Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: I Sure Some Sycophant Will Claim They Were "Just Doing Their Job" 102

Journal by smittyoneeach

So, to sum up: it is likely that members of the Obama administration committed federal crimes by illegally sharing confidential taxpayer information with the White House for political purposes. With luck, we will find out for sure before our next president is inaugurated. The alternative is that a high-ranking White House official fabricated a baseless smear against the administrationâ(TM)s political opponents and passed it on to reporters to further the administrationâ(TM)s political agenda. Any way you look at it, this is a shameful episode in the already bleak history of the Obama administration.

Come on, defend it like it was the targeting of the Tea Parties, and collecting taxes is just what the IRS does, or something. Every time you use the Nuremberg Defense, down in Hell, Satan has a chuckle. Losers.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I Sure Some Sycophant Will Claim They Were "Just Doing Their Job" More

I Sure Some Sycophant Will Claim They Were "Just Doing Their Job"

Comments Filter:
  • Granted that seemed to be your standard for impeachment-worthy up to this point any ways, but now you are openly embracing it. If you at least had a source that wasn't a hack conservative blog I would be slightly concerned.
    • No, dork: Powerline is a blog by a lawyer. Their writing tends to fall short of 100% certainty, for reasons of good taste. Anyone paying attention to the lost emails and other shenanigans (who is not a knuckle-dragging, drooling little Gollum) understands that all the smoke, heat and light coming from the IRS is a sign of flaming trousers.
      But I should applaud your consistency.
      • Wow, this time you apparently didn't even read the subject line before jumping to random conclusions and reaching into the insult bin. Well failed, there.
        • I did read your subject line, and it directly informed my response.
          • Your response suggests otherwise. I wonder what you will be writing in 2017 when your party again doesn't get their guy into the whitehouse; you have given some indication that you are already working on your conspiracy theory lists for that eventuality (regardless of who the democrat may be and whether or not they ever do anything).

            • I wonder what you will be writing in 2017 when your party again doesn't get their guy into the whitehouse

              Isn't the 1992 repeat obvious? The GOP nominates a Bush; a Clinton wins. Stunningly predictable.

              • I wonder what you will be writing in 2017 when your party again doesn't get their guy into the whitehouse

                Isn't the 1992 repeat obvious? The GOP nominates a Bush; a Clinton wins. Stunningly predictable.

                ,bR> And completely illogical, but whatever. Care you give us insight in to which conspiracy theories you will be trying to propel towards impeachment if that happens? IF Hillary is elected, will you be trumpeting Benghazi again or do you have something else up your sleeve?

                • I don't know--her entire record? But let me be perfectly clear: electing Her Majesty will be tantamount to a pardon for everything, just like re-electing #OccupyResoluteDesk was a pardon for everything known about his first term, e.g. ObamaCare.
                  "And the stupid shall be both screwed, and deserving thereof."

                  • I don't know--her entire record?

                    As senator? What did she do as senator? As secretary of state? What did she do as secretary of state? As first lady? Might as well go down that avenue as well, right?

                    But let me be perfectly clear: electing Her Majesty will be tantamount to a pardon for everything

                    I know you aren't crazy about the justice system in this country, but a pardon is supposed to come after a conviction; the latter of which comes after a trial by jury.

                    just like re-electing #OccupyResoluteDesk was a pardon for everything known about his first term, e.g. ObamaCare.

                    What other fantasies would you like to share this afternoon?

                    • Hey, dork: the word 'tantamount' in my post is key.

                    • Hey, dork: the word 'tantamount' in my post is key.

                      So are you calling for an alternate definition of that? Because my understanding of the word is similar to Webster's definition [merriam-webster.com]:

                      equivalent in value, significance, or effect

                      So if we are talking about the hypothetical election being equivalent in effect to an actual pardon, you are - again - discarding the American Justice System at your convenience. There is probably a baby being thrown out with bathwater here or something.

                    • And did you look down the page to the example, you knob?

                      His statement was tantamount to an admission of guilt.

                      Now, the statement was clearly NOT an admission of guilt, or the word "tantamount" is superfluous. Now Just. What. Did. I. Say?

                      electing Her Majesty will be tantamount to a pardon for everything, just like re-electing #OccupyResoluteDesk was a pardon for everything known about his first term, e.g. ObamaCare.

                      I'm saying that the electorate gave Obama a pass for ObamaCare, and, in a similar fashion, the people are effectively pardoning Her Majesty if they turn a blind eye to her bland malevolence and give her the election.
                      Your shrill insistence that I'm expressing ignorance of the legal system as such

                      I know you aren't crazy about the justice system in this country, but a pardon is supposed to come after a conviction; the latter of which comes after a trial by jury.

                      is just another example of your

                    • His statement was tantamount to an admission of guilt.

                      Now, the statement was clearly NOT an admission of guilt, or the word "tantamount" is superfluous. Now Just. What. Did. I. Say?

                      Are you not after the

                      equivalent in [...] effect

                      I'm saying that the electorate gave Obama a pass for ObamaCare

                      In what way was the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 - where the political system payed back their owners for their investments - something that Obama should have been convicted as a criminal for? You are trying to say that President Lawnchair's re-election was somehow

                      equivalent in [...] effect

                      to a

                      pardon

                      yet there is no opportunity for a pardon when no criminal conviction has occurred.

                      the people are effectively pardoning Her Majesty if they turn a blind eye to her bland malevolence and give her the election.

                      Care to try to connect the absurdities to reality in some way, here? Where is the malevolence? Where is the crim

                    • Yes, equivalent effect. That is precisely what I'm after. But saying "death is death, and giving an elderly person ebola is tantamount to hitting them with a car" is not saying that a car is a virus.
                      It occurs to me that you may be conflating 'tantamount' with 'fungible'. Given that, you objection would make sense.

                    • Yes, equivalent effect. That is precisely what I'm after. But saying "death is death, and giving an elderly person ebola is tantamount to hitting them with a car" is not saying that a car is a virus.

                      So then what is it about your notion of "pardon" - in relation to an election in particular - that is equivalent to an actual pardon? The function of a pardon - at least under the justice system that exists in this country (which is of course vastly different from the one you advocate) - is to restore the rights of a convicted person who a chief executive feels is worthy of having rights restored. As I pointed out before, a pardon can only occur after a conviction.

                      Now granted, you don't seem to feel

                    • For a worked example of my point, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings [wikipedia.org]. He is an impeached Judge, but if his constituents elect him to office, that's tantamount to pardoning him.
                      For a less legally clear example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford [wikipedia.org] is a scoundrel, and doesn't deserve to be anywhere near public office, in my opinion, but if his constituents elect him, that's at least forgiveness. His subsequent actions do not bespeak repentance; he'd not have had my vote.
                      So that's one clear

                    • For a worked example of my point, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]. He is an impeached Judge, but if his constituents elect him to office, that's tantamount to pardoning him.

                      Well, the article you cited mentions specifically

                      The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so

                      Furthermore he did lose his job and his legal career. He then ran for an office that, while populated primarily by people with law degrees, is open to people of any background. His election did not gain him back anything that he lost from his impeachment, furthermore his impeachment was not a criminal conviction.

                      For a less legally clear example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org] is a scoundrel, and doesn't deserve to be anywhere near public office, in my opinion,

                      Well, his state decided (from the article you cited)

                      On December 9, the committee voted 6â"1 against impeachment, stating that the legislature had better things to do

                      So he was never forced out of office. He was censured but that is not nearly the same mag

                    • Hey, look: I can lead you to water, but I'm not going to force-feed a hose down your throat, no matter how dehydrated you get. You're going to have to drink.
                      You don't have to agree with my use of 'tantamount'
                      You don't have to agree with my choice of evidence to bolster my point.
                      You don't even have to admit that a reasonable observer would at least buy off on the validity of my point, even if they had a quibble.
                      Nope: you don't have to be anything other than mulish on this, or any other point raised on th

                    • Hey, look: I can lead you to water, but I'm not going to force-feed a hose down your throat, no matter how dehydrated you get. You're going to have to drink.

                      Are you trying to lead me to a river of Kool-aid?

                      You don't have to agree with my choice of evidence to bolster my point.

                      Your evidence doesn't really relate here. One was an impeached justice who now has a career as a politician. The other was a governor who eventually tucked tail and walked away even though his state was not willing to impeach him.

                      Neither of these really connect to your fantasy of using a kangaroo court and/or lynch mob to drive out all the democrats from DC. Furthermore neither really connect to this strange notion of a "pardon".

                      You don't even have to admit that a reasonable observer would at least buy off on the validity of my point, even if they had a quibble.

                      Perhaps an observer

                    • Given you commitment to nuttiness, you'd likely look at a river of truth and call it kool-aid.
                      Just not much I'm willing to do there. You'll have to wash your own brain.

                    • Given you commitment to nuttiness

                      interesting assertion in your favorite sans-fact style, there.

                      you'd likely look at a river of truth and call it kool-aid.

                      Well, you'd have to present some such "river of truth" for us to know that. You haven't so far even produced a tea cup of truth; or if you have you have followed it with an oil tanker of spin such as to make it nearly impossible to identify the truth.

                      Just not much I'm willing to do there. You'll have to wash your own brain.

                      it would appear that your party offers a solvent for that and it has worked quite well on you.

              • Isn't the 1992 repeat obvious? The GOP nominates a Bush; a Clinton wins. Stunningly predictable.

                That statement is as meaningful as the people who claimed that the Romney - Ryan ticket was a guaranteed win as no ticket had ever before lost where the POTUS and VP nominees both had last names starting with the same letter.

                • But not as meaningless as the election itself, if the GOP is so turd-munching as to put Jeb out there.

                  • But not as meaningless as the election itself, if the GOP is so turd-munching as to put Jeb out there.

                    You are the only person I've heard mention Jeb as a potential candidate this month. We have had plenty of others marching around teasing us with whether or not they want to run, but Jeb hasn't been mentioned by anyone other than you.

                    • Ah, OK. You apparently don't read http://hotair.com/ [hotair.com] then. Because the Bush family is to that side of the oligarchy what the Clinton family is to the other.

                    • Ah, OK. You apparently don't read http://hotair.com/ [hotair.com] then.

                      Why would I read hotair.com? You don't read any liberal news sites, so you don't really have an argument for anyone of a non-conservative slant to read conservative sites.

                      the Bush family is to that side of the oligarchy what the Clinton family is to the other.

                      That is a strange alternative to reality. From the Bush family you have two US presidents, at least three governors, and a host of other high government appointments. From the Clinton family you have one guy who was governor of Arkansas and then President, and his wife who has been a senator and secretary of state. The Bush family al

                    • Are you seriously trying to argue that both the Bushes and the Clintons are not powerful political families?
                    • They are most certainly not on the same order of magnitude of power, nor do they have the same legacy of power. You appear to be trying to treat them as if they are interchangeable on those traits which is absurd.
                    • Fascinating. How are you rating them?
                    • The Bush family has a long legacy of being involved in politics across multiple generations, and are descended from a family with a long legacy of elected and selected offices as well. The Clinton family consists of a smart man who is married to a smart woman; the man has been governor and POTUS, the woman has been senator and secretary of state.

                      You're comparing apples to oranges here.
                    • OK, so you're pleading genealogy. It's all the fruit of power lust. The next round is a Florida orange vs. a New York apple. What difference, at that point, shall six decades vs. two-and-a-half decades of pursuing power have made?
                      You're arguing a difference that makes little difference. The lesson for voters should be that dynastic politics is absolutely the last thing we need. I will not vote for Jeb Bush. Period. Full stop. A pox on the houses of any liar claiming that this is really voting for Her Majes

                    • What difference, at that point, shall six decades vs. two-and-a-half decades of pursuing power have made?

                      First, it is a lot more than six decades from the Bush family. You seem to have already forgotten the genealogy that was done on the Bush family for the 2004 elections in particular.

                      Second, one family has multiple members across many generations who have pursued power. The other family has a husband and wife who have both ran for office. There is a lot of different there. Frankly if you are so certain that the Clintons are a "dynasty" then you might as well use the same label to forecast the the Ob

                    • I will not vote for Jeb Bush. Period. Full stop.

                      Sure... You say that as if you mean it... You know that your hatred of democrats runs far too deep to prevent you from voting against (or abstaining from voting for) a republican - especially if the race is close.

                      If evidence means anything to you, I voted Perot in '92, and I'm serious (as you are not) on the matter.

                      Her Majesty

                      You know you could spell her name with fewer keystrokes - and make yourself look less ridiculous in the process?

                      Beside the non-vulgar snark (I used to prefix her first name with "Ct" until a moment of clarity revealed that, irrespective of the contempt one bears for anyone professionally, jacking about with their name is "ridiculous") there is a broader point behind "Her Majesty":
                      (1) It suggests all manner of imperial gags for any context, and
                      (2) Reinforces the point about our political collapse into a quasi-aristocracy.

                      Your shrill denunciations of the Clintons as non-dynastic are just so much cowflop. Do you seriously think Chelsea (Clinton, not Manning) ISN'T going to clutter our political landscape in her mother's finest, vapid tradition, no matter what goes down in 2016? Seriously?
                      Next you'll try to tell me that ObamaCare isn't just a stalking horse for Single Preyer.

                    • If evidence means anything to you, I voted Perot in '92, and I'm serious (as you are not) on the matter.

                      What gives you the right to asses my seriousness here? Just because you don't agree with what I say does not logically equate to my point being any less serious than yours. While your hatred of all things (D) is clearly serious my intent to actually have a discussion - rather than just watch someone rehearse their echo chamber - is certainly serious.

                      Beside the non-vulgar snark (I used to prefix her first name with "Ct" until a moment of clarity revealed that, irrespective of the contempt one bears for anyone professionally, jacking about with their name is "ridiculous") there is a broader point behind "Her Majesty":

                      Indeed, you embrace the ridiculousness of "jacking about with" peoples' names. You were one of slashdot's foremost purveyors of President Lawnchair's point

                    • What gives you the right to asses my seriousness here?

                      The 1st Amendment, the evidence of your unseriousness in this thread, common sense, the hunchback at the office. . .

                      While your hatred of all things (D)

                      'D' for dishonest, sure. I fetish truth. Wouldn't even want to help myself.

                      You were one of slashdot's foremost purveyors of President Lawnchair's pointless TLA

                      FDR, LBJ, BHO, WTF? Just another brick in your wall of non-arguments, AFAICT. Are you paid by the loser-esque utterance?

                      What history does the 34 year old Chelsea Clinton have that suggests she will get in to politics?

                      Here you go, dork:

                      Chelsea Clinton [politico.com] has become deeply involved in her parents' work. She is a major presence at their family foundation, working for the last two years on a leadership change and hewing to many of her father's philanthropic issue sets.
                      Chelsea Clinton has said the time she spent on the campaign trail for her mother in 2008 moved her to want to do more in public service. She could be very helpful in bridging a generational divide for her mother, who will inevitably face questions about her age. She’s put time into developing a social media presence.

                      I grasp that you are a simpleton, and can thus be forgiven for your inability to pay attention to much of what's going on around you. I'm no prophet; CC may not find herself handed an

                    • What gives you the right to asses my seriousness here?

                      The 1st Amendment

                      OK, I'll concede that the 1st amendment allows you to say what you wish. I should have phrased that as what gives you the qualification to asses my seriousness here.

                      the evidence of your unseriousness in this thread

                      Which is where, exactly? Your circular logic brings you only back to where you started.

                      common sense

                      I wish you would demonstrate having some of that...

                      While your hatred of all things (D)

                      'D' for dishonest, sure

                      Could you find a broader brush to paint with, there?

                      You were one of slashdot's foremost purveyors of President Lawnchair's pointless TLA

                      FDR, LBJ, BHO, WTF?

                      We have had the discussion before on why that argument holds no water. Bringing it back up is pointless. Take your fear mongering to a different discu

                    • We have had the discussion before on why that argument holds no water.

                      That argument, and the rest of my post, is thoroughly buoyant. Look at your dorkery (verb emphasis mine):

                      What history does the 34 year old Chelsea Clinton have that suggests she will get in to politics?

                      [a plausible reply to "suggests she will"]
                      And then you say:

                      None of which is the same as actually running for office.

                      I mean, is your cheap bait-and-switch intentional? You throw out a hypothetical, and I offered substantial evidence in favor of a possibility.
                      Then you object that the possibility isn't occurring. Bite my shorts, man: this is your standard trollish rhetorical modus operandi. I yawn at you. *yawn*

                      There is a long list of republicans campaigning under the promise to do exactly that. Which makes it that much more bizarre that you keep trying to claim that the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is somehow going to lead us towards actual reform of any magnitude in any direction.

                      I don't remember saying that the Affordable Care A

                    • We have had the discussion before on why that argument holds no water.

                      That argument, and the rest of my post, is thoroughly buoyant.

                      Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are full of shit on that one for the same reason you were full of shit on it before. You gave examples of three past presidents who are known by their initials, and I pointed out why they are known by their initials -

                      The all came from families where others with the same last name were president and/or commonly known as holding elected office in DC

                      You cannot say the same about Obama. Our government has never had anyone else elected by the last name of Obama. Your argument i

                    • So then why aren't Sasha and Malia (Obama) starting campaigns already? How about the Bush twins? Jimmy Carter has four kids as well...

                      Shifting the topic==you know you're rooked.

                    • So then why aren't Sasha and Malia (Obama) starting campaigns already? How about the Bush twins? Jimmy Carter has four kids as well...

                      Shifting the topic==you know you're rooked.

                      Shifting the topic? Hardly. I'm pointing out how baseless your beliefs are. The examples I gave are as well rooted in reality as the one you are shouting out.

                      And considering how much of the discussion you have willingly jettisoned - your latest comment being an excellent example of exactly that - you have no moral ground from which to preach about shifting the topic.

                    • How, baseless? I made a completely rational extrapolation from Politico, which is yet another Democrat party organ. The urethra, I think.

                    • How, baseless?

                      Baseless, as in not having a base (in reality). Demonstrated repeatedly in your comments.

                      I made a completely rational extrapolation from Politico

                      First of all, i really highly doubt you have ever read anything they have posted in its entirety. Second, your sense of "rational" clearly is not what is generally understood as such by the rest of the English speaking world. Third, your comments thus far suggest that you could read this page [1112.net] and come back to warn slashdot that it is a clear sign of Obama about to bring the illuminati out to eradicate all non-belie

                    • whatever belief system you think he subscribes to this week

                      He's made occasional protestations of Christian faith.
                      But religious affirmation is not something I think can be tossed on people like a label. I don't subscribe to the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation. It's true that some countries are explicit, e.g. "The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", but even there you can find Hindu minorities.
                      I'm aware that some people enjoy ascribing other faith labels to B|-|O, but I'm not one of them, sorry.

                    • Is the urethra actually an organ? Or simply part of a much larger organ? One that that also encompasses the so-called "opposition"? You gettin' my drift?

                    • Yeah, after I hit 'Submit', it occurred to me that a narrow definition of 'organ' might exclude the urethra. After that, I guess you're going for a dick joke, but keep in mind that women have a urethra, too, albeit shorter.

                    • I guess you're going for a dick joke...

                      Whoa! Is your mind ever in the gutter! Evidently you didn't pick up what I was puttin' down. See, everybody? This is a perfect example of what attempted repression of biological mandates does to a person. They have but one thing on their mind, because they can't let it out.

                    • OK, so my guess was wrong [youtube.com].

                    • I'll write it off as just another one of your attempts at, humor...

                      Stick with the Burma Shave stuff... word

                    • Dude, "Breaker Morant" is one of the best flicks ever. I'm surprised you're not high-fiving me for the selection.

                    • Well, that little part looked pretty good. I'll have to see it some time. For now, It went whoosh.

                    • I was thinking of writing, "so shoot me", and then opted for a firing squad scene. Hadn't had my first cup of coffee.

                    • I was thinking of writing, "so shoot me"...

                      You're the messenger (or the piano player), I would never do that.

  • If we don't find out before the next Republican, we'll be sure to find out then. Hudge and Grudge never leave a power behind when they change places in office.

  • You're seeing double when there is only one.

    And your satan gets the biggest laugh from those who stumble around trying to deny their own roles in the game of the "assassin accusing the assassin".

  • OK, so I read the Power Line post.

    What this comes down to is an extemporaneous statement about Koch Industry's tax status, made on the record by an administration staffer.

    The blog post doesn't assert this staffer is in violation of privacy laws because the authors don't know. Apparently, an internal WH investigation took place. But so far the Administration has refused to release documents under FOIA without a court order, claiming Executive Privilege.

    Those are the facts. If it does turn out that this staff

    • And if there is anything we learn from this century of unholy Progress, it's that we need to walk back some of this executive privilege.
      If careless, we could collapse into worse than a banana republic. Strangely, some seem to savor the notion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Close