American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Esten, can you say Henry Waxman?

Where were your "outrage" and "monkey court" condemnations when Waxman gaveled down Issa a few years ago? Waxman's behavior was exponentially more egregious than Issa's treatment of the blowhard Cummings.

Liberal / Progressive double standard again!

I am sure the Democrats want to start this side show to distract the public from the disaster of ObamaCare and Obama's failed foreign policy.

I noticed Obama has now "extended" the grace period for nonconforming healthcare polices for another 2 years in hopes of forestalling another wave of cancellations for business employer's policies which will occur just before the 2014 mid-terms. I suspect the results will be the same as the last time Obama waved his "magic wand" over the personal policy cancellations in 2013, NOTHING! The several states insurance commissioners refused to acknowledge the reprieve as it contradicted the law as written.

Have you noticed how many of the architects of ObamaCare have "retired" rather than face defeat at the polls?

2014 is coming and the Democrats are scared, very scared.

[b] Nancy Pelosi turned out the lights and killed the microphones in 2008[/b]

[quote]House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, [highlight]turned off the lights and killed the microphones[/highlight], but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.[snip]

“This is the people’s House,” Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. “This is not Pelosi’s politiburo.”[snip]

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and [highlight]reporters were kicked out of the Speaker’s Lobby[/highlight], the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers. [snip] [/quote]
"Un-be-lievable!" Really?

How quick they forget, but turnabout seems like fair play to me.

This is exactly why very little gets done by all the jokers in government. What about when you did this or what about when you did that? The only defense any side needs to make is to remind the other side about their past infraction and the matter is then it closed because no one will ever be wrong as the sides are then even. These elected slickers have used the "tip for tat" excuse so much the public, as we can see here is now readily accepting it as a defense when in effect it is clearly not, no matter what side you're on.

Tit for tat is one of the set up argument for many divorces, would be nice to divorce all these clowns with their endless excuses and no action. Would be even nicer, no smarter if Joe public would stop accepting and using it as a defense. Remember every time either side uses it, its more than likely a cop out of something they did wrong and they're using past bad behavior / action to excuse the current one. Bet I get no love for this post from either side.

[QUOTE=Esten;438473]I watched the IRS hearing this week, what struck me most was the appalling conduct of the chairman, Darrell Issa.[/QUOTE]I don't know much about Issa, and probably agree with his positions on economic issues. I definitely agree with his position on the IRS's involvement in politics. The IRS should stay out of it and leave it to the bipartisan Federal Election Commission. I suspect you're mostly right though, in what you said in your post.

However, piling on with Punter and Doppelganger, your side of the aisle is guiltier than Republicans. Republicans haven't had a leader in a position of real power who was blatantly unfair and extremely partisan since Tom DeLay. You've got Obama, Pelosi and Reid. All put winning elections before the interests of the nation. All are willing to bend the truth. That's a euphemism by the way.

Come on Tiny, Issa is a Fuck up. You are smarter than what he is believing in, his crazy rantings?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438480]I don't know much about Issa, and probably agree with his positions on economic issues. I definitely agree with his position on the IRS's involvement in politics. The IRS should stay out of it and leave it to the bipartisan Federal Election Commission. I suspect you're mostly right though, in what you said in your post.

However, piling on with Punter and Doppelganger, your side of the aisle is guiltier than Republicans. Republicans haven't had a leader in a position of real power who was blatantly unfair and extremely partisan since Tom DeLay. You've got Obama, Pelosi and Reid. All put winning elections before the interests of the nation. All are willing to bend the truth. That's a euphemism by the way.[/QUOTE]

I really don't know much about him WT69. I just read his write up on Wikipedia and agree with some of his positions and disagree with others. He does appear to have a good background in business, and should know how to grow the economy better than most in Congress. You'll note that I agreed with Esten's post about Issa shutting down Cummings. This is because, unlike Barack Obama, Lois Lerner, Esten and Darrell Issa, I believe people (and organizations composed of people) should be able to say what they want to say. Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't interfere with that. When they shut down free speech to benefit themselves politically it's taking us down the wrong road.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438499]This is because, unlike Barack Obama, Lois Lerner, Esten and Darrell Issa, I believe people (and organizations composed of people) should be able to say what they want to say. Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't interfere with that. When they shut down free speech to benefit themselves politically it's taking us down the wrong road.[/QUOTE]Oh come on, now you're sounding silly. Like I said before in so many words, if you choose to exercise your free speech by donating to an organization that applies for tax-exempt status, you must recognize that that organization may have it's application scrutinized and possibly rejected if it doesn't meet the requirements.

Tiny, aren't there like a million ways you can exercise your free speech? And yet you focus only on financial donations to groups that voluntarily applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status? A group is not eligible for this status if it is primarily political.

No surprise the right wingers here attempt to justify Darrell Issa's reprehensible conduct. But it turns out, their justifications are weak and phony. I guess they went on Google and this is all they could find.

Republicans stayed behind after Pelosi adjourned the House without allowing a vote on offshore drilling. It was a publicity stunt. There is no evidence Pelosi herself shut off the lights briefly. It's true Pelosi refused to allow a vote, but this is a separate issue. The controlling parties in the House and Senate determine what gets voted on, right or wrong this is a longstanding precedent and priviledge afforded to the party in power in each chamber. It's a separate issue.

The example with Waxman was in fact on the House Oversight Committee. But it was Issa interrupting and trying to derail Waxman while he was in the middle of questioning someone. Did Cummings do that to Issa? Nope. Cummings patiently waited his turn in silence, only to have Issa bang the gavel and adjourn without giving Cummings a chance.

So neither of these examples are comparable to what happened in last week's hearing. But it's the type of superficial, deceptive crud that you can expect an ODS sufferer to fling, and an LIV to believe.

[QUOTE=Esten;438510]Oh come on, now you're sounding silly. Like I said before in so many words, if you choose to exercise your free speech by donating to an organization that applies for tax-exempt status, you must recognize that that organization may have it's application scrutinized and possibly rejected if it doesn't meet the requirements.[/QUOTE]

Esten, After the 2012 elections were over and after the IRS received the scrutiny it deserved for selectively stonewalling applications for 501(c)(4) status, they started timely approving tea party applications. This is probably not an issue going forward if IRS regulations and policies remain as they are now. I'm not upset about the current application process. I am upset about new regulations proposed by the Treasury department, that would apply to all 501(c)(4)'s.

[QUOTE=Esten;438510]Tiny, aren't there like a million ways you can exercise your free speech? And yet you focus only on financial donations to groups that voluntarily applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status? A group is not eligible for this status if it is primarily political.[/QUOTE]

You're mistaken. A section 527 organization (for example, a political action committee or a political party) is tax exempt. There are no limits on contributions to tax exempt 527's, no restrictions on who may contribute, and no spending limits. However, section 527 organizations must be primarily political, and they must disclose their donors. The issues with the IRS have nothing to do with 527's. A 527 can and must spend its money on politics, and it will remain tax exempt.

The issue with the IRS is with 501(c)(4)'s, organizations which are set up to promote activities "that promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community." So what represents "the common good and general welfare?" Well, we'd both agree that Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4) qualifies. Others would disagree. Maybe a majority of Americans would disagree. Should they have the right to shut down Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4)? Should Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4) be prohibited from becoming involved with political issues? Should the Planned Parenthood 501(c)(4) be forced to disclose its members? Having been hassled by a group of aggressive protesters who thought I was an "abortionist" when I entered the local PP to get tested for VD and make a contribution, I've got particularly strong feelings about that one. Anyway, my answer to all these questions would be HELL NO!

You would probably agree with the aims of Obama's 501(c)(4), Organizing for Action (OFA) and believe it promotes social welfare. It promotes gun control and immigration reform, among other things. I on the other hand am a director of and contributor to a 501(c)(4) organization that promotes reduction of wasteful government spending, reduction of government deficits, and an efficient and pro-growth tax system. As long as those organizations are promoting policies that their members believe primarily promote general welfare, politicians and the IRS have no business shutting them down, forcing them to disclose the names of their donors, or forcing them not to be involved with political issues.

The Treasury Department has indicated that it plans to place new limits on "any or all activities[by501(c)(4)'s] that do not further social welfare." Furthermore, they propose that social welfare does not include "any public communication within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election that refers to one or more clearly identified candidates in that election or, in the case of a general election, refers to one or more political parties represented in that election." Voter registration drives and preparation of voter guides are out the window, as is "hosting or conducting an event within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election at which one or more candidates appear."

Anyway, if you've got an organization that's primarily political, it qualifies for section 527 and it will be tax exempt. If it's entirely apolitical, it qualifies as a 501(c)(3) organization. Then it's not only tax exempt, but contributions from donors qualify as tax deductions. But what if it's a hybrid, promoting what its contributers believe is a social good while somehow being involved in the political process? What if its members, be they involved with Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, or a tea party organization, fear persecution from loonies, politicians or bureaucrats? Then it's a 501(c)(4). These have their place. You probably don't understand this issue. Or alternately you have the same attitude towards free speech as Christina Kirchner, Richard Nixon and Vladimir Putin --it's fine as long as it's something you agree with. I'm not being silly.

Tiny, I was referring to groups that voluntarily applied for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. You correctly point out that 527's are tax-exempt. My statement was over broad because I meant a group is not eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status if it is primarily political.

This is what your whole issue is about, right - 501 (c)(4) groups? So what's the problem? You want to support a group but remain anonymous. Just pick a group that's already 501 (c)(4) approved. Or wait until a new group you want to support gets approval. Where is the widespread abuse of donor confidentiality with approved 501 (c)(4) s?

I can assure you that freedom of speech is just as important on the left as the right. Democrats are not about suppressing free speech. The underlying motive for the rigor behind 501 (c)(4) approvals is to ensure that big-monied interests (whether they be individuals, organizations or corporations) cannot anonymously funnel huge sums to influence elections. I believe you will find this is a concern for many Americans of all political stripes.

How to Buy America.

All you need is money.

The Koch Brothers provide the Money. Pronounced COKE. Just like [URL]http://boehner.house.gov/.[/URL].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMvO7dx4GeU

[URL]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/10/koch-brothers-targeted-in-new-senate-ad/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140218/koch-brothers-backed-group-pulls-political-ads-after-alaska-refinery-shutdown[/URL]

[URL]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/10/sen-begich-launches-ad-against-koch-brothers/[/URL]

[B][size=+1]Obama Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure[/size][/B]

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and if so many people hadn't been hurt by ObamaCare.

[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/031214-693001-latest-obama-mandate-exemption-change-guarantees-obamacare-failure.htm[/URL]

Go ahead Esten and ilk spin away.

[QUOTE=Punter127;438549][B]Obama Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure[/B]
[/QUOTE]Oh my goodness, that's terrible.

This is a brilliantly done fair and balance assessment by Neil Cavuto. An admitted conservative but at times he has been known to call out his own party. His message here is spot on for anyone who cares about fairness in any form.

[URL]http://video.foxnews.com/v/3340745208001/cavuto-conservatives-need-to-be-consistent-on-spending/?intcmp=HPBucket[/URL]

[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/index.html[/URL]

Yes, Cavuto himself describes his opinion as "fair and balanced". You hear this all the time from Fox News employees, or similar variants such as "Here are the facts" and "This is the truth". Why do they feel the need to so frequently tell their viewers how unbiased their reporting is?

Cavuto's comments are welcome, but they are balanced only within a discussion focused on spending cuts. His comments are not balanced within a broader discussion of fiscal responsibility, because there is no mention of revenues. Our federal deficits are now driven by both increased spending and decreased revenues. We know Democrats favor a mix of revenue increases and certain spending cuts, and Obama has signalled his willingness to push Democrats to make additional cuts they may not be comfortable with. And we know Republicans only support spending cuts (as inconsistent as they may be when it comes to the details, as Cavuto notes). So ultimately, Cavuto's "fair and balanced" commentary only perpetuates the right-wing ideological position, a one-sided, inflexible position that is a primary reason for our failure to significantly address our deficits.

Surely you knew this was coming.

[QUOTE=Esten;438611]Yes, Cavuto himself describes his opinion as "fair and balanced". You hear this all the time from Fox News employees, or similar variants such as "Here are the facts" and "This is the truth". Why do they feel the need to so frequently tell their viewers how unbiased their reporting is?

Cavuto's comments are welcome, but they are balanced only within a discussion focused on spending cuts. His comments are not balanced within a broader discussion of fiscal responsibility, because there is no mention of revenues. Our federal deficits are now driven by both increased spending and decreased revenues. We know Democrats favor a mix of revenue increases and certain spending cuts, and Obama has signalled his willingness to push Democrats to make additional cuts they may not be comfortable with. And we know Republicans only support spending cuts (as inconsistent as they may be when it comes to the details, as Cavuto notes). So ultimately, Cavuto's "fair and balanced" commentary only perpetuates the right-wing ideological position, a one-sided, inflexible position that is a primary reason for our failure to significantly address our deficits.[/QUOTE][i]"Oh my goodness, that's terrible."[/i]

[QUOTE=Esten;438527] You want to support a group but remain anonymous. Just pick a group that's already 501 (c)(4) approved. Or wait until a new group you want to support gets approval. Where is the widespread abuse of donor confidentiality with approved 501 (c)(4) s?[/QUOTE]Esten, I thought I was clear on that point but maybe not. At this point, since tea party groups brought IRS abuses to light, the application process is not an issue. The issue is new regulations proposed by the Department of the Treasury/IRS in November that would apply to all groups, not just ones that are seeking approval to start up.

[QUOTE=Esten;438527]The underlying motive for the rigor behind 501 (c)(4) approvals is to ensure that big-monied interests (whether they be individuals, organizations or corporations) cannot anonymously funnel huge sums to influence elections. I believe you will find this is a concern for many Americans of all political stripes.[/QUOTE]No, the reason is that Democrats are cohesive on a range of issues. They brainwash themselves to believe as their party does, or they benefit from their party's largess. As such, they donate more to their party and their politicians than do others. Democrats have a big lead in amounts donated to individual campaigns, their national party, and congressional campaign committees.

Many Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and Greens believe differently from others in their party on particular issues. The issue is what's important to them, not the party. To some taxes and spending are important. To others the environment. To others particular social issues. The particular concern of the Democrat Party are Tea Party types, because reducing the size of federal government, promoting an efficient, pro-growth tax system, and promoting greater opportunity through an education system for the benefit of the students instead of the teachers unions runs counter to the interests of their party. If a Tea Party group tries to promote its agenda through the political process, it's bad for Democrats.

About anonymity -- I was eating lunch today with a like minded Libertarian who was upset that his wife put her name on a petition at a tea party event in Arizona. Why? Because he's afraid of being persecuted. This is not unwarranted. In my lifetime, there's never been an instance where the executive branch of government went after its opponents like now. Yes, Richard Nixon tried to do something similar, but the IRS wouldn't go along. Obama's opponents have gotten persecuted. Ask Frank Van Der Sloot and others that federal agencies went after because they donated to the Romney campaign. Or Catherine Engelbrecht. She and her business had no IRS audits or OSHA, FBI or ATF visits until she founded an organization that monitors voter fraud. Then all hell broke lose. Or the 5 donors to a conservative political organization that were audited by the IRS for not reporting their contributions in excess of $14,000 as gifts on their federal tax returns. By the way, there is no chance in hell the IRS would have done that to a Democrat affiliated organization. I believe the organization was a 501(c)(4) and the IRS got the anonymous donors' names through an audit of the group. This is why people want to be anonymous.

[QUOTE=Punter127;438549][B]Obama Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure[/B]

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and if so many people hadn't been hurt by ObamaCare.

[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/031214-693001-latest-obama-mandate-exemption-change-guarantees-obamacare-failure.htm[/URL]

[/QUOTE]It's worse than that Punter. Now the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 30 million Americans will still be uninsured in 2022. Why did we do this, instead of something that would have cut costs, improved the system, and made it where millions of people wouldn't still be relying on emergency room visits for basic health care?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438629]Or Catherine Engelbrecht. She and her business had no IRS audits or OSHA, FBI or ATF visits until she founded an organization that monitors voter fraud. Then all hell broke lose. [/QUOTE]Please Tiny, ask yourself why this woman and her group received such scrutiny, far atypical from that of other right wing groups. Her activities are WAY beyond just "free speech".

Her group has a track record of targetting and intimidating Democrat voters, all in the name of preventing "voter fraud", which has been all but dismissed as mythical. They send letters to minority voters stating [b]"Your right to vote has been challenged by a qualified electorate"[/b]. With 501(c)(4) status, big-monied interests (like the Koch brothers, who she knows) could anonymously funnel millions to groups like hers to expand their voter intimidation efforts across the country. And she applies to the IRS for tax-exempt status when her group is CLEARLY all about influencing elections?

The new regs are a step in the right direction to deal with the abuse and politicization of 501(c)(4)s.

[QUOTE=Esten;438632]Please Tiny, ask yourself why this woman and her group received such scrutiny, far atypical from that of other right wing groups. Her activities are WAY beyond just "free speech".[/QUOTE]Esten, IF what you say is true, so what? The IRS, ATF, OSHA and FBI came down on her personally, and her family and her business, because people in the executive branch of government didn't like her. IF what you say is true, complete, and representative, and I have my doubts about that, then yes, the bipartisan Federal Election Commission should put the organization out of existence. You start involving the IRS in politics and you're going down a dangerous path. And this is a prime example, when they start auditing issues totally unrelated to her group, in order to harass her.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438635]The IRS, ATF, OSHA and FBI came down on her personally, and her family and her business, because people in the executive branch of government didn't like her. [/QUOTE]If the multiple agency audits / questions were indeed coordinated harassment, those responsible should be held accountable and punished.

But forgive me, such coordination seems very far-fetched. And the argument that some people "didn't like her" isn't evidence. This is just more of the same flimsy victimization mindset that you applied to the phony IRS scandal. Out of hundreds if not thousands of Tea Party groups, why was it only her group that got so much attention? Did you even bother to look into the specifics of why these agencies were involved?

Esten, While I'm not very knowledgeable about Obamacare, except to know it doesn't fix anything, or gun control, I do know enough about income taxes and tax exempt organizations to argue with you. And some of the positions you take aren't reasonable. Bush was responsible for the tax increases on January 1,2013. The maximum marginal tax on individuals' income is 39.6%. And now the hold up of approvals of tea party organizations by the IRS was a phony scandal. You're intelligent and a HIV, so all I can figure out is you're twisting facts in your mind to come up with explanations that fit your world view. From reading your posts, there isn't a single position of the Democrat Party platform you disagree with. You must believe everything you see on MSNBC. Come on, think for yourself. Watch Stossel once in a while.

BTW, with respect to your references to the massive amounts of money being sloshed through the political system by Tea Party 501 (c)(4)'s and the Koch brothers, please realize they're a drop in the bucket compared to the $4.4 billion unions spent from 2005 to 2011. The Democrat Party and its candidates have raised a lot more money recently than Republicans, let alone Libertarians and other third parties: [URL]https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2014[/URL]

Esten, while you complain about the Tea Party 501's can you say George Soros or MoveOn. Org? What the Tea Party has plowed into ads is not a drop in the bucket compared to just these two much less all the other liberal organizations or the labor movement as pointed out by Tiny.

If the IRS scandal is phony, why is Lerner taking the Fifth against SELF INCRIMINATION if no misdeeds were committed?

Typical Liberal/Progressive double standard again.

Doppel, Democrats aren't seeking any different or preferential treatment when it comes to disclosure requirements for political donations.

And Lois Lerner, like others in the Obama administration, clearly understands that Darrell Issa is a joke. He has made a mockery of the House Oversight Committee, and demonstrated beyond a doubt that he is a partisan hack who operates based on political strategy. The man is now desperate, having failed to find even a smidgen of political motivation after interviewing numerous witnesses and reviewing thousands of emails and other documents. Why would Lerner play into his Monkey Court? Issa is not looking for the truth, he is looking for any way to selectively report or twist the facts, to enable the right wing media to keep rallying their followers about how they are all "victims".

Correction:

We are spending Billions of dollars to support what started under Bush.

I had to say Bush, because some of you would have said it started under Obama.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/vice-shane-smith-scariest-story-power-cnn-article-1.1719527

The Contractors are destroying good products to sell to the Afghans, which is then resold to the Taliban. Then the contractors order more new products.

Our government is the problem! No one in the government is checking what is going on.

Not just the Democrats, but the also the Republicans!

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438683]We are spending Billions of dollars to support what Bush started.[/QUOTE]President Bush started the attack on the World Trade Center?

That's news to me.

I thought it was Al Queda that attacked our country on 9/11 and "started" everything.

Jax.

[QUOTE=Esten;438647]If the multiple agency audits / questions were indeed coordinated harassment, those responsible should be held accountable and punished.

But forgive me, such coordination seems very far-fetched. And the argument that some people "didn't like her" isn't evidence. This is just more of the same flimsy victimization mindset that you applied to the phony IRS scandal. Out of hundreds if not thousands of Tea Party groups, why was it only her group that got so much attention? Did you even bother to look into the specifics of why these agencies were involved?[/QUOTE]It's got to be far fetched, because the Obama administration and people in the federal government would never victimize anyone they view as an enemy. Here's her testimony:

[URL]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=589797007761126[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;438681]Doppel, Democrats aren't seeking any different or preferential treatment when it comes to disclosure requirements for political donations.

And Lois Lerner, like others in the Obama administration, clearly understands that Darrell Issa is a joke. He has made a mockery of the House Oversight Committee, and demonstrated beyond a doubt that he is a partisan hack who operates based on political strategy. The man is now desperate, having failed to find even a smidgen of political motivation after interviewing numerous witnesses and reviewing thousands of emails and other documents. Why would Lerner play into his Monkey Court? Issa is not looking for the truth, he is looking for any way to selectively report or twist the facts, to enable the right wing media to keep rallying their followers about how they are all "victims".[/QUOTE]Esten, you still fail to answer the question, why take the 5th if no misdeeds were committed. Could it be there were?

If you call Issa's committee a "monkey court" what would you call the first two years of Obama's reign with both the house and senate in democrat hands?

How about that ObamaCare big guy? The dem's are running away from Obama and his healthcare debacle as fast as they can!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438688]Esten, you still fail to answer the question, why take the 5th if no misdeeds were committed. Could it be there were?

If you call Issa's committee a "monkey court" what would you call the first two years of Obama's reign with both the house and senate in democrat hands?

How about that ObamaCare big guy? The dem's are running away from Obama and his healthcare debacle as fast as they can![/QUOTE]Just to answer the first question, you also take the fifth when there is ambiguity about whether things might escalate. To quote Wikipedia:"The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." With the divided government we own, things can get out of hand rather quickly these days. (the Clinton impeachment as an example?) Lerner probably has a decent lawyer advising her.

I already answered your question Doppel, go back and read my response. Lerner is too smart to play into the hands of a partisan slimeball like Darrell Issa. The guy should be fired, charged and tried in court. Meanwhile restore some respect to the HOC and replace Issa with someone fair and balanced, and I'm sure Lerner will be much more likely to testify.

Democrats are very proud of the Affordable Care Act, which was enacted under the same administration that saved the country from a near-depression resulting from laissez-faire free-market ideology. The ACA is a very good step forward to broadening access to healthcare and stopping some of the healthcare insurance abuses that other developed countries stopped a long-time ago. Aside from some important bumps that now are mostly resolved, the law is being implemented fairly well for something so big.

You must have loved watching other Americans getting denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, or forced into bankruptcy paying their medical bills. Why don't you tell us all how much you enjoyed that?

Hey Tiny, Take a look at this article about your alleged IRS victim, Catherine Engelbrecht. She is the founder of at least two Tea Party groups, one of which is the subject of the article below from the Houston Chronicle. Along with the previously reported voter intimidation tactics, it looks like Snow White actually has a record of activism and pushing the envelope. Did you bother yet to look up the reasons behind her involvement with the FBI, ATF and OSHA? Or are you afraid you might learn something that could call into question your view that she is a victim.

Judge rules tea party group a PAC, not a nonprofit
[URL]http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Judge-rules-tea-party-group-a-PAC-not-a-nonprofit-3442532.php[/URL]
[QUOTE]
March 28, 2012
A Travis County district court judge ruled this week that a Houston-based tea party group is not a nonprofit corporation as it claims, but an unregistered political action committee that illegally aided the Republican Party through its poll-watching efforts during the 2010 elections.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;438691]Hey Tiny, Take a look at this article about your alleged IRS victim, Catherine Engelbrecht. She is the founder of at least two Tea Party groups, one of which is the subject of the article below from the Houston Chronicle. Along with the previously reported voter intimidation tactics, it looks like Snow White actually has a record of activism and pushing the envelope. Did you bother yet to look up the reasons behind her involvement with the FBI, ATF and OSHA? Or are you afraid you might learn something that could call into question your view that she is a victim.

Judge rules tea party group a PAC, not a nonprofit
[URL]http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Judge-rules-tea-party-group-a-PAC-not-a-nonprofit-3442532.php[/URL][/QUOTE]Esten, first of all the Houston Chronicle is one of the if not the most liberal papers in the state. I know since I subscribe as it is the only paper in Houston. Second Travis County is the county in which the state capital resides and is a liberal bastion and has been for years. Strange they had to go to Austin to find a judge for this case? Take a look at the rate Austin Judges are overturned by the State Supreme Court. Liberals predominately file their suits in Austin due to liberal judges on the bench in that county, while they often win at that level they are constantly overturned on appeal.

That is always the problem with liberals, it's Ok to be an activist and pump money into the election process if you are on the left, but activism becomes a dirty word when it comes to the right doing the same.

There is something very wrong when enforcement branches of the federal government begin targeting political speech. Did you forget that Lerner is the person who revealed the fact the IRS was improperly targeting conservative groups?

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;438689]Just to answer the first question, you also take the fifth when there is ambiguity about whether things might escalate. To quote Wikipedia:"The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." With the divided government we own, things can get out of hand rather quickly these days. (the Clinton impeachment as an example?) Lerner probably has a decent lawyer advising her.[/QUOTE]I don't think anyone is questioning her right to take the fifth. I see an entirely different question here.

Does an employee have the right to refuse to answer questions from their employer concerning the performance of their duties? The answer is of course yes, but the employer has the right and in this case some would argue the responsibility to discipline said employee. Lois Lerner is a federal employee and Darrell Issa like him or not has legal authority to ask questions, and he represents her employer which is the American people.

If Lois Lerner refuses to answer question which again is her right under the Constitution she should be discharged and barred from any government position. This should apply to [B]all government employees.[/B] We simply can not allow rogue employees or agencies. To try and defend or justify either Lois Lerner or Darrell Issa because of their political affiliation which is what seems to be happening here is completely absurd!

I also think we should simplify our tax system and do away with the IRS so it can't be used as a weapon of mass destruction. Between the IRS and NSA the federal government has entirely to much power and must be reined in.

IMHO you use the word "decent" far to loosely, in [U]most[/U] cases I would consider "decent lawyer" an oxymoron.

Dear Esten,

Some of the Jews that Hitler gassed cheated on their taxes. That's an exaggerated analogy, because the repercussions Engelbrecht suffered at the hands of the government pale by the side of what happens to, say, people who get busted for drugs three times and spend the rest of their lives in jail. Most likely, you have some politically-minded big wigs like Lois Lerner in government issuing orders. But fortunately many bureaucrats don't let their prejudices carry over to their jobs, or aren't politically minded. In investigating Engelbrecht's personal finances and her business, the field agents did their jobs, came up with nothing, and after considerable time and expense she's in the clear. The same thing happened with Tea Party 501 (c)(4)'s. The best that Lerner et al could do was to delay the approvals of the organizations for months or years. Eventually their applications were approved. I've been in business longer than Engelbrecht. Over the course of more than two decades I've been hit with three IRS audits, one of which was conducted by mail, and one OSHA investigation. She gets 15 visits from federal agencies right after she became politically involved when she had none before. That's quite a coincidence. As to documenting her claims, it is indeed difficult because the IRS, ATF, OSHA and FBI don't release information about investigations. Yep, guess you've got me there.

As to whether she's "Snow White", what difference does it make? Back when it was nonpartisan, I was a member of the ACLU, which has defended Nazi's. Based on your recent posts on Engelbrecht, one would think you on the other hand believe in the "fuck her over good if I don't like her" philosophy.

Doppelganger is right about Travis County judges, and I'd extend that to Travis County prosecutors and Travis County grand juries. If she's being rolled over, there's a good chance that will be overturned. BUT, that's how things like this should be resolved, the way they are now in Texas. The Federal Election Commission and the courts should be the arbitrators, not the IRS. Politicizing the IRS is a bad idea.

With respect to her activities in Texas, it's interesting that the FBI is going after her political organizations, but not the group Houston Votes. You read the press coverage and this actually looks like a case of Engelbrecht's organization trying to counter Houston Votes, which was up to voter fraud on a significant scale. How many groups like Houston Votes or Moveon. Org are being targeted by the FBI or the IRS? Probably not any higher percentage than nominally nonpolitical organizations like the Sierra Club, NORML, ACLU, etc. But there are those in power who have decided to go after people and groups the Democrat Party views as opponents, as clearly evidenced by what happened under Lerner.

While I don't know whether Engelbrecht was up to no good (the New Yorker article about her would indicate she was in certain places), I do know you've got a pollyanna's view of voter fraud. My father's cousin stuffed ballot boxes in South Texas for Lyndon Baines Johnson. Voter fraud happens, more than you think.

Let's review the facts:

(1) There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Lois Lerner.
(2) There is no evidence of coordinated activity by federal agencies against Catherine Engelbrecht.
(3) There is evidence of valid reasons for the activities of said federal agencies.
(4) There is evidence of voter intimidation by Catherine Engelbrecht's Tea Party group.
(5) There is evidence of illegal political activity by Catherine Engelbrecht's Tea Party group.

Despite the facts, the Tea Partiers and their sympathizers choose to ignore them, so they can cling to their conspiracy theories that they are victims. Who knew, that a fundamental premise of being a self-described "Patriot" is that one is also a "Victim" ? Fascinating.

There's nothing wrong with being politically active and wanting to stop voter fraud (as small as it is). It's [I]how[/I] it's done. Intimidation and breaking the law aren't good ways to go about it. Now, it is claimed that the Texas judge who found Engelbrecht's Tea Party group guilty of illegal activity was biased. And this would be proven by a successful appeal by her group, King Street Patriots. This one should be easy. Let's see who can post a credible link proving that the ruling of the Texas judge against her Tea Party group was appealed and overturned.

[QUOTE=Esten;438690]Democrats are very proud of the Affordable Care Act, which was enacted under the same administration that saved the country from a near-depression resulting from laissez-faire free-market ideology. [/QUOTE]Yep, the "near depression" was entirely the fault of George Bush and his laissez-faire free-market ideology. Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, and incompetent bank regulators had nothing to do with it: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=0[/URL].

Neither did Barney Frank and a myriad of Congressmen from both parties who played games with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and forced banks to loan to customers who weren't creditworthy to buy houses they couldn't afford.

But fortunately Barack Hussein Obama was there to save us. Thank you Almighty! By racking up trillion dollar deficits and implementing a $831 billion stimulus that handed out lots of pork but did nothing to create jobs, he saved us from ruin and destitution. And five years into the recovery, the percentage of Americans who are employed is lower than it was in the depths of the recession: [URL] http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL]

By the way, the Tea Party is all about taxes and spending. Despite what Catherine Engelbrecht says, it has nothing to with voter fraud. Here's how it originated: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcvSjKCU_Zo[/URL].

And about items 1 through 3 in your last post being "facts." That's mighty impressive, I wish I could do that too. With that level of self delusion I might be able to think I've got a 10" penis, which would do wonders for my self image. (There's a reason they call me Tiny.)

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438703]And about items 1 through 3 in your last post being "facts." That's mighty impressive, I wish I could do that too. With that level of self delusion [/QUOTE]Hey Tiny, here's an idea. Why don't you do some research, and post some evidence to refute my facts?

FYI, conspiracy theories are not facts.

[QUOTE=Esten;438721]Hey Tiny, here's an idea. Why don't you do some research, and post some evidence to refute my facts?

FYI, conspiracy theories are not facts.[/QUOTE]Esten, I could say the same regarding your "facts", as for some reason you believe your opinions are "facts".

So why is the IRS stonewalling Issa's committee? How long would it take to produce Learner's emails. No one is buying the "years" statement from the commissioner. All the emails have been subpoenaed, there is no need for the IRS to "redact" anything and the data dump should not take more than a few key strokes. Everyone who has email accounts knows this.

Here is a little tid bit for you which could be applied to your list of items 1 - 3, have you ever heard the saying:

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck. It might just be a duck.

Can you fix the Country in 8 Years?

NO FUCKING WAY!

Was it Clinton's fault that Bush had to fix his mistakes?

Was it the other way?

It takes more than 8 years and a lot of sweat to change the world Boys!

Give it Time!

Let's kill them ALL and allow GOD to sort them out!

Gig Em Aggies!

TL for God and President!

Doppel, All my statements are factual, as they are all supported by the body of information reported in the media. On the contrary, you have presented no evidence of collusion or intentional political motivation; so they remain conspiracy theories. You really should learn the difference. BTW, I'm still waiting for your link showing the ruling of the Texas judge on illegal Tea Party group activities was appealed and overturned.

[QUOTE]If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck. It might just be a duck.[/QUOTE]Maybe someone is painting a picture of a duck, and you've been fooled into believing it's a real duck.