or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Obama Second Term: Scandals, bad economic performance, crony capitalism and terrible jobs for those that do have them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Obama Second Term: Scandals, bad economic performance, crony capitalism and terrible jobs for...

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 

So the Obama second term has gotten off to quite a terrible start. Those of us who apparently "denied" reality with regard to election outcomes have seen our reality vindicated with regard to the economy, and perhaps we were even right but those missing voters were being scared away by the DOJ and the IRS.

 

So now we have a thread where we can discuss the horrible outcomes of the second Obama term.

 

First up I found a neat article that summarized rather well what I have been witnessing in the home/rental market.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-07/guest-post-bernankes-neofeudal-rentier-economy

 

This summarizes exactly what has been going on in California. It certainly has benefitted someone like myself. While I'm not the one percent, I am a landlord and in addition to that, I have insanely good credit. So all my properties have been refinanced on 15 year notes at sub 4% interest. The savings over the life of the loan for me has been about $100k per property. One property wasn't offered a 15 year loan on streamline refi so we took the 30 year and when the payment dropped by several hundred dollars per month, we simply kept the payment the same. It now prepays the principle to the tune of an extra $450 a month. Each time this happens it knocks three months off the loan.

 

As for my poor renters, they really have had some problems as have many of my friends who became renters during the housing bubble. Every time they go to buy a house, they have been outbid by these investment funds who are buying houses, often above market prices now, and they are doing so with cash borrowed at zero percent from the federal government. It is yet another market distortion that is creating yet another bubble and of course no one will "see it" because it follows the rules that the "experts" claim are good for all of us.

 

Next we learn that the biggest creator of low wage jobs in the U.S. isn't Walmart or McDonalds but the Federal Government. You need not worry about their CEO's, they still make plenty of money.

 

Speaking of making plenty of money, guess who else does make plenty of money, often over a million dollars a year? That's right, college chiefs both public and private. We have to note public because we are told the government, with regulation protects us against all these horrible private excesses.

 

College education costs have been rising at double the rate of inflation for over a decade and student loan debt has topped a trillion dollars. Those loans of course are owed to the Federal Government and they are not able to be discharged in a personal bankruptcy. See unlike private banks, when the government makes a bad loan, there are no cramdowns, no write offs, nothing. They just have you owe it to them no matter what.

 

We also have Benghazi, the AP phone tapping scandal and the IRS targeting voters and groups of certain political persuasions but I'll let some other folks fill in the details there. I don't want to be the only one contributing there.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So the Obama second term has gotten off to quite a terrible start. Those of us who apparently "denied" reality with regard to election outcomes have seen our reality vindicated with regard to the economy, and perhaps we were even right but those missing voters were being scared away by the DOJ and the IRS.

So now we have a thread where we can discuss the horrible outcomes of the second Obama term.

First up I found a neat article that summarized rather well what I have been witnessing in the home/rental market.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-07/guest-post-bernankes-neofeudal-rentier-economy

This summarizes exactly what has been going on in California. It certainly has benefitted someone like myself. While I'm not the one percent, I am a landlord and in addition to that, I have insanely good credit. So all my properties have been refinanced on 15 year notes at sub 4% interest. The savings over the life of the loan for me has been about $100k per property. One property wasn't offered a 15 year loan on streamline refi so we took the 30 year and when the payment dropped by several hundred dollars per month, we simply kept the payment the same. It now prepays the principle to the tune of an extra $450 a month. Each time this happens it knocks three months off the loan.

As for my poor renters, they really have had some problems as have many of my friends who became renters during the housing bubble. Every time they go to buy a house, they have been outbid by these investment funds who are buying houses, often above market prices now, and they are doing so with cash borrowed at zero percent from the federal government. It is yet another market distortion that is creating yet another bubble and of course no one will "see it" because it follows the rules that the "experts" claim are good for all of us.

Next we learn that the biggest creator of low wage jobs in the U.S. isn't Walmart or McDonalds but the Federal Government. You need not worry about their CEO's, they still make plenty of money.

Speaking of making plenty of money, guess who else does make plenty of money, often over a million dollars a year? That's right, college chiefs both public and private. We have to note public because we are told the government, with regulation protects us against all these horrible private excesses.

College education costs have been rising at double the rate of inflation for over a decade and student loan debt has topped a trillion dollars. Those loans of course are owed to the Federal Government and they are not able to be discharged in a personal bankruptcy. See unlike private banks, when the government makes a bad loan, there are no cramdowns, no write offs, nothing. They just have you owe it to them no matter what.

We also have Benghazi, the AP phone tapping scandal and the IRS targeting voters and groups of certain political persuasions but I'll let some other folks fill in the details there. I don't want to be the only one contributing there.

So in other words he's on par for the course as far as presidents go.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #3 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

So in other words he's on par for the course as far as presidents go.

 

Nope, but thanks and try again.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #4 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Nope, but thanks and try again.

You're right, he's doing better than our previous president. Mr. Let's lie and start a war so my friends can get uber rich many times over.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #5 of 55

This is a terrible term for the President. I'm sure many of those whom in which supported his re-election are 'Hand in Mouth' ;-)

post #6 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Nope, but thanks and try again.

You're right, he's doing better than our previous president. Mr. Let's lie and start a war so my friends can get uber rich many times over.

 

You do realize that you can't really complain about someone starting a war when the next guy has continued those wars, the policies associated with them and started additional actions right? Obama has been in office longer than the Civil War, the Korean War and a year less than all of WWII. His leadership could and should have altered all bad policies from any prior president with regard to war.

 

Also suppose you were right and declared that Bush started a war so his rich friends could get even richer. How does that justify Obama continuing those wars and doubling down on them? How does that justify Obama borrowing more in 4.5 years than Bush borrowed in 8 years?

 

Your reasoning amounts to the prior president burned a house down so this guy can't possibly be held responsible for burning down an entire city block of buildings.

 

That's ridiculous. Especially when the current guy ran as a solution to the problem.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You do realize that you can't really complain about someone starting a war when the next guy has continued those wars, the policies associated with them and started additional actions right? Obama has been in office longer than the Civil War, the Korean War and a year less than all of WWII. His leadership could and should have altered all bad policies from any prior president with regard to war.

Also suppose you were right and declared that Bush started a war so his rich friends could get even richer. How does that justify Obama continuing those wars and doubling down on them? How does that justify Obama borrowing more in 4.5 years than Bush borrowed in 8 years?

Your reasoning amounts to the prior president burned a house down so this guy can't possibly be held responsible for burning down an entire city block of buildings.

That's ridiculous. Especially when the current guy ran as a solution to the problem.

So just abandon Iraq and tell them "Sorry"? It's much easier smearing shit than it is cleaning it up, and what we've done in Iraq is the mother of all shit smears.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #8 of 55
.
Edited by usarmyctr - 5/14/13 at 7:24pm
post #9 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by usarmyctr View Post

Bush saved how many countless lives in our backyard by taking action? Obama has continued the war, he's also the same president who said he would shut down Gitmo but then decided to continue its operation.

The same president who is too concerned and fearful of using the term "terrorist" unless of course he's caught in scandal and cover up (Benghazi) and tries to back-track.. But wait... It's always Bush's fault! Yea right... I'd love to have Bush back in office!

Yeah just send the men and women in our backyard to go get killed in Iraq. Those lives don't count I guess.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #10 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You do realize that you can't really complain about someone starting a war when the next guy has continued those wars, the policies associated with them and started additional actions right? Obama has been in office longer than the Civil War, the Korean War and a year less than all of WWII. His leadership could and should have altered all bad policies from any prior president with regard to war.

Also suppose you were right and declared that Bush started a war so his rich friends could get even richer. How does that justify Obama continuing those wars and doubling down on them? How does that justify Obama borrowing more in 4.5 years than Bush borrowed in 8 years?

Your reasoning amounts to the prior president burned a house down so this guy can't possibly be held responsible for burning down an entire city block of buildings.

That's ridiculous. Especially when the current guy ran as a solution to the problem.

So just abandon Iraq and tell them "Sorry"? It's much easier smearing shit than it is cleaning it up, and what we've done in Iraq is the mother of all shit smears.

 

I understand that you have no desire to look at the Obama outcomes. That's fine but using your own analogy, when the man hired to clean up the shit smears shows up with a bucket of shit and creates a smear twice as large in half the time, you don't say he is cleaning up a mess. You say he is making one.

 

That's the point. Obama hasn't made things better and people are declaring they aren't good enough. They are worse.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 55

.


Edited by usarmyctr - 5/14/13 at 7:24pm
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by usarmyctr View Post

All life matters, however, men and women of US Armed Forces are aware of the risks of being called to serve in potential war. No matter who the President of the United States is, he or she cannot allow harm to be brought to the "Home Turf" if he or she were to ignore, stand down, and or turn blind eye on threats to our National Security, he or she, the President would be impeached and Congress would take immediate action. I'm sorry... Didn't Bill Clinton have knowledge of the 9/11 threats?! Oh wait.. I guess you want to give him a pass too.. 

For anyone to suggest that Bush is responsible for deaths of US American Soldiers serving in war is absolutely insane! What about Justice for the men and women that lost their lives on 9/11? Was Bush to just let those who are responsible for 9/11 get away with it? Do you not think Bush lives with the decision he made to send troops overseas everyday of his life ? 

I guess you would then argue in saying that "Well, we didn't need to start a war in Iraq" Well, yes, it doesn't' matter where we began our fight in the Middle East, whether it be Afgan, Iraq, Pakistan, who cares. The point is... We fought back... The war began HERE IN NEW YORK CITY ON 9/11 

Bush did not lie, or attempt to cover up 9/11 like Obama is attempting to do with Benghazi.. Americans lost their lives in Benghazi just like the lives lost on 9/11. Who started the war?! The Terrorist! Do the American lives lost in Benghazi not matter? Yes they do! 

Notice I didn't mention Afghanistan because I was all for finding Osama which we have done. I have a problem with American soldiers dying in a war predicated on a outright lie. Bush wasn't even smart enough to plant some WMDs to justify the war. What happened in Benghazi was tragic but I'll admit I don't know much of the ensuing scandal to opine on it.

Btw don't lecture me on 9/11. I personally saw the mushroom cloud the second plane made from Brooklyn and I lost a cousin that day.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Btw don't lecture me on 9/11. I personally saw the mushroom cloud the second plane made from Brooklyn and I lost a cousin that day.

 

1confused.gif

 

How does being an eyewitness and being related to victim exempt you from someone talking to you about that event?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

1confused.gif

How does being an eyewitness and being related to victim exempt you from someone talking to you about that event?!

It doesn't exempt me, and I can be talked to about it. The truth is that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but the fear people were feeling in those days led to a easy way to start it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It doesn't exempt me, and I can be talked to about it.

 

Then I must have misinterpreted your "don't lecture me about 9/11" and the corresponding reasoning you offered.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The truth is that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but the fear people were feeling in those days led to a easy way to start it.

 

Agreed.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 55

BUSH DID NOT START THE WAR! THE TERRORIST STARTED THE WAR THE DAY THEY DROVE THE DAMN PLANES INTO THE TOWERS, THE PENTAGON AND SO ON. BUSH WITH FULL SUPPORT OF CONGRESS DECIDED TO FIGHT BACK. AND BRING THE WAR RIGHT TO THEIR BACKYARD!

 

WOULD YOU RATHER WE DID NOTHING? BUSH DID NOTHING.. AND LET THE PLANES CRASH AND BOMBS GO OFF IN CITIES, COUNTIES, PERHAPS IN YOUR HOMETOWN? NO... YOU WOULD BE RAISING HELL!!!!... "OH WHY DIDN'T BUSH DO SOMETHING?!?!" 

 

GIVE UP THE DEBATE.. TERRORIST WILL FOREVER ON THINK TWICE THANKS TO GEORGE W. BUSH

post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by usarmyctr View Post

BUSH DID NOT START THE WAR! THE TERRORIST STARTED THE WAR THE DAY THEY DROVE THE DAMN PLANES INTO THE TOWERS, THE PENTAGON AND SO ON. BUSH WITH FULL SUPPORT OF CONGRESS DECIDED TO FIGHT BACK. AND BRING THE WAR RIGHT TO THEIR BACKYARD!

WOULD YOU RATHER WE DID NOTHING? BUSH DID NOTHING.. AND LET THE PLANES CRASH AND BOMBS GO OFF IN CITIES, COUNTIES, PERHAPS IN YOUR HOMETOWN? NO... YOU WOULD BE RAISING HELL!!!!... "OH WHY DIDN'T BUSH DO SOMETHING?!?!" 

GIVE UP THE DEBATE.. TERRORIST WILL FOREVER ON THINK TWICE THANKS TO GEORGE W. BUSH

I have very big questions about that, and some doubts. They recently found a piece of landing gear about a mile from Ground Zero yet there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #18 of 55

Well, it would have disintegrated after breaking through the side of the Pentagon. Taking pillars out on the lower level of the Pentagon. Breaking through sector walls and in such a confined area with heavy debris and large amounts of fuel from the plane would cause such thing. Also, the security camera at that time would have not picked up such a large and fast moving craft. Those cameras were intended for persons, cars, etc. 

post #19 of 55
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
I have very big questions about that, and some doubts. They recently found a piece of landing gear about a mile from Ground Zero yet there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

 

We tolerate political conversations here, not conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #20 of 55

Don't you believe in conspiracies?
 

post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

We tolerate political conversations here, not conspiracy theories.

 

Seriously? Since when?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #22 of 55
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post
Seriously? Since when?

 

Set myself up for that one. 1tongue.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #23 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post
Seriously? Since when?

 

Set myself up for that one. 1tongue.gif

 

Why someone might be crazy enough to suggest the entire site is geared toward rumor and innuendo regarding a certain company.

 

On the actual thread topic though, has anyone here actually figured out what Obama is responsible for after being in office for four and a half years?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

On the actual thread topic though, has anyone here actually figured out what Obama is responsible for after being in office for four and a half years?

 

I hear he's a got a decent golf game plus had some pretty sweet Hawaiian vacations. Plus, you know, he sat down for a beer in a totally casual, non-staged, non-photo-op moment to broker a quarrel between two people he didn't even know, doing something that was none of his business on an issue completely unrelated to anything the President does.

 

Oh...and his March Madness bracket.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

We tolerate political conversations here, not conspiracy theories.

 

Infantile to third grade commentary, such as firing off the phrase "conspiracy theorist", or name-calling people every time the "precious", "angelic" government 1rolleyes.gif is implicated in doing bad stuff, especially when ample proof and motivation is provided,  SHOULD ALSO NOT BE TOLERATED

 

It maybe a sign of a decaying society, that government leadership would set up a "cognitive infiltration agency" targeting those who dare to question authority. Dissent is the essence of patriotism, and to lump people who question authority alongside criminals and undesirables is a sure sign that something is majorly wrong at the top, and has something to hide. "Brownshirted commentary" that promotes the "follow my leader regardless" mandate is excess baggage in a civilized society. 

 

**

 

On another related issue: Now they are telling us that the IRS' targeting of conservative groups is the work of two "rogue workers". They said the same thing about Abu Ghraib prisoner torture disgrace... a few low ranking troops took the rap for carrying out orders that originated at the very top of the chain of command. 

 

But dont ask questions.....

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #26 of 55
Thread Starter 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-13-2013/barack-trek--into-darkness

 

Barack Obama's administration is so bad that all Jon Stewart can do is repeat mother f&cker over and over.

 

He makes a very good point though that when those who believe the government can do good for others defend this, they undermine the systems and beliefs that help their premise.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 55
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
Infantile to third grade commentary, such as firing off the phrase "conspiracy theorist", or name-calling people every time the "precious", "angelic" government 1rolleyes.gif is implicated in doing bad stuff, especially when ample proof and motivation is provided,  SHOULD ALSO NOT BE TOLERATED

 

It maybe a sign of a decaying society, that government leadership would set up a "cognitive infiltration agency" targeting those who dare to question authority. Dissent is the essence of patriotism, and to lump people who question authority alongside criminals and undesirables is a sure sign that something is majorly wrong at the top, and has something to hide. "Brownshirted commentary" that promotes the "follow my leader regardless" mandate is excess baggage in a civilized society. 

 

**

 

On another related issue: Now they are telling us that the IRS' targeting of conservative groups is the work of two "rogue workers". They said the same thing about Abu Ghraib prisoner torture disgrace... a few low ranking troops took the rap for carrying out orders that originated at the very top of the chain of command. 

 

But dont ask questions.....

 

What does any of this have to do with claiming a plane didn't impact the Pentagon twelve years ago? Looks like you're agreeing with me and then jumping into a pool full of tangent.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #28 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

What does any of this have to do with claiming a plane didn't impact the Pentagon twelve years ago? Looks like you're agreeing with me and then jumping into a pool full of tangent.

I wasn't even that pissed and it was me you were replying to. Thanks sammi jo.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #29 of 55

Obama and his administration are falling apart by the seams it looks like to me.People are starting to see the real Obama now and his ratings are going downhill with him.Where is the transparency up his ass!
 

post #30 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Consider what we now know the IRS did:

 

Gave preferential treatment to liberal groups. On Tuesday, USA Today reported that while the IRS was hounding conservative groups and holding up their applications for tax-exempt status, it was quickly ushering liberal groups with names like "Progress Florida" and "Missourians Organizing for Reform" through the process.

 

USA Today found that in the 27 months after Feb. 2010, the IRS did not approve a single Tea Party application. Over those same months, however, dozens of applications submitted by liberal groups that were engaged in the same type of activities and were seeking the same tax status as the conservative ones sailed through the agency.

 

"As applications for conservative groups sat in limbo," USA Today reported, "groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months."

 

Meanwhile, the IG found that of the 296 applications filed by conservative groups it examined, more than half were still in limbo, with some of them having been on hold for more than three years.

 

• Made unusual document requests. Not only did the IRS target conservative groups for extra scrutiny, it also asked for massive amounts of information that it couldn't possibly need to determine tax-exempt status.

Among them: donor names, blog posts, transcripts of radio interviews, resumes of top officers, board minutes and summaries of material passed out at meetings.

Some groups were asked about connections to other conservative groups or individuals.

 

The IRS demanded, for example, that the Center for Constitutional Law "explain in detail your organization's involvement with the Tea Party."

 

• Engaged in selective leaks. This week, ProPublica, a liberal-leaning nonprofit journalism organization, revealed that the IRS had leaked it nearly a dozen pending applications, including one submitted by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS.

 

• Covered it up. If this was all an innocent mistake, why then did acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller tell Republican senators in April 2012 that conservative groups weren't getting any special treatment, at least a month after learning they were? Another top IRS official appears to have misled Congress on four separate occasions last year.

 

Hey anyone chirping about how being right about the Obama reelection made them so brilliant, it isn't brilliance when the fix is on.

 

 

Quote:
In the end, the IRS managed to put its thumb on the political scale by squelching political activity on the right — some groups report curtailing get-out-the-vote efforts, spending piles of money on legal fees or disbanding altogether in the face of IRS inquisitions.

 

This is why we are supposed to endorse more regulation? So that leftists can shut down and quiet the people on their enemies list? I'll take a pass thanks.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

What does any of this have to do with claiming a plane didn't impact the Pentagon twelve years ago? Looks like you're agreeing with me and then jumping into a pool full of tangent.

I have never made the claim, or supported the notion that no plane impacted the Pentagon (!). The same goes for the (absurd) claims that no planes went into the World Trade Center (!!). The origin of these insane, grossly speculative scenarios is most likely as an effective means of disseminating nonsense/disinfo in order to broadly discredit anyone who dares ask "the wrong" questions - in this case specifically 9/11 - by muddying the waters, poisoning the well, and tarring legitimate inquiry.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #32 of 55
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post
I have never made the claim, or supported the notion that no plane impacted the Pentagon (!). The same goes for the (absurd) claims that no planes went into the World Trade Center (!!).

 

Never said you did…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #33 of 55
Thread Starter 

This scandal started at the top.

 

 

Quote:

But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

 

Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.

 
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."

 

This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.

 

Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.

 

The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.

 

The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.

 

For anyone to think these actions, which happened repeatedly are all coincidence is just feeding their own delusion.

 

IRS Lies

 

Quote:

In an op-ed for USA Today, for example, Steven Miller, who until this week was the acting IRS commissioner, claimed that "our office of Exempt Organizations observed a sharp increase in the number of (tax-exempt) applications coming from groups potentially engaged in political campaign intervention."

 

Lois Lerner, who runs the office overseeing tax exempt organizations, said last Friday that: "We saw a big increase in these kinds of applications."

 

So, too, did Joseph Grant, a top IRS official who said in response to the inspector general report that the agency experienced a "significant increase ... starting in 2010."

 

Given the flood of new applications, these officials claim, the IRS simply tried to improve "efficiency and consistency" by automatically screening some for extra review, and in doing so, they inadvertently targeted conservative groups.

 

There's just one problem with this excuse. It's not true.

 

A review of application data by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that when the IRS imposed its "tea party" rule in March 2010, tax-exempt applications had been on the decline — going from 1,751 in fiscal year 2009 to 1,735 in fiscal year 2010, which ended Sept. 30, 2010.

 

The number did climb over the next two years, but only after the IRS already had put a hold on hundreds of conservative applications.

 

What a surprise.......to no one.

 

 

Quote:

Lerner also misled the public about the number of conservative groups targeted, initially claiming it was just 280. As it turns out, the actual number was closer to 500.

 

Even the claim that Lerner inadvertently revealed the targeting in the answer to an unexpected question at an American Bar Association conference last Friday is suspect.

 

Kevin Williamson at NationalReview.com suggests the Q&A was staged to break the bad news late Friday — a typical PR move to minimize coverage — and ahead of the expected IG report. The IRS, he says, encouraged the press to attend an otherwise non-newsworthy event and had several handlers on hand. Another account said Lerner appeared to look at notes when answering the "spontaneous" question.

 

Given this record of deception, why on earth should anyone believe IRS officials when they insist that targeting conservative groups was "in no way due to any political or partisan motivation"?

 

See it was a coincidence that happened 500 or more times.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #34 of 55

Richard Milhous Obama:

 

 

Quote:
Yet, I can’t help but think that Nixon and Obama have more in common than either man’s devotees might imagine.
 
Richard Milhous Nixon was thin-skinned, felt persecuted by the opposition party, had a penchant for classifying political adversaries -- and journalists -- as “enemies,” and tried to control his image so fiercely that, ultimately, zealous aides committed illegal acts to further his re-election.
 
But even before that had happened -- and before Nixon himself began directing a coverup -- truth had become a casualty of his administration. This is the parallel between Richard Nixon and Barack Obama.
 
No evidence has been unearthed connecting Obama, or anyone under his direction, to illicit activities. But the absence of criminality isn’t the only test here. Nixon’s “enemies,” at least in his mind, also included vast swaths of the Fourth Estate. That apparently is how the current president operates, too.
 
Barack Obama often displays contempt for the proper role of news-gatherers and, by extension, for the value of reporting that seeks to be unbiased. Often, officials in his White House or re-election campaign seem uncomprehending of the concept of straight reporting.
 
In their Manichean world, there are liberal news organizations (good) and conservative outlets (bad). Some of the news business does work this way -- more than when Nixon was president, for sure -- but what Obama and his political advisers and White House press handlers have done is graft their own hyper-partisanship onto the media.
 
In the Obama administration, it’s not uncommon for a White House press official to scream profanely over the phone at journalists whose stories they dislike, plant questions from friendly media outlets, and deny access to briefings to reporters who ask tough questions. This administration has aggressively used the Justice Department to ferret out news leaks, declared open season on a media organization out of sync with his philosophy (Fox News), and routinely questioned the professionalism of reporters and the patriotism of the opposition political party. That disquieting sound you hear is an echo from the Nixon years.

 

Quote:
Concerning the IRS scandal, there is no evidence that Obama unleashed tax collectors on opponents, as Nixon did. But after years of comparing congressional Republicans to terrorists and hostage-takers, and characterizing the Tea Party as racists and extremists, what message did the president or the leaders of his party think they were sending IRS managers?
 
Obama is never content to simply say he thinks he can show how wrong-headed Republicans are about the federal budget. No, he says they should put “country ahead of party,” thereby suggesting they are deliberately hurting the economy to hurt him.
 
This, too, is Nixonland.
 
On June 29, 1972, Nixon was talking to Henry Kissinger in a taped conversation about the Democratic Party platform. “These people are so revolting that they have to be smashed,” Nixon tells his national security adviser.
 
“I don’t mean just beat them,” Nixon adds. “It’s good to beat them. But I mean smashed. They must be, they must be, disgraced, driven right out of public life.”
 
No tapes are available to know how Obama speaks about Republicans in private. But tonally, he’s not that much different from Nixon when speaking in public. Last week, even after the Benghazi, IRS, and AP controversies crested on the White House steps, Obama found time to blame Republicans at a New York fundraiser.
 
“What’s blocking us right now is a sort of hyper-partisanship in Washington that I was, frankly, hoping to overcome in 2008,” the president said. “My thinking was when we beat them in 2012, that might break the fever, and it’s not quite broken yet. But I am persistent. And I am staying at it. … If there are folks who are more interested in winning elections than they are thinking about the next generation, then I want to make sure there are consequences to that.”
 
Get all that? The Republicans don’t merely have a difference of opinion with the president. They are rabid, and craven, and willing to sacrifice their own children’s futures to win elections. This Nixon-esque attitude constitutes a toxic brew: whining, boasting, and name-calling all overlaid with persecution-complex and a profound contempt for his opponents -- along with a determination to make them pay.

 

Quote:
We don’t know if Obama or his minions also keep enemies lists, if only in their heads. But we do know that they view the media with the same with-us-or-against-us mentality that Nixon fostered. And though that attitude can help win elections, it surely impedes good governance.

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 55

You must like Michael Savage than.
 

post #36 of 55
Thread Starter 

Washington Post: Special Prosecutor Inevitable

 

 

Quote:

My personal favorite of all the new revelations from the Obama IRS scandal is that White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough about the impending IRS inspector general report, but of course the White House chief of staff did not tell the president.

 

I sat in a White House chief of staff’s office every day for more than two years. The only reason the legal counsel would tell the chief of staff about an impending report or disclosure would be so the chief of staff could tell the president. The legal counsel would assume the chief of staff would know how and when to bring up the matter. The chief of staff would be expected to know if there were additional factors surrounding the issue that needed to be considered before the president was told, or whether or not others needed to be included in the conversation when the information was shared with the president. There are many valid reasons why the chief of staff would tell the president, but I can’t think of a reason why he and the legal counsel would both agree that this news nugget would go no further. It’s very odd.

 

The legal counsel would never assume that information shared with the chief of staff would not go to the president. In my experience, a legal counsel never would believe that there was information that was appropriate for the chief of staff to know but that was inappropriate for the president to know. Out of all the news that has emerged regarding the Obama IRS scandal, this is the most curious whopper I’ve heard so far. I can’t wait to hear the real story.

 

This is going to get very, very ugly. The longer this takes to get addressed, the deeper the damage to the Democratic brand. People will never elect a person or party that they think will target them for political prosecution.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Washington Post: Special Prosecutor Inevitable

 

 

 

This is going to get very, very ugly. The longer this takes to get addressed, the deeper the damage to the Democratic brand. People will never elect a person or party that they think will target them for political prosecution.

 

The silence from the PO Obama supporters on this matter is deafening.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I have very big questions about that, and some doubts. They recently found a piece of landing gear about a mile from Ground Zero yet there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

Oh Jesus. SJO...can you talk to this guy?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 55
Right now it seems to me that there is going to be a special prosecutor appointed. From there it seems likely that someone will commit a process crime while trying to protect the admin politically. I wouldn't be surprised to see various people charged with obstruction and/or making false statements. I seriously doubt impeachment will happen, not unless real evidence of Obama being involved with the IRS scandal directly. Don't get me wrong...I think he is lying through his teeth on several issues. I think he knew about it long ago. But that's not impeachable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #40 of 55

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Obama Second Term: Scandals, bad economic performance, crony capitalism and terrible jobs for those that do have them.