YOu like that word Pedantry?
So here’s the question. Would it be pedantic to point out that my statement includes “so far it sounds as if” and I did not write that any of the replies ‘say’ anything, but there goes XT telling me that he didn’t “see” any replies that “say” … something?
I am beginning to see how to avoid being called pedantic. It is becoming so clear. XT didn’t really want me to reply. He wanted me to ignore his question. Of course. I didn’t “SEE” any responses as saying anything either. So I’m not supposed to answer the question. Then I won’t be so pedantic.
Going by the title, I would have to ask when scandal monger lies NOT paid off?
I don’t think the NSA revelations were made up lies by Republicans so I think there is some legitimacy to people feeling the president isn’t too trustworthy.
What revelations were those? Today, we know that the NSA spies on Americans. By contrast, years ago… we knew that the NSA spies on Americans. It’s kind of their job description. Nothing new has come to light on that front.
Under Bush, the problem was that there was lack of Congressional and judicial oversight. Under Obama, we find that the problem is still lack of Congressional or judicial oversight. Plus he lied about it.
Lied about what?
About it being transparent:
Good point. I’m a progressive, and the Dems lost my vote some time ago mostly because the Democrats have pretty much become the same as Republicans on most economic issues. There remains a clear divide on social issues, but I see that as kabuki theater designed to keep people distracted from the looting of the middle class and the poor by the one percent with the help of both major parties. The elections in 2014 might go disastrously for the Dems if enough progressives and independents feel the same way I do. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch!
I honestly did not think that would happen, as I consider myself a bit of a political outlier, but maybe the NSA scandal is waking people up. (The IRS “scandal” is a manufactured bit of right wing blather not a real scandal at all. I doubt if many progressives are falling for it, but maybe some of the brain dead faction of independents are falling for it.)
Benghazi and the IRS are made up phony Faux News “scandals” that no one but wing nutters believe in. You are doing the equivalent of arguing that the tooth fairy is real here.
We used to have this quaint belief that the NSA spies on specific Americans whom they had reason to believe were involved in terrorist activities, etc. We NOW know that they spy on ALL Americans. They have become an Orwellian nightmare bureaucracy. That’s the difference right there.
Well, to be Orwellian the NSA would have to be policing for thoughtcrime.
We did? When? I thought it was always well-known that the NSA’s techniques consisted of gathering all the information they could, from every source they could, and then datamining it exhaustively to try to figure out who were the ones who called for more specific attention.
Yearas ago the Bush Administration engaged in illegal wire tapping of American citizens. Recently it was discovered that the NSA is keeping track of every single phone call made by American citizens and the duration of those phone calls. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper even lied to congress, March of 2013, about the extent of spying. Then the existence of the PRISM program was revealed in June of 2013.
So it’s incorrect to say that we knew all this years ago.
The key word is ‘lies’… at the end of ‘scandal monger lies’ …
Pursuing scandals passionately in full partisan attack gear is fine and it should pay off. But pursuing trumped up and phony scandals based upon lies upon lies and deliberate distortion of the facts should not be rewarded.
I can’t think of a time that scandal mongering based on entirely on falsehood and misinformation and out of context quotes has been so dominating as in the current political environment.
What must I defend against what Human Action Posted? The Statistics presented by Human Action do not pertain to the veracity of scandal mongers that caused a gain or loss in the second term of seven presidents.
The biggest Nixon scandal was not driven by lies by the accusers. And attacks against Clinton were not based on lies in all cases.
I don’t see the NSA disclosures as lie driven scandal mongering by conservatives. That is policy disagreement including by Democrats and Independents.
But The IRS workplace screw-up was not an Obama scandal. It was driven by conservative scandal mongers who pounced on falsehoods.
Benghazi is exactly trumped up conservative blather.
Who managed to distract away from the real scandal, that all of those political groups were approved when they shouldn’t have been.
Exactly. The point of this thread is that although the scandal mongering by conservatives is largely founded on falsehood and misrepresenting the facts and usually some well placed 33% - truth… (I won’t give them half truth) it still pays off in driving the conversation of the moment and providing political background noise that does drive the approval and effectiveness of Democrats and liberals and the left down.
If that is true - then what can be done about the effectiveness?
Is the answer nothing or is there an approach that can be formalized to disrupt an fake scandal like the IRS or Benghazi from having any effect at all on public perception?
That’s the way the law is written, it mostly self-nullifies. Normally political groups get approved, what would be unusual is if many were not approved, and they tended to have a political leaning opposed to the administration.
And to describe it as a “workplace screwup”. I guess that’s technically true, since the IRS counsel’s office is a “workplace”.