Search results

Bob.

The man who exposed Watergate, Bob Woodward, has already written an unflattering book on Obama, and he's not as popular as he once was.

You can't see why the IRS playing political favorites isn't a big deal? Ultimately, the Watergate break in didn't do any damage to the Democrats. That didn't absolve Nixon from culpability.

Much like all the questions you've asked here, the depth of my thought process is irrelevant to whether or not the IRS singled out conservative and libertarian groups. That's the issue here.

The questions are irrelevant because they have no bearing on the admission that the IRS singled out conservative and libertarian groups. That's all that matters here.

Please also make note I only reply to relevant questions.

It's big news because they admitted to singling out conservative and libertarian groups. It's irrelevant whether or not they uncovered enough dirt to deny them.

If the IRS had gone after both sides equally, no one would give a shit. The apathy that SP feels towards the people who lost their lives at Benghazi, that's how normal people would feel if the IRS hadn't singled out conservative and libertarian groups. People don't expect evenhandedness from...

It's a story because they admitted to singling out conservative and libertarian groups.

Just for the sake of context, President Bush the elder lost re-election in 1992 after four consecutive quarters of greater than 4 percent growth in GDP. During his entire presidency, President Obama has had two quarter of 4 percent growth in GDP.

It's funny. From 1981 to 2000, we had a string of decent to very good Presidents. After 2000, it's like they fell off the fucking cliff.

That's true...from a certain point of you. And you can make the same claim!

Alright. I'll walk you through you it. Here's a hypothetical: Due to some evidence (emails, letters, financial documents) the government has received, it has reason to believe a nuke has been planted downtown New York and will be detonated at such-and-such date and time. It doesn't know where...

Well, yeah. I mean, you're generally not going to waterboard someone or spy on them without proof of some kind.

Not really. You don't need an actual bomb to prove the existence of a credible threat. That's an argument from lack of imagination. You could prove it with a paper trail, chain of financial information, etc.

That's like the water boarding question: Would you support water boarding suspected terrorist if there was an imminent and substantial threat to national security, such as a nuclear bomb planted in downtown New York? I suppose Charles Krauthammer had the best answer in response to the question...

h8ers gonna h8. Midswat = genius.

Yes.

I agree. Midswat is just doing what he does: making sense.

Would you put $100 on it?