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.

(USA Today)   While the IRS central scrutinizer was singling out right-wing groups for nitpicking, they were waving through liberal groups' applications. In other news, Tea Party changes its name to Mother Gaia's Nuanced Vegans for Appeasement   (usatoday.com) divider line 321
    More: Followup, Champaign Tea Party, IRS, right-wing, appeasement, Florida Legislature  
•       •       •

899 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 10:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-15 01:07:47 PM

lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.

No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?

You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.

From Merriam:  an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned

Dear Omen, yours is the weird world. Go take some economics courses, please, before you make a further fool of yourself.

Ha ha, look at you, you really believe the Dems are communists.

It's a scale, moran. Each side leans towards one or the other extreme. Get it?  Jeez.


And the Dems are most definitely on the capitalist market end of the scale. Quite strongly, in fact.

Moran.
 
2013-05-15 01:08:26 PM

Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.


No. It isn't opinion. It's demonstrative fact. Don't ask me for evidence, we've both lived through it!

Voluntary ignorance is for suckers, Vindibudd. Don't be a sucker.
 
2013-05-15 01:08:44 PM

Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)


Those were YeeHaw-dists.
 
2013-05-15 01:08:52 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this

I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.

Hey, man, my real name is Freedom Patriot TEA Party MacDonald and I got the shiat audited out of me. I'm pretty sure it was because of my name, and maybe also the tax evasion.


Having a political position about taxation policies does not make someone a tax evader. I mean really.
 
2013-05-15 01:09:19 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: A Dark Evil Omen: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents

Your a idiot.

No, U. That, free economy vs. command economy, is straight out of a college Economics course text book. But college isn't your thing, is it?

You're asserting the Dems are in favor of a command economy. You are in your own weird world that has nothing to do with this one.

From Merriam:  an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned

Dear Omen, yours is the weird world. Go take some economics courses, please, before you make a further fool of yourself.

Ha ha, look at you, you really believe the Dems are communists.

It's a scale, moran. Each side leans towards one or the other extreme. Get it?  Jeez.

And the Dems are most definitely on the capitalist market end of the scale. Quite strongly, in fact.

Moran.


No.
But see, I'm playing fairly nicely today. Leaving you alls' fine company now to go post finally somewhere else. Enjoy....
 
2013-05-15 01:09:43 PM

gimmegimme: Has anyone provided a non-hilarious description of the charitable/non-political activities performed by Tea Party groups?


On Chris Matthews the other night, he had a representative from Tea Party Patriots trying to defend their 501(c)(4) status as non-political. She, without a shread of irony, said part of it was how educating people about how Obamacare is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed since the Supreme Court won't rule it unconstitutional. Except, they had to call it "health care reform" instead of "Obamacare", because calling it "Obamacare" would count as express advocacy and they'd stand to lose their tax-exempt status for it.

It stops being funny when you realize these people have hundreds of millions of anonymously-donated money, and can spend it on elections without limit for exactlythe reason she just elucidated: after  Citizens United, issue ads "don't count".
 
2013-05-15 01:11:47 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: And the Dems are most definitely on the capitalist market end of the scale. Quite strongly, in fact.

Moran.


Shh...don't explain to him that military spending on the scale we see in the US -- staunchly advocated by Republicans, and urged to be increased by Republicans -- is a clear indicator of what he refers to as a "command economy"
 
2013-05-15 01:12:02 PM

Epoch_Zero: Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.

Nope. Deficits, debt, social mobility and economic growth are all worse under Republican administrations. They are literally bad for this country. A resident malignancy, if you will.


Who's been in charge of Detroit for 50 years? Republicans?
 
2013-05-15 01:13:53 PM

that bosnian sniper: gimmegimme: Has anyone provided a non-hilarious description of the charitable/non-political activities performed by Tea Party groups?

On Chris Matthews the other night, he had a representative from Tea Party Patriots trying to defend their 501(c)(4) status as non-political. She, without a shread of irony, said part of it was how educating people about how Obamacare is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed since the Supreme Court won't rule it unconstitutional. Except, they had to call it "health care reform" instead of "Obamacare", because calling it "Obamacare" would count as express advocacy and they'd stand to lose their tax-exempt status for it.

It stops being funny when you realize these people have hundreds of millions of anonymously-donated money, and can spend it on elections without limit for exactlythe reason she just elucidated: after  Citizens United, issue ads "don't count".


Ha.  Did she claim that "Tea Party Patriots" has members across the ideological spectrum?
 
2013-05-15 01:18:46 PM

that bosnian sniper: A Dark Evil Omen: And the Dems are most definitely on the capitalist market end of the scale. Quite strongly, in fact.

Moran.

Shh...don't explain to him that military spending on the scale we see in the US -- staunchly advocated by Republicans, and urged to be increased by Republicans -- is a clear indicator of what he refers to as a "command economy"


As is attacking labor organization and undermining public systems like universal health care that make it easier and more possible for people to change jobs, start their own businesses, join small co-ops and the like. But those are all sociamalism and military spending is Freedom Dollars so it doesn't count either.
 
2013-05-15 01:18:48 PM

Vindibudd: Who's been in charge of Detroit for 50 years? Republicans?


How's gun control in New York working?
Climate change isn't real because it snows in the winter.

See, you can't pull out part of a society and try to judge the whole of society against the targeted group. There are various interactions around the borders of any of those things that you are actively ignoring.
 
2013-05-15 01:21:04 PM

Vindibudd: Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this

I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.

Singling people out based on their politics, be they groups of people or individuals to slow walk their applications for tax exemption or audit them based upon political beliefs is illegal. Does that cover everything?


They profiled them to be flagged based on key words not because they did any detailed investigation due to their politics and decided to hassle them.  It's profiling.  It's wrong.  But that doesn't mean it's illegal.
 
2013-05-15 01:22:34 PM

Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.

Nope. Deficits, debt, social mobility and economic growth are all worse under Republican administrations. They are literally bad for this country. A resident malignancy, if you will.

Who's been in charge of Detroit for 50 years? Republicans?


That's an awfully silly thing to say.  Are you implying that Republicans could have kept the population of the city from decreasing by half and the auto industry from moving away?  Silly billy.
 
2013-05-15 01:26:30 PM

Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Fart_Machine: Vindibudd: Just to clarify for all the ignorant people: Auditing someone based upon their name is ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter WHAT THE NAME IS. /Can't believe I actually logged in to post this

I can't believe you did either considering that nobody was audited.

Singling people out based on their politics, be they groups of people or individuals to slow walk their applications for tax exemption or audit them based upon political beliefs is illegal. Does that cover everything?

They profiled them to be flagged based on key words not because they did any detailed investigation due to their politics and decided to hassle them.  It's profiling.  It's wrong.  But that doesn't mean it's illegal.


Couldn't you justify looking out for the organizations that are inherently political, seeing as how these kinds of organizations are not allowed to be inherently political?
 
2013-05-15 01:26:37 PM
Epoch_Zero: inner ted: mystery we'll take the mystery out of it - inappropriate / overuse of drone strikes  the fu- http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones so you are ok with this?
privacy issues  such as? if the above doesn't fit, then how bout we start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
closing gitmo  republican senators even libb mc libster bloomberg rag says you are wrong http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/obama-has-leverage-to-get-h is -way-on-guantanamo.html 
not being real honest about benghazi  bullshiat - been working - so something something coverup
irs targeting his opponents  who are anti-tax applying for tax-exempt status, aka, bullshiat again, why do they apologize if it's as you say... bullshiat? do you apologize for things you are accused of that you didn't do?

But you already knew this, so, yeah.
 
2013-05-15 01:30:13 PM

inner ted: Epoch_Zero: inner ted: mystery we'll take the mystery out of it - inappropriate / overuse of drone strikes  the fu- http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/drones so you are ok with this?
privacy issues  such as? if the above doesn't fit, then how bout we start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
closing gitmo  republican senators even libb mc libster bloomberg rag says you are wrong http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/obama-has-leverage-to-get-h is -way-on-guantanamo.html 
not being real honest about benghazi  bullshiat - been working - so something something coverup
irs targeting his opponents  who are anti-tax applying for tax-exempt status, aka, bullshiat again, why do they apologize if it's as you say... bullshiat? do you apologize for things you are accused of that you didn't do?

But you already knew this, so, yeah.


idonot know what u r talking abouteverything u say iskindasmooooooshed
togetherif you want2getur ideas a cross tryformingur wrdsntosntncs
 
2013-05-15 01:31:14 PM
I always thought republicans are in favor of profiling./oops, I forgot.. they're only in favor of profiling brown people
 
2013-05-15 01:32:46 PM
That headline was whiny butthurt, subby.  But at least it was funny whiny butthurt.  So...well done?
 
2013-05-15 01:38:39 PM

inner ted: closing gitmo republican senators even libb mc libster bloomberg rag says you are wrong http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/obama-has-leverage-to-get-h is -way-on-guantanamo.html


So Obama is a nefarious dictator then you  link an editorial that says he should operate unilaterally?
 
2013-05-15 01:40:01 PM

Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: Vindibudd: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Look, they voted Republican.  That's like...ultra-destructive and anti-American and something.

Knowingly voting republican is socially and economically destructive. If your country depends upon being socially and economically stable, supporting something that makes it less so is against the better interests of your country.

Hence, Republicans and the teahadists they nurture being cancer.

Well, yeah that's just your opinion.

Nope. Deficits, debt, social mobility and economic growth are all worse under Republican administrations. They are literally bad for this country. A resident malignancy, if you will.

Who's been in charge of Detroit for 50 years? Republicans?


The other group that heavily intersects with republicans in the venn diagram: morons.
 
2013-05-15 01:47:49 PM

lantawa: Uh, hey, everybody! I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt.

 


Thanks for sharing
 
2013-05-15 01:48:52 PM
overzealous staffer.  non issue.
 
2013-05-15 01:49:48 PM
If by "waved through" you mean "put through the same processes as the Tea Party groups, and actually--gasp!--rejecting one's application for non-profit status", then yes, they were waved through.
 
2013-05-15 02:01:34 PM

phaseolus: lantawa: Uh, hey, everybody! I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt. 


Thanks for sharing


Once again, what are you doing? I did not write those words. You have italicized the words and sequence to make it appear that I wrote those words.  Do not do that.  Do you not understand how things work around here? Stahp. Naow...
 
2013-05-15 02:04:10 PM

lantawa: Once again, what are you doing? I did not write those words. You have italicized the words and sequence to make it appear that I wrote those words. Do not do that. Do you not understand how things work around here? Stahp. Naow...



On second thought, it didn't turn out as funny as I thought it would. It was kind of mean. I'm sorry I piled on like that.
 
2013-05-15 02:05:19 PM

Not_The_Target_Market: [userserve-ak.last.fm image 443x574]


Came here for this... leaving satisfied.
 
2013-05-15 02:18:40 PM

phaseolus: lantawa: Once again, what are you doing? I did not write those words. You have italicized the words and sequence to make it appear that I wrote those words. Do not do that. Do you not understand how things work around here? Stahp. Naow...


On second thought, it didn't turn out as funny as I thought it would. It was kind of mean. I'm sorry I piled on like that.


Thanks. I'm working at keeping my invective down to a dull roar, myself. I think it's working, heh.
 
2013-05-15 02:24:57 PM

IlGreven: If by "waved through" you mean "put through the same processes as the Tea Party groups, and actually--gasp!--rejecting one's application for non-profit status", then yes, they were waved through.


Was it the same 55 questions?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323978/Revealed-The-55-ques ti ons-IRS-asked-tea-party-group-years-waiting--including-demands-names-d onors-volunteers.html
 
2013-05-15 02:27:49 PM
I would give money to a group named "Mother Gaia's Nuanced Vegans for Appeasement" just on the slim hope that I could someday watch the expression on a Fox newscaster's face as they uttered that name.

/priceless
 
2013-05-15 02:29:51 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link.

Uh, yeah maybe in the previous estimate. This current CBO estimate is reduced from that one. I.E the sequester was factored in, and then the deficit was reduced even further due to increased taxes and a growth in the economy, mainly.

Do you get it now?

The current projected deficit factors in the sequester. FY 2013 deficit will be lower thanks to the sequester. Had the sequester not happened, the deficit would have been higher. Part of the reduction from the FY 2012 deficit to the FY 2013 deficit is the $85b in sequester cuts (or whatever portion of those fall in FY 2013). Do you get it? Thank you sequester!!!

If you want to argue that other factors have affected the projected deficit, then I'd agree completely.

"Thank you sequester" implies that it's mainly due to the sequester that the deficit is lower. As that is not the case, according to the CBO, that's the problem with your characterization.


Well, I have no rebuttal for that, other than 'welcome to fark', I guess.  I figured the guy to whom I was responding, who wanted to claim that our fiscal policies were working fine (and presumably precluding the need for further belt tightening), would be the type of person who is against the belt tightening of the sequester.  Since the sequester is among the fiscal policies that improved the deficit position, I thought I'd point that out.
 
2013-05-15 02:32:01 PM

Sagus: IlGreven: If by "waved through" you mean "put through the same processes as the Tea Party groups, and actually--gasp!--rejecting one's application for non-profit status", then yes, they were waved through.

Was it the same 55 questions?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323978/Revealed-The-55-ques ti ons-IRS-asked-tea-party-group-years-waiting--including-demands-names-d onors-volunteers.html


here are the actual questions
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05_02/Richmond%20tea%20party%20I RS %20letter.pdf
 
2013-05-15 02:37:12 PM
Okay, so, basically it looks like the IRS targeted tea party groups, which spend most of their time trying to influence elections, for scrutiny when they applied for 501(c)4 status.

So, no, this is not a thing, this is just more of the endless torrent of whiny butthurt from the right because their little foofoo tea groups got called out by the IRS for being antagonistic political entities trying to evade paying their taxes. The same IRS that continues to let Karl Rove run one of the biggest political machines in the country tax-free.

Yea. Okay. I'm terribly, terribly outraged.
 
2013-05-15 02:48:28 PM

pacified: overzealous staffer Department. non issue.


I agree. The IRS did it wrong. But unless it is discovered that they were instructed to do this by the administration, there is no scandal here. It's effectively like the sexual abuse issue in the military; EVERYone agrees it shoudln't happen and it needs to be fixed. The end.

It's weird how many Farkers keep insisting that there was nothing wrong with what they did, when the President, The Attorney General, both parties in Congress, the RightWing Derposphere, the LeftWing Derposphere, and the head of this division at the IRS all agree that this was wrong and shouldn't have happened.
 
2013-05-15 02:50:24 PM

Not_The_Target_Market: [userserve-ak.last.fm image 443x574]


This is the central scrutinizer...as you can see, music can get you pretty farked up...take a tip from joe, do like he did, hock your imaginary guitar and get a good job...joe did, and he's a ha Uy now, on the day shift at the utility muffin research kitchen, arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a fully-charged icing anointment utensil. and every time a nice little muffin com On the belt, he poots forth...
And if this doesn't convince you that music causes big trouble...then maybe I should turn off my plastic megaphone and sing the last song on the album in my regular voice...
 
2013-05-15 02:59:23 PM

Sagus: IlGreven: If by "waved through" you mean "put through the same processes as the Tea Party groups, and actually--gasp!--rejecting one's application for non-profit status", then yes, they were waved through.

Was it the same 55 questions?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323978/Revealed-The-55-ques ti ons-IRS-asked-tea-party-group-years-waiting--including-demands-names-d onors-volunteers.html


Ah, you've got them now! They didn't ask the rejected liberal group any addition questions at all!

They just rejected them entirely, which didn't happen to any of the Tea Party groups.
 
2013-05-15 03:17:04 PM
I just skimmed this article, but I didn't notice any specifics about how many conservative applications there are.  I did see where "dozens" of progressive applications were approved.

I understand that the volume of these applications has doubled, and that the vast majority of them are from conservative groups.

I agree that there's a problem, but it seems to me that the problem isn't that the conservative applications were scrutinized, it's that the liberal applications weren't.
 
2013-05-15 03:22:33 PM
Yeah, when ANY of this approaches the evil of 529s, let me know.

Mainly on the right, ("Citizens United") but BS no matter what the political orientation of the group is.
 
2013-05-15 03:34:57 PM

jcooli09: I agree that there's a problem, but it seems to me that the problem isn't that the conservative applications were scrutinized, it's that the liberal applications weren't.


Is there some huge number of liberal groups that act primarily as political antagonists trying to get undeserved "civic group" status so they don't have to pay their taxes?

I actually don't know, but this sure smacks of one of those things where conservatives are just whining that everything isn't in perfect balance while ignoring the fact that they're the ones loading one side of the damn boat up so heavy.

It's like when I was a little kid and I would get pissy that my parents would look harder at what I was doing than my brother after I finished an epic run of misbehavior and he'd been acting like a saint. Gee.... when you make a huge fuss and draw attention to yourself, people start paying more attention to what your doing.

Who the fark would have thought, huh?
 
2013-05-15 03:39:50 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Gonz: If the requirement for tax-free status is being a non-profit, non-political group working for social justice,

and if it is not, then what?

do you think that MoveOn is a non-political group?
or OWS?

Since when is fixing the country so more people can get jobs not social justice?


It absolutely is an important part of social justice.

When you cross over from advocating policies or lobbying for certain laws to endorsing particular candidates or parties, you have gone over the line from social justice to political campaigning, and you shouldn't be getting 501(c)(4) exempt status.

OWS never had, as far as I know, *any* legal status as a group. It was a loose group of people with lots of different ideas and political leanings who mainly were sick of the idea of that wall street got bailouts and main street got layoffs and foreclosures. It certainly wasn't a 501(c)(4).

The people who made contributions to OWS, which were mostly blankets, tents, clothing, food weren't looking for charitable deductions, they wanted to help our cause. All of our donations when to help the homeless people in the park with us.

Move on.org is a PAC, with a separate organization called MoveOn.org Civic Action that is the 501(c)(4). They aren't allowed to mingle funds, and if you contribute to the PAC it is NOT tax deductible.
 
2013-05-15 03:43:35 PM

SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.


img.math-fail.com
 
2013-05-15 04:07:57 PM

Zasteva: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

[img.math-fail.com image 750x600]


Great pic, but do you REALLY think it is wrong to say that liberals groups have also threatened the country and resorted to terrorism?

Or could you maybe clarify more precisely what you mean with your memepic?
 
2013-05-15 04:21:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Great pic, but do you REALLY think it is wrong to say that liberals groups have also threatened the country and resorted to terrorism?


Yea, this is one of those things where there's a huge elephant called "context" sitting in the room that you'd desperately like to ignore.

Allow me to illustrate.

Ward Churchill calls 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" and he gets fired and widely maligned across the entire political spectrum.

Ann Coulter claims that widows of 9/11 victims are enjoying their husbands deaths and she gets a best seller and another book deal.

Crazy left-wing groups like environmental radicals mostly commit property crime. Serious property crime, but property crime none-the-less. And virtually nobody not directly associated with them has a problem with them being monitored as terror groups by law enforcement.

Crazy right-wingers like Adkisson go out and shoot "liberals" or abortion doctors or shoot cops dead because they think "they're coming to confiscate my guns" and there's a huge farking uproar from the right when they find out that, golly-gee, DHS keeps tabs on right-wing terrorists too.

Yea, there are left-wing terrorists. There are left-wing idiots. There are left-wingers with really stupid, far-out, whacky opinions who do really stupid, far-out whacky things.

Difference is the left seems to be pretty embarrassed by their nutjobs while the right scrambles to reward their most extreme personalities with radio and book contracts.

So, yea, I'm comfortable saying there's no equivalency in anything but the absolute broadest possible sense.
 
2013-05-15 04:33:43 PM

HallsOfMandos: Central Scrutinizer?


That'll still be awesome 20 years from now.
 
2013-05-15 04:39:06 PM

skozlaw: So, yea, I'm comfortable saying there's no equivalency in anything but the absolute broadest possible sense.


Dude, if you have mistakebly arrived at the conslusion that I have ANYthing but scorn and contempt for Anne Coultier, Limbaugh, Beck, Moore, or any of the paid provacatuers, then you are not only off base, you aren't even on the same playing field.

And 'bbbut the other guys!' Is kinda weak. The prescence of a different, worse, group does not change any charicteristic of the first group.  I'm not going to debate the merits of the radical right and the teabaggers, because by and large, I am not a fan.

Also, speaking of context, there is a signifiant difference between Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers. I will assume you understand that. And you may want to carefully consider your view that "the left seems to be pretty embarrassed by their nutjobs"  You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?
 
2013-05-15 04:40:37 PM
While the IRS central scrutinizer was singling out right-wing groups for nitpicking, they were waving through liberal groups' applications.

You know what? Good. Liberal groups are by and large beneficial for this country and society.

Tea Party groups, not so much. And they have enough deep pocket donors that they could easily run their stupid selfish outfits without tax exempt status.

They're just too cheap to do it.

And despite the President's token 'outrage' against what happened, this marks perhaps the one time the Democratic-led Treasury Dept had the spine to stand up to the far right wing in this country.

tl:dr suck it haters
 
2013-05-15 04:46:09 PM

BojanglesPaladin: skozlaw: So, yea, I'm comfortable saying there's no equivalency in anything but the absolute broadest possible sense.

Dude, if you have mistakebly arrived at the conslusion that I have ANYthing but scorn and contempt for Anne Coultier, Limbaugh, Beck, Moore, or any of the paid provacatuers, then you are not only off base, you aren't even on the same playing field.

And 'bbbut the other guys!' Is kinda weak. The prescence of a different, worse, group does not change any charicteristic of the first group.  I'm not going to debate the merits of the radical right and the teabaggers, because by and large, I am not a fan.

Also, speaking of context, there is a signifiant difference between Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers. I will assume you understand that. And you may want to carefully consider your view that "the left seems to be pretty embarrassed by their nutjobs"  You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?


I love your false equivalencies.
 
2013-05-15 04:55:28 PM

gimmegimme: I love your false equivalencies.


Interesting and thoughtful analysis. Thank you for that.
 
2013-05-15 04:57:33 PM

skozlaw: BojanglesPaladin: Great pic, but do you REALLY think it is wrong to say that liberals groups have also threatened the country and resorted to terrorism?

Yea, this is one of those things where there's a huge elephant called "context" sitting in the room that you'd desperately like to ignore.

Allow me to illustrate.

Ward Churchill calls 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" and he gets fired and widely maligned across the entire political spectrum.


Isn't that the guy who faked his academic credentials, as well as his, uh, cultural background?
 
2013-05-15 05:03:56 PM

BojanglesPaladin: You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?


Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...
 
2013-05-15 05:06:16 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: BojanglesPaladin: You may not have noticed, but the left lionizes persons of questionable character quite a lot. Or perhaps you haven't noticed any Che Gueverra t-shirts on your property damage only 'activists'..?

Well, if you're going to come down on people for standing behind iconography of violent radicals you should probably start with the rightists constantly cosplaying as George Washington et al...


thinkprogress.org
media.cleveland.com
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report