PDA

View Full Version : Obama Scandal



TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 09:53 PM
So, yeah.....they screwed up royal huh? I mean, for all the Bush bashing (he was an idiot, no doubt) - this is a pretty impressive stream of corruption, no?

Brock Beauchamp
05-15-2013, 10:04 PM
Yeesh. It will be interesting to see how it plays out as we find out more. Pretty ugly stuff.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 10:15 PM
I'm not sure Obama realizes saying "I found out like the rest of you" is all that reassuring. Either you're lying or you are incompetent. I'm really hoping for "lying"...but that sort of reinforces who the source of this is.

I doubt he'll ever get pinned as having a direct connection, but it's clear this sort of thing is being allowed/encouraged in the administration. It's scary the depths of it already.

drjim
05-15-2013, 10:32 PM
Which of the three are you referring to? I assume the IRS scandal? Yeah, that is quite unfortunate. What is interesting is that the behavior of the groups was probably illegal, and at best was an attempt to muck up and skirt campaign finance laws. I don't think those groups were unique in that, just that they were specifically targeted for extra scrutiny. What is also interesting is that the IRS head at the time was a Bush appointee.

My ultimate hope is that this will finally lead to some meaningful tax reform. I'm not holding my breath.

As for the other two:

The AP scandal strikes me as just another consequence of power that is ceded to the executive in times of war. Luckily this war will go on indefinitely.

I think Benghazi is the most overrated scandal of my lifetime. It is ultimately going to be seen as a turf battle between the State Department and CIA, which each trying to blame the other for the initial security failure.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 10:40 PM
I rank Benghazi well below the others too, but in the context of other actions by the administration, it certainly doesn't help their cause that it it was a simple mistake.

I'm referring more to the AP and IRS scandals. Both deliberate invasions of privacy and misuse of power to intimidate. Benghazi, Woodward, and others are more the smoke that indicates there is a fire, those two scandals are the fires.

drjim
05-15-2013, 11:19 PM
I rank Benghazi well below the others too, but in the context of other actions by the administration, it certainly doesn't help their cause that it it was a simple mistake.

I'm referring more to the AP and IRS scandals. Both deliberate invasions of privacy and misuse of power to intimidate. Benghazi, Woodward, and others are more the smoke that indicates there is a fire, those two scandals are the fires.

The AP scandal is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. As far as I can tell what they did was perfectly legitimate and is covered by legislation that has passed since 9/11. The press has been way too deferential and congress hasn't been much more than a rubber stamp when it comes to expanding executive power. This is only the tip of the iceberg of what could happen down the line, all in the name of war and security.

I generally see the Obama administration as restrained and noble on these issues relative to what an administration could be. I am quite concerned going forward.

TheLeviathan
05-15-2013, 11:23 PM
I generally see the Obama administration as restrained and noble on these issues relative to what an administration could be. I am quite concerned going forward.

There have only been two administrations with this power and the abuse of it has steadily grown through both. I concur about the future and about it being technically legal, but this same administration has been outfront reassuring us that they won't overstep with their use of these powers. They were outwardly critical of the previous administration for far less.

gunnarthor
05-16-2013, 01:04 AM
I generally see the Obama administration as restrained and noble on these issues relative to what an administration could be. I am quite concerned going forward.

I think the Obama administration has taken the war on terror excuse and gone farther with it than even Bush did. The NDAA is terrifying. Obama is absolutely horrible on civil rights.

drjim
05-16-2013, 06:36 AM
I should clarify. I'm not saying the Obama Administration has been good on this, just more restrained than I expected. It will likely get worse.

mike wants wins
05-16-2013, 09:45 AM
In the rush to take away our rights, passed under the previous administration, this invasion of our privacy was inevitable. I will find the irony of the right complaining about this to be quite humorous. They are the ones that love torture and Guantamo and profiling and other things, right? I think it is sad how everyone is so willing to give up their freedoms in the name of "safety". What ever happend to give me liberty, or give me death?

As for Bengahzi, who cares?

As for the IRS scandal, that's a bad one. Really bad one. If we can't trust the government (and I'm not arguing we actually can) to be even handed in their treatment of groups (like, you know, how we've fairly treated socialist, communist, unions and other left wing groups over the last century), then our government needs to be cleaned up. At this point, it is not better than governments in other countries that we ridicule for being corrupt. I am disgusted by this, and people should go to jail over that. You know, like all those guys that ran military companies while Bush was president that stole money from the people....

Brock Beauchamp
05-16-2013, 10:10 AM
In the rush to take away our rights, passed under the previous administration, this invasion of our privacy was inevitable. I will find the irony of the right complaining about this to be quite humorous. They are the ones that love torture and Guantamo and profiling and other things, right? I think it is sad how everyone is so willing to give up their freedoms in the name of "safety". What ever happend to give me liberty, or give me death?

Well said.


As for Bengahzi, who cares?

Nobody with a brain.


As for the IRS scandal, that's a bad one. Really bad one. If we can't trust the government (and I'm not arguing we actually can) to be even handed in their treatment of groups (like, you know, how we've fairly treated socialist, communist, unions and other left wing groups over the last century), then our government needs to be cleaned up. At this point, it is not better than governments in other countries that we ridicule for being corrupt. I am disgusted by this, and people should go to jail over that. You know, like all those guys that ran military companies while Bush was president that stole money from the people....

America has spent the past ten years not throwing the right people in jail. No war profiteers are in jail. No sleazy bank profiteers are in jail. Now, there will be no IRS officials in jail.

But hey, we've got lots of poor black men in jail for slinging the drugs that white people want.

That counts for something, right?

PseudoSABR
05-16-2013, 11:43 AM
It's hard not to see these scandals as abuses of power rather than abuses of politics. The Presidency's reach, sway and responsibility have long gone unchecked, and its abuses defy partiality.

PseudoSABR
05-16-2013, 11:45 AM
As far as the politics play out, the Democrats are fortunate that the midterms aren't this election cycle. Though, as abuses go none of these compare to the actual consequences or the sheer number of moving parts behind Bush's WMDs.

mike wants wins
05-16-2013, 11:59 AM
As far as the politics play out, the Democrats are fortunate that the midterms aren't this election cycle. Though, as abuses go none of these compare to the actual consequences or the sheer number of moving parts behind Bush's WMDs.

Bah, sending a bunch of poor kids overseas to die pales compared to trying make only some organizations follow the law...*

*if you can't recognize this for the sarcasm it is, sorry.....

TheLeviathan
05-16-2013, 12:21 PM
As far as the politics play out, the Democrats are fortunate that the midterms aren't this election cycle. Though, as abuses go none of these compare to the actual consequences or the sheer number of moving parts behind Bush's WMDs.

Apples and oranges. And you know it, that's a pretty disengenuous argument Psuedo.

mikecgrimes
05-16-2013, 04:33 PM
Which of the three are you referring to? I assume the IRS scandal? Yeah, that is quite unfortunate. What is interesting is that the behavior of the groups was probably illegal,

Not at all illegal. Maybe something certain politicians would like to see made illegal, but as the courts have ruled this is a freedom of speech issue. This is the way groups like this organize and raise funds. If the rules were different these groups would organize different, but they aren't gonna go about it the way John McCain and Harry Reid wish they would simply because that might seem more fair. McCain Fiengold was noble legislation but it didn't work and according to the courts it's not legal.

mikecgrimes
05-16-2013, 04:40 PM
I rank Benghazi well below the others too, but in the context of other actions by the administration, it certainly doesn't help their cause that it it was a simple mistake.

I'm referring more to the AP and IRS scandals. Both deliberate invasions of privacy and misuse of power to intimidate. Benghazi, Woodward, and others are more the smoke that indicates there is a fire, those two scandals are the fires.

If Benghazi is what we would hope it is (nothing more then the talking points scandal) then I agree. The key question is why was ambassador Stevens in that location that day. Who sent him there, why was he told his purpose there was. I think I know what was going on in Benghazi and if you are willing to do your own research it's not that hard for you to figure out what was going on as well. If you still trust this president let him frame the facts.

mikecgrimes
05-16-2013, 04:45 PM
In the rush to take away our rights, passed under the previous administration, this invasion of our privacy was inevitable. I will find the irony of the right complaining about this to be quite humorous.

I suppose George Bush was a Republican but come on we complained about this stuff when it happened. Maybe not the partisan types but the tea party types sure did.

PseudoSABR
05-16-2013, 09:28 PM
Apples and oranges. And you know it, that's a pretty disengenuous argument Psuedo.You brought up Bush... What comparison were you inviting if not that abuse of power and influence?

These scandals while falling under the Presidency are pretty far removed from the President and the Whitehouse. The Bureaucracy of the Presidency needs to be redistributed in away that creates checks and balances.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 09:39 PM
http://twinsdaily.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mike wants wins http://twinsdaily.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://twinsdaily.com/sports-bar/6610-obama-scandal.html#post112156)
As for Bengahzi, who cares?





Nobody with a brain.



A majority of the country doesn't even know about it, because the MSM refused to cover it, now they are playing catch up.

So, I care at least.

Please stop the name calling and see your very own comment rules on this site.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 09:41 PM
Eric Holder will fall before Obama, and only then if the incompetent republican leadership can put together an independent special prosecutor to get to the bottom of all these scandals.

drjim
05-16-2013, 10:13 PM
If Benghazi is what we would hope it is (nothing more then the talking points scandal) then I agree. The key question is why was ambassador Stevens in that location that day. Who sent him there, why was he told his purpose there was. I think I know what was going on in Benghazi and if you are willing to do your own research it's not that hard for you to figure out what was going on as well. If you still trust this president let him frame the facts.

I am very interested to hear what you think was "really" going on in Benghazi.

drjim
05-16-2013, 10:16 PM
A majority of the country doesn't even know about it, because the MSM refused to cover it, now they are playing catch up.

So, I care at least.

Please stop the name calling and see your very own comment rules on this site.

The old "people aren't outraged because the MSM won't cover it" angle. I approve. I can only imagine how disappointed you must be with an institution you put so much trust in and admire like the MSM letting you and the whole country down.

drjim
05-16-2013, 10:21 PM
Eric Holder will fall before Obama, and only then if the incompetent republican leadership can put together an independent special prosecutor to get to the bottom of all these scandals.

I'll save you the time and energy - not a whole lot is at the bottom of these scandals. They will consume some oxygen for the next couple of weeks because the Washington press is bored, and then they will move on to something else as equally mundane. For a couple of months after that some right wingers will keep hammering at them, gain no traction, and then blame the MSM for not covering them closely enough.

Ultima Ratio
05-16-2013, 10:37 PM
I'll save you the time and energy - not a whole lot is at the bottom of these scandals. They will consume some oxygen for the next couple of weeks because the Washington press is bored, and then they will move on to something else as equally mundane. For a couple of months after that some right wingers will keep hammering at them, gain no traction, and then blame the MSM for not covering them closely enough.

You are aware that many left-wingers are leading the charge now, right?

Concerning the MSM, I'm not personally defrauded by their censorship of the news, but am very worried about low info votes being even less informed. I think only 40% of the country knows who the VP is.

That is very scary for a republic.

drjim
05-16-2013, 10:53 PM
You are aware that many left-wingers are leading the charge now, right?

Concerning the MSM, I'm not personally defrauded by their censorship of the news, but am very worried about low info votes being even less informed. I think only 40% of the country knows who the VP is.

That is very scary for a republic.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the MSM. And this is not exactly a new phenomenon. The majority of the population has been stupid (and ill-informed) since the founding of the country, why would we expect anything different now?

On your other point: left-wingers are indeed leading the charge for the AP situation because it involved the media directly, but it really won't last. My hope, as I said before, is that it leads to some awareness of and reining in of the power of the executive, but I'm not holding my breath. We have a never-ending war to fight!

Brock Beauchamp
05-17-2013, 07:16 AM
A majority of the country doesn't even know about it, because the MSM refused to cover it, now they are playing catch up.

So, I care at least.

Please stop the name calling and see your very own comment rules on this site.

So because the majority of the American public doesn't know about it, that somehow qualifies it as a scandal?

The mainstream media sucked at their job. Film at eleven.

And you have a very loose definition of "name calling". All I have to say in response is "ex post facto".

Ultima Ratio
05-17-2013, 07:36 AM
So because the majority of the American public doesn't know about it, that somehow qualifies it as a scandal?



No. One wonders how your mind works, making enormous leaps of logic.

You asked: "Who cares?"

I don't know of many people who care about things they know not of. Only in your world.

Brock Beauchamp
05-17-2013, 07:46 AM
No. One wonders how your mind works, making enormous leaps of logic.

You asked: "Who cares?"

I don't know of many people who care about things they know not of. Only in your world.

So "many people don't know about it" has transformed into "no one knows about it". I know about it. Most of the posters in this thread apparently know about it. The GOP tried to use it as a wedge issue in the last election so apparently they knew about it. Thereby, anyone who followed the election knew about it.

Lots of people know about it. In my observations, most who do not carry a partisan agenda do not care about it.

And you really need to step off that high horse of yours. Five posts ago, you accused me of insulting you after the fact while this post can easily be interpreted as an insult aimed directly at me.

mike wants wins
05-17-2013, 08:29 AM
You are aware that many left-wingers are leading the charge now, right?

Concerning the MSM, I'm not personally defrauded by their censorship of the news, but am very worried about low info votes being even less informed. I think only 40% of the country knows who the VP is.

That is very scary for a republic.

Like the Koch brothers trying to buy every major newspaper, so they can control the message? It is scary indeed. I doubt the mainstream media can survive what they will do to it if they get control. Between Fox's bias and CNN's ineptitude, who even trusts the MSM at this point?

gunnarthor
05-17-2013, 10:35 AM
When I was in college, I wrote my senior paper on the differences between the Johnson, Nixon and Clinton impeachments. One thing that bothered me was, at the beginning of Watergate, most Americans didn't know what it was and later, most Americans still didn't care. It was a constant GOP talking point against the Post. So I'm not sure arguing that people don't know/don't care about something doesn't mean it shouldn't be a real issue. Frankly, it shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

That said, Benghazi is more an effort to try and prevent Hilary Clinton to run than anything else.

AP and IRS might be more.

Brock Beauchamp
05-17-2013, 11:02 AM
When I was in college, I wrote my senior paper on the differences between the Johnson, Nixon and Clinton impeachments. One thing that bothered me was, at the beginning of Watergate, most Americans didn't know what it was and later, most Americans still didn't care. It was a constant GOP talking point against the Post. So I'm not sure arguing that people don't know/don't care about something doesn't mean it shouldn't be a real issue. Frankly, it shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

My point is that the people who do know about it (and don't have a partisan reason to pursue the issue) generally seem pretty apathetic about it. To me, that means one of two things:

1. There's really nothing to get too worked up about because it's just another case of a departmental pissing contest.

or

2. We're so worn down by various instances of government dumb****ery (largely because of the absolutely awful things done by the previous administration but not excluding this administration, either) that we just can't get worked up about a "scandal" of this (probably lack of) magnitude.

Almost everyone I know who keeps a level head about politics, both leftist and righty, feels the former. And if there truly is a scandal in there somewhere, I have the feeling that the people trumpeting the case for the latter often turned a blind eye to the absolute shenanigans pulled from 2001-2009 because it was "their guy". Maybe I'm in the apathetic camp... Dunno. But after spending the last few years of the Bush administration just shaking my head in disgust, I'm really having a hard time getting fired up about Benghazi because it's not even close to the level of privacy invasion, detainment, and pure nonsense pulled by Bush (which has sadly continued under Obama).


AP and IRS might be more.

Agreed. I heard about both of these situations and just shook my head. It's sad that I keep my expectations of politicians so low that they barely register and they still manage to let me down.

Ultima Ratio
05-17-2013, 11:02 AM
And you really need to step off that high horse of yours.

But you've shown us how to ride so beautifully. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Yes, "no one with a brain" and people who disagree with you "have no conscience" are tame but your most recent attempt at decorum. I only treat a couple posters this way, following their lead in the futile attempt to put a mirror up - but all too ofter we love what we see regardless.

Brock Beauchamp
05-17-2013, 11:14 AM
But you've shown us how to ride so beautifully. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Yes, "no one with a brain" and people who disagree with you "have no conscience" are tame but your most recent attempt at decorum. I only treat a couple posters this way, following their lead in the futile attempt to put a mirror up - but all too ofter we love what we see regardless.

Let it go, man. If you feel I'm descending into the realm of personal insults (even though not once have I aimed anything resembling a personal insult at you), ignore my posts.

But what isn't acceptable is thinking that it's okay to start directly insulting another poster because they made a vague reference that you interpreted as an insult aimed at you, even though you hadn't posted in the thread yet.

A refresher of the forum rules:

Furthermore, we expect each member to treat other members with respect. This doesn’t mean just not making personal attacks. It means giving them the benefit of the doubt. It means not being deliberately combative. It means turning the other cheek sometimes, even when you’re not being treated with respect. We expect this because we believe it encourages civil analysis and debate.

I turned the other cheek in the gay marriage thread and opted to leave instead of continuing a pointless debate with you, one that was bordering on personal insults as you repeatedly questioned my ability to form a logical argument.

Now I suggest you do the same.

ChiTownTwinsFan
05-17-2013, 12:30 PM
But you've shown us how to ride so beautifully.

Actually, he has. As a moderator/administrator of this site, and dealing with all the variant personalities and discussions, I think he's led a pretty good example of being fair and open-minded, and given quite a bit of leeway when others wanted to take a more 'prudish' route.

Not that he needs me to speak for him, just saying, from one who reads quite a bit here.

TheLeviathan
05-17-2013, 12:35 PM
Actually, he has. As a moderator/administrator of this site, and dealing with all the variant personalities and discussions, I think he's led a pretty good example of being fair and open-minded, and given quite a bit of leeway when others wanted to take a more 'prudish' route.

Not that he needs me to speak for him, just saying, from one who reads quite a bit here.

Brock isn't the Czar of us anymore...quit kissing up.

Brock Beauchamp
05-17-2013, 12:38 PM
Banning Levi in three... two...

ChiTownTwinsFan
05-17-2013, 01:26 PM
Brock isn't the Czar of us anymore...quit kissing up.

Pfft ... he already knows I'd vote for him if he ran for office despite his skeletons ... even though I'm a bleeding heart. I just think he's pretty fair.

Hornhead
05-17-2013, 04:33 PM
The “nobody with a brain” comment was foolish and unfortunately the language of debate these days. The civility of discourse (for now) exceeds that of BYTO in its final years, but the generosity in labeling folks crazy, mentally challenged, etc needs adjusting if the assessors seek to retain any credibility. If you don’t agree with views of another, so be it. Intelligent, decent people can have opposing views. I understand the opposition to my views very well. They make sense on the surface and may have once been my own positions. However, shallowness in thought and depth of emotion permeate many of those stances. I have emotions too and compassion for homosexuals. But these things called values, or standards if you prefer, come first. Values should be held in greater esteem than personal preference, popular opinion, and compassion which, as an overarching standard, quite often produces detrimental consequences.



Out of curiosity, where does Benghazi rate in comparison to Abu Ghraib on the scandal scale?

mikecgrimes
05-17-2013, 04:36 PM
I am very interested to hear what you think was "really" going on in Benghazi.

It was Fast and Furious times ten. You know the first major scandal the media covered?

mikecgrimes
05-17-2013, 04:37 PM
Banning Levi in three... two...

Classless move by you Brock, but thats nothing new.

TheLeviathan
05-17-2013, 04:41 PM
Classless move by you Brock, but thats nothing new.

Luckily, Brock is as good at hitting the ban button as some posters are about sensing sarcasm.

mikecgrimes
05-17-2013, 04:43 PM
So "many people don't know about it" has transformed into "no one knows about it". I know about it. Most of the posters in this thread apparently know about it. The GOP tried to use it as a wedge issue in the last election so apparently they knew about it. Thereby, anyone who followed the election knew about it.

Lots of people know about it. In my observations, most who do not carry a partisan agenda do not care about it.

And you really need to step off that high horse of yours. Five posts ago, you accused me of insulting you after the fact while this post can easily be interpreted as an insult aimed directly at me.

If you don't know what it was all about then you don't know about it. If you come up with examples of more then 4 people dying under Bush then you don't know about it.

Brock Beauchamp
05-17-2013, 04:43 PM
Classless move by you Brock, but thats nothing new.

Don't make me ban you, too.

Brock Beauchamp
05-17-2013, 04:44 PM
Luckily, Brock is as good at hitting the ban button as some posters are about sensing sarcasm.

Hey, I'm almost up to an average of one ban per year now.

diehardtwinsfan
05-25-2013, 09:15 PM
Have to admit I'm a bit surprised at vitriol targeted towards Brock. While I don't always agree with him, I find his posts to be pretty intelligent and well thought out.

That said, the left sucks... and the right sucks.... Vote Libertarian. :)

Frozented9
05-27-2013, 09:59 PM
Re IRS scandal I don't know how many of you work for large corporations but to expect the head to know exactly is going on in any small section of that organization is naive. The IRS employs 100000+ people I would doubt that the section that did this is more than a couple hundred. In my experience the leader of that section would have been told I don't care how you move these cases just do it.

These things just kinda happen no different than a banker making stupidly large risky bets because if he doesn't make his quota or beat the market his job is on the line.

mikecgrimes
05-28-2013, 08:39 PM
Re IRS scandal I don't know how many of you work for large corporations but to expect the head to know exactly is going on in any small section of that organization is naive. The IRS employs 100000+ people I would doubt that the section that did this is more than a couple hundred. In my experience the leader of that section would have been told I don't care how you move these cases just do it.

These things just kinda happen no different than a banker making stupidly large risky bets because if he doesn't make his quota or beat the market his job is on the line.

Very possible if these things had taken 3 or 4 months, when it's 3 or 4 years and it has been well known for over a year (an election year) the simple excuse no longer works. If my cable is out 6 hours or even 6 days thats a low level problem if it's out for 6 months thats on the guy in charge.

Frozented9
05-30-2013, 07:08 PM
Very possible if these things had taken 3 or 4 months, when it's 3 or 4 years and it has been well known for over a year (an election year) the simple excuse no longer works. If my cable is out 6 hours or even 6 days thats a low level problem if it's out for 6 months thats on the guy in charge.

What it though? These applications would ave not started coming in until after citizens united which was decided in 2010 and I would not think the applications would have started in mass for about 6 months. From my experience it can take 6-8 months for a realize how ****ed up the caseload situation is.

This is based off of experience in the mortgage industry where we can see heavy volume out of nowhere with less than a weeks notice. If that happens to us it can take months to respond they way we know needs to. Just because it takes time to train people in and make them useful.

diehardtwinsfan
05-31-2013, 10:36 PM
Re IRS scandal I don't know how many of you work for large corporations but to expect the head to know exactly is going on in any small section of that organization is naive. The IRS employs 100000+ people I would doubt that the section that did this is more than a couple hundred. In my experience the leader of that section would have been told I don't care how you move these cases just do it.

These things just kinda happen no different than a banker making stupidly large risky bets because if he doesn't make his quota or beat the market his job is on the line.

This may be true, but part of being at the top is being responsible for those who work underneath you, because the buck stops with that person... That person is also responsible for creating the culture that allows people to get away with this. The person in charge of the IRS may not have known about it, but that same person still carries a lot of responsibility for it.

Frozented9
06-01-2013, 10:17 AM
Totally agree the head of the IRS should be fired. I just don't believe in vast right or left wing conspiracy's.