The 3 scandals now pushing Obama's presidency into the edge of an abyss may yet un-mollify and therefore nullify the result of the 2013 presidential election." May yet" is the operative words in this case, in as much as the liberal leaning mainstream media continues to be in bed and embedded with Obama, and the general population at large continues to focus on concerns that are closer to home, the goings-on in Washington being so far, and detached from their daily routines.
The question of whether the president was intimately and directly involved in these 3 scandals (5 Americans dead in Benghazi; multiple Americans targeted by the IRS; and news reporters skewered by the DOJ) still needs to be established, but the mere fact that these 3 scandals have for their common thread, Obama's lackluster desire to present to the American people, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH , is stupendously obvious.
We will soon find out how much the TRUTH will hurt this president.
Good luck with that.
You'll find most people simply don't care except the people who wanted him out of office anyway.
No big swell of public disapproval... just the same old people with something new to carp about.
@Melissa:
Your second paragraph is an unbelievably inchoate statement. .Even if you are an Obama fan, you should care a lot that the IRS was used to target American citizens because of their contrary political views. That my friend is governmental abuse of power...something that Richard Nixon would have been impeached for, if he did not resign.
I'm not an Obama fan. I don't care who was targeted for what... The IRS screws everybody, if it screws a few political groups in there as well... don't care.
Gotta go with Mellisa on this one, albeit possibly for different reasons.
Because I'm tired....so tired of seeing rants without a shred of reason or truth in them.
You've shouted out "TRUTH" not once but three times in the OP, but what truth are you offering? That you hate Obama?
Because you have surely failed to offer any truth of any wrongdoing by the man. Just a lot of highly connotative words, a lot of hate and a lot of insinuation. Nothing I'm interested in hearing, thus the apathy to such rants. Just more of the same 'ol, same 'ol with nothing new anywhere.
It's partially that Wilderness...
In addition, if you are going to play the victim card, then your victim should at least be likable. I am completely against ANY political organization getting tax-exempt status. So the whole situation really isn't breaking my heart.
The rhetoric on this has completely glossed over that fact.
It's not like the IRS went after political groups -- as they did he NAACP under Bush.
They scrutinized the applications of CLEARLY political (e.g. with words Tea Party in their titles) to determine if they should receive tax-exempt status.
Anyone is entitled to spread their POLITICAL message.
But not under the guise of a SOCIAL WELFARE organization that doesn't have to
pay taxes.
I know, right?
Like I'm supposed to be upset that a political organization was cheated of the opportunity to steal my tax dollars to pay for their propaganda.
Poor them.
Gotta love -- once again -- the hypocrisy.
The Tea Party wants to dismantle government. Wants to cut spending to zero
and balance the federal budget (because I balance my household budgets, dontcha know). Transfer power to the states.
So here are these vociferously anti-government groups applying for a bigtime
federal GOVERNMENT benefit.
Then screaming "foul" when their obvious agenda is called into question...
The only "obvious agenda" is the administrations attempt at silencing these groups, yes Obama knew, it was his idea.
No one silenced these groups. At any point.
They received 501(c)4 status which they were not entitled to under the 501(c)4 guidelines.
The tea party testimony is great theater. Shakespeare got nothing on these chicks.
It seems with all of the democrats condemning the IRS you are the only person who thinks this is the tea party.
Did you watch the testimony?
Why would you question that it was Tea Party?
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/06/05/ … lace-74616
I don't question that some of these groups were Tea Party groups.
Hi there, Lie Detector.
If you have anything to support “it was his idea” then I would be interested in reading about. If you do not, I would be interested in reading that too.
quilligrapher wrote:
“If you have anything to support ‘it was his idea’ then I would be interested in reading about it. If you do not, I would be interested in reading that too.”
Lie Detector wrote:
Hi again, Lie Detector.
I accept the fact that your accusation has no basis in fact. Thanks for responding
Still
I'm laughing because I'm not trying to convince you but you act as if you could possibly be convinced.
But, I will ask why was Obama's campaign manager in meetings with Obama and the head of the IRS?
Not that it matters to you.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial … -house.htm
Hi Lie Detector. I hope you had a nice Thursday.
First, I thank you for making a more detailed reply. I always find it hard to carry on an adult conversation with just a smiley face.
Just to recap if I may:
Lie Detector wrote:
“The only ‘obvious agenda’ is the administrations attempt at silencing these groups, yes Obama knew, it was his idea.
Then Quilligrapher wrote:
“If you have anything to support ‘it was his idea’ then I would be interested in reading about it. If you do not, I would be interested in reading that too.”
The Lie Detector wrote:
Leaving me to write:
“I accept the fact that your accusation has no basis in fact.”
I truly appreciate your being kind enough to expand on your smiley face reply to add the following:
“I'm laughing because I'm not trying to convince you but you act as if you could possibly be convinced.”
I think the smiley face was intended to deflect attention from the fact you were ignoring the contents of my post. I have learned one lesson that has never let me down. People who can not differentiate between fiction and real facts often have to rely on assumptions in order to arrive at conclusions they can live with. The problem is that assumptions can easily move any conclusions away from a logical, well informed position.
Example, you assume you are not trying to convince me because I am only pretending, i.e. “acting,” as if I could not possibly be convinced. Clearly, you believe this to be a truism when in fact it is a false assumption. I do not reside in the fringes of the political landscape. I am not pounding ancient manuscripts and saying I am a specially selected reservoir of the truth. I am a left of center moderate able to support issues advanced from both the left and the right if facts indicate they deserve my support. I am not left wing do or die. However, I would be a fool to give you credit for a well-informed, intelligent, and logical stance if you can not produce one reasonable fact that proves the truth in your claims.
You are not trying to convince me? Okay. Convincing me is hardly a trophy. However, you should be able to support your claims and conclusions with hard, verifiable facts. If you can not there is no reason for any of these readers to take your posts seriously. Anyone who would claim ‘it was his idea’ based upon assumptions, innuendo, or wishful thinking actually knows their statement is unsupported and therefore a slanderous lie. Why would anyone come into this forum with the intention of lying unless he/she was being paid to do so? I am here looking for facts and not for lies and assumptions beings presented as if they are facts. I hope we are all here for that too.
Lie Detector wrote:
“But, I will ask why was Obama's campaign manager in meetings with Obama and the head of the IRS? …Not that it matters to you.”
The last sentence is, I believe, just a residual notion from the assumption you made up above. It does matter to me; it is the reason we are having this dialog. Provide me, if you can, with solid, factual, and verifiable information and I would likely see this issue from your point of view. If all you have are unanswered questions that you hope to masquerade as proof, I will simply ask you to do your homework. Do the necessary research and come up with solid, factual, and verifiable answers to all of your questions. Otherwise, they are just wimpy unanswered questions and certainly not proof. A common analytical rule used by critical thinkers to separate facts and non-facts reads, “facts are stated in declarative sentences, and questions reveal the absence of knowledge or facts.”
Let us look at your question together, “Why was Obama's campaign manager in meetings with Obama and the head of the IRS?” The most factual answer is “I do not know and neither do you.” It is clear that you disregard Ms. Cutter’s public explanations with no apparent reasons. Ah, but you think you do know why she was there even thought you are relying on supposition and really have nothing to support your claim. In other words, you simply do not know why. You choose to attack the president with this flimsy assumption. I do not.
However, here are few facts. Many are from your own source:
“Stephanie Cutter, former deputy campaign manager for President Obama, attended the ‘nonpolitical’ ObamaCare implementation meetings with the former IRS commissioner at the White House. {1}
Douglas Shulman was cleared to enter the White House 157 times.
“More than 50 of Douglas Shulman's scheduled visits are described as "health care meetings" or "health care reform meetings," according to the visitor logs.” {1}
The number of times Mr. Shulman and Ms. Cutter actually met in the White House is not known to me.
.
Ms. Cutter’s present role at the White House is “Assistant to the President for Special Projects” which includes helping to oversee implementation of health care.
Under The Affordable Care Act, the Internal Revenue Service is responsible for determining whether individuals have insurance and for collecting fines.
There is an obvious overlap in the healthcare and revenue collecting duties and responsibilities of both Ms. Cutter and Mr. Shulman.
So, Lie Detector, these are my solid, verifiable facts. These facts, just like your assumptions, do not prove the IRS targeting of Conservative organizations “was his (President Obama’s) idea.” Nor do they prove it was not his idea. Furthermore, I have not included any unanswered questions to create innuendo or impressions that are not supported by facts. {2}
At this point, I emphasize that I have not claimed the IRS affair was the president’s idea but you distinctly have. Therefore, I should like to repeat my earlier statement. “If you have any facts to support ‘it was his idea’ then I would be interested in reading about it. If you do not, I would be interested in reading that too.”
Thanks for your time and attention, Lie Detector. I see no reason why intelligent adults can not express different views and still remain friends.
{1} http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial … -house.htm
{2} http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/31/house-re … obamacare/
True. The IRS didn't interfere with the Tea Party groups spreading their ignorant propaganda. It merely dragged its feet on providing a taxpayer subsidy for them. Of course it was wrong for IRS to single the Tea Party out, if that's what happened. Anyway, Obama had nothing to do with it.
@Melissa: Tell that to the NAACP and Move On.org, and Barrack Obama Foundation.... liberal action groups that have been given post-haste, tax exempt status by the IRS
Tell them that I think that no political organizations should get tax-exempt status?
OK.
Not sure what your point is though.
We covered the Barack Obama Foundation already in another thread. You may not
recall.
Let me refresh your memory
It is a 501(c)3 -- not 501(c)4 CHARITABLE foundation.
Here is their mission:
The common denominator in all that the Foundation undertakes is the inherent belief that no man can truly enjoy the riches he has reaped if his neighbor suffers. The Foundation will seek to help those – worldwide – who still do not have the basic necessities of life such as food, water and shelter. In short, we seek to elevate the human condition so that everyone can live in dignity and truly enjoy having one another as neighbors. The foundation is entirely the idea of Abon'go Malik Obama, in memory of their father, and is not dependent on the endorsement of his brother, President Barack Obama
@MM: The Barack Obama Foundation is not a charitable foundation as you clearly stated, and yet it acts as one.... I mean helping those who do not yet enjoy the basis necessities of life is clear definition of a charitable work.
Now the idea for the foundation may have been entirely the idea of the president's brother, in memory of their father, but I'm sure any organization named Barack Obama will get preferential treatment from the government absent the president totally disowning it or disavowing knowledge of it , or rejecting it off hand. Why else do you think did Lois Lerner personally approved the foundation's application for tax exempt status, were it not for the fact that the foundations bears a name identical to that of the president?
Sycophancy as you know is the greatest virtue one could have in Washington DC.
@Wilderness:
Again you misunderstood and therefore conflated the purpose of the OP. Nothing to do with hating Obama...because as you may already know hate does not lead you anywhere.
Truth is we still don't know the whole truth about Benghazi from all the obfuscation and hiding behind an irrelevant U-tube video. Truth is we still don't know the whole truth about "Fast and Furious" from all that hiding behind "executive privilege". Truth is, we still don't know the whole truth about the IRS from all that hiding behind "I didn't know that the IRS was targeting these folks until I heard it on the news". Truth is, we still don't know the truth about the DOJ actions against the AP and James Rosen, from all that hiding behind "national security".
If Obama and you, know the truths about these, then I'd be more than happy to listen.
I do not know the truths. Which is exactly I don't make posts insinuating that the truth is known, that people will abandon Obama when they learn the truth, or that the truth will hurt him enormously.
That was kind of the point...
One truth that is undeniable. Despite Obamas oft repeated mantra:" My administration will be the most transparent"... it is NOT.
Which reminds me, there are now news reports filtering out of Washington DC, of top administration i.e. .White House officials conducting governmental business/affairs/functions via secret E-mail accounts. ......which if proven factual, will certainly put a dent if not wreck the above mentioned mantra.
It is not "the most transparent" because you demand details of every conversation that ever takes place.
Obama's administration is no more, nor less, secretive than any other has been. There is no difference, for example, between an email not made public and a post-it-note carried by trusted courier between offices.
@Wilderness:
I thought you were not into ranting...but your statement..."because you demand details of every conversation that ever takes place." sure sounds to me like a rant, overstatement and all.
When congressional investigative committees ask you for copies of those e-mails( or post-it-note, in your world) aren't you supposed to provide it to them, absent severe national security considerations or implications?
What else would ever make you happy? If there is a single word from Obama that is "not transparent" I'm sure you will complain.
Yes you are. The next question is how they knew about a "secret" email account? Or is that another exaggeration - it's just a simple email account that the media hadn't found yet? And the one after that is are the emails actually "absent severe national security considerations or implications?"
57,000,000 million people voted for Mitt Romney. I'd say that's quite a few people who wanted Obama out of office.
But not quite enough though... was it? Obviously not MOST... or Mitt Romney would be president... yes?
…and 65.8 million people voted for Barrack Obama. {1} I’d say that’s quite a few people more who wanted to see President Obama remain in the Oval Office.
{1} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 … truesize=m
We already know that. Being contrary doesn't mean you have to state the obvious.
By the way, it's quite likely that many of those people who voted for the POTUS voted against Romney and not really because they support Obama.
Romney was the best out of the worst crop of GOP candidates in recent memory, with the exception of Jon Huntsman who didn't pander to the Tea Party and, as a result, didn't get much traction.
I disagree. He was too liberal. Of course, that's why you thought he was the best. Still, I would have far rather had Romney than Obama.
Jon Huntsman was the only decent Republican presidential nominee this past election, and possibly the only one in decades. He actually believes in what he says (like McCain used to), he doesn't pander to the Tea Party scum, he didn't sell out to Fox News, and he came across as an intelligent and reasonable man.
And that, of course, is why the GOP despised him.
Hi EA. Did I do something wrong? If so, I apologize.
When you “state the obvious” in the form of an irrelevant statistic, it is okay according to your way of thinking. However, when someone else “states the obvious” pointing out just how meaningless your statistic is, then you label it being “contrary.”
The claim that “many of those people who voted for the POTUS voted against Romney and not really because they support Obama” is pure rubbish spread by the ill informed. It is a desperate post election ploy that tries to portray Mr. Romney as the greater of two evils. In the real world, EA, if I may be allowed to “state the obvious,” every vote cast for Barack Obama was without exception a vote in support of the president as being the better choice.
Everyone who favors making excuses for Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012 should research the election exit polls and learn the real facts. For example, the CBS News exit poll revealed…
- “Sixty percent of voters who cast ballots on Election Day or earlier said the economy was the most important issue in their vote.” {1}
- Eighty-eight percent of Obama voters saw the economy was getting better.
- 27% of all voters said their family finances were better on Election Day than four years earlier.
- 42% of voters said Mr. Obama's response to Superstorm Sandy was a factor in their vote.
- 74% of Obama voters said the U.S. economic system favors the wealthy.
- 44% of all voters wanted to expand the Affordable Care Act or keep it as is.
- 52% of all voters said Romney's policies favor the rich while 9% said Obama favors the rich.
The Pew Research Center adds even more knowledge…
- Since 1980, more than 56% of the Hispanic vote had been cast for the Democratic candidate. In 2012, the advantage was 71%, four points higher than in 2008, and almost matching President Clinton’s 72% in 1996.
- Among all voters, 65-percent said illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status.
- About 60-percent of all young voters supported President Obama. {2}
There is a wealth of information available to those who want a clear picture of why voters elected President Obama.
A new Census Bureau report shows African-Americans turned out at a greater rate than whites for the first time since 1968. More than 66-percent of eligible blacks voted in the presidential contest compared to only 64.1-percent of eligible whites. {3}
In the final analysis, EA, claiming many voted for President Obama because Mitt Romney was a greater evil may make Obama bashers feel better but it turns out your view is not supported by any data I could find.
{1} http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 … top-issue/
{2} http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/l … -election/
{3} http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … =allsearch
Yes, and big majorities of women, African-Americans, Latino-Americans and young voters supported Obama. The GOP has become a party of old white guys, and Evangelicals.
Thusfar the American public as a whole is not hyperventilating. Only those who
hated Obama before and will hate him regardless of what he does or does not do.
Some possible explanations:
...public generally doesn’t factor scandals in when evaluating presidential performance. What they do care about are the same things they care about during elections: peace, prosperity, and moderation.
... It may well be that the public is looking at the scandals and judging them to be not that bad for Obama. It’s really hard to figure out what nefarious thing he allegedly did with regards to Benghazi, and it’s easy to dismiss that “scandal” as the product of conflict-hungry media and the same sort of overzealous Republican leaders who think having a Marine hold an umbrella is an impeachable act.
The IRS scandal, which may well be more serious, also apparently occurred far from the White House, and Obama’s reaction to it so far appears entirely appropriate.
And the AP scandal basically pits reporters against national security interests, and the public (following leaders of both parties in recent years) have been inclined to lean toward the latter.
...People are evaluating Obama’s performance on the peace, prosperity, and moderation dimensions and finding him to be doing reasonably well. Recent economic indicators have been pretty solid, he’s been resisting urgings to commit armed forces to Syria, and he’s been pretty moderate in his public pronouncements of late.
Now, this isn’t to say that scandals can’t hurt a presidency. Iran-Contra was very damaging to Reagan despite solid economic growth, and Watergate really did unravel Nixon’s presidency and cost Republicans dearly for several election cycles. But at least so far, despite pretty negative media coverage, we just haven’t seen scandals take much of a toll on the public’s support for Obama.
@MM:
You might want to re-visit those polls measuring Obama's so called popularity in a few more months. As we speak, it's starting to erode. Even some members of the so-called mainstream media have started to ask hard hitting questions, that Jay Carney, Obama's press Secretary doesn't have any inkling on how to truthfully answer.
You may be surprised to learn that there wasn't a 2013 presidential election in the U.S..
@Lie Detector:
My mistake... I meant to write 2012.
President Obama has little to do with the IRS debacle in Cleveland, the DOJ using the law to protect national secrets in the hands of the Associated Press, and the GOP's witch hunt over the Benghazi tragedy.
The election was over in November 2012. These master politicians will manage the nation's business as well as they can under the bright lights of Republican scrutiny and partisanship, who loudly insist, though "Old Joe" has been dead for several decades, the Red Scare still exists.
Yes, Obama allegedly gave an order to secure our personnel. That is, a retroactive order after the bogus video excuse/lies played out. Panetta said that we do not send people in harms way, and he chided monday morning armchair QB's. With those indisputable facts alone we can conclude:
Obama is a "pretend president" which works well for fantasy world liberals.
He's a politician (and a good one) - what else did you expect?
G’day Villarasa. How have you been lately?
The term “trifecta” is perfect: A longshot wager in which the bettor faces great odds and only a slight chance of winning!
If you want the truth, here it is. The older Obama “scandals” have become so frail that they can no longer stand on their own individual merits. Each has lost so much impact that the president’s opponents have had to bundle them together as a “trifecta” to disguise them as a serious threat to his administration.
Villarasa wrote:
“Truth is we still don't know the whole truth about Benghazi.”
It should be obvious by now that we probably already know the whole truth about Benghazi! After eight months of GOP driven investigations, nothing was learned to suggest criminality on the part of anyone involved in this unfortunate affair. Rep. Issa lied to the public when he promised his Benghazi "whistleblowers" would produce revelations that would be "damaging" to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Following the lengthy testimony, he admitted that the only new revelation was “this was a terrorist attack”, something the public already knew.
The events in Benghazi on 9/11/12 are a mute political issue and cracks in the GOP resolve are already spreading. On May 13, 2013, the House Republican Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, sounded the first discordant note when he told reporters, “The time for wasting day after day investigating Benghazi is over.” {1}
It is MHO that Chairman Issa and his committee are performing an extremely important role albeit unfruitful these days. This is the ideal time for this committee to fulfill its responsibility. The constitutional system of checks and balances works best when the president’s is a member of the House’s minority party. I fully support the job he is doing.
Villarasa wrote:
“Truth is we still don't know the whole truth about ‘Fast and Furious’”
Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported to congress that neither the president nor Attorney General Eric Holder was involved with the highly flawed Fast and Furious operation. The IG placed responsibility squarely on the ATF and the Arizona Attorney General's office. {2}
The IG was praised by the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee for his report and his contributions to the investigation. It is repugnant to me to think anyone would suggest that the Inspector General of the DOJ failed in the performance of his sworn duty without offering a single fact to support such a slanderous notion. {3}
There have been four years of investigation and a mountain of evidence screened by the IG and others. I can see where some have pre-defined “the whole truth” as proof of Eric Holder’s complicity and, as a result, they will never accept any evidence as “the whole truth” unless it meets that singular criterion.
Villarasa wrote:
“Truth is, we still don't know the whole truth about the IRS.”
Here are some known truths. 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 suggest, let alone prove, that anyone outside of the IRS was responsible. Even without evidence, people are saying with absolute certainty that “we still don't know the whole truth about the IRS.” As of now, the “whole truth” can be found in the report issued by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. {4} It is recommended reading for anyone who is truly interested in learning about this issue.
Finally, as the pack enters the home stretch, two of the trifecta picks are fading in the backfield and the third is just barely leaving the gate. It is unbelievable that this thread, offering neither facts nor reasoning, hopes to convince a thinking audience that these three nags “have for their common thread, Obama's lackluster desire to present to the American people, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH.” In the final analysis, it is the absence of meaningful facts that is “stupendously obvious.”
{1} http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b … acare.html
{2} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.html
{3} http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/ig-r … d-furious/
{4} http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/ … index.html
@Quil:
Truth is, only Obama and his close advisers know the whole truth about these affairs, and they are not at all willing to share those truths with the American people.....which If i recall some of the trajectories of Obama's artful dodging, would ultimately lead to him saying:..."The American people could not handle the truth." As we speak, one precinct of the American people, that is incapable of handling the truth is the mainstream media, and the folks that are so enamored of Obama's artful dodging.
Seems Quil hit the nail on the head: the truth has been shared, but as you define truth to include admitting wrongdoing or duplicity what has been shared must not be the whole truth. You have defined a lie to be truth, and won't accept truth until it agrees with the lie.
@Wilderness:
Good try... but close and neutral observers clearly believes that the whole truth have not been told. If Obama has nothing to hide, then why does he not go directly to the American people laying out everything that needs to be bared (sort of his soul) in one clean swoop of a confessional speech, without parsing words , dodging relevant questions, throwing people under the bus, and blaming Fox News, the Republicans, and the warm sunny weather of Hawaii to explain for his troubles.
All evidence (except the unsupported claims from "neutral" observers, apparently) is that he did just that. He gave all the information to the public. That certain "neutral" observers have claimed otherwise, without providing proof. doesn't change that. The whole truth is out - either accept it or prove otherwise.
@Wilderness:
"He gave all the information to the public." Really?
Unless I was vacationing in Mars for the past year, I could not see any reason why I missed that.
As I said, he should give a wholehearted speech (as good as he is at speechifying) laying out everything that needs to be laid out... so he and us could finally move forward. This drip...drip...drip...drip is just not good for America's psyche.
What do you want laid out? The things he hasn't said because they aren't true - specifically that he is guilty of a vile but unnamened and unproven crime?
@Wilderness:
Who said anything about criminality. I didn't
Again in your attempts to defend Obama, you tend to over-state your case... to the point of incongruity.
You continue to miss the whole point. I don't defend Obama, I defend the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Continual claims of misconduct without proof, questions intended to insinuate something's wrong and loaded descriptions are all I see. That, and a "guilty" verdict before any corroborating evidence is ever found.
@Wilderness:
Asking appropriate questions do not necessarily mean insinuating "something's wrong". Questions are meant to be pointed so as to arrive at whatever is the truth out there. That's why I said, If Obama's only action was not to be more involved in the governance of the country then that is an error that is certainly not criminal.
@Quill:
The major reason why these "scandals" continue to gnaw and snap at the president's heels is the issue of lingering questions that remain to be factually answered by those who should be able to answer them...truthfully.
Questions such as: ( A). About Bhengazi 1. Why was the consulate devoid of appropriate security precautions and apparatus, before and during Ambassador Stevens' visited it on that fateful night? 2. Why and who ordered the special forces (who were ready and willing to go and rescue the consulate personnel) to stand down. (3) Why and Who edited that infamous talking points memo, (4) Why and what was Pres. Obama doing (in real time) during and after the terrorist attack. (5) What was so important about that trip to Las Vegas, that he could not stay in the White House a minute... an hour or a day longer. (6) Why was Pres. Obama still talking about that irrelevant You-tube video during his speech to the United Nations, when it was so crystal clear, even to his Press Secretary. that it was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous demonstration.
(B) About the IRS: It has become clear the those IRS agents (from Ohio to California and in between) who targeted various conservative groups and entities did not do so on their own volition and initiative, i.e. "we are not "rogue" agents" as one of them would say to the media. So Why and Who ordered them to act as they did, in complete violation of these groups First Amendment rights? 2. Why did Mr. Shulman visit the White House 157 times during his tenure as head of the IRS, 3. Why did Lois Lerner take the 5th, (but I think we could deduce the answer to that question).
About the DOJ: 1. Did Eric Holder commit perjury when he testified to congress that he had nothing to do with the actions taken by the DOJ against the AP and the Fox reporter James Rosen, when his signature was on the order to do so.
My friend, those who make the accusations and float the claims of criminal activity have the responsibility to provide their own answers. If you have unanswered questions then do some research. Search for answers until you are convinced that satisfactory answers do not exist. If you choose to believe there is a criminal conspiracy concealed behind every unanswered questions then so be it. Bring us facts, Villarasa, that will convince critical thinking, intellegent adults. In other words, answer your many questions and then bring us the proof. It should be obvious to you that you will not find the missing answers here in this forum.
Sleep peacefully, my friend. You deserve as much.
@Quill:
Who said anything about criminal activity? I sure didn't. What I was intending with the OP was to start a conversation on how and why governmental functionaries, from the president on down, when they commit errors of judgement are won't to take responsibility for those errors and mis-steps...thus the cover-up.
If anything that needed to be learned from Nixon's Watergate ( and apparently Obama's administration has not learned from it) was that covering up errors in judgement (not necessarily criminality) is worse than the actual error itself.
As they say, the arrogance of power could be toxic even to those who, when presented with plausible and possible errors in judgement, would deny it to the extent as to say... "these errors were stupid, and we are not that stupid" ....this an exactt quote from one Obama crony, supporter, and defender.
Obama's rhetorical flair during that second inaugural address, detailing his agenda for the next 4 years, is being wasted , now that Congress is in full investigating mode, and the White House in full hunkering mode. The Supremes, must be watching all these proceedings with utter disdain, now that it has been proven that they are the only adults in this unholy trinity of a government..
Seems that your first paragraph is illustrative of the problem both Quil and I have with the OP and later posts.
No, you didn't mention criminal activity (although it sure is implied) but you are insistent that the president had a lapse in judgement AND that he is covering it up. All available evidence points to the contrary - that he wasn't in the decision loop on these items and that he isn't covering his actions up - but you continue to insist that he was and is.
But you won't produce any evidence of either, just more insinuations that he must be covering up, now because he's part of government. You ask questions, just as Quil said, but don't provide answers as if those questions ARE answers or evidence that your claims are true. You continue to use extremely loaded descriptive terms ("only adults" and "unholy trinity" for instance) that provide nothing except an awareness in the reader that you HAVE no real information - just suspicion that you want to be taken as factual.
@Wilderness:
The point is he SHOULD have been more engaged in the governance of the country.. the fact that he seemed to have been AWOL in the decision making process of some of these issues that are now becoming such a source of irritation to his presidential mien... is something that sould be a concern to all Americans.
Yes, either he's inept as a leader, or he is a liar who is covering up his mistakes. As for the possible ineptitude, it may be that he truly is unaware of what his administration is doing, or it could be that he has chosen many, many poor candidates to fill vacancies. Either way, he's either inept or lying. We don't have proof he is covering things up, so I believe he must be the worst, least aware president since Jimmy Carter.
Involved in governance of the country - absolutely. Intimately involved in every detail - not possible. Not, mind you, difficult; impossible.
Now you can sit back and declare that Obama should have made the decision to send in troops in Benghazi, that he should have kept himself informed of minute to minute activities there, but will you also make the same declaration about every embassy on the planet? Or just the one that hind sight shows to have been a very bad mistake?
Again, not defending Obama, just pointing out that decisions are necessarily delegated to someone else. That the "someone else" goofed, and goofed badly to the point people died, does not mean that Obama is personally at fault or that he should be hung out to dry. We can and should make an issue that such a poor call was made, we should change our procedures, etc., but we have no reason to lay the blame for decades of similar decisions (when and how to protect an embassy) on the shoulders of the latest man to delegate the authority to make those calls.
Well stated, W.
All the after-the-fact armchair quarterbacking will never change the score.
The important point is to change policies and procedures going forward.
In the IRS scandal, that should mean a return to the letter of the law on 501(c)4
nonprofit status. The law reads the organization must be EXCLUSIVELY engaged
in social welfare work. (e.g., 0% political). Somewhere along the line the IRS
policy changed exclusively to PRIMARILY (e.g., up to 49% political/51% social welfare).
Now, if the IRS had stuck to the actual law, we would never have had tea party
groups applying for 501(c)4 nonprofit status in the first place.
We can only hope the IRS immediately rescinds its policy and goes back to EXCLUSIVELY.
We, as taxapers, can also hope they end up revoking a bunch of political organizations' 501(c)4 status that they never should have been granted.
And if we're having an IRS crackdown, there are more than a few religious organizations
who should have their nonprofit status yanked as well...
Yes, let's start with Jeremiah Wright.
Amen and Amen.
And other organizations. This one by a man who it isn't clear if he's even a U.S. citizen........
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-o … s-charity/
Once again....
The Barack H. Obama Foundation is a 501(c)3 charitable non-profit.
It is not a 501(c)4 "social welfare"/quasi political non-profit, the type that is in the news of late.
The Daily Caller panders to readers who either don't understand the difference or are happy to disregard it because it doesn't fit your preconceived anti-Obama narrative.
@wilderness:
Whatever happened to: "The buck stops here"
You are of course correct in saying that Obama could not possibly know every little "happening" that occurs during his watch. But to not be informed by his legal counsel and chief-of-staff about the IRS malfeasance (which they knew about., months before Obama claimed to have known about them) is inexplicable. That is what I would call derilection of duty by his legal counsel and chief-of-staff, so how come Obama have not fired them..... if he is serious enough about accountability.
I'm with you - right up to asking the question of why those people weren't fired immediately.
There is no reason to ask me, there is no reason to ask it on a public forum. Doing so is nothing more than an insinuation that Obama is terribly at fault without ever having an answer to that very important question.
The correct procedure is to find out why they didn't report it and take appropriate action against those withholding information. Only then should Obama be questioned/punished about why he didn't fire them earlier.
Being very generous here, I've heard that subordinates far down the line used guidelines in error; they used the wrong guidelines for what they were doing. No intent to "cheat", just error. Given that, higher-ups are quite likely to cover it up while correcting what went wrong, without ever making an issue of it. CYA, in other words, with everything being done as it should have been after the error, except for making the error public. As the primary reason for making it public is political, to hurt one party or person, I might even support such an action. We already see too much mud slinging for no other purpose than to win the next election.
But that's being generous. I'd need some real answers as to "why" and exactly "what" long before I would even consider such generosity.
@wilderness:
Could you think of a good reason why Obama's underlings did not report to him what they knew months before about the IRS targeting and intimidating ( a really serious issue, touching as it does on the citizen's first amendment rights) conservative groups and entities applying for tax exempt status? Liberal leaning groups applied for the same status at roughly the same time but have not been exposed to the same officious scrutiny... in an election year (2012) one can logically assume that those targeting were politically motivated.
I gave you a potential reason, but no I cannot think of a good one. Does that fact, that I cannot think of a good reason, prove beyond reasonable doubt that Obama is involved in nefarious activities?
Of course not - I am neither genius nor omniscient, to know all that goes on in Obama's office. Best find out from the horses mouth or, if not available, from other evidence what the reason actually IS before making such a call.
You should never take either my ignorance nor yours as evidence of malfeasance of a third party.
@Wilderness:
Ant that is why I am saying that Obama should, once and for all clean up the mess that he has found his presidency in, because of what his underlings have done or not done, by explainig in full detail how these things have come about. As of the posting of this comment (6/12/13, at 0900 hr) he is reported to be going (again ??!!!) going to several "fund raising" events all accross the country. So tell me, are we ever gonna "find out straight from the horses mouth" ...if he is going to these events? Not an unreasonable question to ask, I might add.
Greetings Villarasa. It is nice to see you here.
More questions? Some folks would rather ask questions then take the time to find the answers on their own. The reason is because the questions sound more ominous then the real answers.
In less time than it takes to type the question, anyone with real intellectual or political curiosity would have turned to Google and would have learned the president is active in raising money for the DNC to support Democratic candidates in 2014. Duh? Why did I not think of that?
"are we ever gonna "find out straight from the horses mouth" ...if he is going to these events"
Not sure if the question is unreasonable or not, but it absolutely unreasonable to ask it of me! I certainly haven't visited Obama and asked if he will ever tell!
If you would like, though, I can offer a semi-educated guess; No, he will not ever give a direct answer. And perhaps more important to you is that he will never give any answer satisfactory to you because he won't admit duplicity. Without that you will never be satisfied, wither it is true or not.
@Quill:
I don't think the questions I posted, are unreasonable. In fact the truthful answers to those questions could and would clarify, a lot more than what we are getting now from Obama, what with his constant attendance in 'fund raising" events. Another reasonable question to ask: Why is he doing a lot of those 'fund raising" events when his presidency would end in another 3 1/2 years. He surely would not need the money to fund another presidential campaign.
Hey there, Villarasa.
My question is this. It has become clear to whom?
Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland called for an end to the IRS probe after learning that “a self-described conservative Republican manager at the Internal Revenue Service in Cincinnati — where the targeting occurred — told committee investigators that he played a key role in the decision to give conservative groups greater scrutiny. The manager also said he was unaware of and rather doubted any direction came from the White House.
“The Cincinnati manager's information would appear to put a serious dent in GOP allegations that the targeting was an attempt by White House and other administration officials to hurt President Obama's political enemies.” {1}
Alas, we have finally learned the “whole truth” so many in this forum have been asking for. However, I seriously doubt that this portion of "the whole truth" will be confirmed in public by Rep. Issa's committee.
{1} http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics … estigation
The real problem is the IRS's incorrect interpretation of the law which provides for tax exemption status for organizations devoted "exclusively" to social welfare causes, not "primarily" to such causes. Many of these organizations subsidized by taxpayers are devoted primarily to political causes, conservative or liberal.
Another non-issue which Obama had nothing to do with. (There are several other legitimate issues for which he and Holder should be held accountable, such as interfering with freedom of the press to do its job, but "fast and furious is not one of them, nor is Benghazi.)
Here's one that is truly worrisome: NSA collecting call logs of millions of Verizon customers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top news: The National Security Agency is collecting business call logs involving millions of Americans under a secret warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Guardian reported Wednesday. The court order, which falls under a section of the Patriot Act, requires Verizon Business Network Services, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, to turn over all call records -- both foreign and domestic -- on a daily basis. The content of the calls is not covered under the warrant.
The revelation raises questions about the scope of the U.S. domestic surveillance program and would seem to confirm the cryptic warnings of Sens. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), both members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, about the use of "secret legal interpretations" to justify sweeping surveillance powers. In a letter to the attorney general last year, the senators wrote, "We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of .?.?these secret court opinions. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows."
George Orwell's 1984 has finally arrived... and with a vengeance.
This will be an interesting one to watch being spun.
Given that this practice is sanctioned not just by Obama and the executive
branch; not just Obama and the judicial branch; but Obama and the judicial
branch and the legislative branch.
Meaning, Congress itself voted on this, too.
You are also mistaken on MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues.
MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.
MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action are separate organizations.
For someone so doggedly obsessed with the "truth," you show little regard for it
in your own posts. These are easily checked facts.
As to the NAACP, the group is 100 years old (good hint: the term "colored people"
is no longer used). So you cannot seriously accuse the Obama administration of rushing through tax-exempt status for NAACP.
But here again, we are comparing apples (501(c)4s) and oranges (501(c)3s).
The NAACP is the latter. From the "Donate" section of their website.
"The NAACP is a charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Any gift you make is tax-deductible to the maximum extent allowed by law."
@MM: I may not have mentioned the appropriate liberal leaning politically motivated entities that have applied for tax exemption... the fact remains that these liberal leaning groups were never placed under the same officious scrutiny and targeting that these conservative groups were placed under by the IRS.... on Obama's watch.
So basically it boils down to "They got away with it but we didn't. It's not fair. The teacher hates us"
My heart still isn't breaking.
Although-once again-I would prefer it if no one did. But some not getting it is a step in the right direction I guess.
IS THIS TRUE??? "Ever wonder why these scandals go nowhere? Maybe this helps explain it: CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of top Obama official Ben Rhodes. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama Special Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood. And on and on, we haven't seen this much incestuous activity since the age of kings."
IS THIS TRUE??? "Ever wonder why these scandals go nowhere? Maybe this helps explain it: CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clintons Deputy Secretary Tom Nides. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of top Obama official Ben Rhodes. ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama Special Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood. And on and on, we haven't seen this much incestuous activity since the age of kings."
For our nation to endure and remain free, liberty must be at the forefront. All of these politicians from both political spectrums have only one issue at hand when making decisions, usually their own selfish agenda.. or one tied to said party! If they would stand by our Constitution backed by the Bill Of Rights, along with acknowledging they first do the people's work, we might be alright as a nation.
The federal government has grown to big and gotten far to out of hand. Our forefathers envisioned such, and put into place checks and balances to offset this. We the people must push through, before tyranny is commonplace.
They work for us, not against us. Though, they in Washington may see things differently. Time to get loud citizens.
@JDW:
Citizens are not gonna get loud for as long as a majority of them have become co-dependents with these politicians in achieving and or advancing their ideologicxal agenda.
Don't blame the IRS for doing its job
Lawrence O'Donnell joined former IRS official Marcus Owens and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein for some straight talk on IRS activity with regard to their examination of applications for tax-exempt status and whether what they did was improper. Here are some facts to go with the discussion:
Over 80 percent of applications submitted for tax-exempt status were from conservative organizations.
The only organization to have its tax-exempt status revoked was one run by Democratic women to try and encourage more women to run for office.
There is no requirement that any 501(c)(4) organization apply for approval of their tax-exempt status. If they do not apply, there is a risk of audit and disqualification down the road, but they are not required to apply to be a 501(c)(4) entity.
Despite Rush Limbaugh's exaggerated claims, there was no limitation imposed by the IRS on these groups' ability to influence the 2012 election.
Many of the IRS requests for information came about because of activities observed by agents in real time.
I keep pounding away at these points because it's clear that conservatives are working overtime to gin up constituent anger over them in the hopes they can push a wave effect into 2014. Marco Rubio, for example, put up a video saying that the only solution to the IRS "scandal" is to repeal Obamacare, which is a reach back to the thoroughly debunked lie that 60,000 new IRS agents would be hired to audit your health care. That's an Alex Jones/Michele Bachmann classic, revived now to strike fear in the hearts of teabaggers everywhere. They've staged one "day of protest" already. Here's what it looked like in my home town: (Click below for video)
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/dont-b … -their-job
@Ralph deeds:
The fact is the IRS have been empowered via Obamacare to collect the "penalties" incurred by individuals who decide not to have any health insurance coverage and business entities who decide not to have their workers covered by a health insurance policy. To that end, the IRS have to hire thousand more agents to collect these penalties i.e. tax as per the Supreme Court.
Now that we know the previous IRS commisioner (Shulman) visited the White House 157x during his short tenure, Obama apologists now link those visits mostly because of the fact that the IRS has to be on the loop via Obamacare, not because of the IRS coordinating with the White House on how to target various groups applying for tax exempt status, just because their political ideology and agenda runs counter to that of the president.
There is a very good reason why applicants with the word "Tea Party" in their
organization's title would be given extra scrutiny.
IRS 501(c)4 nonprofit status is for organizations that are not not primarily*
engaged in political activity. When you have the name of a POLITICAL party in
your title, how can you back away from the obviously fact that your organization is a POLITICAL party-based organization?
And then get your panties in a bunch because you are questioned about the fact
that you really are a POLITICAL organization?
*The problem-cum-opportunity here is that that is NOT what the 501(c)4 statute reads.
It reads "EXSLUSIVELY" not "PRIMARILY." Somewhere along the line the IRS diluted
the interpretation to "PRIMARILY" which opens up problems of interpretation and judgment calls on what percent of social welfare vs. politics is allowable.
The IRS shoud be granting NO organizations engaging in ANY political activity anonprofit status under 501(c)4.
@MM:
It does not bother you that the IRS would target individuals/entities/organization based on their conservative beliefs, and not those with liberal-left leaning ideologies?
If you must be reminded of...the first amendment applies to all Americans.... not just those whose political persuasion jibes with Pres. Obama.
This is not a First Amendment issue.
No one is being stopped from speaking or spreading whatever information they
want to.
But nowhere does it guarantee in the First Amendment that the taxpayers
have to pick up the tab for your views.
There is a grand irony here: the group that wantso to dismantle the federal government
is appealing the same federal government for special tax treatment.
Maybe you will do better than I was able to do in finding an actual list of organizations
that sought 501(c)4 status and received it vs. did not receive it.
Can you prove that comparable politically motiviated groups on the other side of the
spectrum were given preferential treatment???
How many? What the names and mission statements of their organizations were???
@MM: I didn't hear or see anywhere any reports of liberal leaning organizations complaining about maltreatment by the IRS. Have you?
Otherwise MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS.NBC would be reporting all about them in their respective venue.
The real thing the IRS scandal was not to deny fraudulent Tea Bagger 501 C 4 Applications
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roy68ZNM_bg
If a system such as the one run by the IRS, a government entity used to tax Americans and use such funds for what they in Washington deem necessary- if this system cannot function honestly and smoothly, it should be disbanded.
Our money and lives are at stake here. This is not a partisan political issue. The scandals facing Washington currently, and specifically the IRS debacle shows us citizens a tyrannical hand of government poking its ugly head out.
It is a simple case of right and wrong people, not Left or Right. Respect the Constitution and for gosh sakes you crooked politicos- quit the illegal acts while stepping on our rights!
We need a liberty driven overhaul in American politics, and fast..
by Alexander A. Villarasa 11 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...
by savvydating 7 years ago
Obama's Presidency is nearing it's end. What is his legacy, in your view?All opinions are welcome. I am interested to hear how different people view Barak Obama, as Commander-In-Chief.
by ga anderson 10 years ago
I think Pres. Obama's Immigration Reform speech was one of the best he has given. He touched on all the right points. And I like the content of his proposed action.Here is the speech:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeT_vu31eawBut... I also think it was a pure political move. I do not believe he was...
by lady_love158 13 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Banks-rep … 62554.htmlForeclosures topped 1 million in 2010 and the pace is expected to pick up in this quarter pushing home prices down an additional 5% and putting more borrowers under water.Yes Obama and the Democrats are doing a bang up job on the recovery!...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
With Obama as president, America does not need any enemies. In fact, Obama is America's enemy. First, he blasted the Constitution as an outmoded document. He showed irreverence for the American flag, refusing to salute the flag. He furthermore embodied an...
by OLYHOOCH 13 years ago
WASHINGTON — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces. In transferring command and control to NATO, the...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |