The DOJ Truly Serves At The Pleasure of the President

[VinBucFan]

The link I provided was from tampabay.com. I offered no comments on it. Simply posted the quotes and linked the article.

Ha, given the title and topic of the thread and your numerous comments throughout, you posted the article/link because you presumed it supported ytour point of view, so the fact that you }offered no comments" is meaningless. The post alone was intended as a comment. Misguided and/or ill-informed, but a comment nonetheless. The norm, so to speak. :-)

[CBWx2]

The link I provided was from tampabay.com. I offered no comments on it. Simply posted the quotes and linked the article.

Ha, given the title and topic of the thread and your numerous comments throughout, you posted the article/link because you presumed it supported ytour point of view, so the fact that you }offered no comments" is meaningless. The post alone was intended as a comment.

Yeah no crap, Sherlock. The question was, how did I take his remarks out of context when all I did was quote the article and provide the link?

These are statements made by a former Republican party chair admitting to discussing voter suppression with party leaders. I'd say that it isn't me "thinking" this/supports my position. I'd say that it does support my position.

[VinBucFan]

The link I provided was from tampabay.com. I offered no comments on it. Simply posted the quotes and linked the article.

Ha, given the title and topic of the thread and your numerous comments throughout, you posted the article/link because you presumed it supported ytour point of view, so the fact that you }offered no comments" is meaningless. The post alone was intended as a comment.

Yeah no crap, Sherlock. The question was, how did I take his remarks out of context when all I did was quote the article and provide the link?

These are statements made by a former Republican party chair admitting to discussing voter suppression with party leaders. I'd say that it isn't me "thinking" this/supports my position. I'd say that it does support my position.

You did not take the comment out of context, you posted it without understanding the context. You still do not, based on the characterization above. Like I said, seems to be the norm for you.  See Trayvon Martin thread.

Bye, bye Black Hole

[CBWx2]

The link I provided was from tampabay.com. I offered no comments on it. Simply posted the quotes and linked the article.

Ha, given the title and topic of the thread and your numerous comments throughout, you posted the article/link because you presumed it supported ytour point of view, so the fact that you }offered no comments" is meaningless. The post alone was intended as a comment.

Yeah no crap, Sherlock. The question was, how did I take his remarks out of context when all I did was quote the article and provide the link?

These are statements made by a former Republican party chair admitting to discussing voter suppression with party leaders. I'd say that it isn't me "thinking" this/supports my position. I'd say that it does support my position.

You did not take the comment out of context, you posted it without understanding the context. You still do not, based on the characterization above. Like I said, seems to be the norm for you.  See Trayvon Martin thread.

Bye, bye Black Hole

LOL'Z

[VinBucFan]

"Didn’t see this one coming …

Last year, former RPOF Chairman Jim Greer made national news by raising a ruckus about President Barack Obama’s speech to school kids.

Greer complained that Obama was trying “indoctrinate” children.

Well, a year later, Greer’s been forced out as party chairman, is facing criminal charges over his handling of RPOF finances and is engaged in a scorched-earth campaign with his former associates. Over the weekend, the party said it might sue Greer — and Gov. Charlie Crist — to get back money spent inappropriately.

So how did Greer respond? With a text message today slamming the GOP and saying he was wrong last year about Obama’s speech. Here you go …

I wanted to send you my thoughts about the Obama speech to kids …

“In the year since I issued a prepared statement regarding President Obama speaking to the Nation’s school children, I have learned a great deal about the party I so deeply loved and served. Unfortunately, I found that many within the GOP have racist views and I apologize to the President for my opposition to his speech last year and my efforts to placate the extremists who dominate our Party today. My children and I look forward to the President’s speech.”"

CBW -  do you know what a "scorched earth campaign" is?   LMAO, you typed that Greer "admits.". ROFLMAO,  he is intentionally throwing everyone he can under the bus. You might not realize that if you are not actually paying attention. :-). Man, you are something else CBW. 

[CBWx2]

"Didn’t see this one coming …

Last year, former RPOF Chairman Jim Greer made national news by raising a ruckus about President Barack Obama’s speech to school kids.

Greer complained that Obama was trying “indoctrinate” children.

Well, a year later, Greer’s been forced out as party chairman, is facing criminal charges over his handling of RPOF finances and is engaged in a scorched-earth campaign with his former associates. Over the weekend, the party said it might sue Greer — and Gov. Charlie Crist — to get back money spent inappropriately.

So how did Greer respond? With a text message today slamming the GOP and saying he was wrong last year about Obama’s speech. Here you go …

I wanted to send you my thoughts about the Obama speech to kids …

“In the year since I issued a prepared statement regarding President Obama speaking to the Nation’s school children, I have learned a great deal about the party I so deeply loved and served. Unfortunately, I found that many within the GOP have racist views and I apologize to the President for my opposition to his speech last year and my efforts to placate the extremists who dominate our Party today. My children and I look forward to the President’s speech.”"

CBW -  do you know what a "scorched earth campaign" is?   LMAO, you typed that Greer "admits.". ROFLMAO,  he is intentionally throwing everyone he can under the bus. You might not realize that if you are not actually paying attention. :-). Man, you are something else CBW.

Or... perhaps his ousting has lead to him no longer seeing the need to play political games, such as claiming that a speech telling kids to stay in school was an "indoctrination". Only an idiot didn't see that whole controversy as a play on people's fears about Obama being elected as the first black US President. His comments at the time were clearly taking advantage of that fear to gain political points, and he wasn't the only Republican to do it.

I'd say this proves my point even further. Thanks for the help, vincepb.

[VinBucFan]

Lol. That response is why I call you the black hole ... Most intellectually dishonest poster on this site. :-)

[CBWx2]

Lol. That response is why I call you the black hole ... Most intellectually dishonest poster on this site. :-)

I could mention how funny it is that you blast me for referencing websites, yet just basically copied and pasted an op-ed blog from a writer for the Orlando Sentinel. I could mention that, but I'd rather just post the link...

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2010/09/jim-greer-many-in-the-gop-have-racist-views.html

So because Jim Stratton writes an opinion blog about Greer's comments, that makes it a definitive assessment? You had the balls to criticize me for quoting an actual news story about his comments, and then you turn around and copy and paste a freaking blog entry? SMH...

There are two ways to look at this, Vince. You can say that Mr. Greer is just making things up because he wants revenge against the Republican party, or you could say that since he's on the outs with the Republican establishment and no longer has anything to lose by speaking his mind or not hold water for them, he's just telling the truth and shaming the devil. Now certainly someone as intellectually honest as yourself could see the merit in the latter argument even while believing the former, especially given the fact that the things Greer is saying about the Republican party are things that they have already been long charged with doing, and he was in a prime position of which to be privy to these insights given his former position.

[VinBucFan]

Lol. That response is why I call you the black hole ... Most intellectually dishonest poster on this site. :-)

I could mention how funny it is that you blast me for referencing websites, yet just basically copied and pasted an op-ed blog from a writer for the Orlando Sentinel. I could mention that, but I'd rather just post the link...

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2010/09/jim-greer-many-in-the-gop-have-racist-views.html

So because Jim Stratton writes an opinion blog about Greer's comments, that makes it a definitive assessment? You had the balls to criticize me for quoting an actual news story about his comments, and then you turn around and copy and paste a freaking blog entry? SMH...

There are two ways to look at this, Vince. You can say that Mr. Greer is just making things up because he wants revenge against the Republican party, or you could say that since he's on the outs with the Republican establishment and no longer has anything to lose by speaking his mind or not hold water for them, he's just telling the truth and shaming the devil. Now certainly someone as intellectually honest as yourself could see the merit in the latter argument even while believing the former, especially given the fact that the things Greer is saying about the Republican party are things that they have already been long charged with doing, and he was in a prime position of which to be privy to these insights given his former position.

In bold -- that's why it speaks to you, it fits your world view (i.e you think it is true anyway, that is why you seized on it)

A new story including Greer's comments does not make the comment factual. The only FACT was that the comment was made.  The polictical commentator is commenting on the (obvious) "why."  Again, this is more black hole stuff because I never claimed the quote to be a "definitive assessment." Neither did I "criticize [you] for quoting an actual news story about his comments."  I criticized you -- as I have done consistently -- for not knowing what you are talking about (see my comment above, you seize on things that speak to your point of view). Even your latest comment illustrates this point as Greer's comments were not made because "he is on the outs" or no longer "has anything to lose by speaking his mind" (lol-that's funny). His comments were made (as anyone who spends a few seconds could read for themselves -- see, you like to read, but only things that play to your sensibilities) because he is under HUGE criminal and civil pressure.

Now, anyone who can read can see your typical "black hole" progression.  First, you posted the Greer article AS TRUTH.  When I pointed out that you were missing something (as you are wont to do), you tried to distance yourself from the article by saying "I only posted the article without comment," as if that somehow changed the fact that you posted it AS TRUTH.  When I called bull-spit, you just shifted to the comments in last couple posts and then ultimately to trying to turn it back on me (lol).  This is why your involvement in any discussion leads to dozens and dozens of pages (i.e.the black hole).  Thank goodness the season is nearly upon us.  Good luck CBW.

[CBWx2]

In bold -- that's why it speaks to you, it fits your world view (i.e you think it is true anyway, that is why you seized on it)

No crap, genius, just like the blog post that you swiped from the Orlando Sentinel writer spoke to you.

A new story including Greer's comments does not make the comment factual. The only FACT was that the comment was made.  The polictical commentator is commenting on the (obvious) "why."

No, the political commentator is commenting on why he thinks the comments were made.

Again, this is more black hole stuff because I never claimed the quote to be a "definitive assessment." Neither did I "criticize [you] for quoting an actual news story about his comments."  I criticized you -- as I have done consistently -- for not knowing what you are talking about (see my comment above, you seize on things that speak to your point of view).

Just like you did by copy and pasting the blog post that you swiped from the Orlando Sentinel writer.

Even your latest comment illustrates this point as Greer's comments were not made because "he is on the outs" or no longer "has anything to lose by speaking his mind" (lol-that's funny). His comments were made (as anyone who spends a few seconds could read for themselves -- see, you like to read, but only things that play to your sensibilities) because he is under HUGE criminal and civil pressure.

So it is a 100% fact that he is lying about all of his allegations because he is facing charges? Are you some sort of human lie detector who can use clairvoyance to determine truth and lie in written statements? Or are you simply clinging to that narrative BECAUSE IT'S THE ONE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION???

Greer is under fire for money laundering and fraud. How exactly does this create criminal and civil pressure for him to claim that Republicans support voter suppression? How are making these claims going to help his defense, counselor? I'm not denying that these comments are in part being made for revenge, but that doesn't make them lies. Only proof of them not being true would make them lies, and despite you absurdly claiming otherwise, you do not know that they aren't true. You are ASSUMING that they aren't because, once again, IT SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION!!!!

Now, anyone who can read can see your typical "black hole" progression.  First, you posted the Greer article AS TRUTH.  When I pointed out that you were missing something (as you are wont to do), you tried to distance yourself from the article by saying "I only posted the article without comment," as if that somehow changed the fact that you posted it AS TRUTH.  When I called bull-spit, you just shifted to the comments in last couple posts and then ultimately to trying to turn it back on me (lol).  This is why your involvement in any discussion leads to dozens and dozens of pages (i.e.the black hole).  Thank goodness the season is nearly upon us.  Good luck CBW.

First of all, the article I posted on Greer WAS TRUTH, you moron, and I wasn't missing anything. Nor did I distance myself from the article. You've completely manufactured events in that pea brain of yours. Please go back and read that article, and point out anything in it that wasn't the truth, or that I tried to distance myself from? The only thing I denied was your claim that I was posting his remarks out if context, or that I had gotten them from a left-wing website, both of which were also manufactured by you.

Just try and reconcile your claim that I "post things from websites and try to pass them off as my own thoughts" and the fact that you stole an entire blog post, word for word, from an Orlando Sentinel writer and tried to pass it off as yours. You are a joke, dude. Good luck, peanut butter boy.

[spartan]

Just as an observation, and not meaning to interrupt your spat, but it strikes me that it probably isn't a good idea using someone who has just been indited for theft, fraud, money laundering and corruption as an example of truth and honesty.

[Biggs3535]

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120910/APN/1209100830

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - A Democratic congressional candidate from Maryland dropped out of the race Monday after that state's Democratic party said she had voted in both Maryland and Florida in the 2006 general election and the 2008 presidential primaries.

Wendy Rosen confirmed by phone to the Associated Press that she was withdrawing from the 1st District congressional race in eastern Maryland but otherwise declined to comment beyond a news release.

"Personal issues have made this the hardest decision that I have had to make," she said in a statement.

Nothing to see here, folks.

[dbucfan]

Sure is odd - and humorous in a predictable way. 

[spartan]

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120910/APN/1209100830

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - A Democratic congressional candidate from Maryland dropped out of the race Monday after that state's Democratic party said she had voted in both Maryland and Florida in the 2006 general election and the 2008 presidential primaries.

Wendy Rosen confirmed by phone to the Associated Press that she was withdrawing from the 1st District congressional race in eastern Maryland but otherwise declined to comment beyond a news release.

"Personal issues have made this the hardest decision that I have had to make," she said in a statement.

Nothing to see here, folks.

Nope, absolutely not. Because we have been told there is no voter fraud in this country.

[CBWx2]

At the risk of opening up another pointless conversation on the issue, how exactly would a voter ID law in either state or both states have prevented that from happening?