U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:13 PM
 
10,536 posts, read 12,964,167 times
Reputation: 2814

Advertisements

I am curious to get some idea of the responses to these questions. Before attacking the OP, I realize that partisanship and defending your candidate happens on both sides of the aisle.

1. Removing the possibility of any knowledge or involvement by the President, do any of the "scandals" being discussed concern you about how our government functions? Which one or ones?



2. Is there a level of involvement or knowledge by the President that, if demonstrated, would be of significant concern to you?




3. What level of evidence would it require to demonstrate knowledge or involvement (e-mails, testimony of conversations etc.)?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:22 PM
 
6,896 posts, read 7,171,087 times
Reputation: 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
I am curious to get some idea of the responses to these questions. Before attacking the OP, I realize that partisanship and defending your candidate happens on both sides of the aisle.

1. Removing the possibility of any knowledge or involvement by the President, do any of the "scandals" being discussed concern you about how our government functions? Which one or ones?



2. Is there a level of involvement or knowledge by the President that, if demonstrated, would be of significant concern to you?




3. What level of evidence would it require to demonstrate knowledge or involvement (e-mails, testimony of conversations etc.)?

I could sum this up with one answer. I have no trust in ANY POLITICIAN, none. Yes I voted for Obama over Romney and would do it again. In my life time I have never heard of or experienced ONE Politician where there were no questions or scandals, never experienced ONE politician that did not have just a complete disconnect from those that pays their salaries. That goes for this President, the last President, or the other IDIOTS on the hill. I for one have never responded to any thread on this board and made excuses for any of them. Their all crooked and it p'ss me off to the fullest that a portion of what I make goes into not only their pockets, but their associates, family members and others who do not even live or contribute anything to the United States.

Last edited by blackandproud; 05-21-2013 at 02:34 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,232 posts, read 16,972,037 times
Reputation: 4584
"Scandal" is the new "Nanny State" buzz word.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:29 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,632,683 times
Reputation: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud View Post
I could sum this up with one answer. I have no trust in ANY POLITICIAN, none. Yes I voted for Obama over Romney and would do it again. In my life time I have never heard of or experienced ONE Politician where there were no questions or scandals, never experienced ONE politician that did not have just a complete disconnect from those that pays their salaries. That goes for this President, the last President, or the other IDIOTS on the hill. I for one have never responded to any thread on this board any made excuses for any of them. Their all crooked and is p'ss me off to the fullest that a portion of what I make goes into not only their pockets, but their associates, family members and others who do not even live or contribute anything to the United States.
While do not vote so I don't take sides in this political mess, I agree with you 100%.

If anyone in DC moves their mouth, they are lying.

Notice there never is a terrist attack there. And don't throw up the Pentagon, that was so bogus it still smells. Kill off all the people who were investigating Rumpsfeld and the man with no heart.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:32 PM
 
6,896 posts, read 7,171,087 times
Reputation: 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregm View Post
While do not vote so I don't take sides in this political mess, I agree with you 100%.

If anyone in DC moves their mouth, they are lying.

Notice there never is a terrist attack there. And don't throw up the Pentagon, that was so bogus it still smells. Kill off all the people who were investigating Rumpsfeld and the man with no heart.

So true. On one side of their mouth you have a Politician bythcing about "pork" in the bills that are submitted then out of the other they're begging for money in the same bill, Or one year they're complaining about Fillibuster and 4 years down the road, they're in favor for it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:34 PM
 
42,724 posts, read 28,025,076 times
Reputation: 14326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
I am curious to get some idea of the responses to these questions. Before attacking the OP, I realize that partisanship and defending your candidate happens on both sides of the aisle.

1. Removing the possibility of any knowledge or involvement by the President, do any of the "scandals" being discussed concern you about how our government functions? Which one or ones?



2. Is there a level of involvement or knowledge by the President that, if demonstrated, would be of significant concern to you?




3. What level of evidence would it require to demonstrate knowledge or involvement (e-mails, testimony of conversations etc.)?
1. Yes, I'm always concerned about how government functions. Our government is an enormous bureaucracy. Bureaucracies exist as a way to defer responsibility. They are the ultimate bullies, able to use their power to compel people to act in certain ways, but also available to avoid accountability. "It's not my fault, I was just following the rules and regulations." "I don't know anything about that, it was handled by an office/division/level different than mine." "I'm sorry, you'll have to refer all your questions to Department 3116 of the Customer Service division. I don't have their number or any contact information. That's not my job."

2. Yes. If the President were involved in any of these bureaucratic snafus, I would be concerned. But I don't have any reason to believe that he was.

3. It's not a question of level of evidence. It's actual evidence. E-mails, testimony of conversations, are all evidence. But no one has actually produced any evidence that President Obama had direct knowledge of any of these matters. And I do believe in "the buck stops here", ultimately President Obama is responsible for the actions of those in his administration in the sense that management is supposed to MANAGE. They are supposed to know what the employees are doing. They are supposed to direct the employees to do their jobs properly. So it's President Obama's job to find out which employees failed to do their jobs properly, how that happened, what can prevent it from happening in the future, and disciplining the employees appropriately. Because that's what management does. Management doesn't have to fall on a sword every time an employee does something wrong. Management has to fix the problem.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:38 PM
 
6,896 posts, read 7,171,087 times
Reputation: 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
1. Yes, I'm always concerned about how government functions. Our government is an enormous bureaucracy. Bureaucracies exist as a way to defer responsibility. They are the ultimate bullies, able to use their power to compel people to act in certain ways, but also available to avoid accountability. "It's not my fault, I was just following the rules and regulations." "I don't know anything about that, it was handled by an office/division/level different than mine." "I'm sorry, you'll have to refer all your questions to Department 3116 of the Customer Service division. I don't have their number or any contact information. That's not my job."

2. Yes. If the President were involved in any of these bureaucratic snafus, I would be concerned. But I don't have any reason to believe that he was.

3. It's not a question of level of evidence. It's actual evidence. E-mails, testimony of conversations, are all evidence. But no one has actually produced any evidence that President Obama had direct knowledge of any of these matters. And I do believe in "the buck stops here", ultimately President Obama is responsible for the actions of those in his administration in the sense that management is supposed to MANAGE. They are supposed to know what the employees are doing. They are supposed to direct the employees to do their jobs properly. So it's President Obama's job to find out which employees failed to do their jobs properly, how that happened, what can prevent it from happening in the future, and disciplining the employees appropriately. Because that's what management does. Management doesn't have to fall on a sword every time an employee does something wrong. Management has to fix the problem.

My problem from a management perspective is, you have a Chief of Staff that was aware of the impending investigation findings and did not find the time to bring that to the Presidents attention. Now what I would like to know is, how is the President briefed on these matters? For me that Chief of staff needs to resign or fired. A rule needs to be implemented that not only should the President be briefed on National Security matters, but also matters that involve those who role directly under his adminstration. Thats the problem for me
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:49 PM
 
10,536 posts, read 12,964,167 times
Reputation: 2814
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
1. Yes, I'm always concerned about how government functions. Our government is an enormous bureaucracy. Bureaucracies exist as a way to defer responsibility. They are the ultimate bullies, able to use their power to compel people to act in certain ways, but also available to avoid accountability. "It's not my fault, I was just following the rules and regulations." "I don't know anything about that, it was handled by an office/division/level different than mine." "I'm sorry, you'll have to refer all your questions to Department 3116 of the Customer Service division. I don't have their number or any contact information. That's not my job."

2. Yes. If the President were involved in any of these bureaucratic snafus, I would be concerned. But I don't have any reason to believe that he was.

3. It's not a question of level of evidence. It's actual evidence. E-mails, testimony of conversations, are all evidence. But no one has actually produced any evidence that President Obama had direct knowledge of any of these matters. And I do believe in "the buck stops here", ultimately President Obama is responsible for the actions of those in his administration in the sense that management is supposed to MANAGE. They are supposed to know what the employees are doing. They are supposed to direct the employees to do their jobs properly. So it's President Obama's job to find out which employees failed to do their jobs properly, how that happened, what can prevent it from happening in the future, and disciplining the employees appropriately. Because that's what management does. Management doesn't have to fall on a sword every time an employee does something wrong. Management has to fix the problem.
Those are solid, fair responses.

I have the additional concerns that the points you make in response to number 1 about the bureaucracy allowing for deferred responsibility makes it less likely that the accountability and discipline will actually happen. I think it tends to allow for one person to be disciplined and for everyone else to go along as though nothing happened. For example(s), I don't think that hurrying along the departure of Miller is a real response, and to go to the other side, there is no way Oliver North was as responsible as he was treated.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:52 PM
 
31,367 posts, read 35,161,949 times
Reputation: 14982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
I am curious to get some idea of the responses to these questions. Before attacking the OP, I realize that partisanship and defending your candidate happens on both sides of the aisle.

1. Removing the possibility of any knowledge or involvement by the President, do any of the "scandals" being discussed concern you about how our government functions? Which one or ones?
The IRS

Frankly, considering the number of red flags that the IRS uses to "target" groups and individuals for extra scrutiny I think that the addition of organizational names such as "Tea Party" or "Liberty" was a pretty tone deaf act on the part of the IRS and for that reason alone I think that heads should roll.

Benghazi

There is no there, there. Period.

Search Warrant of AP phone records.

Even as a former journalist, the law is the law. If a lawful warrant is obtained... sorry but that's the way it goes. Don't like it, change the law.

Quote:
2. Is there a level of involvement or knowledge by the President that, if demonstrated, would be of significant concern to you?
The IRS.

If the President is at all involved, I would be pretty pissed at this point considering his strong denial and rebuke of agency officials.

Quote:
3. What level of evidence would it require to demonstrate knowledge or involvement (e-mails, testimony of conversations etc.)?
As the highest law enforcement officer in country, I have no problem with the President pursuing an investigation using all the legal tools at his or her disposal, so if Obama directly ordered the search of journalist emails or phone records... so be it.

As for the IRS, if the President ordered the IRS to employ greater scrutiny on right wing organizations and that scrutiny did not violate the law, I would be exceedingly disappointed but that would be the end of that.

For a reasoned report on the current situation with the IRS from a historical and legal perspective:

Before the IRS harassed the Tea Party, it harassed gay rights groups
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:55 PM
 
42,724 posts, read 28,025,076 times
Reputation: 14326
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackandproud View Post
My problem from a management perspective is, you have a Chief of Staff that was aware of the impending investigation findings and did not find the time to bring that to the Presidents attention. Now what I would like to know is, how is the President briefed on these matters? For me that Chief of staff needs to resign or fired. A rule needs to be implemented that not only should the President be briefed on National Security matters, but also matters that involve those who role directly under his adminstration. Thats the problem for me
I think that's a fair point to make.

The President has many pressing matters to deal with, and the Chief of Staff has to have some autonomy to determine which matters the President should weigh in on, and which are minor matters, but how the Chief of Staff makes those determinations is very telling, and when the Chief of Staff makes a mistake, there are consequences, like being forced to resign. On the flip side of the coin, the opposition party doesn't need to make every misstep into a major scandal, either. And I think the GOP has been working very hard to do so. So does the Heritage Foundation. They've even sent a letter out to GOP politicians, activists, and leaders advising they keep up the scandal mill, and refuse to pass any legislation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top