BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 09:48 AM

NSA and PRISM. Way to go Obama. The new Bush, just like the old Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM

Reuters) - A misfired email from a U.S. Internal Revenue Service employee in Cincinnati alerted a number of Washington IRS officials that extra scrutiny was being placed on conservative groups in July 2010, a year earlier than previously acknowledged, according to interviews with IRS workers by congressional investigators.

Transcripts of the interviews, reviewed by Reuters on Thursday, provided new details about Washington managers' awareness of the heightened scrutiny applied by front-line IRS agents in Cincinnati to applications for tax-exempt status from conservative groups with words like "Tea Party" in their names.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-irs-scrutiny-idUSBRE95605X20130607

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:56 AM

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency's phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:07 AM

Greg, is there a vision of what you'd like to see, in this country??...and please relay how these things that are happening, with the scandals, are moving in that preferred direction, and to what end??

Just wondering, not only because of your posts, that are just venting, (and poorly), but maybe you can explain, that this stuff going on is good for all of us.
Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:54 PM

But I hear it ONLY from YOU.

Yo BullshitBruce: you got an earwax problem? Or have you stuck your fingers in your ears while loudly repeating " La La La La La ... "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:50 PM

Beardedbruce: ""One thing we've learned about the Bush-Obama White House is that words don't matter. Watch what they do."

Seems like I've heard that before...Oh yeah, I posted the same thing before...but it falls on deaf ears.

By the way, there is a film out, You can and should see it, maybe on Netflix, or where ever..it's called 'The Promised Land'.....and you are going to root for one side or the other..but the 'surprise' comes at the very end...which should be VERY reminiscent of reading certain posts, in Mudcat. It should be a wake up call, for all those who have been dozing for the last 40 years!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:45 PM

"
Of course the resident righties will deny that they are saying this but if they weren't saying it in a manner that completely distorts the truth then why are there so many tin foilers repeating this mythology as if it were true...
"


Bobert, YOU are the one repeating this, and claiming that the right is saying it- But I hear it ONLY from YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:42 PM

"The way I see it is once an "American citizen" leaves the United States and takes up arms against US then he or she becomes fair game to be taken out regardless of what kind of weapon is used...
"


I agree with Bobert on this 100%

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:39 PM

The way I see it is once an "American citizen" leaves the United States and takes up arms against US then he or she becomes fair game to be taken out regardless of what kind of weapon is used...

But the righties want to make it sound as if the US is targeting Americans here in the US with drones... That's pretty much the way we hear them frame it... And lot's of mental midgets believe it... You oughtta hear what folks here in the South say... They actaully believe that Obama is flying drones over the US killing American citizens on our soil...

Of course the resident righties will deny that they are saying this but if they weren't saying it in a manner that completely distorts the truth then why are there so many tin foilers repeating this mythology as if it were true...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM

Does any responsible liberal have any comment about this? Besides blaming the writer for not going along with the required "Obama is always right." mantra?




"Welcome to the era of Bush-Obama, a 16-year span of U.S. history that will be remembered for an unprecedented erosion of civil liberties and a disregard for transparency. On the war against a tactic—terrorism—and its insidious fallout, the United States could have skipped the 2008 election.
It made little difference.
Despite his clear and popular promises to the contrary, President Obama has not shifted the balance between security and freedom to a more natural state—one not blinded by worst fears and tarred by power grabs. If anything, things have gotten worse.
Killing civilians and U.S. citizens via drone.
Seizing telephone records at the Associated Press in violation of Justice Department guidelines.
Accusing a respected Fox News reporter of engaging in a conspiracy to commit treason for doing his job.
Detaining terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, despite promises to end the ill-considered Bush policy."


http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/welcome-to-the-bush-obama-white-house-they-re-spying-on-us-20130606


"One thing we've learned about the Bush-Obama White House is that words don't matter. Watch what they do."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:55 AM

beardedbruce: "Looks like our resident slime ball has come back out to represent the liberal viewpoint."

Yes!..I'd like to hear their 'viewpoint'....leaving out the snide, name calling, of course....just WHAT exactly is it????

I'm not even sure they know.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:09 PM

Looks like our resident slime ball has come back out to represent the liberal viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:01 PM

Republicans have seized on the visits to cast doubt on assertions by Shulman that he never told White House officials about the IRS practice of targeting conservative groups

Looks like Beardy & the TeaPublicans have siezed on the tactics of good old Tailgunner Joe.

Not only bullshit, but particularly slimy bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 11:52 AM

"agency designed to be apolitical but that is increasingly charged with implementing policies tied to political agendas"

Should the IRS be more political? Is that what we want, and would we want it if this was a conservative administration?



Article:

"Former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman was cleared to go to the White House nearly 150 times during his tenure, often meeting with high-ranking administration officials.
Republicans have seized on the visits — which, according to visitor logs, totaled at least 147 between 2010 and 2012 — to cast doubt on assertions by Shulman that he never told White House officials about the IRS practice of targeting conservative groups seeking a tax exemption.

But rather than evidence of an unusually close relationship with White House officials, the visitor logs and questions surrounding Shulman's visits reflect the challenge of running an agency designed to be apolitical but that is increasingly charged with implementing policies tied to political agendas on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
(PHOTOS: 8 key players in IRS scandal)
During Shulman's time in office, the IRS was tasked with playing an instrumental role in some of the administration's top policy initiatives, including the economic stimulus and President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, dragging it even more into the political spotlight."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/doug-shulman-irs-white-house-visits-92087.html#ixzz2VAWq4S4c

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 12:21 AM

Ah, that 'under the surface' bigoted racism rears its nasty head again...actually meaningless to those of us who don't have those 'feelings'.
...but like I said before, the people who DID vote for him because he was 'black and a Democrat', were motivated by trying to be 'tragically hip'...and launder their own racism...and that's exactly what it is. If you voted for him, or support him, (or not) solely on the basis of his color, YOU are the racist!.....maybe that's why they're so trigger happy to pull up that word to use in on those who piss them off!
...I didn't say 'Maybe' did I?
The weak accuse others of their motives!
Frankly, I don't even think about race shit at all....who gives a rat's hemorrhoid!..played great music with all kinds....Did I say 'All kinds'?,...well that's silly..we are either musicians or not...and the best of musicians don't give a crap about politics...they're thinking about music!....being as that really is the case, it gives one a rather objective perspective of viewing...a lie is a lie is a lie...I don't give a fuck who's telling it....hmmm. if I like 'white lies' better than 'black lies', does that make me bigoted???
Naw, I think I'll stick to disliking all lies, regardless of the color of the mouth they fall out of!
Some of you guys can 'negotiate' with yourselves, if that holds for you.......but watch out for that 'under the surface' bigoted racism' and then clean up your own act!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:22 PM

Though MOST Jews would not be friends with someone who calls people who are "Black, and a Democrat" "dumb Ni**ers".

Like Greggie boy has.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:19 PM

That's ironic...because Jewish voters happen to lean heavily for the Democrats....maybe you ought to listen to what he has to say...he may be on YOUR side, but you aren't listening to your friends.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:20 AM



How many times do I have to tell you? The whole damn world's out to get you, Beardy, most likely 'cause you're Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:40 AM

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1899


"American voters say 76 - 17 percent, including 63 - 30 percent among Democrats, that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate charges the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

President Barack Obama gets a negative 45 - 49 percent job approval rating, compared to 48 - 45 percent positive in a May 1 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University, conducted before the IRS allegations surfaced.

The president's biggest drop is among independent voters, who give him a negative 37 - 57 percent score, compared to a negative 42 - 48 percent May 1. He gets a negative 9 - 86 percent from Republicans and a positive 87 - 8 percent from Democrats, both virtually unchanged. Women approve 49 - 45 percent while men give a negative 40 - 54 percent score.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:32 AM

Re: my assumption that Greggie represents the ENTIRE Liberal community here:


The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented.
—Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons[


I have heard NOTHING against him or his tactics here on Mudcat, by liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:00 AM

And it does seem that Greggie boy is the BEST that the Liberals here can come up with.

That reflects poorly on them- I had hoped to have a discussion of facts, and instead get lying racist scum like Greggie making personnal attacks with not one word of comment from the "responsible" liberal members.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 08:45 PM

Care to address the issue??...or just spout what has become the 'so-called liberal's' tactic of 'nothing really to say'..so say something childish...it beats thinking, huh?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 13 - 06:36 PM

Ah, jeez, here's another episode of postarrhoea. Poor guy, you have to feel sorry for him. Not his fault - its a medical condition.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 04:12 PM

"Why would you trust the bureaucracy with your health if you can't trust the bureaucracy with your politics?"

"How can you put Obamacare under an Internal Revenue Service? Remember, this is an administration which will not profile terrorists, but will profile patriots, profile constitutional groups."

"The parallel between Benghazi and the IRS story is amazing, Lying, then lying about lying, and then hiding from the fact that they're lying. Then seeking to apologize for the lies they claim they didn't tell."



Even a broken clock is right...twice a day!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 03:44 PM

Economics doesn't mean crap to an ideological driven agenda....the live in a world of their 'sense of entitlement'. Only when the World Bank tells the President what THEY are going to do, must he divert the public from the reality going on behind the scenes....while they still THINK HE is actually for 'liberals'...He's NOT!..Get a fucking clue!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 02:21 PM

A little-noticed part of President Obama's Affordable Care Act channels some $12.5 billion into a vaguely defined "Prevention and Public Health Fund" over the next decade–and some of that money is going for everything from massage therapists who offer "calming techniques," to groups advocating higher state and local taxes on tobacco and soda, and stricter zoning restrictions on fast-food restaurants.

The program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has raised alarms among congressional critics, who call it a "slush fund," because the department can spend the money as it sees fit and without going through the congressional appropriations process. The sums involved are vast. By 2022, the department will be able to spend $2 billion per year at its sole discretion. In perpetuity.

What makes the Prevention and Public Health Fund controversial is its multibillion-dollar size, its unending nature (the fund never expires), and its vague spending mandate: any program designed "to improve health and help restrain the rate of, growth" of health-care costs. That can include anything from "pickleball" (a racquet sport) in Carteret County, N.C. to Zumba (a dance fitness program), kayaking and kickboxing in Waco, TX.

"It's totally crazy to give the executive branch $2 billion a year ad infinitum to spend as they wish," said budget expert Jim Capretta of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. "Congress has the power of the purse, the purpose of which is to insure that the Executive branch is using taxpayer resources as Congress specified."

The concerns are as diverse as the critics. The HHS Inspector General, in a 2012 "alert," was concerned that the payments to third-party groups came dangerously close to taxpayer-funded lobbying. While current law bars lobbying with federal money, Obama administration officials and Republican lawmakers differ on where lawful "education" ends and illicit "lobbying" begins. Nor have federal courts defined "lobbying" for the purposes of this fund. A health and Human Services (HHS) department spokesman denies that any laws were broken and the inspector general is continuing to investigate.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/30/obamacares-slush-fund-fuels-a-broader-lobbying-controversy/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 02:12 PM

The truth is, that many of the 'so-called liberal' fanatics for Obama, see him as 'black and Democratic' and are blinded to the FACT that he is so far to the RIGHT, he's able to pull the wool over most of their glazed eyes!..so much that they can't see their support for him is nothing more than their own bigotry....working in reverse!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 01:29 PM

The scandals swirling around the Obama administration have many journalists scratching their heads as to how "hope and change" seem to have been supplanted by "arrogance and fear." Perhaps it's time they revisit one of their original premises about Barack Obama: that he wasn't influenced by the Chicago Daley machine. You know: the machine that boosted his career and whose protégés — including Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and his wife, Michelle — he brought to Washington with him.

The liberal take on the president was best summed up by Slate magazine's Jacob Weisberg, who wrote last year that Obama "somehow passed through Chicago politics without ever developing any real connection to it." It's true that Obama initially kept some distance from the machine. But by the time he ran for the Senate in 2004, his main political Sherpas were Axelrod, who was then the chief consultant to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and Jarrett, the mayor's former deputy chief of staff. As Scott Simon of NPR noted: "While calling for historic change globally, [Obama] has never professed to be a reformer locally." The Daley machine, which evolved over 60 years from a patronage-rich army of worker bees into a corporate state in which political pull and public-employee unions dominate, has left its imprint on Obama. The machine's core principle, laid out in an illuminating Chicago Independent Examiner primer on "the Chicago Way," is that at all times elections are too important to be left to chance. John Kass, the muckraking columnist for the Chicago Tribune who for years has warned that Obama was bringing "the Chicago way" to Washington, sums up his city like this: "Once there were old bosses. Now there are new bosses. And shopkeepers still keep their mouths shut. Tavern owners still keep their mouths shut. Even billionaires keep their mouths shut."
"We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, warned ABC News when Obama ran in 2008. He noted that Obama had "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state."


http://nationalreview.com/article/349610/obamas-chicago-way-john-fund

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 01:26 PM

"IRS Crosses Green Line
Pro-Israel groups felt wrath of Obama IRS, WFB investigation reveals
   
AP
      
BY: Alana Goodman
May 30, 2013 4:59 am

A Washington Free Beacon investigation has identified at least five pro-Israel organizations that have been audited by the IRS in the wake of a coordinated campaign by White House-allied activist groups in 2009 and 2010.

These organizations, some of which are too afraid of government reprisals to speak publicly, say in interviews with the Free Beacon that they now believe the IRS actions may have been coordinated by the Obama administration.

Many of the charities openly clashed with the Obama administration's policy of opposing Israeli settlement construction over the so-called "Green Line," which marks the pre-1967 boundary between Israel and the West Bank and West and East Jerusalem.

After the Obama administration took up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as one of its most prominent foreign policy priorities in early 2009, and made a cessation of Israeli settlement construction the cornerstone of its approach, the nonprofits were subjected to a string of unflattering media reports.

White House-allied lobbying groups joined the media criticism by challenged the nonprofits' tax-exempt status, arguing that they undercut President Barack Obama's Middle East policies.

"Our concern at that time was that these articles weren't just appearing by happenstance, but may have reflected an evolving policy shift in the Obama administration to scrutinize charitable giving by organizations on behalf of Jewish communities and institutions over the Green Line," said Jerusalem-based attorney Marc Zell, who convened a private meeting of pro-Israel groups in August 2009 to discuss these concerns.

Tax-exempt charities that support Israeli settlements have been the subject of controversy for years. But the issue came to a head after Obama made opposition to settlement construction a focus of his Middle East policy in 2009 and demanded Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu halt all construction beyond the Green Line, including in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem.

While it is not illegal for these charities to contribute to groups and individuals across the Green Line, critics say that they should not receive tax-exempt status because they support communities the administration views as antagonistic to administration policy.

The media scrutiny began as early as March 26, 2009, when the Washington Post's David Ignatius published a column questioning the groups' tax-exempt status.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) announced the next day that it would begin a campaign of filing legal complaints with the IRS and the Treasury Department to investigate groups "allegedly raising funds for the development of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank."

ADC is closely tied to the Obama White House. The president recorded a video greeting to the group's annual conference and sent two senior administration officials to attend.

The ADC announced in October 2009 that it had expanded its legal campaign against pro-Israel charities and was "working with a number of coalition partners, both nationally and internationally, in conducting this ongoing campaign."

The chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority raised the issue two days later during a meeting with U.S. Consul General Daniel Rubenstein, according to a State Department cable revealed by Wikileaks.

"[Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Quraya] gave the Consul General a copy of an article by Uri Blau and Nir Hasson, published in Israeli daily Haaretz newspaper on August 17, entitled 'American Non-profit Organization Raises Funds for Settlement,' and asked the USG to review the situation with an eye toward eliminating organizations' tax exempt status if they are funding settlement activity," said the cable.

On July 5, 2010, the New York Times published its 5,000-word cover story on the groups, following up with a Room for Debate series two days later. The article quoted an unnamed senior State Department administration official calling such groups "a problem" and "unhelpful to the efforts that we're trying to make."
The story also quoted a senior Obama Middle East adviser, Daniel Kurtzer, saying the groups "drove us crazy."

J Street, a pro-Palestinian lobbying group that was closely aligned with the White House in 2009 and 2010, called the following week for an investigation into U.S. charities that contribute to settlements.

One pro-Israel targets was HaYovel, which was featured prominently in the New York Times article. Six months after the article was published, the IRS audited the Nashville-based charity, which sends volunteers to work in vineyards across the Green Line.

"We bookend that [New York Times] story. We were the first [group mentioned]. They really kind of focused on us," said HaYovel's founder Tommy Waller. "Then six months later we had an audit."

Shari Waller, who cofounded HaYovel with her husband, said the couple received a phone call from the IRS in December 2010. She said she was not aware of anything in their tax documents that may have prompted the audit, and added that the additional scrutiny came during the group's first five years of existence when audits tend to be rare.

"They contacted us the week of Christmas and told us they wanted to audit us, right now," she said. "The most unusual thing to me was they contacted us at a time [that] for most people is a very hectic time, and we had just returned from Israel. To think about taking calls for an audit on the telephone—official business is usually conducted through the mail."

Tommy Waller said he found the timing of the audit "suspicious" and believes it may have been politically motivated.

"We 100-percent support Judea and Samaria, and Jewish sovereignty in that area, and the current administration is 100 percent opposed to Jewish sovereignty in that area of Israel," he said. "That's why we suspected that we would have to deal with [an audit]."

Two other organizations—the American arm of an educational institution that operates across the Green Line and the American arm of a well-known Israeli charity that was mentioned in the New York Times article—say they were also audited.

Another organization that was criticized in multiple articles during 2009 and 2010 was audited last year. The organization, like many of the groups with whom the Free Beacon spoke, asked to remain anonymous out of fear of political retaliation and concern that exposure would harm fundraising efforts.

"The IRS carried out an examination of our organization, reviewing all of our accounting records, tax returns, bylaws, bank records, grant awards, etc, for the relevant period," said a senior official of this organization.

"There was no vindictiveness in the audit itself and it was completed within a matter of months. Our feeling at the time was that this order must have come from above. The IRS seemed to be responding to a request or a complaint from higher up."

Concerns that the IRS was targeting pro-Israel groups were first raised publicly by Z Street, a pro-Israel organization run by Lori Lowenthal Marcus.

Z Street filed a lawsuit against the IRS in 2010, alleging its application for tax-exempt status was delayed because it disagreed with the Obama administration's Israel policy.

According to the suit, Marcus's attorney was informed by IRS official Diane Gentry that Z Street's "application for tax-exempt status has been at least delayed, and may be denied because of a special IRS policy in place regarding organizations in any way connected with Israel, and further that the applications of many such Israel-related organizations have been assigned to "a special unit in the D.C. office."

Neither the IRS nor Gentry responded to a request for comment.

Marcus said Z Street has not funded anyone or any groups in the settlements. But, she added, the problems her organization faced could be related to the administration's concerns over settlement-supporting groups.

Z Street's application for tax-exempt status first ran into trouble with the IRS on July 19, 2010, two weeks after the lengthy New York Times article was published."



thread.cfm?threadid=115883&messages=2819&page=1&desc=yes

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 13 - 11:58 AM

This bears repeating, as to Transparency, and what happened, from the left's point of view!

Ironic how these 'so-called liberal' devotees are trying to convince people that they are in favor of a dishonest regime, and then turn around and think that the dishonest regime is dishonest to everyone but THEM!!!

Flaming idiots!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 11:44 AM

Crawl back under your rock, Greggie boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 13 - 11:40 AM

Dear God, this is really reaching, even for Beardy! Guess he's spiralling downhill at a faster rate than anticipated.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 11:03 AM

"In the wake of recent political targeting scandals, Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn is calling on the Obama administration to fully explain the 2011 raids on the Gibson Guitar Corp.

"The recent scandals surrounding this administration raise a number of questions about who they choose to target and why," Blackburn said. "The arrogance and lack of transparency displayed by this President and his cabinet officials in events such as the raids on Gibson Guitar and the IRS targeting of conservative groups show a complete disregard for the rule of law."

In 2011, federal agents raided Gibson's facilities in Nashville and Memphis in response to the company's alleged use of wood that is illegal to obtain in India. The company was charged under the Lacey Act, which made the transportation and sale of plants and wildlife that were illegally obtained overseas a crime. Gibson's facilities were also raided in 2009 under suspicion of illegal wood from Madagascar.

Last week Investor's Business Daily highlighted the fact that Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz has contributed to Republican politicians, including Blackburn. It further noted that the CEO of C.F. Martin & Co — one of Gibson's competitors, which has used the same type of Indian wood with impunity — is a long-time Democratic donor.

"It is clear that this administration made a choice to use excessive regulatory methods to intimidate conservative groups and individuals who disagree with their political ideology," Blackburn said. "Not only is this wrong, but it is illegal. No one should have to live in fear of their government."

"President Obama owes the American people a full explanation as to why these decisions were made, and anyone responsible for plotting these politically motivated attacks should be punished to the fullest extent of the law," she added.

This is not the first time Blackburn has questioned the Obama administration about its treatment of Gibson. After the 2011 raid, Blackburn, the vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, joined other members of the committee in asking the justice and interior departments to provide more information about the decision to raid Gibson.

The departments' response, which was delivered two weeks later, "frustrated" Blackburn at the time, as she said it provided no real answers.

Last August, Gibson settled with the Justice Department, agreeing to pay a $300,000 penalty and a community service payment of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 May 13 - 02:32 AM

Good call, 'another brat'!....but so far they just don't 'get it'...and can't see why not!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,another brat on the playground
Date: 27 May 13 - 04:23 PM

"I know you are, but what am I?"

"Takes one to know one!"

"Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 13 - 02:59 PM

I do.

You really ought to try it sometime.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 13 - 02:45 PM

Applicable words........
Good advice......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 13 - 08:20 PM

Well, he COULD have run again Bobert, if the FDR-hating Republicans hadn't queered the deal & the will of the people be damned.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 May 13 - 07:10 PM

Yeah, Obama doesn't have to run in another election so why not just kick out the jambs???

I would...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 13 - 01:39 PM

Amen!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 13 - 09:44 AM

Talk about a nonstory; Obama isn't Nixonian
The president needs to do a better job refuting such scandalous comparisons
By LLOYD CONSTANTINE, Commentary
Published 11:34 pm, Saturday, May 25, 2013

The momentary elation of commenting on the story du jour, that President Barack Obama was starting to be perceived like former President Richard Nixon, is quickly overwhelmed by the depressing realization that the premise is baseless but nevertheless has legs.

This is an opportunity for the increasingly lazy press to waste a month spinning the analogy rather than reporting important news. Moreover, the disloyal opposition in Congress would seize this latest excuse to obstruct the progress of our nation rather than participate in its governance.

I once was a law professor, a doctoral candidate in government during the Nixon administration and senior adviser to a New York governor who experienced one serious and one terminal scandal. From this perspective, the Obama/Nixon comparison is absurd.

First, one must reread the articles for the impeachment of Nixon passed by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974. That would have led to Nixon's removal by the Senate and likely criminal prosecution had he not resigned Aug. 9, 1974, and been pardoned by President Gerald Ford on Sept. 8 of that year.

Nixon was charged with personally obstructing justice, withholding evidence, making false statements and inducing others to lie with the use of payoffs. He also was charged with personally interfering with the FBI, CIA, Department of Justice and Office of Special Prosecutor and using campaign funds to set up a secret unit in the White House that utilized the CIA to engage in unlawful and covert activities, including rigging a criminal trial.

Neither the known facts about Benghazi, the government's subpoena of Associated Press reporters' phone records or the IRS' stopping and frisking of conservative groups nor the administration's candor about these activities support the Obama to Nixon comparison. There is not a speck of evidence that Obama knew about any illegality in these activities.

And so far, only the IRS, acting under the supervision of George W. Bush's appointees, suggests possible illegality. Nixon frequently and personally used the IRS to go after opponents, as when he asked White House counsel John Dean "How come we haven't pulled McGovern's file on his income tax?" — referring to the Democratic presidential candidate in 1972.

Nixon's "high crimes and misdemeanors" contrast with asserted errors in judgment by federal employees far removed from Obama, and from policy disputes, like those involving the AP, where the press establishment wants a federal shield law, but none in fact exists.

No better credentialed observer than Dean, who served hard time for the Watergate crimes he committed at Nixon's instruction, has dismissed the Obama/Nixon comparison, stating "whoever is making the analysis is challenged in their understanding of history. ... There are no comparisons. They're not comparable."

Assuming we need one, then, what is an apt comparison?

The movie "42" chronicling Jackie Robinson's heroic breaking of major league baseball's color barrier in 1947 suggests that the president is anachronistically channeling the Dodgers' second baseman. In "42," we see Branch Rickey, the Brooklyn general manager, telling Robinson that they need a man strong enough not to fight back when vicious verbal and physical assaults are hurled at him — as they were.

Robinson was that hero in the year I was born. Still, it's not clear whether we all wouldn't have been better off had Robinson cracked a bat across the skull of someone who assaulted him — say, Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman, who had been a blatant racist and anti-Semite, tolerated by the baseball establishment for decades.

Without resolving that old dispute, Obama's emulation of Robinson is counterproductive. When the president recently was confronted by the press with the inane comparison to Nixon, he said "I'll let you guys engage in those comparisons" — inviting them to frolic and detour for awhile until the next easy diversion comes their way.

The president, a constitutional scholar of the highest order, probably can recite, verbatim, the charges against Nixon. Why not use that knowledge and his extraordinary rhetorical skill?

If Jackie Robinson had the right demeanor for 1947, that model just won't work in 2013 — not after an African-American was re-elected with a clear electoral mandate.

Take off the gloves, Mr. President. If you need to channel someone from back then, a better and more useful model might be Harry Truman. Give 'em hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 13 - 09:37 PM

Bobert: "Pick one story, haters..."

How about a government that the people can trust, whether you agree with them or not, and who stick to the rule of law, and who don't have to work overtime covering up their corrupted ways???
Can I pick that one??
Can you??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 13 - 08:33 PM

Yup, you gotta love the "classless and free" haters... On one hand they blast Obama over and over and over and over and over...

On the other hand they say it's both sides...

Pick one story, haters...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 May 13 - 06:40 PM

Well, 'Guest', I really wish you'd post a name for yourself..we can't tell if you are one of many 'Guests'.....regardless, I happen, for one, to agree with your last post. I've been posting that same thing for QUITE a while....the 'partisans' neither 'gets it', or gets all nasty when I tell them the completely obvious.
Hey, put up a name, so we know one 'guest' from another.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 13 - 12:48 PM

Expecting either one of those political parties to prove the least bit trustworthy once in office is like expecting mercy, compassion, and kind affection from the kingpins of organized crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 13 - 08:43 AM

GfS,

See my post of Date: 22 May 13 - 10:36 AM



Obi-Wan Obama has our best interest at heart- he even told you that! It is NOT like ANY Jedi would go over to the Dark Side, you know......

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 May 13 - 04:41 PM

By the way.....Is there anyone in here, who can give an explanation, on other possible reasons, as to why the events are unfolding as they are, with such a trail of lies and cover-ups?? Can anyone justify their own perceived position as to WHY this should not be investigated further??? ....without the childish attempts at trying to smear those who have brought you the posts, that are taken right from the 'news' media???

Give it a shot....if there is another part of the TRUTH that people need to know...what is it??
Fair enough??

GfS

...and if you can't come up with anything...could or would you even consider that those who have brought you 'cut and paste' posts, from the 'news', may have been doing you a service, rather than just fucking with ya'???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 May 13 - 02:18 PM

Greg F: "And the horseshit flows on, untrammeled, to the sea."

Then stop posting!

OR, at least find out what's going on!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 13 - 01:18 PM

Yes, we noticed your post, Greggie

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 May 13 - 01:14 PM

And the horseshit flows on, untrammeled, to the sea.