Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 70

Thread: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

  1. #51
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    See this admin though was not supposed to be "politics as usual" and to me that means if they see this corruption, it is thier duty and thier promise to report it.,
    I've already stated my views. Most likely Obama didn't have first hand evidence, and definitely didn't have enough to get Blaggy convicted (such as taped conversations). It's true that choosing not to engage in political suicide by accusing a politician of an extremely serious crime with no evidence whatsoever can fall under the umbrella of 'politics as usual.' So does choosing not to invade Canada. I'm not eager to see either practice eschewed from Washington. If you think this is what Obama was talking about when he spoke of "change" you have some serious comprehension issues.

  2. #52
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,049

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    My apologizes, perhaps I misread your posts (or looking back, may've got it mixed up with another person without an avatar -.- I've not realize how reliant I am on avatars when reading through a thread quickly to know whose talking). It seemed to be you were stating disagreement over the thought that those repeatedly stating that Bush said they were specifically involved in 9/11 was the same kind of "repeat it and they will believe it for gospel" type of scenario.



    No sweat. I tried uploading an avatar way back and gave up out of frustration.

  3. #53
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Yeah, always annoying.

    Partially too, I despise one line questions in response to a post. It seems to add nothing inciteful and seems to be the person just trying to lead and bait. Its one of my pet peeves of least favorite debate tactics. So it can get my hackles up a bit because essentially it feels I'm being purposefully hustled into a trap that's rather obvious and my previous post essentially ignored so they can stay on point of the agenda. Thus my responses to such things are generally a bit more firery.

    You made a statement, I commented, and your only response was a one line question that seemed to give no insight as to your reasoning, your intentions, your point, or the context of it. Which likely lead to the response. Hard to figure out context when you don't provide any.

  4. #54
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,049

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I think this really is partially chalked up to 24/7 news coverage.

    Republicans can constantly come out saying "He was involved" or "We need to know if he's involved", making people wonder if he's involved.

    Democrats and Obama are constantly going "no no no, he is/I am not involved at all", making people wonder if they're covering up.

    Media people are reporting and speculating on it non-stop.

    And thus we're getting what used to be a few weeks worth of news on this in a few days, making people want instant gratification. They don't want to wait 2 weeks for all the news to be found out because they'll be sick of all the news within 3 or 4 days. They want to know NOW, and if they can't know now they want to form an opinion of certainty NOW.

    God I hate the 24/7 news cycle.
    I don't have television. That's given me the luxury of saying, "Huh, well, I'll think what I'll think when all the facts come out." It's way too easy to spin everything both ways with so little available factual information.

  5. #55
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    But I'm not talking about rational people. I'm talking about the people who are intellectually lazy enough to draw correlation from proximity, and the people who exploit this weakness.
    I think you just called a large number of Democrats irrational, Cardinal. I mean, everyone of these sites that I have been to there are dozens of people who cite unequivocally that Bush said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. It ain't even a question for them. I hear Democratic pundits say the same things. Heck, members of Congress have even said it.

    That is, of course, despite Dick Cheney, three or four days after 9/11 telling us Meet the Press that there was no such connection and then repeating the same unequivocal "No" three years later, again, on Meet the Press.

  6. #56
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,049

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yeah, always annoying.

    Partially too, I despise one line questions in response to a post. It seems to add nothing inciteful and seems to be the person just trying to lead and bait. Its one of my pet peeves of least favorite debate tactics. So it can get my hackles up a bit because essentially it feels I'm being purposefully hustled into a trap that's rather obvious and my previous post essentially ignored so they can stay on point of the agenda. Thus my responses to such things are generally a bit more firery.

    You made a statement, I commented, and your only response was a one line question that seemed to give no insight as to your reasoning, your intentions, your point, or the context of it. Which likely lead to the response. Hard to figure out context when you don't provide any.
    When I do those one-line questions, it's not because I'm laying a trap, but because I want to make sure I understand the other person's position before I go off on a completely unnecessary tangent.

  7. #57
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    45+23= a whopping 68% think the obama camp were involved...


    only 11% say not likley at all...



    Are 68% of the people wrong? What do you think?
    Those numbers show that FOX News is doing a good job keeping the issue out there. However, if anybody wants to know the truth, all they have to do is ask the prosecutor, who says that nobody in the Obama camp is involved.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #58
    Guru
    BWG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Coast
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,203

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    LOL...it's no wonder when the op-eds and corporate media discuss the story it starts with something like this...

    'There's no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in Rod Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme -- in fact just the opposite -- but....'

    Ah yes the infamous 'but' clause... What follows the 'but'?... There are any number of conspiracy thoughts about why Obama 'might be tainted' or 'casts a shadow', even though there's precisely zero evidence.

    I saw Charley Gipson on the ABC evening news right after this story broke and he was talking to a couple of correspondents and he said three different times, in a couple of minutes, that there was no evidence of Obama's involvement, "BUT'....

    Reaching and coming away with a handful of air...LOL

    What a
    “We just simply don’t know how to govern” - Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) a member of the House Budget Committee

  9. #59
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
    LOL...it's no wonder when the op-eds and corporate media discuss the story it starts with something like this...

    'There's no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in Rod Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme -- in fact just the opposite -- but....'

    Ah yes the infamous 'but' clause... What follows the 'but'?... There are any number of conspiracy thoughts about why Obama 'might be tainted' or 'casts a shadow', even though there's precisely zero evidence.

    I saw Charley Gipson on the ABC evening news right after this story broke and he was talking to a couple of correspondents and he said three different times, in a couple of minutes, that there was no evidence of Obama's involvement, "BUT'....

    Reaching and coming away with a handful of air...LOL

    What a
    To be fair -- that there -currently- is no evidence -that has been made public- in no way means that there is no evidence at all.

    It is, after all, the reporters' job to find such things out.

  10. #60
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,049

    Re: 45% Suspect Obama Team Involved in Blagojevich Scandal

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    I think you just called a large number of Democrats irrational, Cardinal. I mean, everyone of these sites that I have been to there are dozens of people who cite unequivocally that Bush said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. It ain't even a question for them. I hear Democratic pundits say the same things. Heck, members of Congress have even said it.

    That is, of course, despite Dick Cheney, three or four days after 9/11 telling us Meet the Press that there was no such connection and then repeating the same unequivocal "No" three years later, again, on Meet the Press.
    Are you sure you clicked the "quote" icon for the right person? Because that doesn't address what I said in any way whatsoever.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •