WakeandBake
Well-known member
George Will is obsolete
What if Administration just admitted it was guilty?
- Thread starter Mbadvisor
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
He was landing haymakers today.
Liberalism’s agenda has been constant since long before liberals, having given their name a bad name, stopped calling themselves liberals and resumed calling themselves progressives, which they will call themselves until they finish giving that name a bad name. The agenda always is: Concentrate more power in Washington, more Washington power in the executive branch and more executive power in agencies run by experts. Then trust the experts to be disinterested and prudent with their myriad intrusions into, and minute regulations of, Americans’ lives. Obama’s presidency may yet be, on balance, a net plus for the public good if it shatters Americans’ trust in the regulatory state’s motives.
Now, regarding Obama’s second-term agenda. His reelection theme — reelect me because I am not Mitt Romney — yielded a meager mandate, and he used tactics that are now draining the legitimacy that an election is supposed to confer.
One tactic was to misrepresent the Benghazi attack, lest it undermine his narrative about taming terrorism. Does anyone think the administration’s purpose in manufacturing 12 iterations of the talking points was to make them more accurate? (emphasis in original)
Shorty
Boomer Boy
Why would you say that?
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,145
- Reaction score
- 23,093
You don't think he is? There are vast conservative media on radio, mainstream news, and the internet. Baseball doesn't have near the magic it used to have and its almost owned by stats geeks.
George Will as a high profile conservative columnist and baseball historian is an obsolete voice for both.
George Will as a high profile conservative columnist and baseball historian is an obsolete voice for both.
Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,413
- Reaction score
- 1,376
Yeah he pretty much whooped him. The mini scandals and his handling of the sequester has pretty much taken the steam out if his mandate though in my opinion. It doesn't seem to me that he is swinging a big stick lately. Playing a lot of defense.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,145
- Reaction score
- 23,093
Heard today that polls show people don't really care much about these scandals.
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
Well, he is black so...
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,145
- Reaction score
- 23,093
Is this intentionally ironic? You're posting from the Echo Chamber to deride polls that gauge the responses of people outside the Echo Chamber.
I'll make you a bet, there Professor. More people a) trust big government's IRS or b) distrust big government's IRS. You really think a majority of Americans don't care about the IRS scandal? What is it like living on Fantasy Island?
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,145
- Reaction score
- 23,093
People already didn't trust the IRS, no matter who was in the White House. This isn't going to matter much in changing their perception about an already unpopular agency.
Tax collectors are shady? No wai.
Tax collectors are shady? No wai.
Last edited:
Echo...echo...echo...
If three audits in four months (after being named by the President in a speech) doesn't bother you, you need to invest in a mirror:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348687/autocrat-accountants-mark-steyn
Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.
Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. . . . The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.
Miss Strassel wrote that on April 26, 2012. Five weeks later, one of the named individuals, Frank VanderSloot, was informed by the IRS that he and his wife were being audited. In July, he was told by the Department of Labor of an additional audit over the guest workers on his cattle ranch in Idaho. In September, he was notified that one of his other businesses was to be audited. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never previously been audited, attracted three in the four months after being publicly named by el Presidente. More to the point he attracted that triple audit even though Miss Strassel explicitly predicted in America’s biggest-selling newspaper that this was exactly what the Obama enforcers were going to do.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348687/autocrat-accountants-mark-steyn
Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.
Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. . . . The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.
Miss Strassel wrote that on April 26, 2012. Five weeks later, one of the named individuals, Frank VanderSloot, was informed by the IRS that he and his wife were being audited. In July, he was told by the Department of Labor of an additional audit over the guest workers on his cattle ranch in Idaho. In September, he was notified that one of his other businesses was to be audited. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never previously been audited, attracted three in the four months after being publicly named by el Presidente. More to the point he attracted that triple audit even though Miss Strassel explicitly predicted in America’s biggest-selling newspaper that this was exactly what the Obama enforcers were going to do.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,145
- Reaction score
- 23,093
I don't think you understand what I said. You can't hear from your Echo Chamber.
People already don't trust the IRS. People don't already trust how political campaigns are funded. This scandal is not going to change the perception of the IRS.
People already don't trust the IRS. People don't already trust how political campaigns are funded. This scandal is not going to change the perception of the IRS.
I don't think you understand that it is not the IRS's credibility that is at stake. How many times can POTUS shrug his shoulders and say "I didn't know" before people realize that he's not governing very well?