American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Esten,

Lets just start with Benghazi. Remember how it was a video and demonstration gone wrong, with 60 MM mortars and RPGs?

Find attached the now unclassified information received during and after the terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi.

[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/13/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/[/URL]

It is plainly clear it was an attack, not a demonstration gone wrong via a video, from the first moments of the attack which were messaged to the appropriate military authorities in Washington. The briefing with Obama by the requisite parties during and after the attack clearly demonstrate the true nature of the events as they were unfolding. The story the Obama administration up out was an out and out fraud plain and simple.

FYI, another weapon from the Fast and Furious debacle has turned up at another murder scene.

FYI regarding the IRS Scandal, the trail to this point leads to IRS headquarters in Washington DC and not some line officer down in the lower GS rungs of the ladder as Obama would like everyone to believe. Read the IRS Inspector General's report. Not to mention few of the affected conservative organizations have been contacted by the FBI in their "rigorous" investigation and it's now 2014.

Obama is going to rate below the peanut farmer when he leaves office.

We won't even begin to address the slap in the face from Iran over the "deal" brokered by Kerry.

At least he Israelis are calling Kerry out for what he is regarding the Middle East "Peace Talks" .

Looks like the Senate is set to pass a Veto Proof package of Iran sanctions, not to mention the Supreme Court is about to shove Obama's recess appointments up his A##, the young invincibles are failing to sign up for ObamaCare in droves and to top it all off Gates just gave everyone an inside look at the circus the Obama Administration is!

So what does Obama want to talk about? Income redistribution.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437581]Such hyperbole!

Esten, I know you're salivating at the prospect that the Republican's prime candidate to defeat Hillary might go down under a salvo of Democrat "Politics of personal destruction" gunfire, but what you're actually witnessing is something you haven't seen during the Obama years: It's called Leadership.

Here's how a true leader responds when he learns of misconduct by underlings:

1. As a true leader, you immediately accept full responsibility. (As opposed to calling the event a "phony scandal" when speaking only to your supporters).

2. You publicly apologize to all parties that were affected by the misconduct.

3. You immediately fire the individuals involved. (Nobody ever gets fired in the Obama administration, largely because Obama doesn't have the stones, i.e. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Kathy Sebelius, etc., etc., etc.).

4. You order your administration to cooperate fully with any investigation. (As opposed to publicly claiming that you'll cooperate, and instead actually stonewalling the investigation i.e. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting, etc., etc., etc.).

5. You hold an exhaustive press conference that continues for hours until every reporter in the room has had every question answered. (As opposed to making some prepared remarks and then walking away from the podium).

Personally, I find it refreshing to see a real leader in action.

Thanks,

Jax

[B]Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recently released book detailing the leadership chaos in the dysfunctional Obama Administration![/B][/QUOTE]For an independent voter, you sure don't show a lot of independence. I have yet to see a post where you go after the right but you're always bashing the left, yet you call yourself independent. Christie would be a great leader had he took some action months ago when he heard of this story instead of just accepting the "traffic study" answer he was given. Firing Bridget Kelly showed no leadership, he had no choice under the circumstances. Lindsey Graham, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Rand Paul and other republicans also don't see the leadership qualities you are talking about but were quick bring up the "bully" tag and Christie's reputation for payback so he is getting it not only from the left but his own party.

As for Gates' book which is an opinion book and not facts and he is trying to sell books so this is the kind of stuff one would expect from a book seller. Gates does praise Obama and said Obama made all the right decisions on Afghanistan. Gates wrote a lot of complimentary things about Obama. Gates gave Obama high marks, saying that the president is "very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive but like clockwork the right is focus on the negative stuff he said about Obama while ignoring the positives. Gates himself said as much in his TV interview on CBS. BTW, Gates had issues with Bush and Cheney too, of course the right don't want to address those issues. Will anyone ever change their minds about the issues here or is this thread like MSNBC and fox where the left views the issues one way the right the other?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437572]Yes, an "anonymous" IRS manager who described himself as a Republican said he initiated reviews of 501 (c) 4's. That doesn't change the fact that it was Republican-leaning organizations that were harangued. Your Huffington Post link notes "more conservative-leaning groups received scrutiny than did Democratic ones." [/QUOTE]Tiny, I'm sure if you cherry pick the right data and facts, you can show that the IRS put greater focus on conservative groups. But, that in itself does not mean it was in response to requests or expectations from outside the IRS. In fact we know it originated within the IRS.

Further, you can't just look at absolute numbers, because it's also true that conservative groups submitted many more applications for tax-exempt status. You have to look at the [I]rate[/I]. And even if the rate was still higher for conservative groups, you have to know what the intent was. Was it politically motivated? Perhaps the conservative groups raised more red flags in their applications, which would not be surprising because the Tea Party movement was extremely political, not primarily focused on "social welfare" which is the requirement for tax-exempt status.

So really, you have to go to great lengths to show this was a scandal, let alone a politically motivated one.

You can just as easily make the argument, that when confronted with a surge of applications from groups connected to a new and very political movement, that the IRS was simply doing it's job in screening out tax fraud.

[QUOTE]The effect is real. Without going into a lot of detail, I reduced my contribution to a libertarian-leaning 501 (c) 4 because I was afraid of potential government harassment.[/QUOTE]You bring up another point that reminds me why I've always thought this "scandal" was phony, or at least wildly overblown. Didn't you have plenty of choices on how you could spend your money to support your political views? For example, already approved 501 (c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS, not to mention Conservative / Tea Party PACs and Super PACs. Did the inability of some groups to obtain tax-exempt status really have ANY substantial effect on the ability of conservatives to promote their cause and influence elections?

Esten, It's not cherry picking. Look at the period starting March, 2010. According to the Inspector General's report, prepared by the Department of the Treasury, this is when the IRS began targeting conservative groups: [URL]http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf[/URL].

Look the graph in the NYT article. From March, 2010 through March, 2012, when the media started bringing attention to this issue, only 4 groups with "tea party", "9/12" or "patriots" in their names were approved. From May, 2012 to February, 2013, after the IRS's hand was forced, 44 groups were approved. This contradicts your thoughts about rate and red flags. Better yet, look at the inspector general's report, in particular the detailed time line in Appendix VII from page 31 to 42. Read this with an open mind and you'll find you have some misconceptions, in particular that it wasn't conservative organizations that were specifically targeted.

Going back to your original post, Christie will not encourage people in government to create traffic problems to punish opponents going forward. It's unlikely he even knew what his "supporters" planned. The Obama administration and other Democrats however have continued to try to handicap 501 (c) 4's after the IRS scandal broke, all the way up until today.

You keep using the word "tax-exempt". What you don't point out is that PAC's are tax exempt too. Donors don't get tax deductions when they contribute to 501 (c) 4's. There are two differences between the organizations. One is that contributors to PAC's are identified publicly. The second is that 501 (c) 4's typically do substantial work that's intended to be for the social good. And that's the answer to your last question. The 501 (c) 4 that I contribute to isn't in the business of lobbying, although it does do a little of that, and it doesn't overtly support any political candidates. It does support free markets, a more rational system of taxation, and doing something about the huge deficits we're going to be faced with. While you would undoubtedly argue that it does nothing for the social good, I feel very differently. I have no desire to support Crossroads GPS, whatever that is, or conservative PAC's. I guess maybe the reason some Democrats are afraid of 501 (c) 4's is because they and their supporters actually believe something, passionately. And that can be more dangerous than a PAC which is in business to buy off politicians for special interests.

Certain Democrats appear to want organizations like Moveon.org to maintain their 501(c)4 status while eliminating organizations like the one I support. Or alternately they think if they could do away with all 501(c)4's it would net out to their advantage.

[QUOTE=Esten;437586]Tiny, I'm sure if you cherry pick the right data and facts, you can show that the IRS put greater focus on conservative groups. But, that in itself does not mean it was in response to requests or expectations from outside the IRS. In fact we know it originated within the IRS.

Further, you can't just look at absolute numbers, because it's also true that conservative groups submitted many more applications for tax-exempt status. You have to look at the [I]rate[/I]. And even if the rate was still higher for conservative groups, you have to know what the intent was. Was it politically motivated? Perhaps the conservative groups raised more red flags in their applications, which would not be surprising because the Tea Party movement was extremely political, not primarily focused on "social welfare" which is the requirement for tax-exempt status.

So really, you have to go to great lengths to show this was a scandal, let alone a politically motivated one.

You can just as easily make the argument, that when confronted with a surge of applications from groups connected to a new and very political movement, that the IRS was simply doing it's job in screening out tax fraud.

You bring up another point that reminds me why I've always thought this "scandal" was phony, or at least wildly overblown. Didn't you have plenty of choices on how you could spend your money to support your political views? For example, already approved 501 (c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS, not to mention Conservative / Tea Party PACs and Super PACs. Did the inability of some groups to obtain tax-exempt status really have ANY substantial effect on the ability of conservatives to promote their cause and influence elections?[/QUOTE]Esten, your attempt to apply the term "cherry pick" to Tiny is laughable considering your past performance.

The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?

Your assertion conservative groups filed many more requests than liberal / progressive groups is totally irrelevant to the discussion, are not all entities to be treated equally? By the way do YOU have any data to support your claim? Conservative groups like this have been around for a while but make their presence felt in the run up to the 2010 mid-term elections. Democrats saw their grasp on power slipping away and it appears those in power began using government agencies to suppress those groups prior to the 2014 elections.

How do you refute the Inspector General's report?

FYI, the "saving of an American car company" where by Chrysler was "saved" by stealing assets from their rightful owners and turning them over to Obama's friends in the auto unions has now run it's course. We no longer have an American car company as Fiat now owns it all. Explain to me again how this was better than a reorganization? Oh that's right the Unions did not have their contracts voided in bankruptcy!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437593]

Your assertion conservative groups filed many more requests than liberal / progressive groups is totally irrelevant to the discussion, are not all entities to be treated equally?[/QUOTE]Doppelganger, I'm not sure Esten was entirely right on that point. The New York Times writer found 32 presumably liberal-leaning organizations with "progress", "progressive", "liberal", and "equality" were steadily approved for 501 (c) 4 status during the 25 month period that that the application processing for "Tea Party" et al groups was shut down. Only 4 Tea Party groups were approved. Then 44 Tea Party groups were approved in the 10 months after the shut down ended. That's not a giant difference in numbers. Actually the "progressive" groups may have outnumbered the Tea Party Groups, if you were to count progressive groups approved after the shut down ended.

However, I don't know a lot about 501 (c) 4's. Apparently a number of Democrats, including the 7 Senators that wrote the letters and the Obama administration, believe there's more to fear from 501 (c) 4 groups that oppose them than to be gained from 501 (c) 4's that support them. Or they think they have the power to shut down their opponents while leaving 501(c)4's like moveon.org untouched.

Anyway, this attitude can come back to haunt you, as may happen for Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats that changed the filibuster rule.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437594]
Anyway, this attitude can come back to haunt you, as may happen for Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats that changed the filibuster rule.[/QUOTE]Should the 2014 mid-terms approach the slaughter seen in 2010, and it may due to all the cancellation notices to employers just before the election, the Democrats will rue the day they used the so called "nuclear option" for expediency to further Obama's appointments. Should the Republicans again take the House, Senate & Presidency, mark my words, no one will be crying more loudly than the Democrats about bi-partisanship and a call for a reversal of their short sighted employment of the "nuclear option" when the tables are turned.

Know what they say in Poland about that? Tough Shitsky.

Spring in the air? Memories become short, and cockiness raises it's head. The lessons of yesterday forgotten.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437596]Spring in the air? Memories become short, and cockiness raises it's head. The lessons of yesterday forgotten.[/QUOTE]What the fuck does that mean?

Are you talking about the Democrats?

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437598]What the fuck does that mean?

Are you talking about the Democrats?

Jax.[/QUOTE]I was talking about the Dow, that is, until you got me confuse now. Maybe, the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight?

I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.
Photos and email prove it.

"No one in my office new anything.".

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437593]Esten, your attempt to apply the term "cherry pick" to Tiny is laughable considering your past performance.

The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?[/QUOTE]Here's how Darrell Issa manufactured the IRS 'scandal'
[URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219172/-Here-s-how-Darrell-Issa-manufactured-the-IRS-scandal[/URL]

[QUOTE]The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”[/QUOTE]IRS Scandal Investigator 'Very Concerned' His Report Missed Progressive Targeting
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/irs-scandal-report-russell-george_n_3619102.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]The inspector general behind the critical report about the IRS' targeting of tea party groups acknowledged Thursday that the information in his report was not complete.

J. Russell George, the IRS inspector general, told the House Oversight Committee that only in the past few weeks has he become aware of documents showing that the IRS screened progressive groups in addition to conservative ones. George said he was "disturbed" by the fact that these documents were not provided to his team of investigators prior to the audit's release and that he was continuing to investigate the issue.[/QUOTE]

So the IG (a G.W. Bush appointee) asked the IRS for information on Tea Party application reviews, and that's what the IRS gave him. They were probably scared to give him anything other than what he requested, for fear of accusations they were interfering with the inquiry. Further, one of his investigators found no evidence of political motivation by the IRS after reviewing 5,500 emails, but this was not mentioned in the IG's report.

Selective investigating and reporting in the IRS inquiry? Certainly appears to be the case. Just like Issa tried to suppress the testimony from the Republican IRS staffer who said he initiated the increased scrutiny. If you can't see this 'scandal' has been wildly hyped and manipulated by Republicans for political purposes, you're blind.

[b]Bridgegate[/b]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437600]I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.

"No buddy in my office new anything.".[/QUOTE]An Anti-Islam Movie was the motive behind the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.

Bridgegate has been proven by NSA surveillance of cell phone conversations between [STRIKE]Obama And Christy[/STRIKE] Laurel and Hardy.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28941[/ATTACH] or [ATTACH=CONFIG]28942[/ATTACH].

However if you like your policy you can keep your policy, period.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28943[/ATTACH]

But, "What Difference Does It Make?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28944[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437593]
The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?
[/QUOTE]Yep, That was Esten's response, as you predicted. A highly-respected IG who was a founder of the College Democrats at Howard University before becoming a Dole staffer and Bush appointee is a partisan conservative. And the cases examined by the IG were cherry picked, bizarrely by the IRS. Esten chooses to ignore the evidence (e.g. The NYT blogger who tracked applications for Tea Party and Progressive groups) and the mainstream press and instead quotes the DailyKos (mouthpiece for Democrat party), and an article from the Huffington Post that paints a different picture on this issue from other articles in the Huffington Post. Republican leaning organizations were clearly subjected to much more scrutiny, and their approvals were delayed.

Emergency vehicles could not get over the bridge.

[QUOTE=Punter127;437610][b]Bridgegate[/b]

But, "What Difference Does It Make?[/QUOTE]