PDA

View Full Version : IRS: the scandal that never was


peacepipe
06-25-2013, 02:44 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/irs-targeting/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/irs-progressive-groups_n_3492679.html







Apparently, the IRS was targeting liberal/progressive groups as well,something that conservatives convenently ignored. GOPs case essentially got blown out of the water.

Rohirrim
06-25-2013, 03:36 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/irs-targeting/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/irs-progressive-groups_n_3492679.html







Apparently, the IRS was targeting liberal/progressive groups as well,something that conservatives convenently ignored. GOPs case essentially got blown out of the water.

Issa says,
http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/jay-cutler-dont-care-225x300.jpg

El Minion
06-25-2013, 06:10 PM
Wait, not only did Obama have the Tea Party and conservatives on his enemy list but also liberal and progressive groups!? My God, then They where right, He can be all four!

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama-nazi-communist-muslim.jpg

Thanks to the crazies, you where right!

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/barack-obama-nation.jpg

http://s3-akbuzzfeed.newvirtuallife.com/static/campaign_images/terminal05/2012/8/31/17/things-that-blew-your-mind-when-you-were-a-kid-1-30991-1346448555-3_big.jpg

Fedaykin
06-26-2013, 04:48 AM
Not to mention according to Issa's own interviews, the person in charge of this targeting was not a liberal, but a self proclaimed conservative.

TonyR
06-26-2013, 11:03 AM
Beavis? No comment? You blew an awful lot of smoke. Where's the fire?

Rigs11
06-26-2013, 11:43 AM
We pointed out at the beginning that liberals were targeted too and that the GOP was using this for political gain. The rightard cheerleaders around here thought that this was the worst thing to ever happen to the US.Hilarious!

houghtam
06-26-2013, 12:03 PM
Tumbleweeds and crickets. Chirp chirp chirp.

Where's Beavis? Where's Taco John? Where's cut?

What of this dreaded 2014 backlash?

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 12:23 PM
Beavis? No comment? You blew an awful lot of smoke. Where's the fire?

Keep smokin' that pole, Tone.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351994/what-really-happened-irss-lookout-lists-eliana-johnson

The treatment of progressive groups cannot be equated to that of tea-party groups. The term “progressive” was flagged in a general warning to agency screeners — one that remained on the list throughout the time in question — that the applications of progressive organizations may not merit 501(c)(3) designation, which prohibits groups from engaging in political activity. That warning, according to an IRS source familiar with the review process, did not prevent first-line screeners from recommending an application be approved.

The same lists, between August 2010 and February 2012, directed screeners by default to send tea-party applications to a special group for further review and for coordination with lawyers in Washington, D.C. “They are different,” says the agency source of the designations made for progressive and tea-party groups.

Jeez, I thought you guys said this was just a few rogue Cincy agents. Now suddenly we find out that all Tea Party apps went straight to purgatory in DC, with not a single one ever getting approved, and you guys are still closing cases because someone might have used a different key word sometimes (and then approved the app anyway)

Can you demonstrate a similar denial pattern (aka total)? No. But you'll latch onto whatever distraction you can while the investigation of why DC wanted all those Tea Party apps buried continues.

DenverBrit
06-26-2013, 02:34 PM
So the IRS paid attention to self proclaimed anti tax groups looking for tax free status. Go figure. :P

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 02:45 PM
Now,Darrel issa is trying to backtrack,claiming he never tried to say it was the white house behind the IRS not only targeting conservative groups but liberal groups as well. Lets remember the scandal was about idea that IRS was only targeting conservatives.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 02:47 PM
No. Liberal groups were also targeted. That was known from the start. The turnover time was the big difference

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 02:59 PM
No. Liberal groups were also targeted. That was known from the start. The turnover time was the big difference

Actually far more liberal groups were targeted then originally stated by Darell issa. All you heard on the news was "IRS singles out conservative groups" but with dems releasing the full transcripts & recent testimony it comes out they were targeting liberals alot as well. It wasn't some conspiracy dreamed up by the white house to only target conservatives.

Edit* come to think of it, Darrell Issa never mentioned that liberal groups were targeted.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 02:59 PM
Who believes ALEC deserves to be a tax exempt organization?

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 03:00 PM
Actually far more liberal groups were targeted then originally stated by Darell issa. All you heard on the news was "IRS singles out conservative groups" but with dems releasing the full transcripts & recent testimony it comes out they were targeting liberals alot as well. It wasn't some conspiracy dreamed up by the white house to only target conservatives.

Like I said. The turnover time was vastly different.

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 03:04 PM
Like I said. The turnover time was vastly different.

Only cause there were more conservatives applying for tax exempt status then libs. No scandal there.

Garcia Bronco
06-26-2013, 03:15 PM
Only cause there were more conservatives applying for tax exempt status then libs. No scandal there.

No. That has nothing to do with it.

I can't remember the exact difference but say one of each group was applying at the same time. The "conservative group" would take 2 to 3 times as long to get approved of even reviewed.

Now I am not saying the Admin was behind this. To me this is what I expect of Government run institutions. A lack of organization and oversight while mandating that private businesses live by a different set of rules.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 03:51 PM
No. That has nothing to do with it.

I can't remember the exact difference but say one of each group was applying at the same time. The "conservative group" would take 2 to 3 times as long to get approved of even reviewed.

Now I am not saying the Admin was behind this. To me this is what I expect of Government run institutions. A lack of organization and oversight while mandating that private businesses live by a different set of rules.

The line has been blurred for decades. This exemption specifically states that it is only for organizations engaged "exclusively for social welfare". That means for all these organizations, any money spent on advocacy needs to be taxed. IMO the IRS isn't overreaching, 501c organizations (both left and right) are attempting to scam the system.

Instead of having to determine first whether a group is operating outside the bounds of the social welfare exception, then determine how much money was spent doing so and then how much should be taxed, the law should state that if your organization gets involved in any sort of political advocacy whatsoever, whether it is endorsing a candidate, telling someone how to vote, or collecting signatures or a ballot initiative, your entire organization, be it the NAACP, a church, or a tea party group, falls under X category, and must pay taxes based on the overall worth of the organization, not just how much you've spent on advocacy.

I would think that would put an end to all the scam artistry pretty quick, and I'm sure the number of applications the IRS receives would drop like a rock.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 03:56 PM
No. That has nothing to do with it.

I can't remember the exact difference but say one of each group was applying at the same time. The "conservative group" would take 2 to 3 times as long to get approved of even reviewed.

Now I am not saying the Admin was behind this. To me this is what I expect of Government run institutions. A lack of organization and oversight while mandating that private businesses live by a different set of rules.

It wasnt a matter of it taking longer. It was a matter of never. When the IRS sent Tea Party groups to the DC office none of them were approved. At least not until the quick policy rugsweep that happened after Congress started asking questions last year and the IG was in full investigation.

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 04:01 PM
It wasnt a matter of it taking longer. It was a matter of never. When the IRS sent Tea Party groups to the DC office none of them were approved. At least not until the quick policy rugsweep that happened after Congress started asking questions last year and the IG was in full investigation.

As was done with liberal groups.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 04:10 PM
As was done with liberal groups.

That doesn't appear to be the case. Having been looked at and then approved isn't quite the same thing as being looked at and sent to DC HQ never to see the light of day again.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Essentially you're arguing that since the IRS sometimes did their jobs, they could've never discriminated, even though they basically already admitted to doing so.

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 04:16 PM
So at the end of the day, the IRS did its job. They scrutinized both liberal & conservative groups.

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 04:19 PM
That doesn't appear to be the case. Having been looked at and then approved isn't quite the same thing as being looked at and sent to DC HQ never to see the light of day again.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Essentially you're arguing that since the IRS sometimes did their jobs, they could've never discriminated, even though they basically already admitted to doing so.

FAIL. Why not try and use a article not written over a month ago.

DenverBrit
06-26-2013, 06:37 PM
So at the end of the day, the IRS did its job. They scrutinized both liberal & conservative groups.

In a nutshell, yes!

elsid13
06-26-2013, 07:47 PM
It wasnt a matter of it taking longer. It was a matter of never. When the IRS sent Tea Party groups to the DC office none of them were approved. At least not until the quick policy rugsweep that happened after Congress started asking questions last year and the IG was in full investigation.

As I pointed out to you on the other thread, of over 2000 request that IRS reviewed in 2011/12 less then 10 where denied. So your post is inaccurate and wrong. All I have learned about this "scandal" is that Tea Party= Whiners Inc.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 05:49 AM
As I pointed out to you on the other thread, of over 2000 request that IRS reviewed in 2011/12 less then 10 where denied. So your post is inaccurate and wrong. All I have learned about this "scandal" is that Tea Party= Whiners Inc.

Read the article I posted. What you're saying isn't even close to true.

TonyR
06-27-2013, 07:26 AM
Read the article I posted. What you're saying isn't even close to true.

No matter what you post, this isn't remotely turning out to be the huge scandal you were licking your chops thinking it was going to be. Simply put: you were wrong. Bitter pill. Try a spoon full of sugar.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 07:49 AM
No matter what you post, this isn't remotely turning out to be the huge scandal you were licking your chops thinking it was going to be. Simply put: you were wrong. Bitter pill. Try a spoon full of sugar.

I'm not licking my chops over anything. I'm just not ok with it being brushed aside with a second 'internal investigation' that only follows the first because it was a sham.

And contrary to your hopes and dreams, this one won't go away for years. Because it's guaranteed to be going to federal court where all the documentation put out by the IRS paper mill will have to come out.

And because of the politics involved on both sides, it's probably inevitable that a special prosecutor gets named.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-the-irs-scandal-needs-a-special-prosecutor-20130625

houghtam
06-27-2013, 07:58 AM
I'm not licking my chops over anything. I'm just not ok with it being brushed aside with a second 'internal investigation' that only follows the first because it was a sham.

And contrary to your hopes and dreams, this one won't go away for years. Because it's guaranteed to be going to federal court where all the documentation put out by the IRS paper mill will have to come out.

And because of the politics involved on both sides, it's probably inevitable that a special prosecutor gets named.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-the-irs-scandal-needs-a-special-prosecutor-20130625

Bull****. You've been blaming the administration since day one, hoping they'd find something.

We all see through you.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 08:04 AM
Bull****. You've been blaming the administration since day one, hoping they'd find something.

We all see through you.

I think I've made pretty clear that there are only two explanations. Incompetence or maliciousness. I endorsed neither. But as I said from the very beginning, neither is a ringing endorsement of a "Trust Us, We're the Government!" Progressive agenda.

TonyR
07-02-2013, 10:29 AM
The IRS inspector general is defending its probe, but the IRS’s flagging of conservative groups seems, at worst, to be marginally stricter than its flagging of liberal groups, not the one-sided political witch hunt portrayed by early reports.

What about the rest of the scandals? Well, there aren’t any, and there never were. Benghazi is a case of a bunch of confused agencies caught up in a fast-moving story trying to coordinate talking points. The ever-shifting third leg of the Obama scandal trifecta — Obama’s prosecution of leaks, or use of the National Security Agency — is not a scandal at all. It’s a policy controversy. One can argue that Obama’s policy stance is wrong, or dangerous, or a threat to democracy. But when the president is carrying out duly passed laws and acting at every stage with judicial approval, then the issue is the laws themselves, not misconduct.

The whole Obama scandal episode is a classic creation of a “narrative” — the stitching together of unrelated data points into a story. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/obama-scandals-used-to-be-a-thing.html?mid=rss

BroncoBeavis
07-02-2013, 11:05 AM
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-30/opinion/ct-edit-irs-20130630_1_new-irs-conservative-groups-irs-scandal

But wait. Early last week we read that the agency used keywords such as "progressive" to target left-leaning groups, too, for extra scrutiny. "New IRS chief: Lists targeted more than tea partyers," said the Chicago Tribune. "Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet," said The New York Times. Congressional Democrats pounced on the suggestion that the agency had treated conservatives and liberals with equal indignity.

But wait some more. On Wednesday a Treasury Department inspector general undercut the equal-abuse argument: From May 2010 to May 2012, the IRS had flagged for added scrutiny six of the 20 applicant groups with words such as "progressive" in their titles. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the (292) tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases" — that is, groups possibly too political to merit tax-exempt status. "While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria," wrote Inspector General J. Russell George, "including employee interviews, emails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."

Translation: The IRS was overwhelmingly one-sided in scrutinizing applications. And the agency evidently was completely one-sided in subjecting only conservative groups to long processing delays and lengthy, often peculiar requests

...

But as we wrote May 23, many Americans won't be much interested in what one arm of the Obama administration concludes about the conduct of other arms — the IRS, the Treasury and possibly the White House. There are times when only a special prosecutor has the independence and credibility to resolve such a politically fraught matter.

Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor? The White House, too, should be clamoring for one: The feds are only three months from enrolling Americans in Obamacare, a program that relies on citizens' willingness to have the IRS even more involved in the financial details of their lives.

We applauded when Obama said he would make sure there will be no such future scandal. But lofty pledges aren't enough. The president and his underlings ought to be instructing a special prosecutor to unravel the still mysterious scandal that confronts them today.

But you and Sully keep workin' that Admin Pole, Tony. LOL

peacepipe
07-02-2013, 11:17 AM
LOL butthead didn't even read the article. Its over butthead,you can stop crying wolf.

DenverBrit
07-02-2013, 11:34 AM
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-30/opinion/ct-edit-irs-20130630_1_new-irs-conservative-groups-irs-scandal



But you and Sully keep workin' that Admin Pole, Tony. LOL

You should read it all....carefully. :P

BroncoBeavis
07-02-2013, 11:48 AM
You should read it all....carefully. :P

Ah, the slightly modified Wagsesque NoYOUAH! LOL

DenverBrit
07-02-2013, 02:22 PM
Ah, the slightly modified Wagsesque NoYOUAH! LOL

I'm sure you're trying to say something.

BroncoBeavis
07-02-2013, 02:47 PM
I'm sure you're trying to say something.

Now you know how it feels. :)

DenverBrit
07-02-2013, 03:08 PM
Now you know how it feels. :)

From the same paragraph you highlighted.

"we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."


Guess you must have missed it. :clown:

BroncoBeavis
07-02-2013, 03:21 PM
From the same paragraph you highlighted.



Guess you must have missed it. :clown:

You seem to be reading it backwards or something. The Tribune even followed up by translating it for you though...

Translation: The IRS was overwhelmingly one-sided in scrutinizing applications. And the agency evidently was completely one-sided in subjecting only conservative groups to long processing delays and lengthy, often peculiar requests

DenverBrit
07-02-2013, 03:53 PM
You seem to be reading it backwards or something. The Tribune even followed up by translating it for you though...


Explain how I read it 'backwards or something?' ???

"we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."

I guess the quote needed to be 'translated' for those who don't comprehend plain English.

errand
07-02-2013, 04:06 PM
So the IRS paid attention to self proclaimed anti tax groups looking for tax free status. Go figure. :P

It would stand to reason that people who are anti-tax (conservatives, tea party members) would want to be exempt from taxes.

It would stand to reason that people who are pro tax (progressives, liberals) would not want to be tax exempt.

errand
07-02-2013, 04:10 PM
No. Liberal groups were also targeted. That was known from the start. The turnover time was the big difference


Obviously hundreds of conservative organizations being denied and delayed their tax exempt status is the same as several liberal groups being denied or delayed.

errand
07-02-2013, 04:14 PM
So at the end of the day, the IRS did its job. They scrutinized both liberal & conservative groups.

so if the IRS scrutinized a few caucasian groups but also scrutinized hundreds of black groups you would make the same statement?

errand
07-02-2013, 04:18 PM
amazing how the IRS admits to unfairly targeting conservative and tea party groups and we have liberals claiming they didn't....LOL

BroncoBeavis
07-02-2013, 05:20 PM
Explain how I read it 'backwards or something?' ???



I guess the quote needed to be 'translated' for those who don't comprehend plain English.

So at the end of the day, if the IRS searched both Liberal and Conservative groups, but approved a large majority (if not all?) of the Liberal applications while breaking protocol to block 100% of conservative applications... the cult of personality is A-OK with that.

Got it. Will mark that down for later.

DenverBrit
07-02-2013, 05:22 PM
So at the end of the day, if the IRS searched both Liberal and Conservative groups, but approved a large majority (if not all?) of the Liberal applications while breaking protocol to block 100% of conservative applications... the cult of personality is A-OK with that.

Got it. Will mark that down for later.

I was talking about the quote you edited out of the paragraph. Nothing more.

BroncoBeavis
07-02-2013, 05:24 PM
so if the IRS scrutinized a few caucasian groups but also scrutinized hundreds of black groups you would make the same statement?

Yeah. "Hey, we once made a white guy sit at the back of the bus too. What are you complaining about?"

Shameless.

BroncoBeavis
07-02-2013, 05:25 PM
I was talking about the quote you edited out of the paragraph. Nothing more.

Uhh, the part you quoted is right there in what I posted.

cutthemdown
07-03-2013, 04:31 AM
So at the end of the day, the IRS did its job. They scrutinized both liberal & conservative groups.

Debunked!

B-Large
07-03-2013, 07:04 AM
The GOP obsession with scandals won't help them until they starting delivering a message voters want to get behind.

Reagan once said something along the lines of "Conservatism only works in conjunction with Optimism"

Does anything about the GOP sound optimistic? Repeal Heathcare protections, self Deportation, the makers versus takers, piling on the poor- the most vulnerable among us... The 47 perecent???

They still don't get it...

Smiling Assassin27
07-03-2013, 07:16 AM
I find it hard to believe that if there was no wrongdoing, the head of the IRS would plead the 5th. Now, she's asking for immunity to talk about all the 'nothing wrong' she didn't do, er something.

No scandal, my arse...

BroncoBeavis
07-03-2013, 07:21 AM
The GOP obsession with scandals won't help them until they starting delivering a message voters want to get behind.

Reagan once said something along the lines of "Conservatism only works in conjunction with Optimism"

Does anything about the GOP sound optimistic? Repeal Heathcare protections, self Deportation, the makers versus takers, piling on the poor- the most vulnerable among us... The 47 perecent???

They still don't get it...

It all starts with one person. Sad to say, but that's the nature of national politics. It shouldn't be, but it is. There may be 30 Congressmen from either party offering messages of optimism, but it's all just noise in the wilderness. That kind of message can only really be delivered by a Reagan or an Obama. It has to be someone in a position to capture the nation's attention in a way members of Congress can't (or don't)

And for the most part, we don't have any idea who's on deck for that in the next few years. We really need the right person for the right time to come along, as has happened time and again throughout our history.

cutthemdown
07-03-2013, 08:32 AM
I'm willing to admit repubs have big problems in the party. Really big ones. The only bright spot really is the 30 repub governors some with great approval ratings. The repub nominee has to be a governor or they wont stand a chance.

cutthemdown
07-03-2013, 08:32 AM
Repubs should put 2 popular Governors on the same ticket. Both from states they need to win that they lost last time.

DenverBrit
07-03-2013, 08:46 AM
I'm willing to admit repubs have big problems in the party. Really big ones. The only bright spot really is the 30 repub governors some with great approval ratings. The repub nominee has to be a governor or they wont stand a chance.

The first step to recovery. ;)

cutthemdown
07-03-2013, 10:36 AM
yeah but coming from anyone still trumpeting the liberals and obama it rings softly Denverbrit. Obama has lost all credibility and nothing he has done is working well.

DenverBrit
07-03-2013, 11:17 AM
yeah but coming from anyone still trumpeting the liberals and obama it rings softly Denverbrit. Obama has lost all credibility and nothing he has done is working well.

Why is it that when disagreeing with the GOP, people get painted as liberal Obama supporters?

Newsflash! The world isn't made up of only partisan sheep, some of us actually have independent opinions and think for ourselves.

Which of the two parties are fiscally conservative/responsible, want minimum government interference and are socially liberal?

It's not the Democrats or GOP. Both parties bring some policies that makes sense, but not so much in this political climate.

The system is broken and slavish devotion to either party just encourages them.

Rohirrim
07-03-2013, 11:51 AM
yeah but coming from anyone still trumpeting the liberals and obama it rings softly Denverbrit. Obama has lost all credibility and nothing he has done is working well.

A big part of Obama's failure has been the GOP's concerted effort to destroy his presidency with complete disregard for the well being of this country. Face it. Obama couldn't get an appointment for dog catcher past this Congress.

Fedaykin
07-03-2013, 04:05 PM
I find it hard to believe that if there was no wrongdoing, the head of the IRS would plead the 5th. Now, she's asking for immunity to talk about all the 'nothing wrong' she didn't do, er something.

No scandal, my arse...

You clearly don't understand the point of the 5th.

cutthemdown
07-03-2013, 09:37 PM
A big part of Obama's failure has been the GOP's concerted effort to destroy his presidency with complete disregard for the well being of this country. Face it. Obama couldn't get an appointment for dog catcher past this Congress.

really his biggest failures are foreign policy, taxes, spending, and Obamacare. What appointments that go through would have helped?

errand
07-04-2013, 10:26 PM
Face it. Obama couldn't get an
appointment for dog catcher past this Congress.



I'm guessing you fail to remember his unconstitutional recess appointments that he made....

errand
07-04-2013, 10:29 PM
You clearly don't understand the point of the 5th.

how can you incriminate your self if you "did nothing wrong"?

but now I know what to tell the IRS if they audit me.....

Fedaykin
07-04-2013, 10:36 PM
how can you incriminate your self if you "did nothing wrong"?

but now I know what to tell the IRS if they audit me.....

Oh look, another goon that doesn't understand the 5th or the reality of our legal system. The 5th is NOT there to keep guilty people from incriminating themselves.

Here's a good start,a law professor and a policeman explaining the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

BroncoBeavis
07-04-2013, 10:45 PM
Oh look, another goon that doesn't understand the 5th or the reality of our legal system. The 5th is NOT there to keep guilty people from incriminating themselves.

Here's a good start,a law professor and a policeman explaining the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Yeah, totally. The 5th is actually designed to not have to tell your boss who effed up when the **** hits the fan. Nobody needs to know who's responsible. When your agency does something illegal or immoral, you simply plead the fif and take your paid vacation like a boss. LOL

Man is our government out of control...

Fedaykin
07-04-2013, 10:46 PM
Yeah, totally. The 5th is actually designed to not have to tell your boss who effed up when the **** hits the fan. Nobody needs to know who's responsible. When your agency does something illegal or immoral, you simply plead the fif and take your paid vacation like a boss. LOL

Man is our government out of control...

So employees of the federal government don't/shouldn't have equal protection under the law, eh?

TonyR
07-05-2013, 06:16 AM
really his biggest failures are foreign policy, taxes, spending, and Obamacare.

You don't understand foreign policy enough to make that judgement.
How has he "failed" on taxes?
How has he "failed" on spending, any more than previous administrations?
Obamacare isn't far enough along to call it a "failure".

peacepipe
07-05-2013, 06:57 AM
You don't understand foreign policy enough to make that judgement.
How has he "failed" on taxes?
How has he "failed" on spending, any more than previous administrations?
Obamacare isn't far enough along to call it a "failure".

cuts' just like one of them birthers,no matter the evidence he'll claim Obama is a failure. You got to remember cut is a GWB apologist/supporter.

BroncoBeavis
07-05-2013, 07:16 AM
So employees of the federal government don't/shouldn't have equal protection under the law, eh?

The 5th amendment protects against self-incrimination. The key word there being incrimination. It does not protect your job. It is a criminal defense.

There is no excuse for continuing to employ an employee who refuses to testify as to what happened in the execution of their duties for fear it might open them to criminal prosecution. I'm not saying she doesn't have the right to invoke it (again for fear of prosecution) But doing so should be grounds for immediate dismissal. And would be treated that way in any case outside of big government.

Fedaykin
07-05-2013, 12:34 PM
The 5th amendment protects against self-incrimination. The key word there being incrimination. It does not protect your job. It is a criminal defense.

There is no excuse for continuing to employ an employee who refuses to testify as to what happened in the execution of their duties for fear it might open them to criminal prosecution. I'm not saying she doesn't have the right to invoke it (again for fear of prosecution) But doing so should be grounds for immediate dismissal. And would be treated that way in any case outside of big government.

The 5th isn't what protects her employment. It's actually federal case law, in particular the "Garrity Rights" which have been in place since the 60s:

http://www.garrityrights.org/basics.html

The summary is, that since a public's employee's employer is the government, any attempt to force testimony -- including threat of termination -- is a violation of the 5th amendment.

Now, we can agree or disagree with those laws, but we're talking about the application and purpose of the 5th amendment here, and what invoking the 5th does or does not say about the person invoking it.

Do try to stay on topic bub.

broncocalijohn
07-05-2013, 01:17 PM
A big part of Obama's failure has been the GOP's concerted effort to destroy his presidency with complete disregard for the well being of this country. Face it. Obama couldn't get an appointment for dog catcher past this Congress.

No worries, he will just Executive Order it.

Rohirrim
07-05-2013, 03:05 PM
No worries, he will just Executive Order it.

If you go by polling data, this is the worse Congress America has ever had. The president has a duty to govern, and half the frigging Congress is opposed to our form of government. I'm not an Obama supporter, but what the hell would any president do in this situation?

Rohirrim
07-05-2013, 03:07 PM
I'm guessing you fail to remember his unconstitutional recess appointments that he made....

If a minority in the Congress can stop an up or down vote on any appointment, and gleefully abuses that power, what should a president do? Just allow government to come to a halt?

broncocalijohn
07-05-2013, 05:11 PM
If you go by polling data, this is the worse Congress America has ever had. The president has a duty to govern, and half the frigging Congress is opposed to our form of government. I'm not an Obama supporter, but what the hell would any president do in this situation?

transparency as promised. He has taken the Executive Order route where it seems it is like a dictatorship personality.

peacepipe
07-05-2013, 05:38 PM
transparency as promised. He has taken the Executive Order route where it seems it is like a dictatorship personality.

Presidents constitutional right,you think Obama is the first president to use executive order.

broncocalijohn
07-05-2013, 06:00 PM
Presidents constitutional right,you think Obama is the first president to use executive order.

Absolutely not. I know many presidents use it and higher than Obama who might not use it as much as many presidents in recent history. I am comparing his talk of transparency with using executive orders. During war, it is used and I understand it. Maybe it is some of the items that he has done with executive orders that I don't like personally. Many important subjects like Immigration should be spoken in the halls of congress and out front for all to see.

peacepipe
07-05-2013, 06:42 PM
Absolutely not. I know many presidents use it and higher than Obama who might not use it as much as many presidents in recent history. I am comparing his talk of transparency with using executive orders. During war, it is used and I understand it. Maybe it is some of the items that he has done with executive orders that I don't like personally. Many important subjects like Immigration should be spoken in the halls of congress and out front for all to see.
There isn't a rulebook that says it only can be used here & there. He's not doing them in secret,from gun control to immigration he has announced publicly what executive orders he was doing.

cutthemdown
07-05-2013, 07:33 PM
Now Obama using executive actions. Its not an order per se. He will just send a memo to a govt agency telling them what he would like them to do. Then they do it.

cutthemdown
07-05-2013, 07:34 PM
Presidents constitutional right,you think Obama is the first president to use executive order.

How about if a repub got in and made an executive order no more fed funds for any abortions anywhere. Any hospital or group doing them loses all federal funding etc etc. Would you cry foul?

BroncoBeavis
07-06-2013, 05:39 AM
The 5th isn't what protects her employment. It's actually federal case law, in particular the "Garrity Rights" which have been in place since the 60s:

http://www.garrityrights.org/basics.html

The summary is, that since a public's employee's employer is the government, any attempt to force testimony -- including threat of termination -- is a violation of the 5th amendment.

Now, we can agree or disagree with those laws, but we're talking about the application and purpose of the 5th amendment here, and what invoking the 5th does or does not say about the person invoking it.

Do try to stay on topic bub.

I said the government was out of control. The fact that it has backed that up in writing does little to diminish the glaringly obvious.

BroncoBeavis
07-06-2013, 05:41 AM
How about if a repub got in and made an executive order no more fed funds for any abortions anywhere. Any hospital or group doing them loses all federal funding etc etc. Would you cry foul?

Looks like all of Obamacare's mandates are now subject to executive approval. The next President can essentially repeal it by EO. Thanks Obama. LOL

cutthemdown
07-06-2013, 10:42 AM
If a minority in the Congress can stop an up or down vote on any appointment, and gleefully abuses that power, what should a president do? Just allow government to come to a halt?

No he is supposed to deal with them and find common ground. Not advance an agenda he doesn't have the votes for. You appoint someone to the position repubs will vote for etc etc. That is how its done.

Fedaykin
07-07-2013, 03:21 PM
I said the government was out of control. The fact that it has backed that up in writing does little to diminish the glaringly obvious.

As is common for you, you have it totally backwards. What's out of control is a legal system that makes criminals out of essentially every citizen. There are so many laws, and so many poorly conceived laws, that essentially every person violates several a day, often felonies. For example, pretty much anyone who has ever used a website that requires an account has commits felony computer "hacking" on a daily basis because they don't read and/or follow all the terms of service.

That's just one reason why the 5th amendment is so critical. No person, no matter how innocent they think they are actually is "innocent" of any law breaking (despite most people being quite innocent of any actual wrong doing).

It's a damn fine thing that the supreme court has restricted the ability of the government to abuse its citizen employees by forcing them to give up their 5th amendment rights under threat of termination. Calling that restriction on the government a symptom of of the government being out of control is absurd. What would be out of control is a government that was not restricted from forcing citizens to give up their rights by threatening their livelihoods.

peacepipe
07-07-2013, 03:34 PM
No he is supposed to deal with them and find common ground. Not advance an agenda he doesn't have the votes for. You appoint someone to the position repubs will vote for etc etc. That is how its done.

Obama has tried everything to do just that,find common ground,rethugs just have a my way or the highway approach . You appoint someone that can get 50+1 in the senate.

TonyR
07-09-2013, 12:21 PM
The controversy that erupted in May has focused on an ideological question: Were conservative groups singled out for special treatment based on their politics, or did the I.R.S. equally target liberal groups? But a closer look at the I.R.S. operation suggests that the problem was less about ideology and more about how a process instructing reviewers to “be on the lookout” for selected terms was applied to any group that mentioned certain words in its application.

Organizations approached by The New York Times based on specific “lookout list” warnings, like advocates for people in “occupied territories” and “open source software developers,” told similar stories of long waits, intrusive inquiries and bureaucratic hassles that pointed to no particular bias but rather to a process that became too rigid and too broad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/us/politics/irs-scrutiny-went-beyond-the-political.html?hp&_r=2&

cutthemdown
07-09-2013, 12:42 PM
Obama has tried everything to do just that,find common ground,rethugs just have a my way or the highway approach . You appoint someone that can get 50+1 in the senate.

BS even you don't believe Obama has tried. He appoints people he knows the repubs will go crazy over.

peacepipe
07-09-2013, 01:22 PM
BS even you don't believe Obama has tried. He appoints people he knows the repubs will go crazy over.
He has tried & has been criticized by the left for continuously trying to do so.

He appoints people he feels is best for the job not who he thinks rethugs will like best,if rethugs get crazy about it that's their problem not Obamas.

If rethugs wanted their people appointed they should come up with better policies so they can win the WH & appoint who they want.

kappys
07-09-2013, 06:42 PM
BS even you don't believe Obama has tried. He appoints people he knows the repubs will go crazy over.

You are right - but I think Obama has a reason for doing so. Everytime repubs get all worked up over an executive branch appointee they tend to look foolish, vindicative and more importantly obstructionist. Obama plays the card that he is trying to get the wheels of government in motion but how can he against such a stubborn house majority? The think is I think most of the time Obama wins these battles in the court of public opinion because republicans are so focused on maintaining favor within their hyper-right base in order to prevent primary challenges that they are willing to sacrifice the general public view.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-09-2013, 06:48 PM
How anyone takes anything the right-wing media says seriously anymore is beyond me.

Talk about the paradigm example of "the boy who cried wolf."

cutthemdown
07-09-2013, 07:20 PM
You are right - but I think Obama has a reason for doing so. Everytime repubs get all worked up over an executive branch appointee they tend to look foolish, vindicative and more importantly obstructionist. Obama plays the card that he is trying to get the wheels of government in motion but how can he against such a stubborn house majority? The think is I think most of the time Obama wins these battles in the court of public opinion because republicans are so focused on maintaining favor within their hyper-right base in order to prevent primary challenges that they are willing to sacrifice the general public view.

You are 100% correct. Once Obama saw that repubs take heat for that he got even more contentious. He was like hell appoint anyone as long as repubs hate it. They more they hate the worst they look.

i agree 100% Obama played political cards like that masterfully and they work well in elections. Problem is he is 5 yrs into being our leader and all his ideas are falling apart. His foriegn policy is a mess, the economy still stagnant for all but the rich, and Obamacare is an outright disaster with more and more problems at each turn. The costs keep going up and he is no closer to getting big business to adopt the provisions. What like half the states have no exchanges set up to help people buy insurance.

I agree with you though Kapps he's a slick politician when it comes to making sure the focus of the countries problems is directed anywhere but him. I don't see him as a the buck stops here type President.

If at the end of his 8 yrs he is still blaming everyone else will dems then finally say man this dude stunk?

cutthemdown
07-09-2013, 07:24 PM
How anyone takes anything the right-wing media says seriously anymore is beyond me.

Talk about the paradigm example of "the boy who cried wolf."

Do you really believe MSNBC? Just the fact they are still Obamas boys shows they are just like the repubs. Totally beholden to the people with the money. i really think liberal media would be happier with a conservative in office. Then SNL can make fun of him and so can stand up comics. Then liberals can at least go protest and feel like they are standing up for what they believe. Right now all my liberal friend tell me that they really want to bash obama, maybe even protest some of his policies. Obviously they hate the spying on America, using drones to kill americans and other people with no trial etc.

They are honest though they still feel Romney would have been worst and that by protesting Obamas moves they will open the window for a repub to win the presidency and they don't want that. So they get stuck with some half liberal who throws them a bone here and there. The country gets stuck with a spender who wastes out money and thwarts commerce with too many regulations. In the end neither side gets what they want from a guy like Obama with no moral center and no real character at all.

Bacchus
07-09-2013, 11:30 PM
Do you really believe MSNBC? Just the fact they are still Obamas boys shows they are just like the repubs. Totally beholden to the people with the money. i really think liberal media would be happier with a conservative in office. Then SNL can make fun of him and so can stand up comics. Then liberals can at least go protest and feel like they are standing up for what they believe. Right now all my liberal friend tell me that they really want to bash obama, maybe even protest some of his policies. Obviously they hate the spying on America, using drones to kill americans and other people with no trial etc.

They are honest though they still feel Romney would have been worst and that by protesting Obamas moves they will open the window for a repub to win the presidency and they don't want that. So they get stuck with some half liberal who throws them a bone here and there. The country gets stuck with a spender who wastes out money and thwarts commerce with too many regulations. In the end neither side gets what they want from a guy like Obama with no moral center and no real character at all.

That's a good story, and that maybe true but I'll wait until I see a liberal in office to make up my mind. Obama is a conservative in Democrats clothing. He isn't much more liberal than Romney. We get a true Democrat like Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders in office and I think people would be thrilled with the results.