jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (40 posts)

Obama's parade of "Phony Scandals"

  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    In a rather  desperate effort to divert the gaze of the American people away from the wreck that is his presidency, Obama, in conjunction with his press secretary, has started to call the various scandals that have bedeviled him the past 12  months or so, as PHONY.

    Really? I don't see anything "phony" about  4 Americans (including the American Ambassador) being killed in Benghazi) and no military effort  initiated to  rescue them.  Several members of  the special ops unit have started to demand a thorough invistigation into the reasons why no  military operation was even considered to save them, when from their objective perspective, it was entirely possible to have done so.

    I don't see anything  "phony"  about the IRS misuing and abusing their power to intimidate  individuals and groups that are not to their ideological liking.

    I don't see anything "phony" about  journalists being criminalized when they are just doing their jobs, reporting the news to the American people.

    I don't see anything "phony" about ObamaCare being imposed willy nilly on the American people, and Obama's supporters given exemptions from  its taxation mandates.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You obviously have not been paying attention to the FACTS...

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Uninvited writer:

        Kindly elucidate me on those facts. What may be facts to you may not necessarily be paradigmatic of the truth, in most quarters.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Mother of one of the victims at Benghazi is upset about this too...........


      http://www.allmediany.com/news/12255-mo … -statement

    3. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi there, Dr. Villarasa. I have not seen you around much lately. We must be on different time tracks.

      Perhaps "desparate" applies more to this thread than to the President's speech. Last month, I recall you dragged out the same tired, dog-eared, and lame scenario only then you called it Obama's Scandalous Trifecta. How appropriate for you to use the term “trifecta”: A longshot wager in which the bettor faces great odds and only a slight chance of winning! {1}

      To be honest with you, Chairman Issa and his oversight committee are performing an extremely important role albeit mostly unfruitful these days. This is the ideal time for his committee to fulfill its Congressional responsibility. The constitutional system of checks and balances works best when the president is a member of the House’s minority party. I fully support his keeping the administration’s feet to the fire.

      Benghazi

      After eight months of GOP driven investigations, after Chairman Issa promised his Benghazi "whistleblowers" would be "damaging," and after the chairman promised more testimony from CIA employees that never materialized, the House GOP Majority Leader announced on May 13, 2013, “The time for wasting day after day investigating Benghazi is over.” {2}

      Poof! A phony “scandal” vaporizes before our eyes. No laws were broken. No criminal charges were leveled. No evidence of punishable dereliction of duty uncovered. In short, there never was a “scandal”. We are not likely to hear more criticism about Benghazi unless Ms. Clinton decides to run for president in 2016.  After all, discrediting the Secretary of State was the only reason the GOP calls this a “scandal” in the first place.

      IRS Abusing Power

      Here are some truths known to the world. The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Not one fact has yet surfaced to prove that anyone outside of the IRS was responsible. There are fresh accusations that this affair leads to political appointees within the IRS but they, like so many other claims, remain unproven at the moment.

      Poof! A another “phony” scandal turns out not to be factually a scandal after all, at least not yet.   

      Not every criticism of the government rises to the level of a “scandal,” Dr. Villarasa, a fact being proven over and over again during the last year. 
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113418
      {2} http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b … acare.html

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Quill:  ".....remains unproven at the moment", the operative words being, "at the moment". You remember, it took 2 years for the liberal mainstream media to take Nixon down, and rightly so. But since the liberal mainstream media is in Obama's corner from the get go (and there is no sign that Chris Matthew's legs stopped tingling whenever he hears Obama speaks), it might take a while for the American People (sans the help of the  liberal media) to uncover the  extent of  Obama's  malfeasance  (Benghazi/IRS/ etc)that  he  has  covered up.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Quill: BTW, another potentially lethal "scandal" is just forming on the horizon, i.e. Obama Care. If,  as the president  has been promoting all along, his Affordanle healthCare Act is manna from heaven, then why is he spending millions and millions of our taxpayer dollars on  an advertising blitz  trying to overcome people's resistance to it. And why have sveral labor unions (including the labor union that represent IRS employees) now saying that ObamaCare is not good for their memberships and are asking to be exempted from its various provisions?,The same IRS that have been given the role of implementing most of ObamaCare's taxing  provisions. The same IRS that have been wasting our taxpayers money on silly line dancing lessons... the same IRS that have targeted various groups  that the president himself declared as "totally unacceptable".

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi again, Dr. Villarasa, and best regards.

          I am impressed by your passion and I respect your political motivation. However, the number of issues labeled “scandals” that suffer from a lack of any evidence bewilders me.

          So many threads are declaring a scandal far ahead of any factual discovery. The trend displays a lack of respect for facts and the truth. There seems to be so little objectivity, Doctor.

          Investigations are not scandals. Prosecutions for wrong doing are scandals!

          First, here is the most meaningful fact uncovered to date about Benghazi. There never was a “scandal.” Speaking from the GOP side of the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor characterized the House Benghazi investigation in this way: “the American people don’t have an endless appetite for meaningless political theater.” {1}

          Denial runs so deep among some folks that they blame the media. The media is not withholding facts from Chairman Issa’s committee. Diehards appear to blame the media when their quest for retribution fades with the absence of real hard facts. A ten-month congressional investigation has convinced most Americans. No laws were broken. No criminal charges were leveled. No evidence of punishable dereliction of duty uncovered. Suggesting impeachment without having proof of wrongdoing is irrational.

          Second, the IRS investigation continues in earnest. Again, an investigation is NOT a scandal. Most Americans have no problem with waiting for the facts to be known. Although, there are others so eager to punish the president they can not wait for hard evidence before declaring a phony “scandal” exists.
           
          Thirdly, I submit a fact about the current “criminalization of journalists” issues. As chilling as the action by the DOJ is to freedom of the press, no journalist, to my knowledge, as been accused, arrested, charged, or punished for performing his job. No journalist has been asked to reveal his sources under the threat of criminal actions. This affair is certainly sinister in its overtones but, like the other “phony” claims, it does not rise to the level of a scandal. Even Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell publicly reduced the "scandal" rhetoric when asked to comment by Meet the Press. “I do think these national security leaks are very important and it looks to me like this is an investigation that needs to happen because national security leaks, of course, can get our agents overseas killed.” {2} While not handing President Obama a free pass, at least he is being a lot more pragmatic then the language in the OP statement of this thread.

          Finally, we have the issues surrounding Obamacare.
          Q. “Why is he [the president] spending millions and millions of our taxpayer dollars on an advertising blitz trying to overcome people's resistance to it?”
          A. What is characterized as “resistance” is really a lack of knowledge about the law. “[Oregon] needs to sign up more than 200,000 people and enough younger, healthier people to balance out the older, sicker residents in the insurance pool.” {3} There is no better way to educate Oregonians about the benefits and subsidies available to poor uninsured Americans under the ACA.

          Q. “Why have several labor unions (including the labor union that represent IRS employees) now saying that ObamaCare is not good for their memberships and are asking to be exempted from its various provisions?”
          A. Bob Laszewski, a health care industry consultant, explains the real fear among unions. "If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union," Laszewski said. "In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer." {4}

          When given random opinions versus facts, I will always rely on the facts. Facts have a way of adding objectivity sorely missing from most opinions. However, you have a right to rely on just your opinions if you wish.

          Thank you for your comments, Dr. Villarasa. I sincerely appreciate your sharing them with us.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b … acare.html
          {2} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/1 … 02856.html
          {3} http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 … -benefits/
          {4} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/2 … 30074.html

          1. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Quill:

            Facts could be convenient or inconvenient depending upon one's point of view.

            But since you are so enamored of  your facts (which in some quarters  may not be considered paradigms of the truth), let us just  then decide to wait until all these investigation that are now happening in Congress  ends. I  would not be the least surprised if your facts don't measure up to the truth.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
              Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The investigations are long over

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not until the American people are satisfied.
                Heck, if an average citizen like George Zimmerman can still be investigated and harrassed and condemned even after being acquitted by a Court of Law,  then our dear public servant better-known-as tyrant Obama and Eric Holder and the mean bossy Hillary Clinton and all such paid public servants should indeed be called to account for all the crap they've gotten involved in on our tax dollars.

              2. 82
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Watergate investigations took two years.  Why are these over so soon?  How can they be over if the president is still claiming executive privilege?

              3. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Uninvited:
                You must be living in another world if you think the investigations are over. Now they would have been over a while back , if only the Obama administration is fully cooperating wtih uncovering the truth. The fact is (and this one is incontrovertible)  they have done their mighty best (the White House leading the charge, followed by the DOJ, State Department, FBI , IRS, etc, etc) to bury the truth. But not to worry... the truth has a way of coming out finally....maybe battered and bruised, but still alive.

                Chris Matthew's legs may yet stop tingling, whan that happens.

  2. Cody Hodge5 profile image80
    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago

    Lol, but it's not a scandal when a Republican president commits many of the same atrocities?

    Other than making great talking points to anger conservatives who can't be bothered to do their own research, there's really not much to see here.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You concede that the federal government of the united states commits atrocities in the name of the people?  Regardless of which side of the coin is the current marionette, the government is rogue.  It no longer is representative of the will of the human people, only their corporate race masters?

      1. Stacie L profile image87
        Stacie Lposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        TRUE!

    2. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @Cody:
      The severely blinded have spoken... and your admitting that Obama has imposed those atrocities upon the common folks is, to say the least, beyond inexplicable, even if some presidents on the other side of the ideological spectrum have done their share to muck up America's  political/societal landscape.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image80
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't admit anything, in fact I pointed out that most of these "scandals" are the result of an overzealous conservative media trying to find scandal where none exists.

        But, even if you were convinced beyond belief that Obama is an ignorant fool who uses the government to get his way, it must have been a scandal when Bush or Reagan lied to the American people too right?

        Crickets?

        1. 82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You don't consider the IRS debacle a scandal?  I don't know whether or not the president was involved in the unfair treatment of conservatives, but that doesn't negate the fact that this is a scandal.  Now, if you want to claim innocence for Obama, that's one thing, but let's call the mistreatment of any demographic by the government what it is, a scandal.  Should we blame the IRS or the president?  I don't know, but it's a scandal.  Our president hasn't really done too much to correct this situation.  His actions were minimal and lacking in leadership.  I long for the days of a real leader, perhaps somebody like Truman.  The buck stopped with him, and he would have owned this scandal by doing something substantial to make sure this kind of government abuse didn't happen again.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image80
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not really a scandal more than incompetence.

            And since this wasn't really a presidential scandal, it doesn't really qualify as something to bash Obama for as the OP suggests.

            And to be fair, Obama fired the head of the IRS...it was the only decision that he has the authority to make on his own.

            1. 82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              He fired the head of the IRS. . .LOL.  That is a joke, right? 

              You originally justified Obama's "atrocities" based on republicans doing the same thing.  Then, you said it wasn't a scandal.  Now, you are claiming that Obama is incompetent.

              I think we can agree on that.  President Obama is incompetent.

          2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are out of date on that, lots of non-conservative groups were also investigated. Issa had that fact hidden.

            1. 82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yea, other groups were treated poorly too.  How great!  The majority were what. . . .conservatives.

            2. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I heard something about that too. But I don't remember how many liberal groups they "delayed". Was it 8? Or something like that.

              Don't worry, I'm sure when more facts come out that 8 will go up close to the 164 (or so) conservative groups everyone is talking about.

              GA

    3. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When Nixon used the government to destroy his enemies, he had a small consequence. . .  It was a scandal then, and it sure looks like one now.

      Get real.  Stop making excuses.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image80
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're comparing Obama to Nixon? You're aware of what Nixon did right?

        1. 82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, I have a grasp of what Nixon did.  Do you?   

          You said, "Lol, but it's not a scandal when a Republican president commits many of the same atrocities?"  In fact, it was a scandal when Nixon committed many of the same atrocities.  Yes, I am absolutely comparing Nixon and Obama.  They both hid behind executive privilege, and they both may have used the government to destroy their enemies.  Those are two big things they have in common.  Many people also feel that they both lied to cover up what happened too.

          Executive privilege equals I have something to hide.  Democrats knew that when Nixon tried it, and republicans knew it when Obama did.

          I am glad to hear you call Obama's actions "atrocities."

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image80
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, I use the word atrocity in a mocking tone. It can't be a scandal on one side if it isn't  a scandal when the other side does it.

            Would Bush be a terrible president if he threw a reporter in jail?

            What about Reagan and Iran-Contra?

            Btw....

            The difference between Nixon and Obama is that it was proven that Nixon did what people said he did. With Obama there is less than a shred of evidence that anything that conservatives gnash their teeth over has actually occurred.

            1. 82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why doesn't he release all documents then?  Executive privilege?  Yeah right. 

              If you read my posts, you'd see that I am all too willing to slam republicans for the things they do too.  You see, a crook is a crook. 

              Your problem here is that you seemingly justify Obama's actions by saying that republicans did it too.  Then, when that doesn't work, you claim his innocence.  Let's see what the facts say.  Let's hear testimony.  Let's get to the truth, whether it proves you or me right.  It took 2 years to truly prove Nixon was a crook.  Only time will tell whether or not Obama will be damaged by scandal.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image80
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My point isn't that "Oh, Republicans do it too..."

                My point is that where was the outrage when Bush was threatening to throw reporters in jail?

                This means that either America has suddenly woken up (unlikely) or it means that the GOP only wants to whip people into a frenzy. If we assume the latter to be correct, then it means that these actually aren't scandals.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  @Cody: Do you think the  liberal mainstream media would have looked the other way if as you say, " Bush threatened to throw reporters in jail? I doubt it. The New Yor Times, the Los Angeles times, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC would have had a field day ( if not weeks or months )  excoriating Bush  if  he  was  sending those threats to reporters. I  have never been a GW Bush fan, never voted for him during those 2 presidential elections...so I should have known (and it would perplex me no end if I totally missed the brohaha that would have resulted if Bush did threaten to throw reporters in jail) if he threatened reporters becasue I was closely following the liberal mainstream media and their  endless anti-Bush gnashing, and bashing..... remember  MSNBC's Keith Olberman?

                2. A.Villarasa profile image78
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  @Cody: The last paragraph of your post defies logic .  Let us assume that the GOP is stirring up  the political pot regarding Benghazi, the IRS, etc, purely for political advantage, does that negate the fact that 4 people are dead in Benghazi, when that should and could have been prevented ; or that the IRS targeted  individuals, groups, and  organizations  close to and during an election year because of their conservative inclinations?

                  There are now a lot of people speaking out on these 2 main issues. (1) Members of the Special ops are demanding a full invistigation as to why no outside  military response was ever initiated to rescue the personnel in Benghazi... and BTW, the fog of war is no excuse. (2) There never were rogue IRS agents in Cincinnati... the directives were all coming from Washington... specificvally the  Special Counsel of the IRS, who is a politcal appointee of Obama. it turs out that this same appointee had a meeting with Obama 2 days before the IRS started to  abuse their power.

                3. 82
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, based on the fact that you are still talking about the reporter years later, it must have bothered some liberals.  Were liberals silent at the time?  No.

                  I've never seen either republicans or democrats stay quiet when they smell blood in the water.  That's politics, right or wrong.  Obama is receiving the same skepticism democrats dished out under republican presidents.  The only difference is that there are so many scandals with the Obama administration. 

                  Either he is the most incompetent president in a long time, or some of these are scandals.  Nixon was a crook, but he was far from incompetent.  Maybe I should stop comparing the two.

          2. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The whole world is aware of his atrocities, though he does not deserve all the credit.  The entire mechanism of federal control is also implicated.

            1. 82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There's some truth to this.

        2. A.Villarasa profile image78
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @Cody;
          Nixon's atrocities were enough to have convinced him, his political allies and  the American people that he had to go either via resignation or impeachment. He chose resignation, which to his credit, saved the country (and himself, of course) from further political/societal damage.
          It doesn't look like Obama is convinced enough that his scandals (atrocities as you so succinctly termed them)  are severe or atrocious enough for him to even consider resignation. The American people via the Congress/senate  could, (if he is till in office, and the full picture of Benghazi and the IRS affairs are finally revealed) be convinced enough to consider his  impeachment, on the basis of dereliction of duty(as Commander in Chief) and presidential abuse of power (using the IRS to screw his political enemies).

  3. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago
    1. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Liberals seldom allow conservatives to reference Fox.  Why on earth should a conservative allow a liberal to reference something so liberal?  This is your source?

  4. Wayne Brown profile image86
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Do you see anything phony about claiming four people died at Benghazi of smoke inhalation when they were actually dragged through the streets, sodomized, and then tortured by having their testicles cut off of them?  I am sure that, from Obama's standpoint, "smoke inhalation" is a much better explanation which plays something like an "accident" rather than an act of terrorism. Everything about this man is phony from his identity to his honors level education. He is a fabrication of progressive idealism who has absolutely no conscience, no moral compass, or compassion for the American people and is more than willing to carry out the marching orders of racial friction and class division in the dismantling of a country in which he claims to be a citizen.  One day, if we survive this trainwreck of a president, folks will look back and realize how extremely stupid they were to believe anything the man says.

    1. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, but it doesn't matter why the attack took place. . .

      Wayne,

      My hat is off to you.  You said it.  +1

 
working