118 visits to WH

Superfreak said:
But 54 visits were with someone working on Ethics... I would like to know what those were about.
Click to expand...

I inderstand that is what you would like. The reality is... there is no requirement for the executive branch to provide e details of meetings between their employees to private citizens simply because they would like to know about them.
 
Dungheap said:
LOL. Sarah Fenn is DeParle's special assistant, you collosal twit. Go to the visitor logs and look at the descriptions in 2010 for his meetings with Fenn. It's a regular meeting that grew to about 60 people (from about 20) to deal with Healthcare Reform. In 2011, the record-keeping got a little less descriptive and the meetings with Fenn are simply described as "Meeting" but by all appearances its the same meeting of about 60 people.
Click to expand...

Seriously Supercandy, I am surprised you came back for more. You assumptions about these "meetings" without any substance is purely silly and shows a lot about how badly affected your reasoning ability is affected by your unreasonable hatred for the President.
 
I really love how it's "apologism" to not incriminate the admin for conspiracy based on no evidence whatsoever, or even hearsay.

ODS has a bad effect on people.
 
Jarod said:
Seriously Supercandy, I am surprised you came back for more. You assumptions about these "meetings" without any substance is purely silly and shows a lot about how badly affected your reasoning ability is affected by your unreasonable hatred for the President.
Click to expand...

I can't believe he walked into another DH skewering. And I am being totally serious, I often tease SF about being "skewered" even if he's not (although let's be honest, that's a rare occasion!) but truthfully DH pretty much always takes him apart , and this thread it was particularly brutal. I feel like I should cover my eyes.
 
Darla said:
I can't believe he walked into another DH skewering. And I am being totally serious, I often tease SF about being "skewered" even if he's not (although let's be honest, that's a rare occasion!) but truthfully DH pretty much always takes him apart , and this thread it was particularly brutal. I feel like I should cover my eyes.
Click to expand...

I did take that photo to a special printer to have it put on photo quality paper. I am going to have it framed in my office. Most people will simply see it as me supporting the President, but... It will be my little private joke that I can look at and giggle about sometimes.
 
Jarod said:
I did take that photo to a special printer to have it put on photo quality paper. I am going to have it framed in my office. Most people will simply see it as me supporting the President, but... It will be my little private joke that I can look at and giggle about sometimes.
Click to expand...

LOL I think that is so funny.
 
maineman said:
That he lied about the absolute certainty of stockpiles of WMD's is a matter of fact. That he was not impeached for it is a matter of politics.
Click to expand...


It would be hard to impeach any one for repeating the same things Clinton and his entire administration were saying for 10 years.....:FootMouth:--->:rofl2:
 
maineman said:
I inderstand that is what you would like. The reality is... there is no requirement for the executive branch to provide e details of meetings between their employees to private citizens simply because they would like to know about them.
Click to expand...


Thats why we have subpoenas....to compel the release of records.
 
NOVA said:
It would be hard to impeach any one for repeating the same things Clinton and his entire administration were saying for 10 years.....:FootMouth:--->:rofl2:
Click to expand...

But as you know, no one serving in the Clinton administration asserted absolute certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles. Several members of Bush's administration did make that assertion which each of them knew to be false when they said it.
 
Jarod said:
"You do it too" is not a very strong argument. Moral equivalency.
Click to expand...

The problem is I am not the one telling others not to make determinations based on evidence, only maineman is doing that. So, this isn't "you do it too, maineman", it is "you are a hypocrite, maineman"...

I believe that we are not the jury and that because of that we can determine what we think about something based on the evidence before our eyes without repercussion.

What frightens me is the capacity of some people to be able to ignore facts due to somebody being on the same "team"... Someday you may be called on to be jurist... if you find out that somebody is a Democrat will you believe them to be innocent based on them wearing the same jersey, or does it only work with people for whom you voted?
 
I am saying, that if the president did, indeed lie to us about his knowledge and involvement in the IRS scandal, we should definitely not reelect him again, and the public would be perfectly within their rights to punish his party in the next elections.

And... As I have said over and over again... If you righties really think you've got the dirt on him that shows horrific abuse of his constitutional powers, well.... You've got the House, please just shut the fuck up and impeach if that's what you think is the prudent course of action.

My guess is, if the GOP wastes another two years repeatedly trying to repeal Obamacare and holding endless hearings on presidential scandals, they won't HAVE the House after 2014.
 
I Love America said:
Your ejection fraction must have dipped to 5% thus limiting the amount of oxygenation to your brain. This is truly hilarious.

Sure he is an "informed" President if you don't want to count Benghazi, IRS and any other myriad of things he seems to find out from the news when we do when it comes to his administration

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

Sorry, 20 % if you must know, but you clearly do not own a dictionary if you consider Bush informed and Obama not.
 
I Love America said:
So if an effective top tax rate for the top 1% is what you support why have a higher marginal rate? Why not just have a flat tax and be done with it? Why not a flat tax of 20% and eliminate all the preferential tax deductions that only fuel tax preparers and we could eliminate the IRS?
Click to expand...

There is no flat tax which does not lower taxes for the rich and increase the burden on the poor.
 
Thing1 said:
It's kind of disappointing that this thread got away from the brilliant original contention that there is clearly corruption & conspiracy based on the 118 visits.

I mean, that was so smart that I feel like it elevated the IQ of the entire board.
Click to expand...

I really only clicked onto this thread today out of curiosity as to how it could still be in existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top