Obama Aide Pfeiffer on IRS Scandal: 'Law Is Irrelevant' by Jongsstraw

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Obama Aide Pfeiffer on IRS Scandal: 'Law Is Irrelevant'

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 04:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1006
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:49 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pfeiffer-irs-scandal-law-irrelevan
t_724883.html

Wonder if his Harvard law professor boss agrees with him.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:53 AM

STORYMARK

Cute how you frame that, as if he's saying what happned was ok, when if you watch tyhe clip, its pretty clear he's saying the opposite.

"The activity was outrageous and inexcusable."

Just jongsie being a dick, again.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:12 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I didn't "frame" anything. The man said the law is irrelevant. He said it on a national Sunday morning show with CBS News' Bob Schieffer.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:48 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I didn't "frame" anything. The man said the law is irrelevant. He said it on a national Sunday morning show with CBS News' Bob Schieffer.

And yet YOU clearly distorted his meaning, not even bothering ( no, deliberately removing) his VERY NEXT SENTENCE. It's called "quoting out of context", something you right wingnuts are often accused of. Even the Standard, biased though they are, gives him his next sentence. Never seen such a blatant example before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:28 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Nothing was distorted. He was even asked ( wasn't it Stephanopolus ?) who asked him if he really wanted to stay with saying that?

This admin is completely lawless.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:32 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing was distorted. He was even asked ( wasn't it Stephanopolus ?) who asked him if he really wanted to stay with saying that?

This admin is completely lawless.

Right. Pfeiffer did the Sunday rounds like Susan Rice did on Benghazi. It was actually Schieffer who asked Pfeiffer "Why are you here? Why isn’t the White House Chief of Staff here?" Bob can still dish it out with the best of them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:15 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing was distorted.

Even the Guardian gives the guy the VERY NEXT SENTENCE.So does the video tape the Guardian gives the link to.

I'm Done with you two. I've proven Rap wrong on FACTS often enough to declare that he has no credibility. This proves Jong guilty of blatant partisan distortion. Zero credibility.

The phrase "lying sack of gose" comes to mind.

Oh, well, traffic in RWED will drop off. I'm not going to respond to anything either one posts except with "Liar, Liar, pants on Fire!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

None of that should surprise you, NewOld; none of it is new, and it will never change.

For those who don't want to bother with the link, his exact quote was: "Look, I can't speak to the law here," he said. "The law is irrelevant. The activity was outrageous and inexcusable." In other words, he even PREFACED it with the statement that he's not ABLE to speak to the issue of law, that the law ASIDE, EVEN IF IT WAS LEGAL, it was outrageous and inexcusable. Shows just how far some are willing to reach to try and make a point which is actually the exact opposite of what the person quoted made.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE