• 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!

Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed[W: 84]

Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Mycroft said:
Perhaps Bob is more discerning of what is and what isn't a threat than you are.
Click to expand...

No... if Bob was that, then why the hell did he say there was no need for apologizing in his reply letter and why the hell did he not bring up the so called threat at all in the reply?
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

PeteEU said:
No... if Bob was that, then why the hell did he say there was no need for apologizing in his reply letter and why the hell did he not bring up the so called threat at all in the reply?
Click to expand...

Saying that they don't need to apologize has no bearing on whether he recognized being threatened or not. Anyway...what do you think he should have done when feeling threatened...respond with an outright, "Bring it on, dudes"?

No, he handled this quite well. He exposed them.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

shrubnose said:
Wrong.

According to the Federal Election Commission report: www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012presgeresults.pdf, Obama had 51.06 percent of the popular vote and Romney had 47.21.

If you do the math you will see that Obama beat Romney by 3.85 percent, that's almost 4 percent, eh? Furthermore the electoral vote was - Obama 332 and Romney 206, not close at all. Romney got his backside handed to him. The election was not close.

OTOH back in 2004: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf, the election actually was close (But not as close as 2000.). Bush won with 50.73 percent over Kerry's 48.27 percent.

Again, if you do the math Bush won by 2.46 percent. The electoral vote was - Bush 286 and Kerry 251. Compared to the recent election, a squeaker.

Now you have the facts.

The results you linked to were early numbers. I don't play that game.

We're off topic here so I'll just say that Woodward has made his sequester story all about him. Most good journalists don't do that.

Have a good day. I have a little work to do in my garden, catch you later.



"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." ~ Lewis Carroll
Click to expand...

Less than 3%...just more than 3%...the difference is negligible. Either way, he still didn't have "most" of the people voting for him. Heck, Obama beat McCain by almost 10% and even then, nobody believed he won a landslide.

I already told you that for your "most Americans" purpose, the Electoral vote is meaningless. Also, who cares about Bush? I don't. I never said most Americans wanted him either. Why are you throwing out useless, irrelevant information? Do you think it bolsters your erroneous position?

Anyway...Woodward didn't make his sequester story about himself. He made his "threat" story about himself and about Obama...and rightly so.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Any conservatives with a sense of decorum will come to regret ever having allowed themselves to jump on this manufactured, sensationalist story.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

zimmer said:
Who cares... FACT is...
Click to expand...

Let me fix your BS posting.

Who cares about the facts...Fact is all I care about is turning this into something to use against Obama.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

apdst said:
Sounds like a threat, to me; especially after his earlier conduct.
Click to expand...

What a hack! If Obama sent Woodward a valentine card, you would deem it a threat.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Texmex said:
What a hack! If Obama sent Woodward a valentine card, you would deem it a threat.
Click to expand...

The thing is...Obama would probably sign the card with: "Don't refuse this card or you'll regret it".
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Mycroft said:
LOL!!!

Get off your condescending high horse Mr. Seventy Years. The fact is, you only have a handful of years on me.

Anyway, you might reassess what you've learned over your seventy years, because Obama IS pathetic and he disgusts me every time he opens his mouth.

btw...just a heads up...you mention my Mama again and I'll be reporting you to the Mods. This one is the only thing I'll be giving you for free.
Click to expand...

Maybe, like Woodward, you feel threatened! :lamo

Yea, leave his mama out of this. Poor, mama. :lamo :lamo
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Mycroft said:
In effect, he DID sneak in...or, at least, he barely scraped out a win...
Click to expand...

You see a threat in a begnine email, then you say Obama scraped out a win What utter BS! I hope your mama didn't teach you to lie!
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Texmex said:
You see a threat in a begnine email, then you say Obama scraped out a win What utter BS! I hope your mama didn't teach you to lie!
Click to expand...

No...Bob Woodward sees a threat...and yes, Obama scraped out a win in terms of the popular vote.

Do you dispute any of that?
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

From Kathleen Parker/WaPo:

This is no tempest in a teapot but rather the leak in the dike. Drip by drip, the Obama administration has demonstrated its intolerance for dissent and its contempt for any who stray from the White House script. Yes, all administrations are sensitive to criticism, and all push back when such criticism is deemed unfair or inaccurate. But no president since Richard Nixon has demonstrated such overt contempt for the messenger. And, thanks to technological advances in social media, Obama has been able to bypass traditional watchdogs as no other president has.

More to the point, the Obama White House is, to put it politely, fudging as it tries to place the onus of the sequester on Congress. And, as has become customary, officials are using the Woodward spat to distract attention. As Woodward put it: “This is the old trick . . . of making the press . . . the issue, rather than what the White House has done here.”

Killing the messenger is a time-honored method of controlling the message, but we have already spilled that blood. And the First Amendment’s protection of a free press, the purpose of which is to check power and constrain government’s ability to dictate the lives of private citizens, was no accident.

Kathleen Parker: The Obama White House ‘threat’ to Bob Woodward matters - The Washington Post
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

This backfired a bit on Woodward, didn't it?

I liked his book, but if that email is what he construes as a threat, it makes me question his conclusions regarding any of his observations. I probably won't be buying another of his books.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

This is an interesting read.

Seems Bob Woodward has jumped the shark, not unlike Dan Rather, no cub reporter himself, and his overreach.

Where I come from men must be made of sterner stuff. That was no threat. Especially when Bob responds all sweet and nice to it. Seems to me if someone gets threatened and they feel they have some stature the response isn't to tuck tail and give a courtesy butt lick. :roll:

Now the partisan hacks on the right are trying to say Lanny Davis was threatened. Actually Lanny claims an editor claims to have been threatened by an unnamed source. No record of this act, refuses to name the person who threatened this editor.

The Ron Fournier story is even more bizarre, he claims a series of hostile conversations, phone and E-mail, occurred yet didn't record any of them. He also doesn't name the person who threatened him.

Lots of here say with no proof. Seems to me if some one threatened me I'd be quite upfront about who they are. Why are Mr. Davis and Fournier refusing to name the person they allege threatened them?

Something to ponder.

Now what was this 'threat'? As best anyone is willing to admit the 'threat' is to restrict access to the White House and the press area...

Now let me try and remember.... who was it that was quite pointed about using access as a lever against unfavorable press....

Seems I recall the BushII Administration using that 'threat' during the Iraq debacle.

But I'd say Mr. Woodward has gone a 'revelation' too far, and Mr Davis and Fournier are just trying to tag along.

Name the guy who threatened you or go home.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

notquiteright said:
This is an interesting read.

Seems Bob Woodward has jumped the shark, not unlike Dan Rather, no cub reporter himself, and his overreach.

Where I come from men must be made of sterner stuff. That was no threat. Especially when Bob responds all sweet and nice to it. Seems to me if someone gets threatened and they feel they have some stature the response isn't to tuck tail and give a courtesy butt lick. :roll:

Now the partisan hacks on the right are trying to say Lanny Davis was threatened. Actually Lanny claims an editor claims to have been threatened by an unnamed source. No record of this act, refuses to name the person who threatened this editor.

The Ron Fournier story is even more bizarre, he claims a series of hostile conversations, phone and E-mail, occurred yet didn't record any of them. He also doesn't name the person who threatened him.

Lots of here say with no proof. Seems to me if some one threatened me I'd be quite upfront about who they are. Why are Mr. Davis and Fournier refusing to name the person they allege threatened them?

Something to ponder.

Now what was this 'threat'? As best anyone is willing to admit the 'threat' is to restrict access to the White House and the press area...

Now let me try and remember.... who was it that was quite pointed about using access as a lever against unfavorable press....

Seems I recall the BushII Administration using that 'threat' during the Iraq debacle.

But I'd say Mr. Woodward has gone a 'revelation' too far, and Mr Davis and Fournier are just trying to tag along.

Name the guy who threatened you or go home.
Click to expand...

Why are you going on about Davis and Fournier? And Bush??? Jezuz, dude...he's been out of the picture for over 4 years. How long you going to drag him around? They all really have nothing to do with this story and the fact is...Woodward DID name the person who threatened him.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Mycroft said:
Why are you going on about Davis and Fournier? And Bush??? Jezuz, dude...he's been out of the picture for over 4 years. How long you going to drag him around? They all really have nothing to do with this story and the fact is...Woodward DID name the person who threatened him.
Click to expand...

Have you not read the hyper partisan 'conservative' whine? THEY are going on about those two as 'proof' of a vast Obama knock down of the 4th estate. :roll:

Woodward did but these other two hacks have not. You really peel your onion don't you?

So BushII's actions are now ancient history and we should ignore what he did?

PLEASE remember that the next appeasement/Hilter comparison made by the partisan 'conservatives' over whatever whine fest they wish to roll around in. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

notquiteright said:
Have you not read the hyper partisan 'conservative' whine? THEY are going on about those two as 'proof' of a vast Obama knock down of the 4th estate. :roll:

Woodward did but these other two hacks have not. You really peel your onion don't you?

So BushII's actions are now ancient history and we should ignore what he did?

PLEASE remember that the next appeasement/Hilter comparison made by the partisan 'conservatives' over whatever whine fest they wish to roll around in. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Oh, excuse me...but I generally go with the story...not what every tom, dick and harry SAYS about the story.

But hey...you go right ahead and bring up every other person who has said something about this issue...and even some who haven't (I mean, seriously? You are going to bring up Hitler??)...in your attempt to paint Woodward in a bad light.

I'll stick to the relevant facts.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Mycroft said:
Less than 3%...just more than 3%...the difference is negligible.
Click to expand...



Whatever.

Anyone can make a mistake.

A real man admits his mistakes, apologizes and moves on.

Others have different ways of dealing with their mistakes.

I won't be wasting any more time with you.

You're not the kind of person that I care to associate with.

Believe what you want to believe.

Won't cost me a nickle.

Have a nice day, and a long wonderful life.
 
Last edited:
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

shrubnose said:
Whatever.

I won't be wasting any more time with you.

Believe what you want to believe.

Won't cost me a nickle.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!

Ok, dude.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Mycroft said:
No...Bob Woodward sees a threat...and yes, Obama scraped out a win in terms of the popular vote.

Do you dispute any of that?
Click to expand...

Only the crap that isn't true, you know, the part about scraping out a win. President Obama received over 9,000,000 more popular vote and won the electoral vote 365 - 173. I hardly call that scraping out a win.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Mycroft said:
No...Bob Woodward sees a threat...and yes, Obama scraped out a win in terms of the popular vote.

Do you dispute any of that?
Click to expand...

Scraped out a win with the popular vote? Really?:lamo

Final 2012 Presidential Election Electoral and Popular Vote

Now, if a six million vote victory is 'scraping out' a popular vote win to you, what would you call the results of the popular vote between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000?
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Texmex said:
Only the crap that isn't true, you know, the part about scraping out a win. President Obama received over 9,000,000 more popular vote and won the electoral vote 365 - 173. I hardly call that scraping out a win.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you just jumped into this conversation without knowing what we were talking about...and that's why you bring up the irrelevant Electoral College vote. Whatever.

In any event, I think your popular vote number is inflated. Wiki, which uses the numbers that were certified by Congress on Jan. 4, puts the difference at 4,975,445 with a percentage difference of 3.85%. And yes...I would call that scraping by instead of shrubnose's contention that "most Americans" elected Obama.

United States presidential election, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Wiggen said:
Scraped out a win with the popular vote? Really?:lamo

Final 2012 Presidential Election Electoral and Popular Vote

Now, if a six million vote victory is 'scraping out' a popular vote win to you, what would you call the results of the popular vote between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000?
Click to expand...

I would certain not be saying that Bush was elected by "most Americans" as shrubnose contends about Obama.

I might add that you have inflated the numbers as did Texmex...though not by near as much as he did. Perhaps you should use a calculator instead of rose-colored guesstimates.
 
Last edited:
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

Mycroft said:
Oh, excuse me...but I generally go with the story...not what every tom, dick and harry SAYS about the story.

But hey...you go right ahead and bring up every other person who has said something about this issue...and even some who haven't (I mean, seriously? You are going to bring up Hitler??)...in your attempt to paint Woodward in a bad light.

I'll stick to the relevant facts.
Click to expand...

Laughing, oh you tap dance with the best of 'em!

First this wasn't a conversation directed at you, YOU jumped into the middle of an ongoing discussion as if it only started when you joined... :roll:

Now you deflect to avoid your whine being thrown back in your face- the sad whine about time to move on after BushII everytime his stupidity is brought into a discussion. YOU want to ignore BushII after 4 years as if there was no lesson to be learned, but how many times does the radical right throw appeasement and Hitler this n that at damn near every turn?

No Sir, my referencing the radical right's constant dredging up Hitler is in DIRECT reference to the ideological hypocracy of the Radical Right on what is worth remembering. for all you want to forget 4 years ago will you allow us to forget Hitler/appeasement/ the slippery slope of firearm confiscation????

After a few discussions with you I'd say you stick to the facts that fit your mindset, and the rest is irrelevant.... :peace
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

notquiteright said:
Laughing, oh you tap dance with the best of 'em!

First this wasn't a conversation directed at you, YOU jumped into the middle of an ongoing discussion as if it only started when you joined... :roll:

Now you deflect to avoid your whine being thrown back in your face- the sad whine about time to move on after BushII everytime his stupidity is brought into a discussion. YOU want to ignore BushII after 4 years as if there was no lesson to be learned, but how many times does the radical right throw appeasement and Hitler this n that at damn near every turn?

No Sir, my referencing the radical right's constant dredging up Hitler is in DIRECT reference to the ideological hypocracy of the Radical Right on what is worth remembering. for all you want to forget 4 years ago will you allow us to forget Hitler/appeasement/ the slippery slope of firearm confiscation????

After a few discussions with you I'd say you stick to the facts that fit your mindset, and the rest is irrelevant.... :peace
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Talk about tap dancing...

Your first post quoted nobody. You were having a conversation with the thread...of which I've been a part. I simply addressed your post as is my right.

I'll tell you what...you go ahead with your hyper-partisan defense of that disgusting Obama by trying to dredge up any irrelevant information and innuendo if you want. It is YOUR right, after all.
 
Re: Exclusive: The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

shrubnose said:
Why is Obama back in the White House if most Americans don't want him there?

Explain that.
Click to expand...

Less than half is not most. Most, by definition, would have to be a sum greater than half of those voting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom