• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lois Lerner does about-face, will give Hill testimony on IRS scandal

Depends on the truth of the testimony, doesn't it?

Your blind partisanship is so deep that you don't find this to be worthy of answers. You know where this originated in your gut, and you're with Lerner, willing to do anything to protect your chosen one.

I would hang a conservative out to dry in a second if they did something like this. Our Constitution was written precisely to prevent government from being used like this.

And the evidence isn't weak. That's just wishful thinking on your part, and if it was, Lerner and her ilk wouldn't be running from it. Same goes for Holder and the DoJ, the NSA, Benghazi, and the other umpteen scandals that have rocked these past six years. It makes Nixon look like he forgot to tie his shoes.

Well, anyine could lie. But I'm not the one making unsupported claims. Think about how much of a partisan it takes to think unsupported claims are the gospel, and the person saying lets see the evidence is a partisan hack. If you can't see the problem with that, you're more far gone than even I think.
 
So in effect, the government can do whatever it wants to without fear of recourse whatsoever. I mean, who are we going to get to do something about it?

That's called institutional authoritarianism.

This is what the left is all about, they are pocket statists. Ideas so good they need to force everyone to do it.
 
This is what the left is all about, they are pocket statists. Ideas so good they need to force everyone to do it.

I got a real problem with that sort of thing. Freedom is Freedom FROM government, as least as much as possible / practical.

No surprise that I'm no fan of this administration's, nor the majority of congressional members', positions and policies. Seems that most are this type of 'pocket statists'.
 
Let the people believe they are in charge and they'll be easier to govern.

Isn't what they say about an educated populace that they are easy to govern but impossible to rule?
 
NRO shocking.

There is no real conclusion from that, but things but out in a partisan way. it will impress one set of partisans and not another. Too often this is how we do pretend discourse today. Any thing like the NRO or The Nation or Fox or MSNBC or any of these partisan nonsense things should ever really be used. They're just singing spin to the choir. The trouble for the a partisan is that they see anything not singing to the choir as biased. The partisan pretends there is nothing possible but the rancor they feed themselves. And are blind to any other possibility.

I know it's just terrible that anyone would see this as a problem. The Bastard. But, I do. Sorry.

Ok Joe, Lord knows I have dismissed articles from you in the past with partisan leanings, but what specifically in those bullet points from NRO is "wrong", or "embellished"? I'd like you here to go point, by point in what I laid out from NRO, and show me proof where they are fabricating things.
 
I can't see an educated populace voting for Barrack Obama a second time.

That's because your partisanship blinds. Romney was a poor candidate. Your pool was weak. No educated candidate would have voted for anyone other than Romney, and he was weak.
 
Ok Joe, Lord knows I have dismissed articles from you in the past with partisan leanings, but what specifically in those bullet points from NRO is "wrong", or "embellished"? I'd like you here to go point, by point in what I laid out from NRO, and show me proof where they are fabricating things.

To be accurate, you have complained that mainstream accurate stories are biased. This is humorous for me when I read it.

But to NRO, I've shown their inaccuracies to you many times before. Bias is a given. But when an article uses this type of language: liberal progressives have closed ranks, and feckless republican leadership doesn't have the fortitude to institute a joint select committee. Well, that's a clue it can't be trusted. This is argument studies 101.
 
That's what I said about Bush.

If Gore had been elected who would have saved the world from Global warming? And Kerry now has the opportunity to strut his stuff on the world stage. Are you impressed by either?
 
That's because your partisanship blinds. Romney was a poor candidate. Your pool was weak. No educated candidate would have voted for anyone other than Romney, and he was weak.

Romney was a weak candidate? How so?

He was incredibly more qualified than Barrack Obama and everyone with any intelligence should have known that. When the MSM reported after months of research that Romney may have been a bully one time in high school or that they had their dog on top of their vehicle during a family holiday, the left went wild. This is how the low information voters decide elections, not with issues but with long dead anecdotes.

It would have been a far better thing had the MSM researched Obama's past the way they did Romney's but the LIVs called this 'racism'.
 
Romney was a weak candidate? How so?

He was incredibly more qualified than Barrack Obama and everyone with any intelligence should have known that. When the MSM reported after months of research that Romney may have been a bully one time in high school or that they had their dog on top of their vehicle during a family holiday, the left went wild. This is how the low information voters decide elections, not with issues but with long dead anecdotes.

It would have been a far better thing had the MSM researched Obama's past the way they did Romney's but the LIVs called this 'racism'.

No, first, you mistakenly think running the us is like a business. That's your first mistake. It's not.

Second, Romney was too close to Obama. He was almost a clone, with even less conviction. He clearly had know way to connect with working people, outside of partisans. Obama was ripe to be beaten, but the best you could come up with was the one candidate most like him. And what difference there was, that your side embraced, was more detriment than help. He was disconnected from not partisan working people.

And please, take some personal responsibility. Quit trying to blame others. Whining about the media is simply sour grapes.
 
Well, anyine could lie. But I'm not the one making unsupported claims. Think about how much of a partisan it takes to think unsupported claims are the gospel, and the person saying lets see the evidence is a partisan hack. If you can't see the problem with that, you're more far gone than even I think.

If you know anything about how legal matters work, then you would know that they already have the evidence in hand. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

However, they have to have it substantiated, and Lerner can substantiate everything. But, she won't. No way Obama lets her.
 
Romney was a weak candidate? How so?

He was incredibly more qualified than Barrack Obama and everyone with any intelligence should have known that. When the MSM reported after months of research that Romney may have been a bully one time in high school or that they had their dog on top of their vehicle during a family holiday, the left went wild. This is how the low information voters decide elections, not with issues but with long dead anecdotes.

It would have been a far better thing had the MSM researched Obama's past the way they did Romney's but the LIVs called this 'racism'.

He was far more qualified than Obama, on that we agree. He was also head and shoulders above the other Republican wannabees. He should have won.

But blaming the "MSM" on Romney's loss sounds to me a lot like the losing team blaming the referees when the fact of the matter is that the other guys played a better game.

Now, that's all water under the bridge now. We have the POTUS that the people elected, like it or not. The same can be said of the Congress with its single digits approval rating. The question to be asked now is, how can the Republican party run a better race next time around?
 
If you know anything about how legal matters work, then you would know that they already have the evidence in hand. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

However, they have to have it substantiated, and Lerner can substantiate everything. But, she won't. No way Obama lets her.

Actually no, that's not how it works. If they had evidence the claims made in this thread, they'd pull it out and use it at this point. They have suspicion. That's not evidence.
 
Actually no, that's not how it works. If they had evidence the claims made in this thread, they'd pull it out and use it at this point. They have suspicion. That's not evidence.

Oh, lord. No, they have the goods. But Lerner holds the key to blowing it wide open.
 
To be accurate, you have complained that mainstream accurate stories are biased. This is humorous for me when I read it.

But to NRO, I've shown their inaccuracies to you many times before. Bias is a given. But when an article uses this type of language: liberal progressives have closed ranks, and feckless republican leadership doesn't have the fortitude to institute a joint select committee. Well, that's a clue it can't be trusted. This is argument studies 101.

On the facts that NRO lays out concerning this story, not before, not in other editorials, not anything else but THIS story, and the 8 things I posted from it...Prove it wrong....I don't think you can, so I really don't care what you find humorous or not.

I asked a specific question, and you failed to answer it...As usual.
 
Oh, lord. No, they have the goods. But Lerner holds the key to blowing it wide open.

I think you're dreaming. But until we actually see something concrete, it's merely speculation. You do realize you guys have been disappointed a lot when it comes to reaching Obama on these things. You're always thinking there is more there than has ever panned out.
 
On the facts that NRO lays out concerning this story, not before, not in other editorials, not anything else but THIS story, and the 8 things I posted from it...Prove it wrong....I don't think you can, so I really don't care what you find humorous or not.

I asked a specific question, and you failed to answer it...As usual.

No, when you use that language, it's an editorial and not a news story. It's steep with opinion and verifiable fact.

The only failure is you don't like the answer. I tell you what, if you really want to break this down. Pick your single strongest piece of evidence from that "article" and present it. I'll answer it specifically and in detail.
 
No, when you use that language, it's an editorial and not a news story. It's steep with opinion and verifiable fact.

The only failure is you don't like the answer. I tell you what, if you really want to break this down. Pick your single strongest piece of evidence from that "article" and present it. I'll answer it specifically and in detail.

That's weak Joe, I gave you 8 points....Show what you believe is untrue, or give it up. That's the way this works...
 
That's weak Joe, I gave you 8 points....Show what you believe is untrue, or give it up. That's the way this works...

And I showed you the problem. It paints it in an inaccurate light with biased language. It's called slanting. Now, your option is to address that or try to present something you think is true. I'd love to see you do it without the slanted language.
 
And I showed you the problem. It paints it in an inaccurate light with biased language. It's called slanting. Now, your option is to address that or try to present something you think is true. I'd love to see you do it without the slanted language.

Oh for God's sake....I'll just take that as your admission that you can't address the points made.
 
Oh for God's sake....I'll just take that as your admission that you can't address the points made.

That would be find if there was such an admission. There isn't. I merely believe you fawn over the slanted language and don't really assess the content. But if you prefer this type of the exchange over putting up, fine. But I'd prefer you systematically made your case and explore each issue.
 
I think you're dreaming. But until we actually see something concrete, it's merely speculation. You do realize you guys have been disappointed a lot when it comes to reaching Obama on these things. You're always thinking there is more there than has ever panned out.

This type of intimidation politics has ruled Chicago for years and years, and now its in Washington. This is all these people know.

Now, Rahm Emanuel is considering a run for president to keep the mob party going. That's almost literally akin to electing John Gotti.
 
Back
Top Bottom