ObamaCare Put Off Until After Election - How Convenient

[napfirst]

Like i care what you think either....

 

Like i care what you think either....

You answered didn't you?....it's so easy to pull your chain.....

[Langston Hughes]

You answered didn't you?....it's so easy to pull your chain.....

 

Well, if that's what your here for...

 

Even you have to admit that this is some stupid officer shit, that is unless you were a an officer then you'd probably have drunk the koolaid like GM.

 

Langston, if you had a commanding officer, I have no doubt he'd be disappointed to find out you're an Obama cheerleader

 

Like I ever gave a fuck what any of my commanding officers were disappointed in. I did my time, made friends and got out. I went to earn college money and left with it.

[napfirst]

Well, if that's what your here for...

 

Even you have to admit that this is some stupid officer shit, that is unless you were a an officer then you'd probably have drunk the koolaid like GM.

 

 

Like I ever gave a fuck what any of my commanding officers were disappointed in. I did my time, made friends and got out. I went to earn college money and left with it.

I will give you credit, if as you say, you served....no I was not an officer but I did respect those in authority. I spent many months in a combat zone so the officer/enlisted relationship took on a whole different perspective.....from all the posting you have written over the last year or so it's my opinion that you have little respect anyone other than yourself....

[BlackHorse]

 

#1. He was graded higher by veterans groups like the VVA over McCain for voting on veterans issues in the 2008 election cycle

 

So what. You can always find some group that will say the guy you want is the greatest thing ever regardless of the issue.

#2. He has presented the largest VA budget of any president and that got my father in law back into the system for treatment.

 

The VA budget has significantly expanded over the last 10 years under Obama as well as former President George W. Bush.

 

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/04/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-veteran-funding-has-risen-dramatical/

#3. He opposed torture.

 

Define torture? Personally I couldn't care less if they waterboarded some terrorist in order to save American lives and the lives of American military members. If you're so concerned about Veterans as you claim to be you wouldn't care either. They would do far worse to any of us. That is just reality, even if its not comfortable for you.

#4. He's not a republican who believes in things i don't and doesn't believe in things I do.

 

This is the only real reason you voted for Barack Obama. You're both staunch socialists even if you don't know what that is or can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

#5. There are many more things about him than just his stance on certain singular military issues.

 

Of course there are, like having the IRS harass and target conservative groups. Like expanding the NSA program to listen to every American with a cell phone or read their emails. Like spending 60 to 100 million dollars on a trip to Africa while shutting down White House tours as a political stunt and a means to punish American citizens for an idea that he came up with in the first place. Like putting off big chucks of his failed health care law so that his party won't suffer losses at the midterm elections. Like having his Justice Department take part in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Like failing to do anything to try and save an American Ambassador who was under attack for over 8 hours and then lying about it in the aftermath. I could keep going, but you get the idea.

[Langston Hughes]

I will give you credit, if as you say, you served....no I was not an officer but I did respect those in authority. I spent many months in a combat zone so the officer/enlisted relationship took on a whole different perspective.....from all the posting you have written over the last year or so it's my opinion that you have little respect anyone other than yourself....

 

I came in at time when the US was in relative peace mode, so a majority of my time even when TDY, it was dog and pony show stuff. And even though we did deploy for a short period it certainly wasn't what today's soldiers go through. I'm not sure I'd want to be an 11B in today's Army.

 

As for what and who I respect generally i don't think your going to get a true glimpse of that from these discussions. Most of our talk here is push and push back so there's no reason to discuss it. Look at your response to my explanation of what I find as ex-military to like about Obama.

[LDB415]

Terrorist enters room to be questioned. Stuff is done to terrorist. Terrorist leaves room with the same number of fingers and toes, fingernails and toenails, ears, eyes and all other body parts as he entered room with. There was no torture. There were potentially incredibly unpleasant activities but if you have all your nails, digits, etc. there wasn't torture. Most likely the people in the towers and planes wouldn't object to unpleasant treatment of terrorists in exchange for staying alive.

[Langston Hughes]

So what. You can always find some group that will say the guy you want is the greatest thing ever regardless of the issue.

 

I respect the Vietnam Veteran's of America and their stance on veteran's legislation. As a son of a vet from that time that sticks out in my head. If you mean to impugn them suggesting that they would artificially elevate Obama in their grading system then your a bigger a$$ than I thought. I didn't go looking to find some obscure group that bought into Obama.

 

The VA budget has significantly expanded over the last 10 years under Obama as well as former President George W. Bush.

 

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/04/jim-webb/jim-webb-says-veteran-funding-has-risen-dramatical/

 

Thank you for proving my point and agreeing with me.

 

Define torture? Personally I couldn't care less if they waterboarded some terrorist in order to save American lives and the lives of American military members. If you're so concerned about Veterans as you claim to be you wouldn't care either. They would do far worse to any of us. That is just reality, even if its not comfortable for you.

 

Again a singular view on what harsh interrogation techniques are and what good they do. I disagree with them based on humanitarian and civil rights beliefs. Whether or not they are effective is not entirely the issue. Most of us are not entirely comfortable with the Prizm and the recent NSA revelations even if they are effective and saves lives. Some of us here disagree vehemently with the program. Are you going to question their beliefs based on the concept that it "Saves American lives"?

 

And they didn't just water-board some terrorists, they used the tactics fairly indiscriminately and ended up doing these things to people they could not prove were every threats to America.

 

This is the only real reason you voted for Barack Obama. You're both staunch socialists even if you don't know what that is or can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

You don't seem to have any true idea what a staunch socialist is, let alone why I voted for him.

 

Of course there are, like having the IRS harass and target conservative groups. Like expanding the NSA program to listen to every American with a cell phone or read their emails. Like spending 60 to 100 million dollars on a trip to Africa while shutting down White House tours as a political stunt and a means to punish American citizens for an idea that he came up with in the first place. Like putting off big chucks of his failed health care law so that his party won't suffer losses at the midterm elections. Like having his Justice Department take part in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Like failing to do anything to try and save an American Ambassador who was under attack for over 8 hours and then lying about it in the aftermath. I could keep going, but you get the idea.

 

In case your not up on things, the IRS scandal turned out not to be a scandal. They targeted more than conservative groups.

 

Internal Revenue Service employees used other politically-loaded terms besides "tea party" when they culled applications for tax-exempt status and then subjected them to extra scrutiny — including the words "progressive" and "blue," according to agency memos.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-irs-scandal-20130625,0,6719260.story

 

You are consistent though, you stick to the same ole talking points even if they mean little and are merely partisan bitching. i could care less about White House tours and since when did diplomatic missions become vacations? And I do get the idea, you hate Obama, or is that not the idea you wanted me to get?

[Langston Hughes]

Terrorist enters room to be questioned. Stuff is done to terrorist. Terrorist leaves room with the same number of fingers and toes, fingernails and toenails, ears, eyes and all other body parts as he entered room with. There was no torture. There were potentially incredibly unpleasant activities but if you have all your nails, digits, etc. there wasn't torture. Most likely the people in the towers and planes wouldn't object to unpleasant treatment of terrorists in exchange for staying alive.

 

That's a incredibly narrow minded view of things. The infliction of physical pain as torture does not require disfigurement nor dismemberment.

[BlackHorse]

In case your not up on things, the IRS scandal turned out not to be a scandal. They targeted more than conservative groups.

 

That bullshit lie has already been debunked. It was en effort by left wingers such as yourself to try and put forth the lie that left wing groups were targeted too and therefore there was no scandal. A lie.

“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George said. On the other hand, “our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases.”

According to George, of the 14 applications that had the terms “progress” or “progressive” in their names between May 2010 and May 2012, none received additional scrutiny for being potential political cases and only 30 percent were processed as potential political cases.

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/06/27/media-gets-it-wrong-on-irs-sca

 

Those quotes are from George Russel the Inspector who conducted the audit. The whole effort to make it seem like there was no scandal was just another left wing lie, so of course you believed it.

 

 

And oh by the way, the IRS already admitted they targeted Conservative groups so I don't even know why you're still trying to push that bullshit about it being non-political.

Edited July 12, 2013 by BlackHorse

[Langston Hughes]

It's not a lie and linking to the rightwing rag is highly suspect. Find a real source not the Obama hatector.

[NickF1011]

It's not a lie and linking to the rightwing rag is highly suspect. Find a real source not the Obama hatector.

It's a direct quote. What difference does the source really make unless you're suggesting they made up the quote.

[napfirst]

It's a direct quote. What difference does the source really make unless you're suggesting they made up the quote.

I think he may be short in stature, a lot of things seem to go over his head.

[Langston Hughes]

It's a direct quote. What difference does the source really make unless you're suggesting they made up the quote.

 

It's not a direct quote....This is what the letter ACTUALLY says....

 

 

We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words "progress" or"progressive" in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In

total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words "progress"or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases.

 

This is the quote Blackhorse used and is directly from the article...

 

According to George, of the 14 applications that had the terms “progress” or “progressive” in their names between May 2010 and May 2012, none received additional scrutiny for being potential political cases and only 30 percent were processed as potential political cases.

 

Now, your a bright person can you spot where there is something very misleading in the above quote, that does not appear in the actual letter?

[BlackHorse]

It is a damn lie and linking it to the liberal assed LA Times rag is highly suspect. Find a real source not the Obama ass kissers.

 

 

 

And again THEY ADMITTED TO TARGETING CONSERVATIVES. You can post all the crap you want about how it didn't really happen. The reality is that it did happen.

 

But okay, we'll play the game you're way so you can tell us another lie.

 

 

 

IRS auditor reaffirms that conservatives, not liberals, were targeted

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/?page=all

 

 

Treasury IG: Liberal groups weren't targeted by IRS like Tea Party

 

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/308131-ig-liberal-groups-not-targeted-like-tea-party#ixzz2YqxtDqZZ

Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

 

The government watchdog that exposed IRS targeting of conservative groups gave a blunt response to Democrats' claims that the agency also targeted liberals: It never happened.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/27/watchdog-knocks-down-dem-claim-that-liberal-groups-were-targeted-by-irs/#ixzz2Yqy4An10

 

 

 

 

 

The only media sources that are trying to claim that liberals were also targeted are liberal media outlets, like the LA Times. This is because they have an agenda and they are closing ranks to try and protect their liberal President.

Edited July 12, 2013 by BlackHorse

[NickF1011]

Now, your a bright person can you spot where there is something very misleading in the above quote, that does not appear in the actual letter?

I wouldn't say it's misleading. It is, however, paraphrased incorrectly. It says that none of 14 were scrutinized and followed it up by saying 30% of them were later in the same sentence. The quote I was referring to were the words directly attributed to George. You know, a...quote.

Edited July 12, 2013 by NickF1011

[LDB415]

You're.. contraction of you are

Your.. indicator of possession

[NickF1011]

You're.. contraction of you are

Your.. indicator of possession

Don't waste you're breath.

[Langston Hughes]

It's a direct quote. What difference does the source really make unless you're suggesting they made up the quote.

 

Nick, the original scandal was that conservative groups were targeted and that there may be a white house connection. It certainly was portrayed that way here and on sites like the American Spectator. What it turns out to be is bad management of a small group of individuals instead of some larger conspiracy. Add in that the letter the story is quoting discusses 298 cases, of which the terms there are supposedly 96 using a variety of terms expressing tea party political activity, some of it not included in any listing and coming from the individuals themselves.

 

As part of our audit, we reviewed the section of the BOLO listings that related to the specific criteria that the IRS stated were used to identify potential political cases fo radditional scrutiny. TIGTA also found that certain criteria (e.g., Patriots, 9/12,education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to "make America a better place tolive," etc.) used to select potential political cases were not in any BOLO listings

 

Did some lower level IRS agents make s series of mistakes and even maybe go after 96 supposed tea party groups by name? Yes, there was a series of mistakes at the IRS. Did some of it come from standards set in the BOLO listings? Yes.Did that come from the White house? No, and we know that not all of the 96 came from any official listing at all.

[Langston Hughes]

I wouldn't say it's misleading. It is, however, paraphrased incorrectly. It says that none of 14 were scrutinized and followed it up by saying 30% of them were later in the same sentence. The quote I was referring to were the words directly attributed to George. You know, a...quote.

 

 

This is the quote your referring to correct?

 

“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George said. On the other hand, “our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases.”

 

The quote discusses the initial audit report. It's followed by this...

 

Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a "Progressives"entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words"progress" or "progressive" in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases.

 

While we both realize that 6 is not a large number it is still erroneous and biased to use that quote instead of the latter one. It gives the impression that no progressive groups were flagged, instead of the actual number.Now read his quote from the American Spectator again and tell me that there is not a clear bias..

 

 

“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George said. On the other hand, “our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases.”

According to George, of the 14 applications that had the terms “progress” or “progressive” in their names between May 2010 and May 2012, none received additional scrutiny for being potential political cases and only 30 percent were processed as potential political cases.

 

To me that is blatant and intentional. To quote something that he himself identifies in his letter as being revised and then purposely put the words "OF THE" is wrong. Your giving people like BH, who are willing to believe whatever is written whether the two sentences contradict one another or not, a false view of what actually happened. That's why I will never buy into anything written by the Spectator. I'm being fair because I stay away as much as possible from quoting Mother Jones, Salon, Alternet, and others.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Langston Hughes

[NickF1011]

Don't quote me on this topic anymore. I was only referring to syntax. I could care less about discussing this topic any further.

[BlackHorse]

Don't quote me on this topic anymore. I was only referring to syntax. I could care less about discussing this topic any further.

 

Same here. The IRS targeted Conservatives, everyone knows this except for Langston. The effort to try and say that liberal groups were also targeted was and is a lie. Everyone knows this except for Langston. There is nothing further to discuss on the matter.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Nick, the original scandal was that conservative groups were targeted and that there may be a white house connection. It certainly was portrayed that way here and on sites like the American Spectator. What it turns out to be is bad management of a small group of individuals instead of some larger conspiracy. Add in that the letter the story is quoting discusses 298 cases, of which the terms there are supposedly 96 using a variety of terms expressing tea party political activity, some of it not included in any listing and coming from the individuals themselves.

 

 

Did some lower level IRS agents make s series of mistakes and even maybe go after 96 supposed tea party groups by name? Yes, there was a series of mistakes at the IRS. Did some of it come from standards set in the BOLO listings? Yes.Did that come from the White house? No, and we know that not all of the 96 came from any official listing at all.

They "targeted" only token liberal groups. The obvious bias cannot be ignored.

Keep making excuses for those who abuse and ignore the law and the conscientious enactment of the laws of the land.

[Langston Hughes]

That's cool Nick. enjoy

Edited July 13, 2013 by Langston Hughes

[Langston Hughes]

They "targeted" only token liberal groups. The obvious bias cannot be ignored.

Keep making excuses for those who abuse and ignore the law and the conscientious enactment of the laws of the land.

 

Yes, individuals did this and they should be put through whatever the discipline procedure is, but it was not a scandal, nor did it involve the White House like people suggested.

[LDB415]

Yes, individuals did this and they should be put through whatever the discipline procedure is, but it was not a scandal, nor did it involve the White House like people suggested.

 

Out of curiosity, how long have you worked at the White House? I presume you must since you "know" the White House wasn't involved as people suggested and the only way to "know" would be to be the one in charge there. Otherwise, one would "know" they weren't just as others "know" they were involved, the correct people.