[Jack V Savage]

1. No, I started a thread saying that Democratic Congressional leadership was questioning Obama's competence. You are lying/distorting.

No, you're lying about it. Your claim was much broader than you're saying now.

2. In all of that Jack V. Savage's answer is: "I would not investigate any White House scandal, they are all made up."

Well, I invite anyone following this to read what I said and read your description and compare.

3. You attribute his comrades in arms saying he deserted as "soldiers gossip?" Really?

I call soldiers gossip, soldiers gossip.

BTW, it seems that today's announcement (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/obama-makes-bid-to-be-environmental-president.html) completely kills your constant screeching about how the president won't be able to get anything significant done. This is going to go right along with the ACA and ARRA. You must get tired of being wrong all the time about everything.

 

[InternetHero]

No, you're lying about it. Your claim was much broader than you're saying now. (1)



Well, I invite anyone following this to read what I said and read your description and compare. (1)



I call soldiers gossip, soldiers gossip. (2)

BTW, it seems that today's announcement (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/obama-makes-bid-to-be-environmental-president.html) completely kills your constant screeching about how the president won't be able to get anything significant done. This is going to go right along with the ACA and ARRA. (3)

1. Maybe if you called me a tranny it would help your credibility.

And by all means I also encourage people to read that thread. It is a classic.

2. Well, while you're smearing U.S. soldiers going on the record as gossiping ninnies : "U.S. Concluded that in 2010 that Bergdal walked away" From the AP

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

Kind of makes you wonder why the Obama Administration suddenly embraced the bad deal that Leon wouldn't sign... it's remarkable the Administration was too incompetent to think this would be a good decision now when it was not then.

3. Ah, an appeal from the left on Climate Change, that is really going to win the hearts and minds of American voters in this dark hour.

 

[TeTe]

Well all else fails, there's always the cash under the mattress method.

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. Maybe if you called me a tranny it would help your credibility.

And by all means I also encourage people to read that thread. It is a classic.

Yep. You have screeching fits in just about every thread you're in, but that was one of the funniest ones.

2. Well, while you're smearing U.S. soldiers going on the record as gossiping ninnies : "U.S. Concluded that in 2010 that Bergdal walked away" From the AP

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

Kind of makes you wonder why the Obama Administration suddenly embraced the bad deal that Leon wouldn't sign... it's remarkable the Administration was too incompetent to think this would be a good decision now when it was not then.

The administration was getting a POW out of captivity. Wouldn't think that would even be controversial, but that's the 2014 GOP for you.

3. Ah, an appeal from the left on Climate Change, that is really going to win the hearts and minds of American voters in this dark hour.

Not sure what "dark hour" you're talking about, but objectively, this is a major, major move. Something you said wouldn't happen. So we can file that one alongside your numerous other bad predictions.

BTW, as a favor, I'll note that your constant bad predictions have two common causes--trusting unsubstantiated claims above data and rushing to conclusions before the data are in. For an example of the first one, even though all polling analysis was showing Obama with a substantial lead, you were talking about unnamed sources at the WH being nervous. For an example of the second, look at your comments about the ACA exchange enrollment numbers being way below target after the first month and how sure you were that that meant they would never catch up.

BTW, great moment from that thread:

Here we are.

From Forbes: "Is The White House Spinning Early Enrollment In Mass To Justify Slow Start? One Problem: Their Numbers Are Wrong"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ow-start-one-problem-their-numbers-are-wrong/

Oh, shit. A free-lancer for a right-wing site thinks that the facts are misleading. I guess we can ignore them, then.

Bottom line, just like the election, we'll see what happens. You're going to be disappointed, but you won't admit it.

My prediction was perfect. You were disappointed, and you've never admitted it.

 

[InternetHero]

(1.) Yep. You have screeching fits in just about every thread you're in, but that was one of the funniest ones.



(2) The administration was getting a POW out of captivity. Wouldn't think that would even be controversial, but that's the 2014 GOP for you.



Not sure what "dark hour" you're talking about, but objectively, this is a major, major move. Something you said wouldn't happen. So we can file that one alongside your numerous other bad predictions.

BTW, as a favor, I'll note that your constant bad predictions have two common causes--trusting unsubstantiated claims above data and rushing to conclusions before the data are in. For an example of the first one, even though all polling analysis was showing Obama with a substantial lead, you were talking about unnamed sources at the WH being nervous. For an example of the second, look at your comments about the ACA exchange enrollment numbers being way below target after the first month and how sure you were that that meant they would never catch up. (3)

1. lol!

2. LOL! I seriously laughed so hard at this.

Jack V. Savage, White House Spokesman: "Today is a proud day for America. We cut the deal to release 5 Taliban Commanders, the same deal our Administration rejected as a bad deal, because America is all about helping it's anti-American deserters." That's going to sell?

3. The White House's dark hour.

And yes, because Climate Change really resonates with Americans.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack V. Savage, White House Spokesman: "Today is a proud day for America. We cut the deal to release 5 Taliban Commanders, the same deal our Administration rejected as a bad deal, because America is all about helping it's anti-American deserters." That's going to sell?

They actually want to close Guantanamo, and that's actually popular. But, again, it's a sad situation if the country is so divided that bringing a POW home is controversial just because of how much a certain portion of the country hates the president.

3. The White House's dark hour.

And yes, because Climate Change really resonates with Americans.

Your original claim: The administration won't be able to get anything done because--well, you have no coherent reason. That claim was refuted decisively, and how do you respond? "Oh, shit, I guess I was wrong. Maybe I shouldn't put so much faith in anonymous sources!" No. Hahaha, no. It's, "It's an unpopular issue." That's not even true, but, man, that's some blatant goal-post-moving. That's yet another time you have been proven wrong and completely refused to admit it. Anyway, are you a climate-change denier yourself or are you just trying to play both sides here?

 

[InternetHero]

They actually want to close Guantanamo, and that's actually popular. But, again, it's a sad situation if the country is so divided that bringing a POW home is controversial just because of how much a certain portion of the country hates the president. (1)



Your original claim: The administration won't be able to get anything done because--well, you have no coherent reason. That claim was refuted decisively, and how do you respond? "Oh, shit, I guess I was wrong. Maybe I shouldn't put so much faith in anonymous sources!" No. Hahaha, no. It's, "It's an unpopular issue." That's not even true, but, man, that's some blatant goal-post-moving. Are you a climate-change denier yourself or are you just trying to play both sides here? (2)

1. Just because a certain portion of the country hates the president? Are you really pretending that making a bad trade of 5 Taliban commanders for a deserter is going to resonate with most Americans?

2. Really, of the pertinent issues of today where does Climate Change rank among Americas?

Also, lol @ some D-level contentious executive orders being "getting things done." I'm sure Obama will end up on Mount Rushmore for penning this... certainly that is not the way the media is reading it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. Just because a certain portion of the country hates the president? Are you really pretending that making a bad trade of 5 Taliban commanders for a deserter is going to resonate with most Americans?

I have no idea what's going to resonate with most Americans. I'm talking about reality. This seems like a relatively easy move to make that I think any administration would have made. Doesn't seem like a controversial issue, but it is because of the blind hate that Southern Republicans (mostly) have for Obama.

2. Really, of the pertinent issues of today where does Climate Change rank among Americas?

You didn't answer my question, of course. One quarter of Americans don't even believe in climate change. Are you one of them? Obviously, to them it's not an issue. 40% believe in it and are very worried. And the rest believe in it but don't see it at as a major issue. But that's all beside the point. It is, in fact, a hugely important action.

Also, lol @ some D-level contentious executive orders being "getting things done." I'm sure Obama will end up on Mount Rushmore for penning this... certainly that is not the way the media is reading it.

Yes, I would say that this is something that will go down in history as a major step forward. The media coverage on it that I've seen has hinted at that. That you're dropping your usual argument from false consensus is a sign that you haven't read about it.

 

[InternetHero]

I have no idea what's going to resonate with most Americans. I'm talking about reality. This seems like a relatively easy move to make that I think any administration would have made. Doesn't seem like a controversial issue, but it is because of the blind hate that Southern Republicans (mostly) have for Obama. (1)



You didn't answer my question, of course. One quarter of Americans don't even believe in climate change. Are you one of them? Obviously, to them it's not an issue. 40% believe in it and are very worried. And the rest believe in it but don't see it at as a major issue. But that's all beside the point. It is, in fact, a hugely important action.



Yes, I would say that this is something that will go down in history as a major step forward. The media coverage on it that I've seen has hinted at that. That you're dropping your usual argument from false consensus is a sign that you haven't read about it. (2)

1. You should check the current news and analysis to see just how controversial it is.

Though honestly that should be common sense to you.

2. I do believe in Climate Change.

As for this influence America or the history of the Obama Admin in any noticeable way?

Ok, good luck with that. I'm sure the media, Americans, and history will appreciate it's negligible impact on Global Warming... someday... sorry my computer almost exploded from my sarcasm.

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. You should check the current news and analysis to see just how controversial it is.

Though honestly that should be common sense to you.

I said it shouldn't be controversial, not that it isn't. If Obama made a statement condemning incest and child rape, I have no doubt that George Mason professors, you, the Daily Caller, etc. would be attacking him for it.

2. I do believe in Climate Change.

As for this influence America or the history of the Obama Admin in any noticeable way?

Ok, good luck with that. I'm sure the media, Americans, and history will appreciate it's negligible impact on Global Warming... someday... sorry my computer almost exploded from my sarcasm.

So you believe it, but you don't find a huge step toward reducing carbon emissions (and incidentally reducing a lot of other toxic emissions) to be an important step. Short of switching parties and races, is there anything that it is possible for the president to do that you wouldn't screech about?

 

[InternetHero]

I said it shouldn't be controversial, not that it isn't. If Obama made a statement condemning incest and child rape, I have no doubt that George Mason professors, you, the Daily Caller, etc. would be attacking him for it. (1)



So you believe it, but you don't find a huge step toward reducing carbon emissions (and incidentally reducing a lot of other toxic emissions) to be an important step. Short of switching parties and races, is there anything that it is possible for the president to do that you wouldn't screech about? (2)

1. Do you think a plurality of Americans would like a deal for 5 Taliban heads for a deserter?

2. It's not a huge step, it is a drop, in a drop, of a drop in the bucket and may not even hold up/be weighed with economic concerns.

 

[Stoic1]

Jack - we don't hate the president. We hate this scumbag deserter. Not everything is an attack on Obama. He has made some bad decisions. This is one of them.

One of the ways to gain some credibility is to stop blindly supporting Obama and accept the fact that he is not perfect, has made some bad choices, and is not 100% right all the time. And not everyone who disagrees with him is a Teabag rightwing religious zealot who hates black people.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Interesting.....I would have thought the savage gimmick would have played out by now.

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. Do you think a plurality of Americans would like a deal for 5 Taliban heads for a deserter?

2. It's not a huge step, it is a drop, in a drop, of a drop in the bucket and may not even hold up/be weighed with economic concerns.

1. Of course.

2 . It's interesting that you've become an overnight expert on the subject without doing any reading on it. No chance that you're just reacting purely out of your emotional leaning is there?

Jack - we don't hate the president. We hate this scumbag deserter. Not everything is an attack on Obama.

That's what I'm saying. Getting a POW home is something that literally every president we've ever had would have done, but because people are so insanely hateful of the president, they're turning a non-political issue political.

One of the ways to gain some credibility is to stop blindly supporting Obama and accept the fact that he is not perfect, has made some bad choices, and is not 100% right all the time.

Well, that's stupid. I've expressed many disagreements with the president. I just don't buy every GOP talking point that gets parroted here. So I don't care about "credibility" with these people; I care only about being actually correct. Even someone who didn't even know who the president was, could have told you that we'd have a temporary spike in the deficit after the GFC, that high deficits at that time wouldn't lead to inflation or spiking interest rates, that monetary stimulus also wouldn't lead to inflation (and, for that matter, that presidents don't set monetary policy or have that much control over deficits), that the BLS isn't faking data, that fiscal stimulus would reduce unemployment, that the "skewed poll" CT was ridiculous, that a one-month or so delay in the Web site wouldn't noticeably affect exchange enrollment, etc. Such a person would be called an "N--I mean Obama lover" by half of the WR. Just for being right about most of the big arguments here that actually have a right answer.

 

[KOQ24]

2. You're kind of in favor of an IRS crackdown on Conservative groups, so seem a bit impartial. Considering that, what was the % of Conservative groups targeted Vs. Liberal groups?
.

how many conservative vs liberal groups apply for tax-exempt status?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/irs-progressive-groups_n_3492679.html

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Interesting.....I would have thought the savage gimmick would have played out by now.

As long as Blowbama keeps messing shit up, there will always be a niche for the JVS gimmick.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As long as Blowbama keeps messing shit up, there will always be a niche for the JVS gimmick.

As I pointed out to the other guy, just being right about issues is enough to get some posters pissed off and accusing you of being some kind of shill (look back at old threads and see what was being said to people who made predictions that ultimately turned out to be correct about inflation, interest rates, deficits, the skewed poll CT, unemployment numbers, etc.). The level of hate here is way past the level that Clinton got.

 

[UpaLoompa]

1. Not according to Leon Penetta or the former director of the CIA, they both welcome the investigation.

Which ones? How many have there been? At what point does one conclude that the consistent lack of smoke means you should move on from looking for a fire?

Also, saying you welcome an investigation is a politically motivated comment. You can think it a tremendous waste of time and still welcome an investigation.

2. You're kind of in favor of an IRS crackdown on Conservative groups, so seem a bit impartial. Considering that, what was the % of Conservative groups targeted Vs. Liberal groups?

You misread, I'm in favor of crackdown on all of these political groups that have nonsense tax-exempt status regardless of party. I think both are bullshit.

In terms of conservative vs. liberal groups, there was a huge flood of conservative groups applying so that skews the whole thing. There was a list of keywords that flagged groups for extra attention--one I actually agreed with--that included things like "progress" and "tea". Those are pretty clear indicators that a group is politically motivated and warranted extra scrutiny.

3. All of this would be a lot more straightforward without Issa playing nothing but politics and Cummings doing nothing but stonewalling, but it is what it is.

Issa never lets anything go. Countering that isn't stonewalling, it is common sense because Issa's a sack of shit.

 

[InternetHero]

how many conservative vs liberal groups apply for tax-exempt status?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/irs-progressive-groups_n_3492679.html

Here we go.


Report: IRS Scrutiny Worse For Conservatives
by Tamara Keith
July 30, 2013 9:31 PM ET
NPR News

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...0/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...0/report-irs-scrutiny-worse-for-conservatives

 

[InternetHero]

Which ones? How many have there been? At what point does one conclude that the consistent lack of smoke means you should move on from looking for a fire?

Also, saying you welcome an investigation is a politically motivated comment. You can think it a tremendous waste of time and still welcome an investigation. (1)



You misread, I'm in favor of crackdown on all of these political groups that have nonsense tax-exempt status regardless of party. I think both are bullshit.

In terms of conservative vs. liberal groups, there was a huge flood of conservative groups applying so that skews the whole thing. There was a list of keywords that flagged groups for extra attention--one I actually agreed with--that included things like "progress" and "tea". Those are pretty clear indicators that a group is politically motivated and warranted extra scrutiny. (2)


Issa never lets anything go. Countering that isn't stonewalling, it is common sense because Issa's a sack of shit.(3)

1. If it is good enough for White House man Leon Panettea and the former chief of the CIA, it is good enough for me.

Also, just more than half of Americans think the probe is a good idea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cans-have-a-mandate-for-their-benghazi-probe/

I get the feeling that the Red States the Republicans represent, that number is more than half.

2. That is not supposed to be how it works, as the news story posted to the other post indicates.

3. Come now, as bad as Issa is you can bring yourself to admit that Cummings is the White House hack of the bunch.