Video: Obama In Tonight's Late Show With David Letterman

[Ulysses G.]

How is it that Obama isn't at the very least being put through similar proceedings in the Congress that culminated in Richard Nixon facing impeachment for what seemed to me to be a less serious transgression?

Obama is a democrat. Nixon was a republican. It is as simple as that.

[Ulysses G.]

Oh, you mean to say that people ON THIS THREAD (me included) are attempting to demonize Romney and his religion? And it has somehow not affected the national polls?

There is nothing original on this thread. All of the criticisms of Romney are straight from Slate and Media Matters and other left leaning media. THAT is what affects the national polls.

[Ulysses G.]

Again: I've done some study of Mormonism. I've also lived in Utah and have family there. I have some basis for my commentary -- how about you? I'd be interested to hear what you have other than ardent and blinding political partisanship.

I have been exposed to many wacky religious ideas and practices in my lifetime. I just don't see Mormonism as any crazier than the rest.

[Chicog]

At this stage I am totally astonished that Obama is even able to proceed to the election as if it is business as usual and that there are still so many people even willing to consider voting for the President given the seriousness of the fast and furious scandal and the absolutely stunning information which is coming out now (although only drip fed) regarding the debacle in Libya.

As a non-American but nevertheless an interested observer in what happens in USA I can't help wondering why Richard Nixon was facing impeachment over a single scandal which on the face of it look much less serious than the two major scandals facing the Obama administration which looks much more like deliberate lying to the people?

How is it that Obama isn't at the very least being put through similar proceedings in the Congress that culminated in Richard Nixon facing impeachment for what seemed to me to be a less serious transgression?

To which two "scandals" are you referring?

[Asiantravel]

At this stage I am totally astonished that Obama is even able to proceed to the election as if it is business as usual and that there are still so many people even willing to consider voting for the President given the seriousness of the fast and furious scandal and the absolutely stunning information which is coming out now (although only drip fed) regarding the debacle in Libya.

As a non-American but nevertheless an interested observer in what happens in USA I can't help wondering why Richard Nixon was facing impeachment over a single scandal which on the face of it look much less serious than the two major scandals facing the Obama administration which looks much more like deliberate lying to the people?

How is it that Obama isn't at the very least being put through similar proceedings in the Congress that culminated in Richard Nixon facing impeachment for what seemed to me to be a less serious transgression?

To which two "scandals" are you referring?

1. The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate

Be patient, conservatives. It took nearly eight months for the Watergate break in to become a national news story. But when it finally did, it toppled a President.

mmmm..... maybe the elections should be postponed.....?

http://blogs.telegra...amas-watergate/

2. Benghazi Terrorist Attack Turning into a Full-Blown Scandal for Barack Obama

The dam is starting to break on Barack Obama and his adminstration regarding the growing scandal of what happened in the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya – the attack that Obama and his people have repeatedly claimed was only a spontaneous riot over a video.

http://freedomslight...rity-prior/

Edited October 11, 2012 by Asiantravel

[Asiantravel]

To which two "scandals" are you referring?

Actually I forgot about the third one! This is truly amazing and if he gets back into office despite these matters hanging over him, think of what he will get away with over the next four years?

3. Obama's Debacle in Denver and the Global Campaign Funding Scandal

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. ~Barack H. Obama, 2010 State of the Union address

http://www.examiner....funding-scandal

Edited October 11, 2012 by Asiantravel

[koheesti]

Catholics go back to about the year 107. Mormons go back to about 1820, when Joseph Smith was visited by a salamander who told him the marvels of the universe.

Church of England - back to 1530's

Lutherans & Presbyterians - back 1500's

Baptists - back to 1600's

Methodists - back to 1700's

Pentacostal snake handling - back to early 1900's

Scientology - back to 1950's

I was raised Roman Catholic, but have been a non-practising one since I left home in the 80's. I consider that if your religion popped up after Columbus discovered America, 1500 years after the death of Christ, criticizing Mormons for being a cult is a case of people in glass houses throwing stones.

What about if you don't have a religion? What kind of house do I live in and can throw what I want to?

As long as you're an equal opportunity stone thrower, have at it.

Edited October 11, 2012 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

I remember hearing Fox news drones speaking out of one side of their mouths about Obama's radical association with Christian Wright, while ranting out of the other side about how Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim. Which is it?

I have heard plenty of talk on Fox News about Obama's radical association with Reverend Wright, but have never heard the commentators claiming that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim. It would be most illuminating to see a link to that.

[keemapoot]

I remember hearing Fox news drones speaking out of one side of their mouths about Obama's radical association with Christian Wright, while ranting out of the other side about how Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim. Which is it?

I have heard plenty of talk on Fox News about Obama's radical association with Reverend Wright, but have never heard the commentators claiming that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim. It would be most illuminating to see a link to that.

Most likely I imagined it, the same as I imagined the extensive coverage over the birther issue, (that Obama could not produce a U.S. birth certificate and should be expunged from the Presidency); the exhaustive coverage that Obama, having spent ages 6-10 in Indonesia irrevocably then formed Islamist revolutionary tendencies that have infiltrated his Presidency; and the Fox News and Roger Ailes overriding mission of making Obama a 1-term President. I most likely imagined all that. I'm sorry.

I forgot. Fox News is fair and balanced. And, I'm not even a Democrat, nor do I like Obama or think he's been an effective President!

Edited October 11, 2012 by keemapoot

[maidu]

At this stage I am totally astonished that Obama is even able to proceed to the election as if it is business as usual and that there are still so many people even willing to consider voting for the President given the seriousness of the fast and furious scandal and the absolutely stunning information which is coming out now (although only drip fed) regarding the debacle in Libya.

As a non-American but nevertheless an interested observer in what happens in USA I can't help wondering why Richard Nixon was facing impeachment over a single scandal which on the face of it look much less serious than the two major scandals facing the Obama administration which looks much more like deliberate lying to the people?

How is it that Obama isn't at the very least being put through similar proceedings in the Congress that culminated in Richard Nixon facing impeachment for what seemed to me to be a less serious transgression?

You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. If you want to blow it sky high as a big deal, you can do so. The Libya things was tragic in that several Americans died for no good reason. Some lower downs in the administration admitted there was some obfuscating (there was no concurrent riot). Perhaps someone should get reprimanded for allowing that consulate's security to be more lax than it should have been. the US State Dept is a large beast, and it's part of a much larger gov't. Trying to get poop to stick to Obama over a relatively isolated incident is grasping. If you want to research it further, while looking for someone to blame, you could blame the Republicans for often wanting to lessen the State Dept's budget, which affects security.

I've seen the Republican attack machine take relatively insignificant things like the 'swift boat backlash' (or even non-existant things) and try to blow them up to gargantuan proportions. It's not pretty, and it probably turns off a lot more people than it impresses. If you want to look at a scandal, look at Reagan giving his personal blessing to the plan to clandestinely ship weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras -weapons which were bought from Iran, and secretly shipped to the Contras. At least there was a direct link to the president, who was underhandedly defying congress, and lying about it.

Edited October 11, 2012 by maidu

[Ulysses G.]

I remember hearing Fox news drones speaking out of one side of their mouths about Obama's radical association with Christian Wright, while ranting out of the other side about how Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim. Which is it?

I have heard plenty of talk on Fox News about Obama's radical association with Reverend Wright, but have never heard the commentators claiming that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim. It would be most illuminating to see a link to that.

I forgot. Fox News is fair and balanced.

I take it that you can not provide any proof that Fox has claimed that "Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim."

Edited October 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Asiantravel]

At this stage I am totally astonished that Obama is even able to proceed to the election as if it is business as usual and that there are still so many people even willing to consider voting for the President given the seriousness of the fast and furious scandal and the absolutely stunning information which is coming out now (although only drip fed) regarding the debacle in Libya.

As a non-American but nevertheless an interested observer in what happens in USA I can't help wondering why Richard Nixon was facing impeachment over a single scandal which on the face of it look much less serious than the two major scandals facing the Obama administration which looks much more like deliberate lying to the people?

How is it that Obama isn't at the very least being put through similar proceedings in the Congress that culminated in Richard Nixon facing impeachment for what seemed to me to be a less serious transgression?

You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. If you want to blow it sky high as a big deal, you can do so. The Libya things was tragic in that several Americans died for no good reason. Some lower downs in the administration admitted there was some obfuscating (there was no concurrent riot). Perhaps someone should get reprimanded for allowing that consulate's security to be more lax than it should have been. the US State Dept is a large beast, and it's part of a much larger gov't. Trying to get poop to stick to Obama over a relatively isolated incident is grasping. If you want to research it further, while looking for someone to blame, you could blame the Republicans for often wanting to lessen the State Dept's budget, which affects security.

I've seen the Republican attack machine take relatively insignificant things like the 'swift boat backlash' (or even non-existant things) and try to blow them up to gargantuan proportions. It's not pretty, and it probably turns off a lot more people than it impresses. If you want to look at a scandal, look at Reagan giving his personal blessing to the plan to clandestinely ship weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras -weapons which were bought from Iran, and secretly shipped to the Contras. At least there was a direct link to the president, who was underhandedly defying congress, and lying about it.

Oh I don't think so.

Anyway we could both argue as to the gravity of the events surrounding the death of the US ambassador in Libya till the cows come home. But at the end of the day you have to admit that to have not one but three major scandals affecting the Obama administration on the go simultaneously is simply astonishing.

There are those that say that what Richard Nixon did wasn't so bad either and yet he was hounded out of office.

Doesn't seem particularly fair or balanced does it?

Edited October 11, 2012 by Asiantravel

[koheesti]

To which two "scandals" are you referring?

Actually I forgot about the third one! This is truly amazing and if he gets back into office despite these matters hanging over him, think of what he will get away with over the next four years?

3. Obama's Debacle in Denver and the Global Campaign Funding Scandal

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. ~Barack H. Obama, 2010 State of the Union address

http://www.examiner....funding-scandal

No matter how much evidence there is against Obama, trying to impeach him would be akin to putting on a white robe with a pointed hat, shoving a burning cross up his _____ and hanging him from a tree in the eyes of the mainstream media. Nixon was a Quaker, nothing racist in going after them/

[Jingthing]

...

There are those that say that what Richard Nixon did wasn't so bad either and yet he was hounded out of office.

...

Not exactly.

http://www.washingto...i0NV_story.html

Woodward and Bernstein: 40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought

All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Woodward and Bernstein: 40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought

All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

I can't even imagine the things historians will say about Obama 40 years later. I'm sure they won't have chills running up their legs and that doesn't bode well for Obama's legacy.

[koheesti]

David Letterman went on for about 10 minutes the other day, apologizing his audience for the difficulty he's been having getting Romney on the show.

After taking a jab at Mitt's wife Ann and their sons, the obsessed Letterman recalled previous attacks he made on Romney. Letterman noted the time he had Romney sing the Mormon "anthem," portrayed him as a bully, and made it seem like he played a wealthy tycoon on the daytime soap opera "The Young and the Restless."

And, of course, Letterman took a gratuitous swipe at Romney for putting his dog in its kennel and placing it on top of the family car. Letterman finally decided to attribute this as the reason Romney refuses to appear on his program.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/11/letterman_again_complains_romney_wont_appear_on_show_cites_his_previous_attacks.htm

l

Maybe old man Letterman isn't as senile as was previously thought. He actually thinks that relentless attacks and insults may have made someone decline being a guest on his show.

[Asiantravel]

Woodward and Bernstein: 40 years after Watergate, Nixon was far worse than we thought

All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.

I can't even imagine the things historians will say about Obama 40 years later. I'm sure they won't have chills running up their legs and that doesn't bode well for Obama's legacy.

I just substituted Richard Nixon's name with Obama's name and searched using the following

Obama willing to disregard the law for political advantage

In the past, Obama has flagrantly violated the law and has essentially led a campaign to undermine the constitution.

One thing you can't accuse Richard Nixon of was undermining the Constitution

http://www.capitalis...panies-bribery/

Obama looks for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an the main principle of his presidency

Why Does Obama Insist On Romney Releasing His Tax Records?

The answer to the question is, Obama likes digging up dirt on his opponents, especially when “Hope and Change” has turned into “Brother, can you spare a dime.” There is no low Obama won’t stoop to in order to win. He hasn’t finished transforming our nation. So expect to hear the tired old meme about Romney’s tax returns from now until November. Just remember, this is how Obama operates.

http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/08/why-does-obama-insist-on-romney-releasing-his-tax-records/

Edited October 11, 2012 by Asiantravel

[maidu]

At this stage I am totally astonished that Obama is even able to proceed to the election as if it is business as usual and that there are still so many people even willing to consider voting for the President given the seriousness of the fast and furious scandal and the absolutely stunning information which is coming out now (although only drip fed) regarding the debacle in Libya.

As a non-American but nevertheless an interested observer in what happens in USA I can't help wondering why Richard Nixon was facing impeachment over a single scandal which on the face of it look much less serious than the two major scandals facing the Obama administration which looks much more like deliberate lying to the people?

How is it that Obama isn't at the very least being put through similar proceedings in the Congress that culminated in Richard Nixon facing impeachment for what seemed to me to be a less serious transgression?

You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. If you want to blow it sky high as a big deal, you can do so. The Libya things was tragic in that several Americans died for no good reason. Some lower downs in the administration admitted there was some obfuscating (there was no concurrent riot). Perhaps someone should get reprimanded for allowing that consulate's security to be more lax than it should have been. the US State Dept is a large beast, and it's part of a much larger gov't. Trying to get poop to stick to Obama over a relatively isolated incident is grasping. If you want to research it further, while looking for someone to blame, you could blame the Republicans for often wanting to lessen the State Dept's budget, which affects security.

I've seen the Republican attack machine take relatively insignificant things like the 'swift boat backlash' (or even non-existant things) and try to blow them up to gargantuan proportions. It's not pretty, and it probably turns off a lot more people than it impresses. If you want to look at a scandal, look at Reagan giving his personal blessing to the plan to clandestinely ship weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras -weapons which were bought from Iran, and secretly shipped to the Contras. At least there was a direct link to the president, who was underhandedly defying congress, and lying about it.

Oh I don't think so.

Anyway we could both argue as to the gravity of the events surrounding the death of the US ambassador in Libya till the cows come home. But at the end of the day you have to admit that to have not one but three major scandals affecting the Obama administration on the go simultaneously is simply astonishing.

There are those that say that what Richard Nixon did wasn't so bad either and yet he was hounded out of office. Doesn't seem particularly fair or balanced does it?

You're coming quite close to trolling. I should probably let you rant in your corner, but you jangled my bells. First off, saying 'you have to admit...' I don't have to admit anything. I know it's a manner of speech, but please don't assume my ideas sinc with yours.

Bringing Nixon in to this discussion is out of line.

...and you're trying get us on the alarmist bandwagon with you, by implying there are Three major scandals re; Obama. I count zero, unless I choose some sort of twisted alarmist conspiracy theory litmus test - even then, I count zero scandals, major or not.

I imagine if you see a cockroach in someone's house, you go out in the street yelling, "That person's house is riven with pestilence, burn it down, before we all become innundated with vermin!!!"

[nurofiend]

There are those that say that what Richard Nixon did wasn't so bad

i love that line... 'those', meaning republicans

[SteeleJoe]

There are those that say that what Richard Nixon did wasn't so bad

i love that line... 'those', meaning republicans

I don't think there are even many Republicans that would say that -- and even fewer who'd say it on the record.

This joker is either trolling, extremely ignorant, or a bit of a nutcase: waste of time.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[bendejo]

The bottom fell out for Nixon when his party (GOP) told him it was time for him to step down. The man who personally, in the form of a letter, relayed this to him was George HW Bush, head of the RNC at the time.

Interesting thing is that VP who came in with his (re-) election had been removed office due to corruption charges, so the guy who became president was someone who never ran for a national office.

There was a story that Nixon wanted something installed in all televisions that would enable him to break into anything they were watching and address the populace. Let's hear Ailes talk about this one.

[keemapoot]

Just finished watching last night's Bill Maher show, and he had an interesting guest. No, not caustic Ann Coulter, or big mouth Ben Affleck who were also on the show, but Sheila Bar, the George W., Republican appointee former Chair of the FDIC. But first, a funny crack that got howls he made about the Biden/Ryan debate:

I have not seen an old Catholic guy give it to a young Catholic guy like that since I was an altar boy!

Back to Bar,

In 2009, Bair was named one of Time magazine’s “Time 100” most influential people. In 2008, Bair topped The Wall Street Journal’s annual 50 “Women to Watch List.” In 2008 and 2009, Forbesranked her as the second most powerful woman in the world behind German chancellorAngela Merkel. Forbes described her FDIC office as "the last stop for capital-starved banks (and their insured customers) before going under."^[12]

she made some interesting points and comments. When asked if she supported Romney, she said no, nor Obama, and she explained why. She said neither Romney nor Obama is talking about financial reform. The reason we have a bad economy is because of the financial crisis. We're not going to have a healthy economy until we have a stable financial system, which we do not have right now. She said the bond market is the next bubble, and had a lot to say about how Dodd Frank implementation has been faulty and how the irony is that the big banks are almost as profitable now as they were pre-crisis.

[keemapoot]

As a political comedian whose material hinges on every move Romney makes, Colbert had an interesting and honest (out of character) assessment of what kind of President Romney might make on Sunday's "Meet the Press." (video also in the link but doesn't work in Thailand).

Colbert, the performer, did not give an edge to either candidate. "I also don't know how Mitt Romney would govern," he said. "He might govern as a technocrat. You know, that sort of seems to have been his career, like, the guy from Pepsi who comes in to run G.M. You know, he can't tell us what he's going to do, 'cause he hasn't seen the books yet. But we don't know, because he seems absolutely sincere as a moderate. And he also seems pretty sincere as a severe conservative. That's not a dig. It's honest confusion."

http://news.yahoo.co...--election.html

I think Colbert misstated how Romney might rule as a businessman. Romney was no technocrat. He was a business leader, risk taker, and CEO. True, he never ran other than a financial company, but I don't see him as a technocrat. Regarding which Romney will show up in the White House, moderate vs. conservative - we'll see how large the markers are to the Evangelicals, for example, and what kind of vig they need for payback (Supreme court judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, for example).

[Ulysses G.]

I think that Colbert is a lot more worried about being funny than being accurate and he does a darn good job when it comes to that.

[koheesti]

As a political comedian whose material hinges on every move Romney makes, Colbert had an interesting and honest (out of character) assessment of what kind of President Romney might make on Sunday's "Meet the Press." (video also in the link but doesn't work in Thailand).

Colbert, the performer, did not give an edge to either candidate. "I also don't know how Mitt Romney would govern," he said. "He might govern as a technocrat. You know, that sort of seems to have been his career, like, the guy from Pepsi who comes in to run G.M. You know, he can't tell us what he's going to do, 'cause he hasn't seen the books yet. But we don't know, because he seems absolutely sincere as a moderate. And he also seems pretty sincere as a severe conservative. That's not a dig. It's honest confusion."

http://news.yahoo.co...--election.html

I think Colbert misstated how Romney might rule as a businessman. Romney was no technocrat. He was a business leader, risk taker, and CEO. True, he never ran other than a financial company, but I don't see him as a technocrat. Regarding which Romney will show up in the White House, moderate vs. conservative - we'll see how large the markers are to the Evangelicals, for example, and what kind of vig they need for payback (Supreme court judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, for example).

1) Seeing Colbert out of character is rare. Too bad I can't see it either.

2) Politicians don't owe "payback" to groups (Evangelicals, gays, women , etc). They owe payback to wealthy donors (Goldman Sachs, Bill Maher , etc)

[Scott]

An off-topic walk down memory lane has been deleted.

[koheesti]

It's a irrelevant fact. No more relevant than Obama sealing his university transcripts. We, the voters, all know that Romney made a ton of money pre-2010 and that he donated about 10% because his religion tells him to (good for the recipients) and that his highly paid tax accountant used every legal means to save him money. At the same time, we also know Obama had his transcripts sealed because he got into Columbia and Harvard not because of his grades (they were low, as has become obvious) but most likely because of his skin color. In addition to benefiting from Affirmative Action, Obama also probably took classes on Marxism which he alludes to in his own memoirs (I forget which volume).

So OF COURSE Romney doesn't want to highlight the fact that he is in the 1% no more than Obama wants to highlight the fact that he isn't an all-too-bright closet Marxist. It's sill really, both men going to such great extent to hide what the public already knows. But in the end, the country has more important issues to worry about and for Obama's sake, I hope he can study and memorize what they are by his next debate against Romney or else he will be one highly-paid speaker on the lecture circuit next year...not too bad for a "genius" C-student.

The crux of your argument is that the President's academic records are as important as the documents related to a presidential candidates tax avoidance.

Your obsession over Mr. Obama's academic record arises from allegations that the transfer students from Columbia in his year had lower SAT scores than usual. Big <deleted> deal. My SAT scores sucked too and I went on to pick up some parchment paper from respecatble universities. You conveniently overlook the fact that Mr. Obama received his J.D. from Harvard, magna cum laude. Harvard does not hand out the acadameic recognition of mcl on a whim. Had the man been as dumb as you are suggesting he would not have graduated at the top of his class, nor would he have achieved the distinction as the President of the Harvard Law Review. You just don't get that position if you are a dunce.

Harvard is famous for grade inflation. Nearly 80% graduate with honors and a majority get A's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#Harvard_University

Your continued emphasis on the bogeyman of "Marxism" is laughable. You are like a throwback to the McCarthy era where you see a red under every bed. I certainly hope he would have taken a course in Marxism, as his undergrad in polysci would have been incomplete otherwise.

I'm glad you think it's funny. After Biden's debate, it's obvious people should worry when Obama supporters begin to laugh. Obama's connections to Marxism go much deeper than taking one class to complete his undergrad studies and you know it. Ignore it if you want, laugh if you want, it doesn't change who/what Obama is.

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

This thread is well past its use-by date.

//Closed//