American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437767]Time after time you White Wingers keep saying there are too many Regulations.

It must be tough getting old and can't remember things.[/QUOTE]In your first post you wrote "[I]The government should remove [u]all[/u] regulations.[/I]", not "[I]too many regulations[/I]".

I challenged you on your original statement.

Now you're pretending you wrote the words "[I]too many regulations[/I]".

Back peddling again, just like Obama.

I repeat my challenge: Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[i]The government should remove all regulations.[/i]".

Thanks,

Jax.

I was saying what you Rite Wingers really would like.

No Controls by the Government.

It is not about what I posted, it's about what you are thinking and wishing for.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437768]In your first post you wrote "[I]The government should remove [u]all[/u] regulations.[/I]", not "[I]too many regulations[/I]".

I challenged you on your original statement.

Now you're pretending you wrote the words "[I]too many regulations[/I]".

Back peddling again, just like Obama.

I repeat my challenge: Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[i]The government should remove all regulations.[/i]".

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437772]I was saying what you Rite Wingers really would like.

No Controls by the Government.

It is not about what I posted, it's about what you are thinking and wishing for.[/QUOTE]Actually when this has come up before, the AP right wingers have said they believe there need to be some regulations. It would be ridiculous to say no regulations are needed.

What I don't like is when Republicans chant their mantra "We're being suffocated by too much regulation". They should be specific in what specific regulations they want to abolish. But their strategists have learned that simple, slick messaging, void of detail, works best with their LIV base. Just like with their phony scandals. Grab a narrow, simplistic anti-government message, and run with it.

Washington Times, January 22,2014, Cheryl K Chumley.

"I remember (my time at Fox) as an awful time of fun, and I made alot of mistakes. I think I played a role, unfortunately, in tearing the country apart. I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language.".

He forgot to say that he also made alot of money by telling half-truths, misleading statements, and presenting situations and language out of context. In other word, he sold himself to the highest bidder. All the while, presenting himself as a man of religious convictions and patriot.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437748]Goodness, I know you're very smart, so all I can figure is that you've either brainwashed yourself or you're so partisan that you don't care what the truth is. In the past, several times you've made me admit to myself that I didn't know as much as I thought I did about an issue, or it wasn't as clear as I thought. This is not one of those times. [/QUOTE]Thank you for the comments. Regarding the IRS 'scandal', I think you are focusing too narrowly on a certain set of facts and data, and extrapolating from that your conclusion of political bias. The additional scrutiny, the delays, the intrusive questions.. Sure on their own, it could have the appearance of bias. But you have to dig deeper, and look at the entire picture and context. I smelled the Republican hype in this story from the get-go, and my research confirmed it. Like I keep saying, the Tea Party was a very [I]political[/I] party in it's nature. So when the IRS got a surge of Tea Party applications, and especially this being soon after Citizens United, I think the IRS was 1000% correct in their decision to flag these for additional review. It's their job to figure out whether or not these groups are mostly social or political. Their motives were correct, but they probably should have been more politically savvy in their execution, and simply used "Party" in their BOLO list, than "Tea Party". As I've pointed out though, left-leaning groups were also flagged, and "Tea Party" groups were only about a quarter of the 300 groups that went into a bucket of applications getting more scrutiny. Even if you think the Tea Party groups got it worse, there would be justification because, repeating this for the umpteenth time, the Tea Party was known to be highly political. A good question is, even with the added scrutiny, why the delays were so long. Again you have to look into the environment within the IRS. Potential elements of excessive workload, lack of clear guidelines, and inadequate oversight have been cited as contributing factors, and I find them entirely plausible. Republicans were all over this, but still found absolutely zero evidence of political motivation.

Here is a quote which sums it up nicely. I encourage you to read the entire article.

[QUOTE]But in reality, this is a story about how bureaucratic bungling was turned into scandal by right wing politicians desperate to spin gold from straw.[/QUOTE]The IRS Scandal That Wasn't
[URL]http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/30/the-irs-scandal-that-wasn%E2%80%99t/[/URL]

Esten, the writer of the article is politically-biased. He works for Demos, a support wing for the Democrat party. I did read the article.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437784]Washington Times, January 22,2014, Cheryl K Chumley.

"I remember (my time at Fox) as an awful time of fun, and I made alot of mistakes. I think I played a role, unfortunately, in tearing the country apart. I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language.".

He forgot to say that he also made alot of money by telling half-truths, misleading statements, and presenting situations and language out of context. In other word, he sold himself to the highest bidder. All the while, presenting himself as a man of religious convictions and patriot.[/QUOTE]I wonder if Obama will be so candid when reflecting on his presidency?

[QUOTE=Jackson;437790]I wonder if Obama will be so candid when reflecting on his presidency?[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick[/URL]

January 27,2014 New Yorker, Going the Distance by David Remnick.

Obama: "The President of the United States cannot remake our society and that's probably a good thing. Not probably. It's definitely a good thing. I'm not particularly an ideological person. So there are values I'm passionate about, but I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to how we get there.".

The article is very long and covers a wide range of subjects. If not for the "rejection" by older tired white men (the polls show it) Obama definitely could have make America better.

[QUOTE=Rev BS;437784]Washington Times, January 22,2014, Cheryl K Chumley.

"I remember (my time at Fox) as an awful time of fun, and I made alot of mistakes. I think I played a role, unfortunately, in tearing the country apart. I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language.".

He forgot to say that he also made alot of money by telling half-truths, misleading statements, and presenting situations and language out of context. In other word, he sold himself to the highest bidder. All the while, presenting himself as a man of religious convictions and patriot.[/QUOTE]
Tearing the country apart? How about Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Lawrence O'Donnell? Not to mention people in power -- Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for example. Your "tired old white men" like Boehner and McConnell have been more willing to compromise.

[QUOTE=Rev BS;437803][URL]
Obama: "The President of the United States cannot remake our society and that's probably a good thing. Not probably. It's definitely a good thing. I'm not particularly an ideological person. So there are values I'm passionate about, but I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to how we get there."[/QUOTE]

True. He's very pragmatic about winning elections. He doesn't much care about anything else.

Bush, has not been Candid about his BIG Mistake about WMDs in Iraq.
He does know not what to say, same as he was in power, too dumb to say anything.
Keep your mouth shut and maybe people will forget. Sure We Will.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437790]I wonder if Obama will be so candid when reflecting on his presidency?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;437782]What I don't like is when Republicans chant their mantra "We're being suffocated by too much regulation". They should be specific in what specific regulations they want to abolish. But their strategists have learned that simple, slick messaging, void of detail, works best with their LIV base. Just like with their phony scandals. Grab a narrow, simplistic anti-government message, and run with it.[/QUOTE]"War on the Little Guy" is running on Stossel this week. Here's an excerpt: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI5XJl4-Reo[/URL].

That gives plenty of examples of stupid regulations that should be abolished.

I could give an example from my own business, where if I were properly complying with regulations, I'd be spending about 8,000 hours per year generating completely worthless numbers for the benefit of a federal agency in the event it should decide to audit the business. Since I only work about 2,000 to 2,500 hours per year total, that would be difficult. As I'm not complying with the regulations, it wouldn't be wise to provide additional details, so make of that what you want.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437806]Tearing the country apart? How about Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Lawrence O'Donnell? Not to mention people in power -- Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for example. Your "tired old white men" like Boehner and McConnell have been more willing to compromise.

True. He's very pragmatic about winning elections. He doesn't much care about anything else.[/QUOTE]MSNBC was a channel I had no time for when I was still in the USA. O'Donnell, Schultz & Maddow, totally no exposure to them. Olberman, I dislike him even when he only a sportcaster. Bill Maher can be funny but mostly obnoxious. Chris Matthews, I have seen but have no opinion.

Reid & Pelosi are career politicians, and answering to their masters and self interests. Same with Boehner & McConnell. The younger John McClain, I could vote for him. As you know, he was an advocate for campaign & immigration reform. Even in 2008, it was pretty much over for him even though he was able to run for president.

I am not going defend Obama against your opinion. You will never change your mind about him. Just reflect of what you thought of Clinton now, against back in 1996 when he had 2 years to go in office. Be at least truthful to yourself, if nothing else.

Tiny, I watched the video. Stossel does lots of programs like that, they are sometimes entertaining. They do showcase some apparently non-sensical regulations, but even with some of them, if you think about it you can see some downside if those regs didn't exist. For example, maybe it sounds ridiculous to regulate tour guides, or home improvement contractors. But maybe if they didn't set certain standards, you'd see tourists upset they got crappy tours and home owners upset they got crappy or fraudulant home repairs. You trade one set of 'victims' with another set. Sometimes people take consumer protections for granted, but remove them and something bad happens, and they'll be screaming why it isn't regulated. You have to weigh the pros and cons before making a judgement. I do agree there are most likely regs that could be abolished or implemented less onerously. You just have to do something to make it happen, like they changed the regs for the Mountain Man. Of course, Stossel has to portray it like the government is waging war on people, his program is paid by Fox News. You could easily do a program showing just the opposite.

There were some good headlines this month worth noting. It's OK to talk about good things too.

1. Unemployment fell below 7%, to 6.7%. We've come a long way from 10.2% in 2009.

2. Affordable Care Act signups now exceed 3 Million.

3. Obama made some favorable comments on marijuana. And Holder says he is planning to roll out regulations soon that would allow banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers. Maybe that's an example of some good regulation.

4. We got a bipartisan budget agreement with little fighting and no brinksmanship.

How Many Independents are in the Congress?

Since you Right Wingers have no New News other than bringing up old the Old News Word Benghazi.

Check out where The New World Started for Money and Greed.

[URL]http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/klondike/videos[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;437855]There were some good headlines this month worth noting. It's OK to talk about good things too.

1. Unemployment fell below 7%, to 6.7%. We've come a long way from 10.2% in 2009.

2. Affordable Care Act signups now exceed 3 Million.

3. Obama made some favorable comments on marijuana. And Holder says he is planning to roll out regulations soon that would allow banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers. Maybe that's an example of some good regulation.

4. We got a bipartisan budget agreement with little fighting and no brinksmanship.[/QUOTE]