Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted with obama administration - Part II
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Jul 31, 2013 12:51 PM
Belly35;1478883 wrote:Obama "phony scandals......

IRS scandal is not a “phony scandal”
Fast and Furious is not a “phony scandal”
NSA is not a “phony scandal
Obamacare is not a “phony scandal”
Green energy company failures are not a “phony scandal”
Pigford was not a “phony scandal”
Benghazi is not a “phony scandal”

The greatest phony in the U.S. government is named Barack Hussein Obama
Obama is a phony because he campaigned as a transformative liberal but really he's just a tax-side deficit scold who put into place all of the policies of 90's republicans while craving the respect of the VSP's.

All the other "scandals" however are only scandals in the warped conservative bubble, however. Hope this helps.
Jul 31, 2013 12:51pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jul 31, 2013 1:39 PM
ptown_trojans_1;1480695 wrote:You do know most liberals, including nearly all in NYC, were against this right?
But, carry on with your generalities.

It is the result of liberals electing liberals, or more accurately, progressives electing progressives. Radical left-wing 'intellectuals' that believe endless rule-making will better the human condition, when in reality, liberty and free markets result in the best solutions for the human condition.

But, carry on with moving along, instead of taking a stand.
Jul 31, 2013 1:39pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jul 31, 2013 2:07 PM
The House’s chief investigative committee on Tuesday accused the IRS of stonewalling its probe into the agency's unfair targeting of Tea Party groups and other politically-affiliated organizations, saying Congress has received only a fraction of the documents it requested and many of those are useless.
The House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee letter directly blames acting Commissioner Danny Werfel for the “systematic manner” in which his agency has “attempted to delay, frustrate, impede and obstruct” the committee’s investigation, despite his promising just weeks earlier to fully cooperate.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/31/house-panel-accuses-irs-werfel-stonewalling-probe/#ixzz2aeBtPIr1




Imagine what would happen if you, the citizen, did not respond to an IRS request.
Jul 31, 2013 2:07pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Jul 31, 2013 2:48 PM
Practically speaking, there's only one response to stonewalling: heads must roll. If they are not providing political cover for the administration, then it's classic CYA in which case people need to be fired. If people are not being fired for the stonewalling...draw your own conclusion.
Jul 31, 2013 2:48pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jul 31, 2013 3:56 PM
ANY federal employee who refuses to testify before our elected officials should be fired, immediately. It should not even be up for debate.
Jul 31, 2013 3:56pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jul 31, 2013 4:46 PM
QuakerOats;1480850 wrote:ANY federal employee who refuses to testify before our elected officials should be fired, immediately. It should not even be up for debate.
I guess the 5th amendment doesn't apply to them...
Jul 31, 2013 4:46pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jul 31, 2013 4:46 PM
QuakerOats;1480785 wrote:It is the result of liberals electing liberals, or more accurately, progressives electing progressives. Radical left-wing 'intellectuals' that believe endless rule-making will better the human condition, when in reality, liberty and free markets result in the best solutions for the human condition.

But, carry on with moving along, instead of taking a stand.
So Bloomberg is a progressive now?
Jul 31, 2013 4:46pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jul 31, 2013 6:01 PM
ptown_trojans_1;1480884 wrote:So Bloomberg is a progressive now?
definitely leftist
Jul 31, 2013 6:01pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jul 31, 2013 6:56 PM
ptown_trojans_1;1480882 wrote:I guess the 5th amendment doesn't apply to them...
Where in the 5th amendment does it say an individual can not be fired for refusing to answer an employers questions concerning their performance on the job? The 5th amendment is mostly in the context of criminal proceedings except for the last clause. People are justly fired everyday for non criminal activity. Refusing to answer ones employers questions on ones knowledge and activities while on the job is grounds for immediate termination.

Say you have a large construction firm. You begin to receive many and credible complaints from minority contractors that they are being treated with more scrutiny and at times not getting contracts even though they had the lower bid no quality/time issues. You call your project manager and superintendent in. Question them concerning these allegations and they refuse to answer any questions citing the 5th. The allegations are hurting the credibility of your company and they refuse to report to you which is part of their job responsibilities. Obviously for personal reasons. Personal protection from possible federal prosecution for violating civil rights laws. What do you do? We all know the answer.
Jul 31, 2013 6:56pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jul 31, 2013 8:12 PM
ptown_trojans_1;1480882 wrote:I guess the 5th amendment doesn't apply to them...

obviously they retain their 5th amendment rights; they just can't work for the taxpayers anymore, by rule/statute.
Jul 31, 2013 8:12pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Jul 31, 2013 10:18 PM
ptown_trojans_1;1480882 wrote:I guess the 5th amendment doesn't apply to them...
As others have said, you have a right not to incriminate yourself. You DO NOT have a "right" to that job.
Jul 31, 2013 10:18pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Aug 1, 2013 2:56 AM
ptown_trojans_1;1480882 wrote:I guess the 5th amendment doesn't apply to them...
It doesn't apply in general. Lots of people in the private sector even with employment contracts can be terminated just for being accused of a crime. We've come to place where every government employee thinks they have a job guaranteed for life. It is not only ridiculous, but tone deaf as to how the rest of society works.
Aug 1, 2013 2:56am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Aug 1, 2013 9:12 AM
majorspark;1480939 wrote:Where in the 5th amendment does it say an individual can not be fired for refusing to answer an employers questions concerning their performance on the job? The 5th amendment is mostly in the context of criminal proceedings except for the last clause. People are justly fired everyday for non criminal activity. Refusing to answer ones employers questions on ones knowledge and activities while on the job is grounds for immediate termination.

Say you have a large construction firm. You begin to receive many and credible complaints from minority contractors that they are being treated with more scrutiny and at times not getting contracts even though they had the lower bid no quality/time issues. You call your project manager and superintendent in. Question them concerning these allegations and they refuse to answer any questions citing the 5th. The allegations are hurting the credibility of your company and they refuse to report to you which is part of their job responsibilities. Obviously for personal reasons. Personal protection from possible federal prosecution for violating civil rights laws. What do you do? We all know the answer.
You make very good points but no business owner is firing people who plead the 5th against a mob. Suppose a qualified Exxon V.P. has to walk past protesting environmentalists every day accusing him of heinous environmental abuses that the evidence does not support. The V.P. has no reason to incriminate himself against unfounded accusations unsupported by the evidence that has been brought to bear by formal investigations into these accusations and the CEO would be silly to fire the guy simply because he doesn't want to answer the political, unfounded allegations of a mob that isn't acting in good faith.
Aug 1, 2013 9:12am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Aug 1, 2013 9:16 AM
believer;1480916 wrote:definitely leftist
This is the problem with you guys. Bloomberg is not a "leftist". He is a moderate independent whose views vary across the political spectrum. Van Jones is probably a "leftist". Bloomberg is well to the right on most things compared to "leftists".

Anybody who is not a hardcore, toe the line conservative on nearly everything is a "leftist" in your world. Chris Christie and Rubio are recent examples who've basically been excommunicated because of slight divergence.

Not everything is a mortal clash between first principles.
Aug 1, 2013 9:16am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Aug 1, 2013 9:28 AM
BoatShoes;1481112 wrote:You make very good points but no business owner is firing people who plead the 5th against a mob. Suppose a qualified Exxon V.P. has to walk past protesting environmentalists every day accusing him of heinous environmental abuses that the evidence does not support. The V.P. has no reason to incriminate himself against unfounded accusations unsupported by the evidence that has been brought to bear by formal investigations into these accusations and the CEO would be silly to fire the guy simply because he doesn't want to answer the political, unfounded allegations of a mob that isn't acting in good faith.
This may all be true its at the discretion of the employer. But the point I was making terminating an employee whose is taking the 5th is not violating the employees 5th amendment rights.
Aug 1, 2013 9:28am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 1, 2013 9:54 AM
BoatShoes;1481112 wrote:... and the CEO would be silly to fire the guy simply because he doesn't want to answer the political, unfounded allegations of a mob that isn't acting in good faith.
Congress has oversight, and the more apt comparison is that VP sitting in the CEO's office and refusing to answer the questions. 9 times out of 10 that person gets fired on the spot.
Aug 1, 2013 9:54am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Aug 1, 2013 10:07 AM
gut;1481159 wrote:Congress has oversight, and the more apt comparison is that VP sitting in the CEO's office and refusing to answer the questions. 9 times out of 10 that person gets fired on the spot.
Congress is more akin to the Board of Directors in this scenario...Clearly a small faction of them hate the CEO and all of his employees. CEO and his employees have no good reason to comply with the silly demands of a disgruntled minority of the Board when a few months ago the shareholders overwhelmingly elected a majority of the Board that aligns with the CEO and hugely supported the CEO in comparison to the guy the disgruntled minority wanted.

All of the necessary protocols have been followed there is no evidence of wrong doing. The disgruntled minority is just trying to foster the atmosphere of scandal in hopes of getting a CEO they support four years from now.
Aug 1, 2013 10:07am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Aug 1, 2013 10:14 AM
BoatShoes;1480756 wrote:Why do you doubt that? I read Jmog's austrian piece from Mises.
The guy who wrote it was not Austrian. You might want to read it again since he was Swedish and he was comparing the Swedish socialized medicine with Obamacare and what we used to have in the US.
Aug 1, 2013 10:14am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 1, 2013 10:20 AM
BoatShoes;1481178 wrote: All of the necessary protocols have been followed there is no evidence of wrong doing.
LMAO. Incompetence at best, likely something more...but DEFINITELY evidence of wrongdoing.

And you have clearly never dealt with a BoD or really understand their role and what they do. Not only do they have oversight powers, but they can be liable for failing to exercise proper fiduciary responsibility.
Aug 1, 2013 10:20am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Aug 1, 2013 10:52 AM
BoatShoes;1481178 wrote:All of the necessary protocols have been followed there is no evidence of wrong doing. The disgruntled minority is just trying to foster the atmosphere of scandal in hopes of getting a CEO they support four years from now.

You're right; we all forgot this is the most transparent regime, I mean administration, in history. Everything is out in the open; the investigative hearings are a waste of time and effort. We all knew that the applications by conservative groups were all funnelled to the IRS Chief Counsel in Washington DC, an obama appointee, just like always, while the liberal groups applications breezed through normal channels. I am not sure what anyone is upset about.............sounds like a phony scandal to me.
Aug 1, 2013 10:52am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Aug 1, 2013 11:25 AM
jmog;1481189 wrote:The guy who wrote it was not Austrian. You might want to read it again since he was Swedish and he was comparing the Swedish socialized medicine with Obamacare and what we used to have in the US.
LOL! Mises.org is an organization for austrian economists. As in the Austrian School of Economics...you know like the Austrians Ludwig Von Mises (from which the website gets its name) and Friedrich Hayek. This is the school of economics to which Ron Paul subscribes. Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, some of the people they let have a word at the WSJ, CNBC all have some sympathies to some of their ideas.

I wasn't talking about his nationality lol.
Aug 1, 2013 11:25am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Aug 1, 2013 11:31 AM
gut;1481199 wrote:LMAO. Incompetence at best, likely something more...but DEFINITELY evidence of wrongdoing.

And you have clearly never dealt with a BoD or really understand their role and what they do. Not only do they have oversight powers, but they can be liable for failing to exercise proper fiduciary responsibility.
"wrongdoing" was probably the wrong word. The kind of wrongdoing, targeting, gross politicization Issa and Co. are acting like happened? No.

And please stop being so condescending. We disagree a lot but to I ever approach you in this manner? Our analogy is not perfect and there is no transfer of a BoD's fiduciary duties to shareholders on our little analogy here. Citizens can't sue Harry Reid for breach of fidicuiary duty for not caring about Obama not firing IRS employees, etc. etc. :rolleyes: It was an imperfect analogy but it got the point across that Obama need not bend over backwards to fire employees who don't perfectly comply with spurious allegations by the Republicans in the House as they would desire.
Aug 1, 2013 11:31am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 1, 2013 12:39 PM
BoatShoes;1481277 wrote:..but it got the point across that Obama need not bend over backwards to fire employees who don't perfectly comply with spurious allegations by the Republicans in the House as they would desire.
I'll stop being condescending when you stop spewing liberal BS. A bit premature to call the inquiries "spurious", no? And nothing is going to change the fact that in a perfect world these people are merely incompetent and undeserving of their position.

Gross incompetence AT BEST. People need to be fired. An Obama appointee is involved. Obama needs to take care of business and stop pretending like this is a phony scandal. It's beyond laughable, especially in the political realm that made the "fall guy" famous, that no one has been fired and Lois Lerner is on paid leave.

Does Obama ever do anything beside campaign? Apparently not, and apparently that is just fine with his supporters.
Aug 1, 2013 12:39pm