BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:23 PM

Oh, good. More people have come out to play. Excellent! I'm making popcorn here, guys. Go to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:11 PM

Righties don't do facts, Greg... It's not in their DNA...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:10 PM

P. S. Gee, Beardy, aren't FACTS damned inconvenient?

Facts? FACTS? I don't gots to show you no steenkin' FACTS!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:00 PM

Beardedbruce:

"Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who was ordered by the D.C. Circuit Court to pay more than $1 million to John Boehner in 2008 for the sleazy maneuver of publishing an illegally taped private conversation -- blamed the conservative groups themselves. 'Each of your groups was highly political,' he lectured them, noting that they wouldn't have been asked any questions if they hadn't requested tax-exempt status."

McDermott was given a tape of a cell-phone conversation that was inadvertently intercepted and taped on a police radio. Those who made the tape were surprised when they recognized the voices of those on the tape as Newt Gingrich and John Boehner—and they were plotting something that they recognized as unethical and illegal.

They gave the tape to Rep. Jim McDermott, who turned the tape over to the Senate Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee sat on the tape and indicated that they would do nothing about it.

So--McDermott, feeling that the voters had a right to know how their elected officials were behaving, turned a copy of the tape over to the press.

John Boehner filed a law suit, and for some cockamamie reason, the court ruled against McDermott!

What Boehner and Gingrich were up to was both illegal and unethical, and essentially, they've gotten away with it.

Jim McDermott is one of the good guys! He—and the American voters—are the ones who are getting screwed!

Don Firth

P. S. Gee, Beardy, aren't FACTS damned inconvenient?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 04:17 PM

Gee, GuestInsanity, I'm sure that Limp-Dick Beardy is appreciative of you jumping in with more of your usu8al worthless horseshit to support his usual worthless horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 12:05 PM

Greg F: "More right wing blather, fantasy, misinformation, innuendo and absolute unsubstantiated nonsense from our own Beloved Bearded Purveyor of Horseshit."

Greg F: "Care to support any of your outrageous claims and statements with evidence, Beardy?
I thought not. Typical limp-dick shit-stirring asshole."

Besides being well known, that breadedbruce's post is indeed accurate, though citing some of the more well known 'orgs'....Greg responds with the very typical, and tiresome 'so-called liberal' mudslinging....WITHOUT ONE countering, legitimate, reasonable facsimile of anything resembling a fact. One would have to think that he is doing this because he is either COMPLETELY in the dark, when it comes to what is going on, or simply that 'so-called liberal' whiners are so DUMBED DOWN, that they are incapable of an original thought.....you would figure that they would have a clue, when confronted with the fact, that they have NO facts to back up their whiny bitching.
How many more clues does anyone need, before they begin to re-think their whole rap???
Let me point the direction...................
You've been manipulated and duped!.....and have NO rap...get a fucking clue!.........and consider...for just a moment....that down deep, you're really shallow!

That being said, the 'so-called conservatives' are somewhat in the same boat.
The whole, of the 'national dialogue' is purposely set up by the corporate owned press, to steer people, and keep people AWAY from the real debate. Both sides are working for the same end. All you have to do is follow the 'progress' of what has been happening, and get your lazy asses off the rhetoric they are using to do it!
...and ask yourselves this: "Would you rather be controlled by corporations/bankers?..or corporate/banker owned government...or a government owned by the corporation/bankers???...would you rather be controlled by socialists?..capitalists??..fascists??...communists??..or ANY totalitarian state????...pick one...........but don't overlook NOT being CONTROLLED by any of them!
Maybe whiners are just used to being fed their bottle, every time they whine.....which SHOULD be your clue!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:48 AM

Boy, this is better than the drunken brawls at Chongo's bar. Such sparkling repartee from the reliable Greg F. Good going, guys! I tune in first thing every day, get a good laugh, it starts the day off with a smile. Then I check in again at night for more of the same. You know what? I think you gentelemen should go on internet video...a sort of Siskel & Ebert of the political world.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:27 AM

Care to support any of your outrageous claims and statements with evidence, Beardy?

I thought not. Typical limp-dick shit-stirring asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:06 AM

Care to give ANY example that you think is false???



I thought not. Typical liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 09:52 AM

More right wing blather, fantasy, misinformation, innuendo and absolute unsubstantiated nonsense from our own Beloved Bearded Purveyor of Horseshit.

S'matter, Beardy - you get personally turned down for a tax exemption?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM

At Tuesday's congressional hearings on the IRS, witnesses provided shocking details about the agency's abuse of conservative groups.

The IRS leaked the donor list of The National Organization for Marriage to their political opponents, the pro-gay-marriage Human Rights Campaign. This is not idle speculation: The documents had an internal IRS stamp on them. The list of names was then published on a number of liberal websites and NOM's donors were harassed.

The IRS demanded that all members of the Coalition for Life of Iowa swear under penalty of perjury that they wouldn't pray, picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. They were also asked to provide details of their prayer meetings.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who was ordered by the D.C. Circuit Court to pay more than $1 million to John Boehner in 2008 for the sleazy maneuver of publishing an illegally taped private conversation -- blamed the conservative groups themselves. "Each of your groups was highly political," he lectured them, noting that they wouldn't have been asked any questions if they hadn't requested tax-exempt status.

Even a fair-minded person -- not to be confused with Jim McDermott -- might hear about the IRS' harassment of groups with "tea party," "patriot" or "liberty" in their names and think: "How do we know the IRS wasn't equally hard on left-wing groups?"

What might be more helpful than clips of IRS staff line-dancing would be for reporters, say at Fox News, to mention a few examples of the wildly partisan left-wing groups that the IRS has certified as tax-exempt.


Among the many left-wing groups with tax-exempt status are:

-- ACORN (now renamed as other organizations, but all still tax-exempt), "community organizers" who engage in profanity-laced protests at private homes, dump garbage in front of public buildings and disrupt bankers' dinners in order to get more people on welfare in order to destroy the capitalist system and incite revolution;

-- Occupy Wall Street, which -- in its first month alone -- was responsible for more than a dozen sexual assaults; at least half a dozen deaths by overdose, suicide or murder; and millions of dollars in property damage;

-- Media Matters for America, a media "watchdog" group that has never noticed one iota of pro-Obama bias in the media;

-- Moveon.org, which ran ads comparing Bush to Hitler under its 501(c)(4) arm;

-- The Center for American Progress, an auxiliary of the Democratic National Committee funded by George Soros and staffed by former Clinton and Obama aides to promote the Democratic agenda;

-- The Tides Foundation, which funnels money to communist and terrorist-supporting organizations;

-- The Ford Foundation, which has never found a criminal law that isn't "racist."

These groups are regarded by the IRS as nonpartisan community groups, merely educational, while dozens of patriotic, constitutional, Christian or tea party groups are still waiting for their tax exemptions.

That's to say nothing of Planned Parenthood, PBS and innumerable other Democratic front-groups that not only have tax exemptions, but get direct funding from the government.

By contrast, the conservative groups being raked over the coals by the IRS actually were nonpartisan. The tea party forced sitting Republican senators off the ticket in Alaska and Indiana, and toppled "establishment" Republicans in Utah, Delaware, Nevada, Florida and Texas. Far from being a secretly pro-Republican group, the tea party has been a nightmare for Republicans.

Show me one instance where the Center for American Progress was more of a problem for Democrats than Republicans.

It is obviously in the interest of the left to show us liberal groups also harassed by the IRS, so it's striking that they haven't been able to produce one yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 02:12 PM

Just rabid frothing, based on a co-opted political view, laced with ideological rhetoric, that the 'top' doesn't believe, anyway...that leaves the subscribing participant, completely vision-less, except for the left-over feeling of contempt!

That pretty much sums it up, for all levels of wannabe partisan lemmings.

Dummies will get lost in the 'figuring it out' or claim they 'don't understand it!!!

Regards, Little Hawk!

GfS

P.S. Amos could make heads or tails of it....and agree..that is, if his 'heads and tails' go to 'right or left'!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:45 PM

I hope he did. The thought of the alternative makes me feel a bit queasy...! ;-) I think he may have caught something from Catspaw49.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:37 PM

I think he meant 'Blow me off!'.....that part is both easy and free!

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:33 PM

Sorry, old chap. I can't argue with you until you pay me the usual fee. 5 pounds. You know how it works. Five pounds for five minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:26 PM

Most, if not all US Presidents frequently violate the Constitution of the USA. It goes with the job...

Yo, Hawk: Blow me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 12:22 PM

Most, if not all US Presidents frequently violate the Constitution of the USA. It goes with the job, regardless of which party they belong to. Conquering world empires are not won by obeying Constitutional law, they are won by violating it...wars of choice being the greatest violation of all. Obama's just the latest one to do it, that's all. To be afraid to criticize him merely because he's not a Republican is hypocritical. If a Republican was in office right now, he might be even worse than Obama, yes...but that's no excuse for supporting Obama just because he isn't a Republican. Those 2 parties both stink to high heaven in any case. They're 2 halves of the same imperial monster.

I remember the day Obama got elected. I was very happy about it at the time, because I thought he might change things. He has not changed things. It's business as usual, and the phony "War on Terror" goes on, prosecuted by the chief terrorists in the world, who are the people in power in Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:00 AM

Interesting?

No.

Displaying absolutely no grasp of the reality of the current situation?

Certainly.

Irrelevant and idiotic?

Most assuredly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:41 AM

You may find this interesting........(no commentary...just what it was...)

"Articles of Impeachment: Article 2

    Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

    This conduct has included one or more of the following: 1.He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:06 PM

May have, could have, might have, would have, seems to, could be, it is said, blah blah blah.

Got any more bullshit weasel-words for us, Beardfy?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 11:03 AM

"(CBS News) CBS News has uncovered documents that show the State Department may have covered up allegations of illegal and inappropriate behavior within their ranks.

The Diplomatic Security Service, or the DSS, is the State Department's security force, charged with protecting the secretary of state and U.S. ambassadors overseas and with investigating any cases of misconduct on the part of the 70,000 State Department employees worldwide.

CBS News' John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General's memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut "engaged in sexual assaults" on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security detail "engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries" -- a problem the report says was "endemic."

The memo also reveals details about an "underground drug ring" was operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

Aurelia Fedenisn, a former investigator with the State Department's internal watchdog agency, the Inspector General, told Miller, "We also uncovered several allegations of criminal wrongdoing in cases, some of which never became cases."

In such cases, DSS agents told the Inspector General's investigators that senior State Department officials told them to back off, a charge that Fedenisn says is "very" upsetting.

"We were very upset. We expect to see influence, but the degree to which that influence existed and how high up it went, was very disturbing," she said.

In one specific and striking cover-up, State Department agents told the Inspector General they were told to stop investigating the case of a U.S. Ambassador who held a sensitive diplomatic post and was suspected of patronizing prostitutes in a public park.

The State Department Inspector General's memo refers to the 2011 investigation into an ambassador who "routinely ditched ... his protective security detai" and inspectors suspect this was in order to "solicit sexual favors from prostitutes."

Sources told CBS News that after the allegations surfaced, the ambassador was called to Washington, D.C. to meet with Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, but was permitted to return to his post.

Fedenisn says "hostile intelligence services" allow such behavior to continue. "I would be very surprised if some of those entities were not aware of the activities," she said. "So yes, it presents a serious risk to the United States government."

A draft of the Inspector General's report on the performance of the DSS, obtained by CBS News, states, "Hindering such cases calls into question the integrity of the investigative process, can result in counterintelligence vulnerabilities and can allow criminal behavior to continue."
"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57588456/state-department-memo-reveals-possible-cover-ups-halted-investigations

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 07:48 PM

This crap?????

"Bobert: "Typical Republican avoidance..." ???????????????????????

You gave us a load of crap how it was everybody's fault, except the guy who signed it...and then you turn around and say I avoiding telling you that he signed it ?????...and to top it off, you say 'REPUBLICAN AVOIDANCE'...Shit! I'm not even a Republican???
The FACT is YOU are avoiding seeing that Bill Clinton signed it...nobody else could....did you think somebody in Congress was holding Monica Lewinski's thongs for ransom, or something???...or Hillary was making soup with her panties??? What gives???
Sounds more like Democratic avoidance to me...being as you can't come up with an valid answer....maybe your waiting for that famous cigar..."

GfS

P.S. You just did it again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 07:41 PM

Get real, GfinS...

You are an A+'er on the accusation/proclamation side and an F-'er on backing up your accusation/proclamations...

You just run you mouth and when asked to put up or shut up you either change the subject of wiggle away from your crap as if you never said it...

If you want to post this crap and not be willing to back it up with facts then you are no better than your average KKK'er... Just ignorant noise...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 06:22 PM

Hurray!..another success story(?)

Take note..I know several who have already dropped out!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 11:46 AM

Bobert: "Typical Republican avoidance..." ???????????????????????

You gave us a load of crap how it was everybody's fault, except the guy who signed it...and then you turn around and say I avoiding telling you that he signed it ?????...and to top it off, you say 'REPUBLICAN AVOIDANCE'...Shit! I'm not even a Republican???
The FACT is YOU are avoiding seeing that Bill Clinton signed it...nobody else could....did you think somebody in Congress was holding Monica Lewinski's thongs for ransom, or something???...or Hillary was making soup with her panties??? What gives???
Sounds more like Democratic avoidance to me...being as you can't come up with an valid answer....maybe your waiting for that famous cigar...

GfS

P.S. You could always smoke it, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 11:35 AM

WHICH government?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 10:03 AM

I worry about those who support the government's actions, ALL done in secrecy, INCLUDING the laws that made it legal. I think it's a matter that requires the concern and thought of all people regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 07:39 AM

Typical Republican avoidance...

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 12:05 AM

Bobert: "Who was it in Congress who pushed it thru???
What were the political circumstances surrounding Clinton when he signed a bill he previously had nothing to do with???"

Enough 'fancy footwork'.....WHO SIGNED THE BILL????

Jeez! Political Party Dosey-Do....spin your partner 'round and 'round!

Bobert,..they both do it...they both do it together. follow the money and influence peddling trail!
No brainer....adjust your tin foil hat, to even a smaller size.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:11 PM

Okay, GfinS, lets do Glass-Steagall first...

What major corporation pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall??? Who did they support in Congress and who did most of their donations go to???

Who was it in Congress who pushed it thru???

What were the political circumstances surrounding Clinton when he signed a bill he previously had nothing to do with???

This ougtta be interesting as I often wonder how people who are so eat up with tin-foil think...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:10 PM

Here, Bobert..multiple sources....trade your tinfoil hat for titanium???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:01 PM

Actually, Clinton already repealed it..Bush was President while Biden and crew came up with it...but it was NOT a conflict of interest...they all work for the same outfit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 07:59 PM

Very delusional; and ignornat post, GfinS...

You seem to have no (as in zero) knowledge of recent American history...

That's why you come off as a tin-foil Republican...

Both of your two claims you just made are nothing but Tea Party mythology... Patently false...

Don't bother telling us how you are some classless and free apolitical person... You are eat-up TEA PARTY Republican... Dripping variety...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 07:31 PM

Greg F(who doesn't know what he wants): "Also, I can't remember you being outraged when Bush and the BuShites passed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, which permits all of this."

Joe Biden was the author of the 'Patriot Act', Greggie, in the mid '90's....probably about the time Bill Clinton was repealing Glass-Steagal....so don't get a twist in your 'whitey tighties'!

It is obvious that a clue hasn't dawned on you.
Chongo makes far more sense!
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 06:54 PM

PS Beardy : If, as you say, FOX News[sic] is not credible, why are you citing one of its paid propagandists, Julie Roginsky ?

Again, ya gotta make up your mind - or are you just talking (lying?) out of both sides of your mouth at once?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 05:32 PM

Source for your latest bout of postarrhoea, Beardy?

Also, I can't remember you being outraged when Bush and the BuShites passed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, which permits all of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 04:21 PM

previous from:

J"ulie Roginsky has served as a senior political strategist for Senator Frank Lautenberg and Congressmen Frank Pallone, Jr., Albio Sires and Steve Rothman, among others. She was previously the Capitol Hill communications director for Senator Jon Corzine."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 04:15 PM

"We have arrived at a defining moment for the progressive movement in this nation.
The New York Times editorial board, which has generally given this president a lot of leeway throughout his career, wrote a scathing denunciation Friday of the Obama administration's use of data mining, claiming that "the administration has now lost all credibility" on the issue of balancing civil rights with national security.
Every progressive with even a shred of moral consistency should side with the New York Times against the White House.
The events of the past month – from the Associated Press subpoena to the James Rosen search warrant to the revelation that our government has been indiscriminately collecting phone records data – have forced liberals to make a choice between complacency and outrage, between keeping silent because one of our own is in the White House and calling him out on betraying the principles for which we have fought for so long.
Every progressive with even a shred of moral consistency should side with the New York Times against the White House.
Consistency has never been the fiber of political discourse but it is nonetheless a vital ingredient of credibility.
Progressives rightly denounced the overreach of the Bush administration when it came to abuses of the Patriot Act. We should just as strongly denounce the expansion of those abuses by this administration.
Many of us did not buy the previous administration's excuse that overreaching infringement upon the civil rights of ordinary Americans was a necessary step in keeping those same ordinary Americans safe. We should not buy it from this administration now, simply because this president is ostensibly one of us.

If this White House truly wanted to level with the American people, the president would have gone on national television to explain the necessity of these programs and the trade-offs between civil liberties and security he believes are consistent with his policies.
That he has failed to do this for nearly six years is evidence of the fact that there is likely no excuse for such blanket surveillance upon the American public, aside from the usual "it's necessary to keep us safe" bromide.

Once the shock of 9/11 wore off for a lot of us, it became apparent that our government was happy to use its pretext for all sorts of questionable activity.
From the invasion of Iraq to the nearly unanimous passage of the Patriot Act, elected officials on both sides of the aisle did not hesitate to grab as much power as possible under the guise of national security.
This behavior was not limited to one political party or the other – so the criticism of this behavior should not be emanating from one party and not the other.

Over the past several days, conservatives have pilloried this administration for a policy that began under the previous one with the mantra that Bush only went after terrorists, while Obama is going after regular Americans.
This is as ridiculous as it is false.
No one should give any president a blank check to vastly expand executive power based on his word that he is doing it in the national interest.
The phone records of millions of Americans have been collected and analyzed by both administrations without any explanation of how violating our privacy protects our security.
As progressives, we cannot remain silent when a president, whom we worked hard to elect and defend at every turn, betrays the very values upon which he ran five years ago.
The New York Times was right to call out the administration on this, just as others have been right to call out its egregious behavior towards the Associated Press and James Rosen.
Progressives should stand with the Times on this. Otherwise, we are just rooting for the name on the jersey, and not for the values that the jersey represents.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:39 PM

Greggie,

If you can't read, too bad- just go on denying the facts. .

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:31 PM

More horse shit from BullshitBruce:

and committed possibly illegal acts

Which acts, and which laws were violated. "Possibly"? This is an accusation, not a fact.

on the order of un-named "higher ups"

More fantasy - they are unnamed because it didn't happen.

give the liberals an advantage in the last election

How, exactly, did it give the liberals an advantage. Have any documentation that such a advantage existed and had any actual effect?

And Beardy, you STILL haven't addressed the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:31 PM

Facts- The IRS violated it's own rules, and committed possibly illegal acts, on the ordr of un-named "higher ups", to give the liberals an advantage in the last election, and Greggie thinks that is ok. After all, the important thing is that the correct party wins the election.

Of course, if the other side had done this, there would ( have been?) calls for impeachment by the same people who think that Liberals should get their own set of rules, to be sure they end up in control.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:19 PM

Your source is slightly less reputable than Fox News....

1. Didja read it, Beardy? Of course not. Or follow the references? Of course not. Plenty of other coverage of Noonan's several faux pas & mis-statements on pretty much any news source you'd care to pick.

2. The only source that's possibly less reputable than Fox News[sic] (which I thought you lionized) is yourself.

And you STILL haven't addressed the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 01:14 PM

Sorry, Greggie boy. Your source is slightly less reputable than Fox News....



SO by the Silly Rubber Stooge rule it can be ignored, and you have said nothing of any significance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 01:08 PM

And yet MORE horseshit, Beardy! Now its leaked documents- or rather A leaked document. You really DO have to make up your mind exactly what you're complaining that the IRS has actually done.

If you read the rest of the Noonan's hatchet job - more her opinion than a news story, Beardy, it will become apparent (even to you!) that it has plenty of innuendo, suggestion, and supposition and damn little evidence, facts, or proof.

Its also obvious that the "National Organization for Marriage" is a political lobbying group, and not a "public service" group.

And playing the Nixon card is only a bit more reprehensible than playing the Nazi card.

"Those were the days"??? Gimmie a fuckin' break.

Oh, and by the way, re: Noonan, Click Here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:42 PM

All US elections are rigged, and they always have been! ;-) The thing is, they are rigged from both sides, see? The side that does the most successful job at riggin' the election...which usually involves how much money they can get ahold of and how much cheatin' and false promises and shameless scaremongerin', character assassination, and gerrymanderin' they can do...wins.

Standard stuff. Only the losers will complain after the fact! The winners congratulate themselves on havin' "saved the nation" from the horrors of bein' governed by the satanic forces in the other party. Har! Har! It's good for a laugh if you don't let it depress you too much.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:29 PM

"The most compelling evidence of that is what happened to the National Organization for Marriage. Its chairman, John Eastman, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, and the tale he told was different from the now-familiar stories of harassment and abuse.

In March 2012, the organization, which argues the case for traditional marriage, found out its confidential tax information had been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign, one of its primary opponents in the marriage debate. The HRC put the leaked information on its website—including the names of NOM donors. NOM not only has the legal right to keep its donors' names private, it has to, because when contributors' names have been revealed in the past they have been harassed, boycotted and threatened. This is a free speech right, one the Supreme Court upheld in 1958 after the state of Alabama tried to compel the NAACP to surrender its membership list.

The NOM did a computer forensic investigation and determined that its leaked IRS information had come from within the IRS itself. If it was leaked by a worker or workers within the IRS it would be a federal crime, with penalties including up to five years in prison.

In April 2012, the NOM asked the IRS for an investigation. The inspector general's office gave them a complaint number. Soon they were in touch. Even though the leaked document bore internal IRS markings, the inspector general decided that maybe the document came from within the NOM. The NOM demonstrated that was not true."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323844804578529713576219412.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:12 PM

More make-believe horseshit, Beardy. Now its "rigged elections". Make up what passes for your mind.

Oh, and how about addressing the topic & the facts I posted.

Good thing you deplore and don't make personal attacks or call people names, eh. But then, you have no use or respect for the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 10:49 AM

Greggie boy,

When the targetted groups ( all on one side of the political spectrum) are delayed status until AFTER the election, while the ones supporting the administration are railroaded thought BEFORE the election, even a shit for brains like you would have to wonder if the election was being rigged.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 10:47 AM

Sorry, Fugitive From Sanity, but I haven't has any visions since the last time I took peyote over 40 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 10:45 AM

Atta boy, Beardy. More horseshit.

Please list the laws that were broken and the names of any groups that were unfairly denied tax-free status.

Ooops. Answer in both cases: NONE.

Of course, in the fact-free and reality-challenged environment you operate in, it makes no difference that

1. Concress requires - and has done since 1913- that the IRS & its pedecessor agencies review every application to weed out organizations that are partisan, political, or generate private gain.

2. Many of the right-wing groups scrutinized - NOT "AUDITED" - are, in fact, blatantly political operations masquerading as "social welfare" organizations.