Home Non Cigar Related
Options

Time for a government house cleaning

raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
All, right, as one of the few liberals around here (at least in this particular here form) and a staunch Obama supporter, I wanted to be the first to say that I am totally disgusted with this Nixonian/JE Hoover-like enemies targeting and cover-ups going on in the executive branch.

I don't care if Obama didn't know about the IRS going after right-wing groups (in fairness, they also went after several left-wing groups as well) or the AP tapping reporters' phone lines or that embassy security in Libya was a trainwreck. The point is is that he should have known about these things as soon as they happened and put a stop to them immediately, or, at the very least, stop trying to deflect the blame to lower-level bureaucrats. It's time for him to step forward and clean house.

First, get rid of Eric Holder. I admire the man and what he's done, but between the AP stuff and mess-up on intelligence on the Boston Marathon bomber, he's no longer in control. He may not have known, and may not have been involved directly, but the buck stops with him. Get rid of him and all the wirerappers.

Next, get rid of every one of the IRS flunkies who targeted right wing groups, including the district manager. While they're at it, fire the commissioner who lied to Congress (I believe he was a Bush II appointee). If it turns out the Secretary Treasury knew about this, he should go, too.

Next, Obama needs to get rid of people on his staff who tried to cover up the Benghazi stuff.

Then Obama needs to open the floodgates to Congressional reviews, giving them everything they want, and putting every one of the people connected with these things on front of hostile GOP congressmen, who can have their day rightfully lambasting them. No fifth amendment, no "I can't recall" answers. These people need to take the hit.

And if it turns out that Obama did know about the IRS or AP stuff, he should come clean and admit it and apologize to the American people. These are not impeachable offenses; many other presidents, including Bush, Nixon and FDR did far worse. But they are damaging, to the presidency, to the government, and to the American people, and it's time for him to stop trying to shift the blame and take full responsibility for this, and then clean house publicly and institute tough new rules across the government to keep these kinds of things from happening.

Liberals rightly complained when Bush fabricated reasons for starting the Iraq War and for suspending habeus corpus and curtailing individual rights and for the endless dirty tricks played by Cheney and Carl Rove. Now that this stuff is being done by the president we supported, we (and everyone else) need to be just as vocal in our criticism.

Comments

  • Options
    BigshizzaBigshizza Posts: 15,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As the other Liberal, things don't look like they are on the up and up and Obama's quality control is a real problem. Does the left hand know what the right hand is up to? If you don't have a strong base of leadership starting with those you appoint, then you are screwed and made to look the fool.
  • Options
    webmostwebmost Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hear hear, there there, and where where too.

    Hope and change, not hype and chains

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)


  • Options
    prosspross Posts: 874 ✭✭✭
    Bigshizza:
    As the other Liberal, things don't look like they are on the up and up and Obama's quality control is a real problem. Does the left hand know what the right hand is up to? If you don't have a strong base of leadership starting with those you appoint, then you are screwed and made to look the fool.


    Unfortunately, I think that the left hand knew exactly what the right hand was doing with to regard to the IRS scandal.

  • Options
    beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    If Holder and Hillary, and Obama didn't know what was going on in any of these issues ( and I truly doubt that), they failed at their job. Period. Hey, let's hire a bunch of activists to do our dirty work and then just blame everything on them? Leaders lead, take charge, and are the first out front. These are cowards. I commend you Raisondot on you honesty.
  • Options
    perkinkeperkinke Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭
    I really don't believe that the agency heads knew what was going on, as staff to the senior elected officials of a small local government I can tell you that the departments even in a very small area (90k residents, 350 employees) can get out of hand quickly and quietly without senior leadership knowing until it's too late, and given the size of the IRS... However, there were supervisors along the line who knew and approved and their careers should be ended, such behavior is entirely unacceptable for career public servants. We serve the people, NOT the parties.

    However, each of the posters saying that the admin should have come clean the minute the behavior was known are absolutely correct. It astounds me how little people learn from past mistakes. The American public is pretty forgiving when you own up to a mistake and take measures to try and prevent a future re-occurance; but when you deny and lie? Not forgiving and we should not be (though when dimwits like Sanford get reelected I have a hard time making that argument!). Speaking of repeating past mistakes, I'm hoping Obama doesn't go down the same road as GWB whose greatest mistake was trusting the wrong people and leaving them in place far too long.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,917
    I also commend you on your honesty. I don't consider you a liberal because you can admit failure within your own party. Tons of people in both major parties cant do that. I would call you an intelligent citizen.
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    Well, I do consider myself a liberal on most things. Being a liberal or conservative doesn't mean that you have to totally defend the people who in general reflect your political viewpoint for right or wrong. If your elected official does something that does against your political philosophy (or against your own moral values, whatever those might be), then you can either call them out on it or defend them. Some liberals and moderates are saying that they're holding judgement on Obama until he starts a war or causes a recession. I don't buy that. If, either intentionally or through poor oversight, ethically bad things happen, you, as executive, need to own up to it.
  • Options
    madurofanmadurofan Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭
    Well said all around.

    This is something I've tried to pound into so many people's heads.
    raisindot:
    Being a liberal or conservative doesn't mean that you have to totally defend the people who in general reflect your political viewpoint for right or wrong.
    Blindly following a party doesn't make you loyal it makes you ignorant.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,917
    What I was really saying is that regardless of political views, you at some point are able to subjectively look into what is going on and admit there are problems. So, yes you are liberal but I just meant I see beyond that..hope that makes sense.
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    james40:
    What I was really saying is that regardless of political views, you at some point are able to subjectively look into what is going on and admit there are problems. So, yes you are liberal but I just meant I see beyond that..hope that makes sense.
    I get it. I think what you were missing in your original message was the use of the adjective "die-hard." Of which I am not. :)
  • Options
    Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I was listening to Mike Huckabee on the radio on my way home from work last night, talking on this subject, and an odd analogy came to mind. Back in the olden days, when mandatory drug testing was a new idea, die-hard conservatives, to a man, said things like "I don't have anything to hide, so why should I worry?"

    Has their thinking changed, now that it's their privacy that's being threatened?
    Perhaps a weak analogy, but how is it that cheating on your taxes is ok, and the other's not?
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    Amos Umwhat:
    I was listening to Mike Huckabee on the radio on my way home from work last night, talking on this subject, and an odd analogy came to mind. Back in the olden days, when mandatory drug testing was a new idea, die-hard conservatives, to a man, said things like "I don't have anything to hide, so why should I worry?"

    Has their thinking changed, now that it's their privacy that's being threatened?
    Perhaps a weak analogy, but how is it that cheating on your taxes is ok, and the other's not?
    My guess is that those conservatives who didn't object to drug testing didn't do the kinds of drugs that were likely to get them fired from their jobs, and they felt that those were likely to get fired were those on the opposite side of the political spectrum (i.e., the loony left-wing potheads). I also would guess that since drug testing was conducted primarily by businesses, and since conservatives in general believe that business should be able to conduct their own human resource policies without interference from the government, that these conservatives wouldn't go on the record as opposing a business practice. For the same reason, I don't think you hear many conservatives complaining about businesses monitoring employees' on the job web site, phone and email activities. (Even a liberal like me believes that businesses do have the right to conduct drug testing and to monitor online activities at work. I don't like it, but I see that they have the right).

    As for the tax cheating thing, the IRS witch-hunt wasn't about finding tax cheaters; it was about targeting certain kinds of nonprofit groups to see if their mission and financial practices (including fundraising and administrative expenses) were being conducted "for the public good" (which is essentially the high-level description of a public charity, widely open to interpretation). There's nothing wrong with the IRS scrutinizing nonprofits; there have been thousands of cases of charities set up solely as tax shelters, money laundering pits and employment centers for otherwise unemployable children. What's wrong in this case is that the IRS targeted certain groups based solely on their political affiliation.
  • Options
    phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    This whole thing is a bunch of BS. I mean where was all this type of scrutiny when Bush invaded Iraq and it was a lie? Where was this type of thing after 9-11 when the greatest terror attack this country ever saw happened and there were dozens of reports (maybe more) about such an attack, even a day or so before from our agencies and abroad? Where was this type of BS when Osama escaped? Where was this type of crap when dozens of embassy's were attacked? Where was all of this? NOWHERE! Why, well the dems are ***'s and they don't like to attack.

    The GOP has one thing they are good at, that is divert attention and attack. They can't govern. Now imagine if Obama had done all these things (and it's a short list)? I mean they want to impeach him over he wasn't born here (was does that tell you?). Now the Benghazi thing and this irs thing and now it's a nixon-esque thing. WTF?!

    Sure it looks bad but hardly as bad as we have seen before. And it is so hard to believe that POTUS would not know everything about little things? I mean that is why you have heads of an agency. I don't think IRS mandates are on the top of Obama's list. And if it does turn out that he ordered it, well why? And to what level. The GOP are just trying to divert, just like they always do. And the media here is crappy, I mean hell they don't cover real stories instead they just fish for crap. Sure I have many issues with the dems and obama and holder blows ass.
  • Options
    beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    phobicsquirrel:
    This whole thing is a bunch of BS. I mean where was all this type of scrutiny when Bush invaded Iraq and it was a lie? Where was this type of thing after 9-11 when the greatest terror attack this country ever saw happened and there were dozens of reports (maybe more) about such an attack, even a day or so before from our agencies and abroad? Where was this type of BS when Osama escaped? Where was this type of crap when dozens of embassy's were attacked? Where was all of this? NOWHERE! Why, well the dems are ***'s and they don't like to attack.

    The GOP has one thing they are good at, that is divert attention and attack. They can't govern. Now imagine if Obama had done all these things (and it's a short list)? I mean they want to impeach him over he wasn't born here (was does that tell you?). Now the Benghazi thing and this irs thing and now it's a nixon-esque thing. WTF?!

    Sure it looks bad but hardly as bad as we have seen before. And it is so hard to believe that POTUS would not know everything about little things? I mean that is why you have heads of an agency. I don't think IRS mandates are on the top of Obama's list. And if it does turn out that he ordered it, well why? And to what level. The GOP are just trying to divert, just like they always do. And the media here is crappy, I mean hell they don't cover real stories instead they just fish for crap. Sure I have many issues with the dems and obama and holder blows ass.
    Yes, I agree. The shoe is on the other foot. LMAO. Remember Abu Graebe (sp)?, Valerie Plame?, Weapons of mass destruction?, Mission Accomplished?, Gitmo?, Scooter Libby? The opposition and media were alive and well then also. You have a short memory. Deal with it.
  • Options
    phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    raisindot:
    Now that this stuff is being done by the president we supported, we (and everyone else) need to be just as vocal in our criticism.
    Yeah that is was really pisses me off. Nothing as really been scaled back. Hell the patriot act got re-authorized and obama and his henchman let the big banks go with a pat on the back. I really thing the only way real change will happen is if the economy collapses like it did during the early 1900's. I hope another war doesn't start though.
  • Options
    AVJimAVJim Posts: 449
    phobicsquirrel:
    raisindot:
    Now that this stuff is being done by the president we supported, we (and everyone else) need to be just as vocal in our criticism.
    Yeah that is was really pisses me off. Nothing as really been scaled back. Hell the patriot act got re-authorized and obama and his henchman let the big banks go with a pat on the back. I really thing the only way real change will happen is if the economy collapses like it did during the early 1900's. I hope another war doesn't start though.

    scary times brothers......
    "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member"
  • Options
    Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Y'know, if you think about it, the vast majority of the Super-Pacs and so called "Dark Money", money that's sifted through numerous sources before influencing the elections, is "Conservative". So, if the vast majority of inquiry was into conservative organizations, the IRS was doing its job. Wasn't it?
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • Options
    webmostwebmost Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not in the least, Amos. If you think about it, the biggest PACs are unions looking for favoritism, hence hardly conservative. In fact, it was unions which invented the PAC as a response to legislation preventing them from direct contributions. I think that was in FDR's time. I'd have to look it up. Clinton got 112 mil from unions and promptly freed up pension funds to be used as operating capital, which funds previously had to be kept separate. Your Big O got beaucoup bucks from the UAW and promptly bailed bankrupt GM. These guys don't care about ideology. It's just that the Left will play with them.

    Likewise, the Right plays with those who think abortion akin to infanticide. If liberals were only as protective of unborn babies as they are of perverts, they'd be welcome to anti-abortion PAC money. Likewise, if they were as protective of "the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed", which IS in the Constitution as they are of "separation of church and state" which is NOT then the NRA would be in their pocket in a twinkle. There are tons of PACs whose only concern is one particular issue. It's about the issue; not about right or left.

    Tons of other PACs are industries trying to ameliorate the myriad of regulations strangling free commerce in our fascist economy. An apt example would be the Cigar Association of America.

    Tons of other PACs are pro-actively shaping the fascist landscape. Health insurance and big pharma distributed hundreds of millions to anyone who would take it, on both sides, in return for writing a health bill so massive and convoluted that "we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it."

    The corrosive influence of political action committees is a miserable result of over-reaching government. In this sense, it is the direct result of liberal policies over the years which have relentlessly expanded the role of government over every conceivable facet of our lives. If the Left didn't keep entrusting government with more and more responsibilities, there would be no need for PACs. The PAC is legalized bribery. No wonder. Influence peddling, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement inevitably result when government is entrusted to do far too much. Power corrupts. Less power corrupts less; more power more. The leopard does not change his spots. It's not all going to be different in the modern era any more than it was different when the past was the modern era. Leaders with charisma only make it worse.

    You cannot have good government; you can only have less government.

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)


  • Options
    Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Labor being the biggest PAC force is a common misconception, Corporations spent 2.6 Billion vs Labors 117 million, that's 15:1 corp over labor. Not what yhe corporation are paying to have us believe, quite a load of corporate propaganda, isn't it? Pretty much agree with the rest of what you said, thougfh.

    There's more, but this one-handed typing sucks! Getting a little shaky, we'll talk more later.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • Options
    webmostwebmost Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Oh that's all over the map, dude. You've got greenies seeking solar subsidy, carbonanzas seeking oil subsidy, Lockheed and Boeing vying for a contract, a million struggling companies looking for a million tax breaks or regulation easements for everything from Windows OS to corn dogs, stock swindlers too big to fail, banksters too big to jail... one specific issue after another, the list is endless. Do not lump them all together. Which individual one of them gave as much as the AFL-CIO or the UAW? Big pharma and health insurance ladled out 120 mil, they say, to ensure the passage of Obamacare. Other than that, small beans each. The total of all this, plus compliance, plus collection costs, plus waste, doubles or triples the actual expense of getting anything useful done by government. Before you can patch the pothole in front of your door you have to build a bridge to nowhere.

    I dunno. You have to be a full time unemployed tinfoil hat blogger to keep up with half of it. This much for certain: It's the Left always wants to enhance the power of government; and it is power which corrupts. PACs are just legalized bribery.

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)


  • Options
    Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
    webmost:
    Oh that's all over the map, dude. You've got greenies seeking solar subsidy, carbonanzas seeking oil subsidy, Lockheed and Boeing vying for a contract, a million struggling companies looking for a million tax breaks or regulation easements for everything from Windows OS to corn dogs, stock swindlers too big to fail, banksters too big to jail... one specific issue after another, the list is endless. Do not lump them all together. Which individual one of them gave as much as the AFL-CIO or the UAW? Big pharma and health insurance ladled out 120 mil, they say, to ensure the passage of Obamacare. Other than that, small beans each. The total of all this, plus compliance, plus collection costs, plus waste, doubles or triples the actual expense of getting anything useful done by government. Before you can patch the pothole in front of your door you have to build a bridge to nowhere.

    I dunno. You have to be a full time unemployed tinfoil hat blogger to keep up with half of it. This much for certain: It's the Left always wants to enhance the power of government; and it is power which corrupts. PACs are just legalized bribery.

    +1, or more, I'd say you nailed it. Either way it goes, I'm screwed into a govt with little interest in representing me & you, and we're paying for all that nonsense. Squirrel was reight about the Repub's diversionary tactics, but we all know that they're only one of the major players in that game.
    Love the tin-foil hat image, I've actually met a few. Really, in th ears, belt, it's something to think they might be out there on a keyboard
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • Options
    raisindotraisindot Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭
    webmost:


    It's the Left always wants to enhance the power of government; and it is power which corrupts. PACs are just legalized bribery.

    Oh, I agree with. Those terrible 13th, 14th and 15th amendments that kept people from owning slaves and outlawed states from disenfranchising voters due to their color. What were those leftist Republicans thinking in 1866? Oh, and those terrible government laws requiring slaughterhouses to adopt minimum health standards so people wouldn't be poisoned? What was that left-wing Republican Teddy Roosevelt thinking? Oh, all those horrible Clean Air Acts that removed corporations' free reign to pollute the air, dump toxic chemicals into public waterways, and rape public lands? What was that notorious left-wing loony Richard Nixon thinking when he signed these laws?

    Oh, and that idiot Woodrow Wilson! What was he and those leftists on Congress who authorized him to arrest and hold suspected communists without due process of law thinking when they passed the 19th amendement, which took away the rights of states and local governments to keep women from voting? A pure overreach of federal power!

    And, man, that Lyndon Johnson! Who would have thought a man who was a bigot and in the pocket of the oil industry and one of the most adamant opposers or civil rights for most of this political career would extend the overreach of the federal government to prevent states from discriminating, lynching, and denying voting rights to black? What terrible overreaching of federal power! Why, I bet if you ask any black man in the south he'd just love to live under Jim Crow again.

    And let's look at that loony liberal Bill Clinton. What was he thinking when he totally gutted the laws governing brokers and banks, allowing them to turn the U.S. economy into their own Ponzi schemes? Boy, look at all the good that total laissez-faire did for this country. So good that even Obama didn't enact any kind of meaningful controls to prevent this kind of chicanry in the Dodd-Franklin Act, as we've seen over and over with the big banks losing billions of dollars in hedging plays.

    Oh, and wait, what about that looney liberal Bill Clinton also signing the Defense of Marriage Act, an obvious overreach of federal power designed to prevent gay marriage, which was totally opposed by all conservatives who didn't want the government meddling in the ability for committed couples to marry--oh, wait, there was no protest, was there.

    But wait--what about that notorious left wing liberal, George W. Bush, who, after sleepwalking through events leading to 9/11 created the largest and ominous non-military bureacracy in history, the Dept. of Homeland Security, and gave it unprecedented powers to monitor your phone calls, internet usage, library books, purchases and arrest anyone they think is a terrorist and keep them locked up indefinitely with no habeus corpus or due process? Yes, there was SUCH complaining from conservatives during that timeframe, wasn't there? Oh wait--there was barely a peep from conservatives at all.

    Oh, wait, what about all those looney leftist right-to-lifers who want the government to outlaw a woman's right to choose? Wow, what a huge overreach of government power!

    I just love sparring witcha, Davis, even if all of it leads absolutely nowhere!
  • Options
    Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I finally got a chance to catch up on some of the facts. If what's said is anywhere near true, they were just wrong at so many levels. Ever notice how when something like this happens, it comes from "the lower levels"? Probably the janitors idea. ;)
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • Options
    phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    Amos Umwhat:
    I finally got a chance to catch up on some of the facts. If what's said is anywhere near true, they were just wrong at so many levels. Ever notice how when something like this happens, it comes from "the lower levels"? Probably the janitors idea. ;)
    Isn't that something! I mean really unless you pissed off the "circle" and your high up you are not touchable. Though every now and again one has to be thrown to the wolves but usually it's the underlings that get it. See I think that if more of the people who actually order or are in charge of something that is illegal go to jail for longer than say someone smoke weed then things might stop or at least be less likely. Though that hasn't happened for a long time.

    Bernie Madoff was one but he pissed off a lot of other rich people so he made that mistake, thus pissing off the inner circle. Now chances are if he was doing it to little folk like me maybe a wrist slapping. The abu grave things come to mind. I mean why was the pfc and privates sent to jail? Shouldn't it have been say their commanders or maybe even bush/other officials? I mean sure the little guys were doing bad things but they were allowed too and torture was being done cuz of the top allowing it. Just as an example.

    I personally think that anyone who orders or does things illegal should be brought to justice. Many people in the Bush admin comes to mind but also in the Obama admin as well. Even before them. Just because you are the POTUS or VPOTUS or secretary of state or what have you, you are not above the law. And thus is our problem. Drone attacks, gitmo, patriot act, all these things are in violation of our constitution and they should be taken care of (drones maybe not in violation, but they are wrong - the attacks anyway). I just find it funny how the right, more than the left make a circus out of silly things that as of right now has no evidence, just speculation.
Sign In or Register to comment.