US Politics Mega-thread - Page 242

On May 18 2013 02:37 kwizach wrote:

You realize you just switched topics, right? This was about the Republicans altering the official Benghazi e-mails to score political points.

On May 18 2013 02:37 Noro wrote:


Thanks for the clarification on House vs Senate.



How can you say that he isn't pushing gun laws to make a statement, when at the same time you're saying it's wrong to keep fighting against Obamacare? Do you not see the hypocracy? Obviously with the partisanship of the the President vs the House, these things aren't going to pass, but of course they are still going to try.

Yes you have the right, but I'm merely suggesting that you should consider the fact that this isn't something that is isolated to one party.

On May 18 2013 02:24 Sermokala wrote:

In order for it to be a joke you have to have a punchline. What part about that doesn't make sense to you? Just beacuse you live in a blinkered "lets ignore anything that doesn't prove my ideology" doesn't mean the rest of us do.

It doesn't help that the union that services the IRS gives so wildly disproportionaly to anti tea party democrats. People arn't angry that the IRS did something wrong people are angry that the people in the IRS just continued their partisan ways inside the office as they do outside of it. And beacuse Obama wants to just shuffle this under the rug like the other scandels refusing to actually do anything at all about them the shit is just going to keep pileing up for 2014.

You thought the tea party was a firestorm of idological fury before? just imagine how strong they're gona be when the government is literally out to get them.

On May 18 2013 03:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:


The White House and State Department had more in mind than politics, which is pretty obvious if you compare before/after. The GOP did it purely for political gains.

But nice deflection!

Edit: I mean, are you seriously comparing the normal process for a release going from CIA -> State to people taking the original CIA report, editing it to make it look worse for the state department, then RELEASING it as the original? Seriously?

Nuland , who insisted throughout the process that the State Department's concerns be addressed, worried in one email that references to terrorist involvement "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency (CIA) warnings, so why do we want to feed that either?"

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051613-656376-white-house-edited-benghazi-talking-points.htm#ixzz2TZjmM8A6

On May 18 2013 03:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:

There is a difference between a loss of soldiers in a war, an inevitability, and the loss of an ambassador. Obama is responsible in that his State dept. ignored warnings that could have prevented the attack, his administration has tried to cover-up what happened, and his administration did not respond in any kind of adequate way to the attack while it was occurring. Further, the old sayings: "The buck stops here" and "Shit rolls up-hill" should at least, to any responsible leader, be a motivation to take responsibility for the failings of the people the leader instated. So far all we've gotten out of Obama is "I had nothing to do with it, it was that person/organization" on every scandal that arises. David Axlerod is even going out saying that he couldn't have anything to do with any of it because the federal government is just too big for him to control. Obama and his high-level friends/associates/underlings have taken no responsibility for any failing or wrongdoing that has occurred in the entire 4+ years of his presidency. It's a sickening example of cowardly leadership, if calling it "leadership" could even be considered to be accurate.

On May 18 2013 02:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Link

Pretty damn good given what's going on with our trading partners in Europe.

On May 18 2013 03:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:

What proof do we have that Republicans were the ones who did the editing? I've seen a report that claims Republicans did it, but have seen no proof. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough (possible, considering that I only found out about said report today) Further, the actual emails still prove that they were editing the talking points for political gains:



Perhaps the most damning: Jay Carney (the administration) lied about what they edited and didn't edit. Why did they lie? And how is that justifiable simply because Republicans may or may not have done something similar?

On May 18 2013 03:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Obama called for the director to resign, said that the situation was inexcusable, said the secretary should implement the IG audit. What more do you want? Him to froth at the mouth or something? Pull out a gun and start shooting before the investigation is even done?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/barack-obama-irs-statement-transcript-91445.html

Edit: And you can't possibly dismiss them as empty words when they've only had two days to do anything about it.

On May 18 2013 03:46 Sermokala wrote:

He could show some emotion about the problem. All he does up there is just act like he doesn't care. You can't tell people not to complan about empty words, he isn't going to do anything at all. That guy who he told to resign? Full retirement beifts paid for by the tax payers, smileing though every hearing getting paid again and again. Bengazi? Hillery gets a nice farewell tour around the world before being nicely replaced while she prepares for 2016. The ap scandel? God knows nothing is going to change from that and business as useual wll continue.

So literaly for him to show intrest in his nation and for him to do anything at all. He won't do anything and that's why I get to complain about it being just empty words.

On May 18 2013 03:28 aksfjh wrote:

I wonder if those numbers are usually lead or lag indicators of economic activity. Either way, they don't seem "real," or at least important in the current climate. There aren't any reasons for consumer sentiment to rise, apart from getting used to unaltered levels of economic disparity. Incomes haven't risen above their previous highs, underemployment is still ridiculous, housing numbers are erratic, and none of the key drivers of these things are getting any better. This report looks more like sociology and less like economics.

On May 18 2013 03:46 Sermokala wrote:

He could show some emotion about the problem. All he does up there is just act like he doesn't care. You can't tell people not to complan about empty words, he isn't going to do anything at all. That guy who he told to resign? Full retirement beifts paid for by the tax payers, smileing though every hearing getting paid again and again. Bengazi? Hillery gets a nice farewell tour around the world before being nicely replaced while she prepares for 2016. The ap scandel? God knows nothing is going to change from that and business as useual wll continue.

So literaly for him to show intrest in his nation and for him to do anything at all. He won't do anything and that's why I get to complain about it being just empty words.

On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote:
House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time.

This comment is just too funny:

Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!"

On May 18 2013 04:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:


So his response isn't good enough because you don't think it will be. Got it.

Seriously, can you hear yourself? There is literally nothing he could do to please you. You couldn't say a single thing he could do with the IRS issue besides what he actually did except strip the retirement benefits of the acting director who didn't make the policy and wasn't informed of it by his subordinates.

This is exactly what Bush would have done (Gonzales, anyone?), or Clinton, or George Washington, and they all would have taken the right course. Heck, it's MORE than most early 20th century Presidents would have done. Bush even commuted a prison sentence for Libby!

On May 18 2013 05:06 Sermokala wrote:

Did you really just blinker yourself to only hear that one sentence you wanted? I posted solid reasons on why he isn't going to do anything. I would be happy if he did anything which is what I said. that's the opposite of doing nothing which is what you said. Then you go off and say that this was exactly what bush would have done. So your saying you want obama to follow bush's decisions? Bush at the very least had libby go to trial and only commuted his sentence after it was passed. There won't even be a trial for anything Obama does at this rate. Its not my job to create things for obama to do thats his job. its my job to complain on what he has or in this case hasn't done.

So do please tell me how I'm not hearing myself when you hear nothing at all and yell at other people about what you heard them say.


999 days till the presidential election btw, get your popcorn ready.

On May 18 2013 05:24 upperbound wrote:

More like 999+365 days.

EDIT: I'm also pretty sure that's off, but it's closer than 999, which is less than 3 years.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress’ nonpartisan budget analyst says President Barack Obama’s budget would trim projected federal deficits by $1.1 trillion over the coming decade.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that after four straight years of annual shortfalls exceeding $1 trillion, Obama’s budget would leave this year’s deficit at $669 billion.

The report says annual budget gaps would fall slowly to $399 billion in 2017 before gradually rising again.

The budget office says that of the overall savings Obama proposes, $974 billion would come from higher revenues and $172 billion from spending cuts.

Overall, the budget office says Obama’s budget would produce $5.2 trillion in red ink through 2023. But that is $1.1 trillion less than the deficits that would be generated over that time if no tax or spending laws are changed.

WASHINGTON (NYT) — The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was auditing the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

REP. MIKE KELLY (R-PA): This has nothing to do with political parties. This has to do with highly targeted groups. This reconfirms everything the American public believes. This is a huge blow to the faith and trust that the American people have in their government. Is there any limit to the scope where you folks can go? Is there anything at all? Is there any way that we could ask you is there any question that you should have asked?

My goodness. How much money do you have in your wallet? Who do you get emails from? Whose sign do you put up in your front yard? This is a tax question? And you don't think that's intimidating? It's sure as hell intimidating. And I don't know that I got any answers from you today. And I don't know that -- what Mr. George said is great work -- but you know what? There's a heck of a lot more that has to come out in this. Any anybody that sat here today and listened to what you had to say, I am more concerned today than I was before, and the fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody?

You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want. Any time you want. I gotta tell you. You could talk about how you're a horribly run organization, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're not giving that excuse. And the IRS comes in, you're not allowed to be shoddy, you're not allowed to be run horribly, you're not allowed to make mistakes, you're not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn't come in compliance, and if you do, you're held responsible right then. I just think the American people have seen what's going on right now in their government. This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all Americans.