-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 06:16:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Washington Scandals
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Washington Scandals  (Read 30923 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: May 16, 2013, 09:15:59 AM »

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama pulls a Wilson Goode at that march that's supposed to take place on July 4th...
Pretty sure it will be stopped before they cross the bridge into DC.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 09:41:19 AM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Jason
Guest
« Reply #51 on: May 16, 2013, 09:41:04 AM »

I wouldn't be shocked.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: May 16, 2013, 11:06:41 AM »

I am not familiar with Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, but if Eric Holder is for something I am pretty sure libertarians are against it.

Fair enough, but herein lies what to me demonstrates one of several very troubling aspects about the contemporary American so-called libertarian movement. This issue should be of primary concern if you are truly in favour of the kind of beliefs you claim to be in favour of. The Holder vs. Humanitarian Law case represents the most brazen attack by the Obama Administration on basic civil rights – probably the first major attack on free speech since the Smith Acts in the early 40s. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the Obama admin in an attempt to legitimize their position. It stems from the US government charging the Humanitarian Law Project for giving material aid to what the government considers to be a terrorist group. What, in effect, was the reality was that the Humanitarian Law Project counseled the the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to help them to find means to peacefully resolve conflicts. The law then could forbid and prosecute any group for simply talking to any organization that the government arbitrarily opposes even if it is for peacekeeping purposes. In other words, had this law existed in 1988, a peacekeeping group who worked with Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress to find peaceful means to help end violence in Africa could have been prosecuted, since the Pentagon at the time viewed the ANC as one of the “more notorious terrorist groups.”

This kind of attack on basic liberties hasn’t been seen in the US in decades. And I’m afraid the reason why the most ardent proponents of independent liberty and freedom haven’t picked up on it is because the leaders of the movement are not particularly interested in the subject. Because their focus tends to be on issues where the privileged members of society see their rights being curtailed, they don’t much care when an issue involving a non-profit human rights organization is at the forefront of the issue, just as Gary Johnson advocated for the kind of economic structure under which sweatshops typically flourish, thereby restricting the freedoms of the overwhelming majority in order to protect the freedoms of the minority business owners. This is problematic because real libertarianism, as it is related to traditional anarchism, is typically free from authorities who set the tone for what people talk about. I get the same feeling when I see you and TRBB trade back and forth all the important and great institutions and people in the field who you listen to every day. This is completely out of line with classic strains of libertarianism, which would understand this kind of valuing of institutional power as abhorrent and entirely counter-intuitive and the consequences are significant since it clearly has an effect on the things that you consider to be important. In other words, what you consider important is merely what these institutions and authorities consider important. And this, to me, has exactly the opposite to do with freedom, liberty, etc.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: May 16, 2013, 11:08:30 AM »

Worse than Watergate.
Worse Than Iran-Contra.
Worse than Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski etc.
Worse than Whitewater

This President is just one 'Kent State' away
from being the worst U.S. President ever.

Again - none of what you mention there was even close to the worst thing those Presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) did in their administration - including commiting acts of terrorism, supporting acts of terrorism, illegally spying on American citizens, carrying out assassination campaigns against US citizens, etc. Those are far worse than what is being attributed to Obama though Obama himself has done far worse than these trivial scandals that are being applied to him and they all together make Watergate, Lewinski etc. look about as tame as an issue could possibly be. I repeat: There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, because the extreme right support the far worse crimes. The reason why you think Obama is "one 'Kent State' away from being the worst President ever" is because the extreme right supports the massive terror campaigns, call for genocides, extreme support of genocides, bloodbaths, etc., extreme support for the ongoing destruction of civilizations, and the illegal ideological repression of political groups within the national borders. Those things don't count as bad things because we are doing them in they are done in the name of our value system. So since these horrific crimes are a-ok, then something as trivial as Benghazi must
 seem like the worst possible thing that could happen.

I really don't condone our violent "foreign policy" but it is most certainly not "extreme right"...unless you are using the liberal/Stalinist "right-to-left" scale with Nazis (socialists) as the extreme right and Communists (socialists) as the extreme left. The true extreme right are the "no government" libertarians, anarchists and isolationists who have no interest in violent imperialist empire-building and other foreign entanglements (or domestic power-grabs like The Patriot Acts and Obamacare).

Well, you are operating on some basic false assumptions which have been discussed at length on this board but I suppose they do bear some repeating. I’ll go through them one by one:

Quote
is most certainly not "extreme right"...unless you are using the liberal/Stalinist "right-to-left" scale

First of all, the scale that I am using is not a right-to-left scale. It is a double axis scale – one of which is left-to-right, which is based on a firmly accepted understanding of economic positions from anarchist, communist, socialist on the left with social democratic as a position a little left of centre, to neo-liberal, capitalist, free market on the right. The basic point here is that a belief in an economic system in which the means of production are equally controlled is on the left of the spectrum, while belief in an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by an owernship class is on the right of the system. As far as I know, this basic understanding of the left-right axis is firmly entrenched and not seriously critiqued. But this right-left axis alone doesn’t explain or determine where one is positioned on the political scale. A second axis measures socio-political issues from authoritarian to libertarian. In other words, authoritarianism and liberteriarianism are not necessarily bound to a particular position on the left-right scale, though for reasons I will explain below, it is less likely for someone committed to socialist principles to be authoritarian.

Second, this scale couldn’t possibly be “liberal/Stalinist” since the a “liberal/Stalinist” is a contradiction of terms. The scale is essentially the creation of the One World Action charity organization. If you want to refer to them as Stalinist, then that’s up to you.

Quote
with Nazis (socialists) as the extreme right

Nazis are on the extreme right and they are not socialists. In fact, historically, the Nazis under Hitler viciously opposed socialism and there is a long historical record supporting this. When the Nazis came to power, they had one central opposition – namely the Communist Party of Germany which was established by old school Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, although the party grew to take on a more authoritarian stance later. After Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he called for an election in 1933 and a week before the election, the Reichstag building burned down which Hitler claimed was a communist conspiracy so he called for Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree which curbed civil liberties and allowed Hitler to go on a spree of jailing communists. Doing that, along with surpressing the Communist vote – meaning a lack of votes for the central Communist Party - gave the Nazi Party the election. If de-legitimizing communists wasn’t enough, Hitler wanted to ensure the total elimination of socialist views from political authority in Germany. This was known as the Night of the Long Knives, wherein Hitler specifically targeted the the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, left over from the pre-Hitler days. The central figure behind the element, Otto Strasser had already been expelled as far back as 1930, Hitler took this even further, ultimately executing the leader of the left wing movement Ernst Rohm, because of Rohm's desire to "redistribute wealth" and impose a socialist platform.

Quote
and Communists (socialists) as the extreme left

It depends on what you mean by Communists. If by Communism you mean the position articulated by Marx wherein you have a society with no political power (entirely Libertarian) with an economic system that is worker-based and majority-based rather than ownership-based then yes, this is precisely the extreme left.

Keep in mind that Communism as it occurred in Russia was not actually Communism but a perversion of Communism. To understand this it is crucial to acknowledge what is perfectly true that Marx articulates his particular economic system in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto as one that has no political power. And indeed, this position was represented in Russia in the years leading up to the revolution – most notably represented by figures such as Antonie Pannekoek, Emma Goldman and others who essentially pushed for the Marxist position, namely a relatively powerless society that was organized in terms of worker’s councils and trade unions.

By 1909, Lenin and Alexander had these members expelled from the Bolsheviks deeming it too left wing and from that point forward essentially ran the Bolshevik movement as a right wing version of communism, much to the dismay of the traditionalists. So about a year after the Russian Revolution takes place, the traditional Marxists immediately objected to Lenin’s control noting correctly that Lenin did not represent a Marxist position. After all, socialism if it was anything, was workers in control over the means of production without any interference and there was none of that occurring whatsoever in Russia nor were there any plans for it to occur and more over, Lenin’s purposeful destruction of the factory councils as soon as he entered power, reaffirmed his opposition to Marxist socialism in practice. Lenin responded to the criticisms by publishing a book of his own writings called Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and in that book he essentially criticizes Marxism and socialism, targeting the central figures in particular such as Antonie Pannekoek and Sylvia Pankhurst for their Marxist beliefs.

Within a few years Lenin was outright calling the economic system what it was – state capitalism. He stated that state capitalism was "one of the principal aspects" of the New Economic Policy of the Soviet Union. By that time Lenin had enough power that he could afford to be honest. The ultimate failure of the Soviet project was not a failure of Marxism. It was never Marxism nor was it intended to be – the leaders of the movement hated Marxism, hated the Marxists, attacked them in print and outright opposed in practice the very tenets that Marx suggests. The fact that it was more of a capitalist system suggests that it was a loss for capitalism.

Quote
The true extreme right are the "no government" libertarians, anarchists and isolationists who have no interest in violent imperialist empire-building and other foreign entanglements (or domestic power-grabs like The Patriot Acts and Obamacare)

Apart from the fact that you align libertarians and anarchists with the right, there is some truth in that. In part this is an unnuanced evaluation, which is why the double-axis method of the compass I use I think is far more significant. That being said, I am curious what your source is for suggesting this particular version of political ideology because as far as I’m concerned it is a drastic misunderstanding to characterize libertarians and anarchists as part of the extreme right, particularly since they are so firmly entrenched in the socialist tradition. Recall that the term libertarian dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat. Hence, the anarchist revolt in Spain in the 1930s was firmly in line with classic socialist principles and used that as a developmental model for their economic system.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 01:01:24 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2013, 03:20:03 PM »

Any asshole who voted for, supported Reagan, H.W Bush, or GWB and waved their stupid flags for those serial killers has no business criticizing any president from here to eternity. They've forfeited their right to have such an opinion for their own good as to not loudly present themselves complete backward hypocrites....

It's just that stupid redneck bully mentality. "If my big white good ole boy Republican President does it, it's fine by me" ..... Yawn!

But it's fine because weeding out the sociopaths isn't a bad thing.

Same goes with anyone who supported Clinton.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 03:22:41 PM by Pinder Goes To Kokomo » Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #55 on: May 16, 2013, 03:58:17 PM »

Well, you know that's how partisan politics work, right? The Democrats hated the wars under Bush now they love them under Obama. The Republicans loved the wars under Bush and now they hate them under Obama.
Logged
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2013, 04:39:07 PM »

Well, you know that's how partisan politics work, right? The Democrats hated the wars under Bush now they love them under Obama. The Republicans loved the wars under Bush and now they hate them under Obama.

I don't know ANYONE who loves the wars under Obama!
Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2013, 07:05:57 PM »

This thread should be deleted because this guy deliberately originally posted this on the main board and he knows damn well it doesn't belong there. Why move it, just get rid of it for that rule violation alone. And no, most of us aren't paranoid enough to be "worried" or call this "Nixon on 'roids." But I shouldn't even bother saying that, because the person who started this thread is clearly being a troll who want attention.
None of what you said is true. 

In all honesty, you did originally post it in the wrong section (General Music Discussion, not the main board), but as that happens all the time here I'd hardly call that a crime.  Smiley   So I moved it to the Sandbox.
Anyway, no reason to end this topic. Resume please!
Sorry!  My bad. I was certain I put it in The Sandbox! Looks like I picked the wrong time to quite huffin'.   LOL 

Hey... howabout that, KittKat!?  You were right about one thing.  It's a start!!  angel
Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2013, 08:08:35 PM »

Let me step in here...

Partisanship.  There's nothing wrong with partisanship.  It's the parties that aren't living up to the demand.
The government is far too powerful, enormous and unwieldy.  Obama cannot control it.  That's his excuse and David Axelrod said as much.

While they're correct -- the government is way out of control -- it's a silly diversion.  They want the government (IRS) terrorizing libertarians and conservatives and the Tea Party.

Any asshole who voted for, supported Reagan, H.W Bush, or GWB and waved their stupid flags for those serial killers has no business criticizing any president from here to eternity. They've forfeited their right to have such an opinion for their own good as to not loudly present themselves complete backward hypocrites....

It's just that stupid redneck bully mentality. "If my big white good ole boy Republican President does it, it's fine by me" ..... Yawn!

But it's fine because weeding out the sociopaths isn't a bad thing.

Same goes with anyone who supported Clinton.

Pinder... have you ever flown a plane before -- it's ok! It's ok!  We're gonna land this bird... you and me...  Razz
Logged

409.
GreatUrduPoet
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2013, 08:27:44 AM »

Worse than Watergate.
Worse Than Iran-Contra.
Worse than Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski etc.
Worse than Whitewater

This President is just one 'Kent State' away
from being the worst U.S. President ever.

Again - none of what you mention there was even close to the worst thing those Presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) did in their administration - including commiting acts of terrorism, supporting acts of terrorism, illegally spying on American citizens, carrying out assassination campaigns against US citizens, etc. Those are far worse than what is being attributed to Obama though Obama himself has done far worse than these trivial scandals that are being applied to him and they all together make Watergate, Lewinski etc. look about as tame as an issue could possibly be. I repeat: There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, because the extreme right support the far worse crimes. The reason why you think Obama is "one 'Kent State' away from being the worst President ever" is because the extreme right supports the massive terror campaigns, call for genocides, extreme support of genocides, bloodbaths, etc., extreme support for the ongoing destruction of civilizations, and the illegal ideological repression of political groups within the national borders. Those things don't count as bad things because we are doing them in they are done in the name of our value system. So since these horrific crimes are a-ok, then something as trivial as Benghazi must
 seem like the worst possible thing that could happen.

I really don't condone our violent "foreign policy" but it is most certainly not "extreme right"...unless you are using the liberal/Stalinist "right-to-left" scale with Nazis (socialists) as the extreme right and Communists (socialists) as the extreme left. The true extreme right are the "no government" libertarians, anarchists and isolationists who have no interest in violent imperialist empire-building and other foreign entanglements (or domestic power-grabs like The Patriot Acts and Obamacare).

Well, you are operating on some basic false assumptions which have been discussed at length on this board but I suppose they do bear some repeating. I’ll go through them one by one:

Quote
is most certainly not "extreme right"...unless you are using the liberal/Stalinist "right-to-left" scale

First of all, the scale that I am using is not a right-to-left scale. It is a double axis scale – one of which is left-to-right, which is based on a firmly accepted understanding of economic positions from anarchist, communist, socialist on the left with social democratic as a position a little left of centre, to neo-liberal, capitalist, free market on the right. The basic point here is that a belief in an economic system in which the means of production are equally controlled is on the left of the spectrum, while belief in an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by an owernship class is on the right of the system. As far as I know, this basic understanding of the left-right axis is firmly entrenched and not seriously critiqued. But this right-left axis alone doesn’t explain or determine where one is positioned on the political scale. A second axis measures socio-political issues from authoritarian to libertarian. In other words, authoritarianism and liberteriarianism are not necessarily bound to a particular position on the left-right scale, though for reasons I will explain below, it is less likely for someone committed to socialist principles to be authoritarian.

Second, this scale couldn’t possibly be “liberal/Stalinist” since the a “liberal/Stalinist” is a contradiction of terms. The scale is essentially the creation of the One World Action charity organization. If you want to refer to them as Stalinist, then that’s up to you.

Quote
with Nazis (socialists) as the extreme right

Nazis are on the extreme right and they are not socialists. In fact, historically, the Nazis under Hitler viciously opposed socialism and there is a long historical record supporting this. When the Nazis came to power, they had one central opposition – namely the Communist Party of Germany which was established by old school Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, although the party grew to take on a more authoritarian stance later. After Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he called for an election in 1933 and a week before the election, the Reichstag building burned down which Hitler claimed was a communist conspiracy so he called for Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree which curbed civil liberties and allowed Hitler to go on a spree of jailing communists. Doing that, along with surpressing the Communist vote – meaning a lack of votes for the central Communist Party - gave the Nazi Party the election. If de-legitimizing communists wasn’t enough, Hitler wanted to ensure the total elimination of socialist views from political authority in Germany. This was known as the Night of the Long Knives, wherein Hitler specifically targeted the the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, left over from the pre-Hitler days. The central figure behind the element, Otto Strasser had already been expelled as far back as 1930, Hitler took this even further, ultimately executing the leader of the left wing movement Ernst Rohm, because of Rohm's desire to "redistribute wealth" and impose a socialist platform.

Quote
and Communists (socialists) as the extreme left

It depends on what you mean by Communists. If by Communism you mean the position articulated by Marx wherein you have a society with no political power (entirely Libertarian) with an economic system that is worker-based and majority-based rather than ownership-based then yes, this is precisely the extreme left.

Keep in mind that Communism as it occurred in Russia was not actually Communism but a perversion of Communism. To understand this it is crucial to acknowledge what is perfectly true that Marx articulates his particular economic system in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto as one that has no political power. And indeed, this position was represented in Russia in the years leading up to the revolution – most notably represented by figures such as Antonie Pannekoek, Emma Goldman and others who essentially pushed for the Marxist position, namely a relatively powerless society that was organized in terms of worker’s councils and trade unions.

By 1909, Lenin and Alexander had these members expelled from the Bolsheviks deeming it too left wing and from that point forward essentially ran the Bolshevik movement as a right wing version of communism, much to the dismay of the traditionalists. So about a year after the Russian Revolution takes place, the traditional Marxists immediately objected to Lenin’s control noting correctly that Lenin did not represent a Marxist position. After all, socialism if it was anything, was workers in control over the means of production without any interference and there was none of that occurring whatsoever in Russia nor were there any plans for it to occur and more over, Lenin’s purposeful destruction of the factory councils as soon as he entered power, reaffirmed his opposition to Marxist socialism in practice. Lenin responded to the criticisms by publishing a book of his own writings called Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and in that book he essentially criticizes Marxism and socialism, targeting the central figures in particular such as Antonie Pannekoek and Sylvia Pankhurst for their Marxist beliefs.

Within a few years Lenin was outright calling the economic system what it was – state capitalism. He stated that state capitalism was "one of the principal aspects" of the New Economic Policy of the Soviet Union. By that time Lenin had enough power that he could afford to be honest. The ultimate failure of the Soviet project was not a failure of Marxism. It was never Marxism nor was it intended to be – the leaders of the movement hated Marxism, hated the Marxists, attacked them in print and outright opposed in practice the very tenets that Marx suggests. The fact that it was more of a capitalist system suggests that it was a loss for capitalism.

Quote
The true extreme right are the "no government" libertarians, anarchists and isolationists who have no interest in violent imperialist empire-building and other foreign entanglements (or domestic power-grabs like The Patriot Acts and Obamacare)

Apart from the fact that you align libertarians and anarchists with the right, there is some truth in that. In part this is an unnuanced evaluation, which is why the double-axis method of the compass I use I think is far more significant. That being said, I am curious what your source is for suggesting this particular version of political ideology because as far as I’m concerned it is a drastic misunderstanding to characterize libertarians and anarchists as part of the extreme right, particularly since they are so firmly entrenched in the socialist tradition. Recall that the term libertarian dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat. Hence, the anarchist revolt in Spain in the 1930s was firmly in line with classic socialist principles and used that as a developmental model for their economic system.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Your analysis is still Stalinist. Wikipedia is not a reliable resource for accurate political/economic information. Nice try...but no (Cuban) cigar.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2013, 09:53:28 AM »

Your analysis is still Stalinist.

How so?

Quote
Wikipedia is not a reliable resource for accurate political/economic information.

Since I have made part of my living by assessing the credibility of other people's citations and also ensuring that my own citations are legitimate, I am curious what credentials you have to make that assessment and would also ask on what grounds is it not a reliable resource for accurate political/economic information. Until you can offer these reasons, I will take this response for the reactionary non-response that it is.

I would also suggest that you re-read my post since virtually none of the material I wrote was influenced or taken from Wikipedia. The url I presented was for further reading. In that case, you engaged with exactly none of my points and merely zeroed in on the final line as an excuse to avoid the substantial points I raised above it, none of which, I repeat, came from the website that I posted.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2013, 11:28:36 AM »

Rockandroll, are you leaning to the left? Just curious. Smiley
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 01:29:48 PM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2013, 11:54:30 AM »

Rockandroll, are you leaning to left? Just curious. Smiley

Ha - yes, I'm definitely on the left.
Logged
Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2013, 12:35:41 PM »

This entire thread is asinine-

Did the IRS single out tea party groups and conservatives for harrasment for the purpose of intimidaion? YES. We all know that.
Was this information known before the 2012 eelction? YES.
Is the person (Sarah Hall Ingraham) who served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012 in charge of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office (Obamacare)- YES

These are facts.

As a sign of one's truthfullness and integrity, are there any leftists on this board that will AT THE VERY LEAST admit that there is some serious corruption going on... you know, call a spade a spade. This isn't an ideological discussion about left vs. right... that is just a distraction. There is some real merda going on from the IRS, and IMO, the Obama administration the purpose of keeping people silenced, scared, and powerless.

...now before you get all bunched up and bring back W., or Clinton, or Mickey 'friggin mouse, forget all that. We are talking right now. Today. This is about the IRS. This is about Obama.

Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2013, 12:46:32 PM »

This entire thread is asinine-

Did the IRS single out tea party groups and conservatives for harrasment for the purpose of intimidaion? YES. We all know that.
Was this information known before the 2012 eelction? YES.
Is the person (Sarah Hall Ingraham) who served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012 in charge of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office (Obamacare)- YES

These are facts.

As a sign of one's truthfullness and integrity, are there any leftists on this board that will AT THE VERY LEAST admit that there is some serious corruption going on... you know, call a spade a spade. This isn't an ideological discussion about left vs. right... that is just a distraction. There is some real merda going on from the IRS, and IMO, the Obama administration the purpose of keeping people silenced, scared, and powerless.

...now before you get all bunched up and bring back W., or Clinton, or Mickey 'friggin mouse, forget all that. We are talking right now. Today. This is about the IRS. This is about Obama.



Well, until it can be proven that Obama broke the law that prevents him from requesting “directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer” then we can only suggest that this is not about Obama but about the IRS.

As far as I'm concerned, given that this scandal is trivial in regards to greater crimes committed by Obama, I can safely say that this is the issue that's the distraction, as scandals always are, just as George W. Bush's alleged stupidity and his controversial election win kept the public away from his war crimes, as Lewinsky-gate kept the public away from Clinton's sanctions that led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, etc. Scandals like this are always meant to keep the public away from the more important and far more severe systematic issues.
Logged
Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2013, 01:07:17 PM »


Well, until it can be proven that Obama broke the law that prevents him from requesting “directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer” then we can only suggest that this is not about Obama but about the IRS.


Re- Read what I wrote- "IMO"... however, even the NEW YORK TIMES is printing that members of the Obama administration knew- back in June of 2012.

Rock n Roll- I know your tactic- you bring up W. You bring up Clinton- I even predicted you would.

The IRS going after people for political means was important enough to be brought up in the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon, so yeah, while it may be in your opinion a distraction, it is important nonetheless. Again- this is Obama's time-
W's time is over... This guy has been in charge for 4 years now, and his party has been in charge since 2007--- This stuff doesn't happen without people knowing... err, before a presidential election.
Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #66 on: May 17, 2013, 01:08:46 PM »

To be fair, the Republicans have controlled the House since 2011.
Logged
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: May 17, 2013, 01:32:26 PM »

Let me step in here...

Partisanship.  There's nothing wrong with partisanship.  It's the parties that aren't living up to the demand.
The government is far too powerful, enormous and unwieldy.  Obama cannot control it.  That's his excuse and David Axelrod said as much.

While they're correct -- the government is way out of control -- it's a silly diversion.  They want the government (IRS) terrorizing libertarians and conservatives and the Tea Party.

Any asshole who voted for, supported Reagan, H.W Bush, or GWB and waved their stupid flags for those serial killers has no business criticizing any president from here to eternity. They've forfeited their right to have such an opinion for their own good as to not loudly present themselves complete backward hypocrites....

It's just that stupid redneck bully mentality. "If my big white good ole boy Republican President does it, it's fine by me" ..... Yawn!

But it's fine because weeding out the sociopaths isn't a bad thing.

Same goes with anyone who supported Clinton.

Pinder... have you ever flown a plane before -- it's ok! It's ok!  We're gonna land this bird... you and me...  Razz

No, but I crashed a 747 simulator at LAX when I was 10 years old (my dad was an airline Captain) ..... Maybe that says something Tongue
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: May 17, 2013, 05:45:05 PM »

Re- Read what I wrote- "IMO"... however, even the NEW YORK TIMES is printing that members of the Obama administration knew- back in June of 2012.

Whoa? Even the New York Times?  Roll Eyes

Quote
Rock n Roll- I know your tactic- you bring up W. You bring up Clinton- I even predicted you would.

No you didn't. What you suggested is that someone would bring up those names as a deflection - as in, "Yeah, okay, but Bush did X." By that logic, your reference to Nixon is as much of a "tactic" as me referencing those names.

Quote
The IRS going after people for political means was important enough to be brought up in the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon, so yeah, while it may be in your opinion a distraction, it is important nonetheless. Again- this is Obama's time-
W's time is over... This guy has been in charge for 4 years now, and his party has been in charge since 2007--- This stuff doesn't happen without people knowing... err, before a presidential election.

Well, the Articles of Impeachment for Nixon were extraordinarily trivial in comparison to the far greater crimes that Nixon committed while in office. In fact, Watergate only came to be because the target of Nixon's criminal behaviour was half of the country's political power and when you target powerful people, that's a no-no but when you commit far worse crimes, like illegally infiltrating and destroying social and political groups on grounds that you have arbitrarily decided that they are too subversive to exist, or carrying out targeted assassinations, or presiding over a call for genocide, as was the case with US actions in Cambodia, then that's perfectly acceptable. Again, Watergate exists as a perfect example of what is to be constituted as legitimate and illegitimate actions and how that's meant to filter down into the population. The media largely kept the public well informed about the Watergate scandal because it was a typical scandal in the same fashion as the kinds that I described above, while keeping the public in the dark about the far greater crimes that were largely acceptable to the ownership class.

And, yes, I do think that this tenuous connection between the White House and a fairly independent body is a far more trivial matter than, say, radically expanding the Middle East war, committing war crimes, and acts of terrorism, and pushing a law that if passed would amount to a free speech violation unseen in the country in over 70 years. But again, we're not supposed to care about those things because, again, those are the things acceptable to the ownership class. To pursue those issues might actually mean recognizing that we fundamentally need to change the system in which we live, rather than say, impeach someone and wait until the next election to vote for the other faction that represents virtually the same issues so that the farce can continue.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 05:46:38 AM by rockandroll » Logged
GreatUrduPoet
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 20, 2013, 12:34:37 PM »

Rockandroll, are you leaning to left? Just curious. Smiley

Ha - yes, I'm definitely on the left.

You can always spot a neo-Stalinist by their insistence that the Nazi Party in Germany was "right wing".
Logged
GreatUrduPoet
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: May 20, 2013, 12:42:31 PM »

This entire thread is asinine-

Did the IRS single out tea party groups and conservatives for harrasment for the purpose of intimidaion? YES. We all know that.
Was this information known before the 2012 eelction? YES.
Is the person (Sarah Hall Ingraham) who served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012 in charge of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office (Obamacare)- YES

These are facts.

As a sign of one's truthfullness and integrity, are there any leftists on this board that will AT THE VERY LEAST admit that there is some serious corruption going on... you know, call a spade a spade. This isn't an ideological discussion about left vs. right... that is just a distraction. There is some real merda going on from the IRS, and IMO, the Obama administration the purpose of keeping people silenced, scared, and powerless.

...now before you get all bunched up and bring back W., or Clinton, or Mickey 'friggin mouse, forget all that. We are talking right now. Today. This is about the IRS. This is about Obama.



Remember: When you argue with a Leftist, any 'here & now',  real-time factual information will be dismissed as a "distraction". They'd rather bring up an ex-President who has been out of office for FIVE YEARS.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: May 20, 2013, 02:33:33 PM »

You can always spot a neo-Stalinist by their insistence that the Nazi Party in Germany was "right wing".

I don't buy that argument either, there is nothing right about Nationalsozialismus. But I understand why the Cultural-Marxist power elite uses a term like right-wing. They want to demonize people who've seen through their propaganda and agendas. People who want a smaller government are a danger to the power elite so hey, let's call these people Nazis even though there are no similarities.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 02:36:48 PM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #72 on: May 20, 2013, 02:40:31 PM »

what are you talking about? If anything, it's the power elite who want smaller government! ..... It's less expensive for them to have less people to pay off, bribe etc etc....

I honestly wonder if anyone dying on the street or in some shitty hospice bed ever thought about how they really want a smaller government.... We're all so smug as to assume we'll never be in such a situation ourselves.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 02:42:26 PM by Pinder Goes To Kokomo » Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: May 20, 2013, 02:43:29 PM »

what are you talking about? If anything, it's the power elite who want smaller government! ..... It's less expensive for them to have less people to pay off, bribe etc etc....
I'll give you a big list of things I am talking about tomorrow. It's almost midnight here now.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 02:46:15 PM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #74 on: May 20, 2013, 02:44:36 PM »

what are you talking about? If anything, it's the power elite who want smaller government! ..... It's less expensive for them to have less people to pay off, bribe etc etc....
I'll give you big list of things I am talking about tomorrow. It's almost midnight here now.

Don't bother. I don't buy the "we just want smaller government" line either. Not for a moment. It's just what you're supposed to say when your parents or whoever tell you you're a conservative/Republican or whatever bullshit you decide to accept.

The real power elite are neither leftist/Marxist or Right Wing/Conservative and they laugh at such imbecilic terms.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 02:48:47 PM by Pinder Goes To Kokomo » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.894 seconds with 21 queries.