nru
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:1,765
Points:986,080
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 11:21:27 PM
Siouxfan - that is a theory (bigger government/less freedom) - what freedoms are being taken from us by:
obamacare - the freedom to pay for others who do not want to get health insurance?
IRS - freedom to start a "charitable" organization that does no charity
AP scandal - that's real
gun control - we have already lost this one - until I can own a gunshio, I stand no chance against even a platoon. My 9mm is only going to get me out of a non-governmental problem - no one has the means to stand against the US armed forced
|
Siouxfan
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:52,049
Points:3,592,205
Joined:May 2001
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 10:50:12 PM
dlr17
obamacare
IRS targeting certain groups for added scrutiny
AP scandal
gun control
bigger government equals less freedom
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 5:24:36 PM
I predict that the US will always be inter dependent. It has never been a country that has not has some sort of trade with others and never will be. Any country that drives to be isolated eventually decays or is concord by others.
|
TornadoRed
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:1,846
Points:713,895
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 1:43:45 AM
I have seen predictions that the US will be energy self-sufficient by 2020, at the current rate at which oil and natural gas production is climbing.
Self-sufficient means that, on net, our exports will equal or exceed our imports.
It does not mean that there will be no imports, or that the country would benefit if there were no exports.
If we import crude oil from Canada, add value to it by refining it into gasoline and distillate fuels, and then export some of it, then this economic activity benefits us by creating jobs and generating wealth for shareholders (including pension funds and other retirement investments). It also produces tax revenue.
The notion that we do not need pipelines from Canada, and that we should not export refined products or natural gas, is based on flawed economic reasoning.
Ask the wheat farmer if eliminating both imports and exports of grain and other food products, would actually make American stronger or safer. No, for food security, what we want is free trade in food, to buy and sell, to import and export.
It is the same with energy, though the people who wish to block imports from Canada are not so opposed to imports of crude from Venezuela or the Arab states.
As for those who want to block exports of gasoline or diesel or natural gas, I suppose they think the people who produce these fuels will continue to increase the quantities supplied even if the market shrinks? Has this ever happened in the history of the world?
|
dlr17
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:7,949
Points:1,455,475
Joined:Aug 2003
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 8:56:28 AM
Siouxfan, what freedoms are being taken away?
|
Siouxfan
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:52,049
Points:3,592,205
Joined:May 2001
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 5:51:56 AM
As memorial day nears, I am struck by the notion that the very freedom that so many gave their lives for is being stolen from us by the current administration.
The blame for this lies squarely with the sheeple who voted for the clown occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Those who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country must be rolling over in their graves, as the weak minded flock to a fraud who promises them anything to gain power, even at the cost of their freedom.
|
TornadoRed
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:1,846
Points:713,895
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 11:36:04 PM
nru: There is too much oil in storage at Cushing because there are not enough pipelines. Blocking construction of new pipelines will not fix this problem. Blocking the Keystone XL does two things: it diverts more crude to railroad tank cars, and eventually it will encourage the Canadians to build a pipeline to the Pacific so it can export directly to China. (If this happens, perhaps someday we'll be relying on the Arabs again.)
The US benefits with jobs and tax revenue when it takes a raw material from another country, converts it into a higher-value product, then exports finished goods. I'm surprised you don't think this is a good thing for the US.
|
nru
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:1,765
Points:986,080
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 7:32:42 AM
Tornado - I still want to know why we are supposed to be all pumped up about allowing foreign nationals to benefit at our expense (Keystone). Cushing is already over capacity as it is
|
TornadoRed
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:1,846
Points:713,895
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 2:58:11 PM
DI: there are several problems with your post, or at least clarifications that should be made.
In the last couple week, TWIP has discussed the effects of increased domestic crude production
here and the US-Mexico petroleum trade here. The US still buys crude from Mexico, but that country now buys more refined fuels from the US. Exports to Mexico, and to other Central American countries to a lesser extent, make up a major portion of all fuel exports.
Something else to mention: the closure of large refineries in Aruba, Curacao, and the Virgin Islands. And, state-owned refineries in Venezuela are becoming less productive, as maintenance and upgrades are postponed by the leftwing government.
So, while the USA Today article you quoted from mentioned "weak US demand" (and that is a factor, I'll admit), demand from other Western Hemisphere countries is the driving force.
Nothing in your post supports your conclusion, that the Keystone pipeline will have no effect on domestic fuel prices. Better access to less-expensive crude oil encourages higher refinery utilization rates. Whether this fuel stays in the US or is exported may depend on other factors, like the strength of the US dollar.
|
DI
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:20,208
Points:4,151,385
Joined:Apr 2001
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 12:09:41 AM
So what about increased production, Philo_Gray? That resulted in headlines a year ago, such as U.S. exported more gasoline than imported last year.
[quote]
For the first time since 1949, the United States exported more gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel last year than it imported, the Energy Department reported today.
Bloomberg writes that to offset weak U.S. demand, refiners exported 439,000 barrels a day more than were imported the year before. In 2010, daily imports averaged 269,000 barrels, according to the Petroleum Supply Monthly report.
Imports of crude oil and related products fell 11% last year, reaching a level not seen since 1995.
News of record gasoline exports comes as the pump price rose today for the 22nd straight day ($3.78 a gallon average) and the Energy Department reported separately that gasoline inventories fell last week while crude oil inventories and imports rose.
[unquote]
And if we check the linked-to EIA Petroleum Supply Monthly report to see what’s happening a year later, we see the following from the latest (February 2013) report (118KB PDF) for Finished Petroleum Products:
• Imports: 16,479,000 bbl. (gasoline: 527,000 bbl.)
• Exports: 68,226,000 bbl. (gasoline: 13,574,000 bbl.)
BTW, this is why many of us don’t believe the hype that the Keystone XL pipeline will lower gasoline prices. And, for those of us in the Upper Midwest who’ve been using gasoline refined from Western Canadian crude for years, the increased availability of that crude to other refineries will mean increased supply costs to local refineries.
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 12:28:30 PM
DI and dlr17 - I like your turn around. When I say the other guy I meant that as a general for president, congress, and senate. And I also kept it into the discussion of Gas and economy not war, and other topics.
Their were many Dem's the Bush compromised with the cause a lot of the housing crises and more. I will also through in a good and full of RINO's into that as well.
The current guy still has done nothing to help improve gas prices, wasted billions on failed green energy and is making the economy worse. Before you start through numbers out like the stock market be-careful. The Market may be at an all time high but not all the fundamentals are their. With the Qualitative-easing (inflation), the crashing of the bond market and the plowing of money by the US buying and buying, debt like home loans.
The Market has no choice but to go up as investors move from bonds to equity, and at what COST?
I also plan on a new post topic that may get an LOL but is serious and questions the new normal.
[Edited by: Philo_Gray at 5/18/2013 1:29:25 PM EST]
|
dlr17
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:7,949
Points:1,455,475
Joined:Aug 2003
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 7:06:35 AM
Also, don't blame Philo_Gray for the recovering economy, housing values rising, stock market setting new record highs, banking industry thriving, automobile industry thriving, war ending with the head terrorist taken out, and so on. Philo_Gray voted for the other guy that drove the economy into the ground, nearly bankrupted the country, spent billions a year on a war that was going in circles and accomplishing next-to-nothing while killing thousands of innocent people, drove the banking industry into near-bankruptcy, drove the U.S. automobile industry into near-bankruptcy, drove the housing market into doldrums, drove the stock market from record highs of over 13,000 to a near-collapse of under 8,000, put many Americans out of work, and on and on. Yeah, we really need a president like that again.
|
DI
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:20,208
Points:4,151,385
Joined:Apr 2001
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 12:43:05 AM
Elsewhere, Philo_Gray writes “Look like SA is trying to create a new normal.
$5.00+ gas is around the corner. DON'T BLAME ME! I voted for the other Guy!”
Please explain what the President has to do with _local_ gasoline supply problems.
I would think with your “get the government out of the way” thinking, that you’d be pleased with the actions of private industry which have caused this local run-up.
|
DriverDave
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:9,930
Points:1,376,445
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 3:33:30 PM
WSJ Op-Ed from Peggy Noonan, on the multiple scandals or whatever you wish to call them in Washington DC
This is a really good read. Her last few paragraphs are spot-on. A few other points she makes are good as well, like there is very little, if any, trust of Washington DC right now, which is a really sad commentary on the state of politics in our country. And this:
"The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.
But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department."
Sounds kinda familiar... ;-)
WSJ Op-Ed #2, by Kim Strassel
Another dead-on review of the IRS audit scandal. Obama publicly questioned some of the organizations that were subsequently audited by the IRS. Surprising? Not one bit. That sort of thing was illegal after Watergate, except Obama didn't do it behind-the-scenes, he did it in broad daylight. It's sickening to see what politics have devolved into, on both sides, in the past 4-5 years.
I can already envision what the reaction will be to these two op-eds by some.
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 2:15:20 PM
Dave – good writing and good points. I would point out that there are some delicate differences.
Account – One looking at past performances and reports it. Not normally looking to the future. Very cold types of personalities reporting facts and make their money by the number of accurate reports they produce.
Finance Analyst - One who makes predictions about future out comes based on past performance and future perditions. Usually outgoing salesmen personality that makes their money by getting new investors.
Your right how many politicians mix up looking at the past and the future and manipulate the perspective. I have work across disciplines and I find a lot of fighting on how to finance people tries to restate past history and accountants who are more conservative don’t make wild predictions about future growth.
Politicians complained about the jobs Bush created but most would love to have that kind of job creation then vs. removing people from the unemployment rolls and not counting them to make the current situation look better. There is a lot of bull being lobbed around, and the biggest right now is those democrats that are trying to justify what the IRS did, the Justice Dept. did, the State Dept. did, the ATF did and so on and so on.
[Edited by: Philo_Gray at 5/17/2013 3:18:01 PM EST]
|
DriverDave
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:9,930
Points:1,376,445
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 1:23:30 PM
On the Romney/big business talk in another thread...
Romney seems to favor an environment where companies aren't under the thumb of excessive government taxation and regulations. That doesn't mean "no taxes and no regulations", to cut off the liberals before they get revved up about that.
What's funny is how Republicans are portrayed as "for big business", while Democrats quietly line their campaign coffers and entertain lobbyists for big banks, insurance companies, health care companies, law firms, etc. Even the BIGEVILOIL© companies have about a 30/70 split between donations to D's/R's over the years according to OpenSecrets.org.
|
DriverDave
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:9,930
Points:1,376,445
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 12:40:40 PM
nru - I agree with you on the 2001 recession by definition, but the group that "sets the rules", so to speak, was the one that called it a recession.
Bush certainly had a hand in the "Great Recession", but so did Democrats, Republicans, and the Federal Reserve. Democrats wrote and revised the CRA (part of the housing bubble). Republicans spent ridiculous amounts of money while they had full control of Congress from 2003-2006 and dictated looser mortgage requirements (part of the housing bubble). Both parties passed the CMFA of 2000 and repeal of Glass-Steagall (which meant that commodities became a 'regular' investment vehicle and not constrained anymore, thus the reason speculators can and have driven the price of crude oil and gasoline to current levels). Both parties confirmed "Easy Money" Alan Greenspan and his protege, Zimbabwe Ben Bernanke. Both Fed Chairmen started and/or continue to subscribe to the asinine "easy money, easy credit, low interest rates" solution to economic growth that have fueled not one, not two, but three asset bubbles that have burst. They are more concerned about the stock market and job numbers than a strong dollar or sound fiscal policy.
I read somewhere recently that of the jobs lost during the recession which have been regained, something like 72% of them were salaried positions that have been replaced by low-wage jobs. But as long as first time unemployment claims drop and the U3 rate falls, all is well in the eyes of the Federal Reserve and Democrats, according to their statements and the liberal talking heads and blogosphere. Yet in 2005-2006, the liberal left and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi were HOWLING about how "the jobs created during the Bush administration are low-paying jobs, like fast food and other low-wage jobs". Having been unemployed for months at a time at various times from 2002 thru 2009, there are times when any job is vastly better than no job. Unfortunately, the US has become "too expensive" for most manufacturing jobs, and now even some white-collar jobs are being outsourced or eliminated. Gotta cut costs. Gotta make a profit. And personally I think you can place 1000% of the thanks for that on the f'ing scumbag stock ANALysts. They have RUINED the US corporate culture and a good chunk of our economy along with it with their insistence on profitsProfitsPROFITS!!! Screw the economy, screw the workers, screw everyone and everything else - Stock ANALysts are out for one thing and one thing only and that's themselves. For example [somewhat simplified with fictitious companies based on real-life companies]:
Company A has $8 billion in Q1 revenue and $1.5 billion in net profits. It is a solid company, it's been around for decades, produces "stuff" people use everyday, pays a quarterly dividend like clockwork, and has solid long-term growth plans - Basically, this company isn't going anywhere. But it's stock dropped 20% because quarterly revenue and profit didn't meet the stock ANALysts estimates. [Our magic crystal ball shows that the company's stock rose nearly 50% in the next 12 months and dividends increased 30% as well]
Company B has $2 billion in Q1 revenue and $200 million in net profits. It is a newer company, its revenues are very dependent on the economy, only recently started generating a profit, and doesn't have great long-term prospects due to the nature of what it does. But the stock has been going up and up for a year because "it's the hot thing", and went up 20% after Q1 revenue and profit beat (barely) stock ANALysts' estimates. [Our magic crystal ball shows that the company's stock drops 80% in the next 12 months and the company goes belly up in 2 years]
Which company would you think is a better investment? If you go by stock performance, thanks to stock ANALysts, Company B would look like the better stock. But Company A's stock is s**t on because it didn't meet the stock ANALysts expectations? Puh-leeze. Every move a corporation makes is now (and has been for 15 years) dictated by the bottom line and stock ANALyst expectations.
|
Siouxfan
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:52,049
Points:3,592,205
Joined:May 2001
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 11:35:39 AM
"Talk about talking from both sides of your mouth. How does he do it?"-Philo_Gray
That's because his mouth and his A$$ are linked by a direct force feed mechanism!
|
nru
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:1,765
Points:986,080
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 11:23:01 AM
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg
Great look at economic growth
Driver - if you look at your own numbers we were not in recession in 2001 by definition (two consecutive quarters of negative growth), although it sure felt like it. Note the -8 percent number under W, and both quarters around it. Worst dip since the Great Depression (also given to us by a republican)
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 11:17:52 AM
March 12, 2012, Last year, Chuck Schumer, along with Democratic Senitors … and AL FRANKEN, penned a letter calling on the agency to cap the amount of the political spending by groups masquerading as “social welfare organizations.” The senators promised legislation if the IRS failed to act to fix these problems. I checked, and MR. FRANKEN still stands behind his letter of March 2012. Also he believes that the IRS should not single out groups for their political opinion.
Talk about talking from both sides of your mouth. How does he do it?
[Edited by: Philo_Gray at 5/17/2013 12:19:50 PM EST]
|
djvang
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:30,386
Points:4,230,390
Joined:May 2001
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 3:44:59 PM
"While there was a fair amount of Bush bashing, I think the conservatives have taken it to a whole different level, spurred on by the explosion of bloggers and the right wing spin machine (yeah, as opposed to the so-called "main stream media" spin machine)."
Zim - We're obviously looking at it from different political views so I view the left spin machine and bloggers as every bit as bad, if not worse, as those on the right. For those who rail about Fox, try spending a night watching MSNBC and you'll know what I mean. Pot. Kettle. But no one will EVER agree that their side behaves just as bad as those on the other side. It just depends on whose ox is being gored.
|
sleepyhollowtoo
Sophomore Author
Twin Cities
Posts:125
Points:27,975
Joined:Feb 2012
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 2:43:42 PM
Can't we all just take a deep breath and enjoy the sequester? It seems to be working quite well. It seems the less accomplished by our local/national elected representatives, the better the state/country seems to run.
|
DriverDave
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:9,930
Points:1,376,445
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 11:10:32 AM
nru - "W had little to blame on Clinton - great economy, balanced budget....". I respectfully disagree. The "balanced budget" is smoke-and-mirrors - Federal revenue did exceed federal spending, but when combined with intergovernmental borrowing [which is part of the overall US debt equation] total federal debt continued to increase. Total Gross federal debt:
1998: $5.478 trillion
1999: $5.605 trillion
2000: $5.628 trillion
2001: $5.769 trillion
Maybe it's just my definition of a "balanced budget", but if your debt level increases after all your revenues and spending is totaled up, you don't have a balanced budget. But putting that aside, even if you want to claim a "balanced budget", it falls in the lap of the Republicans, since they held the majority in the US House where all spending bills originate.
And since I'm apparently something of a "right wing extremist nut job", allow me to again shatter that myth. Pres. Clinton was both lucky and smart - Lucky in that he was the beneficiary of a once-in-a-lifetime economic event, the Dot-Com Boom, and smart as he moved towards the center when Republicans gained a majority in the House after the '94 elections and was able to work with Republicans and agree on some big issues, like welfare reform (since gutted by Obama). Pres. Bush didn't do anything similar until well into his 2nd term, which was far too late IMHO. But Pres. Obama has yet to show he has even a thimble-full of the political smarts of Clinton. The amount of perceived "right-wing spin" doesn't hold a candle to the Obama spin machine. The uncovering of more and more information around Benghazi (that is placing the bulls-eye awfully close to the White House) and IRS audit scandal are just "politically motivated by Republicans to get more campaign donations"? $4 billion per year in tax credits to oil companies is just OUTRAGEOUS and they MUST be removed, but Republican questioning of $500+ billion in loan guarantees to shaky/failing/failed "green energy" companies is unwarranted, political, and them "looking out" for the BIGEVILOIL© companies? How can any intelligent person openly and completely buy into the kind of spin coming from the White House? I have NO LOVE for 95% of Republicans in Congress and I can't stand most of their spin!!!
And according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001. How did Bush "drive the bus into the ditch" after less than 2 months in office?
US Quarterly GDP growth:
Q1 1999: 3.6%
Q2 1999: 3.2%
Q3 1999: 5.2%
Q4 1999: 7.4%
Q1 2000: 1.1%
Q2 2000: 8%
Q3 2000: 0.3%
Q4 2000: 2.4%
Q1 2001: -1.3%
Q2 2001: 2.7%
Q3 2001: -1.1%
Q4 2001: 1.4%
Not that he and the Republican majorities in Congress weren't bumbling idiots when it came to spending in his first term, but that didn't really start until 2003. The Medicare Part D is a shining example. That was a horrible bill that was shoved thru Congress and onto Bush's desk, and has cost hundreds of billions, if not a trillion dollars, more than their rosy projections. Almost as bad as the original bailouts that the Democrat majorities wanted to ram thru Congress in 2008. That's one occasion where "obstruction", by Republicans in this instance, was actually beneficial. The original bailouts would have created bigger problems and been more costly, IIRC.
Side note: Under Nancy Pelosi's "leadership", more than $5 trillion of new US government debt was added from 2007-2011, and under her "leadership" the table was set for massive future deficits due to bills like ObamaCare. Remember "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it"? Guess what was Team Obama's #1 post-election priority? To formulate a plan to retake the US House majority in the 2014 mid-term elections and reinstall Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. *shudder* Then Obama can have his last 2 years as President be "productive" with no restraints on spending because his agenda could be rubber-stamped in the House and Senate and wouldn't be encumbered by those COLDUNCARINGEVILOBSTRUCTIONIST© Republicans.
I don't care if a person is a Democrat, Republican, moderate, liberal, conservative, etc. - If someone says things like "We have to pass the [2000 page] bill to know what's in it", and add over $5 trillion in new debt under their "leadership", I WILL OPPOSE THAT PERSON, THAT PARTY, AND THAT AGENDA ANY WAY I CAN. End of story. Look, anyone can see that Republican spending from 2003-2006 was bad, and I was opposed to most of it at the time. And I admit that I didn't honestly think Democrats could ever be *that* bad. But those Republicans were made to look like amateurs compared to Democrats in Congress lead by Pelosi & Reid from 2007-2011.
Truth is not dead, but you won't find it if you search with an emotional paradigm.
|
TornadoRed
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:1,846
Points:713,895
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 10:16:39 AM
nru posted: "Tornado - seem that W had little to blame on Clinton - great economy, balanced budget.... he drove the bus into the ditch"
Have you forgotten the recession that began during the 2000 campaign, or the one that occurred following the attacks of September 11 2001?
Or was the economy then, even during a recession, great compared to an Obama recovery? (Answer: yes)
It seems that Obama has stopped blaming all of his problems on George W Bush. Recently he told a group of Hollywood donors that Rush Limbaugh is the reason why he can't get anything done.
Many Americans would happily return to the terrible times when George W Bush was president, when we had a president who actually tried to fix problems instead of just giving speeches about them.
|
Zimcity
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:65,430
Points:3,694,710
Joined:Aug 2001
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 9:45:09 AM
"Change "Obama" to "Bush" and "cons" to "libs" and that post perfectly describes the behavior out here during the Bush administration"
While there was a fair amount of Bush bashing, I think the conservatives have taken it to a whole different level, spurred on by the explosion of bloggers and the right wing spin machine (yeah, as opposed to the so-called "main stream media" spin machine).
But you are correct, nobody seems interested or capable of having an intelligent discussion on the matter.
As I've said before Truth is dead.
[Edited by: Zimcity at 5/16/2013 10:49:22 AM EST]
|
djvang
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:30,386
Points:4,230,390
Joined:May 2001
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 9:36:31 AM
"In summary, Obama sucks and I hate him, such verbosity when one sentence would suffice.
But nice rant. You'd fit in well with all the cons losing their flipping minds in the US Politics category, DD. Check it out some time and you'll find lots of like minded screeds."
Zim - Change "Obama" to "Bush" and "cons" to "libs" and that post perfectly describes the behavior out here during the Bush administration. It's just blatant hypocrisy from both sides. I've found that it's really pointless to discuss politics out here for any length of time because most people just blindly circle the wagons around their side, dismiss any criticism of their side as hatred, and then accuse those they disagree with of the exact behavior they engage in. There's plenty of reason for legitimate criticsm of both sides but that quickly disappears the heat of the "battle". It's always the other side who's playing politics, the other side who's slanted, the other side who's lying.
It's just not worth the time.
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 9:24:50 AM
If I am hearing this right Obama will only take 2 questions today at his press conference. I was one of the reporters asking 1 questions I would do it like the IRS does. Ask it with 15 sub-parts.
|
nru
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:1,765
Points:986,080
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 9:03:23 AM
Tornado - seem that W had little to blame on Clinton - great economy, balanced budget.... he drove the bus into the ditch
|
Siouxfan
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:52,049
Points:3,592,205
Joined:May 2001
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 5:58:08 AM
The first scapegoat in the IRS scandal has been lobbed under the bus, convienently only a couple weeks prior to his leaving anyway.
He took the post in November (after the targeting of the opposition started)and was planning on leaving in early June. Who's next, the janitor who removed the trash last night?
|
TornadoRed
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:1,846
Points:713,895
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 11:53:24 PM
Mr Obama is supposedly very intelligent and highly competent. His predecessor was often lampooned as neither intelligent or competent.
But George W Bush actually tried to keep track of what was going on in his administration, even though this meant starting his workdays when most of us are still asleep. He tried but failed to accomplish some of his highest-priority goals; but he did not blame Bill Clinton, or the opposition media, and he never publicly criticized individual Democrat politicians or Supreme Court justices. And he never tried to pin the blame for failures on low-level persons with no real power, or on innocent parties.
And, George W Bush never had to make excuses for failing to do all that could be done to help Americans in distress. Even when he was blamed for the broken levies in New Orleans, or the lawlessness in that city, he never pointed fingers at the governor of Louisiana or the mayor of New Orleans -- who actually were in charge of the first-responders, and did not do the jobs they were elected to perform.
Either Barack Obama is not nearly as intelligent as his flacks have told us he is, or not nearly as competent as he claims to be. But when he appoints people to run the IRS, or the Justice Department, or the State Department, or the Department of HHS, or the EPA -- and when those people screw up -- it is because he did not bother to make sure they were doing their jobs properly.
His promises "to get to the bottom of this", and "to find out what happened", ring false. Eight months later we're still waiting for him to tell the American people about Benghazi. Two years later we're still waiting to find out why guns were transported across the border to Mexican drug gangs. Now this IRS thing -- does anyone think he wants the whole truth to come out?
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 5:34:20 PM
Obama just finished his press conference, but no questions. He said he would take questions tomorrow. That press conference is with the Turkish prime minister. I bet Obama’s answer’s will also be in Turkish.
|
Zimcity
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:65,430
Points:3,694,710
Joined:Aug 2001
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 4:20:06 PM
DD: "You apparently have no desire to engage in an intelligent political discussion, so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time trying to respond."
You're close. I don't have MUCH desire to engage in a political discussion, intelligent or otherwise, with someone who leads with such a clearly slanted point of view. History has proven there's little hope of finding any common ground or anybody learning anything new.
We can start with the AP bugging and the IRS thing doesn't look very good either, and I agree his whole "didn't hear about it, until recently" attitude is ridiculous. To your comment:
"The mainstream media has for the most part brushed off, excused, and blatantly ignored his antics and actions for the past 5 years."
To me the right wing politico-propaganda-entertainment machine has for the most part lambasted, ridiculed, and blatantly lied about his policies and administration for the past 5 years.
You guys have cried wolf and SCANDAL over so many things for so many years, it's hard to imagine there's actually something worth listening to. The sheer desperation since the election seems to be coming to a crescendo now, just in time to hamstring Obama's 2nd term with constant distractions of pesky investigations.
|
DriverDave
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:9,930
Points:1,376,445
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 3:51:03 PM
Zim - No thanks, I ran away from that cesspool years ago. And I don't hate Obama - hate is reserved for select people, like the 9/11 hijackers and OBL.
That's the last thing I have with regards to your comments. You apparently have no desire to engage in an intelligent political discussion, so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time trying to respond.
There's more being unearthed around this IRS audit scandal. Like groups with left-leaning political affiliations (or with "Obama" in their name) almost literally sailing thru the tax-exempt non-profit application process in a month without a single question. But right-leaning groups' applications would take 9 months with intense scrutiny. And we're being told this was all the fault of "low-level employees"? They are honestly trying to have us believe that some low-level IRS monkeys deliberately flipped the proverbial bird to their superiors, as well as the President, and went off and did this on their own? B as in B, S as in S.
There's also been a class action lawsuit filed against the IRS for allegedly improperly accessing and stealing the health care records of 10 million Americans. Source. There may not be anything to this, but with all the other activities being uncovered, one has to wonder...
And then there's the Justice Department, which secretly collected phone records of several Associated Press reporters trying to "uncover a leak". For those on the left, here's an
NPR article on it, just so you can see it's not just some "Fox News wing nut conspiracy".
Curiously, yesterday Obama said the IRS is an 'independent' agency. Well, it is, as long as you ignore the fact that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, which is overseen by the Treasury Secretary, who reports directly to Obama. Again - Everything Obama says is carefully orchestrated. He's trying to run away from this as fast as he can, just like a petty thief who runs away after robbing the corner convenience store - They both don't want to get caught.
The stink around Washington DC and Obama is really starting to rise. Someone should remind the President how well abusing authority and using the IRS for politically-motivated purposes worked out for Tricky Dick Nixon.
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 3:39:27 PM
Well said Driver Dave. ZimCity you might not be respectful but your honest. I will be respectful. BUT here is something totally irrespectful!!!
"Julian Bond, with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said during a Tuesday interview on MSNBC that it’s only right and just that the federal government and the IRS target tea party groups.
Tea party groups are, after all, “overtly racist” and the “Taliban wing of American politics,” Mr. Bond said..."
FALSE, LIES, UNTRUE
I was put to task once for comparing the persecution of the rich (and taxing them more) and how we marginalize them to the Nazis and talking about "First they came after the .... But I was not ...." statement from pastor Martin Niemöller.
But who is persecuting who here? I am not a racist, and I am not saying that Obama is a bad because he is black, rather he is a BAD president that is black and Julian Bond does not serve anyone with is reverse racist statements.
|
Zimcity
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:65,430
Points:3,694,710
Joined:Aug 2001
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 1:43:07 PM
In summary, Obama sucks and I hate him, such verbosity when one sentence would suffice.
But nice rant. You'd fit in well with all the cons losing their flipping minds in the US Politics category, DD. Check it out some time and you'll find lots of like minded screeds.
[Edited by: Zimcity at 5/15/2013 2:48:44 PM EST]
|
DriverDave
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:9,930
Points:1,376,445
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 1:03:16 PM
Op-ed time. Buckle up, because I guarantee many readers aren't going to like it, and that's 100% OK. I am conservative, yet also pragmatic for the most part, but fans of President Obama should probably skip this post because you'll probably be offended by having some hard reality thrown in your face. You have been warned.
I think it would be safe to say that every President of the United States has "acted Presidential", at least prior to Barack Obama. Here's what I've seen more and more lately - He tries to "sound Presidential", but never actually acts like it. He spews out a couple of well-rehearsed, pre-scripted lines of "tough talk" in news conferences about situations like Syria's chemical weapons, the IRS audit scandal, Benghazi-gate, et al. But the problem I see is that he never, ever actually ACTS like a President, at least in how we've grown accustomed to a President acting. He doesn't take decisive action. He doesn't take the bull by the horns. He's not interested in the general welfare of the United States, only the general welfare of those who contribute sizable sums of money to his campaign coffers. He likes to throw out lines like, "I'm responsible in the end", but it's crap. How many times has he blamed Bush for this, or said "I inherited" that? Instead of being a man and accepting the hand he was dealt, he whines like a petulant child. He marginalizes any questioning or opposing viewpoint/opinion, plus he demeans anyone that even attempts to question him. He's not much more than a schmoozer, kissing the a** of each and every media member who worships him and couldn't think of a bad thing to say about him if they tried. I think he honestly believes that people will believe whatever he says (his false "cult of personality"), and from that he feels that he can say whatever he wants because he'll just change the focus a few days later so that he never has to actually take action on those words. His handlers and speechwriters carefully craft 99% of what he says based solely on politics and polling, and require him to read speeches word-for-word from teleprompters. And the 1% of the time when he'll actually speak his mind he comes off like the biggest socialist pig America's seen in decades.
The mainstream media has for the most part brushed off, excused, and blatantly ignored his antics and actions for the past 5 years. Analysis of his voting record while Candidate Obama (one of the most liberal members of Congress) was non-existent by the mainstream media. Looking into his past associations and affiliates was ignored as "unimportant" or "ancient history". He can lie during press conferences and no one cares enough to fact-check it, mostly because I believe they are afraid to. For example - Benghazi. 12 revisions of the story before an official statement was made, and ABC News has the e-mails where the White House reviewed them!!! But since it's been 6+ months he calls it "political motivations" if anyone brings it up. Americans and American soldiers died in Benghazi because of HIS arrogance, HIS hyper-inflated hubris, and HIS inaction. That story needs to be told repeatedly until he owns up to it. The official White House story is just that - a story, and it's so full of holes you could drive a truck thru it. And while I am loathe to even bring this up, and I've given him the benefit of the doubt on this subject, I think it's been shown that there are enough inconsistencies and questions about his country of birth to warrant a truly independent investigation to prove it one way or another, once and for all. The ramifications of it being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama was not born in America are so large that I cannot even begin to fathom the fallout. Now, imagine for a moment if George W. Bush acted in this manner during his 2 terms in office. The mainstream media and the liberal left would have had a collective MI by mid-2003, and I think it's highly likely that they would have tried to impeach him.
It's rather disgusting for me to even think that any President of the United States would act in a manner such as what I've described above, but sadly that disgust is proven to be valid each and every time the Oval Office Seat-Warmer-In-Chief opens his mouth. And if you couldn't already guess, I have absolutely zero respect for President Obama. The respect I did have for him, simply because he is the President of the United States and I respect the office if nothing else, fell off the radar due to his words and constant blaming of everything bad on everyone else about 2 months he was sworn into office in 2009, and it continues to this day. No one has treated the office of President of the United States as poorly as he has and does. He uses it as his personal bully pulpit to get his way, to get whatever he wants. Why he does this is beyond me, perhaps he has some chip on his shoulder as a result of listening to Reverend Wright spew his hate speech week in and week out for 20 years. He is a petty, thin-skinned, and vindictive man, and those are qualities that don't belong in the White House. Ever.
|
DriverDave
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:9,930
Points:1,376,445
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 12:58:54 PM
"Jay Carney is trying to indicate they (the white-house) has no knowledge of what the Justice Dept, IRS, or others are doing until their IS an official report."
I guess that means the White House doesn't know what the State Department, a Cabinet-level department, is doing? After all, the person who directed some of the 12 revisions of the "official" Benghazi statement was the State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland. What even more stunning, more SHOCKING, is that ABC News already did the work and showed some journalistic integrity by blowing the doors off of the BS being spewed by Lyin' Jay Carney and the male seat-warmer currently occupying the President's chair in the Oval Office. The White House knew about and reviewed the revisions, according to White House e-mails obtained by ABC News.
Does anyone seriously wonder why there is an already-large and now-growing level of distrust among the American people of politicians in Washington DC, the federal government and it's innumerable arms and agencies, and the White House??? Newsflash - Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were impeached for this exact same thing, and Nixon resigned to boot. I'd want Obama to do the honorable thing and follow in Nixon's footsteps, except then we'd have President Biden! O.O *shudder* God help us all if that were to EVER happen...
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 12:20:20 PM
I though what the definition of "is", is?
Jay Carney is trying to indicate they (the white-house) has no knowledge of what the Justice Dept, IRS, or others are doing until their IS an official report.
IS not the IRS Official statement, justice dept. statement, and other whistleblower that were in Benghazi IS not an official enough for them.
|
nru
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:1,765
Points:986,080
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 10:39:36 AM
Depends on the meaning of "sex" Philo. He should have just said none of your beeswax
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 8:54:21 AM
Obama sounded like he was saying "I did not have sex with that woman". We all know how true that was.
|
Siouxfan
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:52,049
Points:3,592,205
Joined:May 2001
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 5:49:23 AM
I heard the outrage in obama's voice as he read off the teleprompter that he was outraged.
He needs better acting classes, because he is doing a $#!TTY job acting like a president.
|
nru
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:1,765
Points:986,080
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 6:59:02 PM
Looks like DOJ has been "reviewing"(???) the phone calls of the Associated Press as well. Are we off on another Nixon?
|
DriverDave
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:9,930
Points:1,376,445
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 12:43:54 PM
Siouxfan - "Where is this country really going?" If Obama and his ilk get their way, right down the toilet and into a socialist paradise.
"He's not a socialist!" you say? Do you know how a frog reacts if you try to drop one into a pot of hot water? It tries to hop out. But if you put it in a pot of room temperature water, it just swims around happily. Obama's just like a pot of room temperature water (aka. his policies and agenda) surrounding a frog (aka. US citizens) is dropped into... slowly rising a degree or two at a time... You never even notice the changes until it's too late.
Obama is shocked... SHOCKED, I tell you... that the IRS was targeting conservative groups with extra auditory scrutiny. But he had nothing to do with it, nor did anyone in his administration. Remember, Obama's administration is the "most transparent" in history. (wink wink) Transparent in that you can see right thru their BS, perhaps...
[Edited by: DriverDave at 5/13/2013 1:44:39 PM EST]
|
Siouxfan
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:52,049
Points:3,592,205
Joined:May 2001
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 6:39:44 AM
Looks like we will need to fit the IRS with brownshirts. Targeting the opposition for extra scrutiny.
Homeland security is buying all the ammo.
Where is this country really going?
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 8:55:33 PM
If those street gang were not smart. Instead of targeting american flag owners a much easier thing to do is check the internet. You can find out a lot about people, were they live, what political causes they support (NRA or gun control. The IRS does a better job of targeting conservative groups then those gangs targeting gun owners.
|
nru
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:1,765
Points:986,080
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 3:09:15 PM
Philo - DI is just telling you what the FBI and police are saying, and in a non-erudite manner so that us regular folk can understand it. I know a couple of FBI agents, and they tell me the same thing - I own firearms, but keep them under lock and key - if I don't have the wits to get the key, I should not be using it. Too many people think a 4 hour course in firearms safety or running a box or two of ammo through a gun makes them proficient - at Aberdeen you need a minimum or 20K rounds to even be considered, and I have done much more than that, and still take the things seriously enough I will not keep a loaded weapon in the house. Not would I put a sticker up to notify others that I have one.
[Edited by: nru at 5/11/2013 4:10:17 PM EST]
|
Philo_Gray
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:585
Points:104,655
Joined:Jan 2013
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 1:13:55 PM
As a point I have read search warrants. They are not fact but more theories and usually request to look for things in general such as tools used in a crime which could be anything from a gun, knife, kitchen scale, cooking pots, screw drivers, or paper and pencils. If it can it will have statements from witnesses and possible motives for the crime. But still that is not anything you can base facts on.
A Greenwich Study did show homes that did not have a protection sign were more likely to have their home burglarized. If studied I am sure that homes that had a sign saying they do not have guns on the premises would be even more likely to be robbed. Have you seen any signs like that?
|
rjgimp
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:5,900
Points:1,050,620
Joined:Oct 2003
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 10:59:49 AM
"Is that like the pot calling the kettle black? :-)"-DI
It is not. There is an ocean of difference between grammatical errors and failing to construct an illustrious point.
|
nru
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:1,765
Points:986,080
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 8:43:22 AM
tornado - I don't think that was the point - he was just saying that the police and FBI say that given their knowledge of the gangs being investigated. You can take the FBI to task for it, but don't blame the messenger.
|
TornadoRed
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:1,846
Points:713,895
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 8:19:11 AM
DI: there was no corroborating information to support the claim that gang members will seek to burglarize homes where they hope to find firearms.
Obviously, if criminals acquire firearms illegally, and sometimes by theft, then obviously they are stealing from someone. But it seems more likely that the burglars are after whatever they can find, and a pistol rifle is easier to make off with than a television or other appliance.
Someone owning a single weapon for home defense is unlikely to be a target for someone who invades a house intending to steal firearms. And the person with multiple weapons is more likely to have a gun safe. So I think it more likely that the theft of a weapon is almost always a crime of opportunity -- and not the initial goal of the home invasion.
|