First, a definition:
Scandal
NOUN
An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.
A state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger.
Remember those two definitions.
Mohawk742 wrote:
1) Fast and Furious - That's not a scandal. That's an honest attempt at a sting that some lower echelon nobody in the middle of screwed up by "losing" the records of who got the guns.
Regardless how 'honest' the attempt was, it was still "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage".
Mohawk742 wrote:
2) IRS "targeting" conservative groups. Not really. Political activist groups aren't 501(9)(c) eligible in the first place.
IRS bureaucrats are tasked with processing all interactions in a prompt and courteous manner. This was neither prompt or courteous. In actuality, it was "a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger".
Mohawk742 wrote:
3) B******i - Oh please! That was never a scandal except for the scandal of Republicans down-funding the security of ALL embassies and consulates. Besides, Obama only had one such event on his watch. Georgie had how many? Twelve? Attacks on Embassies happen. It's up to the host country to provide actual protection. Six years and how many hundreds of millions of dollars in investigations and the House came up with...?
The 'embassy' at B******i was actually a small-arms distribution center and a cover for a CIA gunrunning operation in aid of the so-called 'Muslim Brotherhood' in an attempt to o*******w the Ghadaffi regime in Libya. Because of the stellar security surrounding a certain Secretary of State's email communications, the entire world knew exactly what was going on. The US government left those people to die, as such it was "An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong" and "a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible", both causing "general public outrage or anger". Lying about it didn't help, either.
Mohawk742 wrote:
4) Keep your doctor. It wasn't some Obamacare rule that ordered separation between doctors and patients. It was the fact that the policies in effect did not meet any sort of real standard. How would you like to have a $20,000 deductible? In addition, Obamacare did result in lower payments, especially for specialists. There was a surge of doctors opting out.
"It was the fact that the policies in effect did not meet any sort of real standard". Let me rephrase that a little: The politicians who were interfering with the healthcare market, that was made dysfunctional
specifically because of government interference, produced a nearly
1000-page bill that instituted policies that "did not meet any sort of real standard". These people dumped nearly 1000 pages of rules and regulations on an entire industry and failed to "meet any sort of real standard". I would most certainly describe that as "a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger". I'd go further and assert that 'public outrage or anger' is putting it very mildly. As for a "surge of doctors opting out", how would you like to get a 75% pay cut? There's another 'scandal'.
[quote=Mohawk742]5) VA Death List. Your own last point gives the lie to your entire premise (In case you don't remember: "...waited to be processed for an astounding 14 years!") Obviously a long-standing problem.And from my brother's experience, from at least the '70s. Again a down-funding issue of long standing and mostly Republican instigation.
"Obviously a long-standing problem. And from my brother's experience, from at least the '70s. Again a down-funding issue of long standing and mostly Republican instigation". Given. This was a problem from way back that should never have been allowed to continue, not by any administration. That does not detract from the fact that it is "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong" and "a state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible", both "causing general public outrage or anger".
Mohawk742 wrote:
6) Here's a scandal - fighting a war for six years off the books and blaming one's successor for the Deficit addition when he puts it ON the books.
7) Here's another scandal - Starting a war for no good reason, totally destroying a country's infrastructure and k*****g 4,000+ Americans and 100,000 or more of the target country's citizens, just to make a profit for your Vice President's employer.
Shall I go on?
I won't comment on those last two. Those aren't Obama's scandals. By the way, just so you know, pointing to someone else' shortcomings does not detract from the subject at hand.....