American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=TonyLee]Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) believes the IRS should be abolished after the institution of a simpler flat tax.

He said the tax code invites agents to abuse and use the machinery of government to target political enemies and said doing so was wrong whether the president was Barack Obama or Richard Nixon.

"I think we ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax," Cruz said on Fox News over the weekend.

He said the tax code should be simple enough for the average American to fill out on a postcard.

Cruz said such a system would take much of the bureaucracy out of Washington and should get bipartisan support because it is about "empowering the people," and that "ought to be a bipartisan" value.

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/Cruz-Abolish-IRS-by-Enacting-Simpler-Flat-Tax[/url]
[/QUOTE]I could not agree more, the only thing I can think of that would be better that an across the board flat tax would be a consumption tax. Either way we could do away with the IRS, all we would need is police officers to arrest those that don't pay.

The abuse of power by the IRS is a prime example of why big government does not work.

[b]Obama Recovery: Still 7.6 Million Jobs Below Average[/b]

[QUOTE=Esten;434001]Republicans aren't talking much about the economy these days. That's because it keeps improving. The latest Gallup Job Creation Index increased to 22 in May, the highest score for any month since April 2008. This means more workers reported their employers are hiring, and fewer see people being let go. How could this be happening as we edge closer to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act ?

U.S. Job Creation Best in Five Years
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/162893/job-creation-best-five-years.aspx[/URL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28789[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]Another Esten post that doesn't pass the smell test.

[QUOTE=Investor'sBusinessDaily]Economy: Although somewhat better than expected, the 175,000 net jobs created in May continues the historically tepid jobs growth trend that has come to characterize the now four-year-old economic recovery.

[highlight]The result has been continued high unemployment, a vast pool of long-term jobless, and an unprecedented number of people who've dropped out of the labor force.[/highlight]

Highlighting the weakness of the May report is the fact that the number of unemployed climbed by nearly the same amount as jobs created — 101,000 — nudging the unemployment rate up to 7.6%.

As a result, there are still 2.4 million fewer people working than there were in January 2008, the previous jobs peak. And since the recovery started in June 2009, the number of jobs has increased a mere 3.9%, well below the post-World War II average of 9.7%.

In fact, had this jobs recovery merely kept pace with the average of the previous 10, there would be 7.6 million more people working today, and the unemployment rate would be less than half its current level.


[url]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060713-659267-obama-recovery-76-million-jobs-below-average.htm#ixzz2VjF5lEyc [/url]
[/QUOTE]Now you have the rest of the story.

[QUOTE=Esten;434000]Unfortunately, while Republicans do have a few good ideas, they are akin to a small odor absorber placed in a packed dining hall after a meal of franks and beans. It's a good thing, but simply overwhelmed by a vast stench.

The so-called and largely phony 'scandals' are mere manifestations of Republican desperation and gullability. Right wing politicians and pundits pump out their conspiracy theories one after another, captivating their base like a cat is captivated with catnip. In this state, many are unable to apply critical thinking to get to the truth. Top Republican strategists understand very well how to manipulate their base, and anyone who doubts this is simply naive.

As far as leadership you need look no further than Obama. He's the guy in DC willing to compromise and work with both parties. You don't run a company in a constant state of 'my way or the highway', especially when you're losing money. Congressional Republicans could learn a few things from Obama, and until they do, their good ideas will largely remain abstractions, and our debt will continue to grow.[/QUOTE]Incredible!! What planet are you on?

Don B.

Perhaps my favorite news story last week, Obama appointed Susan Rice as national security adviser. Republicans took their approach of "accuse first, prove later", calling her a liar and part of a cover-up on Benghazi. When the facts came out, Republicans were proven wrong. Apparently Rice wasn't even called to testify, Republicans had plenty of opportunity to do so before this appointment, but likely knew it would hurt not help them. You would think a normal, mature response would be to acknowledge your bad form, admit you were wrong and apologize. Instead, Republicans are still negative about Susan Rice, because they invested so much political capital in their fraudulent thesis.

It's good to see justice prevail. The GOP politics of destruction failed to destroy this woman's career.

Susan Rice and Her Attackers
[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/susan_rice_named_national_security_adviser_the_benghazi_investigation_proved.html[/URL]

[b]Obama Approval Makes 20-Point Negative Swing in 2013[/b]

[QUOTE=Esten;433938]
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.
[snip]

[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, really? Since Esten is on the “must verify” list we better consider the following.
[quote=MikeFlynn] Pundits examining daily poll numbers to gauge the impact of current scandals on President Obama are missing a bigger trend. Even before recent revelations of misconduct by his Administration, Obama's approval ratings have been declining throughout the year. On Monday, Rasmussen reported that 47% of likely voters approved of Obama's handling of his job, while 51% disapproved. This is a massive 20 point negative swing since the first of the year.

At the end of 2012, 57% of voters approved of Obama, while just 41% disapproved. He garnered good will from voters following his reelection in November. Yet, in just 6 months, the post-reelection honeymoon is clearly over. His approval rating is even lower than President Bush as this point in his second term. In June 2005, 48% of voters approved of the job Bush was doing, while 47% disapproved. As fatigue over the Iraq war grew and conservatives felt alienated, Bush's approval ratings plummeted into the 30s by the time his term was complete.

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/poll-obama-approval-makes-20-point-negative-swing-in-2013[/url] [/quote] Unlike progressives, numbers don't lie.

I'm considering giving Punter a new nickname: Darrell. A brash but ineffective attack dog.

[QUOTE=Punter127;434051][b]Obama Approval Makes 20-Point Negative Swing in 2013[/b][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]At the end of 2012, 57% of voters approved of Obama[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]On Monday, Rasmussen reported that 47% of likely voters approved of Obama's handling of his job[/QUOTE]Ummm, that's a 10% swing. Further, it's in comparison back to a post-election outlier of 57% approval. If you compare just before and after the recent so-called "scandals" broke, you'll see Obama's numbers are fairly steady, which has been widely reported in the media. Even the Breitbart article acknowledges as much; it doesn't challenge the recent steady trend, but rather attempts to deflect to a "bigger trend", by referencing an outlier from last year. And then it tries to double the 10% change, as if people wouldn't notice! If you fall for this right-wing crap you're just gullible.

[QUOTE]Unlike progressives, numbers don't lie.[/QUOTE]This is hilarious. Punter is effectively calling me a liar, but the 50% and 52% approval ratings I referenced when I posted were absolutely steady when compared to just before the recent "scandals" broke. I would challenge him to point out my actual lie, but obviously there isn't one. And just like Darrell Issa, I doubt Punter has the decency to admit he falsely accused someone of lying.

[QUOTE=Esten;434053]I'm considering giving Punter a new nickname: Darrell. A brash but ineffective attack dog.
[/QUOTE]Typical progressive arrogance, but as long as you don't call me Esten I can live with it. BTW I'd much rather be grouped with Darrell Issa than you, at least Issa respects the Constitution.

[QUOTE=Esten;434053]
Ummm, that's a 10% swing. Further, it's in comparison back to a post-election outlier of 57% approval. If you compare just before and after the recent so-called "scandals" broke, you'll see Obama's numbers are fairly steady, which has been widely reported in the media. Even the Breitbart article acknowledges as much; it doesn't challenge the recent steady trend, but rather attempts to deflect to a "bigger trend", by referencing an outlier from last year. And then it tries to double the 10% change, as if people wouldn't notice! If you fall for this right-wing crap you're just gullible. [/QUOTE][I][b]”Pundits examining daily poll numbers to gauge the impact of current scandals on President Obama are missing a bigger trend.”[/b] [/I]

The whole point of the article was to point out that just looking at recent numbers as you did is a mistake. The article said a [B]20 [u]point[/u] negative swing[/B] not percentage, regardless the overall yearly trend is down. And you seem to ignore the fact that Obama's approval rating is even lower than President Bush at this point in his second term. This is just another time that you want people to look at your feel good numbers rather than the complete picture. Funny how when you don't like something it becomes "right-wing crap".

[QUOTE=Esten;434053]This is hilarious. Punter is effectively calling me a liar, but the 50% and 52% approval ratings I referenced when I posted were absolutely steady when compared to just before the recent "scandals" broke. I would challenge him to point out my actual lie, but obviously there isn't one. And just like Darrell Issa, I doubt Punter has the decency to admit he falsely accused someone of lying.[/QUOTE]Your queer way of interpreting things is not my problem. I didn't question your 50 & 52% numbers, I was pointing to the fact you didn't tell the whole story (again). Nor did I call you a liar, (in this post) I said progressives lie. I fail to see how that differs from some of the things you've said about Republicans, Conservatives, the NRA, and Fox News just to name a few. And just what the fuck would you know about decency anyway, your track record for the lack of honesty on this forum is legendary. I've pointed out your deceptiveness on many occasions, and your decrepit attempts to naysay my points has been feeble at best.

I have no time or desire to partake in challenges, one-upmanship, or any other dick measuring games with you. Anyone who follows this thread can decide for themselves who speaks the truth here. You find me funny, and I find you condescending, obnoxious, self centered, arrogant, and down right disgusting. So stick your challenge up your ass, and good luck getting it past your head.

[QUOTE=Esten;434035]Perhaps my favorite news story last week, Obama appointed Susan Rice as national security adviser. Republicans took their approach of "accuse first, prove later", calling her a liar and part of a cover-up on Benghazi. When the facts came out, Republicans were proven wrong. Apparently Rice wasn't even called to testify, Republicans had plenty of opportunity to do so before this appointment, but likely knew it would hurt not help them. You would think a normal, mature response would be to acknowledge your bad form, admit you were wrong and apologize. Instead, Republicans are still negative about Susan Rice, because they invested so much political capital in their fraudulent thesis.

It's good to see justice prevail. The GOP politics of destruction failed to destroy this woman's career.

Susan Rice and Her Attackers
[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/susan_rice_named_national_security_adviser_the_benghazi_investigation_proved.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

I have no idea whether Rice knew that what she was telling the press was a lie or whether the wool was pulled over her eyes. Maybe she was like Collin Powell when he went before the UN to describe WMD in Iraq, that is misled by the intelligence services. But she really doesn't give a sh_t about whether people live or die or about the best interests of the USA. She cares about kissing up to her boss and helping him achieve his political goals. Her comments about Benghazi were symptomatic of that. Like Obama she puts politics before good judgement.

Why did she advise Clinton to ignore the massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda? Because "if we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?" Why wouldn't she accept intelligence information from Sudan that could have helped find and eliminate bin Laden? Because it would have looked bad if the Clinton administration were engaging with the Islamic Sudanese military dictatorship.

I agree that Republicans should not have indicated they would block her from becoming Secretary of State. She's in a position now to do more damage as the National Security Adviser. She's got Henry Kissinger's old job.

Esten, To put this more succinctly it's just possible that if Susan Rice had never been born, there would have been no 9/11, no war in Iraq, and no war in Afghanistan. And hundreds of thousands less lives lost in Rwanda.

Glad to see Punter clarifies he did not call me a liar (this time). What he fails to appreciate, is the context. He didn't just say progressives lie, rather, he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie. It certainly comes across as if my quote is being presented as an example of his claim. BTW, he's still on record for not withdrawing his last assertion that I lied, although I explained why he was incorrect. He seems to toss around the word 'lie' quite casually, without providing any evidence. That's nothing new from his end of the political spectrum.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;434078]Esten, To put this more succinctly it's just possible that if Susan Rice had never been born, there would have been no 9/11, no war in Iraq, and no war in Afghanistan. And hundreds of thousands less lives lost in Rwanda.[/QUOTE]Wow, I didn't realize how evil Susan Rice was until you explained it all so clearly!

If you've really done research on her, you'll know that both she and Clinton later expressed regret at how Rwanda was handled. That doesn't make it better, but it matters that they acknowledged such. She was a young staffer back in '94, and hardly the only reason why the US did not intervene. Further, Rice played a key role in pushing through a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians who rose up and eventually toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi. She also helped get Russia and China to agree to tougher sanctions against Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs.

We know the right is invested heavily in making Susan Rice look bad. When the facts came out, they got nothing on her on Benghazi, so they'll grasp at whatever they can to make it appear they weren't 1000% wrong. Tiny I didn't know you could be such a mud-slinger.

Check the recent stories that Darrell Issa won't release testimony that contradicts the right-wing conspiracy on this so-called "scandal". Here's one:

Cincinnati IRS agents first raised Tea Party issues
[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/11/how-irs-tea-party-targeting-started/2411515/[/URL]

[QUOTE]Shafer denied any political animus in those criteria. A self-described "conservative Republican," he told oversight committee staffers last week that he had no reason to believe the White House was involved in the targeting. "I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do (with it) other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development," he said.[/QUOTE]

The Cincinnati agents were apparently, simply trying to figure out how to handle these cases from a new party they didn't fully understand. Why won't Issa release these transcripts?

[QUOTE=Esten;434084] Tiny I didn't know you could be such a mud-slinger.[/QUOTE]I would sling more mud at Wolfowitz or Rumsfield given the opportunity. If Rice et al had exercised good judgement, there's a good chance the neoconservatives would have never been in a position to start a war. See

[URL]http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201?currentPage=1[/URL]

From what I've read, she's arrogant, self-righteous, undiplomatic, and shoots from the hip, not exactly the person you'd want to be your country's top diplomat. Kerry was a better choice.

[B]Don't start no shit, there won't be no shit![/B]

[QUOTE=Esten;434084]Glad to see Punter clarifies he did not call me a liar (this time). What he fails to appreciate, is the context. He didn't just say progressives lie, rather, he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie. It certainly comes across as if my quote is being presented as an example of his claim.[/QUOTE]Could it be your guilty conscience? They say a wise man listens to his own conscience.

As I told you before your queer inability to comprehend is not my problem.

It's interesting how Esten always couches his words in a manner that attempts to guide the reader to his point of view, unfortunately he often does this by omitting information. Though somewhat trivial (this time) he nonetheless gives us an example above when he says [I] “he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie.”[/I] Esten's statement suggest to the reader that " progressives lie" was directly under his quote, but he omits the fact that there was other information between his quote and the "progressives lie", in fact there was a statement from me and another quote between them. For a long time I thought Esten was just another 'red diaper baby' but he is so good at this type of deception it really makes me wonder if he was trained to deceive. On the other hand he could be suffering from a psychopathological disorder of some type perhaps Megalomania? I'm not a doctor so I can't really say for sure.

[QUOTE=Esten;434084]BTW, he's still on record for not withdrawing his last assertion that I lied, although I explained why he was incorrect. He seems to toss around the word 'lie' quite casually, without providing any evidence. That's nothing new from his end of the political spectrum.
[/QUOTE]Assuming we are talking about the same post, it's simple, your explanation doesn't pass muster and I explained why in a previous post. I don't think I toss around the word lie anymore casually than you toss around deception. Perhaps you need to read the definition of a lie. Please read slowly and really try to grasp this.

[QUOTE] [Highlight]A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the [u]whole truth[/u], intentionally.[/highlight][/QUOTE][B]"A man is only as good as his word".[/B]

If Esten could find a shred of moral fiber within himself he would fess up to his deceptiveness and apologize to the members of this forum, that's the only way he will ever regain any resemblance of credibility.

Until then I stand by my previous post, and Esten remains on the must verify list. (like it or not).

Looks like the Democrats are planning another attempt at subverting the Constitution.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/politics/democrats-quietly-renew-push-for-gun-measures.html?_r=0[/URL]

Bruce Schneier is one of the worlds leading expert on electronic security. I think he has a demonstrable bias against the growing threat of a police state in the US but personally I think that opinion is informed by his expertise in information security and I also happen to agree with him on most of these issues. Why not? He, not I, is one of the worlds leading authorities on the subject.

Every reputable security guy that I know and I know more than a few subscribe to his blog. This is his series of articles on the Eric Snowden revelations and the state of US information gathering at the present time.

[URL]http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1306.html[/URL]

Because this thread can be so volatile I offer this advisory; I rarely post here, and I never read it, so flaming me about this stuff if you disagree will be waste of time because I'll never see it. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm just offering a resource for anybody that is interested.

DR.