Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Administration officials: early evidence in Boston bombings points to YouTube videos

"We're scrutinizing all recent uploads"
announces Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

(Dissociated Press) Obama Administration officials were focusing the investigation into the horrendous Boston marathon bombings on a source that has proven indispensable to the investigation of previous terrorist attacks: YouTube videos.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced:

"Seconds prior to the bombings, drones showed a spontaneous demonstration erupting in outrage at recent unidentified videos. We are scrutinizing YouTube as we speak for phobic content. Rest assured that the culprits who uploaded those videos will be brought to justice."

Secretary Clinton has been appointed by President Obama to oversee the federal investigation into the Boston marathon terrorist bombings. Insiders speculate that Clinton may have been chosen by the President to lead the investigation based on her superb performance investigating the Benghazi consulate attacks in Libya.

As of 8:00 pm last night, federal investigators had personally viewed 113 million videos. Anonymous sources in the investigation reported that so far they have very few leads. Three videos satirizing the British were uncovered, and one video was dismissive of Armenians. "We're following them up" said the unidentified source.

Obama administration Press Secretary Jay Carney reassured reporters that, by delegating the investigation to Secretary Clinton, the President was not standing down from his personal responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to lead the investigation.

"The President is actively involved in the critical process of identifying all known terrorist bombers in this country" Carney noted. "He even has a couple of them on speed-dial."  

62 comments:

  1. Look at you with your cheap opportunistic political attack. You must be really nervous that your right wing political allies or fellow religionists are responsible.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  2. Patriot Day, Tax Day...

    This has ultra right-wing religious nutcase written all over it. Same mindset as the maggot Michael Egnor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Will some fan of this deranged writer kindly clue him in that it is a little too early to be making jokes about this tragedy? Does none of them have the courage to do so?

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loyalty trumps truth nearly every time among Egnor's bootlickers.

      Nearly, because I seem to recall Ben - to his credit - being somewhat appalled at Egnor's fascist man crush on Franky Franco.

      Delete
    2. There are quite a few decent people among them. TRISH and crusadeREX told him not once when he crossed the line.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. @Hoo:

      [a little too early to be making jokes about this tragedy]

      It's satire, not a joke. I was in an appropriately somber mood until I saw Obama promising to bring justice to the terrorist bombers.

      Then I realized: our President is a colleague and political collaborator with terrorist bombers (Ayers/Dorhn). He has a history of lying about terrorist attacks (YouTube videos).

      Now I have rage. Rage at the scum who perpetrated these bombings, and the bastards who cavort with terrorists and who lie about terrorist attacks to win elections.

      And neither Hoo nor KW have refuted any of the points made in my bitter satire-- Obama has collaborated with terrorist bombers and he has lied about terrorist investigations.

      I despise terrorists, and their friends.

      Delete
    4. Egnor, we don't take your points seriously. Doing so would be like arguing with a madman.

      As to satire, it is supposed to be funny—such are the rules of this genre. Where does it put you? You are making fun of this tragedy to score an old and tired political point. That is truly disgusting.

      I plan to forward a link to your "satire" to a friend of mine at Stony Brook. Will see if your colleagues find it funny.

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. @Hoo:

      Is that all you have? No facts, no arguments, just pitiful threats.

      What could possibly make you think that I, who blog under my own name, give a crap about who you "forward a link" to?

      And of course you opine daily under a pseudonym.

      I would do a satirical post about you, but I couldn't improve on reality.

      Delete
    6. Let's put it this way, Egnor.

      Would you dare print out your screed and post it in the hallway of your department? That will make it unnecessary for me to forward it.

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. Give me your name and address, and I'll mail you a picture of it hanging in the hall.

      Delete
    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM

      How sweet. Little hoo turns into a vindictive little tattletale when his side doesn't have control of the satire knobs.

      While he cloaks his poisonous little barbs in a mantle of anonymity.

      You are a fucking coward, hoo, masquerading as an academic. You have no "friends" at Stony Brook.

      Delete
    9. @Hoo:

      And you seem to think that my colleagues at work don't largely agree with me. I discuss politics quite often with folks here.

      I'm one of the moderates.

      Remember Hoo: We're working people. Not many lefties here.

      Delete
    10. Why don't you post a photo here, for all of us to see?

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. Nurse, change Admiral's diaper!

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM

      The diaper is on you, hoo. And it stinks. You fucking little panty-wetting crybaby, pretending to be something you're not. Coward.

      Delete
    13. Oh, I pretend to be Hoo, admiral. That's my pen name. The rest is absolute truth. I do have tenure at a major research university. So there.

      Hoo

      Delete
    14. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

      And I'm calling you a fucking cheap liar. So there.

      Delete
    15. Admiral, why would I care what an old fart such as yourself thinks about me?

      Hoo

      Delete
    16. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM

      Why would I care whether a panty-wetting liar such as your pathetic self would care?

      Delete
    17. Then don't reply to my comments, admiral. It's that simple. I don't care about your delusional writings, so I normally do not respond to you, aside from pure mocking.

      Go back to sleep, my friend.

      Hoo

      Delete
    18. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

      You get your stupid ass handed to you when you do, Dr "Materialist", a term you claim is defined by opinion polls. You're a fucking caricature of an academic. And these days, that saying something.

      Fucking liar.

      Delete
    19. Nurse, the admiral has obviously not taken his meds.

      Hoo

      Delete
    20. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

      Fucking liar.

      My favorite hoo-ism to date was your "analysis" of the NYT article that you yourself posted about philosophy. You can't even read, you fucking fraud.

      And by the way, panty-boy, this is "my meds". I love exposing frauds like you. It's a hobby. Sorry... Belay that... It's a mission.

      Delete
  4. You can't expect good taste from Egnor. He previously referred to marathon runners as 'skinny' 'anorexic exercise obsessed yuppies' just because the organisers of the New York Marathon had thought that it was possible to run the marathon as scheduled in November 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 16, 2013 at 8:21 AM

    Bitter the jest when satire comes too near truth and leaves a sharp sting behind it.
    -- Tacitus

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would not choose satire as a means to convey my ideas so close to the event, but that is me. Perhaps I am over sensitized to such violence.
    I do not think there was a 'line of good taste' crossed.

    I can see the point that Mike is trying to make quite clearly.
    I am reminded of how I felt when Gerry Adams was brought into Downing Street to discuss peace in Ireland. I felt exactly the same kind of rage and disgust in the leadership.
    But, I chose to attack the man head on. Having had family murdered in that conflict, I was extremely upset by the meeting and subsequent acceptance of a terrorist as a statesman.

    Here is how I would voice my concern over the current admin's ability to deal with this horrific attack:
    I have very little confidence in a POTUS that is run by a CNC once openly sympathetic to domestic terrorist groups (Ayers, the weather underground etc) and whose inner council was at very BEST totally inept in the recent Benghazi situation.
    Further, the spin doctors towards pointing a finger at 'tax day' and thus a 'patriot' movement is obvious politically motivated obfuscation - ie BAD PC bullshit.
    If the official narrative starts to follow that line,
    I will be extremely suspicious of the whole investigation.

    Perhaps one of the presidents men (or women in pant suits) could suggest a pressure cooker ban combined with a camera/gps in every American's phone, warrant-less tapping, a gun ban, and drone strikes against radical American citizens- just to keep them safe from themselves....

    ReplyDelete
  7. crus: "I would not choose satire as a means to convey my ideas so close to the event, but that is me. Perhaps I am over sensitized to such violence. I do not think there was a 'line of good taste' crossed."

    So it's in good taste, but it's so close to the event that you personally wouldn't do it, crus? You're damning your good friend egnor with faint praise!

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Hoo:

      Why didn't you object to Obama blaming the YouTube video immediately after Benghazi?

      That was satire, wasn't it?

      Delete
    2. You're delusional, Mikey.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. "So it's in good taste, but it's so close to the event that you personally wouldn't do it, crus? You're damning your good friend egnor with faint praise!"

      Not how it was meant, Hoo.
      Personally, no. I would not use satire. But that is not a matter of taste, just how my mind works.
      You'll note I made not blog posts or comments on any others until late last night.
      Why?
      Because this kind of thing hits home to me. I have seen, first hand, what a well placed explosive can do to a crowd.
      I am one bitten and twice shy. My reaction is a visceral one aimed at preventing further actions. Breaking the pattern, you might say.
      I cannot immediately put it into words effectively, or at least succinctly.
      Do I think an academic like yourself, or a physician like Mike should have the same reaction?
      No, I don't. Not at all.
      Your immediate reaction(s) is to place blame and seek justice. You both seem quite healthy in that respect, if in disagreement about the roles of those involved.

      Why not bad taste?
      The satire Mike employed was directed at the administration, not the victims.
      The was no 'joke' on the dead. Instead he illustrated the current POTUS has connections (albeit old ones) with radical, violent movements in the US.
      Mike also connected the Benghazi spin with the current stuff.

      Just too close to the blast for me to even think in those terms. My response at this point is far less subtle. Far more direct: The current security regime LET this happen on THEIR watch. Their jackboot PC, pat down, wiretaps, DHS in your family courts, sniffer dogs on grandma tactics have FAILED miserably, and the public needs to call them out on it. Big Sis was asleep on the switch.
      You folks need to resist the hysteria that will follow this event, and those who would consolidate on your fears.


      Delete
    4. crus,

      I don't think you have grounds to conclude from my writing that I am blaming someone and seeking justice. You simply don't know what I think and I have not made any statements on that subject. So don't put words in my mouth. You don't know me well enough.

      Now you write: "Why not bad taste? The satire Mike employed was directed at the administration, not the victims. The was no 'joke' on the dead. Instead he illustrated the current POTUS has connections (albeit old ones) with radical, violent movements in the US. Mike also connected the Benghazi spin with the current stuff."

      I didn't say the sad fuck joked about the dead. He merely used them as a prop in his satire to smear the President. He will use any events, no matter how tragic, to make a tired old point "liberals bad, conservatives good." Using the dead to that end is just sickening. That's why you wouldn't do that, but the sad fuck does.

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. @Hoo:

      Everything I said about Obama-- about Ayers and about Benghazi-- is true. Simple facts.

      He's the commander in chief, running (ultimately) this terror investigation. Yet he has a history of close association with terrorists himself-- terrorists who used bombs against the public, and a history of outright lying about terrorist attacks.

      Doesn't that bother you?

      Delete
    6. Your silly ramblings don't bother me, normally. You have a pathetic understanding of political realities, as was clear from your naive expectations of a Romney landslide in the last elections.

      What bothered me this time is your shameless attempt to use the death of innocents for the same old tired purpose: smearing the Democrats. Whatever happens, it's Obama's fault. It's OK to be naive. Its not OK to use a tragedy as a prop for your stupid rants.

      Get that through your thick skull.

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. @Hoo:

      Did Obama have a relationship with Ayers and Dorhn?

      Did Obama lie about Benghazi and the YouTube video?

      Why can't you answer simple questions?

      Delete
    8. You idiot,

      Obama never mentioned the YouTube video in his remarks. You just live in an alternative universe, a.k.a. the conservative echo chamber, propagating made-up stories.

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. @Hoo:

      http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-president-speaks-un-about-youtube-video-posted-june

      Delete
    10. I missed the part where Obama blamed the video for the terrorist act.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. So point it out for me. At what time in the UN speech is Obama blaming the video for the Benghazi riot? Go ahead, genius.

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. @Hoo:

      Obama referred to the video extensively at the UN, and obviously with reference to the Benghazi attack. But he did not explicitly link it in that video, although it's obviously what he was refering to.

      UN Ambassador, speaking for the administration, Susan Rice, directly linked the video to Benghazi.

      From FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/)

      The Obama Administration backed Rice and admitted that the video-Benghazi link was the Obama Administration's official position:

      "Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’

      Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other Sunday talk shows. Nuland says, “The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial assessment” three times when discussing Rice’s comments."


      Obama himself asserted the link on David Letterman:

      "Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

      Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”

      Heck, they arrested the guy who made the video. He's still in jail.

      Stop lying for Obama, and deal with the truth, Hoo.

      Delete
    13. egnor: "Obama referred to the video extensively at the UN, and obviously with reference to the Benghazi attack. But he did not explicitly link it in that video, although it's obviously what he was refering to."

      So it looks like I didn't miss anything. Obama did not blame the video for the Benghazi riots. You are imagining things that are not there.

      "Heck, they arrested the guy who made the video. He's still in jail."

      Not for making the video. Look it up, idiot:

      "On September 27, 2012, US federal authorities stated Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles for allegedly violating terms of his probation. Prosecutors stated that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile".[12] On November 7, 2012, Nakoula pled guilty to four of the charges against him and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release."

      Delete
    14. You look this one up, idiot.

      http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/25/Fallen-Seals-Father-Hillary-Told-M-Dont-Worry-Were-Going-To-Arrest-The-Man-That-Did-This?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreitbartFeed+%28Breitbart+Feed%29

      Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, the slain Navy SEAL, said that Secretary of State Clinton attended his funeral and assured him that the filmmaker would be arrested and punished.

      The filmmaker. Not the person who killed his son.

      Either Charles Woods is making the whole thing up, and I can't see why, or else the filmmaker was arrested on a pretext. They searched high and low for something to charge him with, and parole violations are what they found.

      I am so sick of debunking this one. Yes, we know the charges against him were not "making a movie insensitive to Muslims." That doesn't mean that he isn't a scapegoat.

      The Torch

      Delete
    15. Torch,

      You present a conspiracy theory and think you have debunked my point? Gotta try harder next time, bro.

      Hoo

      Delete
    16. Hoo,
      "I don't think you have grounds to conclude from my writing that I am blaming someone and seeking justice. You simply don't know what I think and I have not made any statements on that subject. So don't put words in my mouth. You don't know me well enough. "
      You sure shot the shit out of the messenger. That comes off as someone looking to (mis)place blame.
      Your offence at the timing/use of political satire also speaks to a sense of justice for the dead.
      I do not make assumptions about you, Hoo.
      I do not pretend to know you.
      But I can read in to what you write.
      I deduce, not presume.
      I am correct, aren't I? You DO want to see those responsible for this bombing caught. You DO want to see justice done to the memory of the dead and injured?

      "I didn't say..[mike]...joked about the dead. "
      No. Nor did I state that you wrote such.
      I stated that is why it did not offend me. The satire is directed at the POTUS and the polyarchs - not the victims of the blast.

      Allow me to clarify: In order for the comment to have 'crossed the line' it would have had to use the dead as a vehicle for humour. I saw no shits nor giggles.
      Only stark criticism of an inept leadership during a time of crisis.

      "He will use any events, no matter how tragic, to make a tired old point "liberals bad, conservatives good.""
      I did not see a 'conservatives' anything line in there.
      Seems more like conservatives ABSENT or incompetent to me. But, perhaps that is not intentional.
      That partisan red vs blue thing is not my game at all. It is a false dichotomy I refuse to be subjected to.

      ""Using the dead to that end is just sickening. ""
      I feel exactly that way about the Sandy Hook stuff.
      Flying the parents about in Airforce One etc. A gross abuse of power and influence. Literally using the relatives of dead children to attempt a legal rush on the constitution. Looks like it will fail after all that, too.
      But this (Egnorance) is a guy's private blog, Hoo.
      Dr Egnor is not a government official. He is entitled to draw the connections he wants to.
      If he wants to express his contempt for the ruling class under certain circumstances - he can.
      He is not slandering or mocking the deaths of the people in Boston, or in Benghazi. He is being extremely critical of the people in control of security during these crises.

      "That's why you wouldn't do that, but the sad fuck does. "
      I will restate: I would not connect an event like this to a satirical model in my own mind. My reaction is literally trained to be very different. Responsive. Confrontational.
      I can see the logic and effectiveness of the satire in this case, but it would not have occurred to me to use it, especially so near to the event.
      But it is not some outrage for the president's office, or some misplaced offence for the dead that prevents me from expressing myself so. Nor is it a matter of taste.
      I just don't react to these things in that way.
      My analysis is of a different nature/order.
      As I stated before: Once bitten, and twice shy.

      Delete
    17. Hoo, every time you don't want to believe something, you call it a "conspiracy theory."

      Why don't you just cover your eyes and repeat, "I believe the administration, I believe the administration, I believe the administration."

      When the Watergate story first broke, the administration denied that too. They said they had no connection. What a weird conspiracy theory that was. The difference between Watergate and Benghazi-gate is that back in the seventies, we had a press that actually wanted to get to the bottom of things like this, rather than aid and abet the administration in covering it up.

      Either the government is lying or Charles Woods is. Which is it? Tell me, why would Charles Woods make up a cockamamie story about Hillary Clinton telling him, at his son's funeral, that the filmmaker would be punished, if it wasn't so?

      I can think of a perfectly plausible theory as to why Hillary would lie. Because she was busy trying to scapegoat some guy for her own failures, hoping that this Benghazi thing didn't blow up in her face and cost Obama the election.

      She was very forthcoming in her testimony, if you remember.

      The Torch

      Delete
    18. Torch,

      The filmmaker got into the slammer because he violated the terms of his probation. Should he not have been jailed after he broke the law? And if his jailing is entirely justified on those grounds, why are you seeking another reason behind this? It's stupid, bro.

      Hoo

      Delete
    19. "Should he not have been jailed after he broke the law?"

      Ask an illegal immigrant. The rule of law is a joke in this country. Laws are applied selectively against people that the the powers-that-be don't like. So, no.

      "And if his jailing is entirely justified on those grounds, why are you seeking another reason behind this?"

      I'm not "seeking" one. They needed a pretext to jail him. They found one. When it first happened, I thought the way you did. I thought, hmmm, well, he shouldn't have violated the terms of his parole. But then when Charles Woods said that Hillary Clinton had told him that the filmmaker would be punished, I thought otherwise. For one brief second of naivete, I actually thought the press would ask Hillary Clinton to go on record, that way she could either confirm it (and admit that he was a scapegoat) or deny it (and accuse the father of the dead SEAL of lying.) She probably would have ducked both by saying that the father misunderstood what she said, but the press never even asked. They simply didn't care.

      I can see your philosophy now. Anyone who doesn't accept pronouncements from the administration is a weirdo conspiracy theorist. Or is it just this administration?

      The Torch

      Delete
    20. The filmmaker is in jail. The animals who killed Charles Woods' son are still at large.

      Hillary Clinton is still at large. Barrack Obama is still at large. Total number of people in jail because of the Benghazi fiasco: one.

      The Torch

      Delete
    21. I'm sorry, Torch, but you are not making much sense. Violating parole conditions is not a pretext, it's a perfectly good reason that lands you in jail. And if it doesn't then law enforcement is not doing its job.

      And yes, making up wild conspiracy theories makes you a conspiracy weirdo.

      Cheers,

      Hoo

      Delete
    22. Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress. Is he in jail? No? He isn't?

      And you still won't answer my question:"Either the government is lying or Charles Woods is. Which is it?"

      You ignore inconvenient facts. As I mentioned, I too believed that he was being jailed for parole violations when it first happened. I was naive.

      The Torch

      Delete
    23. Torch, here is a simple thought. Being in contempt of Congress does not equate with a parole violation. Therefore, Eric Holder need not be in jail. Understand?

      As to your "facts," they are technically hearsay. Understand?

      Hoo

      Delete
    24. Oh, you're right. Contempt of Congress is much worse.

      The penalty for being in conpempt of Congress is: "a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months." --2 USC § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192

      So yes, he does deserve to be in jail. He;'s not because he, like everyone in the same administration, is above the law.

      Hearsay is when a person testifies in court that he heard someone say that he witnessed something. In that case, the person who actually witnessed it should testify. Hearsay is not when a person testifies that the defendant made a confession. This isn't even a court we are speaking of, so I don't understand the relevance.

      Now, will you answer the damned question: Is Charles Woods lying?

      The Torch

      Delete
    25. Not believing the denials of this administration makes one a wacko conspiracy theorist. If Obama said there's nothing to see here, then there's nothing to see. That is what Hoo means.

      The Torch

      Delete
    26. @Hoo:

      [Violating parole conditions is not a pretext, it's a perfectly good reason that lands you in jail. And if it doesn't then law enforcement is not doing its job.]

      How many other people who have been convicted of computer crimes have been sent to jail for posting a YouTube video? Show me links to their perp walk.

      If he wanted to avoid jail, he maybe should have set off bombs in the 1970's, drowned a girl in the backseat of his car, or lied under oath.

      Delete
    27. Torch,

      You have a simplistic picture of how contempt of Congress works. It is, in fact, a complicated story. No one has been sent to jail over that since 1934. Read this article if you want to get some idea why. Not sure whether it will do you any good, but it doesn't hurt to try.

      Hoo

      Delete
    28. [No one has been sent to jail over that since 1934. ]

      We're overdue.

      Delete
    29. Torch: "Hearsay is when a person testifies in court that he heard someone say that he witnessed something. In that case, the person who actually witnessed it should testify. Hearsay is not when a person testifies that the defendant made a confession. This isn't even a court we are speaking of, so I don't understand the relevance. "

      Open a dictionary, Torch, and read the definition of hearsay, Here is what mine says:

      "Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor : according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm."

      I was using the word in that very sense.

      Hoo

      Delete
    30. Torch, this Hoo character is insane. I've talked to him before. he doesn't even believe that universities discriminate against Asians.

      Just look at what he says in the space of one thread: "Violating parole conditions is not a pretext, it's a perfectly good reason that lands you in jail. And if it doesn't then law enforcement is not doing its job."

      Oh, yes sir! A real law and order fetishist we've got here. Law enforcement had better do its job. Then:

      "You have a simplistic picture of how contempt of Congress works. It is, in fact, a complicated story. No one has been sent to jail over that since 1934. Read this article if you want to get some idea why."

      Suddenly not so keen on law enforcement doing its job. Contempt of Congress isn't really such a big deal, is it? I mean, if I told a congressional committee to go shove it, I'd get off scot free too, right?

      So now we understand Hoo's point of view. A man touching a computer in violation of the terms of his parole is a big deal, and law enforcement had better do its job. Another man in contempt of Congress? No bigee.

      Do you think it might have to do with the fact that he likes Eric Holder and the administration he works for? 'Blind follower' comes to mind.

      Here's a clue, Hoo. Eric Holder got off because the Department of Justice refused to prosecute him for a crime that no one disputes that he committed. Eric Holder is the big shit at the Department of Justice. Eric Holder absolved Eric Holder of all wrongdoing.

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/justice-department-wont-prosecute-holder-for-contempt/

      That's justice in America.

      Joey

      Delete
  8. A few numbers to brighten your day, guys.

    Only 23 percent of Americans believe the Republican Party is “in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today,” while 70 percent believe that it is “out of touch.” Among independents, those numbers are 23-70. Among moderates they’re 20-75.

    By contrast, Americans say by 51-46 that Obama is in touch. Among moderates that’s 56-42 (he fares worse among independents, 44-53, though far better than Republicans).

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Hoo:

      Of course. Most people think that a politician is "in touch" with them when they get a check in the mail from that politician.

      Who doesn't like Santa Claus?

      Democrats have much more loyal constituents, because they're much better demagogues. Democrats pay off interest groups handsomely.

      Lyndon Johnson about his social programs:

      “I'll have those nig***s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

      Delete
    2. LOL, egnor. That 47-percent mentality has worked out real well for Romney. Keep digging.

      Hoo

      Delete
  9. Yep. What percentage of Titanic's passengers were confident that Captain Smith was 'in touch with their concerns'? Almost all of them? Did the passengers even know enough to be concerned about steaming full speed through icebergs on a dark night? Low information passengers.

    Hoo, your hero is channeling Captain Smith. "Forward"!

    And, btw, a 'satire' was an Irish poet's way of bringing a curse down on the head of his subject. Not meant to be funny. Obama's association with the bomber Ayers is not funny. And we have been talking about it for years now. Extract the wax from your ears and listen up.

    ReplyDelete