• filter:
  • 1163164165166 167
  • Page
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   larrymoecurly:

Are you in favor of Obama expanding recent US operations against the Islamic State?  If so, do you think he should do so with or without congressional authorization?

1. Yes, but not in the stupid way.  The US should do what it does well militarily in foreign countries (air power, special forces), not what it does only as well as the locals (big ground battles).

2. Yes, and ignore the do-nothing, 100% political, "party comes before country" whiners in Congress who got Iraq wrong in 2003 and caused this big Middle East mess in the first place.

1. Interesting spin,

2. but at what point will you stop blaming those in power during 2003 (who reacted right or wrong to the 9/11 terrorist attack)

3. and begin holding the current group of politicians accountable for their recent actions or lack of action?

4. Beheading journalists and beating and burying women alive for adultery is beyond comprehension for most of us in the US.

 

This isn't spin.  Spin is only for those who see the world through only their narrow Washington, D.C eyes as nothing but a big political campaign and who admire successful deceivers.  

2. Never, because if we forget, we will eventually repeat their mistakes.  Do not underestimate the magnitude of their mistakes because even GW Bush's father, through his proxy, called it the greatest foreign policy failure in US history.  

3. What is the real purpose of assigning blame to the people who've been trying to fix this mess?  Obviously to deflect blame from those responsible for creating it and their sympathizers (both dupes and partisans) and to win upcoming elections.  That's not to say it wouldn't hurt if the enemy saw Obama as bat**** crazy instead of overly cautious (weak) and logical (weak), and it's simply amazing that all our intelligence resources -- CIA, NSA, once again failed to detect anything as major as ISIS.

4. Why should it be?  It's the "norm" for the world, and we've even done it ourselves, to our own, and not just as isolated events but well organized ones by our "civilized" people, complete with special discount rate train tickets for traveling to lynchings. 







 

 Isn’t the current occupant of the White House responsible for  the CIA and NSA? 

Who is the Bush-proxy that you mentioned earlier?  I'd be curious to read the context of his/her statement

Hindsight is non-productive, although, if we are to follow your line of reasoning,  I’m sure that there are some who still blame Clinton for not pursuing Bin Laden and his accomplices in their pre 9/11  terrorists attacks on US targets.

Getting back to the current issue, the White House thinks Congressional approval isn’t needed to carry out a broad campaign to combat ISIS.    Democratic Senator Chris Murphy expressed the concern, that if that were the case,  “…there is no congressional check upon the executive’s powers to open up military fronts against extremist groups anywhere in the world at any time.”

That precedent is something to keep in mind unless you will be equally supportive of the next party in the White House who wants to move without Congressional approval.

Incidentally are you familiar with the  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology?  They  did a study a few years ago that came to the conclusion that the more  radical your own politics,  the more likely you are to accuse everyone else who doesn’t share your viewpoint as being radical.  The trait is psychological projection  -- that is  where people accuse others of an attribute that exists in themselves.   Wikipedia gives an example of psychological projection -– a person who is rude himself is convinced that others are rude.  Just something to think about.

rated:
bighitter said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   larrymoecurly:

Are you in favor of Obama expanding recent US operations against the Islamic State?  If so, do you think he should do so with or without congressional authorization?

1. Yes, but not in the stupid way.  The US should do what it does well militarily in foreign countries (air power, special forces), not what it does only as well as the locals (big ground battles).

2. Yes, and ignore the do-nothing, 100% political, "party comes before country" whiners in Congress who got Iraq wrong in 2003 and caused this big Middle East mess in the first place.

1. Interesting spin,

2. but at what point will you stop blaming those in power during 2003 (who reacted right or wrong to the 9/11 terrorist attack)

3. and begin holding the current group of politicians accountable for their recent actions or lack of action?

4. Beheading journalists and beating and burying women alive for adultery is beyond comprehension for most of us in the US.

 

This isn't spin.  Spin is only for those who see the world through only their narrow Washington, D.C eyes as nothing but a big political campaign and who admire successful deceivers.  

2. Never, because if we forget, we will eventually repeat their mistakes.  Do not underestimate the magnitude of their mistakes because even GW Bush's father, through his proxy, called it the greatest foreign policy failure in US history.  

3. What is the real purpose of assigning blame to the people who've been trying to fix this mess?  Obviously to deflect blame from those responsible for creating it and their sympathizers (both dupes and partisans) and to win upcoming elections.  That's not to say it wouldn't hurt if the enemy saw Obama as bat**** crazy instead of overly cautious (weak) and logical (weak), and it's simply amazing that all our intelligence resources -- CIA, NSA, once again failed to detect anything as major as ISIS.

4. Why should it be?  It's the "norm" for the world, and we've even done it ourselves, to our own, and not just as isolated events but well organized ones by our "civilized" people, complete with special discount rate train tickets for traveling to lynchings. 

Isn’t the current occupant of the White House responsible for  the CIA and NSA? 


Isn’t the current occupant of the White House responsible for  the CIA and NSA? 

Who is the Bush-proxy that you mentioned earlier?  I'd be curious to read the context of his/her statement

Hindsight is non-productive, although, if we are to follow your line of reasoning,  I’m sure that there are some who still blame Clinton for not pursuing Bin Laden and his accomplices in their pre 9/11  terrorists attacks on US targets.

Getting back to the current issue, the White House thinks Congressional approval isn’t needed to carry out a broad campaign to combat ISIS.    Democratic Senator Chris Murphy expressed the concern, that if that were the case,  “…there is no congressional check upon the executive’s powers to open up military fronts against extremist groups anywhere in the world at any time.”

That precedent is something to keep in mind unless you will be equally supportive of the next party in the White House who wants to move without Congressional approval.

Incidentally are you familiar with the  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology?  They  did a study a few years ago that came to the conclusion that the more  radical your own politics,  the more likely you are to accuse everyone else who doesn’t share your viewpoint as being radical.  The trait is psychological projection  -- that is  where people accuse others of an attribute that exists in themselves.   Wikipedia gives an example of psychological projection -– a person who is rude himself is convinced that others are rude.  Just something to think about.


 "Hindsight is non-productive"  -- Bighitter

 "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  -- Winston Churchill

So who's right in this case, you or the person who said just the opposite of you?

Look at the occupation of Germany after WWII.  We kept most of the German military and government and co-opted them into our mission of pacifying Germany and turning it into a free society.   Somebody who used hindsight of productively in Iraq after Mission Accomplished® would have done the same, rather than immediately disband the Iraqi military and Baath party (civilian bureaucracy), as GW Bush's Iraq governor, Paul Bremer, did.  That decision had a far worse impact than most realize because what happened to those fired Iraqi military officers?  Hint:  Iraq is mostly Shiite, recent former prime minister al-Maliki hates Sunnis, and Saddam's old military was headed mostly by Sunnis.  Is it any wonder that so many commanders of ISIS are former high ranking Iraqi officers, despite the fact most of them are secularists who hate Islamic fundamentalism?

The proxy of The Real President Bush is his best friend, who in 1990  was the chief advocate for US military involvement in the Gulf War because Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was a violation of international law -- after all, no country can invade another unless it has UN approval or is attacked from that country.  The context was reality, just as it was when he opposed invading Iraq in 2003 or (here it is, he blames Obama, just as you hoped) withdrawing too much from Iraq in 2011.   Brent Scowcroft.

I know what you mean about radicals practicing projection -- Obama is a Muslim!  He hates America!  He's a socialist!  His birth certificate is fake!   He's a czar who acts without Congressional approval!  But why the lecture from high school intro to psychology and why assume that nobody knows about projection? 

My own politics are Eisenhower Republican, but my voter ID only says "Republican".
 

rated:
Larrymoecurly --From your posts in this and other topics, I would never have guessed in a million years that your politics are Eisenhower Republican.

For the record, I think the majority of Democrats AND the majority of Republicans are too extreme.

As you must be aware,  there was a huge assault of negative, partisan remarks about Bush from the left wing throughout his presidency so complaining about how Obama has been maligned by the right wing doesn’t warrant serious discussion.  Unfortunately nasty politics has become the norm in our country.

I'll review your source for your assertion regarding Bush's proxy.  Thanks.

You ignored my question about whether the White House is responsible for the CIA and NSA.  You also didn’t address the issue of whether it is a good idea for the White House to set a precedent of acting without Congressional approval on opening military fronts.   Was this intentional or an oversight? 

rated:
bighitter said:   Larrymoecurly --From your posts in this and other topics, I would never have guessed in a million years that your politics are Eisenhower Republican.For the record, I think the majority of Democrats AND the majority of Republicans are too extreme.As you must be aware,  there was a huge assault of negative, partisan remarks about Bush from the left wing throughout his presidency so complaining about how Obama has been maligned by the right wing doesn’t warrant serious discussion.  Unfortunately nasty politics has become the norm in our country.

I'll review your source for your assertion regarding Bush's proxy.  Thanks.You ignored my question about whether the White House is responsible for the CIA and NSA.  You also didn’t address the issue of whether it is a good idea for the White House to set a precedent of acting without Congressional approval on opening military fronts.   Was this intentional or an oversight? 


The Republican party has shifted so far to the right in the past 20 years that even a candidate 100% like Reagan  would have a very hard time winning a primary today.  That recently happened locally with a gubernatorial candidate endorsed by the incumbent governor,  The Kochs channeled dark money from Iowa and falsely labelled him Obama's favorite mayor and that he favored Obamacare.  Ever since he lost the primary to the Koch brothers' choice, that incumbent governor's Republican former campaign manager has been appearing in a commercial urging us to vote for the Democratic candidate.  .  

The Democrats used to have some pretty extreme leftists, but after Reagan became President, the party turned center-right because of  efforts by the Democratic Leaderchip Conference, which included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Sam Nunn, and now there are barely any radicals remaining, and the Democratic party has become like a bunch of northeastern 1950s Republicans.   Of course the Democrats have to attack a lot because the Republicans attack, and politics is a blood sport, but both sides haven't been equally vehement.  A few years ago a centrist president urged bipartisan cooperation and made reasonable proposals, but the opposing party tried to block everything, both when they were the majority party in Congress and the minority, even to the extent of taking bizarre, petty actions like shut down government or refuse to raise the federal debt limit..  

GW Bush pretty much got the criticism he deserved, except for most of the accusations that he was a liar.  He wasn't a liar, he was just that stupid and ignorant.   I don't see how anybody who checked into the presidential candidates of 2000 could have rationally voted for him because it was obvious he was one of the least qualified candidates to ever run for the presidency, a person who had no accomplishments of his own.  He was also the first religious fundamentalist in the White House

In an earlier version of my post, I said the incumbent president is always responsible for the CIA and NSA, and I blamed Obama for not cutting way back on domestic surveillance because all the FISA warrants and spying seems as effective as the war on drugs, and those agencies have long failed to predict the world situation, two examples being the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of ISIS.  I did say they did OK about predicting 9/11 (they were ignored)  and showing that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda (they were actively ignored and cherry picked).  It's amazing that a few journalists often uncover secrets that the 100,00+ employees of the CIA and NSA miss.  OTOH if Obama had cut back Homeland Security, the Republicans would have attacked him for making us vulnerable to terrorist attacks.  

 

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
 
The Republican party has shifted so far to the right in the past 20 years that even a candidate 100% like Reagan  would have a very hard time winning a primary today.  

The Democrats used to have some pretty extreme leftists, but after Reagan became President, the party turned center-right because of  efforts by the Democratic Leaderchip Conference, which included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Sam Nunn, and now there are barely any radicals remaining, and the Democratic party has become like a bunch of northeastern 1950s Republicans.  

A few years ago a centrist president urged bipartisan cooperation and made reasonable proposals, but the opposing party tried to block everything, both when they were the majority party in Congress and the minority, even to the extent of taking bizarre, petty actions like shut down government or refuse to raise the federal debt limit..  

 

  
Reagan ran on ending the Department of Education.  You won't hear too many of today's "extremist" Republicans wanting to end the Department of Education.

The Democratic Party has shifted so far to the left that JFK would probably be considered a "radical, extremist right-winger."

"The Democrats used to have some pretty extreme leftists...."  Used to?    
Anyone see when those "non-extremists" jammed Obamacare through without a single Republican vote, they jammed it through so fast they didn't even bother to read it, AND they had to use a probably-illegal Senate trick to pass it?  
Anyone see those "non-extremists" trying to pass various gun laws including banning "assault weapons" like AR-15s even though such weapons are barely ever used in crime, AND even though there are more guns in the U.S. than ever yet crime and murder are way down?  
Anyone see those "non-extremists" that are so scared of terrorists that they'll spy on everything you do and record everything you say and assume the power to put you in prison forever without charge, yet they refuse to secure the border that terrorists can just walk across and then demand amnesty and free stuff?

You mentioned the "centrist President who urged bipartisan cooperation."  Yeah, he urged bipartisan cooperation when he was trying to get other people to do what he wanted, but he doesn't budge when it's the other way around.  In the year prior to the shutdown, there was a big budget fight, and Obama said they should all pass what they agree on and then fight over the rest later.  When the Obamacare budget battle shutdown happened, Obama the hypocrite forgot all that stuff he previously said and instead said his way or the highway.  To avoid a shutdown, Republicans agreed to fund all of government other than Obamacare, and Obama and Harry Reid said no way.  Obama and Harry Reid shut down the government because Obama and Harry Reid are radical extremists.

And how many House-passed bills are still sitting on obstructionist's Harry Reid's desk?  200?  

Heck, the "centrist President," despite dropping bombs on people's heads, doesn't even want to say the word "war" since then he might have to get congressional war approval once in a while instead of being an extremist dictator like usual.

rated:
deusxmachina said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
The Republican party has shifted so far to the right in the past 20 years that even a candidate 100% like Reagan  would have a very hard time winning a primary today.  

The Democrats used to have some pretty extreme leftists, but after Reagan became President, the party turned center-right because of  efforts by the Democratic Leaderchip Conference, which included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Sam Nunn, and now there are barely any radicals remaining, and the Democratic party has become like a bunch of northeastern 1950s Republicans.  

A few years ago a centrist president urged bipartisan cooperation and made reasonable proposals, but the opposing party tried to block everything, both when they were the majority party in Congress and the minority, even to the extent of taking bizarre, petty actions like shut down government or refuse to raise the federal debt limit..  

 

  
Reagan ran on ending the Department of Education.  You won't hear too many of today's "extremist" Republicans wanting to end the Department of Education.

The Democratic Party has shifted so far to the left that JFK would probably be considered a "radical, extremist right-winger."

"The Democrats used to have some pretty extreme leftists...."  Used to?    
Anyone see when those "non-extremists" jammed Obamacare through without a single Republican vote, they jammed it through so fast they didn't even bother to read it, AND they had to use a probably-illegal Senate trick to pass it?  
Anyone see those "non-extremists" trying to pass various gun laws including banning "assault weapons" like AR-15s even though such weapons are barely ever used in crime, AND even though there are more guns in the U.S. than ever yet crime and murder are way down?  
Anyone see those "non-extremists" that are so scared of terrorists that they'll spy on everything you do and record everything you say and assume the power to put you in prison forever without charge, yet they refuse to secure the border that terrorists can just walk across and then demand amnesty and free stuff?

You mentioned the "centrist President who urged bipartisan cooperation."  Yeah, he urged bipartisan cooperation when he was trying to get other people to do what he wanted, but he doesn't budge when it's the other way around.  In the year prior to the shutdown, there was a big budget fight, and Obama said they should all pass what they agree on and then fight over the rest later.  When the Obamacare budget battle shutdown happened, Obama the hypocrite forgot all that stuff he previously said and instead said his way or the highway.  To avoid a shutdown, Republicans agreed to fund all of government other than Obamacare, and Obama and Harry Reid said no way.  Obama and Harry Reid shut down the government because Obama and Harry Reid are radical extremists.

And how many House-passed bills are still sitting on obstructionist's Harry Reid's desk?  200?  

Heck, the "centrist President," despite dropping bombs on people's heads, doesn't even want to say the word "war" since then he might have to get congressional war approval once in a while instead of being an extremist dictator like usual.

Reagan also ran on keeping the Panama Canal and stopping the Tri-Lateral commission, but I don't remember him invading Panama to get it back, and plenty of his cabinet consisted of Tri-Lateralists.  IOW Reagan talked like a right wing kook but acted a lot more sensibly.  A recent book even mentions the Nixon administration consulting with him during the 1973 Arab-Israel war about resupplying weapons to Israel without angering the Soviets.  Reagan suggested we send Israel as many replacement aircraft  as the Arabs claimed to have shot down, knowing that the Arabs greatly exaggerated their count.

If Obama wasn't a centrist Democrat, ACA would be universal Medicare, not universal private health insurance with subsidies and expanded Medicaid for lower income Americans, the big failed banks would have been nationalized as part of any bailout, as was the case in Sweden with its earlier banking crisis, and you wouldn't see corporate profits at record highs, including a record share of the GDP.  

It's ridiculous to say the Democrats have shifted to the left since JFK because they were farther to the left decades earlier, when they controlled Congress and passed FDR's New Deal, which implemented Social Security, a national minimum wage, and union power (Bacon-Davis act).  OTOH the Republicans have used the term "moderate" as an insult against candidates, including other Republicans.  That's how the extremist mind thinks.

Harry Reid is an obstructionist only in the sense that he didn't completely cave in on Republican demands, 100% of the time.  It's simply bizarre to call him an obstructionist or radical or blame him for government shutdowns.  The shutdowns were intentional by the teabagger faction (actually their masters, like the Koch brothers) of the Republican party, and House Speaker John Boehner went along only because they held the strings over his job.

You actually don't care about any president getting Congressional approval unless the president is a Democrat.  But I'm sure the Republicans only want to approve any military action against ISIS because they care so much about the Constitution and don't want America to get dragged into a quagmire.

 

rated:
Larrymoecurly,

Sorry, but I am not buying into your support for this administration or the Democratic party (with its present participants).

Many years ago,  the Democratic party was made up of honest, hard working folk..  I still have several dyed-in-the-wool Democrat friends who are rational and educated (lawyers, CPA's)  but they are appalled with their party and participants in today's form.

One of many examples that trouble them:

The IRS targeting conservatives.  The administration, rather than coming clean  a year ago, stupidly denied the allegations and tried to cast blame as merely a couple of rogue, partisan poltical agents employed at the IRS.  The administration did everything they could to protect Lois Lerner (who was documented as making derogatory statements against Republicans) , and later the administration claimed IRS computer hard drive failures on multiple computers in court case supoenas.  They asserted that the data and IRS emails on those computers couldn't be recovered.

Assuming you bought into that BS, read on.

Yesterday, there was a news story  that Brian Fallon, a communication aide to Attorney General Eric Holder. who  mistakenly phoned Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (when he meant to call  Democrats)  asked them to leak information to friendly reporters who would provide cover to the administration on the IRS scandal relative to upcoming testimony from Andrew Stelka, a former Justice Department  lawyer who was involved in a court case against the IRS brought by a pro-Israel group about the delay in their 2009 tax-exemption status application..

Do you think using the IRS or Attorney General Holder's staff for political gain is acceptable behavior by the current (or any) administration?

I am hoping that the political pendulum moves right in the next election, only because it has moved much too far to the left.  I would prefer to see a political party in the center but unfortunately we effectively only have two choices -- the Republican party and the Democrat party.
.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
 
Reagan also ran on keeping the Panama Canal and stopping the Tri-Lateral commission, but I don't remember him invading Panama to get it back, and plenty of his cabinet consisted of Tri-Lateralists.  IOW Reagan talked like a right wing kook but acted a lot more sensibly. 

If Obama wasn't a centrist Democrat, ACA would be universal Medicare, not universal private health insurance with subsidies and expanded Medicaid for lower income Americans, the big failed banks would have been nationalized as part of any bailout, as was the case in Sweden with its earlier banking crisis, and you wouldn't see corporate profits at record highs, including a record share of the GDP.  

Harry Reid is an obstructionist only in the sense that he didn't completely cave in on Republican demands, 100% of the time.  It's simply bizarre to call him an obstructionist or radical or blame him for government shutdowns. 

 

  You say Reagan acted sensibly, whereas radical, extremist, warmonger Obama wants to continue Iraq and Afghanistan and wants to drop bombs in Syria, and if the Syrian government defends its country from another country dropping bombs in their country, Obama will drop even more bombs on the Syrian government.  

Radical, extremist Obama and other radical, extremist Democrats didn't pass laws to have universal Medicare because they couldn't.  But they did pass Obamacare with backroom deals and bribes and suspect Senate tactics so they could find out what's in it.

Radical, extremist Obama didn't nationalize the big banks because he likes the big banks and their money.  

Your revisionist history of what happened during the shutdown won't fly here.  Hypocrite Obama during the previous budget battle said they should pass what they agree on and fight about the rest later.  Then, during the shutdown budget battle, extremist Obama and extremist Harry Reid refused to compromise to fund all of government other than Obamacare and then fight about Obamacare later.  I'll say that again since you apparently didn't hear it the first time.  Republicans offered a compromise of funding all of government other than Obamacare and then fighting about Obamacare later, but extremist Obama and extremist Harry Reid refused to compromise on such a commonsense and sensible solution to avoid a shutdown.  

And the House, including Democrats, have passed a bunch of bills, but extremist obstructionist Democrat Harry Reid is sitting on them.
 

rated:
bighitter said:   Larrymoecurly,

Sorry, but I am not buying into your support for this administration or the Democratic party (with its present participants).

Many years ago,  the Democratic party was made up of honest, hard working folk..  I still have several dyed-in-the-wool Democrat friends who are rational and educated (lawyers, CPA's)  but they are appalled with their party and participants in today's form.

One of many examples that trouble them:

The IRS targeting conservatives.  The administration, rather than coming clean  a year ago, stupidly denied the allegations and tried to cast blame as merely a couple of rogue, partisan poltical agents employed at the IRS.  The administration did everything they could to protect Lois Lerner (who was documented as making derogatory statements against Republicans) , and later the administration claimed IRS computer hard drive failures on multiple computers in court case supoenas.  They asserted that the data and IRS emails on those computers couldn't be recovered.

Assuming you bought into that BS, read on.

Yesterday, there was a news story  that Brian Fallon, a communication aide to Attorney General Eric Holder. who  mistakenly phoned Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (when he meant to call  Democrats)  asked them to leak information to friendly reporters who would provide cover to the administration on the IRS scandal relative to upcoming testimony from Andrew Stelka, a former Justice Department  lawyer who was involved in a court case against the IRS brought by a pro-Israel group about the delay in their 2009 tax-exemption status application..

Do you think using the IRS or Attorney General Holder's staff for political gain is acceptable behavior by the current (or any) administration?

I am hoping that the political pendulum moves right in the next election, only because it has moved much too far to the left.  I would prefer to see a political party in the center but unfortunately we effectively only have two choices -- the Republican party and the Democrat party.
.

The IRS story, except for the "lost" e-mails, is basically a right-wing lie that ignores the fact the IRS also targeted left-wing nonprofits and the only group rejected for tax-exempt status was a left-wing group. The problem is that the IRS is too lenient and allows exemptions not only for nonprofits that operate exclusively for social welfare verses primarily for social welfare, and loads of lobby and campaign groups pretend do the latter because those groups are concerned as much about social welfare as super PACs are really independent from the politicians they support (remember Stephen Colbert's explanation of super PACs?). 

There's no Democrat party. That's a term invented by Republicans in the 1990s, namely Bob Dole, the last Republican presidential candidate I voted for in a general election.  He was also the last pro-civil rights Republican.

Democratic candidates aren't nearly as pro-labor as they used to be because union power is way, way down, thanks mostly to Reagan winning union members, who hate every non-labor issue favored by the Democratic party, the near gutting of Davis-Bacon, and the huge increase in Mexican workers.  Also Democratic politicians have operated in defensive mode for almost the last 50 years and will be attacked as socialists and Communists for supporting even the mildest pro-labor measures, like restoring the minimum wage to the value it had back in the late 1960s.  But if there was no opposition to the Republican party, the labor situation would be even worse.  And you're a fool if you think Republican politicians and administrations will be more honest.  Politics is just sleazy, regardless of party, except for fringe parties that matter so little that they don't have to take responsibility for their positions.  I receive campaign materials from both major parties, and the Republican material is a lot nuttier, practically Bolshevik in its extreme.



 

rated:
deusxmachina said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
 
Reagan also ran on keeping the Panama Canal and stopping the Tri-Lateral commission, but I don't remember him invading Panama to get it back, and plenty of his cabinet consisted of Tri-Lateralists.  IOW Reagan talked like a right wing kook but acted a lot more sensibly. 

If Obama wasn't a centrist Democrat, ACA would be universal Medicare, not universal private health insurance with subsidies and expanded Medicaid for lower income Americans, the big failed banks would have been nationalized as part of any bailout, as was the case in Sweden with its earlier banking crisis, and you wouldn't see corporate profits at record highs, including a record share of the GDP.  

Harry Reid is an obstructionist only in the sense that he didn't completely cave in on Republican demands, 100% of the time.  It's simply bizarre to call him an obstructionist or radical or blame him for government shutdowns. 

  You say Reagan acted sensibly, whereas radical, extremist, warmonger Obama wants to continue Iraq and Afghanistan and wants to drop bombs in Syria, and if the Syrian government defends its country from another country dropping bombs in their country, Obama will drop even more bombs on the Syrian government.  

Radical, extremist Obama and other radical, extremist Democrats didn't pass laws to have universal Medicare because they couldn't.  But they did pass Obamacare with backroom deals and bribes and suspect Senate tactics so they could find out what's in it.

Radical, extremist Obama didn't nationalize the big banks because he likes the big banks and their money.  

Your revisionist history of what happened during the shutdown won't fly here.  Hypocrite Obama during the previous budget battle said they should pass what they agree on and fight about the rest later.  Then, during the shutdown budget battle, extremist Obama and extremist Harry Reid refused to compromise to fund all of government other than Obamacare and then fight about Obamacare later.  I'll say that again since you apparently didn't hear it the first time.  Republicans offered a compromise of funding all of government other than Obamacare and then fighting about Obamacare later, but extremist Obama and extremist Harry Reid refused to compromise on such a commonsense and sensible solution to avoid a shutdown.  

And the House, including Democrats, have passed a bunch of bills, but extremist obstructionist Democrat Harry Reid is sitting on them.


Yours may be the most dishonest post ever made here.


  

rated:
Scottish independence? Has anyone seen what Groundskeeper Willy had to say?

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   

Yours may be the most dishonest post ever made here.


  

Preserved for irony

rated:
kamalktk said:   Scottish independence? Has anyone seen what Groundskeeper Willy had to say?
  
Ye cannae haggis nips an' tats fook

As someone of English, Scottish and Welsh ancestry, some of the reporting on the vote in Scotland has been appalling.  The Scots aren't trying to break away from the British, they ARE the British.  I keep seeing Parallels with 1776 - "The British are coming!  The British are coming!" - a good chunk of those British came from Glasgow.  It's like Florida trying to get independence.

rated:
scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
Yours may be the most dishonest post ever made here.
  

Preserved for irony

When someone calls Obama a radical and blames Harry Reid for obstructionism, it's not a serious post but something as ridiculous as calling the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression".

 

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
 
Yours may be the most dishonest post ever made here.

  

  No, that would be your post.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-us-retaliate-against-assad-0717...
"The United States would retaliate against Syrian President Bashar Assad's air defenses if he were to go after American planes launching airstrikes in his country, senior Obama administration officials said Monday.The mere discussion of launching strikes in Syria has highlighted the complexity of taking U.S. military action inside a country locked in an intractable civil war. The conflict has created odd alliances, with both the U.S. and the Assad regime now fighting the Islamic State militant group."

Shoot missiles in someone else's country, and then claim self-defense and shoot at them if they try to defend their country from you shooting missiles in their country. 

Why is radical extremist warmonger ("Booooooosh!") Obama pushing for war in Syria again?  Probably for the same reason he wanted to go in there a year ago.  Not to go after ISIS, but to go after Assad.  

And speaking of radical obstructionist Harry Reid...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/01/do-nothing-congress-h...
"Blackburn told TheBlaze that 356 bills made it through the House and are languishing in the Senate.Additionally, according to the congresswoman, 98 percent of those bills were passed with bipartisan support. She also pointed out that 200 of the bills were passed in the House with unanimous support from the entire chamber and more than 100 were passed with 75% support of House Democrats." 

And here's more of radical extremist obstructionists Obama and Harry Reid during the budget battle:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/the-medias-government-shutdown-double...
"According to the dominant news media, we all should be worried about a possible shutdown of the federal government next week because House Republicans and Sen. Ted Cruz want to fund all of the government except Obamacare.Please, explain that again! If Congress passes a budget that finances all of government except Obamacare, and the president vetoes that bill, the resulting shutdown is the fault of Republicans?"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cruz-endorses-house-compromi...
"During a speech on the Senate floor Monday afternoon, Texas senator Ted Cruz endorsed the latest House bill to fund the government. This continuing resolution would not defund Obamacare, as Cruz has demanded for months, but it would delay Obamacare's individual mandate by one year and end employer subsidies for members of Congress and their staff.During his speech, Cruz praised the House of Represenatives for trying to compromise and criticized Senate majority leader Harry Reid for refusing to negotiate."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/10/04/victory-over...
"The last CR the Republican House sent over to the Democrat Senate even funded all of Obamacare, except it required a one year delay in the highly unpopular individual mandate, to match Obama’s arbitrary and illegal one year delay in the employer mandate that Obama declared by decree without legal authorization. And it nullified the special exemption from the requirements of Obamacare for Congress and its staff that the Obama Administration decreed as well without legal authorization.But every single Democrat in the Senate voted to keep the special exemption from Obamacare for Congress and its staff, and against the same one year delay in the mandate on working people that Obama illegally granted for the mandate on big business. 

Indeed, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid even refused a House request for a routine Conference Committee between the House and the Senate to compromise over the Continuing Resolution to fund the government, 
 House Republicans even started passing targeted funding bills to address particular issues, such as providing continued cancer treatments for children at the National Institutes for Health, keeping national parks open, and funding services for veterans. But Obama and Reid refused to even consider those bills as well.When a reporter asked Harry Reid why the Senate would not pass a bill so children could continue to get their cancer treatments while the House-Senate budget battle dragged on, Reid responded, “Why would we do that?”"


All of that, and Obama delayed Obamacare anyway!

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   
Many years ago,  the Democratic party was made up of honest, hard working folk..  I still have several dyed-in-the-wool Democrat friends who are rational and educated (lawyers, CPA's)  but they are appalled with their party and participants in today's form.

One of many examples that trouble them:

The IRS targeting conservatives.  The administration, rather than coming clean  a year ago, stupidly denied the allegations and tried to cast blame as merely a couple of rogue, partisan poltical agents employed at the IRS.  The administration did everything they could to protect Lois Lerner (who was documented as making derogatory statements against Republicans) , and later the administration claimed IRS computer hard drive failures on multiple computers in court case supoenas.  They asserted that the data and IRS emails on those computers couldn't be recovered.

Assuming you bought into that BS, read on.

Yesterday, there was a news story  that Brian Fallon, a communication aide to Attorney General Eric Holder. who  mistakenly phoned Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (when he meant to call  Democrats)  asked them to leak information to friendly reporters who would provide cover to the administration on the IRS scandal relative to upcoming testimony from Andrew Stelka, a former Justice Department  lawyer who was involved in a court case against the IRS brought by a pro-Israel group about the delay in their 2009 tax-exemption status application..


.

The IRS story, except for the "lost" e-mails, is basically a right-wing lie ....



 

You can't possibly be that ill-informed.  I'll pull several news sources to refute your statements and post them later when I have more time, but here's a quick start:

Time article here Lois Lerner, the former Internal Revenue Service official at the center of a scandal involving that agency’s targeting of conservative groups, called Republicans “crazies” and “assholes,” according to emails released Wednesday. ....In work emails  exchanged November 2012 with an unidentified person, Lerner knocks the “whacko wing” of the Republican Party and conservative radio shows. ...In May 2013, Lerner acknowledged that the IRS chose groups with “tea party” in their name for additional review in determining their tax-exempt status as social welfare groups. 
 
The Huffington Post, typically a left leaning publication, backs up the Time story with their own article ... . “Lois Lerner Criticized GOP As 'Crazies,' 'Assholes' In Emails” - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/30/lois-lerner-emails-_n_5634379.html 

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   scrouds said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
Yours may be the most dishonest post ever made here.
  

Preserved for irony

When someone calls Obama a radical and blames Harry Reid for obstructionism, it's not a serious post but something as ridiculous as calling the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression".

 

I wouldn't know, I went tl;dr a bit ago.

rated:
Larrymoecurly, here's another article refuting "your right wing lies" assertion:

"Judge Sullivan has been riding herd on the government's gamesmanship, calling the IRS responses to questions about former Treasury official Lois Lerner's missing emails deficient and ordering the agency to provide more complete information. When long-withheld documents do surface after long delays, they are invariably pertinent ...  It was after one such request by Judge Sullivan that the IRS fessed up to wiping Ms. Lerner's Blackberry after the investigation into IRS targeting had begun....

Another such moment happened earlier this month, when the Judicial Watch lawsuit produced a document that raises questions about an IRS "secret research project" related to donor names. In a heavily redacted email chain from May 2012, Ms. Lerner asks how to return some donor lists that the IRS should not have had."...

"Another batch of emails from the FOIA lawsuit also showed that Ms. Lerner was talking to the Justice Department in 2013 about the possibility of prosecuting some of the same politically active groups that the agency had been targeting."

Source:  wall street journal Online edition:   complete article here 

The IRS targeting political adversaries is way over the top.  And the IRS discussing prosecuting political adversaries should be unacceptable to any sane person, regardless of whether they are a Democrat or Republican

rated:
^^sane person ... seems to hit the point right on the head ...

rated:
bighitter said:   Larrymoecurly, here's another article refuting "your right wing lies" assertion:

"Judge Sullivan has been riding herd on the government's gamesmanship, calling the IRS responses to questions about former Treasury official Lois Lerner's missing emails deficient and ordering the agency to provide more complete information. When long-withheld documents do surface after long delays, they are invariably pertinent ...  It was after one such request by Judge Sullivan that the IRS fessed up to wiping Ms. Lerner's Blackberry after the investigation into IRS targeting had begun....

Another such moment happened earlier this month, when the Judicial Watch lawsuit produced a document that raises questions about an IRS "secret research project" related to donor names. In a heavily redacted email chain from May 2012, Ms. Lerner asks how to return some donor lists that the IRS should not have had."...

"Another batch of emails from the FOIA lawsuit also showed that Ms. Lerner was talking to the Justice Department in 2013 about the possibility of prosecuting some of the same politically active groups that the agency had been targeting."

Source:  wall street journal Online edition:   complete article here 

The IRS targeting political adversaries is way over the top.  And the IRS discussing prosecuting political adversaries should be unacceptable to any sane person, regardless of whether they are a Democrat or Republican

You cited a column, not an article, from Rupert Murdock's wall street journal.  That indicates you're just a dupe of your right wing masters.

It's nonsense that the IRS targeted the administration's political enemies, Nixon-style.  Also explain why the only 501(c) political group that had its tax exempt status rejected was a left wing group.


 

rated:
imanemokid said:   ^^sane person ... seems to hit the point right on the head ...
  Sane people cite articles, not just opinion columns from a criminal's newspaper.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   Larrymoecurly, here's another article refuting "your right wing lies" assertion:

"Judge Sullivan has been riding herd on the government's gamesmanship, calling the IRS responses to questions about former Treasury official Lois Lerner's missing emails deficient and ordering the agency to provide more complete information. When long-withheld documents do surface after long delays, they are invariably pertinent ...  It was after one such request by Judge Sullivan that the IRS fessed up to wiping Ms. Lerner's Blackberry after the investigation into IRS targeting had begun....

Another such moment happened earlier this month, when the Judicial Watch lawsuit produced a document that raises questions about an IRS "secret research project" related to donor names. In a heavily redacted email chain from May 2012, Ms. Lerner asks how to return some donor lists that the IRS should not have had."...

"Another batch of emails from the FOIA lawsuit also showed that Ms. Lerner was talking to the Justice Department in 2013 about the possibility of prosecuting some of the same politically active groups that the agency had been targeting."

Source:  wall street journal Online edition:   complete article here 

The IRS targeting political adversaries is way over the top.  And the IRS discussing prosecuting political adversaries should be unacceptable to any sane person, regardless of whether they are a Democrat or Republican

You cited a column, not an article, from Rupert Murdock's wall street journal.  That indicates you're just a dupe of your right wing masters.

It's nonsense that the IRS targeted the administration's political enemies, Nixon-style.  Also explain why the only 501(c) political group that had its tax exempt status rejected was a left wing group.


 

Quit attempting obfuscation. If there is a dupe here, it is you.   If you have any evidence that refutes Judge Sullivan's ruling, please post it now  You can try hard to smear the wall street journal but they report facts that the left wing media ignores.  It is pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread that is why you are trying to discredit the WSJ's  column.  

The difference between the supporters of this administration and the supporters of Nixon, was that many Nixon supporters were appalled by Nixon's behavior and  supported Nixon's impeachment.  You apparently don't have that courage or sense of outrage..

rated:
bighitter said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   Larrymoecurly, here's another article refuting "your right wing lies" assertion:

"Judge Sullivan has been riding herd on the government's gamesmanship, calling the IRS responses to questions about former Treasury official Lois Lerner's missing emails deficient and ordering the agency to provide more complete information. When long-withheld documents do surface after long delays, they are invariably pertinent ...  It was after one such request by Judge Sullivan that the IRS fessed up to wiping Ms. Lerner's Blackberry after the investigation into IRS targeting had begun....

Another such moment happened earlier this month, when the Judicial Watch lawsuit produced a document that raises questions about an IRS "secret research project" related to donor names. In a heavily redacted email chain from May 2012, Ms. Lerner asks how to return some donor lists that the IRS should not have had."...

"Another batch of emails from the FOIA lawsuit also showed that Ms. Lerner was talking to the Justice Department in 2013 about the possibility of prosecuting some of the same politically active groups that the agency had been targeting."

Source:  wall street journal Online edition:   complete article here 

The IRS targeting political adversaries is way over the top.  And the IRS discussing prosecuting political adversaries should be unacceptable to any sane person, regardless of whether they are a Democrat or Republican

You cited a column, not an article, from Rupert Murdock's wall street journal.  That indicates you're just a dupe of your right wing masters.

It's nonsense that the IRS targeted the administration's political enemies, Nixon-style.  Also explain why the only 501(c) political group that had its tax exempt status rejected was a left wing group.


 

Quit attempting obfuscation. If there is a dupe here, it is you.   If you have any evidence that refutes Judge Sullivan's ruling, please post it now  You can try hard to smear the wall street journal but they report facts that the left wing media ignores.  It is pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread that is why you are trying to discredit the WSJ's  column.  

The difference between the supporters of this administration and the supporters of Nixon, was that many Nixon supporters were appalled by Nixon's behavior and  supported Nixon's impeachment.  You apparently don't have that courage or sense of outrage..

Nobody is defending the IRS cover-up.  I'm only pointing out that the IRS wasn't partisan in their treatment of 501(c) organizations.  

If you don't want your sources criticized, cite news reports, not editorials from the leading enemy of the administration.

 

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   Larrymoecurly, here's another article refuting "your right wing lies" assertion:

"Judge Sullivan has been riding herd on the government's gamesmanship, calling the IRS responses to questions about former Treasury official Lois Lerner's missing emails deficient and ordering the agency to provide more complete information. When long-withheld documents do surface after long delays, they are invariably pertinent ...  It was after one such request by Judge Sullivan that the IRS fessed up to wiping Ms. Lerner's Blackberry after the investigation into IRS targeting had begun....

Another such moment happened earlier this month, when the Judicial Watch lawsuit produced a document that raises questions about an IRS "secret research project" related to donor names. In a heavily redacted email chain from May 2012, Ms. Lerner asks how to return some donor lists that the IRS should not have had."...

"Another batch of emails from the FOIA lawsuit also showed that Ms. Lerner was talking to the Justice Department in 2013 about the possibility of prosecuting some of the same politically active groups that the agency had been targeting."

Source:  wall street journal Online edition:   complete article here 

The IRS targeting political adversaries is way over the top.  And the IRS discussing prosecuting political adversaries should be unacceptable to any sane person, regardless of whether they are a Democrat or Republican

You cited a column, not an article, from Rupert Murdock's wall street journal.  That indicates you're just a dupe of your right wing masters.

It's nonsense that the IRS targeted the administration's political enemies, Nixon-style.  Also explain why the only 501(c) political group that had its tax exempt status rejected was a left wing group.


 

Quit attempting obfuscation. If there is a dupe here, it is you.   If you have any evidence that refutes Judge Sullivan's ruling, please post it now  You can try hard to smear the wall street journal but they report facts that the left wing media ignores.  It is pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread that is why you are trying to discredit the WSJ's  column.  

The difference between the supporters of this administration and the supporters of Nixon, was that many Nixon supporters were appalled by Nixon's behavior and  supported Nixon's impeachment.  You apparently don't have that courage or sense of outrage..

Nobody is defending the IRS cover-up.  I'm only pointing out that the IRS wasn't partisan in their treatment of 501(c) organizations.  

If you don't want your sources criticized, cite news reports, not editorials from the leading enemy of the administration.

 

Your post above appears to acknowledge that you agree there is an IRS cover up going on.  The question you should ask yourself, and the question the judge is asking,  is why is the IRS hell-bent on obstruction if the IRS has nothing to hide.

Delaying a 501(c) organization's application  for several years, requiring a detailed list of their donors, and other non-typical requests for documentation IS PARTISAN.   An IRS formal denial of conservative groups 501(c)'s applications would have been preferable to their current sleazy, partisan obstruction because it would have allowed a formal appeal (and the ensuing public scrutiny of the reason for the IRS denial).  But I'm sure you are aware of that.

Finally, if the facts posted are correct, why does it matter to you whether the source is from the editorial or main section of the wall street journal?  Assuming the NY Times posts a correct fact, I don't care if their information is from their editorial page or from a stall in their bathroom wall.  By the way, you should actually read the wall street journal editorial section -- they frequently blast politicians on the the right too, particularly when right wing politicians are engaging in corrupt behavior.  I applaud the WSJ's vigilance skewering both the right and the left, when politicians act against the public's best interest.  Those in the news media who choose to remain silent in order to protect their favorite political party, erode the public's confidence and trust.

 

rated:
bighitter said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   Larrymoecurly, here's another article refuting "your right wing lies" assertion:

"Judge Sullivan has been riding herd on the government's gamesmanship, calling the IRS responses to questions about former Treasury official Lois Lerner's missing emails deficient and ordering the agency to provide more complete information. When long-withheld documents do surface after long delays, they are invariably pertinent ...  It was after one such request by Judge Sullivan that the IRS fessed up to wiping Ms. Lerner's Blackberry after the investigation into IRS targeting had begun....

Another such moment happened earlier this month, when the Judicial Watch lawsuit produced a document that raises questions about an IRS "secret research project" related to donor names. In a heavily redacted email chain from May 2012, Ms. Lerner asks how to return some donor lists that the IRS should not have had."...

"Another batch of emails from the FOIA lawsuit also showed that Ms. Lerner was talking to the Justice Department in 2013 about the possibility of prosecuting some of the same politically active groups that the agency had been targeting."

Source:  wall street journal Online edition:   complete article here 

The IRS targeting political adversaries is way over the top.  And the IRS discussing prosecuting political adversaries should be unacceptable to any sane person, regardless of whether they are a Democrat or Republican

You cited a column, not an article, from Rupert Murdock's wall street journal.  That indicates you're just a dupe of your right wing masters.

It's nonsense that the IRS targeted the administration's political enemies, Nixon-style.  Also explain why the only 501(c) political group that had its tax exempt status rejected was a left wing group.

 

Quit attempting obfuscation. If there is a dupe here, it is you.   If you have any evidence that refutes Judge Sullivan's ruling, please post it now  You can try hard to smear the wall street journal but they report facts that the left wing media ignores.  It is pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread that is why you are trying to discredit the WSJ's  column.  

The difference between the supporters of this administration and the supporters of Nixon, was that many Nixon supporters were appalled by Nixon's behavior and  supported Nixon's impeachment.  You apparently don't have that courage or sense of outrage..

Nobody is defending the IRS cover-up.  I'm only pointing out that the IRS wasn't partisan in their treatment of 501(c) organizations.  

If you don't want your sources criticized, cite news reports, not editorials from the leading enemy of the administration.

 

Your post above appears to acknowledge that you agree there is an IRS cover up going on.  The question you should ask yourself, and the question the judge is asking,  is why is the IRS hell-bent on obstruction if the IRS has nothing to hide.

Delaying a 501(c) organization's application  for several years, requiring a detailed list of their donors, and other non-typical requests for documentation IS PARTISAN.   An IRS formal denial of conservative groups 501(c)'s applications would have been preferable to their current sleazy, partisan obstruction because it would have allowed a formal appeal (and the ensuing public scrutiny of the reason for the IRS denial).  But I'm sure you are aware of that.

Finally, if the facts posted are correct, why does it matter to you whether the source is from the editorial or main section of the wall street journal?  Assuming the NY Times posts a correct fact, I don't care if their information is from their editorial page or from a stall in their bathroom wall.  By the way, you should actually read the wall street journal editorial section -- they frequently blast politicians on the the right too, particularly when right wing politicians are engaging in corrupt behavior.  I applaud the WSJ's vigilance skewering both the right and the left, when politicians act against the public's best interest.  Those in the news media who choose to remain silent in order to protect their favorite political party, erode the public's confidence and trust.

 

Sources always matter, especially when they repeat their usual biases, and people who cite them when the sources do that can't be trusted because they're either dupes or are just advocating an agenda rather than trying to get to the truth.

You still haven't explained why the only 501(c) denied tax-exempt status was not a right wing group, as you and the wall street journal want us to believe.  And it's pretty reasonable for the IRS to suspect that groups with "TEA party" in their names aren't nonpartisan.  Can you name any that are, except for some that existed before the 21st century?

There should be no tax exemptions for 501(c) groups unless they really are 100% charities, not political groups that only pretend to be primarily nonpartisan.








 

rated:
I had to reply to this and have it be reply #6666

Not to be confused with 666.


rated:
The Number of the Megabeast 😈

rated:
Blame the intelligence community for failure to warn?

W
T
F

Doesn't he watch news? Or for the matter, read my informative post on FWOT?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/what-intelligence-c...

again, is he out to lunch? Too busy for a 10 minutes phone call to German leader to avoid the deportation of CIA section chief?

rated:
Larrymoecurley, throughout this entire "Official Election Year Political Discussion Thread" you attack every poster whose opinion doesn't mirror yours, regardless of the facts they present.

Let's just  let the facts speak for themselves on the IRS scandal once the judge releases the IRS documents.

It is a colossal waste of time for both of us to engage in debate similar to this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyMscLHE4uU#t=75 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1163164165166 167
  • Page


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014