See, I don’t understand how you’re seeing this. I mean, she uses a COMMON rhetorical device, relating how she was thinking 24 years ago in the words she would have used then. It’s obvious that she doesn’t still think that way. That she used those words to relate how she was thinking then isn’t even rare enough for me to understand how you might not have ever encountered that device before, that you would have such trouble understanding how it works.
As others have said, you can’t micromanage to that level. You can barely manage the hiring and firing of 100 people under you by yourself.
Following the advice to this level would either put Obama on the same level with people who do micromanage but for petty or political reasons, or on the level with those try to micromanage because of their nature, like Carter.
Those who seriously suggest more direct oversight was needed either
– Believe there was a grand overarching plan to do this kind of stuff all along in a wink wink nudge nudge fashion and so there didnt NEED to be much direct intervention (which makes no sense on the face of it, unlike certain other scandals over the past decade
– Don’t know much about upper level management, or
– Are concern trolling trying to take his effectiveness down to carter’s
Why are you so afraid to commit yourself? It’s a simple question. Heck, I’ll ask it again: Are you willing to concede that the entire point of Breitbart’s actions were to make the Democrats, the NAACP, or Obama look bad so that Republicans will do better in the next election?
I’m not asking what you, yourself, feel about the situation. I’m asking you what you, personally, think was Breitbart’s motivation in the situation.
Yes, he does have time to discuss department head briefs that are brought to him. That’s his job. The only way it can get to him in the first place is to go through his staff. By default, if it lands on his desk then someone thought it important enough to pass it on. It’s another stupid beer-gate that never should have happened.
Breitbart is a conservative web-portal that makes money by posting sensationalized stories. It is a conservative version of the Inquirer. His motivation is money.
Asking about his political motivation is like asking how the NAACP feels about the Tea Party. In fact, I would say he threw it out there in direct response to the NAACP’s attack of the Tea Party.
It’s amazing how January 20th was the date that everything changed.
One bad apple? No sir, say the conservatives, the buck stops with the President!
-Joe
Fortunately the liberals did not fall into this trap. Why, many’s the time I remember you saying, “Now, now – we can’t blame Bush for something like this; it was a bad apple in the administration.”
You’d have to be pretty distant from reality to think that Bush didn’t have a bit more than his share of personal fuckups.
But I can’t remember a trumped up complaint from the left that analogues to rush-to-judgement-gate. Usually the left was complaining about stuff like torturing people or overselling wars.
The only thing I’m doing deliberately is pointing out the deficits between what you wrote and reality.
If you actually meant something different, I can only judge the words that appear on the screen, I can’t read your mind.
Wow, Bricker, did you really go six whole pages without once bringing up the central, crucial factor of liberal hypocrisy? Good on you!
It’s like the patch. Cold turkey is just too difficult.
Now you are setting the presidents schedule for him? Look, you may be right that he knew all about it and gave the nod to fire her but we really don’t know. We don’t know exactly what details were included in the briefing and which were not.
I agree it never should have happened but we don’t live in an ideal world and IMO it’s minor. I remember the big noise being made by the Lewinsky scandal. Yes Clinton lied on national TV, but lots of people said : “I just don’t give a shit if he got a BJ in the WH.” That does not impact the country in any significant way.
Back then I thought the people who insisted we focus our attention on a BJ rather than addressing real issues did a much bigger disservice to this country than Clinton did.
Same principle now. This minor incident has a very minimal effect on the country as a whole. Those who insist on creating these incidents, then jumping up and down until we pay attention are doing a far greater disservice and having a far greater negative effect on the country as a whole.
of course you would. And the fact that he did it before doesn’t change that for you.
You must define bald face lies as just being sloppy with the truth. It’s just truth carelessness. A little truth oopsie.
The function of a briefing is to provide information which can be acted upon if necessary. Otherwise, it serves no purpose. A few simple questions such as “where did you get the information” and “did you look at the entire video yourself before discussing it with her” would be high on the list of things to ask.
Unless he made the unforgivable error of trusting what he was told, perhaps because there were other issues on the presidents plate. You tell me, you seem to be in charge of his schedule.
We’re done rehashing this. Yes it was a mistake but not a serious one. The assholes who did it intentionally and do this kind of thing repeatedly, are the bad guys.
Yes, because their the ones who fired her. :rolleyes:
If I went to your boss and lied about you and got you fired, would you be so forgiving of me and damning about your boss?
I’d be pissed at my boss for firing me (without any discussion) over an internet blog.
you have got to be kidding me. Hopefully you can see the difference between a knee jerk reaction that is clearly a mistake and repeated intentional dishonest attacks. Attacks that willingly harm anyone in the way in order to serve a political and financial agenda. One was acknowledged and reparations offered. The other will almost certainly happen again and again. I’ll be sure to remind you when it does so you can roll eyes again.
Would you forgive me if I went to your boss and lied about you and got you fired? Would you shrug that off? If I had video of you doing something to show as evidence and your boss believed me and fired you, would you wave away what I had done?