The 2013 Obama Scandal omnibus thread- Benghazi, IRS, AP, EPA, Congressional cloak room

Evidently, we're on the verge of going to war with the Knights Templar...

I got to help fund Obama care this year. In between jobs with the waiting period for health insurance, Blue Cross told me I would be good. Turns out I was 2 days over the allowed time to be without coverage. Now I get to pay a penalty, but the penalty is still less than coverage would have cost me. So Im not to upset, but if this would have been 2 years ago it would have been a non issue.

Obama just asked congress for permission to use military force against ISIS including boots on the ground for rescue/spec ops missions.

Obama just asked congress for permission to use military force against ISIS including boots on the ground for rescue/spec ops missions.

 

I think the thing that bothers me so much about this, is the fact that we all knew something needed to be done. Then Jordan went in and reacted exactly how everyone felt was truly appropriate and Obama saw that people respected that. So he quickly changed his tune. It just seems too little too late (even though i feel it is what needs to be done). The question now, is will all of his loyal supporters turn on him for pushing us towards more war....or will they consider this fight "justified"?

So now we're going to war with the rebels we just gave weapons to. I love it.....

I think the thing that bothers me so much about this, is the fact that we all knew something needed to be done. Then Jordan went in and reacted exactly how everyone felt was truly appropriate and Obama saw that people respected that. So he quickly changed his tune. It just seems too little too late (even though i feel it is what needs to be done). The question now, is will all of his loyal supporters turn on him for pushing us towards more war....or will they consider this fight "justified"?

 

We have been bombing the shit out of ISIS for probably over 6 months at this point. I am just not sure why they are keeping it on the D/L (it's not classified or anything, they just aren't doing any PR at all). Especially after the support for the Jordanian military you would think the politicians would be chomping at the bit to show how much we have been doing...

 

I just don't understand politics I guess.

I understand Joe is beyond stupid, but his sexual orientation... who knew... ?

 

I got to help fund Obama care this year. In between jobs with the waiting period for health insurance, Blue Cross told me I would be good. Turns out I was 2 days over the allowed time to be without coverage. Now I get to pay a penalty, but the penalty is still less than coverage would have cost me. So Im not to upset, but if this would have been 2 years ago it would have been a non issue.

 

 

Just wait until you fall into the level of having to pay for insurance then paying 0.9% surcharge on earned income and 3.8% surcharge on cap gains and dividends etc.

 

Did you know this?

 

Report: Yes, Iraq Had Chemical Weapons -- And The CIA Bought Them

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/report-yes...cia-bought-them

 

 

In his post on the NYT report, Ed Morissey noted that while this “should recast the WMD debate” to at least demonstrate that it's more "nuanced" than has been reported, it probably won’t. "On the other hand," he wrote, "we’ve waited almost a decade to find this out, so it’s impossible to say what else may have been discovered and not declared by the Pentagon and CIA during that period."

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/ci...e-ipad&_r=1

Its too convenient to still believe that the whole war was based on a lie that there were no WMD's in iraq

Posting without comment

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/25/ge...s_not_sim_keys/

 

So Jihadi John is from London from a well to do family and has a degree in computer programing.

What happened to " These are people that are poverty stricken and are doing it for jobs" narrative

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nation...e6ee_story.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WMOyGVV_gc....be&t=2m40s

 

 

 

Haven't been around a while but haven't seen this here yet.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750

Obama wants to use executive action to ban 5.56mm ammo.

 

First part of the article...

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

 

Haven't been around a while but haven't seen this here yet.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750

Obama wants to use executive action to ban 5.56mm ammo.

 

First part of the article...

 

http://www.lambopower.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=75015

So Net Neutrality went through. I really dont know much about it. Whats going to happen with this?

So Net Neutrality went through. I really dont know much about it. Whats going to happen with this?

 

Supposedly it's a way to ensure the Internet stays free. Democrats are thus all for it because they believe government regulation will keep the Internet free by preventing ISPs from controlling access. Conservatives are against it because they see it as an equivalent of the "Fairness Doctrine" but for the Internet, and also how historically government attempts at trying to regulate something to keep it "free and open" tend to do the opposite. The Left tend to support things that curtail speech whether they realize it or not, such as the Fairness Doctrine and campaign finance reform, so their faith in this as a way to preserve freedom is not encouraging.

Nothing like turning the internet into a commodity regulated by the government. I know everyone here LOVES their gas and electric companies, so who wouldnt want the same for the internet?!

Nothing like turning the internet into a commodity regulated by the government. I know everyone here LOVES their gas and electric companies, so who wouldnt want the same for the internet?!

Thats exactly what I was thinking. So the internet is regulated now? So can the government say that certain websites shouldnt be there? Maybe ones against the people in power?

So Net Neutrality went through. I really dont know much about it. Whats going to happen with this?

 

From what I understand the internet will become regulated by the government and ISPs will not be able to treat content providers differently from each other by throttling back etc.

Sounds like a good plan but as we all know the devil is in the details and I am sure the details will be more onerous than the intent.

 

No, content on the internet is not and will not be regulated as a result of the Net Neutrality ruling. Simply the idea that an ISP cannot charge a consumer extra to access specific content at a higher speed. I'm hardly someone who supports regulation, but what the ISPs were pushing for probably would have resulted in a lot of wrangling in the courts between consumers and the ISPs only after customers got screwed for a while. In reality, the Net Neutrality ruling will mean the internet essentially remains as it is.

 

Basically, without net neutrality, the ISPs could have a basic internet package which allows you to access low-bandwidth websites. If you wanted to see websites that have lots of pictures, you'd pay a little more. And if you wanted to stream netflix, hulu, and amazon, you'd pay for the premium package. The thing is, we already do this by selecting higher-speed connection packages if we want to access a lot of data. Furthermore, the ISPs only provide the connection from the internet backbone to your house. You're not paying the ISP to connect you directly to Netflix or LP, you're just paying for them to connect you to the backbone, where ALL traffic moves around equally. If you're paying for a connection at a certain speed, you're already paying for a certain amount of data per time, and net neutrality says that the ISPs cannot charge you based on the content of that data.

 

Frankly, the ISP business is far from a free market anyway. It would be nice for a truly free market solution to arise, but as it stands the ISPs have been granted local monopolies by governments (which obviously was a big mistake, surprise) and so the typical methods for consumers to hold a business accountable have been long gone in the world of internet access. Which leaves government action, unfortunately, really as the only way to deal with these issues.

No, content on the internet is not and will not be regulated as a result of the Net Neutrality ruling. Simply the idea that an ISP cannot charge a consumer extra to access specific content at a higher speed. I'm hardly someone who supports regulation, but what the ISPs were pushing for probably would have resulted in a lot of wrangling in the courts between consumers and the ISPs only after customers got screwed for a while. In reality, the Net Neutrality ruling will mean the internet essentially remains as it is.

 

Basically, without net neutrality, the ISPs could have a basic internet package which allows you to access low-bandwidth websites. If you wanted to see websites that have lots of pictures, you'd pay a little more. And if you wanted to stream netflix, hulu, and amazon, you'd pay for the premium package. The thing is, we already do this by selecting higher-speed connection packages if we want to access a lot of data. Furthermore, the ISPs only provide the connection from the internet backbone to your house. You're not paying the ISP to connect you directly to Netflix or LP, you're just paying for them to connect you to the backbone, where ALL traffic moves around equally. If you're paying for a connection at a certain speed, you're already paying for a certain amount of data per time, and net neutrality says that the ISPs cannot charge you based on the content of that data.

 

Frankly, the ISP business is far from a free market anyway. It would be nice for a truly free market solution to arise, but as it stands the ISPs have been granted local monopolies by governments (which obviously was a big mistake, surprise) and so the typical methods for consumers to hold a business accountable have been long gone in the world of internet access. Which leaves government action, unfortunately, really as the only way to deal with these issues.

 

Yes, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, government has a tendency to accomplish the opposite of what it sets out to do, and especially if regulating to ensure openness and equality and all of that. The fear is that by preventing the ISPs from charging in certain ways, that this essentially amounts to being a price-fixing scheme and will prevent the ISPs from being able to make the money that they need, and thus prevent further investments in infrastructure and technology.

Mark Cuban explains it.

 

"A new study shows that too much praise can turn your child into a rude narcissist.

 

Giving them a Nobel Peace Prize for no reason doesn't help any, either."

“I’m merely repeating what I’ve seen that they [Planned Parenthood] have said, that has been reported publicly about what they’ve said,” he told the packed room of reporters.

 

When asked if anyone in the White House, including the President, has yet watched the videos, Earnest could not confirm that anyone had. Instead, he attacked the videos as an “extremist” tactic.

 

Amazing. Its false, but they haven't even watched them. Honestly, if you are going to be a evil SOB, at least watch the videos and fcuking try to pretend you care.