Decision 2012
Quote: EvenBobYes, I remember it took forever for Watergate to take
hold. Just like the IRS thing, most people haven't even
heard about it yet. It'll pick up steam as the year goes
on and they start calling witnesses and heads roll and
a Special Prosecutor is named. Nixon didn't resign till
over two years had elapsed.
Yep, Bob, just like you were right about the election.
Quote: EvenBob September 7, earlier in this threadNot as sweet as Nov 7th is going to be.
I don't see it. How does re-examining an application for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status for groups with the name Tea Party in them constitute "wrongdoing"?Quote: boymimboThe IRS controversy will likely turn out to not have violated any laws (though it is clearly wrongdoing)
Oh, snap!Quote: boymimboYep, Bob, just like you were right about the election.
Quote: s2dbakerI don't see it. How does re-examining an application for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status for groups with the name Tea Party in them constitute "wrongdoing"?
The question is how would you feel if they were re-examining the applications of gay advocacy groups a lot more than any other group?
Groups of ___________________ instead of ____________________ people?
Every application should be thoroughly examined. Not just one group of them.
What if you don't have the staff to thoroughly examine every application? You would come up with criteria for raising red flags. For example, if a group calls itself "Tea Party Patriots for the Election of Republicans", this might be something that required a second look but it didn't matter because every Tea Party group got their tax exempt status and THAT is the real scandal.Quote: RonCThe question is how would you feel if they were re-examining the applications of gay advocacy groups a lot more than any other group?
Groups of ___________________ instead of ____________________ people?
Every application should be thoroughly examined. Not just one group of them.
Quote: EvenBobYes, I remember it took forever for Watergate to take
hold. Just like the IRS thing, most people haven't even
heard about it yet. It'll pick up steam as the year goes
on and they start calling witnesses and heads roll and
a Special Prosecutor is named. Nixon didn't resign till
over two years had elapsed.
I grew up during Watergate and followed it very closely. 1st off Nixon was huge in 72 and McGovern was pretty much viewed as a clown. 72 Nixon, Mr anti communist, pulled off one of the greatest most memorable diplomatic international trips ever. Nixon went to China. This was incredibly huge back then. Bottom line, Nixon was viewed as a great International leader. Watergate was nothing back in the day, even with the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein, most Americans shrugged at the story. What changed everything were the bombshells. Nixon appoints a special prosecutor Cox to investigate this small matter. Cox gets close to uncovering the truth. Bombshell, Nixon orders Special Prosecutor fired simply because he's close to the truth. The Attorney General resigns rather then fire an honest prosecutor. Nixon orders next in line to fire Cox. Again Deputy Attorney General resigns rather then fire an honest prosecutor. Next in line finally obeys Nixon and fires Cox. That night Nixon lost the American people. Obvious obstruction of justice.
Can you imagine Obama appointing a special prosecutor, then ordering the firing and his administration resigning rather then firing a prosecutor.
The next bombshell sealed Nixon's fate. John Dean is testifying honestly. Nixon people are saying John Dean is a total liar. Boom Boom. There are tapes proving that everything Dean is saying is true. Boom Boom there are 18 min missing. Nixon has no support now. he resigns.
Just like the president's proclaiming that reporters have to be free to do their jobs and probe and challenge the government. Even if that government considers a longstanding and unquestionable professional like James Rosen a flight risk and proceeds to invade the privacy of his aged and distant parents.Quote: EvenBobWe need to look into tougher laws so the AP incident can't happen again.
Quote: boymimboYep, Bob, just like you were right about the election.
Lets see who has the last laugh.
Quote: boymimbo
The IRS controversy will likely turn out to not have violated any laws.
Please tell me you're joking. You think all this
is about a faux pas? You think the woman took
the fifth because no laws were broken?
There's no bigger red flag for an administration
than when its members start taking the fifth in
front of congress.
Giggity :)Quote: EvenBobLets see who has the last laugh.
Quote: EvenBobLets see who has the last laugh.
Well, I had one, I can have another.
I apologize for the confusion.Quote: boymimboI said "they" - staunch Democrats, who clearly feel that many state governments attempted to pass voter ID laws, reduce voting windows, etc, in order to suppress voting efforts. This isn't my opinion.
Again, I don't see how you can come to these definitive conclusions after saying in one of your previous posts: "Let's put the Jump to Conclusions mat away for a second."Quote: boymimboThis is not Watergate...
...The IRS controversy will likely turn out to not have violated any laws (though it is clearly wrongdoing), nor did Benghazi (changing talking points is not breaking the law). The DoJ controversy was wrong, but they were trying to find leaks to the media, not interfere with an election.
I don't see anything that Obama did as impeachable.
Quote: boymimboYep, Bob, just like you were right about the election.
And you're what, Canadian? Who did you vote for? You
seem to think its an accomplishment that probably the
worst president in history got re-elected. Lets see how
the ignorant double digit IQ public likes what happens
next.
I didn't think it was an accomplishment that Bush got re-elected in 2004, but I thought it was inevitable given the opposition.
What happens next? The same thing that happened in Washington for the past four+ years, f**k all, because the government is no longer for the people. It's for the lobbyists, definitely. Rather than actually doing something to help Americans, Congress and the Senate decides to focus instead on talking points and "tea party".
It's kind of similar to the crack smoking controversy over the mayor 80 miles down the road or the Senate controversy we're having in Ottawa. Nobody cares.
Just do your damned job, the job we elected you to do.
Quote: EvenBobprobably the worst president in history got re-elected.
That settles it. Obama will be added to Mt Rushmore. Or on a coin. And a stamp. Probably name the street you live on after him.
Quote: s2dbaker...but it didn't matter because every Tea Party group got their tax exempt status and THAT is the real scandal.
I'm not sure that statement is correct. There is at least one lawsuit pending for the tax exempt status to be granted.
It isn't just that they scrutinized the applications by certain groups harder than others; they also used their powers to hassle people in their personal and business matters outside the 501(c)4 applications.
Your position seems to be that it is okay to harass one group of people just because they are __________.
The funny thing is there doesn't even seem to be any doubt about WHAT happened; just about whether or not any of it rises to the level of criminal activity and about who may have asked that it be done. To be defending that is pretty far out there, don't you think?
Quote: RonCI'm not sure that statement is correct.
It's not correct. There are a number of Tea Party groups who either gave up or whose status is still in limbo. Way to unite the country, Obama.
Quote: terapinedThe proof, A picture of my voter registration card
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22787213@N02/8809706447/
Well, I am Yoda. The proof—a picture of me:
Quote: s2dbakerI don't see it. How does re-examining an application for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status for groups with the name Tea Party in them constitute "wrongdoing"?
Why would it be OK to do this? What pattern of illegal activity did the Tea Party engage in that would warrant profiling?
What illegal activities did the Tea Party engage in at all?
Or is being against "Dear Leader" Obama illegal?
Benghazi--blaming it on something other than a coordinated attack (some video), promising to "get" the video's producer, allowing an ambassador to be poorly protected, failing to come to the aid of the folks once things started falling apart, and telling lies right and left.
IRS--sure targeting certain people who won't vote for your boss over those who will is the way to run an organization that is involved in every single life in America.
Justice Dept--Eric Holder had nothing to do with the Rosen investigation...except that he signed off on it. He said the same thing about Fast and Furious.
There ARE things here and the President is failing miserably at leading our country. Sure, his support is still high in the polls. Have you listened to man on the street interviews with people who simply aren't paying attention? They think he is great. The polls turned on Nixon and they will turn on him...it just takes the chronically uninformed longer to it all out.
Impeachment? Nothing rises to that level yet. Just let the administration continue to say nothing happened and things trickle out that will eventually erode his support. Maybe 2014 will turn in to a total disaster for the Democrats because President Obama failed to fix things in 2013.
Fixing them, making them right by making changes, is easily within his reach. Own up on Benghazi, fire Holder, fix the IRS and stop saying nothing happened...and he can make it better for him without hurting himself too badly.
Like Nixon, his ego and paranoia will get the better of him.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy would it be OK to do this? What pattern of illegal activity did the Tea Party engage in that would warrant profiling?
What illegal activities did the Tea Party engage in at all?
Or is being against "Dear Leader" Obama illegal?
The Tea Party is full of racists, as proven by a couple of freaks that attended rallies (maybe even plants from the other side) and had racists signs or said racist things, which is the very low standard of proof required by the left. Not that the vast majority are hard-working Americans that may have a different point of view than the Left. Demonization is better than conversation for them.
The groups on their side--those ones that camped out, crapped on cop cars, had rapes in tent cities, etc.--they are fine. Those folks didn't even have any real ideas to argue about...they just want everyone to share everything regardless of the talent or efforts put in by each person.
The Tea Party? They cleaned up after themselves, had peaceful gatherings, and I don't recall rapes or other crimes being reported all the time, but they were the bad ones. You don't need PROOF of anything to say that; you just need to say it and it is true. The thought police on the Left don't have time to win an argument because they have a better point--they'd rather call you a "terrorist" and move along.
Quote: Sabretom2I simply can't respect, nor would I be able to trust, anyone defending the actions of the IRS.
Amen.
Working. Having disposable income. Staying healthy. Putting food on the table. Planning a vacation. Spending time with family, friends. Having sex. Recreation. Paying less taxes. Spending less for goods and services.
They are tired of hearing the same bull shit from Washington. I am sure most Americans would prefer that meaningful and positive legislation gets passed rather than investigating things that don't affect them. The problem is that if meaningful and positive legislation gets passed it becomes a victory for the President, so let's not pass anything!!!
Going on a witchhunt is not going to serve the Republicans well.
The theme I hear on this thread is that Americans are stupid for supporting Obama. If the witchhunt is serving the Republicans, where are the numbers to support it?
Try a different strategy.
Quote: RonC
The Tea Party? They cleaned up after themselves, had peaceful gatherings, and I don't recall rapes or other crimes being reported all the time, but they were the bad ones. You don't need PROOF of anything to say that; you just need to say it and it is true. The thought police on the Left don't have time to win an argument because they have a better point--they'd rather call you a "terrorist" and move along.
Terrorist, racist, bigot, homophobe, hater obstructer, and a few others. They did try to place a few "plants" at Tea Party Rallies, said plants stood out like sore thumbs in signs, actions, and words. At the few rallies I was at you could not meet a nicer group of people.
Quote: boymimboThe theme I hear on this thread is that Americans are stupid for supporting Obama. If the witchhunt is serving the Republicans, where are the numbers to support it?
I don't think Americans are stupid for supporting Obama. I think informed Americans (that would be what I consider people here) are stupid if they blindly support Obama and don't want him to do a better job of running his administration. I thought the same thing about people who blindly supported Bush.
Those "average Americans" will not support Obama forever because they'll eventually figure out that he is not doing a great job. "Better than Romney" and "Better than McCain" is far lower than the bar he set for himself, yet he may even be falling short of reaching that level. Those work-a-day guys and gals out there figure these things out and turn hard if they feel they have been let down.
My point is that the President CAN fix most of this without losing support. I just don't think he will. I think his ego and his thin skin will not allow him to take the heat for anything and there will be a little heat in fixing it. Fixing it in 2013 and moving on would be better than letting it go into 2014.
In my opinion, that means that Republican leaders need to take a more neutral tone and make the public claim that the investigations will play themselves out but that "we want to do x, y, and z for the American people -- the democrats don't" and these scandals take away from that. That would be refreshing.
News is news. Let Rush and Hannity do their job to rally the tea party supporters but let the Republican lawmakers on the hill to try to do what's good for the American people.
Quote: boymimboIn my opinion, that means that Republican leaders need to take a more neutral tone and make the public claim that the investigations will play themselves out but that "we want to do x, y, and z for the American people -- the democrats don't" and these scandals take away from that. That would be refreshing.
Yes, it would be refreshing. Neither side is going to do it. They have forgotten how to do it. They are both in full attack mode all of the time.
Quote: boymimboI guess the question is "what's more important to the average American?"
Working. Having disposable income. Staying healthy. Putting food on the table. Planning a vacation. Spending time with family, friends. Having sex. Recreation. Paying less taxes. Spending less for goods and services.
They are tired of hearing the same bull shit from Washington. I am sure most Americans would prefer that meaningful and positive legislation gets passed rather than investigating things that don't affect them. The problem is that if meaningful and positive legislation gets passed it becomes a victory for the President, so let's not pass anything!!!
Going on a witchhunt is not going to serve the Republicans well.
The theme I hear on this thread is that Americans are stupid for supporting Obama. [No, we just don't understand why people blindly defend him] If the witchhunt is serving the Republicans, where are the numbers to support it?
Try a different strategy.
My god...substitute the word "Democrats" for "Republicans", and this comes straight out of the Nixon playbook.
Quote: RonCDemonization is better than conversation for them.
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said that "dissent is patriotic"? My, how things change.
Quote: Beethoven9thRemember when Nancy Pelosi said that "dissent is patriotic"? My, how things change.
What I love about these conversations is how one side says that the other side is only about politicizing the issue...the truth is that both sides are not as true to their ideals as they are to their chance to win. They aren't statesmen in general; they are career politicians.
I first saw Sen.Nelson (D-FL) in the early 70's as a speaker at a Boy Scout gathering. 40 years later, he is still a politician and he really has done very little over his career except stay elected.
His own Senate biography is light on accomplishments for someone with this many years of elected service:
http://www.billnelson.senate.gov/about/biography.cfm
Read carefully--this is a case I know of; I am 100% certain everyone can find someone of the other party with a record of getting elected continually and not much more. It just happens he is a Democrat; I'd say the same thing if he was a Republican.
There is a whole class that do little but get elected...
Quote: RonCI'm not sure that statement is correct. There is at least one lawsuit pending for the tax exempt status to be granted.
It isn't just that they scrutinized the applications by certain groups harder than others; they also used their powers to hassle people in their personal and business matters outside the 501(c)4 applications.
Bingo. THAT'S the scandal.
There's one question on whether a group is or is not political (for purposes of tax exemption), and another on scrutinizing that groups members to a level well beyond that necessary to answer the first.
Or the whole system is bunk if it takes that much investigation to determine tax exempt status.
(And this poll is considered "optimistic"!)
Quote: boymimboI just think there's a better way to win Congressional seats in 2014 than trying to milk three scandals. I think it would be far better to let the scandals play themselves out and attack policy.
In my opinion, that means that Republican leaders need to take a more neutral tone and make the public claim that the investigations will play themselves out but that "we want to do x, y, and z for the American people -- the democrats don't" and these scandals take away from that. That would be refreshing.
Um...that's exactly what they're doing. I can't of a single congressional Republican who is talking about the 2014 campaign.
Quote: Beethoven9thRemember when Nancy Pelosi said that "dissent is patriotic"? My, how things change.
Or better yet Hillary:
“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
Well, you can be paranoid and think that the government is out to get you or you can be realistic and see that the IRS was seeking to restrict political groups from getting tax exempt status that is reserved for charities. I think you'll go with the former since you actually use phrases like "Dear Leader".Quote: AZDuffmanWhy would it be OK to do this? What pattern of illegal activity did the Tea Party engage in that would warrant profiling?
What illegal activities did the Tea Party engage in at all?
Or is being against "Dear Leader" Obama illegal?
Quote: s2dbakerWell, you can be paranoid and think that the government is out to get you or you can be realistic and see that the IRS was seeking to restrict political groups from getting tax exempt status that is reserved for charities. I think you'll go with the former since you actually use phrases like "Dear Leader".
I would say "be realistic" and ask how many groups with liberal-sounding names were given the same investigation. Since there were not nearly as many I will go with "out to get them" as that appears what it was.
manager, had his hands on everything. Obama is a macro
manager, he delegates every possible thing he can so he
has to do as little as he needs to. Both methods are equally
bad, as we're finding out. Carter was afraid to make any
decision about anything, Obama can't make decisions
because he has no information and everybody else is
running things. Obama is the the CEO who is always on
vacay and playing golf while his underlings sink the corporation
around him.
Quote: treetopbuddyA little harsh EvenBob. Clearly in 08 the country was blessed with the most accomplished President in the history of the U.S.......his bio was unmatched. Leave the great man alone, after all he cares about you.
Unmatched or non-existent?
Obama didn't tie his transgendered nanny to the roof of his car to take her on an international trip and then hose her down with water when she defecated all over herself out of shear terror.Quote: Beethoven9thThe media's a joke when it comes to Obama's background. For example, I recently read that he was raised by a transgender nanny in Indonesia. Not that disqualifies him from office or anything, but can you imagine all the fuss if Romney or McCain had a transgender nanny?? Heck, the media was castigating Romney over his freakin dog.
Actually, I knew about the nanny so it couldn't have been the media's fault.
Quote: s2dbakerObama didn't tie his transgendered nanny to the roof of his car to take her on an international trip and then hose her down with water when she defecated all over herself out of shear terror.
...but Obama does allow his own brother to live on $1 per month in a small hut. What a great guy!
Quote: s2dbakerActually, I knew about the nanny so it couldn't have been the media's fault.
The media harps on certain stories and lets others go. It let that one go. OTOH, while I don't like Howard Dean, the media harped on his now-infamous scream during the 2004 Democratic primaries. (Probably because they wanted Kerry as the nominee instead).
OTOH, Romney was an intelligent man when he choice to take his dog on top of the roof on a 650 mile drive. And it wasn't as if it was only the Democrats or the media that attacked him -- Gingrich put an attack ad up on the dog, and Santorum attacked Romney's character over the dog incident during the primaries. Most people think that putting a dog on top of your car in a kennel is inhumane, by a factor of 2:1.
Politics is cruel. You betcha!
Quote: Beethoven9thThe media was a joke when it came to covering Obama's background.
Well, they didn't take on the important birth certificate issue to the depths it was taken by the nutcases.
Quote: boymimboYeah, this story is over a year old. Did Barack have a choice over his nanny? Does having a L/G/B/T nanny affect Obama's future role as president?
You missed my point, so I'll repeat: The media wouldn't have let this story fade away had Romney or McCain had a transgender nanny, and they certainly wouldn't have waited until Romney/McCain was campaigning for a 2nd term.
Quote: boymimboOTOH, Romney was an intelligent man when he choice to take his dog on top of the roof on a 650 mile drive. And it wasn't as if it was only the Democrats or the media that attacked him -- Gingrich put an attack ad up on the dog, and Santorum attacked Romney's character over the dog incident during the primaries. Most people think that putting a dog on top of your car in a kennel is inhumane, by a factor of 2:1.
Politics is cruel. You betcha!
But guess what? Obama was an intelligent man when he chose to allow his own brother to live on $1/month in a small hut.
Do most people think that a very wealthy man allowing his own brother to live on a dollar per month is inhumane, by a factor of 2:1? You betcha!
Quote: rxwineWell, they didn't take on the important birth certificate issue to the depths it was taken by the nutcases.
That isn't surprising at all.
