Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    Obama Promise to Protect Whistleblowers Scrubbed From Website



    Obama Promise to Protect Whistleblowers Scrubbed From Website
    Oh dear. Seems that Obama has 'evolved' his position again.

    ?


    • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      E-mails Suggest Collusion Between FEC, IRS to Target Conservative Groups



      E-mails Suggest Collusion Between FEC, IRS to Target Conservative Groups | National Review Online
      Well, so much for a 'phony scandal' I guess. No, I'm thinking that this is a real one.

      ?


      • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

        And here we can see where the administration is continuing in their stonewalling, blocking, delaying, and obsfuscation on this scandal as well as all their other scandals.
        House Republicans on Friday accused Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew of obstructing their investigation into the IRSs targeting of tea party and conservative groups, and issued subpoenas for more agency documents.

        Oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa, California Republican, sent a scathing latter to Mr. Lew blasting him and President Obama for dismissing the GOPs claims about IRS targeting as a phony scandal, saying that Mr. Lew has attempted to thwart his investigation.

        Over two months since the committee first requested documents, the IRS has produced only a small fraction of responsive documents, Mr. Issa said.

        House subpoenas Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew for IRS documents - Washington Times
        Other scandals you ask? Well, here's a list of them.

        1. IRS targets Obama's enemies: The IRS targeted conservative and pro-Israel groups prior to the 2012 election. Questions are being raised about why this occurred, who ordered it, whether there was any White House involvement and whether there was an initial effort to hide who knew about the targeting and when.

        2. Benghazi: This is actually three scandals in one: The failure of administration to protect the Benghazi mission; the changes made to the talking points in order to suggest the attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video; and the refusal of the White House to say what President Obama did the night of the attack.

        3. Keeping an eye on The Associated Press: The Justice Department performed a massive cull of Associated Press reporters' phone records as part of a leak investigation.

        4. Rosengate: The Justice Department suggested that Fox News reporter James Rosen is a criminal for reporting about classified information and subsequently monitored his phones and emails.

        5. Potential Holder perjury I: Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress he had never been associated with "potential prosecution" of a journalist for perjury when in fact he signed the affidavit that termed Rosen a potential criminal.

        6. The ATF "Fast and Furious" scheme: Federal agencies allowed weapons from U.S. gun dealers to "walk" across the border into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. The ATF summarily lost track of scores of those weapons, many of which were used in crimes, including the December 2010 killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

        7. Potential Holder perjury II: Holder told Congress in May 2011 that he had just recently heard about the Fast and Furious gun walking scheme when there is evidence he may have known much earlier.

        8. Sebelius demands payment: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from companies HHS might regulate. The money would be used to help her sign up uninsured Americans for Obamacare.

        9. The Pigford scandal: An Agriculture Department effort that started as an attempt to compensate black farmers who had been discriminated against by the agency but evolved into a gravy train delivering several billion dollars in cash to thousands of additional minority and female farmers who probably didn't face discrimination.

        10. GSA gone wild: The General Services Administration in 2010 held an $823,000 training conference in Las Vegas, featuring a clown and a mind readers. Resulted in the resignation of the GSA administrator.

        11. Veterans Affairs in Disney World: The agency wasted more than $6 million on two conferences in Orlando. An assistant secretary was fired.

        12. Sebelius violates the Hatch Act: A U.S. special counsel determined that Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made "extemporaneous partisan remarks" during a speech in her official capacity last year. During the remarks, Sebelius called for the election of the Democratic candidate for governor of North Carolina.

        13. Solyndra: Republicans charged the Obama Administration funded and promoted its poster boy for green energy despite warning signs the company was headed for bankruptcy. The administration also allegedly pressed Solyndra to delay layoff announcements until after the 2010 midterm elections.

        14. AKA Lisa Jackson: Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used the name "Richard Windsor" when corresponding by email with other government officials, drawing charges she was trying to evade scrutiny.

        15. The New Black Panthers: The Justice Department was accused of using a racial double standard in failing to pursue a voter intimidation case against Black Panthers who appeared to be menacing voters at a polling place in 2008 in Philadelphia.

        16. Waging war all by myself: Obama may have violated the Constitution and both the letter and the spirit of the War Powers Resolution by attacking Libya without Congressional approval.

        17. Biden bullies the press: Vice President Biden's office has repeatedly interfered with coverage, including forcing a reporter to wait in a closet, making a reporter delete photos, and editing pool reports.

        18. AKPD not A-OK: The administration paid millions to the former firm of then-White House adviser David Axelrod, AKPD Message and Media, to promote passage of Obamacare. Some questioned whether the firm was hired to help pay Axelrod $2 million AKPD owed him.

        19. Sestak, we'll take care of you: Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used Bill Clinton as an intermediary to probe whether former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) would accept a prominent, unpaid White House advisory position in exchange for dropping out of the 2010 primary against former Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).

        20. I'll pass my own laws: Obama has repeatedly been accused of making end runs around Congress by deciding which laws to enforce, including the decision not to deport illegal immigrants who may have been allowed to stay in the United States had Congress passed the "Dream Act."

        Top 20 Obama scandals: The list
        Hmm. Seems one could reasonably gain the impression that this administration is really scandal ridden. Calls one to question if this administration isn't just rotten to the core.

        ?


        • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

          In case you've not heard, the DOJ sued Apple for their pricing policies WRT eBooks, their store web site and the eBook publishers.
          In the case, brought last year, the Justice Department accused Apple and five book publishers of conspiring to raise e-book prices. It cast Apple as the ringmaster of the conspiracy, colluding with the publishers to collectively help them defeat Amazons uniform pricing of $9.99 for new e-books.

          As part of its pitch, Apple asked the publishers to switch to a different model of selling books, called agency pricing, in which the publishers set the price of the books instead of the retailers. The publishers contracts with Apple included a so-called most-favored-nation clause, requiring that no other retailer sell e-books for a lower price; if they did, the publisher would have to match the price of the e-book in Apples store. That, the Justice Department said, defeated price competition and resulted in higher prices across the industry.

          U.S. Proposes Solutions for Apples E-Book Price-Fixing
          OK, fair enough. That sure doesn't sound right. You'd think that Apple would just stop the practice, and all would be fairly well? Well, not this DOJ

          The Justice Department on Friday proposed guidelines to the United States District Court in Lower Manhattan on how to enforce the July ruling. The guidelines suggest that Apple should be forced to terminate its existing agreements with five major publishers and also avoid entering similar agreements in the future with providers of music, movies and TV shows and games.

          The guidelines would put rules in place to prevent Apple from facilitating price-fixing among publishers, or from retaliating against publishers that refuse to bend to its terms. The Justice Department also suggested that Apple allow Amazon and Barnes & Noble to insert links inside their e-book apps to their e-bookstores, so that consumers can easily compare prices of e-books.

          U.S. Proposes Solutions for Apples E-Book Price-Fixing
          The DOJ is now trying to dictate to Apple how Apple is supposed to run their business, as if the DOJ had a bleeping clue how even run a business. Guess what? They don't.

          Apple doesn't think much of this idea.

          In a statement filed by Apples legal counsel, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Apple said the governments proposal was a draconian and punitive intrusion into its business.

          The overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime applicable only to Apple with intrusive oversight lasting for 10 years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process, Apples lawyer, Orin Snyder, said in its statement. The resulting cost of this relief not only in dollars but also lost opportunities for American businesses and consumers would be vast.

          U.S. Proposes Solutions for Apples E-Book Price-Fixing
          I'm with Apple on this one. The DOJ has the right, as do the courts, to determine what behavior is illegal and not in the people's, and rule against a company practicing those behaviors.

          Isn't it an overreach by the DOJ to tell Apple what additional efforts above and beyond complying with the courts ruling they need to take? To dictate to Apple what their business model should be? (i.e. promoting the competition in the eBooks they are selling)?

          ?


          • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

            Hold on a second are you saying that if a company is found to be breaking the law they shouldn't face consequences if they then stop?

            ?


            • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
              Hold on a second are you saying that if a company is found to be breaking the law they shouldn't face consequences if they then stop?
              No he is saying that once a Company has stopped the practices that are breaking the law they should be punished but what is being done is going beyond punishment.

              ?


              • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                No he is saying that once a Company has stopped the practices that are breaking the law they should be punished but what is being done is going beyond punishment.
                Thank you Wlessard. Exactly correct.

                Lastly, it's not being done right now, it's the DOJ who is proposing this overreach and over control of Apple to the judge, and the judge has to rule on it yet. At least that's my understanding at present.

                If this precedent is set, then future DOJs who object to a business' practices will sue, win, and be able to dictate to the sued company exactly how the DOJ want's them to conduct business.

                No one else sees a problem with this picture? No one else concerned about the level and type of control that DOJ will have over businesses?

                ?


                • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                  Phony Scandal?
                  (CNSNews.com) – IRS employees were ordered by their superiors--including Lois Lerner who pleaded the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination rather than testify in Congress--to send certain Tea Party tax-exemption applications to the office of the IRS's Chief Counsel, which was headed by William Wilkins, who at that time was the only Obama political appointee at the IRS, according to a letter released today by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

                  IRS Employees Ordered to Send Tea Party Cases to IRS's Only Obama Political Appointee | CNS News
                  Conservative applications for tax exempt status order to be sent to IRS's Chief Counsel, which is an Obama political appointee.

                  Phony scandal? Yea, right. Trail led directly to the White House. There'ya go. Complete with Biased Lame Stream Media complicity not reporting it.

                  One great big corrupt, lying shit sandwich for this administration.

                  ?


                  • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                    Thank you Wlessard. Exactly correct.

                    Lastly, it's not being done right now, it's the DOJ who is proposing this overreach and over control of Apple to the judge, and the judge has to rule on it yet. At least that's my understanding at present.

                    If this precedent is set, then future DOJs who object to a business' practices will sue, win, and be able to dictate to the sued company exactly how the DOJ want's them to conduct business.

                    No one else sees a problem with this picture? No one else concerned about the level and type of control that DOJ will have over businesses?
                    What the DOJ is proposing is that they get to run Apple's iStore for the next ten years.

                    ?


                    • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                      What the DOJ is proposing is that they get to run Apple's iStore for the next ten years.
                      This is what I've heard being said, but from the text of the article, it didn't indicate this. I can only stand by what the article stated.

                      ?


                      • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                        In case you've not heard, the DOJ sued Apple for their pricing policies WRT eBooks, their store web site and the eBook publishers.

                        OK, fair enough. That sure doesn't sound right. You'd think that Apple would just stop the practice, and all would be fairly well? Well, not this DOJ

                        The DOJ is now trying to dictate to Apple how Apple is supposed to run their business, as if the DOJ had a bleeping clue how even run a business. Guess what? They don't.

                        Apple doesn't think much of this idea.

                        I'm with Apple on this one. The DOJ has the right, as do the courts, to determine what behavior is illegal and not in the people's, and rule against a company practicing those behaviors.

                        Isn't it an overreach by the DOJ to tell Apple what additional efforts above and beyond complying with the courts ruling they need to take? To dictate to Apple what their business model should be? (i.e. promoting the competition in the eBooks they are selling)?
                        Furthering the story, the publishers that are working with Apple eBooks don't think much of the DOJ's demands either.
                        Publishers urge DOJ to rethink Apple e-book remedies

                        Five of the major publishers are urging the Justice Department to rethink its proposed remedy that calls on Apple to change its e-book pricing plan.

                        Five of the major book publishers are now urging the Department of Justice to rethink its demands on Apple to change the way it sells e-books.

                        Hachette, HarperCollins, Holtzbrinck (also known as Macmillan), Penguin, and Simon & Schuster filed an opposition to last week's proposed remedies against Apple by the Justice Department, arguing that the plan would "effectively eliminate the use of the agency model" for e-book distribution for the next five years.

                        "...Under the guise of punishing Apple, they effectively punish the Settling Defendants by prohibiting agreements with Apple using an agency model," the publishers wrote, adding that the move "directly conflicts" with the settlements the publishers reached with the Justice Department before the Apple case went to trial.

                        "Despite achieving their stated goal of returning price competition, Plaintiffs now seek to improperly impose additional, unwarranted restrictions on the Settling Defendants, thereby depriving each publisher of the benefit of its bargain with Plaintiffs," it goes on to say.

                        Publishers urge DOJ to rethink Apple e-book remedies | Apple - CNET News
                        So the lawyers in DOJ don't understand business and don't understand the publishing business either. No one likes their proposal as punishment and regulation addressing previous Apple infringements. I would hazard a guess that this probably could have been said about many administration's DOJs. Government should limits it's entanglement with business. Business is not the government's field of expertise, if it really has any expertise on anything at all.

                        ?


                        • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                          Liberal utopian idealism forced onto the housing industry, once again.
                          In a move some claim is tantamount to social engineering, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is imposing a new rule that would allow the feds to track diversity in America’s neighborhoods and then push policies to change those it deems discriminatory.

                          The policy is called, "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." It will require HUD to gather data on segregation and discrimination in every single neighborhood and try to remedy it.

                          HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled the federal rule at the NAACP convention in July.

                          "Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.

                          Data from this discrimination database would be used with zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation.
                          . . . .
                          But one critic says it smacks of utopian idealism.

                          "This is just the latest of a series of attempts by HUD to social engineer the American people," said Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute. "It started with public housing and urban renewal, which failed spectacularly back in the 50's and 60's. They tried it again in the 90's when they wanted to transform house finance, do away with down payments, and the result was millions of foreclosures and financial collapse.”

                          Some fear the rule will open the floodgates to lawsuits by HUD -- a weapon the department has already used in places like Westchester County, N.Y., where mayors and attorneys representing several towns, like Cortlandt, are writing HUD to protest burdensome fair housing mandates that go far beyond those agreed to in a 2009 settlement with HUD.

                          Obama administration using housing department in effort to diversify neighborhoods | Fox News
                          Haven't we learned that this doesn't work, and puts the economy at risk?

                          This administration will do anything to further it's liberal agenda, no matter how many rules it breaks or bends, and no matter how often the policy has been proven NOT to work. That's called ideology driven to the extreme.

                          What's the definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Wise liberal social engineering policy, I guess.
                          Last edited by eohrnberger; 08-08-2013, 08:28 AM.

                          ?


                          • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                            We don't have any German/Americans or Swedish/Americans or French/Americans in our neighborhood, who should I notify?

                            ?


                            • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                              The department argued that the competition — and lower prices — would be lost at more than 1,000 pairs of cities where the airlines compete with connecting flights.

                              Baer said eliminating the non-stop competition from Charlotte to Dallas would cost travelers $3 million more per year on that route alone. With connecting flights, such as from Miami to Cincinnati, US Airways has a one-stop fare for $471 compared with $740 for American.
                              The department also warned that fees for baggage and other services could grow. US Airways charges an average of $40 to redeem frequent-flier miles, while American doesn't, but Baer said the combined airline would charge all passengers the fee to generate $120 million more each year.

                              And the department noted that the merged airline would control 69% of the slots at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which would be six times more than the closest competitor.

                              Baer said the merger would "allow the new American to compete less."

                              Justice Department challenges American-US Airways merger
                              Are we to believe that the legal weenies in the DOJ know more about the airline industry than any of the other airline companies in the industry?

                              Somehow this strains credibility in my mind. Government's history of understanding of business at this level is a really poor track record.

                              Take for example the break up of AT&T into the RBOCs. By now, we are pretty much back to where we started. SBC the Southern Bell Company RBOC swallowed what was left of AT&T just a few years back and renamed it at&t (notice the difference in case).

                              Yea, like government really understands business. NOT!

                              ?


                              • Re: Abuses Of Government By The Obama Administration

                                New NSA Revelations Stir Congressional Concern: ‘Incredibly Troubling’

                                The May audit counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were reported to be unintended, and many involved failures to take sufficient care or violations of standard operating procedure. They ranged from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interceptions of U.S. emails and telephone calls.

                                The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.
                                New NSA Revelations Stir Congressional Concern: ‘Incredibly Troubling’ | TheBlaze.com

                                But it's all for your own good, trust us.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X