Sunday, July 8, 2012
Tactically Wrong
Not only did Katherine Eban engage in a shoddy and biased form of journalism, she also did something that was exceedingly dishonest. She took one of David Voth's emails and claimed that the "schism" which he was referring to had to do strictly with scheduling (the fact that certain individuals supposedly didn't want to work weekends) AND IT DIDN'T. Yeah, that's right, people, she edited the email and made it sound as if Mr. Voth wasn't talking about Fast and Furious but instead some petty and ancillary topic. I mean, I don't know how the rest of you folks feel, but I find tactics such as this to be excessively egregious and people like Rachel Maddow who buy them to be hard-core enablers and then some. Enough already, you partisan fools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Will: Enough already, you partisan fools.
What about your partisan hatred of Eric Holder? It seems to me that if you really were only interested in the truth you'd drop that... and also give some consideration to Katherine Eban's extremely well researched article (and her follow up that debunks many of these lies.
I don't know anything about this email you say she edited. That is a very serious charge. But, as usual, no link. No details. It's as if you don't want people to examine your "evidence". Could that be because this post is only for people who already believe your version of events?
WD asked: "What about your partisan hatred of Eric Holder?"
Will has shown none. Instead, he's shown a non-partisan contempt for incompetance, without regard to Holder's party. Of course, he has little tolerance for bad Attorneys General of the past, either, regardless of party.
"nd also give some consideration to Katherine Eban's extremely well researched article"
It is clear that Will has given consideration to Eban's article, but he has yet to find one that is well-researched at all.
He found that it wasn't well researched because it disproved everything Will already "knew" about the Fast and Furious "scandal". Also, I asked him for a link that proved his assertion that Eban is a "hard core partisan" and a "Democratic operative" (because I looked and couldn't find any info on this), but he ignored my request.
I have zero hatred (I'm not you, wd) for Mr. Holder. I just think that he's a lousy Attorney General. And there's absolutely nothing partisan about it because I thought the very same thing about the individuals that President Bush had in that position. And I already gave you the youtube link that had everything documented. I'll link it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on5I_C75gMM - You may not like the people who posted it but EVERYTHING is put on the screen so you can see the despicable tactics that this lady engaged in.
Hey wd, how about some partisan power lifting? Maybe even your hero, the non partisan yet ever hypocritical Holder will be there working on his bench press!
Not only is Holder grossly incompetent, he is a flaming racist.
Consider his defense of the black version of the KKK, "New Black Panther Party", in their racist intimidation of voters. His defense of them included him stating that he is looking out for "justice" only for black people, and not Americans as a whole. In other words, oath of office be damned: bring on the pinheaded racial supremacy.
I believe that Mr. Holder was also involved a little more than knee-deep in the Marc Rich pardon, too.
dmarks: Consider his defense of the black version of the KKK, "New Black Panther Party", in their racist intimidation of voters.
dmarks, why are you going "Glenn Beck" on Eric Holder? Remember when Glenn Beck accused Barack Obama of hating White people with no proof at all? Well, just like with Glenn Beck, dmarks has zero proof that Eric Holder is a "flaming racist".
Not only is there no proof, but to suggest the case was dropped because Holder is a racist is completely absurd, because the goal of the Black Panthers was to intimidate black people into not voting "for the Democratic puppet candidate, Barack Obama". The case was dropped because "no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots". The explaination is that simple, and has nothing at all to do with Holder being "racist".
A 7/26/2010 Politico article reports that Abigail Thernstrom, the vice chairwoman of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a Conservative appointed by George W. bush, said "This doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration". She was referring to her fellow Conservatives on the Commission.
Also, the new black panthers aren't the "black version of the KKK". The KKK is a lot larger and has been around much longer. The new black panters group is recently formed and small. The case you refer to concerned only three people, only one of which was intimidating people when he "repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon" (the other persons were unarmed). Comparring them to the KKK is laughably paranoid.
Will: I believe that Mr. Holder was also involved a little more than knee-deep in the Marc Rich pardon, too.
Marc Rich isn't Black.
Obviously that wasn't my point but whatever.
Will: Obviously that wasn't my point but whatever.
dmarks said Eric Holder is a racist. Why would he help Marc Rich when Marc Rich isn't Black?
Also, I thought you said Eric Holder was Obama's buddy? But Eric Holder was the assistant AG under Clinton. Obama brought in other Clinton people as well (people who were White, btw). How is Eric Holder different? What proof do you have that he and Obama are "buddies"?
And, given the fact that Eric Holder is clearly not a racist, why ignore this lie from dmarks? He enthustically attacks me, but it's a different story when it comes to his Conservative buddies.
Interesting tidbits: Marc Riches wife Denise Rich denounced her american citizenship this week.
Last month there were 80,000 jobs created...last month 85,000 were added to the federal disability dole.
I have no idea if Mr. Holder is a racist and I haven't kept up to speed on that Black Panther story. You want me to give an opinion on something that I don't have an opinion on? I DO have an opinion on the Marc Rich pardon and that opinion is this - it stinks. They're not buddies? I thought that they were. He's certainly protecting him like he is.............And Eban absolutely committed journalistic malpractice. She took as gospel the lies of a man who patently gave himself away in those emails and then doctored the documentation to try to further these lies. Absolutely disgraceful. "Disproved everything Will already 'knew'". LOL
"I understand that the frequency with which some individuals under investigation by our office have been purchasing firearms from your business has caused concerns for you. … However, if it helps put you at ease we (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into (in) detail."............There he (Mr. Voth) is again, wd, not only approving but encouraging ILLEGAL GUN SALES. Yeah. And this is the fellow who Katherine Eban used as her primary source. Just peachy.
Go ahead, spin.
Will: If you are looking for new subjects, have you heard of Obama's plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts and engage in politically-targeted tax hikes?
In its defense, Obama yesterday said that the tax hikes would not harm 97% of small business owners.
Well, lets look at this. According "US News and World Report", small businesses employ 60 million people. "
As by his own admission, Obama's tax plan would clobber 3% of small businesses, and thus put close to 2 million jobs at risk (three percent of the 60 million small business jobs... 60 million being a low estimate also). It seems that once again, the negative impact on employment is an acceptable side-effect of the President's policies, and James Carville's campaign lessons on the economy have fallen on deaf ears.
The Democrats also defend this. From Reuters, "Democrats say that line of attack is misleading, pointing out that 97 percent of small businesses would not be hit, according to nonpartisan congressional estimates."
To them, also, it is acceptible to "hit" and punish 3% of small businesses... and of course put in danger 3% of the many millions of small business jobs.
Thankfully, his proposals don't get rubber stamped, and maybe what will end up being passed will clobber 0$ of small business owners. We don't need to push a couple million more workers to the unemployment line.
WD said "dmarks said Eric Holder is a racist. Why would he help Marc Rich when Marc Rich isn't Black?"
We all know the just because racist attitudes affect some of someone's decisions doesn't mean it affects all of them.
Here is one of his nasty racist quotes: "“When you compare whatpeople endured in the South in the ‘60s to try to get the right to vote for African-Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia … to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people"
As Attorney General, everyone is his 'people', not just those of the skin color he likes. 313 million, not just the 39 million.
His Oath of Office requires that he defend the Constitution, not just look after what is in it for his own racial group.
dmarks, those businesess can afford the tax increase. They (if the tax increase goes through) are not going to be "clobbered". The businesses in question will still be doing just fine (in fact, better than just fine) and nobody will be let go as a result.
You're just against all taxes, even though tax revenue is needed to keep the government running. And you're especially against taxes that target the wealthy who you idolize... which is why you make up lies like them being "clobbered" and having to be forced to fire people. It's ridiculous.
Also, I've got no problem with that quote from Eric Holder you posted. That's just honesty, not racism. He is a Black man and it isn't racist for him to mention it. This is just par for the course with dmarks... a person who has a long track record of accusing non-whites of racism. It's really the only kind of "racism" that offends him.
WD,you make ssinine comments like "those businesses can afford the tax increase," and "the businesses in question will still be doing just fine (in fact better then just fine)"and in your small mind they become what you view as fact.How fucking stupid can you continue to be? You've never run a business,unless you consider a rinky dink sale on the net a business nor,I'm guessing have you ever held any type of management position in a business.Yet you feel you can make an ignorant blase statement and others will consider it as fact.You really are an uninformed stupid bastard.
He is rather hard to like, isn't he, Russ? LOL
I've never considered liking him Will.I just find it confounding someone can go through life thinking its fine and dandy to live off the fruits of others without a speck of shame.
Jerry Critter: ...you must agree with him since you cannot refute what he says.
When Rusty/Will lie about my personal life I know what I've said has hit a nerve... that what I've written is so truthful that they can't dispute what I've said using facts... all they have is ad hominem.
The triumph of the parasite.
WD you are being disengenuous about racism. I oppose all racism, consistently. Including racism by whites. Since we both agree racism by whites is bad, we never argue about it. But what is disturbing is that you think racism by nonwhites is Ok. It is this that we argue about.
Anyway, an attorney general who looks out only for what he terms as 'my people' instead of all citizens as his oath requires is a miserable failure.
As for the three percent of small businesses who can 'afford' being plundered by Obama's unnecessary greedy tax hike proposal, sure tthey will be able to weather it. Using means which will include downsizing, outsourcing, and firing a lot of workers. But that is what such bad tax policy demands.
Obama has declared war on small business employees, and WD is his Tokyo Rose.
dmarks is the Grover Norquist of the blogging world (the nobodies). No matter how low taxes were dmarks thinks they should be lower (and they are at historic lows). Unless they are zero, dmarks will always argue taxes are too high and should be reduced.
Most people disagree with him. Including Will (although I don't know his stance on this particular tax). It's a minority position even among wealthy worshipers like dmarks.
No small businesses will downsize or fire "a lot of workers". That's nonsense, because it would mean saying no to profits. As for outsourcing, businesses do it to increase profits, not in response to tiny tax increases. If they say they're screwing American workers for that reason... they're lying.
Obama has NOT declared war on small business. He is saying those who are doing well should pay a tiny bit more. It's a completely reasonable position.
And I am not being disengenuous about racism... I tell the truth about it. Eric Holder does look out for all Americans... you not liking one statement from him does not prove otherwise. That's nonsense.
btw, I agree with your "triumph of the parasite" comment... the wealthy parasites are winning (and dmarks acts as their "Tokyo Rose", cheering on the impoverishment of the middle class).
Jerry,I'm begining to think you're as big a moron as WD.Refute what he says?I did...the stupid bastard makes blase statements which in his small mind become absolute facts and runs from there.
And,yes he's said many times he has absolute support for people living off the government teat,including himself.From your postings I think you agree with that premise also.
The small business owners in this case don't screw workers. They are merely reacting to government policies which encourage the business owners to pay workers less, raise prices, degrade service, and hire fewer people.
The tax hikes are greedy, counterproductive, cause more unemployment instead of more hiring... destructive. And unneeded: tax revenues are close to an all-time high (not historic lows).
Grover Nordquistbhas the right idea: the ruling elites have a near record amount of tax dollars at their disposal. They should use what they have wisely instead of forcibly taking more... which kicks the economy in the teeth, causes inflation, forces companies to fire people, and causes foreign workers to be hired instead of American ones.
I could go with Will's idea to go back to Clinton tax levels for the very rich. But I strongly reject Obama's plan to go after small business. Small businesses are NOT the enemy, and we need to encourage them not clobber them.
dmarks: The small business owners in this case don't screw workers. They are merely reacting to government policies which encourage...
The government policies don't "encourage" that at all. They don't need encouragement to pay as little as possible, because that is SOP for the majority of businesses. Raising prices is also something that is SOP. Business want prices to be as high as they can be without discouraging sales too much.
Degrading service and hiring fewer people (provided they actually need more people) would just be stupid, and not have anything to do with tax increases. Businesses wouldn't do things that decrease their profits and possibly cost them customers simply because taxes go up. That's a completely non-logical conclusion.
Also, Barack Obama has no plan to "go after" or "clobber" small businesses. dmarks is imagining it.
And taxes ARE at historic lows. This simply is a fact. I'm talking percentage wise, so don't give me any revenue totals to "prove" your point, as we all know the economy is always growing (more people being born), there is inflation, and big business and Wall Street doing well despite the recession (due to them screwing workers and customers).
Rusty lied: And, yes he's said many times he has absolute support for people living off the government teat, including himself...
I've never said that. I've never said anything about my personal life. I've never said I live "off the government teat".
I think that Senator Schumer's compromise is a pretty fair one, fellas'. Raise the top rates back to 39.6% but raise the threshold up to $1,000,000 (my threshold would probably be closer to $500,000 but whatever). That way we still get to raise 30-40 billion and not be a burden on small businesses. Can I get a conservative-progressive amen on this one?
Great idea, Will. Of course, since it doesn't savage small businesses, WD won't like it.
Small businesses aren't "savaged" under the president's proposal... it only affects the highest profit making 3 perecent of them. I'd say that dmarks must be joking if it wasn't for the fact that dmarks doesn't understand the concept of joking.
Those "savaged" businesses with get up to about a $20,000 tax savings from both the president's and the republican's plans on the first $250,000 of taxable (after expenses like salaries) income. After that, the president's plan will raise the tax rate by about 3% over the republicans plan. Businesses will have to earn nearly an additional $700,000 of taxable income for them to loss all of that $20,000 tax gain they received on their first $250,000.
Of course 97% of businesses never even see that $250,000 threshold, so the plans are equivalent for them. And only business with about one million dollars of taxable income will be worse off with the president's plan than if we just let the TEMPORARY bush tax cuts expire.
Because Congress will surely reduce the greed of the President's plan, it is likely that it won't even affect any small businesses.
Jerry and wd, I like the Schumer compromise and dmarks seems to be amenable to it. What do you say, can we make it unanimous here?
Of course I am amenable. You see this as a solution to a problem and are willing to compromise. It is clear that you aren't like a certain person who sees this as just a stepping stone to a plan to punish people for earning too much money by trying to tax them at 70% and as a result forcing them and their money out of the country. A crazy plan that assumes all of these people are criminals and deserve to have their money taken away by those in power.
I can tell that your idea is not a stepping stone to such irresponsible policies.
Yeah, I'm just trying to raise some revenue to close the budget gap and I'm also willing to cut discretionary spending and reform entitlements.
Yeah. You aren't starting out with the goal of destroying anyone with the temerity to work hard and earn more than you, by means of harsh government policies which derail the economy as a result of the misguided "cut them down!"policies.
But if you did, you would be WD's hero.
"...goal of destroying anyone with the temerity to work hard and earn more than you..."
dmarks,
That is a ridiculous statement. No one with most taxable income ends up with less than someone else with less taxable income. Therefore, if I am not being destroyed at my income level, no one else earning more than I do is being destroyed either.
The more income you earn, the more income you end up with. That is the way our tax system works, and it has for over 200 years. Stop making stuff up. It hurts your credibility...what you have left of it.
It is not ridiculous at all. It is WD who wants to "destroy" those who dare to work harder and be more productive than he is. He has bashed them all as evil plutocrats.
I was contrasting Will's views to WD's. Not yours.
I have all my credibility intact, thank you. Despite our discussion on your support for Obama punishing small businesses.
Post a Comment