American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Punter127;433916]I think Don B. said it best when he said [B]“I crack you up, you disgust me”. [/B].

Don't pass that [STRIKE]kool-aid[/STRIKE] fool-aid this way, I'm not drinking it.

Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post.

I think my claim stands tall, you made a big dramatic tear-jerking production out of putting me on "ignore" but said nary a word when you "re-instated". Typical Esten I guess.

BTW I gave you an opportunity to come clean about me not being on "ignore" when I made the post below.

As usual you chose to continue being deceptive.

I agree with everything Doppelganger wrote except you are not a "liberal", you are a totalitarian hell bent on having things your way regardless of what may block your path, including the Constitution.

I have never written anything on this forum that was intended to be a threat of violence. Furthermore I am not responsible for the way your queerly twisted mind misinterprets plainly written English. Is English your first language?

Dude they should put your picture next to the definition below.

Esten honesty and integrity have eluded you, nothing you write should be considered truthful until verified.

Now can we get back to politics?[/QUOTE]

Actually it should be philosophy, not politics.

Punter I tried to send you a PM but you have no more storage.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;433917]Actually it should be philosophy, not politics.

Punter I tried to send you a PM but you have no more storage.

Don B.[/QUOTE]Oops sorry, looks like I need to do some housekeeping, please try again.

[QUOTE=DonB;433908]"Durbin wanted the conservative group Crossroads targeted by the IRS simply because they were raising too much money and that meant democrat defeat. No, the libtards weren't about to let that happen.

Durbin's own words:

Don B.[/QUOTE]If Crossroads was "boastful" about beating Democrats then it was partisan and did not qualify as a nonprofit under 501 (see)(3) and should have been taxed. From the IRS website:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501 (see)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

I liked Barron's editorial page solution, tax every organization. Civil servants should not have to decide whether a group is partisan. Also they should not be under pressure from senators like Durbin to go after certain types of groups.

While Benghazi more or less blew up in Republican's faces, they are still getting some traction on the IRS story. The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.

Meanwhile, Obama's approval rating has been holding steady and just ticked up to 50%. The Fox News crowd must be going absolutely insane wondering why their fake "scandals" haven't worked.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28776[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Esten;433920] The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28776[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]You may not realize it, but your comments reek of hypocrisy. If it's an organization that promotes the agenda of the Democrat party then it's a legitimate social welfare group entitled to tax exempt status. But if it's a "Tea Party group" biased towards lower taxes and lower spending then its tax-exempt status is fraudulent and its donors should be audited.

Organizations seeking to qualify as tax exempt file applications with the IRS. The IRS accepts or denies them. After having already approved tax-exempt status, the IRS was PREFERENTIALLY looking at organizations the Obama administration disapproved. And I might add, that the IRS disapproved of too. Lower taxes and lower spending (on government bureaucrats, among other things) aren't in the best interest of the IRS and its employees.

Your attitude would be very different if the IRS were PREFERENTIALLY auditing, say, organizations doing research into economic inequality and coming up with analyses that agreed with your prejudices.

Big Boss Man's solution may be the best, eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions. Or confine the tax deductions to organizations that really, really do improve social welfare - vaccinating children in third world countries, giving condoms to Africans, etc. But if you're going to have a system and laws and regulations, the way they are now, the executive branch of government shouldn't manipulate them for its own benefit.

[B]“There is overwhelming bipartisan support for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS,”[/B]

[QUOTE=Esten;433920]While Benghazi more or less blew up in Republican's faces, they are still getting some traction on the IRS story. The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.

Meanwhile, Obama's approval rating has been holding steady and just ticked up to 50%. The Fox News crowd must be going absolutely insane wondering why their fake "scandals" haven't worked.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28776[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]"President Barack Obama's approval rating took a hit amid three controversies surrounding his administration, including an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeting conservative groups seeking nonprofit status, a new poll Thursday showed.

Obama has a 45 percent approval rating and a [B]49 percent disapproval rating[/B] — compared with a 48 percent approval, 45 percent disapproval rating from May 1, according to the Quinnipiac University poll.

76 percent of American voters think an independent prosecutor should investigate the IRS controversy, including 63 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of GOPers and 78 percent of independents."

[URL]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/obama-job-approval-poll-92023.html[/URL]

Obama so loved the poor he made millions more.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28777[/ATTACH]

Obama and the Amendments.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28778[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Esten;433888]And Doppel's righteous protest about the "Liberal Elite" is also misleading. He conveniently omits the reason why I ignored Punter in the first place. Not because his opinions weren't worthy, but because he lost his temper and threatened me with violence. Given Doppel's track record, no surprise here either.

Deception continues to be a core element of right-wing politics.[/QUOTE]Esten, no "righteous protest" here, just pointing out your typical liberal elite arrogance when it comes to denigrating those with opinions which oppose your own. By the way, I went back through the posts and saw no implicit or implied threats made by Punter. Perhaps you could post a sample if they exist.

If we my revisit the gun control argument. You clearly stated the senators went against the will of "90%" of their constituents and I responded where are the demonstrations if this were true. You stated they would pay at the polls in 2014.

Perhaps you have not noticed but in Colorado the only people who face any consequences for their vote on gun control laws are the Democrats who are now facing recall elections – why wait till 2014 when you can do it now?

[URL]http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/30/oregon-woman-raped-after-911-call-goes-unanswered[/URL]

Listen to this! If you still don't see why the right to own a weapon should not be infringed upon, you're just plain stupid.

Pete.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;433923]You may not realize it, but your comments reek of hypocrisy. If it's an organization that promotes the agenda of the Democrat party then it's a legitimate social welfare group entitled to tax exempt status. But if it's a "Tea Party group" biased towards lower taxes and lower spending then its tax-exempt status is fraudulent and its donors should be audited.[/QUOTE]And your comments reek of creative and delusional fantasy, not uncommon among conservatives. I provided absolutely no opinion whatsoever on how liberal groups should be treated. Of course I believe the IRS should not be politically biased. But the underlying legitimacy of the IRS reviews is an important and relevant point. Another relevant point is that liberal groups were also investigated, and in some cases denied tax-exempt status. What appears to have happened is bias or at least bad judgement by low-level staffers in dealing with a surge in tax-exempt applications between 2010-12. Most of the applications were from conservative groups.

[URL]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/behind-the-i-r-s-mess-a-campaign-finance-scandal/[/URL]

[QUOTE]In the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, the division received 1,741 applications from “social welfare organizations” requesting tax-exempt status. Two years later, the figure was 2,774. Meanwhile, the staff of the division tasked with reviewing these applications was reduced as part of a series of budget reductions imposed on the I.R.S. by anti-tax forces.

A far higher proportion of the new applicants wanted to pursue a conservative agenda than a liberal agenda. So without trying to defend the indefensible profiling, it wouldn’t be that shocking if low-level staff members were simply, but stupidly, trying to find an efficient way to sift through the avalanche of applications. [/QUOTE]It's a far cry from the "Obama scandal" and "The government is out to get you" narratives the right wing is trying to weave. Obama's steady approval ratings at 50% (Gallup) and 52% (Rasmussen) show that Americans aren't buying it.

P.S. Tiny I'll message you the place I went to.

My favorite quote of the week, from Mayor Bloomberg on receiving a ricin-laced letter postmarked in Lousiana.

[QUOTE]“The letter obviously referred to our anti-gun efforts. But there’s 12,000 people who are gonna get killed this year with guns and 19,000 that are gonna commit suicide with guns and we’re not gonna walk away from these efforts.”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433937][URL]http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/30/oregon-woman-raped-after-911-call-goes-unanswered[/URL]

Listen to this! If you still don't see why the right to own a weapon should not be infringed upon, you're just plain stupid.

Pete.[/QUOTE]Who is opposing her right to own a weapon? Just what type of gun & checking if she is a criminal in her own right. Please, please, just slow down & think for a minute before firing away. I mean, your mouth.

Simply stated she should have whatever type gun she feels she could most easily and completely protect herself and she does need some idiot like Joe be telling her what she needs. A shot gun would likely have worked but an AR or a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds would be fine as well. Many on the left who are in support of the recent legislation have made it clear this is just the beginning of their quest. I have thought a lot and I think maybe a few idiots in Denver with their comments on weapons and rape could just be your kin. I suppose you think she would have been fine with a whistle too or by just talking like the 911 operator. I only wish she would have been armed so she could have fired away her weapon and dropped this scum bag at the threshold. If you were armed and there would you have stopped this? If you were armed in London when the soldier was attacked and hacked to death would you have stopped this? Of course, England started by only limiting certain weapons as well and then slid down pathway to disallowing handguns. It will be interesting to see how large the civil suit is but I supect we will never know because they will not allow this to be released in all likelihood.

Pete.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433940]Who is opposing her right to own a weapon? Just what type of gun & checking if she is a criminal in her own right. Please, please, just slow down & think for a minute before firing away. I mean, your mouth.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433941]Simply stated she should have whatever type gun she feels she could most easily and completely protect herself and she does need some idiot like Joe be telling her what she needs. A shot gun would likely have worked but an AR or a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds would be fine as well. Many on the left who are in support of the recent legislation have made it clear this is just the beginning of their quest. I have thought a lot and I think maybe a few idiots in Denver with their comments on weapons and rape could just be your kin. I suppose you think she would have been fine with a whistle too or by just talking like the 911 operator. I only wish she would have been armed so she could have fired away her weapon and dropped this scum bag at the threshold. If you were armed and there would you have stopped this? If you were armed in London when the soldier was attacked and hacked to death would you have stopped this? Of course, England started by only limiting certain weapons as well and then slid down pathway to disallowing handguns. It will be interesting to see how large the civil suit is but I supect we will never know because they will not allow this to be released in all likelihood.

Pete.[/QUOTE]Come on!! You actually advocate everyone being able to carry handguns? I don't know how fast that beheading was, but you really think you could have stop it. And we can trust you not to miss and hit somebody's grandmother. Oh, that's friendly fire, you know. Sorry, I had good intentions but poor aim. The fucker move at the last second. If you enjoy guns as a hobby, no problem. But to carry a handgun around? I already have a hard time finding enough room for my dick, handphone, keys, wallet, viagra, cigarettes, lighter, etc.