If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Obama's Rose Parade of scandals: a crash course on the perils of big government   (nationalreview.com) divider line 111
    More: Obvious, Rose Parade, obama, CARE Act, electronic medical records, Kathleen Sebelius  
•       •       •

722 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2013 at 9:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-17 10:30:02 AM

verbaltoxin: that bosnian sniper: "Woah, man, what if we like got Monsanto to genetically fuse a potato and a chicken?"

Coming to grocery stores: the chiktato.


Let's be honest: it would be at Taco Bell first.
 
2013-05-17 10:32:46 AM

verbaltoxin: that bosnian sniper: "Woah, man, what if we like got Monsanto to genetically fuse a potato and a chicken?"

Coming to grocery stores: the chiktato.


potacken?
 
2013-05-17 10:35:45 AM

keylock71: Lol. Oh man... You have no idea how large corporations work, do you?


That was the excuse the Worldcom guy had and everybody laughed at him.  He said 'i don't know what is going on at the company I run' and everybody said that excuse wasn't going to fly.

There are ways to find out.  CEO's get reports.  If one store starts suddenly losing money, the CEO will find out about it and it is his/her job to fix it.
 
2013-05-17 10:37:34 AM
Is this the thread where the hardcore Fark libs come to jerk each other off and console each other with their tasty Koolaid?  They all look so similar nowadays.
 
2013-05-17 10:40:55 AM

Aarontology: My company has over 50,000 employees in like forty countries. there's no way in hell the CEO knows what's going on at all times.


Yes I do.

Get back to work, slacker!
 
2013-05-17 10:42:05 AM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Is this the thread where the hardcore Fark libs come to jerk each other off and console each other with their tasty Koolaid?  They all look so similar nowadays.


Like I said before, better to be in a Liberal circle jerk than in the centre of one with the Conservatives.
 
2013-05-17 10:42:17 AM
of all people, David Axelrod made an argument for small government on wednesday:

Axelrod began "Part of being president is, there is so much beneath you that you can't know, because the government is so vast."

So, thanks, David Axelrod, for making the conservative case that "government is so vast" that it is impossible to make it competent and accountable in its current size.
 
2013-05-17 10:44:24 AM

SlothB77: keylock71: Lol. Oh man... You have no idea how large corporations work, do you?

That was the excuse the Worldcom guy had and everybody laughed at him.  He said 'i don't know what is going on at the company I run' and everybody said that excuse wasn't going to fly.

There are ways to find out.  CEO's get reports.  If one store starts suddenly losing money, the CEO will find out about it and it is his/her job to fix it.


I'll remember this the next time a corporation f*cks up, and you'll be here, blaming government regulations.
 
2013-05-17 10:46:10 AM
The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.  What penalties will that agency suffer as a result?  What incentive does it have to not do that again?

Now imagine a corporation did the same thing against a certain group of people.
 
2013-05-17 10:46:35 AM

SlothB77: of all people, David Axelrod made an argument for small government on wednesday:

Axelrod began "Part of being president is, there is so much beneath you that you can't know, because the government is so vast."

So, thanks, David Axelrod, for making the conservative case that "government is so vast" that it is impossible to make it competent and accountable in its current size.


Interestingly enough, isn't that part of the excuse the Bush administration used to shield itself from liability in any of the numerous scandals in which it was involved? Plus, you gotta ask yourself, over the last forty or so years Presidents of which party consistently reduced the "size" of government (whatever that means, since the definition of "size" seems less dependent upon any quantitative factor than it does political expediency), and which have  increased it?
 
2013-05-17 10:47:20 AM

SlothB77: The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.


And, again, what was the tea party doing that subjected them to increased scrutiny?
 
2013-05-17 10:48:04 AM

that bosnian sniper: SlothB77: The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.

And, again, what was the tea party doing that subjected them to increased scrutiny?


And -- sorry for the double post -- who are they, that increased scrutiny  matters?
 
2013-05-17 10:50:20 AM

SlothB77: The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.  What penalties will that agency suffer as a result?  What incentive does it have to not do that again?

Now imagine a corporation did the same thing against a certain group of people.


I don't know that it's possible to penalize a government agency. What do you want to do, fine them so that they have to pay the treasury with taxpayer funds (which is exactly where those funds will wind up anyways)?

Better to fire the offending party or parties and get on with your life. If you don't share my opinion, lets hear yours.
 
2013-05-17 10:50:29 AM

that bosnian sniper: Interestingly enough, isn't that part of the excuse the Bush administration used to shield itself from liability in any of the numerous scandals in which it was involved? Plus, you gotta ask yourself, over the last forty or so years Presidents of which party consistently reduced the "size" of government (whatever that means, since the definition of "size" seems less dependent upon any quantitative factor than it does political expediency), and which have increased it?


I don't support republicans increasing the size of government either.
 
2013-05-17 10:50:43 AM

SlothB77: The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.  What penalties will that agency suffer as a result?  What incentive does it have to not do that again?

Now imagine a corporation did the same thing against a certain group of people.


Like what?  A health insurance company?
 
2013-05-17 10:52:21 AM

SlothB77: I don't support republicans increasing the size of government either.


If you don't support increasing the "size" of government altogether, then why criticize the party that has actually decreased the size of government for increasing it? And, why not call out the party that has consistently increased its size?
 
2013-05-17 10:54:04 AM

edmo: Politics as usual.

But as a govie, let me tell you government is full of egotistic idiots doing crap like this and they sure as shiat don't consult with the POTUS before they fark up. Bonus: they're not near bright enough to do this because politics; the motivation is always something really stupid like getting some award for productivity.


Agreed.  When I heard NPR walk through the bureaucratic back end of this yesterday, it all clicked over for me.  I've worked in gov offices most of my career, I see EXACTLY how this type of thing can happen.  I'm sure there were 3 levels of management who collectively shiat themselves when this broke on the news because ain't no way anyone above Cincinnati knew the details of the screenings - they hired people to do the job and they were doing it.

Frankly, I'd be upset if Obama DID know about this, because if he's expected to know about this, then he's expected to know literally every decision that is happening in the executive branch and that's impossible.  While the responsibility lies with him, it is a litmus test to ask whether he should have known about it.  I wouldn't want to work anywhere in the IRS these days or for the next 5 years, this is going to absolutely shatter morale.
 
2013-05-17 10:57:50 AM

TelemonianAjax: edmo: Politics as usual.

But as a govie, let me tell you government is full of egotistic idiots doing crap like this and they sure as shiat don't consult with the POTUS before they fark up. Bonus: they're not near bright enough to do this because politics; the motivation is always something really stupid like getting some award for productivity.

Agreed.  When I heard NPR walk through the bureaucratic back end of this yesterday, it all clicked over for me.  I've worked in gov offices most of my career, I see EXACTLY how this type of thing can happen.  I'm sure there were 3 levels of management who collectively shiat themselves when this broke on the news because ain't no way anyone above Cincinnati knew the details of the screenings - they hired people to do the job and they were doing it.

Frankly, I'd be upset if Obama DID know about this, because if he's expected to know about this, then he's expected to know literally every decision that is happening in the executive branch and that's impossible.  While the responsibility lies with him, it is a litmus test to ask whether he should have known about it.  I wouldn't want to work anywhere in the IRS these days or for the next 5 years, this is going to absolutely shatter morale.


I tend to agree that Obama probably had no idea this was going on.  I find it incredibly unlikely that he did, at least until someone comes up with evidence to the contrary, but I doubt he would sign off on something so obviously and egregiously abusive.  The problem with this in a larger context is the perception that some elements of the IRS can become politicized, and they wield a great deal of power.  Considering they are one of the most important agencies in the federal government, the public's trust and confidence in them are paramount.  I think that's largely why you see outrage from both parties about this issue.
 
2013-05-17 10:58:00 AM

Aarontology: My company has over 50,000 employees in like forty countries. there's no way in hell the CEO knows what's going on at all times.


Obama has employees in 90% of the countries in the world and probably 5 times the number of employees, all told.  Oh, and the responsibility for conducting wars, counter terror operations, dragging the country into the future, and the possibility of having to open the nuclear suitcase at any given moment due to events outside his control.

Truly, he is history's greatest monster for not knowing how a field office was screening applications for charity groups.
 
2013-05-17 10:58:26 AM

Poopspasm: SlothB77: The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.  What penalties will that agency suffer as a result?  What incentive does it have to not do that again?

Now imagine a corporation did the same thing against a certain group of people.

I don't know that it's possible to penalize a government agency. What do you want to do, fine them so that they have to pay the treasury with taxpayer funds (which is exactly where those funds will wind up anyways)?

Better to fire the offending party or parties and get on with your life. If you don't share my opinion, lets hear yours.


that's the other problem.  even if they pay the aggrieved party, it just costs us taxpayers in the long run.  they are firing someone who is going to quit in a month anyways, so that is no penalty.  sarah ingram hall was rewarded for what she did.  government agencies can do this sort of thing and essentially get away with it.

i don't think wall street should have been bailed out either.  it is the same thing - getting away with something that is wrong - fraud, criminality, whatever.  what incentive does wall street have to not repeat the same mistakes they made last time?  we are just going to bail them out as too big to fail.  we let them fail, they won't make those mistakes again.

but we reward failure, we reward corruption and we assure ourselves plenty more of it.
 
2013-05-17 10:58:56 AM

FlashHarry: SlothB77: The executive of a company is responsible for everything all the way down to the lowest level employee and has to know what is going on the front lines.

bull. shiat.

it is literally impossible for a CEO (or a president) to know everything that's going on in every office in every city in every state in the country.


It's not for lack of trying.
Those pesky privacy rights tend to get in the way.  Damn them.

Maybe having unsupervised and unaccountable employees who run roughshod over the rights of others is a consequence of delving too deep into the governance of others.
A "peril of big government" if you will.
 
2013-05-17 11:01:07 AM

SlothB77: of all people, David Axelrod made an argument for small government on wednesday:

Axelrod began "Part of being president is, there is so much beneath you that you can't know, because the government is so vast."

So, thanks, David Axelrod, for making the conservative case that "government is so vast" that it is impossible to make it competent and accountable in its current size.


• the government has gotten smaller under obama
• no matter how small it gets, it's still going to be 'vast' to the point that the president will never be able to know everything that's going on - we are a nation of 320,000,000 people, after all, and the world's largest economy

unless you're an anarchist. are you an anarchist?
 
2013-05-17 11:01:31 AM

Nabb1:  I think that's largely why you see outrage from both parties about this issue.


The outrage is different on both sides.  I see lefties upset that the IRS isn't able to do its job because they don't have proper guidance from Congress and they're dealing with messed up rules to begin with, while the right seems to believe that Obama met these OH IRS agents in a parking lot at midnight wearing a trench coat and smoking a cigarette.

With that one relatively minor quibble, I am with you 100%.  The public's trust in the IRS must, must, must be rock solid.  It used to be, but decades of one political party preaching about how the government is completely ineffective at everything it does takes a toll.  I'm hopeful that this event can help spur someone with the power to break the logjam, but I'm not hopeful.
 
2013-05-17 11:02:12 AM

that bosnian sniper: SlothB77: I don't support republicans increasing the size of government either.

If you don't support increasing the "size" of government altogether, then why criticize the party that has actually decreased the size of government for increasing it? And, why not call out the party that has consistently increased its size?


Obamacare is decreasing the size of government?
Democrats supported sequester?

neither party has decreased the size of government.

clinton and obama have probably increased the size of government at a much slower rate than reagan and bush and bush.  though obama has increased our debt at a much higher rate than bush and that may be just as bad.

republicans are much more supportive of decreasing the size of government than democrats are.  Look at Marco Rubio's speech from wednesday or thursday of this week.
 
2013-05-17 11:02:25 AM

SlothB77: The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.  What penalties will that agency suffer as a result?  What incentive does it have to not do that again?

Now imagine a corporation did the same thing against a certain group of people.


Once again, doing god's work by feeding the Fark beer fund. Drew thanks you.
 
2013-05-17 11:03:04 AM

Polly Ester: It's not for lack of trying.
Those pesky privacy rights tend to get in the way.  Damn them.


lolwut? did you even read what i wrote?

i said, "it is literally impossible for a CEO (or a president) to know everything that's going on in every office in every city in every state in the country."

what do privacy rights have to do with the president knowing or not knowing what goes on at various levels of the government bureaucracy?
 
2013-05-17 11:05:08 AM

SlothB77: though obama has increased our debt at a much higher rate than bush and that may be just as bad.


actually, the deficit - the rate at which our debt increases - has decreased pretty much every year under obama.

m.static.newsvine.com
 
2013-05-17 11:06:12 AM

FlashHarry: • the government has gotten smaller under obama


measured by budget, it has gotten larger every year under obama, even after leaving iraq.

as far as government employees including active military, it is down.  democrats fought tooth and nail to avoid sequester.

democrats support a larger government role in health care and energy.
 
2013-05-17 11:08:54 AM

verbaltoxin: SlothB77: The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.  What penalties will that agency suffer as a result?  What incentive does it have to not do that again?

Now imagine a corporation did the same thing against a certain group of people.

Once again, doing god's work by feeding the Fark beer fund. Drew thanks you.


it would be nice to have some company on this side.
 
2013-05-17 11:09:12 AM

doyner: Rapmaster2000: Don't forget Birthcertifigateghazi, Healthy School Lunchesgateghazi, and Blahgateghazi.

FIFY


And, of course, Benghazigateghazi.
 
2013-05-17 11:09:53 AM

SlothB77: measured by budget, it has gotten larger every year under obama, even after leaving iraq.


considering the fact that the country is growing in population and that we had just experienced the largest economic cataclysm in nearly a century, this is not unexpected.

SlothB77: as far as government employees including active military, it is down.


this is true.

SlothB77: democrats fought tooth and nail to avoid sequester.


as well they should have. it was specifically designed to be too awful to happen. it happened anyway because republicans refused to budge on taxes for billionaires. (not to mention that the sequester would never have happened had republicans not held america's credit hostage in the summer of 2011 by threatening to not pay for spending they authorized)

SlothB77: democrats support a larger government role in health care and energy.


yes they do. this should surprise no one.
 
2013-05-17 11:10:34 AM

tnpir: BSABSVR: SlothB77: kronicfeld: I wonder how personally responsible these same critics would find the CEO of a comparably-sized private corporation under comparable circumstances?

Also, Obama seems to be a bystander in all this.  Imagine if the executive of a company said this:

"I found out about all this the same time you did, when I saw it on the news."  "I am disengaged from all the minutia going on at every agency.  That is so below me." "I am not interested in all the slow-moving Washington gridlock stuff.  I don't even bother to keep track of all that, it is just all so petty and frustrating to me.  I'd rather focus on my big, bold plans to save this nation."

The executive of a company is responsible for everything all the way down to the lowest level employee and has to know what is going on the front lines.

The executive may be responsible in the technical sense, but for a large corporation, the CEO has no idea what goes on on the front lines. The CEO of Home Depot doesn't decide the price of a box of screws, doesn't train the staff on how to answer the phone, and has no idea that Larry at store # 183 is a dick.

Yeah, I know Larry. He IS a dick.


Thanks, Francis Stant0n Drake.
 
2013-05-17 11:21:02 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: And, of course, Benghazigateghazi.


I was a lone voice in the wilderness on Benghazi sept/oct '12.  I ended up being the only one who was right.

I can be a lone voice in the wilderness about this too.
 
2013-05-17 11:25:33 AM

SlothB77: Tyrone Slothrop: And, of course, Benghazigateghazi.

I was a lone voice in the wilderness on Benghazi sept/oct '12.  I ended up being the only one who was right.

I can be a lone voice in the wilderness about this too.


What exactly were you right about?  I'm serious.
 
2013-05-17 11:29:03 AM
What lack of a "big government" looks like:

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-05-17 11:33:12 AM

SlothB77: I was a lone voice in the wilderness on Benghazi sept/oct '12.  I ended up being the only one who was right.


uh... right about what, exactly?
 
2013-05-17 11:38:11 AM

FlashHarry: SlothB77: I was a lone voice in the wilderness on Benghazi sept/oct '12.  I ended up being the only one who was right.

uh... right about what, exactly?


When Romney did his "nailed it speech", SlothB77 knew there was something not right about the whole thing.  His spidey-sense (you know the same feeling that told him the polls were skewed) fired-up and told him Benghazi was a scandal.
 
2013-05-17 11:42:58 AM

Infernalist: What exactly were you right about? I'm serious.


FlashHarry: uh... right about what, exactly?


About Benghazi! Jesus, try to keep up, guys
 
2013-05-17 11:43:19 AM

Infernalist: SlothB77: Tyrone Slothrop: And, of course, Benghazigateghazi.

I was a lone voice in the wilderness on Benghazi sept/oct '12.  I ended up being the only one who was right.

I can be a lone voice in the wilderness about this too.

What exactly were you right about?  I'm serious.


There were at least a couple days where Freep-Farkers were insisting that a Syrian street mob beat Ambassador Stevens to death, raped his corpse, and paraded it though the streets. I can't remember if SlothB77 was one of those people or not.
 
2013-05-17 11:45:19 AM

Hickory-smoked: Infernalist: SlothB77: Tyrone Slothrop: And, of course, Benghazigateghazi.

I was a lone voice in the wilderness on Benghazi sept/oct '12.  I ended up being the only one who was right.

I can be a lone voice in the wilderness about this too.

What exactly were you right about?  I'm serious.

There were at least a couple days where Freep-Farkers were insisting that a Syrian street mob beat Ambassador Stevens to death, raped his corpse, and paraded it though the streets. I can't remember if SlothB77 was one of those people or not.


In fairness, the GOP has been raping that corpse for 7 months now.
 
2013-05-17 11:52:47 AM
SlothB77
I was a lone voice in the wilderness

Wow, delusions of grandeur much?

"And lo, SlothB77, the one spoken of by the prophets, was eating locusts and wild honey in the desert, and proclaiming HERPA DERPA DOO!"
 
2013-05-17 11:54:16 AM

SlothB77: kronicfeld: I wonder how personally responsible these same critics would find the CEO of a comparably-sized private corporation under comparable circumstances?

Also, Obama seems to be a bystander in all this.  Imagine if the executive of a company said this:

"I found out about all this the same time you did, when I saw it on the news."  "I am disengaged from all the minutia going on at every agency.  That is so below me." "I am not interested in all the slow-moving Washington gridlock stuff.  I don't even bother to keep track of all that, it is just all so petty and frustrating to me.  I'd rather focus on my big, bold plans to save this nation."

The executive of a company is responsible for everything all the way down to the lowest level employee and has to know what is going on the front lines.


Like Rumsfeld, and Bush were ultimately responsible for Abu Ghraib, instead of some low-level military person, right?
 
2013-05-17 12:08:42 PM
Hate to threadjack, but does anyone have the graph that charts the decline in public sector jobs under Obama so I can dispel the "big government" myth for a friend?
 
2013-05-17 12:11:42 PM

SlothB77: though obama has increased our debt at a much higher rate than bush and that may be just as bad.



Point of order: This statement is categorically false. Regardless of which party you belong to, or to what you attribute the deficit, the deficit (the rate of growth in debt) is down substantially over the last 5 years. I don't really care how you chalk it up, whether it's to the President, or to the branch where spending bills originate, but in an objective sense, it is dishonest to say that the debt is increasing at a higher rate.
 
2013-05-17 12:12:42 PM

ManateeGag: what scandals?

all I've heard about this week is trumped up bullshiat.


Yes, but this is the GOP's new excuse and way to be obstructionist, so be quiet, they have an economy to run aground.
 
2013-05-17 12:25:59 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: SlothB77: kronicfeld: I wonder how personally responsible these same critics would find the CEO of a comparably-sized private corporation under comparable circumstances?

Also, Obama seems to be a bystander in all this.  Imagine if the executive of a company said this:

"I found out about all this the same time you did, when I saw it on the news."  "I am disengaged from all the minutia going on at every agency.  That is so below me." "I am not interested in all the slow-moving Washington gridlock stuff.  I don't even bother to keep track of all that, it is just all so petty and frustrating to me.  I'd rather focus on my big, bold plans to save this nation."

The executive of a company is responsible for everything all the way down to the lowest level employee and has to know what is going on the front lines.

Like Rumsfeld, and Bush were ultimately responsible for Abu Ghraib, instead of some low-level military person, right?


I have no problem saying that Bush & Rumsfeld were responsible for Abu Ghraib.

Also that Obama is responsible for Benghazi.  He took responsibility for it.  The smarter question is how did Obama do in general with regards to diplomatic security and National security as a whole.  Pretty farking stellar compared to the Bush administration.
 
2013-05-17 12:27:28 PM

Fellate O'Fish: SlothB77
I was a lone voice in the wilderness

Wow, delusions of grandeur much?

"And lo, SlothB77, the one spoken of by the prophets, was eating locusts and wild honey in the desert, and proclaiming HERPA DERPA DOO!"


It is always impressive how tall some people make their crosses. Sloth probably needs a helicopter to be able to nail himself to his cross.
 
2013-05-17 12:28:16 PM

Bane of Broone: Hate to threadjack, but does anyone have the graph that charts the decline in public sector jobs under Obama so I can dispel the "big government" myth for a friend?


well, the deficit has certainly decreased under obama. those charts are available.
 
2013-05-17 12:38:57 PM

Bane of Broone: Hate to threadjack, but does anyone have the graph that charts the decline in public sector jobs under Obama so I can dispel the "big government" myth for a friend?


This is one from the NYTimes:
graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-05-17 12:43:28 PM

Epoch_Zero: Bane of Broone: Hate to threadjack, but does anyone have the graph that charts the decline in public sector jobs under Obama so I can dispel the "big government" myth for a friend?

This is one from the NYTimes:
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 480x288]


You rock. Thank you so much.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report