• 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!

White House in damage control mode as potential scandals pile up [W:378]

So....just as you imagine everything else....you are imagining that you don't see California on the listed alphabetically between Arkansas and Colorado? I suggest you look at little closer. Sorry Con...you cannot escape the fact that your suckhole of a state has the highest number of people on minimum wage in the country. That is just the facts.

This has nothing to do with the thread topic although it continues to show how little you really know and what a fool liberalism has made of you. California minimum wage employees aren't counted as they are paid higher than the Federal minimum wage. Take up the issue with Michael Kinsman who even spelled it out for you

California has a ton of workers making California minimum wage - it's just that all of those workers don't get folded into the BLS statistics because they're not making the Federal minimum wage.
 
This has nothing to do with the thread topic although it continues to show how little you really know and what a fool liberalism has made of you. California minimum wage employees aren't counted as they are paid higher than the Federal minimum wage. Take up the issue with Michael Kinsman who even spelled it out for you

So.....when people look at the BLM numbers and see statistics on California....its just an optical illusion. Gotch.

Or is it that you are embarassed to see Texas leading the nation in the number of people working at minimum wage? Oh....those damn pesky facts surfacing again.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread is NOT about the minimum wage or whatever else you all are discussing. It's about what is posted in the thread TITLE. Get back to that topic, or there will be consequences.
 
So.....when people look at the BLM numbers and see statistics on California....its just an optical illusion. Gotch.

Or is it that you are embarassed to see Texas leading the nation in the number of people working at minimum wage? Oh....those damn pesky facts surfacing again.

Please learn how to read the report and what those numbers represent. what part of the following do you not understand?

California has a ton of workers making California minimum wage - it's just that all of those workers don't get folded into the BLS statistics because they're not making the Federal minimum wage.
 
hahaha. You will certainly care at mid term election time when my imagined liberal co-workers stay on the sidelines

...You do realize what the word "imagined" means, don't you?

What am I saying? Conservatives and libertarians can't tell reality from fiction, of course you don't.

meanwhile, back in reality...

I'm sure your local station regularly airs a lot of **** to fill out the news hour.

That doesn't make this a real scandal in the slightest.
 
Absolutely, totally scammed as apparently were Ambassador Steven's family,

Do you actually know what the word "scammed" means?

What am I saying, of course you don't.

the AP reporters who had their phone records reviewed,

Do you actually know what the word "scammed" means?

What am I saying, of course you don't.

and of course those conservative groups under scrutiny by the IRS.

A complete and utter non-issue.

Do you really want to give Obama a pass for what you perceived Bush...

Let me stop you right there.

You don't know me or my opinion of President Bush, so don't pull that old card about how "If Bush were in charge while any of this happened I'd so be calling for heads to rolls!!!"
 
Do you actually know what the word "scammed" means?

What am I saying, of course you don't.



Do you actually know what the word "scammed" means?

What am I saying, of course you don't.



A complete and utter non-issue.



Let me stop you right there.

You don't know me or my opinion of President Bush, so don't pull that old card about how "If Bush were in charge while any of this happened I'd so be calling for heads to rolls!!!"

Do you know the definition of 'scam'?


"scam (skæm)

n., v. scammed, scam•ming. n.
1. a fraudulent scheme; swindle.
v.t.
2. to cheat; defraud."

scammed - definition of scammed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Seems to me that is a pretty apt description of what the administration is pulling on the American people in multiple areas.

As for not knowing you, and your ideological bent, I think we have enough of your posting to say confidently that you are a leftist, supporting Obama any way you can think of, regardless of your attempt to hide behind the 'undisclosed' moniker.

In another thread you questioned what was so wrong with targeting, as you put it, "teabaggers", and in here instead of addressing points made you are attacking the poster himself, a tried and true progressive tactic of deflection. So yeah, I think we know....:roll:
 
...You do realize what the word "imagined" means, don't you?

What am I saying? Conservatives and libertarians can't tell reality from fiction, of course you don't.



I'm sure your local station regularly airs a lot of **** to fill out the news hour.

That doesn't make this a real scandal in the slightest.

What do you call it when the Administration authorized talking points that were an attempt to mislead?
 
Do you actually know what the word "scammed" means?

What am I saying, of course you don't.



Do you actually know what the word "scammed" means?

What am I saying, of course you don't.



A complete and utter non-issue.



Let me stop you right there.

You don't know me or my opinion of President Bush, so don't pull that old card about how "If Bush were in charge while any of this happened I'd so be calling for heads to rolls!!!"

If you ever want to be taken seriously then you better act more serious. Get actual facts not your opinion or those of others. You explain why what happened in Benghazi, the IRS, and at AP aren't scandals? Your calling for heads to roll although admirable doesn't reflect in your posts here
 
What do you call it when the Administration authorized talking points that were an attempt to mislead?
If you're referring to Benghazi talking points those were authorized by the CIA.

David Ignatius: Benghazi intelligence revealed - The Washington Post

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”​
 
Yes the founding fathers warned you about corrupt and tyrannical governments.

People who set up a government that didn't allow blacks, women and the poor to vote.

:prof False! :)

...State constitutions protecting voting rights for blacks included those of Delaware (1776), [5] Maryland (1776), [6] New Hampshire (1784), [7] and New York (1777). [8] (Constitution signer Rufus King declared that in New York, “a citizen of color was entitled to all the privileges of a citizen. . . . [and] entitled to vote.”) [9] Pennsylvania also extended such rights in her 1776 constitution, [10] as did Massachusetts in her 1780 constitution.[11] In fact, nearly a century later in 1874, US Rep. Robert Brown Elliott (a black Republican from SC) queried: “When did Massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man? She has never done it; she will not do it.” [12]

As a result of these provisions, early American towns such as Baltimore had more blacks than whites voting in elections; [13] and when the proposed US Constitution was placed before citizens in 1787 and 1788, it was ratified by both black and white voters in a number of States. [14]
This is not to imply that all blacks were allowed to vote; free blacks could vote (except in South Carolina)...
 
If you're referring to Benghazi talking points those were authorized by the CIA.

David Ignatius: Benghazi intelligence revealed - The Washington Post

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”​

The buck stops with the President or don't you understand leadership? Obviously not
 
Leadership is about picking the correct choices and the administration and CIA didn't want to let the terrorists what they knew. Benghazi was primarily a CIA operation.

The Secret CIA Mission In Benghazi - Business Insider

A leader takes responsibility not blames someone else. Hillary was a cabinet appointment by the President and thus the CIA activities are the President's responsibility. You have no concept of leadership, do you?

Guess this isn't Obama's responsibility either?


Typical liberalism, do as I say not as I do


UPDATED: IRS tax exemption/Obamacare exec got $103,390 in bonuses; Did Obama OK them? | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
Excellent post con. But it would be even better if it were given a chance to fly on its own.HERE .:2wave:

The only ones that would ever talk about an article about leadership and the lack of it would be someone who doesn't understand the concept which would be most Obamabots. I never thought you were an Obamabot but rather someone who just stirs the pot for their own entertainment. I believe you understand the concept of leadership which is what the article is all about and the lack of that skill by Obama. Discussions of leadership failures on the part of Obama are hardly conspiracy theories but rather are reality.
 
The only ones that would ever talk about an article about leadership and the lack of it would be someone who doesn't understand the concept which would be most Obamabots. I never thought you were an Obamabot but rather someone who just stirs the pot for their own entertainment. I believe you understand the concept of leadership which is what the article is all about and the lack of that skill by Obama. Discussions of leadership failures on the part of Obama are hardly conspiracy theories but rather are reality.

If you and I delve into that link and discuss it in debt like it should be discussed;in a thread with a warning (W:378) whats gonna happen?:shock:
 
If you and I delve into that link and discuss it in debt like it should be discussed;in a thread with a warning (W:378) whats gonna happen?:shock:

What would happen is Obama supporters would have to admit they have been wrong about Obama and were duped by the rhetoric. We was unqualified for the job, filled the media with rhetoric that was bought by people who wanted to elect the first black President regardless of qualifications, and then make the situation worse by never admitting they were wrong and continuing to prop up a total failure.
 
What would happen is Obama supporters would have to admit they have been wrong about Obama and were duped by the rhetoric. We was unqualified for the job, filled the media with rhetoric that was bought by people who wanted to elect the first black President regardless of qualifications, and then make the situation worse by never admitting they were wrong and continuing to prop up a total failure.


If that were the case then WHY the ****en clown show that preceded the nomination of someone even more unqualified?ROMNEY! :shock:
 
If that were the case then WHY the ****en clown show that preceded the nomination of someone even more unqualified?ROMNEY! :shock:

Romney was a much better qualified candidate than Obama but liberals have such low standards and a high probability of being brainwashed that they bought the negative and ignored the resume. Romney has the leadership skills and ability to compromise that Obama will never have. Liberals have low expectations and thus are never disappointed by poor results.
 
Back
Top Bottom