Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Blue Waves and Red Waves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Me and Joxer the Magnificent are going to have a beer.
    Don't forget to take some sugar cubes for Argo!
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      OBP, the country is filled with people who have been poisoned by the Wormtongue effect of Fox, which has been spewing this tripe for over a two decades now. Yes, the MSM is left of center. It is not a propaganda outlet of the left. It does not have the focused agenda of outlets like Brietbart and Fox. You have to go to outlets like Mother Jones and CNN (respectively) to find their ilk.



      While there have been periods of bias at one time or another, and certainly bias outlets throughout our history, I grew up in the age of Cronkite. I remember a time when broadcast news was a public service requirement - not the variation on reality TV it has become today.



      As I acknowledge, it leans left. But then there was a time when we had left, middle, and right in both parties. In the last few decades that has changed as the Republican party has shifted further and further right, and the Dems have shifted further and further left. That trend traces back to the great Depression, but saw a marked increase with the civil rights era, and then again after Watergate. As a consequence, a left-lean that did not have much party impact has become a left-lean that favors a party. From where I sit - the parties moved - not the media. I cannot remember a time when the media did not have a left-lean.



      That you do NOT see it is frightening. Fox has become the media arm of the White House. It is where Trump gets many of his ideas (there is extensive documentation of the link between many of his tweets and the programming on Hannity and Fox and Friends), and the articles and stories (not to mention the talking heads) hawk policy with a strongly favorable spin to the administration. Any criticism of the president is highly muted, if present at all.



      I think most people who think this have not actually been to the border and seen the situation there. A part of the border is river - so the wall would have to be on our side, cutting us off from the river. Other parts are reservation land and the native population won't permit the wall through their land (for obvious reasons, I would hope). Putting the wall all around the reservation would significantly increase it's cost, and cut that part of America, along with its citizens, off from the rest of the country. It's not even clear that is legal. It would be effectively ceding part of the U.S. to Mexico or Canada. And there IS a significant wall along a good swatch of the border. I don't argue that putting a wall along the most easily accessible parts of the border is a bad idea. I argue with the idea that we're going to put some kind of wall from the Pacific to the Gulf and it is going to have an effect anywhere near its cost. The money could be better spent on other techniques, IMO.



      The aid has been ineffective, IMO, and the money is being cut by this administration. Furthermore, we are pulling out of the one international agency that might be pushed/leveraged to help in this area. And Trump is cutting legal immigration levels at a time when we are actually at a fairly low level of unemployment, increasing the pool of people who will try to get in illegally. IMO, his approach makes no sense on multiple fronts. All he is doing is stoking anger against "them" as a political ploy to keep his base engaged and loving him.
      Sounds like a lot of fearmongering for me on the level that a number of consertives were at under Obama.
      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Interesting. I find myself wondering how anyone can even begin to compare the two situations. On the basis of policies - yes. On the basis of the core of the person - it is really no comparison.
        Obama wouldn't even stand up against "partial birth abortion" when he had the chance. I don't like Trump, and I don't consider him to be moral, but certainly better than Obama in many respects. When the policies Obama worked for and advanced were often heinously immoral in and of themselves, Obama loses the comparison hands down.

        Not shocked you can't see the comparison though, especially given your own position on abortion. Your own comparison to slavery with regards to a woman having to carry her own children to term is the truly outlandish idea.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          Obama wouldn't even stand up against "partial birth abortion" when he had the chance.
          While a senator in the Illinois legislature Obama opposed efforts to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts voting against Born Alive acts in Illinois as well as opposing legislation that would define those babies as persons. During debate over one of the Born Alive bills Obama made it clear that he was far more concerned with things like protecting abortion itself and with protecting doctors who just shouldn't be required to preserve the lives of babies who stubbornly refused to die and were born alive as can be seen from his remarks:

          As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.


          So if the doctor was wrong and the baby certainly was viable in that it actually survived an attempt to kill it, then the doctor shouldn't be "burden[ed]" with trying to keep the baby alive since it had the gall to "not just coming out limp and dead."

          I guess if someone is sick or injured and a doctor assumes that they won't survive but in fact does then that doctor shouldn't be burdened with helping to keep them alive but should be free to refuse all treatment and even food and water so that they will finally die.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            I am betting this guy switches sides after that. +1 Red.
            Dunno. Maybe. Personally, I find it sad that the parties have so badly polarized. I hope he stays Dem and keeps some vestige of "right" in the party. We could use a few "left" leaning people in the Republican party. The problem is they tend to get labeled "RINO" and pushed out.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              Obama wouldn't even stand up against "partial birth abortion" when he had the chance.
              There is no doubt that there are many places where Obama was to cerebral and it ended up making him weak. But Obama was not a vile person with the personal ethics of a slug. Trump has cheated on every wife he has had, usually with the next wife. He has bragged about sexual attacks on women. He calls names like a middle-schooler (Horseface? Really?). He takes vengeance at every opportunity. He publicly admires the worst despots and poisons our relationships with our closest allies. He profits from his presidency while he is still president, raising all sorts of questions about his motivations when he makes any given decision. Play to play? Trump is rife with it. And his base ignores it all, denies it all, or forgives it all.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              I don't like Trump, and I don't consider him to be moral, but certainly better than Obama in many respects. When the policies Obama worked for and advanced were often heinously immoral in and of themselves, Obama loses the comparison hands down.
              We will clearly not agree. Obama was a man of conscience, seeking to find balance at every turn. In a sense, that is what paralyzed him and (in some cases) made him weak. Trump has no conscience. He lacks any form of moral compass. His gods are power, wealth, fame, and admiration. He can be bought with a compliment. He would take us to war over an insult. He is measurably the worst president in my lifetime - and perhaps in the lifetime of this nation.

              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              Not shocked you can't see the comparison though, especially given your own position on abortion. Your own comparison to slavery with regards to a woman having to carry her own children to term is the truly outlandish idea.
              Actually - I never said that a woman carrying a child to term was "slavery." I said that a state forcing a mature woman who has never committed a crime to carry a child to term is a form of slavery. It reduces the woman to a baby-producing machine for the state, for the period of the pregnancy. It violates the basic tenets of our constitution, and I cannot defend it. Likewise, I cannot defend the practice of abortion. The situation is a conundrum - a catch-22 - that cannot be resolved using legal means. Any attempt to do so will sacrifice liberty for life, or life for liberty. The only reasonable resolution will occur before the pregnancy occurs, and will entail support for a woman if a pregnancy does occur.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                There is no doubt that there are many places where Obama was to cerebral and it ended up making him weak. But Obama was not a vile person with the personal ethics of a slug. Trump has cheated on every wife he has had, usually with the next wife. He has bragged about sexual attacks on women. He calls names like a middle-schooler (Horseface? Really?). He takes vengeance at every opportunity. He publicly admires the worst despots and poisons our relationships with our closest allies. He profits from his presidency while he is still president, raising all sorts of questions about his motivations when he makes any given decision. Play to play? Trump is rife with it. And his base ignores it all, denies it all, or forgives it all.
                You mean like how Obama's base did with his actions? Obama actively sicced the IRS on journalists, could be seen to seethe with rage when questioned, and did his own friendly acts with dictators[1]. Other than the infidelity, there isn't much of a difference between the two. Not that it would have mattered to the left if he was as bad as say Bill Clinton.

                I don't know about you, but I'd rather be called names than have the stuff Obama has done. The behind the scenes subterfuge and attacks are far worse. At least Trump is up front about who he is, and what he wants. I'll take one who is an up front jerk like Trump over someone who attacks you behind your back like Obama. With Trump you pretty much know what you are getting. It's not pretty, but he's not exactly hiding it either.

                To complain about Trump calling someone a horse face while ignoring Obama's stuff makes you seem like a crybaby more than anything.

                We will clearly not agree. Obama was a man of conscience, seeking to find balance at every turn. In a sense, that is what paralyzed him and (in some cases) made him weak. Trump has no conscience. He lacks any form of moral compass. His gods are power, wealth, fame, and admiration. He can be bought with a compliment. He would take us to war over an insult. He is measurably the worst president in my lifetime - and perhaps in the lifetime of this nation.

                You actually believe Mr. " I have a pen and a phone" had a conscience? Not standing up for those babies wasn't "too cerebral" it was heartless and brainless at the same time. If Obama had a conscience at all he would have had no hesitation in being for the Born Alive Act. He didn't, he clearly desired to keep his influence over the left over actually helping the most vulnerable people in our society.

                You have rose tinted glasses with regards to Obama, but given what you've posted on this forum before this isn't surprising. Trump is basically a Republican Obama, but with no filter on his thoughts.

                Actually - I never said that a woman carrying a child to term was "slavery." I said that a state forcing a mature woman who has never committed a crime to carry a child to term is a form of slavery. It reduces the woman to a baby-producing machine for the state, for the period of the pregnancy. It violates the basic tenets of our constitution, and I cannot defend it. Likewise, I cannot defend the practice of abortion. The situation is a conundrum - a catch-22 - that cannot be resolved using legal means. Any attempt to do so will sacrifice liberty for life, or life for liberty. The only reasonable resolution will occur before the pregnancy occurs, and will entail support for a woman if a pregnancy does occur.
                In the context of this discussion it should have been obvious that the women were being made to do so. Another thing you still don't understand is that the right to life supercedes the right to liberty. Not that being pregnant for 9 months when it is a known that pregnancy is a result of sex, is much of a loss of liberty. It's not like they are being thrown in prison while they are pregnant as well. A very temporary loss of "liberty" vs. a permanent loss of life doesn't even measure on the scale.

                1. The "I'll have more freedom after the election" when Obama was talking to Putin.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  You mean like how Obama's base did with his actions? Obama actively sicced the IRS on journalists, could be seen to seethe with rage when questioned, and did his own friendly acts with dictators[1]. Other than the infidelity, there isn't much of a difference between the two. Not that it would have mattered to the left if he was as bad as say Bill Clinton.
                  The "sicced IRS on journalists" has been debunked. So has the great IRS scam, though it did not get as much press as the original accusation. So much for "left-wing press." As for his "friendly act with dictators," I don't disagree. All recent presidents have had to cozy up to some dictators for one reason or another (e.g., the history of our relations with Saudi Arabia). But I do not recall ANY president before Trump voicing admiration for some of these brutal men in the terms Trump has. And I find myself amazed when I see how pilloried Obama was for even suggesting that he would be willing to sit down with dictators and discuss issues, but when Trump does it he's a hero. The inconsistency is mind boggling.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  I don't know about you, but I'd rather be called names than have the stuff Obama has done. The behind the scenes subterfuge and attacks are far worse. At least Trump is up front about who he is, and what he wants. I'll take one who is an up front jerk like Trump over someone who attacks you behind your back like Obama. With Trump you pretty much know what you are getting. It's not pretty, but he's not exactly hiding it either.
                  Yeah - I hear this all the time from the right. Trump is "up front" and "refreshingly honest." So first - he's not. Hes a liar. Pure and simple. He not only lies because he has to - he lies because he wants to. He sees lying as a good - a tool for getting what he wants. It is simply a negotiation tactic. Every president has to separate private from public. Every president has to keep some things secure, and not available for the public eye. But Trump goes well beyond that. He lies just to score political points. Read his "Art of the Deal." Morality has nothing to do with it. Anything is fair game if it leads to "success." Of course, "success" is defined as "getting what you want." The man has absolutely no moral compass of any kind.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  To complain about Trump calling someone a horse face while ignoring Obama's stuff makes you seem like a crybaby more than anything.
                  Your opinion is duly noted. Given that you apparently admire Trump, I am not surprised that you adopt his tactics.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  You actually believe Mr. " I have a pen and a phone" had a conscience?
                  Yes. And he continues to show that he does...

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Not standing up for those babies wasn't "too cerebral" it was heartless and brainless at the same time. If Obama had a conscience at all he would have had no hesitation in being for the Born Alive Act. He didn't, he clearly desired to keep his influence over the left over actually helping the most vulnerable people in our society.
                  As with most on the right, you are assuming "people." That is the crux of the debate. The right focuses on the child and ignores the woman. The left focuses on the woman and ignores the child. Each side pats themselves on the back about their "morality" and their "sensitivity." And so it goes...round and round and round and round. The issues argued about when I was 14 are being argued about when I am 60... and the children keep dying. Congratulations to all of you - you've done a marvelous job stopping the carnage.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  You have rose tinted glasses with regards to Obama, but given what you've posted on this forum before this isn't surprising. Trump is basically a Republican Obama, but with no filter on his thoughts.
                  On that we are not likely to agree.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  In the context of this discussion it should have been obvious that the women were being made to do so. Another thing you still don't understand is that the right to life supercedes the right to liberty. Not that being pregnant for 9 months when it is a known that pregnancy is a result of sex, is much of a loss of liberty. It's not like they are being thrown in prison while they are pregnant as well. A very temporary loss of "liberty" vs. a permanent loss of life doesn't even measure on the scale.
                  You assumption about life and liberty are simply that - assumptions. Life without liberty is pointless. Liberty without life is meaningless. The human person has a right to both. You cannot sacrifice one person's liberty for another person's life, or one person's life for another person's liberty. And your dismissal/trivializing of a woman's experience of childbirth is not helping your cause. What MIGHT help is if we work to change our culture so that unwanted pregnancy is rare, and support for those that do occur is strong - so that carrying to term becomes the preferable option. Until we are ready to join hands and do that - babies will continue to die - and both sides will bear the responsibility.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  1. The "I'll have more freedom after the election" when Obama was talking to Putin.
                  That's a pretty obviously true statement. A president seeking re-election is not in a position to negotiate with, and make commitments to, a foreign power. Once the election is concluded, they are. I'm not seeing a problem here.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    The "sicced IRS on journalists" has been debunked. So has the great IRS scam, though it did not get as much press as the original accusation. So much for "left-wing press." As for his "friendly act with dictators," I don't disagree. All recent presidents have had to cozy up to some dictators for one reason or another (e.g., the history of our relations with Saudi Arabia). But I do not recall ANY president before Trump voicing admiration for some of these brutal men in the terms Trump has. And I find myself amazed when I see how pilloried Obama was for even suggesting that he would be willing to sit down with dictators and discuss issues, but when Trump does it he's a hero. The inconsistency is mind boggling.
                    Maybe you could actually give evidence of said debunking instead of just claiming it exists?

                    I don't like either, and am under no illusion that Trump is some moral paragon.

                    Yeah - I hear this all the time from the right. Trump is "up front" and "refreshingly honest." So first - he's not. Hes a liar. Pure and simple. He not only lies because he has to - he lies because he wants to. He sees lying as a good - a tool for getting what he wants. It is simply a negotiation tactic. Every president has to separate private from public. Every president has to keep some things secure, and not available for the public eye. But Trump goes well beyond that. He lies just to score political points. Read his "Art of the Deal." Morality has nothing to do with it. Anything is fair game if it leads to "success." Of course, "success" is defined as "getting what you want." The man has absolutely no moral compass of any kind.
                    I said he's up front about being a jerk, not that he's honest. There is a difference. I'd rather have someone curse me to my face than be nice to my face and curse me behind my back.

                    Your opinion is duly noted. Given that you apparently admire Trump, I am not surprised that you adopt his tactics.
                    You and the other irrational Trump haters can't read apparently. I don't admire him. I honestly can't stand him, and for many of the same reasons I disliked Obama. Apparently the fact I don't view him as a reincarnation of Hitler is too much for you guys to comprehend.

                    Yes. And he continues to show that he does...
                    Maybe in Bizarro World, but not in this reality.

                    As with most on the right, you are assuming "people." That is the crux of the debate. The right focuses on the child and ignores the woman. The left focuses on the woman and ignores the child. Each side pats themselves on the back about their "morality" and their "sensitivity." And so it goes...round and round and round and round. The issues argued about when I was 14 are being argued about when I am 60... and the children keep dying. Congratulations to all of you - you've done a marvelous job stopping the carnage.
                    At this point I can only honestly see this as a rant from a thoroughly deluded mind. Obama couldn't stand up for a children who survived abortion, or against partial birth abortion. The latter is way past any reasonable point of "viability". The fact that you think the left is even somewhat reasonable in assuming unborn human children are not "persons" is in itself sickening. Living human beings are people period. To say otherwise opens the door for a future Holocaust. "Personhood" is just a red herring. It's just bs used by those who want to dehumanize those who are inconvenient to them.

                    On that we are not likely to agree.
                    Pretty much come to expect that from you.

                    You assumption about life and liberty are simply that - assumptions. Life without liberty is pointless. Liberty without life is meaningless. The human person has a right to both. You cannot sacrifice one person's liberty for another person's life, or one person's life for another person's liberty. And your dismissal/trivializing of a woman's experience of childbirth is not helping your cause. What MIGHT help is if we work to change our culture so that unwanted pregnancy is rare, and support for those that do occur is strong - so that carrying to term becomes the preferable option. Until we are ready to join hands and do that - babies will continue to die - and both sides will bear the responsibility.
                    So you are going to petition for the abolition of the prison system when exactly? We take away liberty for a large variety of reasons. You take someone else's life, and you may lose more than just freedom, but your own life too. It's part of well, justice. If we lived by your rather insane reasoning there would be no justice.

                    That's a pretty obviously true statement. A president seeking re-election is not in a position to negotiate with, and make commitments to, a foreign power. Once the election is concluded, they are. I'm not seeing a problem here.

                    Yeah, sure, that's what he meant.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Maybe you could actually give evidence of said debunking instead of just claiming it exists?
                      You know - that is a fair request. So I went looking. I quickly realized I had conflated the IRS scandal related to the tea party with the one you listed. Odd thing - I found the accusation the journalist made, and absolutely no corroborating evidence. So I guess I have to ask the reverse question - where is the evidence that the IRS actually targeted and harassed this journalist?

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      I don't like either, and am under no illusion that Trump is some moral paragon.
                      That's a relief.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      I said he's up front about being a jerk, not that he's honest. There is a difference. I'd rather have someone curse me to my face than be nice to my face and curse me behind my back.
                      I would like to see the evidence that Trump "curses you to your face" and Obama "curses you behind your back."

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      You and the other irrational Trump haters can't read apparently. I don't admire him. I honestly can't stand him, and for many of the same reasons I disliked Obama. Apparently the fact I don't view him as a reincarnation of Hitler is too much for you guys to comprehend.
                      Since I said nothing about "Hitler," I have to assume the irrationality is not on my end...

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Maybe in Bizarro World, but not in this reality.
                      Then you are welcome to show evidence of where Obama continues to show his "immorality." I will be happy to examine that evidence.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      At this point I can only honestly see this as a rant from a thoroughly deluded mind. Obama couldn't stand up for a children who survived abortion, or against partial birth abortion. The latter is way past any reasonable point of "viability". The fact that you think the left is even somewhat reasonable in assuming unborn human children are not "persons" is in itself sickening. Living human beings are people period. To say otherwise opens the door for a future Holocaust. "Personhood" is just a red herring. It's just bs used by those who want to dehumanize those who are inconvenient to them.
                      Your opinion is duly noted...

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Pretty much come to expect that from you.
                      Again...

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      So you are going to petition for the abolition of the prison system when exactly? We take away liberty for a large variety of reasons. You take someone else's life, and you may lose more than just freedom, but your own life too. It's part of well, justice. If we lived by your rather insane reasoning there would be no justice.
                      At no point did I not suggest that a person cannot act in such a way as to sacrifice liberty - or life for that matter. I am actually not philosophically against the death penalty. I am practically against it. But we are not talking about criminals. We are talking about women who have committed no crime. I find it odd that you are conflating the two.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                      Yeah, sure, that's what he meant.
                      If you have evidence he meant otherwise, I am happy to look at it.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        You know - that is a fair request. So I went looking. I quickly realized I had conflated the IRS scandal related to the tea party with the one you listed. Odd thing - I found the accusation the journalist made, and absolutely no corroborating evidence. So I guess I have to ask the reverse question - where is the evidence that the IRS actually targeted and harassed this journalist?
                        We've been through this.
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        OK, I'm finished looking into the St. Louis claim, and it's a nothing burger. The journalist in question did a "hard hitting" interview with Obama, and then claimed afterwards, on his facebook page, that the IRS had been "set on him." He acknowledged he could not prove his claim, later it came out that the IRS had been after him for back taxes of $85K BEFORE the interview, which he acknowledged, he took down the facebook claim, and he was fired for his social media posts because the station felt he had compromise his journalistic integrity. The right, however, never let it go. It continued to be reported by Fox, The Blaze, Brietbart, Daily Liberator, Drudge Report, and many other far-right news outlets.

                        This one goes on my list of "right-wing memes" that have no substance.
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        The fact is that he was on a payment plan with the IRS to pay some back taxes which all of a sudden got cancelled without warning or comment almost immediately after his interview and then the IRS placed a lien on his house. This is incredibly rare unless the person involved is reneging on the payments or is constantly falling behind (there is no evidence that either is the case). Apparently his attorney could not get a response from the IRS (again incredibly rare since in reality they are far more interested in collecting back taxes than punishing the person unless they have a reason to do so).

                        Further, the fact that he publicized it and refused to retract it cost him his job is another strong reason to believe he was telling the truth. Very few folks are willing to get fired from a well paying job over a false claim that will get him in even deeper trouble with the IRS (now he had no source of income to continue any payments to the IRS if they decided to go back to their previous arrangement.
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I'm not finding independent confirmation of any of this, and none of it surfaced in my research. Can you provide your sources, please?

                        I also found nothing about him "maintaining his position," which got him fired. I am finding that he was suspended when he made the Facebook post, he retracted it and admitted the previous IRS involvement. The station investigated and found just cause to let him go on the basis of his original post and the impact on his credibility as a journalist.
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        I'm not at home now, getting ready for a party tonight but what you doing here is either glossing over or being deliberately misleading. They let him go because they said it would be a conflict of interest for him to comment on Obama, the IRS scandals etc. not because they didn't deem him credible. He appears to have dropped the charge in an attempt to save his job (he never AFAICT disavowed it), but when it became clear they were going to let him go regardless, he doubled down -- even noting how when he was immediately picked up by a competitor that he was now free to express himself openly.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I am betting this guy switches sides after that. +1 Red.
                          He wasn't an elected official. He was a Democratic Party functionary at the county level.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            We've been through this.
                            So I just went through your list. I have to admit I forgot this entire exchange. Did you ever provide the corroboration?
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              He wasn't an elected official. He was a Democratic Party functionary at the county level.
                              Yeah - the high-ranking was a bit(?) of a stretch. He was also apparently a new hire. It doesn't change the fact that firing someone on the basis of their position on the NFL issue and their position on gun rights is simply not right and does not reflect well on the leadership of that county's Democratic party.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                To what do you attribute this?
                                I just stumbled on this, and it explains a bit of what I'm seeing in the numbers. Apparently, the Dems have never really lost any significant ground over the months. What has been happening is that some of the "toss-ups" are solidifying, and the ones for the Reps seem to be solidifying at a faster rate. If you look at the statistics below, the Dems have hovered in a pickup range between +4 and +51. Over the past few weeks that rage has narrowed. Now their top predicted gain is +44. The bottom is now +11. With 193 seats currently, Dems need a pickup of 25 seats to take the house. That's just below the midline of the current +11 and +41 window (midline is +26).

                                I don't have have time to dig through the 30 current toss-ups to see how many have the Dem slightly ahead and how many have the Rep slightly ahead, and (for some reason) the house is the only segment that doesn't have a "no-toss-ups" map that depicts that. But I guess we'll know in 21 days. Right now, best guess is it looks "pretty good" for the Dems in the house - but unlikely for the Dems in the Senate.

                                By now you have probably discerned that I love to play with numbers...
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                299 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X