Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#11036 May 14, 2013
Okay, screwed up two of the links:

Brokaw and Todd on MSNBC yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#11037 May 14, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
How's living in Kentucky, home of Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul?
By all standards it's one of the most miserable states in the country, and you stand an elevated risk of getting cancer and then get sub-par medical care due to Republican policies. That's got to be worrisome.
REALLY, Chicken????? Come on, now.
There you go again: "By ALL standards". You left out: most, indisputable, etc.

Just wait until the Kentucky(ians) get Obamacare. They might as well just hang out at the local cemetary.(BTW, which Republican sub-par medical policies are you referring to specifically?)

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#11039 May 14, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
You're recycling. You've already used this one, I've already shown you what an idiot you are.
Ummm.....you want to talk about recycling? Talk to your fellow liberal socialist commie, IO. He is the Recycling Master of the Universe. You might want to clean up your own side of this thing first. Knowwattamean?

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#11040 May 14, 2013
Bored wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama on Benghazi- go ask the State Dept.
Obama on the IRS - I didn't know until friday, go ask the IRS.
Obama on the AP wiretapping - I didn't know, go ask the Justice Dept.
Obama on the White House blues- I didn't know, go ask Jay.
Clinton on Benghazi-What difference does it make.
Finger pointing just like chicken Butt.
+1 Good post. Obama is just doing a GREAT job, huh? Wonder why he didn't blame Bush?

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#11041 May 14, 2013
BS Is Called wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your point?
He has no point. All he does is cut and paste and then criticize everyone else or ride on the backs of his fellow socialist commies.

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#11042 May 14, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just waiting for all the facts to come in before jumping on a bandwagon of outrage.
Report: IRS D.C. office investigated applications for non-profit status
by Jed Lewison
TUE MAY 14, 2013 AT 06:30 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1208...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-...
Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.
IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of “social welfare” groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.
.....
In isolation, there doesn't seem anything particularly interesting about the IRS conducting a review of an application for tax-exempt non-profit status. After all, enforcement and compliance is part of their job. The question is whether it was linked to politically motivated targeting that took place in Cincinnati.
According to the groups that spoke to the Post, there was a link, but assuming they are right, it doesn't explain why the link was made. It's certainly possible that the explanation is that Washington was participating in Cincinnati's targeting. That would be disturbing, but it's also possible that when Washington worked to end what was happening in Cincinnati, they absorbed the investigative process. And, of course, it's also possible that the groups are wrong to make the link.
Even if Washington and Cincinnati were in cahoots, however, it wouldn't a smoking gun implicating the president. As The Post notes, the administration is forbidden by law from getting involved in IRS tax investigations and the agency only has two political appointments. The director during the time of the targeting was a Bush appointee.
...hopefully Congressional investigators will remember the reason the IRS is involved in investigating these groups in the first place is that under current law, the IRS—not the Federal Elections Commission—is responsible for regulating these groups. There's no justification for targeting them on the basis of political affiliation, but on the other hand, it's not like the IRS should abdicate its responsibility to enforce the law....
==========
When the IRS targeted liberals
Under George W. Bush, it went after the NAACP, Greenpeace and even a liberal church
BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 07:45 AM EDT
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_...
Would you PLEASE get chickenbutt's approval before using a link such as...SALON.COM????? What a laugh!!!!!!!!!

“Liberals are closet raaacists!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#11043 May 14, 2013
Laughing at U wrote:
<quoted text>
I may have reservations about Obama, but imagine how much more accelerated all this would be under the Bain Capital guy (I've actually forgotten the weird Mormon's name, thank goodness.)
PURELY SPECULATION. You have NO IDEA what kind of president Romney would have been. Let it go. You voted for this renegade. Live with it. You can tell yourself all day that you made the right choice, but you'll never know. All you do know is that we have a VERY ineffective non-leader whom you voted for TWICE.
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#11044 May 14, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
13 May 2012 Press Conference (cont)
Reporter: " Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask about the IRS and Benghazi.....And on Benghazi, newly public emails show that the White House and the State Department appear to have been more closely involved with the crafting of the talking points on the attack than first acknowledged. Do you think the White House misled the public about its role in shaping the talking points? And do you stand by your administration's assertions that the talking points were not purposely changed to downplay the prospects of terrorism?....
With respect to Benghazi,.... The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism....."
Oh, REALLY?
Transcript from 60 Minutes interview, 12 Sep 2012 with Steve Kroft
"Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.
Obama: Right."
======
So, which is it?
It's this:

OBAMA: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation — Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

And this:

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

And this:

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

I'm not sure why you're asking, Tea Party Aggie. You've been exposed to this information, but now you're acting as if you've never heard it.

There's no logic. It's as if the dots just don't connect for some of you witch-hunters.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#11045 May 14, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm taking it up with YOU, supply the source for the basis of YOUR charge so that others might judge the context of YOUR assessment.
My, my, we're getting a little testy, aren't we? But I guess you on the Left have been having a bad week. to put it mildly. Okay, if it makes you feel any better, precious, here are two links:
"Public Policy Polling, which conducts polls for Democratic clients as well as issues them on its own behalf, has had a Democratic “lean” so far this cycle."
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...
"The chart below reflects our model’s current estimate of the house effects for some of the more prolific polling firms.(A polling firm with a Democratic house effect tends to show better numbers for Mr. Obama than in comparable surveys, while one with a Republican house effect tends to have good numbers for Mr. Romney.)
The chart referenced showed a 3.1 "house effect" favorable to Democrats
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#11046 May 14, 2013
^^^^^^^^
should read: "The chart referenced showed a 3.1 "house effect" favorable to Democrats by the Public Policy Polling organization."
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#11047 May 14, 2013
Things ARE getting bad for the White House this week:

New charges have been levied against the Obama administration. Apparently a junior purchasing agent with the Department of Agriculture working out the Boise, ID office came back from lunch 10 minutes late yesterday. When asked about it Obama responded with "I wasn't aware of it".

Republication Congressional leaders cited the need for a Select Committee on Lunch Lateness. They want to find out exactly WHAT Obama knows and when he knew it. Rand Paul is calling for the immediate dismissal of EVERYBODY.

During the same interview the same Congressional leaders were asked about their latest legislation designed to bolster the housing market and their latest jobs bill. They responded with a blank stare.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#11048 May 14, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
OBAMA: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation — Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
Butt, butt, butt...

"An act of terror is different than a terrorist attack."
- Darrell Issa

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#11049 May 14, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
It's this:
OBAMA: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation — Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12
And this:
“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13
And this:
“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13
I'm not sure why you're asking, Tea Party Aggie. You've been exposed to this information, but now you're acting as if you've never heard it.
There's no logic. It's as if the dots just don't connect for some of you witch-hunters.
Excuse me, CB. Just quoting what the man said. In his press conference yesterday he stated that "the day after it happened, I acknowledged it was an act of terrorism...."

Kroft's interview: "Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.
Obama: Right."

Your reference to the Rose Garden speech is the very speech Kroft describes as being written to "avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack." To which, Obama agreed.

It's irrelevant, but I'll go ahead and point out that your quotes from Sept 13 are moot - Obama yesterday referred specifically to the 12th. And the wording was carefully crafted "no act of terror" - vague and could be talking about many various incidents, does not specifically call out 11 Sept 2012. Politicians are very adept at parsing words to give them as much wiggle room as possible.

On another point, you seem now be addressing me as Tea Party Aggie - not accurate, but I presume you think it is a pejorative. Wrong. I admire people who stand up for their convictions and who stand up and fight for the reputation of this country and what it has represented and what it can again. I am in complete agreement with most of their platform - so feel free to call me that if you wish, I'll take it as a compliment.
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#11050 May 14, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Butt, butt, butt...
"An act of terror is different than a terrorist attack."
- Darrell Issa
LOL!- Only to Grand Inquisitor Issa.
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#11051 May 14, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Kroft's interview: "Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.
Obama: Right."
I couldn't find a full text of the transcript. Perhaps you could point me towards it.

What I did find repeatedly was this:

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

Obama: Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#11052 May 14, 2013
Hey, My fellow Righties:
Watch out, I think the Lefties on here are losing it. They see that the Left wing media has realized that they can no longer keep covering for Obama and expect to retain any shred of credibility. Consequently, they are actually ....GASP....
covering the latest examples of incompetence/corruption/neglig ence/cover-up...(so many apt word choices) and have quit providing cover for the Obama White House. I suspect it is going to get pretty ugly on here as our little lefty posters feel abandoned by even ....MSNBC.[Did anyone see Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe yesterday - you would have sworn someone had handed her an excrement sandwich as she actually had to talk about both Benghazi and the IRS
scandal]
ChicknButt

Norcross, GA

#11053 May 14, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
On another point, you seem now be addressing me as Tea Party Aggie - not accurate, but I presume you think it is a pejorative. Wrong. I admire people who stand up for their convictions and who stand up and fight for the reputation of this country and what it has represented and what it can again. I am in complete agreement with most of their platform - so feel free to call me that if you wish, I'll take it as a compliment.
If you're saying you admire the Tea Party - I would have to remind you that the Tea Party was created in whole from the very beginning by extremely wealthy businessmen who are known to be amongst the very worst polluters on the planet. These particular individuals find "government regulations" to be troublesome for their profits, and the environmental issues of global climate change troublesome for the sale of their product.

To say you admire the Tea Party is to say that you admire the destruction of our environment for the sake of profit. It is to say that you admire the sale of our political system to the ones with the largest campaign contributions. It is to say that you admire false propaganda being spread like wildfire through our society. It is to say that you admire a wholesale attack on science and logic.

So you and I agree on this point: When I refer to your support of the Tea Party, I do mean it in a derogatory manner.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#11054 May 14, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just waiting for all the facts to come in before jumping on a bandwagon of outrage.
Report: IRS D.C. office investigated applications for non-profit status
by Jed Lewison
TUE MAY 14, 2013 AT 06:30 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1208...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-...
Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.
IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of “social welfare” groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.
.....
In isolation, there doesn't seem anything particularly interesting about the IRS conducting a review of an application for tax-exempt non-profit status. After all, enforcement and compliance is part of their job. The question is whether it was linked to politically motivated targeting that took place in Cincinnati.
According to the groups that spoke to the Post, there was a link, but assuming they are right, it doesn't explain why the link was made. It's certainly possible that the explanation is that Washington was participating in Cincinnati's targeting. That would be disturbing, but it's also possible that when Washington worked to end what was happening in Cincinnati, they absorbed the investigative process. And, of course, it's also possible that the groups are wrong to make the link.
Even if Washington and Cincinnati were in cahoots, however, it wouldn't a smoking gun implicating the president. As The Post notes, the administration is forbidden by law from getting involved in IRS tax investigations and the agency only has two political appointments. The director during the time of the targeting was a Bush appointee.
...hopefully Congressional investigators will remember the reason the IRS is involved in investigating these groups in the first place is that under current law, the IRS—not the Federal Elections Commission—is responsible for regulating these groups. There's no justification for targeting them on the basis of political affiliation, but on the other hand, it's not like the IRS should abdicate its responsibility to enforce the law....
==========
When the IRS targeted liberals
Under George W. Bush, it went after the NAACP, Greenpeace and even a liberal church
BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 07:45 AM EDT
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_...
In case you missed it: Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd -(No Right Wing here) would disagree
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#11055 May 14, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
My, my, we're getting a little testy, aren't we? But I guess you on the Left have been having a bad week. to put it mildly. Okay, if it makes you feel any better, precious, here are two links:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...
Nope, not testy, just asking for a source which you have finally supplied. Now we can compare your original statement with your source, and what we find is not surprizing and entirely predictable.

"has had a Democratic “lean” so far this cycle"

becomes

"a polling company that is described as "Democrat-leaning" "
.....
a Democratic lean this cycle is transformed into the definitive Democratic-leaning
==========
"conducts polls for Democratic clients as well as issues them on its own behalf"

becomes

"that only conducts polls for Democratic campaigns and "progressive" organizations""
.....
The original statement does not indicate that this is an all inclusive list of its clients, but you transform it into one.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
"a polling company that is described as "Democrat-leaning" and that only conducts polls for Democratic campaigns and "progressive" organizations"

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...
Public Policy Polling, which conducts polls for Democratic clients as well as issues them on its own behalf, has had a Democratic “lean” so far this cycle.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#11056 May 14, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
In case you missed it: Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd -(No Right Wing here) would disagree
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =E7fSHji6Ev4XX
Really...

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
...There's no justification for targeting them on the basis of political affiliation, but on the other hand, it's not like the IRS should abdicate its responsibility to enforce the law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 1 hr bacon hater 102,250
Election OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 4 hr Side Show 84,228
Election Who's got your vote in the Pennsylvania Attorne... (Oct '14) Sat Native Landlord 9
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Virginia's ... Fri Johnny Cristian 1
Election Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (Oct '10) Fri Huh 8,717
Election The "English is the Official Language of Oklaho... (Oct '10) Oct 18 Traveler 11,309
Election Who do you support for Governor in Wisconsin in... (Oct '10) Oct 16 Leat Cha 7,078
More from around the web