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.

(Politico)   When Charles Rangel tells you to come clean, you know it must be bad   (politico.com) divider line 178
    More: Ironic, Charles Rangel, obama, security question, Ways and Means Committee, McConnell v. FEC  
•       •       •

2255 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 2:54 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-15 12:44:36 PM
Ironic meter assplodes.
 
2013-05-15 12:55:16 PM
When Charles Rangel tells you to come clean, you know there's an actual scandal involving Charles Rangel about to surface that he wants to deflect your attention from.
 
2013-05-15 12:58:15 PM
This is like when i was a kid and I got in trouble but then my sister got in trouble, too. I would tell my parents all about how what she did was really bad. Like, super duper bad.
 
2013-05-15 12:58:53 PM
Wasn't he nailed on tax-related issues?
 
2013-05-15 01:01:37 PM
christopherfountain.files.wordpress.com

Hard on the case, doing the peeples work.  He'll get to the bottom of this.
 
2013-05-15 01:41:25 PM
Do us liberals defend Rangel? Is that a thing?  Anyways,

"I don't think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press,"

Answer about what? The ongoing investigation into what happened at the IRS, or the fact that the DoJ got the AP phone records to hunt down a leak?

"But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question?

You mean the national security leak that was the motive behind seizing these records? I'm not sure what he's asking.

You just can't raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS."

Wut?
 
2013-05-15 01:45:56 PM
Well it did work out for him. Came clean, got a wrist slap went back to what he was doing.
 
2013-05-15 02:07:05 PM

ShawnDoc: When Charles Rangel tells you to come clean, you know there's an actual scandal involving Charles Rangel about to surface that he wants to deflect your attention from.


Heh... my first thought, too
 
2013-05-15 02:17:51 PM
You know what the funny thing is about this?

Conservatives are going to ignore what he has to say because "LOL CHARLIE RANGEL'
 
2013-05-15 02:22:21 PM

Aarontology: You know what the funny thing is about this?

Conservatives are going to ignore what he has to say because "LOL CHARLIE RANGEL'


I'm going to ignore what he has to say because I can't stand Charlie "gargling feral tomcats" Rangel's voice.
 
2013-05-15 02:26:33 PM

Aarontology: You know what the funny thing is about this?

Conservatives are going to ignore what he has to say because "LOL CHARLIE RANGEL'


See, that's ironic too because subby is a 'conservative'.
 
2013-05-15 02:28:06 PM

violentsalvation: I'm going to ignore what he has to say because I can't stand Charlie "gargling feral tomcats" Rangel's voice.


See, that's a perfectly valid reason
 
2013-05-15 02:42:55 PM
 
2013-05-15 02:45:38 PM
Well, when Willie Nelsen, Tim Geithner and Wesley Snipes jump on this bandwagon, we'll know its bad.
 
2013-05-15 02:46:18 PM
Obama should get ahead of these things... especially the AP scandal, as that has to do with a free press.

The IRS thing can be blown over with the whole "political organizations are not tax exempt" and the fear of "right wing militias".

The AP thing, that's just down right anti-American.
 
2013-05-15 02:51:27 PM

NostroZ: Obama should get ahead of these things... especially the AP scandal, as that has to do with a free press.

The IRS thing can be blown over with the whole "political organizations are not tax exempt" and the fear of "right wing militias".

The AP thing, that's just down right anti-American.


The AP thing is going nowhere. Even Senate Republicans are on the Administration's side. As much as it pains me to say it, it looks like tightening press freedoms may soon become the norm.
 
2013-05-15 02:59:40 PM

Nabb1: NostroZ: Obama should get ahead of these things... especially the AP scandal, as that has to do with a free press.

The IRS thing can be blown over with the whole "political organizations are not tax exempt" and the fear of "right wing militias".

The AP thing, that's just down right anti-American.

The AP thing is going nowhere. Even Senate Republicans are on the Administration's side. As much as it pains me to say it, it looks like tightening press freedoms may soon become the norm.


Funny.  I thought the AP thing would be the one to grab the most traction.  So, are we back to Benghazi?  Or is it the IRS now?  LOL
 
2013-05-15 03:01:36 PM
Events like this show true liberals from partisan Democrats
 
2013-05-15 03:01:51 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brian-walsh/2013/05/14/senate-dem o crats-pushed-for-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it

Now it's getting fun.


Looking at the root of that blog's point:

Senator Baucus, the Democrat who leads the Finance Committee, asked the I.R.S. last week to conduct a broad review into "major" tax-exempt organizations to determine if any were misusing their tax-exempt status. Tax-exempt groups are banned from engaging in politics as their "primary" activity.

Mr. Baucus said "political campaigns and powerful individuals should not be able to use tax-exempt organizations as political pawns to serve their own special interests."


And

A group of seven Senate Democrats urged the Internal Revenue Service on Monday to impose a strict cap on the amount of political spending by tax-exempt, nonprofit groups.

The senators said the lack of clarity in the IRS rules has allowed political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be allowing donors to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions. The senators promised legislation if the IRS failed to act to fix these problems.

"We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities.  But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes," the senators wrote.


Out...rage...?

Look, nowhere in the primary sources were Democratic Senators asking for targeting TEA Party or even conservative groups. They were asking to make sure that everyone was playing by the same rules, and suggesting that the rules be changed to limit the political influence of organizations that aren't supposed to be political. Saying this:

From Max Baucus to Chuck Schumer to Jeanne Shaheen, key Senate Democrats publicly pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and who, in their view, had the temerity to engage in the political process. The IRS listened to them and acted.

Is a blatant lie. For multiple reasons. So stop it.
 
2013-05-15 03:01:56 PM
In other news, due to Global Warming, Hell has apparently frozen over.
 
2013-05-15 03:04:26 PM
In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.


What is this guy's problem?
 
2013-05-15 03:05:51 PM

Nabb1: NostroZ: Obama should get ahead of these things... especially the AP scandal, as that has to do with a free press.

The IRS thing can be blown over with the whole "political organizations are not tax exempt" and the fear of "right wing militias".

The AP thing, that's just down right anti-American.

The AP thing is going nowhere. Even Senate Republicans are on the Administration's side. As much as it pains me to say it, it looks like tightening press freedoms may soon become the norm.


I think the AP thing's got the potential to have a huge impact.

It is one thing to have Drudge linking critical stories from right wing sites.  It will be quite another if suddenly those links are AP instead of infowars.   Nothing will come of it from a legal standpoint, but if the press gets a real mad on they'll make life a living hell on the administration.
 
2013-05-15 03:06:05 PM
Ha! Payback is a biatch, Obummer didn't have his back so Chuck is going to put a knife in his.
 
2013-05-15 03:10:23 PM

JustGetItRight: It is one thing to have Drudge linking critical stories from right wing sites.  It will be quite another if suddenly those links are AP instead of infowars.   Nothing will come of it from a legal standpoint, but if the press gets a real mad on they'll make life a living hell on the administration.


They wrote an angry letter.  It had citations to DOJ guidelines and everything.  They sounded really pissed.   Also, I think they all asked for those cell phones you can buy at Kroger and use for a week, then throw away.  These are now legitimate  tax deductions.  Thanks Obama.
 
2013-05-15 03:21:22 PM

JustGetItRight: I think the AP thing's got the potential to have a huge impact.

It is one thing to have Drudge linking critical stories from right wing sites. It will be quite another if suddenly those links are AP instead of infowars. Nothing will come of it from a legal standpoint, but if the press gets a real mad on they'll make life a living hell on the administration.


The Corporations are just reminding Mr. Obama who's the boss.

www.bartcop.com
 
2013-05-15 03:21:30 PM
"But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this."

The article I read yesterday (from the link here on Fark) said that, as per DoJ procedure, they informed the AP that they would be subpoenaing the records. I'm not a fan of this type of thing, but from what I've read so far, no one broke any laws in getting the phone records.
Also, why demand an answer from Obama? Wouldn't Holder be the person to ask about this?
 
2013-05-15 03:22:16 PM

I_C_Weener: They wrote an angry letter. It had citations to DOJ guidelines and everything. They sounded really pissed. Also, I think they all asked for those cell phones you can buy at Kroger and use for a week, then throw away. These are now legitimate tax deductions. Thanks Obama.


That's probably close to what the end result will be.  They'll decide it really was their fault he hit them, go bail him out of jail, and promise to try and not make him so mad the next time.
 
2013-05-15 03:22:31 PM
This whole mess is getting out of hand.  Boehner is calling for criminal charges and prison sentences for guilty parties.  Guilty of what, I don't know.  Guilty of testing the veracity of claims made on an application I guess.  The GOP has no idea when to take their foot off the gas.
 
2013-05-15 03:22:56 PM
Charles Rangel only does a thing when it is good for Charles Rangel.
 
2013-05-15 03:24:58 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Aarontology: You know what the funny thing is about this?

Conservatives are going to ignore what he has to say because "LOL CHARLIE RANGEL'

See, that's ironic too because subby is a 'conservative'.


By "conservative" you must mean the modern definition, "sociopath with no clear attachment to reality?"
 
2013-05-15 03:25:04 PM

neversubmit: JustGetItRight: I think the AP thing's got the potential to have a huge impact.

It is one thing to have Drudge linking critical stories from right wing sites. It will be quite another if suddenly those links are AP instead of infowars. Nothing will come of it from a legal standpoint, but if the press gets a real mad on they'll make life a living hell on the administration.

The Corporations are just reminding Mr. Obama who's the boss.

[www.bartcop.com image 500x597]


Is that why the head of the news division at NPR signed the letter, too?
 
2013-05-15 03:25:08 PM
during previous administrations none of this would be an governmental overreach & if you had a problem with it, you would be asked what you were hiding.
 
2013-05-15 03:26:14 PM

geek_mars: "But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this."

The article I read yesterday (from the link here on Fark) said that, as per DoJ procedure, they informed the AP that they would be subpoenaing the records. I'm not a fan of this type of thing, but from what I've read so far, no one broke any laws in getting the phone records.
Also, why demand an answer from Obama? Wouldn't Holder be the person to ask about this?


That turd is still rolling down the hill.  Holder has said he wasn't responsible and knows nothing. Meaning, they have not found a suitable scapegoat yet.
 
2013-05-15 03:27:07 PM
2nd term presidents are worthless. The opposition party spends the first 4 years trying to make the president one term, and the 2nd term obstructing and trying to impeach.

Constitutional amendment for one 6 year term. It would solve a lot of problems and save money.
 
2013-05-15 03:29:06 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: geek_mars: "But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this."

The article I read yesterday (from the link here on Fark) said that, as per DoJ procedure, they informed the AP that they would be subpoenaing the records. I'm not a fan of this type of thing, but from what I've read so far, no one broke any laws in getting the phone records.
Also, why demand an answer from Obama? Wouldn't Holder be the person to ask about this?

That turd is still rolling down the hill.  Holder has said he wasn't responsible and knows nothing. Meaning, they have not found a suitable scapegoat yet.


Oh wait, here he is:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/holder-95-99-certain-deputy-ag-a ut horized-subpoena-acting-my-stead_724558.html#
 
2013-05-15 03:30:40 PM

Granny_Panties: 2nd term presidents are worthless. The opposition party spends the first 4 years trying to make the president one term, and the 2nd term obstructing and trying to impeach.

Constitutional amendment for one 6 year term. It would solve a lot of problems and save money.


So... 6 years of obstructing and trying to impeach?  Awesome plan.
 
2013-05-15 03:31:16 PM
 
2013-05-15 03:32:24 PM

Nabb1: neversubmit: JustGetItRight: I think the AP thing's got the potential to have a huge impact.

It is one thing to have Drudge linking critical stories from right wing sites. It will be quite another if suddenly those links are AP instead of infowars. Nothing will come of it from a legal standpoint, but if the press gets a real mad on they'll make life a living hell on the administration.

The Corporations are just reminding Mr. Obama who's the boss.

[www.bartcop.com image 500x597]

Is that why the head of the news division at NPR signed the letter, too?


Sometimes one can get away with not doing what ones boss tells them to do and other times one can't, the difference between keeping ones job is knowing which is which.
 
2013-05-15 03:40:09 PM
Hey, at least Charlie tried to institute the draft. We never would have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, if little Jody had been forced to stop farking women at the Country Club and start plinking natives at 20 meters.
 
2013-05-15 03:40:27 PM

Granny_Panties: 2nd term presidents are worthless. The opposition party spends the first 4 years trying to make the president one term, and the 2nd term obstructing and trying to impeach.


I'm pretty sure Republicans spent the first 4 years obstructing and trying to impeach as well.

A more apt statement would be

Granny_Panties: 2nd term Democratic presidents in this new era of mindless, unfettered Republican obstructionismare worthless.


A single 6 year term would just mean Republicans could have more time for obstruction and non-scandals and less time for campaigning against the President.
 
2013-05-15 03:43:03 PM

culebra: Charles Rangel only does a thing when it is good for Charles Rangel.


This
 
2013-05-15 03:47:45 PM

Isitoveryet: during previous administrations none of this would be an governmental overreach & if you had a problem with it, you would be asked what you were hiding.


Just like it was overlooked during the Nixon administration.  Wise beyond your years, are you.
 
2013-05-15 03:49:16 PM

Car_Ramrod: pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and...had the temerity to engage in the political process.


I think the law is pretty clear that tax-exempt charities are prohibited in engaging in partisan politics. The temerity was about people trying to break the law. The problem is not that "patriot" groups were targeted, but that all the groups, liberal, conservative, and churchy (of any kind) weren't targeted. My solution to this would be to take a harder line towards enforcing the boundaries, not less.
 
2013-05-15 03:49:26 PM

neversubmit: JustGetItRight: I think the AP thing's got the potential to have a huge impact.

It is one thing to have Drudge linking critical stories from right wing sites. It will be quite another if suddenly those links are AP instead of infowars. Nothing will come of it from a legal standpoint, but if the press gets a real mad on they'll make life a living hell on the administration.

The Corporations are just reminding Mr. Obama who's the boss.

[www.bartcop.com image 500x597]


Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Telecommunications Act of 96.  Clinton farked us all in the name of his Walmart stock and love of China.
 
2013-05-15 03:51:50 PM

Somacandra: Car_Ramrod: pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and...had the temerity to engage in the political process.

I think the law is pretty clear that tax-exempt charities are prohibited in engaging in partisan politics. The temerity was about people trying to break the law. The problem is not that "patriot" groups were targeted, but that all the groups, liberal, conservative, and churchy (of any kind) weren't targeted. My solution to this would be to take a harder line towards enforcing the boundaries, not less.


There is legal distinction between a 501(c)(3) and (4).
 
2013-05-15 03:52:58 PM

I_C_Weener: Isitoveryet: during previous administrations none of this would be an governmental overreach & if you had a problem with it, you would be asked what you were hiding.

Just like it was overlooked during the Nixon administration.  Wise beyond your years, are you.


Watergate wasn't about government overreach...
 
2013-05-15 03:53:24 PM

Somacandra: Car_Ramrod: pressured the IRS to target groups that held differing political views and...had the temerity to engage in the political process.

I think the law is pretty clear that tax-exempt charities are prohibited in engaging in partisan politics. The temerity was about people trying to break the law. The problem is not that "patriot" groups were targeted, but that all the groups, liberal, conservative, and churchy (of any kind) weren't targeted. My solution to this would be to take a harder line towards enforcing the boundaries, not less.


I read an article on a legal blog, "Above the Law", and the writer made a very good point - the rules are rather ambiguous on this and Congress has never given any real instructions to the IRS, which is poorly equipped to do this.  Of course, what we may very well likely see is not more rigid enforcement, but actually less, which both Republicans and Democrats have toyed with doing for a while now.
 
2013-05-15 03:55:18 PM

Nemo's Brother: Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Telecommunications Act of 96. Clinton farked us all in the name of his Walmart stock and love of China.

ecx.images-amazon.com

Actually Ben Bagdikian, former Dean at Berkeley's Journalism school, started warning up about this in 1983. It goes back a lot further than Clinton.
 
2013-05-15 03:55:29 PM

qorkfiend: I_C_Weener: Isitoveryet: during previous administrations none of this would be an governmental overreach & if you had a problem with it, you would be asked what you were hiding.

Just like it was overlooked during the Nixon administration.  Wise beyond your years, are you.

Watergate wasn't about government overreach...


Watergate itself wasn't, but the articles of impeachment listed a number of charges, one of which was using the IRS to bully political opponents.  One of the goals of the Watergate burglaries was to get dirt on Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked classified reports to the New York Times and Washington Post that became known as "the Pentagon Papers."
 
2013-05-15 03:56:36 PM

I_C_Weener: Isitoveryet: during previous administrations none of this would be an governmental overreach & if you had a problem with it, you would be asked what you were hiding.

Just like it was overlooked during the Nixon administration.  Wise beyond your years, are you.


whoa whoa, lets slow down, this hasn't even reached Watergate levels of deception (if that's what you were implying) & let us not forget that Nixon was pardoned!
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report