get worse, particularly after ObamaTax goes completely live, you'll see it.

The trolls foaming at the mouth, the KosKidz shouting down anybody who thinks Barry might be in trouble, Barry's own worries about young people's cynicism tend to indicate that all-important cult of the personality is losing its luster and they're worried.

If the magic is gone and he's just another guy, there may well be room under the bus for him, too.

Lem said...

Clinton was impeached because Hillary insisted in fighting Paula Jones. Had Clinton settled, sure, it would have been an embarrassment, but fighting, caused not only an embarrassment, it secured his place in history, in a way he never started out seeking.

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Balfegor said...

Drawing up articles of impeachment would accomplish nothing concrete, while allowing Obama play the victim to fire up his base.

Willie tried that, but people were tired of him and the Clinton Soap Opera. When the details came out, all that saved him was the Senate and the RINOs.

YoungHegelian said...

@PW,

So what does that say about the voters that put them there, Mr. Tomasky?

Like you need to ask that, Paco! Republican voters are all insane, too!

I mean, jeezo-peep, what's the matter with Kansas?

Sam L. said...

"...the double-barrel revelations that the White House hasn’t quite been telling the whole story on Benghazi and that some mid-level IRS people targeted some Tea Party groups for scrutiny are guaranteed to ramp up the crazy." Hasn't "quite" been telling the whole story? "Mid-level" IRS personnel? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiht.

Still, even if the GOB takes teh senate and retains the house, they should not impeach--The Death Of The Trillion Cuts will be more effective. Crimes--questionable. Stupidity and cupidity--yes. When Obama's got your back, the unprinted/unsaid next word is 'targeted'.

bagoh20 AT 5:22 FOR Comment Of The Day!

Lem said...

Obama is going to have to admit to something.

The sooner he does it the better.

If he waits, it will get away from him with the legs that are growing with every revelation.

For example... did you know the whistleblowers voted for Obama twice? - these are Obamabots.

Mr Wibble said...


If the magic is gone and he's just another guy, there may well be room under the bus for him, too.


This is why I think that censure is a more real possibility than most people think. Red state Dems upset by Obamacare and looking to separate themselves from the WH could vote to censure the President which gives them "credibility" without actually doing anything serious.

TosaGuy said...

Impeachment creates a victim to rally around. It forces liberals to defend him. Let him die politically from a thousand cuts to the point the libs won't bother to defend him. Keep his admin on the defensive and drain his political capital. Aids and advisors with any talent or principles will leave....to be followed with talentless sycophants.

He will eventually be the loneliest man in Washington.

James said...

Joseph Curl is anticipating that all hell will break loose by next Friday: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/

wildswan said...

Obama won't be impeached. But he should be. He lowered security at the Benghazi mission even after the British Ambassador was attacked. I say "he" because Hilary did what she did to further Obama's goals. He ignored requests for more security from the man he sent over into danger. Again I say "he" because Hilary was furthering his goals. He went to bed and took no further interest in an attack by Al Quaeda on the anniversary of Sept. 11. His lack of interest meant that red tape tied up the situation and nothing was done. If the President of the United States had been on the phone there would have been a way to get help to those guys. His lack of interest resulted in 4 deaths. He left them to die. And he lied and he is still not interested in their deaths. He's broken his contract with the American people. But nothing will be done. It's just like Ted Kennedy at Chappaquidick. Or OJ Simpson. Some people can get away with murder and they see they can and then they do it.

My only idea in this situation is that there should be an annual Chappaquidick award given to the Democrat who commits the most egregious crime AND gets it covered up. Anthony Weiner, no; Bill Ayers, yes. A little lame poodle called "Mail" could carry a trillion dollar check over to the winner and eat it at the last minute. The announcer says Oh, sorry, your check is in the Mail.

Chef Mojo said...

"The Death of a Thousand Cuts" is really the way to go.

Make the Dems defend against the possibility of impeachment.

Lem said...

Michelle, like Hillary probably wants to fight and not admit to anything... she will be a hindrance to him, should it come to Impeachment.

traditionalguy said...

Obama is too smart to seem impeachable. After all in disaster can happen by mistakes, and happen, and happen, and happen, and happen. The pace picks up as Obama only has 3 years to make the rest of the mistakes he has planned for us.

The latest mistake appears to be a malthousian mandated illusion requiring a theft of all energy money that will be done to stop the Global Warming caused Pandemics that are coming out germ warfare laboratories now.

The Fast and Furious gun seeding in Mexico tricks done to enable UN Gun Confiscation was a good one, but Obama has saved the best tricks for last.

sinz52 said...

Don't get sidetracked by Mr. Tomasky's raising the specter of impeachment. The real point Mr. Tomasky made--further in his column--was that the Dem base has to get energized for 2014 because the twin scandals of Benghazi and the IRS are really going to get the GOP base energized.

He's right about that.

The spectacle of the IRS delberately targeting conservative groups has certainly got me energized.

So far, the Republicans in Congress have called for a full congressional investigation of the IRS scandal--and that should go forward.

Remember how long the Watergate hearings lasted. From the first hearing till the time they issued their final report, an entire year had elapsed. A whole year.

So I have no problem with the GOP-led House launching an investigation of the IRS matter; an investigation which could take months.

Bob said...

All of this impeachment discussion is a waste of time without effective GOP control of the Senate, and even if impeachment and dismissal of Obama occurred, you're left with President Joe Biden.

Marty said...

Tomasky, Krugman, Dionne, Robinson, Rich, Pitts, Clift--do we really need all of them? Or are they really just the same person continually re-writing the same boring and self-revealing talking points while popping pills and slurping down Glenfidditch? At least Dowd is occasionally (albeit unintentionally) funny.

Pettifogger said...

Regarding the standards for impeachment, in a world with a living constitution and with evolving contemporary standards, maybe "high crimes and misdemeanors" means that the president belongs to the other party.

Lem said...

Remember how an UN mission was blown up in the days following the downfall of Saddam Hussein?

We ousted Kaddafi... we go and not only fail to properly secure our mission or whatever... we downgrade the security after the British were attacked and our people there had requested it an increase of security.

pm317 said...

So he is fantasizing what he would call the Republicans if they went through with his insane ideas.

This is another way Obama minions smear their opponents..

bagoh20 said...

Well, it took a while, but we did finally find a qualification for President that Obama actually holds: He didn't commit a crime yet. Sure it's a low bar, but a bar no less. We can rest assured that Richard Ramirez will never be the first Hispanic President.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The smart thing would be to impeach a lower level official who's culpability was firmly established. Of course, such officials usually resign or are fired to avoid such a fate. But that would do just as well to establish the principle.

edutcher said...

Bob said...

All of this impeachment discussion is a waste of time without effective GOP control of the Senate, and even if impeachment and dismissal of Obama occurred, you're left with President Joe Biden.

Declaring him non compos mentis should take about a week.

Jay said...

Who, exactly, is calling for Obama's impeachment?

edutcher said...

Right now, it appears to be the Lefties.

As things stand, the "train wreck" that is ObamaTax may just undo the 80 years' good will Social Security has bought the Demos.

PS Just nominating Shotgun Joe should be grounds for impeachment.

rcocean said...

When Democrats do something shady, its just an honest mistake.

Whoops, how did all those FBI files get in the White House? Guess some FBI knucklehead just had a brain fart.

Whoops, how did the IRS investigate all those Right-wingers, while leaving the left-winger untouched? Nothing but an honest mistake.

Whoops, that whole Benghazi thing? Just someone asleep at switch. So sorry.

William said...

If they ever impeach him, the media should be considered unindicted co conspirators. How can Candy Crowley even be allowed to report on this story. She has a vested interest in minimizing it........I don't think Clinton's bj and subsequent lies qualify as high crimes, but they certainly qualify as base crimes. A more honorable man would have resigned. Perhaps Congress could have just passed a motion asking him to resign and allow him to spin on the sleaze......This is not an impeachable offense, but neither does it make Obama or Hillary look good. The Dems having claimed that there was nothing to the story, then that the story was old news, will now claim that the Republicans are overreacting to these small human frailties. And that's how the press will report it.

edutcher said...

Keep in mind, there's a lot we don't know about Benghazi.

Yet.

rcocean said...

Biggest shock of my life was the Clinton Presidency. All my young life I'd heard liberals yakking about ethics and morality, "speaking truth to Power". Hammering and investigating Reagan, Bush, and Nixon because that's what a free press does.

Then comes Clinton. Lying under oath, who cares? Corruption, bribery, FBI files, the Marc Rich pardon, sexual harassment of Paula Jones? Sorry, liberals weren't interested.

I can even remember the day the "Homeless Crisis" was solved, it was Clinton's inauguration day.

David Davenport said...

... mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made ...

On his radio show Friday, Rush L. said that Joe Biden or maybe the Heinz Ketchup Gigolo is leaking damaging stuff about their fellow Dems. at the top of the heap.

Why would either one do that? Because Uncle Joe and His Yachtness Mr. Kerry still want to be President, or at least take Hillary's pace as the next Dem. nominee for Pres.

Dirty politics behind the throne ...

gadfly said...

Michael Tomanski is the Editor in Chief of Democracy, home of "big ideas" for progressives. But he had no idea until last week that the Obama regime had not been forthcoming about Benghazi or that the regime enforcers at the IRS were targeting TEA party organizations.

So lying and cheating is all in a days work. Nothing to see here - move on. At WVU, I am sure that he joined his hillbilly friends in burning couches and pouring beer all over opposing fans at football games.

Michael is a terrible writer who made me research this comment: "I always held a squishy spot in my breast for the Daily Mail because of the “Paperback Writer” mention ..."

FYI - verse two of Paperback Writer goes like this

It's a dirty story of a dirty man,
And his clinging wife doesn't understand.
His son is working for the Daily Mail
It's a steady job,
But he wants to be a paperback writer


This guy isn't old enough to remember the lyrics of Beatles songs and I have long forgotten them.

Matthew Sablan said...

I think that with Benghazi and the IRS issues, it was rank incompetence and not deliberate mis-handling of his position. That's not cause for impeachment, unless there was a deliberate cover up afterwards.

But, hey, let's get some journalists to FOIA all the emails regarding why the Chief Counsel and the IRS took nearly three years to say: "Hey, stop targeting people based on their political beliefs now that the election is over."

hombre said...

Nothing impeachable has come out about Benghazi. It's about a coverup of incompetence and insensitivity.

Obama doesn't know what to do in a crisis so he did what he knows how to do: he went off to raise money for campaigns. It's who he is, but it is not a "high crime or misdemeanor."

The coverup was to give Obamadupes and Clintondupes some talking points. They don't care about what happened, or why. They're sociopaths as are their followers.

Tomasky is just rallying the other sociopaths with "vast right-wing conspiracy" blather.

Carnifex said...

I'd like to impeach CJ Roberts for fucking us over with obamacare

James said...

Obama said:
"Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices."

The IRS heard: "Investigate the groups that warn about government oppression."

viator said...

Michael Tomasky, JourNoLister. It is interesting that Althouse highlighted this. Maybe Bengahzi or the IRS capers have more legs than I first thought. The revenge of Petraeus and the CIA?

virgil xenophon said...

I'd like to know why "dereliction of duty" by the Commander-in-Chief in the face of armed enemy action in which a U>S> Ambassador is killed along with three others in the line of duty is not an impeachable offense. Somebody 'splain it to me..

whoresoftheinternet said...

Remember when Inga, the lying, murderous Obama whore, said it was ok for her president to arrest people for making movies, since they caused these riots?

And remember how she now knows that Obama was lying when he arrested the filmmaker---knowing he didn't cause any riots at the time he arrested him--and how Inga has ignored this since then?

Remember how Garbage Pail has tried to minimize the murders caused by Obama and the destruction of free speech caused by Obama, all through this?

And, just for shits and giggle,s remember how Freeman Cunt said it's ok for women to make false rape charges, and men who like sex belong in jail and deserve no sympathy?

And yet you non-leftists still claim "Civility" works best with these subhumans.

Enjoy the decline, assholes!

virgil xenophon said...

PS: And don't give me any lectures about the political near-impossibility of it all--I'm well aware of that. Just run the legal/Constitutional and technical/factual-situational details by me..

garage mahal said...

What better person to sniff out potential criminal behavior than an old car thief like Darrell Issa?

Good thing he's on the straight and arrow now though and working for us!

whoresoftheinternet said...

Note how Garbage Pail, now presented with unassailable truth that Obama lied about Benghazi, caused an ambassador to be murdered, and destroyed the first amendment...

Goes after those pointing this out.

And you people think leftists should be treated "with civility."

lol.

Enjoy the decline, morons!

ricpic said...

Benghazi was not about "mistakes," it was about deliberate lying so that a political line that Obama had knocked out Al-Qaeda, itself a lie, would hold up until election day. There couldn't be a response to an attack because there couldn't be an attack. Stevens' and the other Americans' deaths were just bumps in the road.

Hagar said...

Conviction upon impeachment takes 67 votes in the Seante.
Obama will not be impeached unless he completely loses his mind and does something that absolutely forces the Republicans into it; never mind their experience with Bill Clinton.

However, I think Vilsack and Holder could be impeached right now and possibly others as well.
That would certainly make life in the White House very difficult.

edutcher said...

hombre said...

Nothing impeachable has come out about Benghazi. It's about a coverup of incompetence and insensitivity.

I keep hearing this, but what did Nixon do that was impeachable? Try to cover up the third rate burglary?

In a sense, that's what we have here.

A Conservative Teacher said...

It's a good tactic that he is employing- before anyone in the GOP even starts talking about impeaching Obama for his potential role in breaking the laws of our nation, call those people insane. Establish that anyone calling for impeachment about anything is insane and keep shouting it and have the media echo it, and then when it turns out that Obama ordered the stand down on 9/11/12 or knew about and covered up the IRS activities, it will be insane to go after him. It's a great tactic, the kind that works well in third world nations and what the Democrats want to do to America.

Clyde said...

Tomaskey is a lodestone for me. He is always 100% wrong. He's like a compass that always points south. Whatever he says, I believe the opposite.

Jay Retread said...

Hey! Just checking in! Great to see that Ann still has you Obama hating Althouse Hillbillies laying around on her porch! Now go buy some toliet paper through her Amazon portal you drooling pig fuckers! Yee-HAWWW!

virgil xenophon said...

@A Conservative Teacher/

I'm sorry, but the dividing-line between American politics and the politics of Third World nations is blurred at best. Many would say it no longer exists..

narciso said...

Tomasky was the Journolist tasked to the Guardian, pure moonbat city,

virgil xenophon said...

I see Clyde is nobody's fool..

Jay Retread said...

Hey! Just checking in! Great to see that Ann still has you Obama hating Althouse Hillbillies laying around on her porch! Now go buy some toliet paper through her Amazon portal you drooling pig fuckers! Yee-HAWWW!

Jay Retread said...

Hey! Just checking in! Great to see that Ann still has you Obama hating Althouse Hillbillies laying around on her porch! Now go buy some toliet paper through her Amazon portal you drooling pig fuckers! Yee-HAWWW!

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Jay retread:

Nice to see you white gentile hating, nigger-worshiping, economy-destroying, ghetto-loving, crime-rate-ignoring, rape-apologizing, low IQ leftists are still out trying to make everywhere as wonderful as Detroit, Newark, and Camden.

Now go buy some Purple Drank and pretend Trayvon Martin is innocent, fag!

Enjoy the decline, nigger-lover!

mishu said...

The IRS cock-up was just that

And plumbers breaking into a hotel room was just that. Move along now.

Synova said...

If Benghazi doesn't amount to "high crime"... what was Watergate?

Jay Retread said...

Great bunch of racists you have cultivated here Ann...

Drago said...

garage: "What better person to sniff out potential criminal behavior than an old car thief like Darrell Issa?"

"car thief"

At the very moment that the majority of the left-wing media establishment recognize that this issue is actually "real" and must be addressed, the easily-directed cannon fodder known as garage simply continues with yesterdays talking points.

His political betters have not yet seen fit to provide him with something "new" to say, so he wings it. With the all too obvious and easily predicted results.

Once again, we must ask the question: are the dems truly served better by having mind-numbed automatons like garage, or would they be better served by having to deal with thinking and rational internal players?

Not that garage would ever qualify as a rational and thinking person.

If only garage had been educated under the American public school system the "existed" in 19th century Europe.

You know, like that other great American public school example: Albert Einstein.

Jay Retread said...

Whoresoftheinternet indeed!

Titus said...

I think impeachment would be kind of exciting.

All the drama and cameras and heads exploding.

I favor impeachment.

tits.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Jay Retread:

Great bunch of racists you have cultivated
---Said the white gentile hating racist.

Enjoy the decline, dummy!

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Jay Retard:

Jay Retard the Racist, indeed!

Enjoy the decline, racist!

Drago said...

Jay Retread: "Great bunch of racists you have cultivated here Ann..."

Almost racist enough to qualify as a Philadelphia poll "watcher".

Of course, we have no idea who WOTI is, or what his/her true intent is.

We've seen before, on many many occasions, lefties,just like Jay Retread, concoct fake racial hate crimes with which to tar (sorry) their conservative opponents.

How can we be sure that WOTI isn't really Jay Retread?

Simple answer: We can't.

El Pollo Raylan said...

I keep hearing this, but what did Nixon do that was impeachable? Try to cover up the third rate burglary?

In a sense, that's what we have here.


UW students lit bonfires on State St the night Nixon resigned. To them, he represented everything square about America that had to go: sexual mores, drug policies; and especially the draft. Nevermind that he ended a war which Dems had started--thus saving lives of those who didn't have student deferments.

There is no such impetus behind an "impeach Obama" movement. Today's youth may becoming disenchanted with him because of a sour economy, but we're nowhere near the same place in time. Not saying that we can't reach it.

Synova said...

"I see no crimes by Obama."

The only one I can think of, maybe, is the official lying about it afterward, because I think our government isn't supposed to lie to the people. (And I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion, "spin" or obfuscation.) But lying to Congress might count.

But yeah, it's pretty thin soup.

(But, again, I never quite saw what everyone was so serious about Watergate over (and all sorts of excuses when a Democrat records opposition campaign strategies today so...))

ricpic said...

Standing over Ambassador Stevens' coffin Rodham was quite chummy with him, addressing him as Chris. When asked why she hadn't respond to Stevens' numerous written requests for more security at Benghazi, her response? "We get more than a million memos a year at my office." The State Department, "my office." But in his coffin he was "Chris."

And this walking excrement will be Althouse's proud ecstatic HISTORIC identity vote in 2016. Guaranteed.

edutcher said...

Retread calls the Conservative Althousians Hillbillies and pig fuckers, but he's the only one stupid enough to post the same comment 3 times.

Jay Retread said...

Great bunch of racists you have cultivated here Ann...

Proof we're hitting a nerve.

The Race Card, Lefties don't leave mom's basement without it.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Drago:

I am one of a leftist's worst nightmares:

A white straight gentile male who dares to observe the reality about blacks, women, and gays; say it out loud; say it unashamedly; and say it harshly.

The truth is evil to a left-wing mind.

Read my blog; I'm no moby. Racists like Jay Retard hate me because I merely tell the truth...deliciously.


Rabel said...

Heh. Somebody got to Tomansky's Wikipedia entry:

"Michael Tomasky (born 1960) is a liberal American columnist, journalist and author and a shill for the United States government. He is the editor in chief of Democracy, a special correspondent for Newsweek / The Daily Beast, a contributing editor for The American Prospect, and a contributor to The New York Review of Books and helps defend egregious actions of the government."

phx said...

I am one of a leftist's worst nightmares:

You're one of a rightist's worst nightmares. You're one of the left's greatest gifts.

Cedarford said...

Eric Jablow said...
On the other hand, I can foresee impeachments of other officials who decided to abandon the Ambassador to his fate and who covered up their mistakes.

=============
What makes that dicey is that by the time US officials even knew about the attack and doing decisions/non-decisions, the Ambassador and his aide were dead. Dead within the half hour.

Besides that, America has a justified cost-benefit way of thinking that at times has shunned Hollywood Hero Rescues - because they would kill or maim more Americans than the "non-rescue" option.
"Leave no Man Behind" is a stupid snake eater slogan when you really get down to it and understand why we didn't have the Heroes rescuing the Heroes of Bataan, Wake Island, or why some rescue missions in Vietnam, Afghanistan were veto'd as just compounding casualties and losses.
When the slogan is considered holy mantra and soldiers or hero rescuers blindly rush in without serious cost-benefit thinking done by the level-headed - that is when you get 8 Marines killed trying to retrieve a corpse as the same sniper pots American after American. Its Backhawk down. Its 21 spec ops killed in ambush as they flew in to see if 4 SEALs were all dead.
And conversely, it is a defendable call when an FDR or Nixon refuse to green light crazy rescues or ones their commanders say will likely cause more dead and maimed Americans than it will save.

So Obama is on solid ground if he got good best advice from his military chain of command to not act.
But if he went beddy bye, and it turns out it was left to a few female lawyers in Obama's inner circle, or men in his PR and campaign staff - with no military experience that countermanded military orders to have assets aid the CIA and contractors in the Annex fight?
No one in the actual chain of command?
That would mean impeachment of lesser officials or censure would be a politically low-risk effort.

In the case o

ricpic said...

The only way the Left survives is by scaring millions away from even thinking about the terrible truths killing us because that would be UGLY!

Anil Petra said...

’He has, through his subordinated and agents, endeavored…to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,’

— Section 1, Article 2, the impeachment articles of Richard Nixon.

Drafted by House Democrats with Hillary Clinton on staff, btw

Robert Cook said...

There are plenty of reasons to impeach Obama; Benhazi doesn't even make the cut.

pm317 said...

Apparently Robert Gates, former Def Sec is defending Obama admin on Benghazi.. (according to Politico). Why? Does he too have a mistress stashed away somewhere that Obama knows about?

Lem said...

If Benghazi doesn't amount to "high crime"... what was Watergate?

Good question... It was the democrats that set a vary low bar with Watergate.

bpm4532 said...

lying and covering up something to influence a presidential election? You can't get much higher than that before hitting treason.

Rialby said...

WOTI has sock puppet written all over him.

phx said...

lying and covering up something to influence a presidential election? You can't get much higher than that before hitting treason.

You have to show your work.

Rialby said...

Btw, this is the first time I've posted since Althouse called us a bunch of racists for continuing to focus on what a divisive race-hustler Obama was/is.

Matt said...

I'm glad phx showed up to call Jay Retread to task.

Rialby said...

On the one hand, I can see the press going after Obama because really, in the end, it's all about the benjamins. That said, they'll find some counterbalancing story as a cudgel to beat down the Rs just as they did with Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich when the crooked Bill Clinton was caught exercising his authority.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@ phx:

You're one of a rightist's worst nightmares. You're one of the left's greatest gifts.

--wrong again, child. Truth-telling may be degraded by trash like you, but it shines out through the pages of history...and starts revolutions.

pm317 said...

I made the mistake of clicking on Klein's article (via Drudge).. stopped reading after he started gushing over how Obama was scandal free all this time, how there is no corruption with his $800B stimulus..hello! Solyndra, Fisker, others and then there are Pigford, F&F, Benghazi.. -- it is like a cat shuts his eyes while drinking milk and thinks nobody is watching. What fools these media whores are.

rcocean said...

"whoresoftheinternet" =Lonedotwhacko" =liberal moby

Liberals really are weird.

rcocean said...

BTW, 90% of all felons and the mentally ill vote Democrat.

Just Sayin'

rcocean said...

Righwingers area all Nazi's !!! - Carl Marx was right!!!
leftwingers rulle!!!!

Whoops, forgot my sock.

Just like Whoresoftheinternet

AprilApple said...

When democrats commit crimes and lie - it's all just fun and games.

Elect Hillary!

Rialby said...

Just one more thing to add - the problem isn't just the tax targeting. The problem is the indirect voter suppression that Obama's administration caused.

Say you're a Tea Party group that got tax exemption. You're rolling along planning for the general in 2012 and along comes the Federal government telling you that you have to produce reams of documents and secure lawyers in order to fight for your exemption.

Well, what happens then? You redirect your funds away from election efforts towards fighting the IRS. The IRS may never prove anything. They don't have to. They have indirectly harmed the efforts of Obama's opposition to GOTV.

CEO-MMP said...

gee phx, glad to see you hold Jay Retread etc to the same high standards you hold Titus to.

Rick67 said...

Tomasky is right but for all the wrong reasons. Getting rid of the "most treacherous and disastrous presidency of our lifetimes" (AoSHQ) is a worthy goal. But simply getting rid of the worst president ever does not address the larger more important issue. His ideology must be discredited and defeated. We want the American people to wake up and smell the reality of how stupid, hypocritical, and yes downright evil is (the ideology of ) the social-political/cultural left. Merely getting rid of him is not enough.

We have reached the point where the defenders and enablers of this regime are forced to argue that Obama and the Democrats are incompetent not evil.

CEO-MMP said...

phx said...

lying and covering up something to influence a presidential election? You can't get much higher than that before hitting treason.

You have to show your work."

Seriously? There isn't enough already?

betamax3000 said...

Government Husband IS Industrial Strength. Put on your Welder's Goggles.

Kirk Parker said...

Whores,

No, you're either a contemptible fool or a moby; how you pass Althouse's good-faith test is a complete mystery to me and everyone else around here.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Government Husband IS Industrial Strength. Put on your Welder's Goggles.

Blinded by science, Dr. Feynman.

Gahrie said...

President Obama could flip the bird to the media, while smoking a joint, dismembering his murder victim and fucking a goat, on the White House lawn, and he wouldn't get impeached.

Even if the republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

Paul said...

They are not gonna impeach Obama. That would take a year. They are just going to make him a LAME EUNUCH DUCK.

Yes eunuch... But then he never had the balls to really do anything anyway. Pelosi and Reid did the work for Obamacare.

Nathan Alexander said...

Here's what I see:

The President is Commander in Chief of the military.
He is the head of the executive branch, which includes the intelligence functions and clandestine operations of the CIA, and the diplomatic corps of the State Dept.
People are sent into harms' way for the national interest. It is his job, as Chief Executive and CinC, to make sure that people are sent into harms' way only for valid reasons. It is his job, responsibility, and duty to safeguard them as best he can. Otherwise, future agents, operatives, military, and diplomatic personnel will not be willing to risk their lives for the good of the nation.

The POTUS must keep the faith so that the people at the tip of the spear will keep the faith.

Some authority can be delegated. But if you delegate too much or the wrong authority, or if you delegate it to someone incompetent, you will be held accountable for it.

So...
1) President Obama was skipping the daily intelligence briefings leading up to 9/11
2) The Office of the President has de-emphasized Islamic terror: changing Global War on Terror to Overseas Contingency Operations, from Terrorist Act to Man-Caused Tragedy, from Islamic Terrorism to Office Violence (in the case of Maj Hassan), focusing anti-terrorism efforts on right-wing militias, home-grown extremists, and former military.
3) One of President Obama's campaign planks was that he killed Osama bin Ladin and that he had put al Qaida on the run...

(continued)

Kirk Parker said...

"... tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices."

Especially that last voice--tyranny isn't lurking around the corner, it's right here in the room with us!

Mian said...

Tomasky is the brainiac that said the Boston Marathon bomber had to be a "right-wing domestic terrorist" because Boston is such a true blue, liberal city.

He's an "Industrial-Strength" asshole, for sure.

Lem said...

Remember all those articles about how Obama seems aloof, distant? I remember a post here (but I cant find it) where even supporters were saying that.

"obama aloof" googles about 3,030 results

Is it too "insane" to propose that Obamas presidency is a mirror image of his personality?

If the Woodward tussle showed anything, is that Obamas image is the thing that is most secured, guarded and protected above everything else by this administration.

The worship of Obama and the lengths to which his people may have gone to protect him, is the Achilles heel that may ultimately bring him down.

I've heard often that what brought Nixon down was not the crime per say but the lying attempt at cover up.

So the answer to the questions What did Obama know? and when did he know it? may be that Obama is not told anything... so he may not really know anything... insulating him from the literal, "is" is/controlling legal authority/surgical pin point responsibility.

I think Hillary said it best... the buck stops with me.

Nathan Alexander said...

State Dept refused extra security for Libya. That is SecState Clinton's fault, and she should be held accountable. But President Obama nominated her, and should be held accountable for his decision. She wasn't exactly a very qualified candidate, but he chose her for political reasons. Since one of the results of that poor choice for political reasons was unnecessary deaths, he should be held accountable for that choice.

4) Standard Operating Procedure is for a CRITIC to be sent to the President if an Ambassador's life is in danger by an attack. By law, he is supposed to be informed within 10 or 15 minutes.
This is because it is his responsibility to deal with that issue.
It is not something the President can delegate.
Reports indicate President Obama went to bed while the Ambassador's whereabouts were still unknown.

This is dereliction of duty, and I think could be worth impeachment.

5) Someone made the decision to not allow a rescue attempt. The case can be made that a lower-level person would have the authority to say Go-NoGo, but if the President says "go" (which he implied he did in his extremely ambiguous statement describing his reaction, which inexplicably lacked any timeline whatsoever), no one case say no...likewise, if he said "no", no one below him can countermand that and say "go".

But at this point, all we have is CYA claims that it wouldn't have made it there in time...but as anyone not repeating Lefty talking points can figure out, there was no way to know that at the time. So there may be a crime concealed in the reason why they blocked any rescue attempt, but we need investigation to know.

6) The Cover Up. If the President lies to the US people to avoid accountability even for just a bad mistake, he may lose the trust of the people, and should be removed from office.

7) Even worse, if he covered all this up for the specific purpose of keeping citizens unaware so he could successfully campaign for re-election, then that is a high crime.

However, it comes down to whether/how it comes to the attention of low-information voters.

Nathan Alexander said...

Then add in the stonewalling from the White House. If it was as benign as the lefty operatives in the media were trying to make everyone believe, why wouldn't the Obama administration open up their records to prove it?

However, "Benghazi" is just one small, small part of the problem Obama is facing right now.

The IRS just got caught acting as a partisan arm of Democrat Party. The HHS Secretary has been shaking down the health industry for contributions to enact Obamacare.

Gosnell.

An Islamic terror plot was successfully carried out on US soil for the very first time since we became aware of the extent of the problem on 9/11. Is it due to President Obama's shift of focus away from Islamic terror to scapegoating conservatives?

If that is where the investigation leads, yeah: it could cause a drastic loss of faith in Obama.

Then there is Fast and Furious...

Lem said...

But President Obama nominated her, and should be held accountable for his decision.

Are you sure about that?

Do you have any evidence to back up a serious charge like that?

Lem said...

By law, he is supposed to be informed within 10 or 15 minutes.
This is because it is his responsibility to deal with that issue.
It is not something the President can delegate.


That may have been under Bush...

People voted for change.

Nathan Alexander said...

What needs to happen is an independent investigator.

He needs to start putting people in jail for crimes.

If Scooter Libby went to jail for just being unable to repeat his testimony the same way, then there are crimes involved with knowingly providing false statements to the US populace in order to sway a national election.

Loyalty to Obama and/or the Democrat Party may be strong, but when people start facing 5 year jail terms, they will start telling the truth and selling out their superiors. Hit them with the prospect of 10-20 for conspiracy to commit crimes, and they rat out on the White House power structure, if it did, in fact, call the shots.

But the point is: you don't walk in going for Obama and/or Clinton. It is entirely possible they were insulated from knowledge by their staff.

But when decisions are covered up, and lies are given to the US public surrounding the death of an ambassador by Islamic terrorists, then someone needs to go to jail for the cover up and the lies...and maybe even the decisions, depending. Since you don't know exactly what level it is that committed the crimes, there is no point talking impeachment at this time.

But there needs to be jail time for what we ALREADY KNOW has been lied about and covered up.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Jesus Christ wrote: "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt 7:16)

What Obama did should lead to his impearment rather than his impeachment.

Lem said...

However, it comes down to whether/how it comes to the attention of low-information voters.

Obama is the first low-information president.

RecChief said...

"mistakes were made". pffft what he really wants to say is "nothing to see here, or there, move along"

Lem said...

Security!

Lem said...

Jesus Christ wrote...

Dead give away.

phx said...

Obama is the first low-information president.

I used to get annoyed seeing that "low-information" appellation so trendy with righties these days. I'm getting to like it now though.

It's so emblematic of the arrogance of the right - a real turnoff for moderates and independents IMO. You just know it comes straight from the Tea Party.

Use it as much as you can.

Lem said...

What needs to happen is an independent investigator.

He needs to start putting people in jail for crimes.


Both republicans and democrats were happy to let that law expire.

This mess could really use it now.

Lem said...

Use it as much as you can.

I believe it originated with the left... or left friendly publication.

Eric Jablow said...

I believe that during the Constitutional Convention, "maladministration" was suggested as grounds for impeachment, but was rejected. If that were the grounds for impeachment, then opponents of the President would call for it during any political dispute. So, they chose the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."

However, I also understand that that designation does not necessarily mean an actual violation of criminal law. It was left to the House to decide what "high crimes" are.

Will people stay in the State Department if they think they will be abandoned in times of danger? A leader who does not support his or her (law-abiding) subordinates is dangerous, and can damage his or her institution for years to come.

phx said...

I believe it originated with the left... or left friendly publication.

Seems unfortunate for you guys that you steal the left's worst ideas. Not hard to believe though.

You guys are going to make it work for us in any case.

wildswan said...

I'm beginning to lean toward the people saying that in (not) carrying out his duties as Commander in Chief Obama committed an impeachable offense at Benghazi. Suppose an Army company was attacked and the Captain did not issue necessary orders but instead went to bed and four people died. Wouldn't that captain be court- martialed? Suppose it came out that the reason the enemy got through the wire was that the captain (Obama) had ordered the lieutenant (Clinton) to enact a policy of reduced security which led the lieutenant to take down the wire and reduce the sentries and disregard the warnings that attacks had been made on other companies and disregard that his sergeant thought an attack was likely. Then is it right to blame the lieutenant for actions which were just carrying out the policy ordered by the captain? How can Obama be Commander-in-Chief and not be responsible for a state of unreadiness?

Matt said...

phx! Still here but yet to denounce Jay Retread's statements... That is why you are dismissed and heaped with scorn. Like Inga, you hold us to your standard and yourself to none.

phx said...

I'm sorry Matt? You wanted me to denounce somebody?

Okay. Jay Retread is terrible, and I denounce his awful postings.

Anyone else?

El Pollo Raylan said...

@fux: The earliest American political parallel for "low information voters" of which I'm aware were the so-called "have nots" in the Deep South under Democratic one-party rule:

Consequently the principle beneficiaries of southern one-partyism have been those groups and interests which are cohesive, alert, informed, well-organized, well-financed and capable of effective action, and which have a tangible material stake in government policies to impel them to political activity. The adverse effects of the one party structure on state politics, in short, have been borne most heavily by the disadvantaged elements of the population, by "have not" persons who score low on the characteristics just cited. cite

The political manipulation of "have-nots" i.e., low information voters, is old in the political arts.

phx said...

Jay Retread, BEGONE WITH YOU!

*
I pronounce this comment area clean

*
*

MadisonMan said...

I think it would be foolish to try for an impeachment before the midterm elections. Democrats would then run against the impeachment, rather than running on their stellar record.

Impeaching after the midterm elections? Why bother?

Matt said...

phx, yesterday you were ripping people for ignoring Titus', uh, musings. Today, you ignored Jay Retread's rants until called out on it several times. Hopefully, you see the ridiculousness of that standard you were holding others to yesterday. You do, now, right?

If everyone is expected to criticize the rantings of those who ostensibly stand for the same things, each thread is going to be 2000+ posts long with 90% of them saying, "I don't agree with that what that dude wrote."

Now, why I think are here in bad faith is that you did not acknowledge that your demands from yesterday were unreasonable and, instead, you flippantly dismiss the call for you to be consistent.

phx said...

Now, why I think are here in bad faith is that you did not acknowledge that your demands from yesterday were unreasonable and, instead, you flippantly dismiss the call for you to be consistent.

Oh, please. You argue like a child Matt. You should stick to building bridges and making peace. Maybe you have a knack for that.

Big Mike said...

It's just a matter of circular reasoning.

Republicans are insane.

The most insane thing they could do is vote articles of impeachment.

But Republicans are insane so they'll do just that.

And if they did that they'd be insane.

Q.E.D.

Mark O said...

Nixon had impeachment articles on the same IRS basis as now exists for Obama.

Inga said...

Oh ho! Matt wanted to school Phx and got schooled himself!

phx said...

It's just a matter of circular reasoning.

Go for it. Just keep in mind I support Obama. So I'm a low-information voter.

IQ Test: What should you do with my advice to go for it?

El Pollo Raylan said...

Of course the stupid mistakes Obama made regarding Benghazi shouldn't be forgotten nor dismissed--they should be used against him and his party in the mid-terms. Make him the lamest duck POTUS ever--perhaps redefining the term for an era. It's high time that Congress and the other branch reasserted parity.

Matt said...

Inga said...
Oh ho! Matt wanted to school Phx and got schooled himself!

5/12/13, 10:08 PM


Thank you, Inga, for the kind words. I am glad that I was here for you when you needed to perform your cathartic venting.

phx said...

Nice work. : )

Matt said...

phx said...

Oh, please. You argue like a child Matt. You should stick to building bridges and making peace. Maybe you have a knack for that.

5/12/13, 10:03 PM


Come on. You are smarter than that, right? Explain WHY my argument is child like. Or even better, COUNTER the argument I made!

El Pollo Raylan said...

Phx has all the marks of a less emotion ritmo...note the mini-skirted cheer that Inga just did for him. ;)

Matt said...

That's the best Inga can do these days.

phx said...

We'll get a note from you in some godforsaken war-torn area in Africa, how you're successfully mediating between violent warlords while assisting in vaccinating children in your spare time.

"Phx, that was the greatest advice I ever had from anyone. It changed my life."

Matt said...

Wait, phx, is that reply to me? I cannot make head nor tail of it. Could you explain it, please?

phx said...

COUNTER the argument I made!

No, I'm not going to counter a poorly made argument. I would try to help you mend it but I don't think it's salvageable.

But what makes it childish is that you think your poor analogy works.

phx said...

Wait, phx, is that reply to me?

I'm just playing Matt. Stupid joke.

Inga said...

Bwhahahahaah! This is great stuff Phx.

Matt said...

What was poor about the argument? Surely, you can say why. As far as I can tell, it holds up well. Please, help me understand your thought process.

Inga said...

The vortex that is known as Matt, sucks gently at first .....

phx said...

What was poor about the argument? Surely, you can say why. As far as I can tell, it holds up well. Please, help me understand your thought process.

Sure, but like Inga says this is gonna be like school then. And you're really going to work for it - I'm not going to just hand it over to you. I expect you to participate.

Matt said...

phx said...
Wait, phx, is that reply to me?

I'm just playing Matt. Stupid joke.

5/12/13, 10:22 PM


Thank you for clarifying honestly. And I don't mean that as "HAR, HAR! You said you were stupid!!" I really didn't get what you were trying to say there.

Lem said...

White House strategery session...

Ok people what do you have for me?
The CIA talking points had 12 versions... are you telling me we cant do better?

Ok.. lets start going from left to right...

1 - The ant-muslim video? - where you been?

2 - The demonstration was a spill over from Cairo? - we tried that already.

3 - There was no time to send help? very good but they are onto that trick already.

4 - There was bad weather that night? - I like that, look into it.

5 - They needed permission from the Libyans to fly? - nice.

6 - The sequester cut military air traffic controllers?... Its the republicans fault... I love that.

7 - Ramadan - did somebody say that already?... hey maybe they go for it.

What else?

8 - Obamas astrologer recommended standing down? I didn't know Obama had an astrologer?.. maybe its time he get one?

Matt said...

Inga said...
The vortex that is known as Matt, sucks gently at first .....

5/12/13, 10:25 PM

Inga, really, I appreciate your kindness and I am glad that I can help you feel better.

phx said...

I suggest we take it to a defunct comment thread instead of using this one. I don't think we should bogart the thread, and frankly most people are probably sick to death of me at this point.

phx said...

You said you were stupid!!" I really didn't get what you were trying to say there.

It was a gentle joke, meant to soften the harshness of my previous remark to you.

caseym54 said...

At best, this is two strikes. You need three. Wait for it.

Lem said...

I thought I never say this in my life...

Nice to see you back Inga.

Matt said...

"It was a gentle joke, meant to soften the harshness of my previous remark to you."

Ah, I see. Pfft...! Right over my head.

I don't think we need to go to another thread. Hopefully, we can just agree that holding folks responsible for the comments of others is unfair. I do not hold you to anything Inga says, even if she cheerleads for you, and I hope you would not hold others to the comments of anyone else unless they specifically state support. Fair enough?

Inga said...

Aw Lemmy, you ARE sweet.

phx said...

Hopefully, we can just agree that holding folks responsible for the comments of others is unfair.

That's not what I did. I wasn't holding anyone responsible for someone else's comments. Everybody's responsible for their own actions. Always.

That's the first lesson.

phx said...

That's something to agree on rather than your incorrect characterization of me and my behaviours.

cubanbob said...

Impeachment never mind removal is premature to say the least. However it's becoming clear that this poster-boy of the progressive movement will turnout to be the peak of the progressive movement. It's all turning to shit under his watch.

Inga said...

IMHO, Matt is conflating what he thinks is a desire to hold a person responsible for another's speech, with the real issue of the recognition of hypocrisy for tolerance of hateful speech from others. Everyone is responsible for their own speech, but it doesn't mean that such speech cannot be called out for what it is.

Matt said...

Ah, so "we" were bad because Titus said nasty things about the Ambassador and no one spoke. Since "we" claim to care about the Ambassador, it reflected poorly on us because "we" did not say anything when a "rightie" said something nasty.

However, today is different because Jay Retread attacked "righties" who you never liked in the first place. Is that a fair assessment?

The flaw in that is that Titus represents "Titus". And by that I don't mean "everyone is their own person regardless or party" (though that is true). I really mean that he is an island onto himself. That is why his posts are read but rarely replied to. So, when you ripped on "righties" and they replied, "But he is not ours." that was not even to say, "He's yours!" It was to say that he is nobody's.

Contrastingly, you claim to be a rational person. You just need to get nutty enough to reach the Titus level where everyone just shrugs and thinks, "That's Titus for ya!"

Does that clear things up?

phx said...

Yes, Inga that's about how I see it. I probably would have drawn it out more. I like how you cut to the chase.

Matt said...

Inga said...
IMHO, Matt is conflating what he thinks is a desire to hold a person responsible for another's speech, with the real issue of the recognition of hypocrisy for tolerance of hateful speech from others. Everyone is responsible for their own speech, but it doesn't mean that such speech cannot be called out for what it is.

5/12/13, 10:49 PM


That's odd, Inga, because our disagreement from a couple weeks back that blew up the point where you disappeared/became sock puppets started from your calling the right wingers hypocrites for not denouncing the comments of others. Good to see you are evolving!

That was the very same day Ritmo went on a long tirade against Palladian including many anti-gay slurs that ended with you voicing support for Ritmo! "Good guy." That's what you called Ritmo. But, again, you appear to be evolving today. At least until tomorrow.

phx said...

Does that clear things up?

No, I think you are still confused about your false analogy.

Matt said...

Then correct me, phx. I am trying to understand your position.

Inga said...

Ah Matt, the vortex is sucking harder now.....

Matt said...

Inga said...
Ah Matt, the vortex is sucking harder now.....

5/12/13, 10:55 PM

Inga, I know you have your daily quotient of hate you need to expel and I no longer care that you target me. If it makes you feel better, do what you must.

El Pollo Raylan said...

@Matt: Titus is just the canard in the coal mine. Don't take anything he says seriously. It's all for "affect."

Inga said...

Oh Matt, now you are the victim, hmmm?

phx said...

Then correct me, phx. I am trying to understand your position.

Well as I said, my method tends to be a little more drawn out than Inga's.

We agree completely everyone is responsible for their own comments, correct?

I think that's part of a general responsibility everyone has for themselves. There are no real arguments about this right? If I expect you to accept the responsibility for anyone eles's comments I'm wrong. We agree?

Balfegor said...

On the one hand, dereliction of duty during Benghazi doesn't quite seem like an impeachable offense. On the other hand, it's closely parallel to the delay in the relief of Khartoum, which led to the death of Gordon and the fall of Gladstone's government in 1885, so it's not like it would be unprecedented.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Time for "Mad Men"

See y'all tomorrow.

Inga said...

Phx, sorry, I should've just let you play with Matt here a bit more. Cat/mouse.

Matt said...

phx said...
Then correct me, phx. I am trying to understand your position.

Well as I said, my method tends to be a little more drawn out than Inga's.

We agree completely everyone is responsible for their own comments, correct?

I think that's part of a general responsibility everyone has for themselves. There are no real arguments about this right? If I expect you to accept the responsibility for anyone eles's comments I'm wrong. We agree?

5/12/13, 11:00 PM

Yes, we agree. As I thought we established earlier... But, carry on.

phx said...

I like the avatar Balfegor. I think I prefer it.

Matt said...

El Pollo Raylan said...
@Matt: Titus is just the canard in the coal mine. Don't take anything he says seriously. It's all for "affect."

5/12/13, 10:57 PM


That is exactly my point. I don't but phx did yesterday and ripped on "righties" for not.

Inga said...

Matt, do you see an offense hiding around every corner, just waiting to pop out at ya?

Matt sees offenses.

Lem said...

the canard in the coal mine.

I got to remember that one..

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 289   Newer› Newest»