• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most egregious scandal

What is the most egregious Obama scandal

  • Benghazi (can someone explain the scandal here?)

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • IRS scrutinizing conservative political organizations

    Votes: 10 27.8%

  • DOJ wiretapping AP reports

    Votes: 13 36.1%

  • Other (what?)

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • None of the above. They are all Con BS

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • Total voters
    36
Jredbaron96 said:
Either the IRS or the AP tapping.
Click to expand...

I know the Captain of a ship is ultimately responsible for the action of the people under his command but IMHO its obvious Obama had no idea what the IRS was doing at the Cincinnati office to conservative non-profits.

I see the AP issue as a War on Terror investigation. The rules were re-written after 9/11. I don't like invasions of privacy but this is not personal privacy being violated but the privacy of an organization hopefully with the intent to save American lives. Maybe we need to retire the Patriot Act and other post 9/11 intrusions by government under a protection of the public justification.

Because the conservative media has blown so much of their credibility in nothing more than their desire to cause President Obama to fail often over the most ridiculous issues or double standards, at this point its nearly impossible for me to see any criticism of him as nothing more than yet another right-wing partisan witch-hunt that I pay little attention to.
 
Smeagol said:
I know the Captain of a ship is ultimately responsible for the action of the people under his command but IMHO its obvious Obama had no idea what the IRS was doing at the Cincinnati office to conservative non-profits.
Click to expand...

I mean, he deserves plenty blame, but I don't think he should be the main recipient. I can't hold the man accountable for the action of every person in the Federal Government.

I see the AP issue as a War on Terror investigation. The rules were re-written after 9/11. I don't like invasions of privacy but this is not personal privacy being violated but the privacy of an organization hopefully with the intent to save American lives. Maybe we need to retire the Patriot Act and other post 9/11 intrusions by government under a protection of the public justification.
Click to expand...

I just avoid all these 'scandals' early on because I know the most talked about points will be the ones that will most likely be refuted later on. I'll bide my time before making my opinion.
 
Middleground said:
Thing is, the wiretapping is NOT new news. Fact is, it's been going on for some time now. So where was the outrage during the Bush era, when they chaged the laws to allow unwarrented tapping all in the name of fighting terrorism!11!!!! :roll:
Click to expand...

Is that what this was for, terrorism? To my knowledge that hasn't been established.
 
if it turns out that groups on the other side weren't similarly scrutinized, the IRS is the biggie. ****, i want these "social welfare" groups scrutinized to the gills, and i still don't feel they should be tax exempt. however, if only conservative 501c4s are getting the business from the IRS while the liberal ones are enjoying smooth sailing, then that's a BIG problem.

it would also be great to know if the practice of making the tax-exempt road harder for political enemies just began, or if it has been done before. i say shine a light on the whole mess as far back as we can. heads need to roll over that kind of policy.
 
Benghazi. The Susan Rice coverup? Duh?
 
Middleground said:
Frankly, we don't know now, do we? So why call it a scandal before we know all of the facts?
Click to expand...

Because scandal doesn't require proof to be scandal.

scan·dal
/ˈskandl/Noun
1.An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage: "a bribery scandal".
2.The outrage or anger caused by such an action or event.
Click to expand...

Btw upsideguy, politically biased poll - you should goto work for the dem polling orgs, you'd fit right in.
 
upsideguy said:
So I have long mocked the Cons for trying to make Obama scandals where there are none. Now, you may have one or two, but you can't have them all... so, lets pick one. Which of the current scandals has the most traction (will damage Obama's reputation the most)? Is it also the one that offends you the most?
Click to expand...

I'm not offended by any of them. I became interested in politics watching the Democratic and Republican conventions on TV back in 1956 and have seen much, much worse. Probably the one with the most traction is the AP phone taps. The media do not like things that happen to one of their own. Although I view this one the most legitimate. I hate to see national security classified information divulged or leaked with out going through its proper procedure of review and declassification.

Probably the one I am most curious about is the talking points. If the CIA was willing to have AQ organization listed in them and said it was a terrorist attack from the get go, why no go with it. CIA is much more up on national security and intel assets than State which through out history has been ver lax on all forms of security. But this is curiousness and I have no desire at the point and time to see any heads roll.

On the IRS, I wonder how the president in a speech made last year calling the tea party an undemocratic organization may have played in some of the IRS agents targeting that group. Perhaps to please their boss? Everyone hates the IRS, they have way too much power over everyone. Perhaps it is time for both parties to work together and rein them in some and this scandal just might provide that opperturnity.
 
upsideguy said:
Actually, you can't. Sorry, but its a bit politically naive to think that you can successfully prosecute 3 scandals at once as they compete with each other for media time and only act to drown one another out. You need media cycles to make anything stick.

Second, your suggesting they have equal value suggests to me the only "scandal" to you is that Obama is in office. You are really only happy that he is in the hot seat and not particularly bothered by any of the so-called scandals. If you were bothered, one would bother you more than others.
Click to expand...

Scoundrels "prosecute" scandals, which implies prevarication and slander. Gentlemen, such as myself, may prosecute or call for the prosecution of crimes, but scandals are merely a characterization of information. In other words, the facts, or at least the perception of what are believed to be facts create a proper scandal.

Obama is facing scandals because the detestable actions of his Administration are being exposed.
 
Middleground said:
Maybe in your world. Me, I like facts and tend to not knee jerk.
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read the definition of the word? Scandal isn't about fact as much as about perception.
 
American said:
The border agent didn't die under Bush.
Click to expand...

No....but the program was an idea of the Justice Department under the Bush Administration. Something that a lot of you people fail to every recognize. True...the program was continued under Obama and I think it was a stupid program. But if you are going to pass blame you cannot bifurcate the facts.
 
disneydude said:
No....but the program was an idea of the Justice Department under the Bush Administration. Something that a lot of you people fail to every recognize. True...the program was continued under Obama and I think it was a stupid program. But if you are going to pass blame you cannot bifurcate the facts.
Click to expand...

Sure we know it, but Obama could have changed it or ended it. He didn't. As far as I know there some differences too.
 
American said:
Sure we know it, but Obama could have changed it or ended it. He didn't. As far as I know there some differences too.
Click to expand...

He SHOULD have changed it. I fault him for that. But there is no knowing whether the gun that killed the agent was bought under Obama's leadership or under GWB's. That is the point that those who scream "Fast and Furious" either refuse to recognize or are simply ignorant about because they don't know the facts.
 
Josie said:
According to some, the scandal connected to Benghazi has to do with gun-running to Syria.

From what I know of right now, the IRS scandal is the worst. How can any American citizen be okay with what they did?
Click to expand...

I may be stupid on the subject, but aren't the tax exemptions in question only supposed to be for non-political organizations? If an organization names itself after a political movement, isn't there some justification for targeting them?

I am not making excuses, I'm just thinking out loud. And in ignorance.
 
I am trying to become non-ignorant on the subject.

Why Tax Exempt Groups are a Political Minefield for the IRS - ABC News

To be sure, tax-exemption is one perk of receiving 501(c)4 status from the IRS, but the real reason the tax-exempt status has in recent years become a popular vehicle for groups that straddle the line between advocacy and politics is that the status allows them to do political work and keep their contributions hidden.

Ever since the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money in political elections as long as they didn't coordinate their activities with campaigns or donate directly to candidates, groups seeking to influence elections but not disclose their donors have flocked to tax-exempt 501(c)4 organizations. The IRS said that applications for tax-exempt status shot up from 1,751 in 2009 to 3,357 in 2012.
Click to expand...
 
American said:
Is that what this was for, terrorism? To my knowledge that hasn't been established.
Click to expand...

I haven't been following it closely but I think the AP investigation had to do with finding Boston Marathon bombing sleeper cells. I might be wrong; just so turn off by the Obama is the enemy stuff I just don't pay attention to most of it anymore.

I'm looking now and just saw the Justice Department complied with the 4th Amendment and had subpenas to investigate AP. Can't find what they we're actually looking for yet.
 
Last edited:
The Benghazi cover up is likely to bring down Obama. Benghazi has revealed what many of us already knew, that Obama is incompetent and was derelict in his duties as Cn'C.

But the IRS going after conservatives is a more serious issue. And it reveals that Obama's supporters have no problem defecating on the Constitution.
 
Smeagol said:
I haven't been following it closely but I think the AP investigation had to do with finding Boston Marathon bombing sleeper cells. I might be wrong; just so turn off by the Obama is the enemy stuff I just don't pay attention to most of it anymore.
Click to expand...

Your way off Smeagol.

The AP investigation is about finding who in the Obama administration was revealing classified information to the press to help President Obama to get reelected.
 
I am interested to know more about the AP scandal, but I'm getting the impression that this just bad timing for the administration. Only the AP scandal could truly be 'Nixonian'.
 
Amadeus said:
I am trying to become non-ignorant on the subject.
Click to expand...

The bolded part 'The IRS said that applications for tax-exempt status shot up from 1,751 in 2009 to 3,357 in 2012' sounds magnificent until you realize the time line. Per the IG report and testimony today the 'tea party targeting' began in '09 before this significant increase (which occurred in '12). Again per the IG report SEVERAL of these 'targeted' organizations didn't receive their 501c status until the latter part of '12. Since the number of applications in '09, '10 and '11 was relatively level using the applications 'shot up' excuse is useless.
 
That's a neat trick. List three relevant investigations, each of which is a piece of the puzzle that shows what a corrupt and dishonest administration we have, dismiss another one as "history" and therefore aim to end up only having to explain one situation. I'm going to reject the premise and say we need to investigate all of them, and if it is later found that the BS testimony we have been getting turns out to be false then perjury charges need to be handed down and followed to conclusion. The attempts by the administration and their lapdogs to minimize these incidents should not be honored. This administration has a history of lying and being dismissive to anyone who disagrees, and in some cases using intimidation to silence opposition. I'm saying we shouldn't let it happen. Investigations need to continue until the truth is found and then anybody who tried to cover it up by lying needs to go to jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom