I'm wondering if they aren't going to find something, even if unrelated (potentially targeting Grassley probably falls short since they didn't actually audit him), that allows them to bring criminal charges against Lerner. Then she'll get her "deal" in exchange for no prison and loss of pension.

gut;1630183 wrote:I don't care for it. It doesn't sway doubters to buy-in and puts them on the defensive to dig-in. Reminds me of liberals cheering Biden in the VP debate - total partisan mob that favors bullying over merit.

Leave the screaming, shouting and partisan grandstanding to the non-elected talking heads that don't make policy.

Unfortunately Gowdy personifies the growing frustration and anger in the general Mericun Psyche that Big Government is so over-reaching and so corrupt that nobody with the power and authority to do anything about it is listening and/or willing to take action to oppose it.

Certainly the mainstream media, for example, refuses to do its job because they're in bed with the the obvious socialist political agenda that seems to be prevalent on both sides of the aisle in DC.

I would agree that American government works best with civil discourse, but the political divisions are so deep that vitriol seems to get the most attention.

What's going on in America today reminds me somewhat of the turbulent discord that infected political discourse in Germany prior to the rise of the Third Reich. I don't think we're in any danger of watching hordes of extreme right-wingers goose stepping in the streets, but if conservatives aren't taken a bit more seriously by the socialist morons currently running this once proud country, the military equipment being acquired by the DHS and local departments police might actually find some use. Notice that I didn't say "good" use.

Regardless, the lamestream media headlines will always read: "Republican lawmakers attack IRS officials". This, of course, in contrast to the truth: "IRS embroiled in likely criminal activity and cover up".

Gotta keep us portrayed pursuant to the template they have developed.

The primary role/function of the media - watchdog of government - has been completely disregarded, in exchange for 'lapdog for government'.

gut;1630183 wrote:I don't care for it. It doesn't sway doubters to buy-in and puts them on the defensive to dig-in. Reminds me of liberals cheering Biden in the VP debate - total partisan mob that favors bullying over merit.

Leave the screaming, shouting and partisan grandstanding to the non-elected talking heads that don't make policy.

I didn't hear screaming. I heard a cognizant man asking direct questions to a partisan hack who has more power and authority than any of us want to own up to. I suppose suing Obama is a better tact, eh? To me, that is a very childish move by Boehner. Grow a pair, John, and take your case to Harry in a public fashion. Shame them publicly. Daily. Be a leader and not a vjctim resorting to a lawsuit cuz you have butthurt. Pa-thet-ic, Boehner.

BGFalcons82;1630317 wrote:I didn't hear screaming. I heard a cognizant man asking direct questions to a partisan hack who has more power and authority than any of us want to own up to. I suppose suing Obama is a better tact, eh? To me, that is a very childish move by Boehner. Grow a pair, John, and take your case to Harry in a public fashion. Shame them publicly. Daily. Be a leader and not a vjctim resorting to a lawsuit cuz you have butthurt. Pa-thet-ic, Boehner.

spot on

Boehner's playing the "see what I'm doing" game with the public while placating his bed buddies on the left. He knows quite well that this stunt will go nowhere.

Meanwhile Gowdy is a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Frankly the courage he shows by directly confronting clowns like Koskinen is a refreshing change of pace from the mutual butt kissing Boehner, Reid, et al are all too willing to do.

I agree that Gowdy was direct and to the point but he was NOT grandstanding. If telling it like it is creates butthurt feelings among the entrenched Washington "elite"...too fucking bad.

1) non-political but our entire family (including the dog) arrived safely in Virginia this week from England, so I'm no longer an ex-pat but an American resident.

2) I watched some of Obama's "normal person tour" on the news - wow. Without his teleprompter he is completely verbally inept.

Manhattan Buckeye;1630878 wrote:1) non-political but our entire family (including the dog) arrived safely in Virginia this week from England, so I'm no longer an ex-pat but an American resident.

2) I watched some of Obama's "normal person tour" on the news - wow. Without his teleprompter he is completely verbally inept.

Welcome home

^^^ this.
welcome back MB.

like_that;1630150 wrote:If you liked Gowdy's grilling, watch Jim Jordan give it a go.

Just watched that yesterday...pretty solid beatdown by JJ.

[h=2]Exclusive: Men swim across Rio Grande toward US Border Patrol in broad daylight...[/h]

^^^^ We need Jimmy Carter in the river on a canoe, That should slow them down.

If I were Texas, I would deploy the National Guard to patrol the border.

Yo Kira M-16?

Devils Advocate;1631965 wrote:^^^^ We need Jimmy Carter in the river on a canoe, That should slow them down.

If I were Texas, I would deploy the National Guard to patrol the border.

Yo Kira M-16?

what is needed is what some base camp did... "Mad minute" everyone lined up with their weapon and on a given signal open fire for one minute sometimes more than once. What was interesting was "mad minute" could happen at any time day or night...
if there was someone out there watching most likely .. Not anymore..

I'm sure many locals would love to participate ....

Has there been any more misinformation about a SCOTUS ruling than the Hobby Lobby case? Are Americans this dumb, or are journalists this brazenly deceitful?

Manhattan Buckeye;1632089 wrote:Has there been any more misinformation about a SCOTUS ruling than the Hobby Lobby case? Are Americans this dumb, or are journalists this brazenly deceitful?

Both. It hasn't been pretty, that's for sure.

Welcome back to the USA, MB.....now you see what we have been living with since '08.

When you think about it, this case is perfectly predictable, and should be the prime example of why government needs to stay out of the everyday lives of Americans....why it should not be involved with personal health care, why it should not be in 'the marraige business'....etc. etc.
As long as we keep dividing ourselves into special interest groups and demand/force/legislate goverment to enforce agendas, we can expect these rulings to become more divisive as the rights of one group get expanded at the expense of another.

I could be wrong about every fact about the ACA, but it appears to be an arbitrary method of picking certain goods/services as favorable and therefore forced on businesses while excepting others. A few years ago it would be unthinkable that any business would have to provide a specific benefit or else be subject to tax - regardless of the religion angle.

And what is so special about this type of contraception? Why stop there? Why shouldn't IVF be covered? Or female infertility in general? Or erectile dysfunction? Or why should other preventative or beneficial medicines or procedures be excluded from this mandate? The "liberal" intelligentsia is acting as if we're banning contraception - well I was at Kroger, Walgreens and Martin's today and the condoms are certainly available for purchase. What "rights" are being limited by this ruling? None, that I can see. What is happening is that businesses aren't forced to provide plans that subsidize personal recreational activity. What is wrong with that? And more importantly what Constitutional basis gives the government the ability to pick and choose what is to be "free" as a "preventative measure", or else face tax sanctions?

Manhattan Buckeye;1632089 wrote:Has there been any more misinformation about a SCOTUS ruling than the Hobby Lobby case? Are Americans this dumb, or are journalists this brazenly deceitful?

This is the liberal left, manufacturing "victims" so they can accuse Repubs of having a war on them. The axis of incompetence (Perlosi, Reid, Obama) is an absolute disgrace.

Manhattan Buckeye;1632169 wrote:\ A few years ago it would be unthinkable that any business would have to provide a specific benefit or else be subject to tax - regardless of the religion angle.

yep, electives typically aren't covered in many plans.

I mean, isn't giving out free birth control a war on ugly people? Should they get free plastic surgery so they can have lots of sex, too?

I don't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby decision for the most part.

The ACA will change the market place for jobs. People will actually start looking at benefits as part of their compensation packages. If you want your birth control paid for, you are free to find a job that pays for it.

On the other hand, I hope that this isn't a slippery slope thing that will allow employers to dis allow same sex marriage benefits, make all females wear dresses, Or allow someone to get fired for being sighted at a strip club or having a child out of wedlock.

I do find it interesting that Hobby Lobby's insurance pays for erectile dysfunction and boner pills.

Devils Advocate;1632263 wrote:I don't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby decision for the most part.

The ACA will change the market place for jobs. People will actually start looking at benefits as part of their compensation packages. If you want your birth control paid for, you are free to find a job that pays for it.

agreed

Devils Advocate;1632263 wrote:On the other hand, I hope that this isn't a slippery slope thing that will allow employers to dis allow same sex marriage benefits, make all females wear dresses, Or allow someone to get fired for being sighted at a strip club or having a child out of wedlock.

There are plenty of other existing anti-discriminatory laws on the books to prevent most of this from happening. By the way if a private employer has a dress code that requires suits for men and dresses for women that should be that employer's business not the government's. If you don't like the policy, find another place of employment.

Devils Advocate;1632263 wrote:I do find it interesting that Hobby Lobby's insurance pays for erectile dysfunction and boner pills.

There's a distinct difference between being willing to support procreation & sexual health vs. being forced to provide the means to kill innocent unborn human beings on demand.

"There are plenty of other existing anti-discriminatory laws on the books to prevent most of this from happening. By the way if a private employer has a dress code that requires suits for men and dresses for women that should be that employer's business not the government's. If you don't like the policy, find another place of employment."

Exactly, the government only gets involved in specific discrimination cases..otherwise the government needs to butt out of private businesses. It is one thing if a company makes Asian women wear dresses, but not Hispanic women. But as long they require all women to wear dresses as part of the dress code, it is none of the government's damn business. Likewise, you can be fired if you engage in activity embarrassing to the employer - if they don't want you going to strip clubs, they can fire you. "strip club" patron is not a protected class. Devil's Advocate needs to brush up on his Constitutional law. If anything the ACA stretches the Constitutionality of government intervention - to the point that I (and many other people including 4 SCOTUS judges) is unconstitutional.

Can we also call diversity bullshit now too? What value does diversity actually add? When a company says we value diversity, all it says to me is "we hire non-white people based on the color of their skin so we don't get our pants sued off".

sleeper;1632281 wrote:Can we also call diversity bullshit now too? What value does diversity actually add? When a company says we value diversity, all it says to me is "we hire non-white people based on the color of their skin so we don't get our pants sued off".

quite true

Can we also call diversity bullshit now too?

Oh, please do. Since we have gotten away from "the melting pot" and 'embraced' diversity, ...sectioning and parsing oursleves into little groups with special interests, ....what we actually have is "divisivty (divisivness). We've squelched unifying different ethnic groups under the banner of being American so that we can 'celebrate our differences'. Well, what happens when the celebrating stops and our differences and special interests start to conflict with each other?

worse than that...a whole generation (or two) have been thoroughly indoctrinated with "diversity"...how lonmg will it take to purge that from our country so we can get back to learning to be Americans again?

HitsRus;1632338 wrote:Oh, please do. Since we have gotten away from "the melting pot" and 'embraced' diversity, ...sectioning and parsing oursleves into little groups with special interests, ....what we actually have is "divisivty (divisivness). We've squelched unifying different ethnic groups under the banner of being American so that we can 'celebrate our differences'. Well, what happens when the celebrating stops and our differences and special interests start to conflict with each other?

worse than that...a whole generation (or two) have been thoroughly indoctrinated with "diversity"...how lonmg will it take to purge that from our country so we can get back to learning to be Americans again?

The late 19th century and into early 20th century?
Been there done that and survived,

ccrunner609;1632354 wrote:What people dont get is that immigrants come here (or should come here) to be "American". If Germans want to be Germans or Mexicans want to be Mexicans or Indians want to be Indians they should stay at home. Come here to be American....if you arent willing to do that then stay home

So, what is American and who decides?