 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 02:23 PM "What difference, at this point, does it make?" — Hillary Rodham Clinton, in House testimony on Benghazi Just when Benghazi has reached critical mass, the Obama administration, which has had only one scandal (Fast and Furious early in term 1, and that fizzled fast and furiously), suddenly has two more scandals? Coincidence, yes? No. Not at all. They were dropped, on purpose, at a most convenient time, and they're already played out. Exactly according to plan. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/benghazi-is-the-only-scandal-that-matters/ The whole ham-handed game play is comical. Just as shocking testimony emerged on the Benghazi scandal, the administration rolls out two scandals, with the targets just coincidentally — the media and right-wing conservatives. Absurd. But fairly brilliant. The self-absorbed media predictably swooned over its plight — this is the biggest scandal ever. And the right-wingers grew indignant, finally able to say "We told you so." Well played, Obama administration. ...... But be warned, White House: Bob Woodward, who knows a thing or two about scandals and cover-ups, isn't falling for the double head fake. "If you read through all these emails," the Watergate reporter said, "you see that everyone in the government is saying, 'Oh, let's not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let's not tell the public that there were warnings.' I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, 'Oh, let's not tell this, let's not show this.'" "I would not dismiss Benghazi." Too bad, Bob. Washington's press corps already has. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 02:09 PM Veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer on Sunday morning unloaded on a top White House official, comparing the Obama administration's handling of the ongoing Internal Revenue Service scandal to former President Richard Nixon's initial strategy for dealing with Watergate. The assertion came after White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said the president will continue with his objectives and will not become bogged down by the IRS debacle, the Benghazi affair or other missteps. "I don't want to compare this in any way to Watergate … but I have to tell you, that is exactly the approach the Nixon administration took. You're taking exactly the same line," Mr. Schieffer said. He then castigated the White House for taking credit when the federal government does something right, but passing the buck when problems arise. Republicans and other critics have made similar claims that Mr. Obama seems to have little knowledge of what's happening in his own federal government. "When the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy for the White House to take credit for that," Mr. Schieffer said, citing the killing of Osama bin Laden as an example. "When these [scandals] happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what's happened." He even demanded to know why Mr. Pfeiffer was making the rounds on Sunday talk shows, rather than a higher-ranking official. "Why are you here today? Why isn't the chief of staff here today?" Mr. Schieffer asked. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/19/cbs-bob-schieffer-unleashes-white-house-official-w/#ixzz2TrEIMB11 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 02:08 PM http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/williams-a-week-of-scandals-proves-the-incompetenc/ An interesting viewpoint, whether one agrees with all of it or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 01:54 PM ANALYSIS/OPINION: Scandals are nothing new in Washington. Just about every president has faced an accusation of misconduct, whether moral or criminal. It should be no surprise that the Obama administration finds itself in the midst of one (well actually three). Many Republicans have been quick to declare this the end of President Obama, even calling for impeachment. However, these scandals are not the personal failings of Mr. Obama himself, rather they are the failings of the liberal philosophy which he and his entire administration espouse. In case you were out camping without a cellphone last week, here is a brief recap in order of appearance: • Benghazi: The White House has been criticized for failing to prevent the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate and of misleading the public about it. • IRS: Conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status were targeted for extra scrutiny, beginning shortly after Scott P. Brown's special election U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts in 2010 through the 2012 presidential campaign. Also, confidential tax documents of prominent conservatives were leaked to the media. • TheAssociated Press: The Department of Justice acquired the phone records of AP reporters over two months in an effort to locate an administration leak. APgate is troubling, but the problem for the Republicans is that acquiring phone records is legal and part of the Patriot Act. Attempts to roll this particular part of the legislation back have been convincingly voted down by both parties. Suddenly, the Republicans realize that an overreaching Patriot Act may not have been a good thing, but that stance looks to be driven by politics rather than ideology. The IRS scandal is the most relatable and represents the most immediate problem for our country. Only a fool would believe that two to four field workers took it upon themselves to institute a policy of red taping conservative groups. The scandal rises higher, but I seriously doubt Mr. Obama directed such actions. Benghazi was undoubtedly a tragedy. Was there negligence? Yes. Was there a poor attempt at spin? Most definitely. Were departments pointing fingers at each other? As sure as the sun shines. Is anything that happened impeachable? No. More than anything Benghazi is another example of an administration getting caught flat-footed and stumbling to fudge the facts for fear that Americans could not handle the truth, especially so close to the elections. And that, my dear readers, gets to the heart of what the week was really about: the competence of a government ruled by a party that thinks the solution to every problem is more government. This is not about Obama the man, or even about Obama the president. This is not even about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the fundamental failure of progressive liberal ideology. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/williams-a-week-of-scandals-proves-the-incompetenc/#ixzz2TrAMkBxe Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 01:43 PM The Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General published a new report Monday that confirms former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke leaked a document intended to smear Operation Fast and Furious scandal whistleblower John Dodson. The DOJ IG said it found "Burke's conduct in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to be inappropriate for a Department employee and wholly unbefitting a U.S. Attorney." "We are referring to OPR our finding that Burke violated Department policy in disclosing the Dodson memorandum to a member of the media for a determination of whether Burke's conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct for the state bars in which Burke is a member," the IG wrote. Burke resigned from his post as U.S. Attorney over the incident in August 2011, the first major Department of Justice official to leave his or her post in the Fast and Furious scandal. He said after the fact, in interviews with congressional investigators, that he now views leaking the document as a "mistake." In addition to Burke's involvement in leaking the document, emails the IG uncovered show senior officials at the Department of Justice discussed smearing Dodson. One of those was Tracy Schmaler, the Director of the Department's Office of Public Affairs, who resigned her position at the DOJ after emails uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request showed that she worked with leftwing advocacy group Media Matters for America to smear whistleblowers and members of Congress and the media who sought to investigate DOJ scandals under Attorney General Eric Holder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 12:20 PM So, look at the actual emails rather than what either side claims. "The emails reveal how the first draft of CIA talking points prepared for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and select members of Congress watered down direct references to al Qaeda links to the Benghazi attacks and warnings about potential attacks. The first version of the Benghazi talking points was produced by the CIA at 2:27 p.m. on Sept. 14, 2012. It says that the Benghazi assault may have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate." It also said, "We know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack." It cites at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi and that "we cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveiled the U.S. facilities." The final version, after numerous revisions, produced at 12:13 p.m. on Sept. 15, kept the concept of a spontaneous demonstration, but removed references to al Qaeda or affiliated groups, previous attacks on diplomatic facilities or the possibility of premeditated surveillance. One page shows how much of it happened in handwritten changes ordered by CIA Director Michael Morrell after a White House meeting Sept. 15. Top CIA officials told us Morrell's changes coincidentally reflected those reflected by top State Department officials." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584737/wh-releases-e-mails-showing-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 13 - 12:10 PM GuestInsanity: Piss off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 13 - 12:09 PM CBS NEWS controlled by the Commies too, Beardy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 May 13 - 11:34 AM "Steve Benen (born May 15, 1973) is an American political writer and blogger, an MSNBC contributor, and a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show." That carries about as much credibility, as writing for the 'Simpsons', or 'Family Guy'. If you want to break out of your brain-lock, get out of MSNBC...they are completely bogus...even been busted three times this past year for doctoring clips, to alter the reporting!!!....Infotainment! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 11:31 AM Page 2 of 8) In fact, this record in the White House Visitors Log of a 12:30 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 meeting between President Obama and the IRS union's Kelley was not unusual. On yet another occasion, Kelley's presence at the White House was followed shortly afterwards by the President issuing Executive Order 13522. A presidential directive that gave the anti-Tea Party NTEU — the IRS union — a greater role in the day-to-day operation of the IRS than it had already — which was considerable. Kelley is recorded as visiting the White House over a year earlier, listed in this fashion: Kelley, Colleen Potus/Flotus 12/03/2009 18:30 The inclusion of "FLOTUS" — First Lady Michelle Obama — and the 6:30 pm time of the December event on this entry in the Visitors Log indicates this was the White House Christmas Party held that evening and written up here in the Chicago Sun-Times. The Sun-Times focused on party guests from the President's home state of Illinois and did not mention Kelley. Notably, the Illinois guests, who are reported to have attended the same party as Kelley, included what the paper described as four labor "activists": Dennis Gannon of the Chicago Federation of Labor, Tom Balanoff of the Service Employees International Union, Henry Tamarin of UNITE, and Ron Powell of the United Food and Commercial Workers. Six days following Kelley's attendance at the White House Christmas party with labor activists like herself, the President issued Executive Order 13522 (text found here, with an explanation here). The Executive Order, titled: "Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services" applied across the federal government and included the IRS. The directive was designed to: Allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters…. However else this December 2009 Executive Order can be described, the directive was a serious grant of authority within the IRS to the powerful anti-Tea Party union. A union that by this time already had the clout to determine the rules for IRS employees, right down to who would be allowed a Blackberry or what size office the employee was entitled to. The same union that would shortly be doling out serious 2010 (and later 2012) campaign contributions to anti-Tea Party candidates with money supplied from IRS employees. The union, as noted last week here in this space, already has the authority to decide all manner of IRS matters, right down to who does and does not get a Blackberry. It is the same union whose IRS employee-members were being urged in 2012 by Senate Democrats (Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Max Baucus, and others) to target Tea Party and other conservative groups. Which, as the IG records, they did. Both Mr. Obama and the NTEU's Kelley have been by turns evasive and tight-lipped about their roles in the blossoming IRS scandal. Kelley refused to open up to the Washington Post. In an article titled "IRS, union mum on employees held accountable in 'sin' of political targeting," the Post quoted the following: "NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time," NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail. A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: "We've been directed by national office. We have no comment." The President approached things in a more evasive manner. 6 more pages here: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 11:29 AM Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun? By Jeffrey Lord on 5.20.13 @ 6:11AM President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party. "For me, it's about collaboration." — National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal? Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun? The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts. March 31, 2010. According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st. The White House lists the IRS union leader's visit this way: Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30 In White House language, "POTUS" stands for "President of the United States." The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department's Inspector General's Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way: April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed. In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS "Determinations Unit Program agreed" to open a "Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases." As stated by the IG report. The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union's PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates. Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country. The IG report contained a timeline prepared by examining internal IRS e-mails. The IG report did not examine White House Visitor Logs, e-mails, or phone records relating to the relationship between the IRS union, the IRS, and the White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 May 13 - 11:26 AM Greg F: "Only one problem, Beardy - there's absolute no evidence that the ADMINISTRATION knew or did any of what you accuse them of." You REALLY NEED to find a new 'news' source!!! Maybe watch some media that isn't just a PR firm for the Administration. No evidence????..Jeez, Greg..the evidence is all over the place. You don't even have to look too hard at all....maybe that stuff in your colon is blocking the view. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 11:24 AM Steve Benen (born May 15, 1973) is an American political writer and blogger, an MSNBC contributor, and a producer for The Rachel Maddow Show. ...Benen was born and raised in Miami, Florida, and received his B.A. in Political Science from Florida International University. He received a Master's degree in Political Management from the George Washington University, and was an intern in President Bill Clinton's White House Office of Speechwriting. In 1996, he was the communications director for an unsuccessful Democratic congressional campaign in Pennsylvania. " the "quotes" Republicans passed along to the media were bogus. The GOP seems to have made them up." And I should believe this why? Where are the quotes and the evidence against them? Or will YOU now accept anything I post from Fox without supporting evidence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 13 - 11:06 AM There were meaningful Benghazi lies after all By Steve Benen Fri May 17 Given what we now know, congressional Republicans saw all of the materials in March, couldn't find anything controversial, and moved on. But last week, desperate to manufacture a scandal, unnamed Republicans on Capitol Hill started giving "quotes" from the materials to reporters, making it seem as if the White House made politically motivated edits of Benghazi talking points. As Major Garrett reported last night, the "quotes" Republicans passed along to the media were bogus. The GOP seems to have made them up. ABC's Jonathan Karl didn't know that, and presented them as fact, touching off a media firestorm. Why would Republicans do this, knowing that there was evidence that would prove them wrong? Probably because Republicans assumed the White House wouldn't disclose all of the internal deliberations that went into writing the Benghazi talking points. When the White House did the opposite on Wednesday, giving news organizations everything, the GOP had been caught in its lie. So, it appears there's a Benghazi scandal after all. It's not the wrongdoing Republicans alleged; it's the wrongdoing Republicans committed. The question for Darrell Issa is pretty straightforward: when does the investigation begin as to which Republicans lied to journalists and when? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 13 - 10:42 AM You need to look at what you would be saying if the positions were reversed- If this was a Republican administration, and they were targeting liberal organizations and lying about facts.... Only one problem, Beardy - there's absolute no evidence that the ADMINISTRATION knew or did any of what you accuse them of. Check back with us if there ever is any such evidence. TeaPublican/BuShite bloviation, invention, distortion and disinformation is not evidence, by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 10:25 AM "Benghazi. The IRS targeting the Tea Party. Feds snooping on the Associated Press. These dizzying controversies around the Obama administration all carry the same lesson: Watch what you say. On Benghazi, set aside for a moment the dust-ups over State Department officials changing talking points, White House officials misleading the media, and congressional Republicans misrepresenting administration emails. Go back to what the administration was saying just after the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facility. Many administration officials -- although they may have known better -- blamed the attack, and thus the death of four Americans, on a bad YouTube video called "The Innocence of the Muslims." Protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Egypt did use the video as a pretext, and White House spokesman Jay Carney responded by calling the video "reprehensible and disgusting." Obama publicly attacked the filmmaker as "sort of a shadowy character who made an extremely offensive video. ..." Later that month, federal officials arrested this "shadowy character" for probation violations related to making the video. From the administration falsely blaming the video for Benghazi, to the White House's repeated denunciations, to the federal arrest, the message is clear: Watch what you say. On the IRS debacle, the speech being policed isn't even offensive -- unless you find it abhorrent to criticize big government or President Obama. The queries the IRS rained on Tea Party groups in 2010 were aimed at discerning just how political these groups were. What books will your book clubs be discussing? Tell us about your donors -- will any of them run for office? While targeting Tea Party groups was clearly inappropriate, some of the IRS' questions were actually in keeping with federal law, which restricts 501(c)(4) groups' freedom to oppose candidates for office. This is problematic in itself because it puts the IRS in the business of telling Americans, "Watch what you say about politicians." The IRS policing political speech is troubling for many reasons. The agency has the power to tax, and thus the power to destroy. Also, IRS employees are overwhelmingly Democrats, campaign finance data suggest. The result is powerful and sometimes partisan officials, acting on little legislative guidance to determine whether a group is "primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good" and whether it is "participat[ing] in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to" any candidates. The decision to target Tea Party groups doesn't seem to have come from Washington, but the deep distrust of these groups sure did. When critics showed up at town halls in 2009 to criticize Obamacare, the White House attacked the protesters and questioners as "manufactured" and "funded by K Street lobbyists." Speech and debate are important. Political speech -- specifically, criticism of people in power -- is the primary reason the First Amendment exists. Does anyone think it's healthy to have the IRS interrogating grass-roots groups and warning "watch what you say about the president"? Finally, the administration secretly tracked the phone calls of the Associated Press to root out who leaked the report of a drone strike. Then the CIA told AP to hold off on the story so that Obama could announce it first. This has a chilling affect on journalists. But it's also the latest salvo in the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers. Liberal writer Jane Mayer wrote in 2011 that Obama has used "the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks -- more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous administrations combined." More than any of its predecessors, the Obama administration tells its underlings, "Watch what you say." All of these stories broke this month. But the Obama team has shown intolerance to dissent from the beginning. Remember during the Obamacare debate when the White House asked Americans to report any "fishy" emails about the health care bill? Linda Douglass, communications director for Obama's Office of Health Reform, said at the time her job includes collecting "disinformation" about Obamacare -- probably stuff like, if you like your health plan, you might not be able to keep it. The three scandals of the past two weeks differ in their severity and in the White House's level of culpability. But they all have the same message: "My fellow Americans, watch what you say."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 20 May 13 - 09:02 AM BB writes: "You need to look at what you would be saying if the positions were reversed- If this was a Republican administration, and they were targeting liberal organizations and lying about facts and covering up improper behavior, what would you say? Oh, that's right- we saw that already, and the liberals called for impeachment... "- I assume you're talking about Watergate where the president was covering up a criminal act and resigned to avoid impeachment? The silver lining in all this for the Democrats (and thereby the country) is that all this shit-slinging by Republicans is keeping the Tea Party alive to continue to heave the GOP further to the right. We saw how that worked out for them in 2012 which produced canidates of the caliber of Todd Akin. So thank you BB and GfSOS. Keep up the good work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 08:54 AM From WASHPO... When the Barack H. Obama Foundation sought tax-exempt status to raise money for good works in Kenya, the Internal Revenue Service provided quick help. The IRS approved charitable status for the foundation, which was run by President Obama's brother and named after his father, in about a month's time. The IRS also agreed to give the group this important financial status retroactively, back to 2009, when it had begun its fundraising. As more information is disclosed, the factual gaps in Lois Lerner's statements become clearer. The 34 days the IRS's Cincinnati office took to process the foundation's application stands in contrast to the waits of several months — and sometimes longer than a year — that several conservative groups say they experienced with the same office. Obama has apologized, saying Americans have a right to be angry that the office improperly targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny. The IRS handling of the Obama-named group was revealed this week by a conservative watchdog group, the National Legal and Policy Center, and reported by the Daily Caller on Thursday. The Washington Post confirmed reports through public records of the group's application and the IRS approval letter, signed by the unit director Lois Lerner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 08:28 AM Managing the Oval Office By DAVID ROTHKOPF Published: January 19, 2013 191 Comments GOOGLE+ SAVE SHARE REPRINTS BARACK OBAMA's critics and supporters tend to agree: the first four years of the Obama administration have included plenty of disappointment and frustration. Enlarge This Image Mark Ulriksen Related in Opinion Room for Debate: What Should Obama Say? (January 19, 2013) Enlarge This Image Kevin Lamarque/Reuters Many say President Obama has not empowered his cabinet. On Jan. 10 the president, with the departing Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, right, announced that he was nominating Jacob J. Lew, left, for the post. Readers' Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (191) » Some of the that can be attributed to inherited challenges like the financial crisis. Some were caused by unexpected developments overseas. Some are the result of a dysfunctional Congress better known for logjams, corruption and ideological intransigence than action. (So much so that a recent poll showed that Americans like Congress less than cockroaches, colonoscopies and root canals.) But Mr. Obama and his team would benefit, as they begin the second term, by acknowledging that many of the biggest problems facing the administration flow directly from the man at the top. Mr. Obama is a lousy manager. As chief executive he gets a C — and then only if graded on a curve that takes into account his predecessor's managerial weaknesses. For all of the notable achievements of Mr. Obama's first term — getting troops out of Iraq, passing health care and financial services reform, signing legislation that guarantees that women get equal pay for equal work, removing Osama bin Laden — many of the administration's shortcomings are traceable, at least in part, to troubles connected to the way Mr. Obama has chosen to run the government. more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/opinion/sunday/managing-the-oval-office.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 08:06 AM Don, I agree with the article you posted Date: 17 May 13 - 03:06 PM . So you agree that the liberal organizations should be held to the same standards that the conservative ones are? It seems like this administration does not agree with you. You need to look at what you would be saying if the positions were reversed- If this was a Republican administration, and they were targeting liberal organizations and lying about facts and covering up improper behavior, what would you say? Oh, that's right- we saw that already, and the liberals called for impeachment... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 13 - 07:58 AM Great. GuestInsanity, president of the Beardy Fan Club. Whoopee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 13 - 11:38 PM Greg F: "GuestInsanity doesn't count." Nor anything with Sanity! Bruce, This is a tactic they use, especially Don, when they can't discuss their side, which is rarely based on facts, but rather, 'talking point' propaganda, they distract people with this running insult stuff, so when you get distracted into haggling about it, it inhibits the facts from being put out....which, of course, blows the 'talking point' propaganda, right out of the toilet!...Then they put their heads back up their asses, trying to find something to replace what got blown out of the toilet!... Don't blame me...I'm just statin' the facts! Bruce, your posts have been informative, and they HAVE been checking out.....(with what I've been talkin' about for a while, as well) Don. grooming himself, in the morning, puts his razor back in the medicine cabinet, slaps a little skin bracer on his cheeks....smiles, gives himself a wink, as he inspects himself in the mirror, and says: Don Firth: "Like I say, your mind is already made up, so why should I waste my time trying to inform and educate someone who simply refuses to be informed and educated?" No truer words have been spoken from him, and he gazes out the window, through glazed eyes...holds his breath...concentrates...harder.... squints his eyes tighter in sheer determined concentration.........and....let out an exasperated burst of air.......and says, "I almost understand it." Good Night Gracie, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 17 May 13 - 03:14 PM I repeat for your convenience, Beardy: 17 May 13 - 01:28 PM What "discussion", Beardy? You don't "discuss" anything. You post truckloads of cut-and-paste crap & hurl insults. It seems you haven't noticed that damn near everyone is ignoring your mountains of crap? GuestInsanity doesn't count. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 03:06 PM From that arch-Liberal rag, TIME Magazine, May 14, 2013: The IRS is unpopular on its best days, and the past few have been among its worst. The agency's admission that it targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny drew condemnation from across the political spectrum on Monday. "Outrageous," declared Barack Obama. House and Senate leaders from both parties promised an investigation. Some of the Tea Party groups refused to even accept its apology.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 02:55 PM Don, Care to tell us how your last post ( and any others of yours, actually) address the thread topic? This is supposed to be s discussion of the outside view of the Obama administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 02:47 PM You certainly have a lot of time on your hands, Beardy. But if hate mongering is how you want to spend it. . . . Well, it's STILL a free country, even if you don't think so. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 02:15 PM WASHINGTON (AP) -- Dozens of tea party groups and other conservative organizations of the kind subjected to improper scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service operated with small budgets and rarely displayed overt partisan activities, according to an Associated Press review of public tax filings by 93 such activist groups. A few groups built million-dollar operations and political ties that could have been legitimate grounds for IRS investigation, tax law experts said. The AP reviewed 990 tax returns for nonprofit groups that were made publicly available and posted on both the Guidestar and the Foundation Center websites, searching between 2009 and 2011 under the terms "tea party," ''patriot" and other terms frequently used by tea party groups. Several tea party groups also made their tax returns available to the AP. The returns detailed revenues and expenses for the groups, as well as other details. Donors' identifies, however, are shielded from disclosure under federal tax code provisions. Only 21 of the 93 groups reported annual gross receipts higher than $25,000 between 2009 and 2011, according to the AP review. The $25,000 figure is a threshold for the IRS because an organization's financial strength and revenue sources are important factors in determining its tax-exempt status. Nonprofit groups reporting less than $25,000 a year are allowed to file a short-form, postcard tax return instead of a detailed filing — one indication of a low-budget operation. The median income for all the groups was just $16,700 a year. That figure includes several tea party organizations that boasted million-dollar budgets and a cluster of others with more than $100,000 in annual revenues. The well-funded activist groups were led by the Georgia-based Tea Party Patriots Inc., the nation's biggest tea party group, which started out with more than $700,000 in annual revenues in 2009 and grew to $20.2 million annually in 2012. more at http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-tax-returns-show-133537463.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 01:56 PM The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official who apologized for targeting conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny is married to an attorney whose firm hosted a voter registration organizing event for the Obama presidential campaign, praised President Obama's policy work, and had one of its partners appointed by Obama to a key ambassadorship. IRS Exempt Organizations Division director Lois G. Lerner, who has been described as "apolitical" in mainstream press coverage of the IRS scandal, is married to tax attorney Michael R. Miles, a partner at the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. The firm is based in Atlanta but has a number of offices including in Washington, D.C., where Miles works. The 400-attorney firm hosted an organizing meeting at its Atlanta office for people interested in helping with voter registration for the Obama re-election campaign. This is not the first of Lerner's connections to the president to surface. Earlier this week The Daily Caller reported that Lerner personally signed the tax-exemption approval for a shady charity run by Obama's half-brother, after an inexplicably brief one-month application process. (Related: Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity') "Come learn more about how you can create, organize, and host a voter registration event here in Atlanta in the coming weeks. We will be meeting at at 7:30pm at 999 Peachtree St. NE, in the law offices of Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennan," read an event posting on my.barackobama.com. Longtime Sutherland partner David Adelman, the former Democratic minority whip of the Georgia state senate, serves as ambassador to the Republic of Singapore in the Obama administration. "Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP announces that its partner and Georgia State Sen. David I. Adelman, has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore. President Obama nominated Sen. Adelman on November 20, 2009," according to a Sutherland press release dated March 19, 2010. "Sutherland has a great tradition of excellence. It has been a privilege to be a part of such a fine firm," Adelman said at the time of his confirmation, according to the Sutherland press release. "I am humbled by the confidence President Obama and Secretary Clinton have in me, and I look forward to building on the strong U.S.-Singapore relationship," said Adelman, who joined Sutherland in 1993 and spent his entire career in private practice with the firm. Sutherland heaped praised on Obama's work in the U.S. Senate on legal issues pertaining to employee misclassification, which Sutherland works intensely enough on to have launched the website workerclassification.com. "The subject of worker classification is likely to take on increased importance in light of the recent election of Barack Obama as President. While in the Senate, President Obama showed an interest in strengthening workers' rights, particularly with respect to whether they should be classified as employees," according to a Sutherland press release dated April 28, 2009. "Along with others, he introduced the Independent Contractor Proper Classification Act of 2007. This legislation sought to give regulatory authority to the IRS to establish standards for properly classifying workers and to repeal the Section 530 safe harbor provisions that currently allow employers to rely on industry practice or professional advice as a reasonable basis for classifying workers. Also as a senator, President Obama, along with others, introduced the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act on September 29, 2008, which sought 'to provide a special penalty for employers who misclassify employees as nonemployees," according to the Sutherland press release. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 01:51 PM Senior Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who recently slapped Obamacare as a "train wreck," believes that the IRS scandal is just beginning and that "a lot more" damaging information will be revealed, likely at congressional hearings. "I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out, frankly," Baucus, whose pending retirement seems to have freed him up to speak bluntly, told Bloomberg Government's "Capitol Gains" TV show. "It's broader than the current focus. And I think it's important that we have the hearings, and I think that will encourage other information to come out that has not yet come out. I suspect that we will learn more in the next several days, maybe the next couple three weeks which adds more context to all of this," added Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. But a House leader, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, said the scandal hasn't reached the level where a special prosecutor is warranted. "I don't think we're [at the point of appointing a special counsel]. At least I'm not there yet," Camp told the show. "We need to know how and why and certainly try to restore the faith that's been broken and the trust that's been broken as people have been targeted for their political beliefs, which is completely unacceptable." Camp's committee today opens the first of a series of hearings on the IRS and their political harassment of Tea Party groups. more at:http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrat-baucus-warns-more-to-come-out-on-irs-scandal/article/2529913 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 01:46 PM So you can't even read Gregf's posts, Don??? Or do intentionally ignore what is right in front of you in order to attack me? You two deserve each other- but what did the rest of us do to have you inflicted upon us? Back to the THREAD TOPIC: "NBC's Lisa Myers reported this morning that the IRS deliberately chose not to reveal that it had wrongly targeted conservative groups until after the 2012 presidential election: The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different." " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 01:42 PM Greg has the right of it, Beardy. Anybody disagrees with anything in your cut-and-pastes and YOU take it as a personal insult, then start a volley of insults of your own. Like I say, your mind is already made up, so why should I waste my time trying to inform and educate someone who simply refuses to be informed and educated? More productive and effective outlets for my time and energy. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 01:38 PM What insults? I thought you were proud of being a documented racist lying scumbag. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 17 May 13 - 01:28 PM What "discussion", Beardy? You don't "discuss" anything. You post truckloads of cut-and-paste crap & hurl insults. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 01:14 PM "Too busy learning all we can on all sides of an issue, then being active in the 3-D world and performing our political activism there," But NEVER too busy to insult people and make posts that do NOT contribute to the discussion. One would ALMOST think that you were trying to prevent people from having any real discussion of the facts, in case they might conclude other than you state they should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 01:11 PM Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.), who was notably censured for not paying 17 years worth of taxes on rental income from a Dominican Republic villa he owned, said Friday morning, "This is wrong to abuse the tax system." Rangel also filed years worth of misleading financial disclosure reports that did not fully disclose his assets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 01:08 PM Too busy learning all we can on all sides of an issue, then being active in the 3-D world and performing our political activism there, rather than taking time trying to argue with people who's minds are already made up. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 12:54 PM Another oddity is your inability to read facts, reason, or make a post without attacking those you disagree with. Too bad you are unwilling to share any of "a variety of different viewpoints on the matters under discussion" with us, but I guess you are too busy insulting those that do not slavishly agree with whatever you state,. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 12:44 PM Well, it seems that the arch-conservative right-wingers around here have nothing better to do than cruise the internet looking for anything anti-Obama and anti-administration that they can find, cut and paste, and post vast quantities of verbiage here. Some of us read the stuff for ourselves, AND read a variety of different viewpoints on the matters under discussion, and make up our own minds rather than swallowing anything that smacks of being anti-Obama as, ipso facto, the Gospel Truth. But that's one of the oddities of we "so-called Liberals." Too bad some of you folks don't have a life in the 3-D world. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 12:24 PM So much for the so-called Liberal viewpoint. Nothing to contribute, just insults. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 11:55 AM Constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 17 May 13 - 11:46 AM There's that serial postarrhoea, again. Something seems to have exacerbated the condition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 09:44 AM That was http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 09:43 AM We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone. Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed. As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not. The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department. A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is to too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town. The IRS scandal has two parts. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse, harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of the taxes of political activists. In order to suppress conservative groups—at first those with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names, then including those that opposed ObamaCare or advanced the second amendment—the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook FB +0.92% posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. Among its questions: What are you thinking about? Did you ever think of running for office? Do you ever contact political figures? What are you reading? One group sent what it was reading: the U.S. Constitution. The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration. The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare." Franklin Graham, son of Billy, told Politico he believes his father was targeted. A conservative Catholic academic who has written for these pages faced questions about her meager freelance writing income. Many of these stories will come out, but not as many as there are. People are not only afraid of being audited, they're afraid of saying they were audited. All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the opposition, question by question and audit by audit. It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved. Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, was the person who finally acknowledged, under pressure of a looming investigative report, some of what the IRS was doing. She told reporters the actions were the work of "frontline people" in Cincinnati. But other offices were involved, including Washington. It is not even remotely possible the actions were the work of just a few agents. This was more systemic. It was an operation. The word was out: Get the Democratic Party's foes. It is not remotely possible nobody in the IRS knew what was going on until very recently. The Washington Post reported efforts to target the conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency by May 2012—far earlier than the agency had acknowledged. Reuters reported high-level IRS officials, including its chief counsel, knew in August 2011 about the targeting. The White House is reported to be shellshocked at public reaction to the scandal. But why? Were they so high-handed, so essentially ignorant, that they didn't understand what it would mean to the American people when their IRS—the revenue-collecting arm of the U.S. government—is revealed as a low, ugly and bullying tool of the reigning powers? If they didn't know how Americans would react to that, what did they know? I mean beyond Harvey Weinstein's cellphone number. And why—in the matters of the Associated Press and Benghazi too—does no one in this administration ever take responsibility? Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know what happened, exactly who did what. The president speaks in the passive voice. He attempts to act out indignation, but he always seems indignant at only one thing: that he's being questioned at all. That he has to address this. That fate put it on his plate. We all have our biases. Mine is for a federal government that, for all the partisan shootouts on the streets of Washington, is allowed to go about its work. That it not be distracted by scandal, that political disagreement be, in the end, subsumed to the common good. It is a dangerous world: Calculating people wish to do us harm. In this world no draining, unproductive scandals should dominate the government's life. Independent counsels should not often come in and distract the U.S. government from its essential business. But that bias does not fit these circumstances. What happened at the IRS is the government's essential business. The IRS case deserves and calls out for an independent counsel, fully armed with all that position's powers. Only then will stables that badly need to be cleaned, be cleaned. Everyone involved in this abuse of power should pay a price, because if they don't, the politicization of the IRS will continue—forever. If it is not stopped now, it will never stop. And if it isn't stopped, no one will ever respect or have even minimal faith in the revenue-gathering arm of the U.S. government again. And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game. This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is to say our ability to function. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 09:28 AM "Talking points, as we know, are like legal briefs. They're an argument on one side. What we need to get rid of talking point and they need to put out statements or papers that are truth documents. Okay, this is all we know." THS must be what proves that he is crazy- asking for the truth from a Democratic Administration. Liberals believe that you only ask for it from Republicans, NEVER from Democrats. After all, as GregF says, Obama is just "Black, and a Democrat." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 17 May 13 - 08:41 AM And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon.. The comparison is complete bollocks, Beardy. (Hmmm ... 'Bollocks Beardy" - there may be something there) Woodward hit his head or something a while back and has, to a degree, gone the way of David Howowitz. And I think he misses the limelight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 08:30 AM Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012. More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency's Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS' regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today. Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009, according to data obtained by The Washington Examiner from the IRS, then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year, for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period. The 2010, 2011 and 2012 bonuses were awarded during the period when IRS harassment of the conservative groups was most intense. The newspaper obtained the data via a Freedom of Information Act request. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., described the Ingram awards as "stunning, just stunning." Bonuses as large as those awarded to Ingram typically require presidential approval, according to federal personnel regulations. High-ranking career federal civil servants like Ingram are eligible for recognition through citations known as Distinguished and Merit Service awards that can carry with them cash bonuses of anywhere from five to 35 percent of their base salary. The largest of such awards, however, require presidential approval, according to the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal civil service workforce. "If the recommended award is over $25,000, the Director of OPM reviews the nomination and forwards his/her recommendation to the President for approval," according to the OPM guidance. A key point on OPM's "checklist" for federal bosses considering an employee for such a bonus is making sure that "the proposed award recipient has not been involved in any action or activity that could cause the President embarrassment …" Ingram has some history as a government lawyer receiving controversial bonuses. According to The Washington Post, she received a $47,900 bonus for distinguished service in 2004 from President George W. Bush. Earlier Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported that the IRS paid out more than $92 million in bonuses during the four-year period of Ingram's awards to her and nearly 17,000 other agency employees. Those bonuses averaged more than $5,500 per employee. Go here for a spreadsheet of the salary and bonus data for IRS employees getting bonuses between 2009 and 2012. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 17 May 13 - 08:25 AM "You were talking earlier about kind of dismissing the Benghazi issue as one that's just political and the president recently said it's a sideshow," said Woodward. "But if you read through all these e-mails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, 'Oh, let's not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let's not tell the public that there were warnings.' I hate to show, this is one of the documents with the editing that one of the people in the state department said, 'Oh, let's not let these things out.' And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, 'Oh, let's not tell this, let's not show this.' I would not dismiss Benghazi. It's a very serious issue. As people keep saying, four people were killed. You look at the hydraulic pressure that was in the system to not tell the truth, and, you know, we use this term and the government uses this term, talking points. Talking points, as we know, are like legal briefs. They're an argument on one side. What we need to get rid of talking point and they need to put out statements or papers that are truth documents. Okay, this is all we know." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woodward-i-would-not-dismiss-benghazi-similar-watergate_724707.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 13 - 10:14 PM Bobert: "How do you know they are facts, GfinS???" Been following for a LO-O-O-NG time, as you know....BTW, 'How do you know they are NOT the facts'?? Bobert: "Have you researched the material?? Been following for a LO-O-O-NG time, as you know.... Bobert: "If you believe that bloggers that the right hires and bb posts then you are either blind, stupid or downright lazy..." Who hired you? Bobert: "Remember that question I asked of you???" You've asked so many, and I try to answer them all, so refresh my memory..I'll answer you the best I can....and then you'll try to smear me as....well, I always hoped you could do better than you have....but you get the idea! BTW, 2701....AND...have you gotten any feedback on your CD?...I believe it was played here. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 16 May 13 - 07:42 PM And 2700... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 16 May 13 - 07:41 PM How do you know they are facts, GfinS??? Have you researched the material??? The right has billions and billions to pay people that take chicken shit and write chicken salad with that shit... If you believe that bloggers that the right hires and bb posts then you are either blind, stupid or downright lazy... BTW, just a hint... Remember that question I asked of you??? Of course you don't... Hint: It had to do with your sources... B~ |
