PDA

View Full Version : Follow the ideology.



Sev
06-24-2012, 04:29 PM
Worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFIpoL3jrfo

Soflasnapper
06-24-2012, 06:14 PM
It starts off with lies and then descends further into the muck.

This guy is a very dangerous propagandist, apparently calm and independent, but willfully lying about facts.

Point 1: he describes Obama as the most liberal member of the Democratic Senate. If the guy has a shred of knowledge he would understand why that is a bogus stat.

ALL the presidential candidates get that rating IN THE YEAR THEY ARE RUNNING. Why? Because they routinely miss votes, and show up for the higher profile party line votes on higher profile issues. And of course, as they seek the nomination, vote the party line.

Is that how they ALWAYS voted? As in, for their entire time in the Senate? No. Taking the longer time line which is more representative of their voting patterns, all of them who are said to be 'the MOST liberal' in their voting turn out to be middle of the pack (for Democrats) in terms of being liberals as to their voting.

So this guy's entire starting premise is based on a flawed and truncated factoid, which misrepresents the truth.

As I say, it gets worse.

The border patrol guy was KILLED by these weapons? There is no evidence for that. It gets inferred as a fact from sloppy or intentionally vague statements.

THOUSANDS of assault rifles? Barely true, as the number was 2,000, but of those, as I recall, 700 were re-intercepted, not used, recovered, and so there never were 2,000 (or THOUSANDS) put into the field.

There's a contradiction in his denial that US weapons were the majority of arms used by the cartels, and the idea that 2,000 WERE the majority of arms used by them. That's inherently ridiculous. It's only made plausible by the interpretation of 'thousands' to be 10s of thousands. Even then, it wouldn't likely be true.

After laying out this false argument, then he resorts to mindreading, supposition, and theory, not fact.

Let me explain why a president might assert executive privilege against Congressional oversight, if it isn't because he's personally involved, another logical fallacy critical to this guy's phony analysis.

He does so to protect the internal deliberative process of the executive branch, defending the executive branch against the excessive and abusive reach of the Congressional branch. It's well known Issa originally asked for things that were ILLEGAL to provide. And then he went with asking for things that were immaterial and against long-standing protocol to ask for. Obama has a responsibility to protect the institution of the presidency from encroachment of its legitimate secrecy needs, and internal deliberative communications fall under that category.

So it's a story woven out of falsehoods and assumptions. Spoken very confidently, and seemingly, reasonably, but when you start off with improper or false assumptions, you get poor alleged deductions at the end of that process.

Qtec
06-25-2012, 01:43 AM
What's happened here is that Obama has said to Issa,
"Enough. Enough of this petty politically motivated farce. I'm not prepared to put up with your crap any more on this."

Issa.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On Monday, meanwhile, a group of House Democrats blasted Issa for not pursuing allegations that News Corp., the company owned by conservative media titan Rupert Murdoch, might have hacked phones belonging to the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Lux rejected Hill’s assertion that the complaint is politically motivated.

“He’s basically saying that because we are progressives, <u>the fact that Issa had interests in all these companies he was helping through his congressional office doesn’t matter</u>,” Lux said. “The fact is that Issa has done things that are completely suspicious and there should be a thorough hearing of it.”

The complaint contends that in 2008 Issa improperly touted a merger between the Sirius and XM satellite radio companies while having a financial interest in Sirius though DEI Holdings, a company he founded and which bears his initials.

<span style="color: #3333FF">It further alleges that Issa secured millions of dollars in congressional earmarks to improve roads serving properties he owns, including a multimillion-dollar medical complex in Vista, Calif.</span> This is a fact.

“The symbiotic relationship he has established between his business interests and public responsibilities presents, on a continuing basis, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the starkest example of conflict of interest,”</span> Lux wrote.

“As disturbing as this would be in the case of any member of Congress, the conflict on display here is especially troubling <span style='font-size: 14pt'>because it involves the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform — a committee charged with ‘proactively investigating and exposing’ waste, fraud and abuse,” he added.</span>

Lux cites a 3,080-word investigative report published in The New York Times on Aug. 15 and reporting by Thinkprogress.org, a liberal media outlet. </div></div>

interesting read (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/181071-rep-issa-hit-with-ethics-allegations)

Q.......Issa is a worm.

Qtec
06-25-2012, 01:52 AM
Just saw this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/24/darrell-issa-john-boehner-fast-and-furious_n_1622141.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)

Amazing.

I just got an email from some guy in Nigeria who wants to give me money!

Q

Gayle in MD
06-25-2012, 06:42 AM
Excellent post!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So this guy's entire starting premise is based on a flawed and truncated factoid, which misrepresents the truth.

</div></div>

Defines every time a Republican opens his mouth!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Soflasnapper
06-25-2012, 10:13 AM
Issa now only seeks emails and other communications from AFTER the shooting incident. (Odd, because that would not show foreknowledge, as the conspiracy mongers are pushing.)

And he has offered to drop his insistence if the Obama DOJ fires one guy, as a trophy to justify Issa's excesses. (Some principle on display there!)

Gayle in MD
06-25-2012, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Issa now only seeks emails and other communications from AFTER the shooting incident. (Odd, because that would not show foreknowledge, as the conspiracy mongers are pushing.)

And he has offered to drop his insistence if the Obama DOJ fires one guy, as a trophy to justify Issa's excesses. (Some principle on display there!)

</div></div>

Issa, the arsonist, car thief, isn't fooling anyone, IMO.

I don't think even the Republicans like the situation they are in now, due to Issa's trumped up, witch hunting.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2012, 10:34 AM
Then this wretched propagandist plays the race card???

And endorses a torch and pitchfork storming of the WH to deliver a peoples' justice outside the legal framework by mob action??? ("And you would be right to do that.")

A horrible man.

Gayle in MD
06-25-2012, 11:06 AM
There are no moderate, reasonable Republicans.

The entire Republican Party, has failed to speak out against racism, homophobia, and misogyny.

They have failed too protect equal rights, under the law, and supported irrational, dangerous views, unconstitutional policies, and ignored even actual criminal domestic terrorism, prosecuted by the radical right, for years.

In fact, their focus and actions over these past months, is proof of that.


G.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2012, 12:58 PM
There are no moderate, reasonable Republicans.

NOW. There used to be. Mainly they have been driven out by their red hots and purists, and/or lost to Democrats who then become the problems for the Democratic Party (and I would also say, the country).

I don't know when to date this change, exactly. Approximately 2001 might be a good approximation.