Obama Flubs Skewer Liberalism

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,260
60,915
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. Let's revisit the IRS and Benghazi scandals of the Obama administration. First, it is admitted by all but the most die-hard Obama-fanatics, that these, and the AP phone records grab, are both malfeasance, and huge mishandling by the administration.

a. It is beyond chalking up to coincidence that in each and every case, the stories, the explanations, coming out of the government responsible agencies, fall in line with the political interests of Obama.





2. Unfortunately for larger political philosophy that he represents, the scandals also reveal the artifice that is Liberalism, Big Government Statism.

a. On Fox News Sunday, White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told "Fox News Sunday" was asked to explain how Sarah Ingram, the IRS commissioner who once oversaw the division that processes tax-exempt applications and now tapped to oversee the new tax laws in ObamaCare, could be given a promotion in the light of events. " Sarah Ingram "provided horrible customer service" but Steven Miller thinks she deserves to be head honcho at the Obamacare office." Fired IRS Commissioner: I Promoted Sarah Ingram To Head Obamacare: "We Provided Horrible Customer Service" - Greg Hengler

b. During the period she was targeting Tea Party, pro-life, conservative Americans, she recieved $100,000 in bonuses.
IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office - ABC News

c. "... staffers in the sinister-sounding Determinations Unit started singling out Tea Party applicants for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status in mid-2010, so that puts Ingram in charge of the broader division when the scandal began. " The IRS scandal: Is Sarah Hall Ingram the next head to roll? - The Week

3. So, she was in charge...but knew nothing about the profiling....so she gets bonuses and a promotion.
Inadequate, inept, incompetent: this is very important, as it is the theme, the explanation of the Obama administration for the scandals.






a. Earlier explanation: "... The growing scandal at the IRS stemmed from a confused staff and lax oversight, ... an IRS unit based in Cincinnati, the main office for handling tax-exempt organizations, that adopted “inappropriate criteria” for deciding which applications to examine, without any review by senior managers. The improper targeting continued for more than 18 months. ... applications for nonprofit status to languish for more than three years,... as staff in a Cincinnati field office struggled to cope with a flood of applications for tax exemptions ..." Report blames IRS scandal on lax oversight, confused staff - latimes.com


b. But..." We were told that conservatives “swamped” the IRS with nonprofit applications after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision struck down some restrictions on political speech..... No, as the Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta points out:
“[W]e saw a big increase in these kind of applications, many of which indicated that they were going to be involved in advocacy work,” Lerner said. But Todd Young, a Republican congressman from Indiana, pointed out at Friday’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing with former acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George that this was not the case, according to the very data the IRS provided to the Treasury IG’s office." IRS Defenders Are Still Relying on Debunked Claims « Commentary Magazine





4. So, if Big Government Liberalism is based on the necessity of same to arbitrate, to resolve the problems in society, to provide the path to justice, between the big and the small, the rich and the poor, and do so honestly and efficiently.....but the explanations of the scandals is based on these government agencies bungling, mishandling, and corruption....

....what leg does Liberalism have to stand on????
 
The White House is standing behind the woman who led the Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt division while it targeted conservative groups — the same official who now runs the part of the agency charged with implementing “Obamacare.”

“No one has suggested that she did anything wrong yet,” said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.”Mr. Pfeiffer added that no one should jump to conclusions about whether Sarah Hall Ingram, given a promotion at the IRS as the agency’s singling out of tea party and conservative groups began to come to light, was directly involved in any wrongdoing.


Read more: White House aide: 'Nothing that suggests' IRS official at center of scandal 'did anything wrong' - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
 
all I can say is, I can't wait for November 2014. when it will be Americans, {US} VS Them! (kinda like that Giant Ant Movie Classic from the 50's when Joe Biden was only 65 years old).
 
all I can say is, I can't wait for November 2014. when it will be Americans, {US} VS Them! (kinda like that Giant Ant Movie Classic from the 50's when Joe Biden was only 65 years old).


Just curious, Tige.....

Why would you believe that the folks who ambled through the Obama failures in foreign policy, in economic and domestic policy, broken promises, etc......




and used one of these three modes in deciding for whom to vote:

invincible ignorance: lack of knowledge that a person has no way to obtain

vincible ignorance: lack of knowledge that a rational person is capable of acquiring by making an effort

nescience: lack of knowledge that doesn’t matter in the circumstances (from Latin ne-, “not” plus scire, “to know.”



...would alter their voting style?


Possibly you have more faith than I.
 
"While denying involvement in high crimes and misdemeanors, the Obama administration appears to be pleading guilty to lesser crimes of bureaucratic incompetence. But that is an unsustainable position for a president who wants Americans to believe again in the power and grace of good government, particularly as it relates to the implementation of Obamacare."
Quotes of the day « Hot Air
 
Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):
 
Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):

That's total nonsense.

Are you actually claiming to have read the OP, and gleaned that gibberish from same?

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt: read it more carefully, and try again.
 
all I can say is, I can't wait for November 2014. when it will be Americans, {US} VS Them! (kinda like that Giant Ant Movie Classic from the 50's when Joe Biden was only 65 years old).


Just curious, Tige.....

Why would you believe that the folks who ambled through the Obama failures in foreign policy, in economic and domestic policy, broken promises, etc......




and used one of these three modes in deciding for whom to vote:

invincible ignorance: lack of knowledge that a person has no way to obtain

vincible ignorance: lack of knowledge that a rational person is capable of acquiring by making an effort

nescience: lack of knowledge that doesn’t matter in the circumstances (from Latin ne-, “not” plus scire, “to know.”



...would alter their voting style?


Possibly you have more faith than I.

I've reposted your comment, since you seem unaware of it.

Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):
 
Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):

That's total nonsense.

Are you actually claiming to have read the OP, and gleaned that gibberish from same?

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt: read it more carefully, and try again.

Someone tell that idiot the founders themselves didn't trust the people to vote for the president, or their own senators. Our representatives at the state and federal level are supposed to select these people. Do you think we'd have armies of lobbiests sucking the government sow dry with special interest spending programs otherwise?

The 17th Amendment changed that, and we've been on a slow but steady decline into collective slavery ever since.
 
Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):

That's total nonsense.

Are you actually claiming to have read the OP, and gleaned that gibberish from same?

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt: read it more carefully, and try again.

Someone tell that idiot the founders themselves didn't trust the people to vote for the president, or their own senators. Our representatives at the state and federal level are supposed to select these people. Do you think we'd have armies of lobbiests sucking the government sow dry with special interest spending programs otherwise?

The 17th Amendment changed that, and we've been on a slow but steady decline into collective slavery ever since.

Okay, Pete. Tell us all what you believe is a better "solution." (FWIW, I tend to agree--but I'd love you hear one of you right wingers actually come out and say that you support dictatorships that support your policies.)
 
Last edited:
That's total nonsense.

Are you actually claiming to have read the OP, and gleaned that gibberish from same?

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt: read it more carefully, and try again.

Someone tell that idiot the founders themselves didn't trust the people to vote for the president, or their own senators. Our representatives at the state and federal level are supposed to select these people. Do you think we'd have armies of lobbiests sucking the government sow dry with special interest spending programs otherwise?

The 17th Amendment changed that, and we've been on a slow but steady decline into collective slavery ever since.

Okay, Pete. Tell us all what you believe is a better "solution."

The solutions have been posted on this forum countless times. If they haven't inspired an independent thought in your skull yet, there's nothing in there for one to take root.
 
Someone tell that idiot the founders themselves didn't trust the people to vote for the president, or their own senators. Our representatives at the state and federal level are supposed to select these people. Do you think we'd have armies of lobbiests sucking the government sow dry with special interest spending programs otherwise?

The 17th Amendment changed that, and we've been on a slow but steady decline into collective slavery ever since.

Okay, Pete. Tell us all what you believe is a better "solution."

The solutions have been posted on this forum countless times. If they haven't inspired an independent thought in your skull yet, there's nothing in there for one to take root.

I want to hear you say it.
 
Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):

In order for your federal ballot to be counted, you should have to correctly identify the President, Vice President and both of your US Senators. (This would eliminate about 1/2 of Obama voters.)
 
Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):

In order for your federal ballot to be counted, you should have to correctly identify the President, Vice President and both of your US Senators. (This would eliminate about 1/2 of Obama voters.)

Why? A lot of Americans don't give two shits about politics, but they are a hell of a lot brighter than you are.
 
Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):

In order for your federal ballot to be counted, you should have to correctly identify the President, Vice President and both of your US Senators. (This would eliminate about 1/2 of Obama voters.)

In fact, talk radio "listeners" hear the names of politicians pounded into their pointy skulls all day long, and they would qualify as "informed" voters in some polls . . .

. . . but they're stupid as shit.
 
That's total nonsense.

Are you actually claiming to have read the OP, and gleaned that gibberish from same?

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt: read it more carefully, and try again.

Someone tell that idiot the founders themselves didn't trust the people to vote for the president, or their own senators. Our representatives at the state and federal level are supposed to select these people. Do you think we'd have armies of lobbiests sucking the government sow dry with special interest spending programs otherwise?

The 17th Amendment changed that, and we've been on a slow but steady decline into collective slavery ever since.

Okay, Pete. Tell us all what you believe is a better "solution." (FWIW, I tend to agree--but I'd love you hear one of you right wingers actually come out and say that you support dictatorships that support your policies.)

Right, because no bed wetter has wished for a leftist dictator....

Oh wait they have... Idiot.

Williams assured that he personally wouldn’t have any trouble following dictates from Obama because “I can’t imagine that he would ever lead us astray".

I'll bet they said the same thing in Germany around 1930 something.

Just for shits and grins I'll say openly that we could use a right wing dictator. Pinochete did what he had to do, snuffed out a few marxist sociopaths, and then gave up the office.

The other major difference is that when leftist dictators rule a country, the "excess population" is wiped out through famines and gulags. Rightwing dictators just let the "excess population" fend for itself. I'll take my chances in Chile, enjoy yourself in North Korea.
 
Basically, PC, you're saying that the American voters can no longer be trusted to select a President because you disagree with the outcome of the election. I've heard that line of reasoning before.

So, your solution is (drum roll, please):

In order for your federal ballot to be counted, you should have to correctly identify the President, Vice President and both of your US Senators. (This would eliminate about 1/2 of Obama voters.)

Why? A lot of Americans don't give two shits about politics, but they are a hell of a lot brighter than you are.

If they don't give two shits about politics, why do you want them to vote?
 
In order for your federal ballot to be counted, you should have to correctly identify the President, Vice President and both of your US Senators. (This would eliminate about 1/2 of Obama voters.)

Why? A lot of Americans don't give two shits about politics, but they are a hell of a lot brighter than you are.

If they don't give two shits about politics, why do you want them to vote?

Because they'll vote to steal from the people he's programmed to hate, so they can get free shit.

Then they get all butt-hurt when we refer to them as "low information" voters.
 
In order for your federal ballot to be counted, you should have to correctly identify the President, Vice President and both of your US Senators. (This would eliminate about 1/2 of Obama voters.)

Why? A lot of Americans don't give two shits about politics, but they are a hell of a lot brighter than you are.

If they don't give two shits about politics, why do you want them to vote?

I don't care if they vote. They certainly have the right, though, under democratic governance. Please stay focused.
 
Why? A lot of Americans don't give two shits about politics, but they are a hell of a lot brighter than you are.

If they don't give two shits about politics, why do you want them to vote?

Because they'll vote to steal from the people he's programmed to hate, so they can get free shit.

Then they get all butt-hurt when we refer to them as "low information" voters.

You fascists are so paranoid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top