Latest posts

Re: *New SH!* Check it Out!!

I have joined 6 sites since SH went down and 3 are almost indentical. Wouldn't it be better to have one great site than a whole bunch of half-assed ones?

Re: Americans who share “technical data” about a firearm without first obtaining permission would face time in jail.

This is, of course, another lie created by the NRA to scare the weak minded into buying more guns.  The regulations do not have any such provisions.

Re: *New SH!* Check it Out!!

I have to agree... It is nice people are finding ways in getting Sodahead friends together, but I already belong to not one, but three sites

Re: ALERT: Obama Writes New Laws To Throw People In PRISON For Talking About GUNS On The Internet #2A #NRA

You don't honestly expect anyone to believe this nonsense, do you?  Because, if you do, it's really not a good idea to post a link to the actual regulations - which have nothing in there about suppressing free speech.

You'd think the simple fact that it's been six and a half years since the NRA tried to convince the gun nuts that Obama planned to take everyone's guns away, and yet you all still can cling to your guns as much as ever, would teach you folks not to take anything the NRA says seriously, but I guess that's asking too much.

Re: *New SH!* Check it Out!!

That is great but not another site. Since the demise of SH, SH clones are popping up everywhere, with the same questions, same format and so on. It would great if some of you teamed up to make one killer site.

Re: Is the liberal left destroying our nation?

Just more Blather.................NOT

Re: Which policy failure will Barrack Obama be most remembered for(please be specific), and is there any fixing his legacy this late in the game?

The President has not had any policy failures.  His biggest mistake was his early decision not to prosecute George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz for their war crimes and complete disregard for the United States Constitution.  However, I'm not sure that counts as a "policy" failure so much as a naive decision based on the false assumption that the Republicans would work with him to improve our nation.

‘An amazingly scandal-free administration’

On a recent episode of PBS's "NewsHour," a media panel reflected on former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R) sex scandal and reflected on whether politics "attracts" people prone to abuses and misbehavior.

New York Times columnist David Brooks, a center-right pundit, highlighted a notable exception.

"I have my disagreements, say, with President Obama, but President Obama has run an amazingly scandal-free administration, not only he himself, but the people around him. He's chosen people who have been pretty scandal-free.

"And so there are people in Washington who do set a standard of integrity, who do seem to attract people of quality."

PBS commentator Mark Shields responded that Brooks raised "a good point," adding, "I agree with him on this administration in particular."

I think this is an under-appreciated point. White House scandals over the years have become so common, they're almost expected – given the size and scope of the executive branch, allegations of misconduct are bound to be part of an administration's tenure. The question is the severity of the scandals, not whether they'll exist.

But Brooks is right to give President Obama and his team credit for keeping its nose clean. When my old pals at the Washington Monthly put together a list of Obama's top 50 accomplishments, it took note of the president's ability to avoid scandal as among its more notable achievements: Obama has "served longer than any president in decades without a scandal."

It's even a point of pride among insiders. David Axelrod recently boasted, "I'm proud of the fact that basically you have had an administration in this place for six years in which there hasn't been a major scandal. And I think that says a lot about the ethical strictures of this administration."

I realize, of course, that for the right, these assessment seem outrageous, if not ridiculous. My inbox will no doubt soon fill up with emails from conservatives demanding to know how I can think Obama's tenure has bene scandal free in light of Benghazi, IRS "targeting," et al.

But in order for a story to be a proper, legitimate White House "scandal," there actually has to be some hint of wrongdoing from someone in the White House. Made-up controversies that didn't amount to anything shouldn't be taken seriously.

Indeed, as we discussed a while back, it must be incredibly frustrating for the right that after six years, the near-constant search for a legitimate White House scandal has produced bupkis. Every few months, Republicans and some of the Beltway media are convinced they've uncovered "Obama's Watergate," but the controversies are always a mirage that disappear under scrutiny.

Of course, there's still a year and a half to go, and maybe some actual controversy will still tarnish the White House and the president's legacy. It seems unlikely, but I suppose Obama's critics can hold out some hope that something will turn up.

But as things stand, Brooks' assessment of "an amazingly scandal-free administration" rings true.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/amazingly-scandal-free-administration?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Re: Is the liberal left destroying our nation?

The left are the ones PROTECTING the religious freedoms of others.  It is the Right Wing that has increasingly pushed the absurd idea that in order for YOU to exercise religious freedom you have to suppress the freedom of others.  You think the bible disapproves of abortion, so someone ELSE can't have one.  You think the bible condemns homosexuals, so THEY can't get married.  You think that using birth control is sinful so someone ELSE can't use any.

*New SH!* Check it Out!!

Took me 2 days to build this Site . Still under construction but I think it looks promising, I have added all the old SH topics, News & Politics , Sports , Music, Fun,  Living etc. Also has a rate up and rate down option for all comments.
 No points/ leaderboard but if enough people want it back I will look into it

Only big problem is it is restricted to 50 members MAX! (Not my decision, it is a cost issue!) Depending on the popularity of the new site, I WiLL be making an identical one to accommodate other former SH's.

NEW SITE:   sodahead2.spruz.com