Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[Bob Woodward] Obama's madness
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, so you'll "get back to us on that".

For your convenient reference, when you get back to it. I had said:
BoneKracker wrote:
The main problem with [the sequestration cuts] is that nobody has been getting ready for them, because they were promised they wouldn't happen. There is nothing wrong with the magnitude of the cuts (3% of the budget), and they are sufficiently vague to allow lots of room for the affected agencies to find ways to achieve them without having to reduce service levels. There is so much waste and inefficiency in our Federal Government that it should be able to achieve 20% or 30% reduction in spending without reducing service levels. The problem is that the culture is broken, and they don't know how to do it. So they'll fire contractors and cancel weapon systems, because the only thing they have time to figure out.

And the reason nobody is prepared is because the Obama Administration has had almost no emphasis on cost-cutting and efficiency and believes any spending is good spending.

And you replied:
richk449 wrote:
Actually, I agree with pretty much all of that, with the exception of the second half of the last sentence. There is no evidence, in words or deeds, that Obama is in favor of big spending.

And then also blurted:
Quote:
by recent historical standards, spending under Obama has been low
Quote:
I am apparently just the last idiot who actually believes in silly things like facts.

I then presented facts, from a credible source (left-leaning if anything), which directly refute that purportedly fact-based understanding of the fiscal situation:
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending has never been higher.
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has never been higher, except during World War II.
  • The average annual Federal outlay under G.W. Bush was $2,328.2 Billion. The average annual Federal outlay under B.H. Obama has been $3,635.2 Billion (an increase of $1.3 Trillion per year).
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has been an average of 5% higher than under G.W. Bush.

Source Data.

Remember also, this was only presented in reference to your spurious claim above (which is apparently not trolling after all, but attributable to too much Kool Aid -- you need to rectify that by the way). My original point, regarding regarding Woodward's reference to Obama's "madness" was:
Quote:
"It's a red herring anyway, even if one accepts it. What matters most in judging Obama's spending is that 30% of it is money we don't have. Bush was bad enough, ranging from about 7% to 15%, but 30% on an ongoing basis is a recipe for disaster.

Moreover, when pressed to bring that deficit down, he becomes the crazy threatening to crash the car if he doesn't get his way. That's what Woodward is talking about. He sent all his minions out to threaten the decimation of all the most treasured government services and programs. It's irrelevant that Woodward happens to be reacting to only one of those (the cancellation of a Naval cruise, which directly impacts National Security by reducing our ability to exert pressure in Iran, Syria, Northern Africa, and elsewhere). Obama has similarly gone straight after every piece of Republican pork he could manage to, within the leeway given by the sequestration.

That's the "madness". He's making the American people into "collateral damage" of his fiscal battle. He's saying, "Fuck you, I'll wreck it, and I'll even make them believe you did it, because I can Vulcan Mind Trick!" That's what this is about, not total spending levels artificially presented in a misrepresentative contexts."

We can add factual data, in full context, pertaining to deficit and debt as well, which puts such spending in the proper light.

_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A list of facts, with some context and analysis in parentheses:
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending has never been higher. (This statement is true for every president since at least 1940. While depressing, it doesn't prove anything particular about Obama.)
  • The average annual Federal outlay under G.W. Bush was $2,328.2 Billion. The average annual Federal outlay under B.H. Obama has been $3,635.2 Billion. (While true, this is a bit misleading, since Bush presided over a monotonic 67% increase in the federal budget, so his final budget, inherited by Obama, was substantially higher than his average budget. Correcting for inflation would also have a significant impact.)
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has been an average of 5% higher than under G.W. Bush. (A difference which is completely explained by the post-recession reduction in GDP, not by unusual increases in spending.)
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has never been higher, except during World War II. (Due to the explanation for the previous two points - the drop in GDP during the recession, and the large spending increase under Bush.)
  • Since 1980 (and perhaps further back), the only president under which spending increased less than Obama was Clinton. (BK to add his take.)

BK wrote:
"It's a red herring anyway, even if one accepts it. What matters most in judging Obama's spending is that 30% of it is money we don't have. Bush was bad enough, ranging from about 7% to 15%, but 30% on an ongoing basis is a recipe for disaster.

True, but Obama himself has stated as much.
BK wrote:
Moreover, when pressed to bring that deficit down, he becomes the crazy threatening to crash the car if he doesn't get his way... That's the "madness". He's making the American people into "collateral damage" of his fiscal battle. He's saying, "Fuck you, I'll wreck it, and I'll even make them believe you did it, because I can Vulcan Mind Trick!"

Obama has in fact proposed plans that cut spending substantially more than the sequester, but they were rejected by the republicans because 10% of the deficit reduction in them came from tax increases. There is definitely a game of chicken going on with the US economy, but it involves more than one party.

You didn't state it here, but you have also argued that Obama should have drastically slashed spending in the middle of the great recession, in order to keep government spending in line with revenue. I don't agree, and I doubt you could find any respected economist that would agree with that position.

My conclusions:
(1) Every US president in recent history has allowed way too much spending, Obama is no exception.
(2) There is nothing particular about spending during the Obama presidency that stands out in comparison to other presidents in recent history.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just give up, BK. He's on the plantation.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who's that nigga on that neigh?!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
Who's that nigga on that neigh?!


:lol:

Just watched that today. Great movie.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
A list of facts, with some context and analysis in parentheses:
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending has never been higher. (This statement is true for every president since at least 1940. While depressing, it doesn't prove anything particular about Obama.)
  • The average annual Federal outlay under G.W. Bush was $2,328.2 Billion. The average annual Federal outlay under B.H. Obama has been $3,635.2 Billion. (While true, this is a bit misleading, since Bush presided over a monotonic 67% increase in the federal budget, so his final budget, inherited by Obama, was substantially higher than his average budget. Correcting for inflation would also have a significant impact.)
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has been an average of 5% higher than under G.W. Bush. (A difference which is completely explained by the post-recession reduction in GDP, not by unusual increases in spending.)
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has never been higher, except during World War II. (Due to the explanation for the previous two points - the drop in GDP during the recession, and the large spending increase under Bush.)
  • Since 1980 (and perhaps further back), the only president under which spending increased less than Obama was Clinton. (BK to add his take.)

BK wrote:
"It's a red herring anyway, even if one accepts it. What matters most in judging Obama's spending is that 30% of it is money we don't have. Bush was bad enough, ranging from about 7% to 15%, but 30% on an ongoing basis is a recipe for disaster.

True, but Obama himself has stated as much.
BK wrote:
Moreover, when pressed to bring that deficit down, he becomes the crazy threatening to crash the car if he doesn't get his way... That's the "madness". He's making the American people into "collateral damage" of his fiscal battle. He's saying, "Fuck you, I'll wreck it, and I'll even make them believe you did it, because I can Vulcan Mind Trick!"

Obama has in fact proposed plans that cut spending substantially more than the sequester, but they were rejected by the republicans because 10% of the deficit reduction in them came from tax increases. There is definitely a game of chicken going on with the US economy, but it involves more than one party.

You didn't state it here, but you have also argued that Obama should have drastically slashed spending in the middle of the great recession, in order to keep government spending in line with revenue. I don't agree, and I doubt you could find any respected economist that would agree with that position.

My conclusions:
(1) Every US president in recent history has allowed way too much spending, Obama is no exception.
(2) There is nothing particular about spending during the Obama presidency that stands out in comparison to other presidents in recent history.


Please name one significant spending cut proposed by Pres. Obama.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
You didn't state it here, but you have also argued that Obama should have drastically slashed spending in the middle of the great recession, in order to keep government spending in line with revenue. I don't agree, and I doubt you could find any respected economist that would agree with that position.

Off the top of my head I bet at least one of the econlog writers would agree. The writers at Cato come to mind as well. In any case appeals to respectability are weak and a form of attacking the messenger. Other than that I think you have the upper hand in this debate. The Obama presidency is basically a continuation and confirmation of the Bush presidency. I do not view it as a radical departure from long term trends.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
Please name one significant spending cut proposed by Pres. Obama.

http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
richk449 wrote:
You didn't state it here, but you have also argued that Obama should have drastically slashed spending in the middle of the great recession, in order to keep government spending in line with revenue. I don't agree, and I doubt you could find any respected economist that would agree with that position.

Off the top of my head I bet at least one of the econlog writers would agree. The writers at Cato come to mind as well.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to argue that all economists are Keynesian. I guess what I meant was that it would be very difficult to find an economist who felt that the government should increase spending when the economy was doing well, and cut spending when the economy was doing poorly.

I think that the economists you speak of would like to cut government spending regardless of how the economy is doing. Thus, they don't necessarily support the idea that spending should track GDP.

Or am I wrong? Is the idea that spending should follow GDP on a short term basis a position advocated by respected economists?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
A list of facts, with some context and analysis in parentheses:
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending has never been higher. (This statement is true for every president since at least 1940. While depressing, it doesn't prove anything particular about Obama.)
  • The average annual Federal outlay under G.W. Bush was $2,328.2 Billion. The average annual Federal outlay under B.H. Obama has been $3,635.2 Billion. (While true, this is a bit misleading, since Bush presided over a monotonic 67% increase in the federal budget, so his final budget, inherited by Obama, was substantially higher than his average budget. Correcting for inflation would also have a significant impact.)
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has been an average of 5% higher than under G.W. Bush. (A difference which is completely explained by the post-recession reduction in GDP, not by unusual increases in spending.)
  • U.S. Federal Government Spending as a percentage of GDP has never been higher, except during World War II. (Due to the explanation for the previous two points - the drop in GDP during the recession, and the large spending increase under Bush.)
  • Since 1980 (and perhaps further back), the only president under which spending increased less than Obama was Clinton. (BK to add his take.)

So you're changing your argument from "There is no evidence Obama is a big spender" to "Yeah, but everybody else increased spending too, so that means it's okay."? Weeeaaaaak.

As to GDP, you can claim it "explains" something, but it but it does not justify higher spending as a percentage of GDP. As I said, spending does not occur in a vacuum, and the judgement of whether "too much" spending is occurring is largely driven by GDP. While it may make sense to borrow to smooth out a short term reduction in GDP and stimulate recovery, this is not a long-term solution to persistently low unemployment. Five years after the recession, there is no justification for spending as a percentage of national GDP to 20% higher than before (from roughly 19.5% to 24.5%). You yourself repeatedly said spending must be examined in light of GDP.

More to the point, spending as a percent of GDP rose under Bush only 0.3% per year (from 18.5 %to 20.8% over eight years), while Obama has kept it artificially at recession-driven levels (only coming back down by 1% from 2009's 25.2%, trying to permanently lock us in above 24% of GDP). Furthermore, Obama has in fact increased spending, particularly in the out-years, where the costs of his new programs will hit.

richk449 wrote:
BK wrote:
"It's a red herring anyway, even if one accepts it. What matters most in judging Obama's spending is that 30% of it is money we don't have. Bush was bad enough, ranging from about 7% to 15%, but 30% on an ongoing basis is a recipe for disaster.
True, but Obama himself has stated as much.

Obama "says" a lot of things. He has also obstructed all attempts to do anything about this, by refusing to cut wasteful spending.

richk449 wrote:
BK wrote:
Moreover, when pressed to bring that deficit down, he becomes the crazy threatening to crash the car if he doesn't get his way... That's the "madness". He's making the American people into "collateral damage" of his fiscal battle. He's saying, "Fuck you, I'll wreck it, and I'll even make them believe you did it, because I can Vulcan Mind Trick!"

Obama has in fact proposed plans that cut spending substantially more than the sequester, but they were rejected by the republicans because 10% of the deficit reduction in them came from tax increases. There is definitely a game of chicken going on with the US economy, but it involves more than one party.

He once mentioned it, as a hypothetical, and has since retreated from any such deal, once even literally walking away from the table, and even rejecting evenly-matched spending and tax cuts. Also, if you believe he was willing to follow through on that "offer" in good faith, I've got a house over a sinkhole in Florida you might be interested in buying. Anybody who has watched Obama operate over the past four years (including Guantanamo inmates and people with shovel-ready projects that need funding) knows that saying something and doing something are two entirely different matters.

richk449 wrote:
You didn't state it here, but you have also argued that Obama should have drastically slashed spending in the middle of the great recession, in order to keep government spending in line with revenue. I don't agree, and I doubt you could find any respected economist that would agree with that position.

I have argued no such thing. I have said that borrowing to stimulate an economy can make sense, if done correctly (which Obama abused and did not do). I have said that now, five years after the recession, it is time to bring spending as a percent of GDP, and deficit spending, under control. Obama's budgets have repeatedly promised to do both, and each year, he fails to deliver, continuing his trillion-dollar deficit spending.

richk449 wrote:
My conclusions:
(1) Every US president in recent history has allowed way too much spending, Obama is no exception.
(2) There is nothing particular about spending during the Obama presidency that stands out in comparison to other presidents in recent history.

That's not the same thing you were saying before. Before you were saying he does not spend way too much (specifically, that "there's no evidence Obama is in favor of big spending", and "by recent historical standards, Obama's spending has been low"). And, it's also incorrect, as the facts clearly show: "Bad" does not automatically equal "bad", because we have a more accurate term: "worst".
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
I guess what I meant was ...

Curious how you keep having to change what you "mean".
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?

Pretty much. But in the best tradition of Old School MSM print journalism, certain liberties with the truth can be taken to prove a point.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?

Pretty much. But in the best tradition of Old School MSM print journalism, certain liberties with the truth can be taken to prove a point.


ummm. no. he basically said the admin threatened.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?

Pretty much. But in the best tradition of Old School MSM print journalism, certain liberties with the truth can be taken to prove a point.


ummm. no. he basically said the admin threatened.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. And he took liberties with the truth. Understand?
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think 20 paces and pistols at dawn, gentlemen. That will sort this out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16102
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?
"You'll regret it" is a threat. It is more unbelievable to think the WH was offering career counseling.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?

Pretty much. But in the best tradition of Old School MSM print journalism, certain liberties with the truth can be taken to prove a point.


ummm. no. he basically said the admin threatened.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. And he took liberties with the truth. Understand?

He doesn't understand. He doesn't grasp the fine point that stretching intimidation, beratement, and ambiguosly ominous statements into "I was threatened" is taking liberties with the truth, as opposed to bullshit. Also, it being "bullshit" causes less cognitive dissonance for him.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
juniper wrote:
so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?
"You'll regret it" is a threat. It is more unbelievable to think the WH was offering career counseling.

:lol:
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He was threatened. To not understand that is to be so myopic as to think that Affirmative Action is anything less than institutionalized racism.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
He was threatened. To not understand that is to be so myopic as to think that Affirmative Action is anything less than institutionalized racism.


Have you read what was actually said? he was not threatened.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?

Pretty much. But in the best tradition of Old School MSM print journalism, certain liberties with the truth can be taken to prove a point.


ummm. no. he basically said the admin threatened.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. And he took liberties with the truth. Understand?

He doesn't understand. He doesn't grasp the fine point that stretching intimidation, beratement, and ambiguosly ominous statements into "I was threatened" is taking liberties with the truth, as opposed to bullshit. Also, it being "bullshit" causes less cognitive dissonance for him.


at Old School: I guess "liberties with the truth" is the new euphemism make shit up.

You've got a lot of beefs with this admin. you don't need to shit up.

@BK: don't know what you are talking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
Old School wrote:
juniper wrote:
so I guess it's come out that this threat at woodward was bullshit?

Pretty much. But in the best tradition of Old School MSM print journalism, certain liberties with the truth can be taken to prove a point.


ummm. no. he basically said the admin threatened.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. And he took liberties with the truth. Understand?

He doesn't understand. He doesn't grasp the fine point that stretching intimidation, beratement, and ambiguosly ominous statements into "I was threatened" is taking liberties with the truth, as opposed to bullshit. Also, it being "bullshit" causes less cognitive dissonance for him.


at Old School: I guess "liberties with the truth" is the new euphemism make shit up.

You've got a lot of beefs with this admin. you don't need to shit up.

@BK: don't know what you are talking about.

Yeah, like I said, you don't understand.

This administration systematically intimidates journalists if they say anything negative about the President. It's been reported before numerous times. Also, you don't have any idea of what was "said", all you have is an email from the administration trying to smooth it over.

I think it's pretty obvious. When somebody raises their voice and uses the words, "you're going to regret this", that's a fucking threat. It doesn't matter if they later try, in writing, to make it look like they were giving you friendly advice.

The real question is this: why do you feel an irrational compulsion to deny it or cover it up, participating actively in the Obama Administration's concealment of it routine intimidation tactics.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whether it is a threat or not, it was incredibly stupid of a white house official to write "you are going to regret this" to a reporter. Even if he did mean it in the helpful way that is now claimed, it is ambiguous enough that leaves him open to the charge of threatening a reporter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
Whether it is a threat or not, it was incredibly stupid of a white house official to write "you are going to regret this" to a reporter. Even if he did mean it in the helpful way that is now claimed, it is ambiguous enough that leaves him open to the charge of threatening a reporter.

Yeah, and not only that, but the White House should not be engaged in the systematic intimidation of journalists, which there is ample evidence of. Numerous journalists have complained of being intimidated and having their careers threatened or employers intimidated by the White House.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum