IRS inappropriately targets Tea Party, White House blames Bush

[DaShi]

I wish my job allowed me that kind of free and apparently unsupervised time.

TMM is hilariously incompetent at his job. That he would complain about his employees is just rich.

[Aeson]

Yes, he chose to repond where no other President in my memory ever attempted to paint the opposition as 'the enemy' in public.

Oops there was one... Nixon but he used to say it behind closed doors but that eventually got published.

At best your argument is semantics. Bush's "you're either with us, or against us" ...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No. Presidents have long been capable of defining foreign powers as enemies of the state. The "your with us or against us" line was in fact exactly that, a matter of foreign policy and an explicit warning to Pakistan. It has never been the case where these rhetorics are directed at US citizenry or the opposition party.


(save Nixon in his quasi private ramblings)

[Aeson]

Like I said, your argument is purely semantic. Swap "enemy" with "opponent" or "opposition" and the meaning is the same but everyone says "opponent" or "opposition" so OMG "enemy"!!!! *PISSPANTS* It was very clear what Obama was saying. Hispanics should vote for the people who represent their interests, instead of the people who are against their interests. Well, duh! That's kinda the whole point of a representative democracy.

As for Bush's statement, he made it clear he viewed those who didn't want to go along with his plans as supporting terrorists by their inaction. Just because he didn't specifically say "Americans" (make note ... Obama also didn't say "Americans") doesn't mean the logic he was using didn't apply to Americans as well.

It was very clear that he,and a large portion of Americans (both parties) truely felt that way, that those who didn't support the war on terror were actually helping terrorists. (Of course reality was quite opposite, the war on terror has largely helped spread terrorism.)

Bush's statement was actually harmful. Harmful to international goodwill towards the US (which was very high post 9/11, and shortly squandered), and a way of getting people in line to support some of the stupidest excursions our nation has ever undertaken. And certainly a line that helped alienate anyone who didn't support that stupidity.

Yet you care more about swapping "opponent" with "enemy" in a meaningless statement.

If you're going to go after Obama, stick to the stuff he's actually harming the country with. Like Obamacare.

[PLATO]

I am continually amazed by the stupidity I see constantly displayed on this forum sometimes. It is truly hard to believe that some people actually think the way they do. Oh well...Poly still does provide some excitement though.

[Jon Miller]

I have read a bit about the AP thing now, if anything (in recent times) puts some suspicion on the administration that does.

It was definitely signed off by the deputy after all.

JM

[Aeson]

Oh well...Poly still does provide some excitement though.

It also provides you with the chance to show your cowardly side, allowing you to cast stones in a vague, pretentious manner while refusing to specify your target.

[DinoDoc]

David Axelrod makes the case for smaller government:

[MrFun]

My "give-a-shit" is not working.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Like I said, your argument is purely semantic. Swap "enemy" with "opponent" or "opposition" and the meaning is the same but everyone says "opponent" or "opposition" so OMG "enemy"!!!! *PISSPANTS* It was very clear what Obama was saying. Hispanics should vote for the people who represent their interests, instead of the people who are against their interests. Well, duh! That's kinda the whole point of a representative democracy.

And a President is a President of a nation not a party. So when you call 47% of Americans "the enemy", what kind of inclusionary device is that? Presidents and candidates have long called the opposition party "them", "they", "my opponent", "the opposition" etc. but are loath to resort to phraseology ensuring they look at groups of US citizen as an excluded status. Or perhaps the code for disenfranchisement "The Republicans can ride but they got to sit in the back" wasn't clear enough.

As for Bush's statement, he made it clear he viewed those who didn't want to go along with his plans as supporting terrorists by their inaction. Just because he didn't specifically say "Americans" (make note ... Obama also didn't say "Americans") doesn't mean the logic he was using didn't apply to Americans as well.

He was making a speach in his role as POTUS as such any use of the word "us" implied the United States as a whole, not his adminstation, not the republican party, not that segment of public who believed as he did, but as the USA and its dealing with other nations. This was not a speech delivered as a head of a party or as a candidate looking to score points, it was directed in specific to foreign powers and in particular Pakistan. The fact that it so spectacularly backfired is irrelevent to the intent.

Now to compare the intent of Obamas comment which was clearly an attempt to delegitamize anyone not of the same opinion as he and presumably his latino supporters regardless that they are equal members of society.

It was very clear that he,and a large portion of Americans (both parties) truely felt that way, that those who didn't support the war on terror were actually helping terrorists. (Of course reality was quite opposite, the war on terror has largely helped spread terrorism.)

Actually it was never clear about any such thing. He made any number of comments that he respected peoples right to dissent and attempted to treat the press with kid gloves including providing war time access in the field, as well as full cooperation within the white house to cover with any inklings of scandal.

Bush's statement was actually harmful. Harmful to international goodwill towards the US (which was very high post 9/11, and shortly squandered), and a way of getting people in line to support some of the stupidest excursions our nation has ever undertaken. And certainly a line that helped alienate anyone who didn't support that stupidity./

So?

If you're going to go after Obama, stick to the stuff he's actually harming the country with. Like Obamacare.

I see little reason why the two are mutally exclusive considering the tactics employed to pass Obamacare depended heavily on demonizing and dividing groups of citizenry.

[DinoDoc]

If you're going to go after Obama, stick to the stuff he's actually harming the country with. Like Obamacare.

That's what makes this IRS scandal and the incompetence it shows so awesome as it is the IRS that is in charge of enforcing Obamacare.

[PLATO]

It also provides you with the chance to show your cowardly side, allowing you to cast stones in a vague, pretentious manner while refusing to specify your target.

Ohhhhh! I am soooo insulted!

I am also impressed that you are the one who responded to my comment.

[The Mad Monk]

My "give-a-shit" is not working.

So you have something in common with Obama.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

My "give-a-shit" is not working.

Obligatory - Shockingly, I've known for some time that you're full of ****e.

[Japher]

He's just selfish with it