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  
•       •       •

2257 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 2:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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!
 
2013-05-15 03:56:52 PM
The problem is that all of these have shown Obama to have a very tepid response at best to factual inaccuracies at worst.  Do I think that Obama knew about Bengazi/IRS/AP beforehand?  No.  Do I think they know more than they are saying, and knew it before they currently say they found out?  Yes.  The IRS thing could have easily been handled with "we will find those that are responsible and they will be fired"  The AP thing should have been handled by saying "Holder, why do you still have a job?"

Their PR is horrible.  The WH reveals bits and pieces as if they are each in a vacuum and no one will look at today's piece and compare to yesterdays which was different, or contradictory.

By the way, Holder flat out lied in his press conference regarding AP.  He said the records where gathered after all other avenues where exhausted.  However, they spoke to exactly zero reporters prior to this, so that avenue had not been explored, let alone exhausted.  They clearly think no one will check.  This is the biggest problem for the WH is that no one believes them anymore.  The republicans did not trust him because they thought they got jobbed during the fiscal cliff negotiations, now the dems don't believe them either.
 
2013-05-15 03:58:08 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.


That's not really true, there's even records of left leaning "charities" being denied status. The real issue here is the Tea party surge in groups in a very short time -- and they ended up getting their miserable tax exempt status as a wing of the GOP anyway.
 
2013-05-15 03:58:17 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.


Agreed on all counts.
 
2013-05-15 03:59:02 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: This is the biggest problem for the WH is that no one believes them anymore.


You misspelled "Congressional Republicans".
 
2013-05-15 03:59:11 PM

Nabb1: 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.


Those are good points, echoed elsewhere. Perhaps I should say that the law ought to be pretty clear about where the line of partisan activism begins. With Citizens United and all that I expect the trend is indeed in the loosening direction.
 
2013-05-15 04:01:53 PM

Nemo's Brother: 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.


A pro-corporate right center President did what now? :-)
 
2013-05-15 04:02:10 PM

un4gvn666: Munchausen's Proxy: This is the biggest problem for the WH is that no one believes them anymore.

You misspelled "Congressional Republicans".


By "congressional republicans" do you mean "everyone in the press"? Then yes, thank you for the correction
 
2013-05-15 04:02:12 PM

Somacandra: Nabb1: 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.

Those are good points, echoed elsewhere. Perhaps I should say that the law ought to be pretty clear about where the line of partisan activism begins. With Citizens United and all that I expect the trend is indeed in the loosening direction.


The big non-profits on both the right and the left have the resources and people who understand tax law to separate their purely charitable operations and their PAC operations.  It's the smaller ones that don't, and while plenty of people will try to game the system the way people abuse every other part of the tax code, I would hate to see smaller upstart groups of all persuasions from getting discouraged from trying to apply for something they are legally entitled to.

Except the Illinois Nazis.  I hate those guys.
 
2013-05-15 04:02:58 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: However, they spoke to exactly zero reporters prior to this


i.imgur.com

To be fair, one does not simply ask reporters to surrender their confidential sources.  Judith Miller in 2005 and all that. You would approach management, and management's legal team, not labor.
 
2013-05-15 04:05:43 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.


They would have used the "terrorism oogaaga booga" defense, then called anyone asking questions a traitor for questioning the president during war time.
 
2013-05-15 04:08:34 PM

Somacandra: Munchausen's Proxy: However, they spoke to exactly zero reporters prior to this

[i.imgur.com image 519x116]

To be fair, one does not simply ask reporters to surrender their confidential sources.  Judith Miller in 2005 and all that. You would approach management, and management's legal team, not labor.


So Holder went back in time and asked in 2005?

The point is Holder said "all avenues had been exhausted" yet that one hadn't.  You might be arguing that it would be fruitless, yet it should have been undertaken before a sweeping gather of all phone calls in and out of dozens of phones.
 
2013-05-15 04:15:38 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: By the way, Holder flat out lied in his press conference regarding AP. He said the records where gathered after all other avenues where exhausted. However, they spoke to exactly zero reporters prior to this, so that avenue had not been explored, let alone exhausted. They clearly think no one will check. This is the biggest problem for the WH is that no one believes them anymore. The republicans did not trust him because they thought they got jobbed during the fiscal cliff negotiations, now the dems don't believe them either.


The DOJ didn't issue notice beforehand because of concerns related to the investigation, so when Holder is saying that all avenues were exhausted, it's understood (by people who have some basic familiarity with the situation and context) that he's referring to options that were not thought to pose some threat to the investigation.
 
2013-05-15 04:22:36 PM
I am so sick of headlines of this format:

"It's gotten so bad that even [flagrant hypocrite/person of same party] is criticizing you."

Anyone can criticize anything, including relevant and irrelevant things.  It doesn't tell you anything.
 
2013-05-15 04:27:01 PM

ikanreed: I am so sick of headlines of this format:

"It's gotten so bad that even [flagrant hypocrite/person of same party] is criticizing you."

Anyone can criticize anything, including relevant and irrelevant things.  It doesn't tell you anything.


Pearls cast before swine. Irony.  Study it out.
 
2013-05-15 04:31:08 PM
John Stewart nailed it yesterday.  Obama clueless, oblivious to everything.  Either he's a complete moran or surrounded himself with complete morans.  Ugh..neither choice screams of awesome.
 
2013-05-15 04:32:10 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: ikanreed: I am so sick of headlines of this format:

"It's gotten so bad that even [flagrant hypocrite/person of same party] is criticizing you."

Anyone can criticize anything, including relevant and irrelevant things.  It doesn't tell you anything.

Pearls cast before swine. Irony.  Study it out.


Ok, I've gone back over the thread enough to determine that you're not being facetious.   You are, in fact, vacuous enough to belief that there's amusing novelty in a politician being a hypocrite.
 
2013-05-15 04:34:34 PM

ikanreed: Lt. Cheese Weasel: ikanreed: I am so sick of headlines of this format:

"It's gotten so bad that even [flagrant hypocrite/person of same party] is criticizing you."

Anyone can criticize anything, including relevant and irrelevant things.  It doesn't tell you anything.

Pearls cast before swine. Irony.  Study it out.

Ok, I've gone back over the thread enough to determine that you're not being facetious.   You are, in fact, vacuous enough to belief that there's amusing novelty in a politician being a hypocrite.


Need a tissue?
 
2013-05-15 04:37:18 PM
Wasn't Obama's answer "We don't know what happened yet, we will look into it and then tell you what e found out".

How the hell is that stone walling?
 
2013-05-15 04:41:27 PM
Lt. Cheese Weasel:

Need a tissue?

With this "I'm right because Charlie Rangel agrees with me" wanking you've been doing, you might want to keep it.
 
2013-05-15 04:45:53 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.


An Attorney General from the previous administration has stated they considered the same course of action and decided it was too much.
 
2013-05-15 04:46:17 PM
Well, if you are a member of Barack's family, you get the wink and nod treatment.  This transparency is the change we hoped for.
 
2013-05-15 04:47:24 PM
In this case, I guess Obama isn't blah enough.
 
2013-05-15 04:52:57 PM
Good news is, Barack never knows or finds out about shiat until he sees it on the news.  That there is some solid President'n.
 
2013-05-15 04:55:15 PM

JustGetItRight: 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.

An Attorney General from the previous administration has stated they considered the same course of action and decided it was too much.


I would like to know more.

The_Forensicator: Good news is, Barack never knows or finds out about shiat until he sees it on the news.  That there is some solid President'n.


One would expect more from a omniscient being huh?
 
2013-05-15 04:57:11 PM
Question.  Why are we giving tax exempt status to indisputably anti-American for-profit corporations like Fox New's Tea Party?
 
2013-05-15 04:59:08 PM

The_Forensicator: Good news is, Barack never knows or finds out about shiat until he sees it on the news.  That there is some solid President'n.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-15 04:59:57 PM

The_Forensicator: Good news is, Barack never knows or finds out about shiat until he sees it on the news.  That there is some solid President'n.


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-15 05:00:05 PM

Doc Lee: Question.  Why are we giving tax exempt status to indisputably anti-American for-profit corporations like Fox New's Tea Party?


Funny!
You should have added a "but...but...but...Bush" to show off your "brilliance".
 
2013-05-15 05:01:03 PM

Doc Lee: The_Forensicator: Good news is, Barack never knows or finds out about shiat until he sees it on the news.  That there is some solid President'n.

[i.imgur.com image 300x297]


you just wait until they finish story time, he'll get right on it.
 
2013-05-15 05:02:30 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: Question.  Why are we giving tax exempt status to indisputably anti-American for-profit corporations like Fox New's Tea Party?

Funny!
You should have added a "but...but...but...Bush" to show off your "brilliance".


HAH!

never thought I'd read Bush & brilliance in the same statement.
kudos!
 
2013-05-15 05:03:05 PM

Somacandra: 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.


Well, for starters, these were 501(c)4.   They're allowed to participate in some types of political activities.

Other than that, you're right on.  If you're going to take a hard line, that's fine but that isn't what happened here.  It's going to get even worse if some of the stories suggesting that information submitted to the IRS was being provided to left wing media and campaigns turns out to be true.
 
2013-05-15 05:07:18 PM
So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.
 
2013-05-15 05:07:35 PM

Isitoveryet: JustGetItRight: 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.

An Attorney General from the previous administration has stated they considered the same course of action and decided it was too much.

I would like to know more.

The_Forensicator: Good news is, Barack never knows or finds out about shiat until he sees it on the news.  That there is some solid President'n.

One would expect more from a omniscient being huh?



Politico story
MSNBC story
 
2013-05-15 05:08:49 PM

Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.


This is about the IRS scandal.

Benghazi wishes it could be a scandal on the scale of the IRS scandal.

Wake me up when you have any evidence of wrongdoing as far as Benghazi is concerned.
 
2013-05-15 05:09:29 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [christopherfountain.files.wordpress.com image 575x305]

Hard on the case, doing the peeples work.  He'll get to the bottom of this.


Charlie has a FUPA.
 
2013-05-15 05:11:09 PM

Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama Republicans threw over your eyes.


No evidence of a scandal apparently means that there must be a scandal according to low information Republicans.  A few more months of testimony, and we'd have spent more time and money investigating Benghazi than we did 9/11.
 
2013-05-15 05:12:16 PM

DarnoKonrad: 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.

That's not really true, there's even records of left leaning "charities" being denied status. The real issue here is the Tea party surge in groups in a very short time -- and they ended up getting their miserable tax exempt status as a wing of the GOP anyway.


Just cause the cops pulled over a couple white guys doesn't exonerate them from profiling blacks.

What they did was wrong and lazy at best, but the donor list part smells like some moronic over zealous underling went on a political witch hunt.  Wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be one of these FARK posters
 
2013-05-15 05:13:28 PM

Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.


Benghazi is not a scandal. Benghazi was never a scandal. Benghazi is never gonna be a scandal.

The AP records request and this IRS bullshiat are.
 
2013-05-15 05:13:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: Question.  Why are we giving tax exempt status to indisputably anti-American for-profit corporations like Fox New's Tea Party?

Funny!
You should have added a "but...but...but...Bush" to show off your "brilliance".


He hasn't received his re-edited and post-edited Media Matters talking points yet.  Cut him some slack.
 
2013-05-15 05:17:52 PM
The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.
 
2013-05-15 05:18:45 PM

The_Forensicator: tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: Question.  Why are we giving tax exempt status to indisputably anti-American for-profit corporations like Fox New's Tea Party?

Funny!
You should have added a "but...but...but...Bush" to show off your "brilliance".

He hasn't received his re-edited and post-edited Media Matters talking points yet.  Cut him some slack.


Oh, I get it. If it happened under a Republican, it's a-okay in your book. But, if it happens under a Democrat, you get out the pitch forks. And what do you do with your impotent dick when it happens under a Democrat but it's a Republican calling for investigations into tax exempt status of liberal groups? That happened, you know? Of course you don't. And you probably don't care either because you play team politics. Party before country...it's the official Republican Party motto.
 
2013-05-15 05:19:18 PM

JustGetItRight: Politico story
MSNBC story


Thanks for the links!

there's really nothing in there that is damning of what is currently going on.
I did find this somewhat funny.

But as Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler points out, the DOJ under Gonzales actually skipped protocol altogether while prosecuting leaks, convincing telephone companies to disclose phone records without a subpoena.
 
2013-05-15 05:20:10 PM

The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.


Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?
 
2013-05-15 05:20:27 PM

Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.


^^^^^^
Here is a person so giddy that people are talking about Obama and scandals, that he literally doesn't know which is which or what is happening.
 
2013-05-15 05:21:25 PM

Doc Lee: Oh, I get it. If it happened under a Republican, it's a-okay in your book. But, if it happens under a Democrat, you get out the pitch forks


No, you obviously DON'T get it.  Moving along....

Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.

Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?


Yup.
 
2013-05-15 05:23:34 PM

The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.

Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?

Yup.


So Obama made him violate his parole?
 
2013-05-15 05:26:27 PM
Only Charles Rangel? I am going to wait until Charles Manson steps up to say that so-and-so needs to come clean.

/one cannot be both discredited and credible at the same time
 
2013-05-15 05:27:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.

Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?

Yup.

So Obama made him violate his parole?


No.  He did that on his own.  Obama/Hillary blessed him with the blame for Benghazi.
 
2013-05-15 05:28:11 PM

The_Forensicator: Doc Lee: Oh, I get it. If it happened under a Republican, it's a-okay in your book. But, if it happens under a Democrat, you get out the pitch forks

No, you obviously DON'T get it.  Moving along....


I guess you need to wait for your Fox New's approved talking points before you can respond.
 
2013-05-15 05:29:17 PM

Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: Question.  Why are we giving tax exempt status to indisputably anti-American for-profit corporations like Fox New's Tea Party?

Funny!
You should have added a "but...but...but...Bush" to show off your "brilliance".

Should I bring up the fact that your hero Michele Bachmann called for the IRS to investigate the tax exempt status of Planned Parenthood not once, but twice since 2008?


1.  She isn't my hero.  Lame strawman.
2.  Don't you know the difference between someone making a request and someone actually doing something?

Should I also bring up the fact that she openly regretted not being able to bring down other liberal groups in the same way?

Sure.  Bring it up.  It is totally irrelevant to the fact that the IRS actually did something, knew about it for several years and only disclosed it when a report was about to come out.

Should I bring up the fact that you have no issue with groups violating IRS rules when those groups are arguing for your pathetic side but think they should be investigated when it's a liberal group?

What evidence is there that they violated IRS rules?  Citation?  Or are you lying again?
How come NOTHING was mentioned in the IRS report that anyone violated any of the rules?  Do you have inside info?

(difficulty - read the link that justgetitright provided above).
 
2013-05-15 05:29:39 PM

The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.

Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?

Yup.

So Obama made him violate his parole?

No.  He did that on his own.  Obama/Hillary blessed him with the blame for Benghazi.


Well to be fair, he was responsible for what happened in Cairo that same day.
 
2013-05-15 05:30:38 PM

Isitoveryet: JustGetItRight: 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.

An Attorney General from the previous administration has stated they considered the same course of action and decided it was too much.

I would like to know more.

The_Forensicator: Good news is, Barack never knows or finds out about shiat until he sees it on the news.  That there is some solid President'n.

One would expect more from a omniscient being huh?


I think the White House Chief of Staff, McDonough, is the critical moran here.
 
2013-05-15 05:31:01 PM
 
2013-05-15 05:32:26 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/15/exclusive-prominent-cathol i c-prof-claims-irs-audited-her-after-speaking-out-against-obama-and-dem anded-to-know-who-was-paying-her/

Nothing to see here.  Move along.


The Blaze huh?

Sounds legit.
 
2013-05-15 05:32:45 PM

Nemo's Brother: 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.


Heh, came for this.
 
2013-05-15 05:34:14 PM
LOL the Blaze!!! holy crap.

Where if you own the site, your face is front page material all day, everyday.

/shakes head
 
2013-05-15 05:34:15 PM
Congress spends a decade completely trampling on our rights, then they are shocked, SHOCKED when the laws they passed are used.
 
2013-05-15 05:35:19 PM

karmaceutical: 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.


I am not one to typically wander into the derp that is a political discussion on Fark, but if you can't see why a government agency singling out groups on the basis of political affiliation is anathema to core American ideals, then what are you even doing here?  You are just contributing to the derp.  It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government.  That right was apparently infringed here. Here, it looks like the government took sides and persecuted individuals/groups on the basis of political affiliation.  That shiat will fly in places like Russia and Iran, but it shouldn't here.
 
2013-05-15 05:36:30 PM

Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.

Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?

Yup.

So Obama made him violate his parole?

No.  He did that on his own.  Obama/Hillary blessed him with the blame for Benghazi.

Well to be fair, he was responsible for what happened in Cairo that same day.


Angry Buddha: Isitoveryet: JustGetItRight: 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.

An Attorney General from the previous administration has stated they considered the same course of action and decided it was too much.

I would like to know more.

The_Forensicator: Good news is, Barack never knows or finds out about shiat until he sees it on the news.  That there is some solid President'n.

One would expect more from a omniscient being huh?

I think the White House Chief of Staff, McDonough, is the critical moran here.


I really don't know.  But all poking fun and whatnot aside, something ain't right here.  Who knows if we'll find out, or it will just be a resignation/fall on sword type of deal.  All I know is this shiat is seriously cutting into WEINER for MAYOR links.
 
2013-05-15 05:39:15 PM

Pumpernickel bread: karmaceutical: 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.

I am not one to typically wander into the derp that is a political discussion on Fark, but if you can't see why a government agency singling out groups on the basis of political affiliation is anathema to core American ideals, then what are you even doing here?  You are just contributing to the derp.  It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government.  That right was apparently infringed here. Here, it looks like the government took sides and persecuted individuals/groups on the basis of political affiliation.  That shiat will fly in places like Russia and Iran, but it shouldn't here.


It works pretty well if ya don't get caught, or you have the passive endorsement of segments of the population.
 
2013-05-15 05:40:54 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/15/exclusive-prominent-cathol i c-prof-claims-irs-audited-her-after-speaking-out-against-obama-and-dem anded-to-know-who-was-paying-her/

Nothing to see here.  Move along.


Just like when Glenn Beck gave us the real scoop on the Boston bombing.
 
2013-05-15 05:41:13 PM
This has to be a tough one for right wingers. On one hand, the dirty liberal AP is conspiring with terrorists. On the other hand, this makes Obama look bad.

They need to count on their constituent's willful ignorance to pull this one off.

/not a tough sell
 
2013-05-15 05:42:22 PM

mediablitz: This has to be a tough one for right wingers. On one hand, the dirty liberal AP is conspiring with terrorists. On the other hand, this makes Obama look bad.

They need to count on their constituent's willful ignorance to pull this one off.

/not a tough sell


You are upset about?  It's hard to tell.
 
2013-05-15 05:43:14 PM
I'd also add that if this happened under Bush, right wingers would be saying anyone supporting the AP hates America and supports terrorism.

But notice how liberals are condemning this? Yeah, both sides are the same...
 
2013-05-15 05:44:15 PM

The_Forensicator: mediablitz: This has to be a tough one for right wingers. On one hand, the dirty liberal AP is conspiring with terrorists. On the other hand, this makes Obama look bad.

They need to count on their constituent's willful ignorance to pull this one off.

/not a tough sell

You are upset about?  It's hard to tell.


No, he is going to defend it.
 
2013-05-15 05:44:59 PM

The_Forensicator: mediablitz: This has to be a tough one for right wingers. On one hand, the dirty liberal AP is conspiring with terrorists. On the other hand, this makes Obama look bad.

They need to count on their constituent's willful ignorance to pull this one off.

/not a tough sell

You are upset about?  It's hard to tell.


In your world, is one required to always be upset? Poor, poor you...
 
2013-05-15 05:45:04 PM

Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.

Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?

Yup.

So Obama made him violate his parole?

No.  He did that on his own.  Obama/Hillary blessed him with the blame for Benghazi.

Well to be fair, he was responsible for what happened in Cairo that same day.


No.  To be fair, the people in Cairo were responsible for what happened in Cairo.
Heck, I was upset that Angie didn't make the top two in American Idol, but I didn't engage in violent protests over it.
 
2013-05-15 05:46:15 PM

Pumpernickel bread: karmaceutical: 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.

I am not one to typically wander into the derp that is a political discussion on Fark, but if you can't see why a government agency singling out groups on the basis of political affiliation is anathema to core American ideals, then what are you even doing here?  You are just contributing to the derp.  It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government.  That right was apparently infringed here. Here, it looks like the government took sides and persecuted individuals/groups on the basis of political affiliation.  That shiat will fly in places like Russia and Iran, but it shouldn't here.


You sound far too reasonable. Shoo.
 
2013-05-15 05:46:31 PM

I alone am best: The_Forensicator: mediablitz: This has to be a tough one for right wingers. On one hand, the dirty liberal AP is conspiring with terrorists. On the other hand, this makes Obama look bad.

They need to count on their constituent's willful ignorance to pull this one off.

/not a tough sell

You are upset about?  It's hard to tell.

No, he is going to defend it.


Yes, my pointing out earlier how our rights have been trampled for a decade and NOW Congress is upset is me defending.

Simple world you live in. Politics tab must be your second home.
 
2013-05-15 05:47:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.

This is about the IRS scandal.

Benghazi wishes it could be a scandal on the scale of the IRS scandal.

Wake me up when you have any evidence of wrongdoing as far as Benghazi is concerned.


Just look at what you're paying attention to now...The One has blown the biggest smoke screee outa his ass.
 
2013-05-15 05:48:32 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.

Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?

Yup.

So Obama made him violate his parole?

No.  He did that on his own.  Obama/Hillary blessed him with the blame for Benghazi.

Well to be fair, he was responsible for what happened in Cairo that same day.

No.  To be fair, the people in Cairo were responsible for what happened in Cairo.
Heck, I was upset that Angie didn't make the top two in American Idol, but I didn't engage in violent protests over it.


Well one thing is for certain. Making a video to troll the Islamic community while on probation for internet fraud isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.

I guess we can all agree that the video guy is a dumbass then correct?
 
2013-05-15 05:48:34 PM

The_Forensicator: But all poking fun and whatnot aside, something ain't right here. Who knows if we'll find out, or it will just be a resignation/fall on sword type of deal.


If you're talking about the AP thing, it's unlikely that anybody will resign, chiefly because it's doesn't look like there was any wrongdoing from the DOJ to begin with. The letter that Cole wrote to the AP explains (within the usual limitations of any comment on an ongoing investigation) what was done and why it was done.
 
2013-05-15 05:49:12 PM

Tumunga: Mrtraveler01: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.

This is about the IRS scandal.

Benghazi wishes it could be a scandal on the scale of the IRS scandal.

Wake me up when you have any evidence of wrongdoing as far as Benghazi is concerned.

Just look at what you're paying attention to now...The One has blown the biggest smoke screee outa his ass.


The IRS thing and Benghazi are all tied together?
 
2013-05-15 05:49:18 PM

mediablitz: I alone am best: The_Forensicator: mediablitz: This has to be a tough one for right wingers. On one hand, the dirty liberal AP is conspiring with terrorists. On the other hand, this makes Obama look bad.

They need to count on their constituent's willful ignorance to pull this one off.

/not a tough sell

You are upset about?  It's hard to tell.

No, he is going to defend it.

Yes, my pointing out earlier how our rights have been trampled for a decade and NOW Congress is upset is me defending.

Simple world you live in. Politics tab must be your second home.


Relax and breathe slowly..No one is going to call Barack any bad names ok?  Everything is juuuuust fine.  Shhh.
 
2013-05-15 05:50:06 PM

Tumunga: Just look at what you're paying attention to now...The One has blown the biggest smoke screee outa his ass.


it's like the President has a laser pointer & the kittens just don't have a fighting chance nor do they have the attention span to complete taking a shiat.

or, all this crap is just B.S. to start with.
 
2013-05-15 05:50:22 PM

Cletus C.: Pumpernickel bread: karmaceutical: 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.

I am not one to typically wander into the derp that is a political discussion on Fark, but if you can't see why a government agency singling out groups on the basis of political affiliation is anathema to core American ideals, then what are you even doing here?  You are just contributing to the derp.  It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government.  That right was apparently infringed here. Here, it looks like the government took sides and persecuted individuals/groups on the basis of political affiliation.  That shiat will fly in places like Russia and Iran, but it shouldn't here.

You sound far too reasonable. Shoo.


yeah, seriously.  You won't fit in here if you care about the Constitution (watch out for that audit) and aren't rabidly anti-Tea Party.
 
2013-05-15 05:51:37 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: You won't fit in here if you care about the Constitution (watch out for that audit)


The Tea Party doesn't care about it either. ;)

Well any of them minus the 2nd Amendment that is.
 
2013-05-15 05:53:06 PM

Pumpernickel bread: karmaceutical: 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.

I am not one to typically wander into the derp that is a political discussion on Fark, but if you can't see why a government agency singling out groups on the basis of political affiliation is anathema to core American ideals, then what are you even doing here?  You are just contributing to the derp.  It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government.  That right was apparently infringed here. Here, it looks like the government took sides and persecuted individuals/groups on the basis of political affiliation.  That shiat will fly in places like Russia and Iran, but it shouldn't here.


His point was about whether or not there was any criminal wrongdoing here, which is entirely separate from vague discussions about whether or not what happened was "anathema to core American ideals".
 
2013-05-15 05:54:23 PM

Isitoveryet: there's really nothing in there that is damning of what is currently going on.


I didn't say there was, and more to the point the DOJ very likely didn't do one single thing that was against the law.

What they did do was shait all over what has been a pretty friendly media.  If they decide to become unfriendly I don't think the administration will fare very well at all.

To be blunt, Republicans are pretty accustomed to facing an unfriendly press.  As Carney's been demonstrating on a pretty regular basis these days, outside of Fox and Drudge, that's a foreign concept to the Obama administration.
 
2013-05-15 05:57:12 PM

JustGetItRight: What they did do was shait all over what has been a pretty friendly media.


If the media (or, at the very least, the AP) had been "pretty friendly" to the administration, there wouldn't be any need for these subpoenas in the first place.
 
2013-05-15 05:58:11 PM

mediablitz: I'd also add that if this happened under Bush, right wingers would be saying anyone supporting the AP hates America and supports terrorism.

But notice how liberals are condemning this? Yeah, both sides are the same...


How do you arrive at these conclusions?  What you say doesn't make any sense.  I think your perception of those with political views different from your own is wildly different than how they really are.   Take me for example.  I lean more right than left, but I date a Muslim woman from the Middle East.  Do I fit into your narrow view of Republicans, or were you certain that only liberals could be accepting of those from other ethnicities and faiths?
 
2013-05-15 05:58:33 PM

Mrtraveler01: Well one thing is for certain. Making a video to troll the Islamic community while on probation for internet fraud isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.

I guess we can all agree that the video guy is a dumbass then correct?


No, it's not smart, I suppose, but making a troll video wasn't what got him in trouble.  It was using a pseudonym in making it.  One of the terms of his probation was to not use any fictitious names, but ordinarily, that is to prevent someone from engaging in fraud.  Here, he was just making a movie and exercising his First Amendment rights.  So, yes, he did use a pseudonym (not uncommon for writers or other artists) but not in connection with anything outright illegal.  Yes, he's a dumbass, but other than technically violating the terms of his probation, he wasn't doing anything criminal.  And then the Administration selling that as some sort of catalyst for simultaneous attacks on US interests in separate countries on 9/11 was pretty pathetic.
 
2013-05-15 05:59:43 PM

Biological Ali: Pumpernickel bread: karmaceutical: 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.

I am not one to typically wander into the derp that is a political discussion on Fark, but if you can't see why a government agency singling out groups on the basis of political affiliation is anathema to core American ideals, then what are you even doing here?  You are just contributing to the derp.  It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government.  That right was apparently infringed here. Here, it looks like the government took sides and persecuted individuals/groups on the basis of political affiliation.  That shiat will fly in places like Russia and Iran, but it shouldn't here.

His point was about whether or not there was any criminal wrongdoing here, which is entirely separate from vague discussions about whether or not what happened was "anathema to core American ideals".


Well, the Constitution does happen to be law.  It isn't just a bunch of suggestions.
 
2013-05-15 06:00:37 PM

mediablitz: I alone am best: The_Forensicator: mediablitz: This has to be a tough one for right wingers. On one hand, the dirty liberal AP is conspiring with terrorists. On the other hand, this makes Obama look bad.

They need to count on their constituent's willful ignorance to pull this one off.

/not a tough sell

You are upset about?  It's hard to tell.

No, he is going to defend it.

Yes, my pointing out earlier how our rights have been trampled for a decade and NOW Congress is upset is me defending.

Simple world you live in. Politics tab must be your second home.


Deflect some more.

OH YEAH SO WHAT ABOUT THIS HERE LOOK OVER THERE AT THAT! WHAT ABOUT THAT THING THAT IS NOT THIS THING HERE? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT! ILL TELL YOU WHAT, TERRORISM THATS WHAT! POOR SOUL.....
 
2013-05-15 06:00:51 PM

Nabb1: And then the Administration selling that as some sort of catalyst for simultaneous attacks on US interests in separate countries on 9/11 was pretty pathetic.


So what were the other riots in separate countries about then?
 
2013-05-15 06:00:58 PM

Nabb1: No, it's not smart, I suppose, but making a troll video wasn't what got him in trouble. It was using a pseudonym in making it. One of the terms of his probation was to not use any fictitious names, but ordinarily, that is to prevent someone from engaging in fraud. Here, he was just making a movie and exercising his First Amendment rights. So, yes, he did use a pseudonym (not uncommon for writers or other artists) but not in connection with anything outright illegal. Yes, he's a dumbass, but other than technically violating the terms of his probation, he wasn't doing anything criminal. And then the Administration selling that as some sort of catalyst for simultaneous attacks on US interests in separate countries on 9/11 was pretty pathetic.


Wait, what? Should the administration have lied and said the protests were over something else?
 
2013-05-15 06:01:01 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, seriously. You won't fit in here if you care about the Constitution (watch out for that audit) and aren't rabidly anti-Tea Party.


I am sorry you fell for the big lie that anyone other than GOP goons care about the right every man woman & child here in America are afforded.
It's not your fault, you just need to question your authoritarian figures from time to time, maybe consider another news source that doesn't need to scare people into getting behind their agendas.
 
2013-05-15 06:03:47 PM

Biological Ali: Nabb1: No, it's not smart, I suppose, but making a troll video wasn't what got him in trouble. It was using a pseudonym in making it. One of the terms of his probation was to not use any fictitious names, but ordinarily, that is to prevent someone from engaging in fraud. Here, he was just making a movie and exercising his First Amendment rights. So, yes, he did use a pseudonym (not uncommon for writers or other artists) but not in connection with anything outright illegal. Yes, he's a dumbass, but other than technically violating the terms of his probation, he wasn't doing anything criminal. And then the Administration selling that as some sort of catalyst for simultaneous attacks on US interests in separate countries on 9/11 was pretty pathetic.

Wait, what? Should the administration have lied and said the protests were over something else?


Well, then why did the State Department issue a statement in September saying that it never concluded that was the cause?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/10/state_department_s ay s_innocence_of_muslims_didn_t_prompt_benghazi_attack.html
 
2013-05-15 06:05:20 PM

Pumpernickel bread: Well, the Constitution does happen to be law. It isn't just a bunch of suggestions.


Which still doesn't have any bearing on what karmaceutical was talking about. If you think specific people should face criminal charges for breaking specific laws, you should by all means say which people (and which laws) you had in mind. But this has nothing to do with general arguments about free speech, which is what you seemed to be getting at.
 
2013-05-15 06:06:19 PM
 
2013-05-15 06:07:31 PM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: Mrtraveler01: The_Forensicator: The poor schmuck who got Obama'd because of his youtube video must have gotten one HELL of an audit.

Is that the guy who violated his parole by posting a video on Youtube?

Yup.

So Obama made him violate his parole?

No.  He did that on his own.  Obama/Hillary blessed him with the blame for Benghazi.

Well to be fair, he was responsible for what happened in Cairo that same day.

No.  To be fair, the people in Cairo were responsible for what happened in Cairo.
Heck, I was upset that Angie didn't make the top two in American Idol, but I didn't engage in violent protests over it.

Well one thing is for certain. Making a video to troll the Islamic community while on probation for internet fraud isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.


My guess is that if you are on probation for fraud you probably aren't the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with (either that or you are really unlucky and have a bad lawyer).

I guess we can all agree that the video guy is a dumbass then correct?

Yup.  That was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
 
2013-05-15 06:07:34 PM

Nabb1: Biological Ali: Nabb1: No, it's not smart, I suppose, but making a troll video wasn't what got him in trouble. It was using a pseudonym in making it. One of the terms of his probation was to not use any fictitious names, but ordinarily, that is to prevent someone from engaging in fraud. Here, he was just making a movie and exercising his First Amendment rights. So, yes, he did use a pseudonym (not uncommon for writers or other artists) but not in connection with anything outright illegal. Yes, he's a dumbass, but other than technically violating the terms of his probation, he wasn't doing anything criminal. And then the Administration selling that as some sort of catalyst for simultaneous attacks on US interests in separate countries on 9/11 was pretty pathetic.

Wait, what? Should the administration have lied and said the protests were over something else?

Well, then why did the State Department issue a statement in September saying that it never concluded that was the cause?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/10/state_department_s ay s_innocence_of_muslims_didn_t_prompt_benghazi_attack.html


Yes, your link says it didn't spawn the attacks in Benghazi.  So again what started the riots in other countries throughout the Middle East?
 
2013-05-15 06:09:01 PM

Fart_Machine: Nabb1: Biological Ali: Nabb1: No, it's not smart, I suppose, but making a troll video wasn't what got him in trouble. It was using a pseudonym in making it. One of the terms of his probation was to not use any fictitious names, but ordinarily, that is to prevent someone from engaging in fraud. Here, he was just making a movie and exercising his First Amendment rights. So, yes, he did use a pseudonym (not uncommon for writers or other artists) but not in connection with anything outright illegal. Yes, he's a dumbass, but other than technically violating the terms of his probation, he wasn't doing anything criminal. And then the Administration selling that as some sort of catalyst for simultaneous attacks on US interests in separate countries on 9/11 was pretty pathetic.

Wait, what? Should the administration have lied and said the protests were over something else?

Well, then why did the State Department issue a statement in September saying that it never concluded that was the cause?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/10/state_department_s ay s_innocence_of_muslims_didn_t_prompt_benghazi_attack.html

Yes, your link says it didn't spawn the attacks in Benghazi.  So again what started the riots in other countries throughout the Middle East?


Oh, just keep f*cking that chicken.
 
2013-05-15 06:09:43 PM
Republican senators who have long been critics of Attorney General Eric Holder were noticeably muted on Tuesday when asked to respond to the news of the Justice Department seizing reporters' records as part of a broader probe into national security leaks.

"Well, I think we need to see how this plays out," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of Holder's biggest critics and who last year demanded that the attorney general resign amid the Fast and Furious gun-running probe. "I have questions about it, but I'm wiling to wait and see how this plays out, whether it was narrowly targeted or whether it was a net that was too broadly cast," Cornyn said.

"I want to see the details - what was their rationale, why did they do it - before offering an opinion," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who earlier this week accused the administration of engaging in a "cover-up" in Benghazi. "For me, to rush to a judgment without knowing all the facts is just not appropriate."


Like I said: Tough one for right wingers. AP is hated liberal scum, but there HAS to be a way to blame Obama. They are suddenly wanting to "know all the facts" first...
 
2013-05-15 06:09:52 PM
So you gotta look at the IRS agent's situation. They're paid to find organizations that don't qualify for tax exempt status, got an astro turf organization...

www.prwatch.org

complaining about paying taxes and calling the IRS thugs out to steal their money.


www.hsaforamerica.com

 Now I'm not saying they should have profiled Tea Party organizations...

fsrn.org

but I understand.

/with apologies to Chris Roc
 
2013-05-15 06:10:55 PM

Pumpernickel bread: mediablitz: I'd also add that if this happened under Bush, right wingers would be saying anyone supporting the AP hates America and supports terrorism.

But notice how liberals are condemning this? Yeah, both sides are the same...

How do you arrive at these conclusions?  What you say doesn't make any sense.  I think your perception of those with political views different from your own is wildly different than how they really are.   Take me for example.  I lean more right than left, but I date a Muslim woman from the Middle East.  Do I fit into your narrow view of Republicans, or were you certain that only liberals could be accepting of those from other ethnicities and faiths?


Some people like hairy women.  I kid.  I kid.

It's not about the views of liberals.  It's about the views of those in your own party.  Would they accept you dating a Muslim terrorist?  (I kid, again).

To me, it would make sense that Republicans would date a Muslim.  You're both conservatives.
 
2013-05-15 06:11:54 PM

Biological Ali: Pumpernickel bread: Well, the Constitution does happen to be law. It isn't just a bunch of suggestions.

Which still doesn't have any bearing on what karmaceutical was talking about. If you think specific people should face criminal charges for breaking specific laws, you should by all means say which people (and which laws) you had in mind. But this has nothing to do with general arguments about free speech, which is what you seemed to be getting at.


He is saying that the government violated their civil rights which could amount to a criminal violation.

http://ww w.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/05/15/holder-potential-civ il-rights-violations-irs/mY2lq0Ua7J11XZcHS3ZlgO/story.html
 
2013-05-15 06:12:43 PM

Nabb1: Fart_Machine: Nabb1: Biological Ali: Nabb1: No, it's not smart, I suppose, but making a troll video wasn't what got him in trouble. It was using a pseudonym in making it. One of the terms of his probation was to not use any fictitious names, but ordinarily, that is to prevent someone from engaging in fraud. Here, he was just making a movie and exercising his First Amendment rights. So, yes, he did use a pseudonym (not uncommon for writers or other artists) but not in connection with anything outright illegal. Yes, he's a dumbass, but other than technically violating the terms of his probation, he wasn't doing anything criminal. And then the Administration selling that as some sort of catalyst for simultaneous attacks on US interests in separate countries on 9/11 was pretty pathetic.

Wait, what? Should the administration have lied and said the protests were over something else?

Well, then why did the State Department issue a statement in September saying that it never concluded that was the cause?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/10/state_department_s ay s_innocence_of_muslims_didn_t_prompt_benghazi_attack.html

Yes, your link says it didn't spawn the attacks in Benghazi.  So again what started the riots in other countries throughout the Middle East?

Oh, just keep f*cking that chicken.


You can just admit you've got nothing.  We understand.
 
2013-05-15 06:14:11 PM
Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: Question.  Why are we giving tax exempt status to indisputably anti-American for-profit corporations like Fox New's Tea Party?

Funny!
You should have added a "but...but...but...Bush" to show off your "brilliance".

Should I bring up the fact that your hero Michele Bachmann called for the IRS to investigate the tax exempt status of Planned Parenthood not once, but twice since 2008?

1.  She isn't my hero.  Lame strawman.
2.  Don't you know the difference between someone making a request and someone actually doing something?

Introducing legislation to do just that is doing nothing?  Tacking it on to just about every single PPACA repeal is doing nothing? Your hero wouldn't be happy that you don't know just how hard she is fighting for you.

Should I also bring up the fact that she openly regretted not being able to bring down other liberal groups in the same way?

Sure.  Bring it up.  It is totally irrelevant to the fact that the IRS actually did something, knew about it for several years and only disclosed it when a report was about to come out.

The NAACP and ACORN laugh at your short term memory.

Should I bring up the fact that you have no issue with groups violating IRS rules when those groups are arguing for your pathetic side but think they should be investigated when it's a liberal group?

wtf are you talking about the Churches?  If you want to make that point be specific otherwise people will accuse you of moving the goal posts. The threads recently about the IRS have all been about the Tea Party, Patriots, etc.
Besides you are wrong, I do have an issue with the Churches doing that and said so in the thread that was about that a while ago.

Wasn't talking about the Tea Party, although, by their very nature as a subsidiary of a for-profit media outlet, they shouldn't be counted as a non-profit organization.

Citation that they are a subsidiary of a for-profit media outlet?
Or are you going to try and move the goal posts again?
 
2013-05-15 06:16:25 PM

Isitoveryet: tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, seriously. You won't fit in here if you care about the Constitution (watch out for that audit) and aren't rabidly anti-Tea Party.

I am sorry you fell for the big lie that anyone other than GOP goons care about the right every man woman & child here in America are afforded.
It's not your fault, you just need to question your authoritarian figures from time to time, maybe consider another news source that doesn't need to scare people into getting behind their agendas.


The media I listen to are Fair and Balanced.
Unlike other media which are Unfair and out of balance.  (imbalanced?  unbalanced?)
 
2013-05-15 06:17:50 PM

Nabb1: Well, then why did the State Department issue a statement in September saying that it never concluded that was the cause?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/10/state_department_s ay s_innocence_of_muslims_didn_t_prompt_benghazi_attack.html


Wow, that article's a garbled mess. Apparently the author doesn't know that the link between the attack and a suspected anti-video demonstration was first made by the CIA (and not by Rice as he seems to suggest). The AP excerpt doesn't say much either - is the suggestion there that the State Department had actively concluded something other than what the CIA was saying, or is it merely that the relevant part of the initial assessment wasn't made by the State Department? My guess would be that it's the latter, since it was indeed made by the CIA and not the State Department, and the State Department didn't make any changes to that aspect of it.

That said, this piece was written a very long time ago (perhaps) before all these details were known, so I guess I could kind of give the author a pass on that (though it should have been updated after Petraeus' testimony at the very least).
 
2013-05-15 06:19:07 PM

Fart_Machine: Nabb1: Fart_Machine: Nabb1: Biological Ali: Nabb1: No, it's not smart, I suppose, but making a troll video wasn't what got him in trouble. It was using a pseudonym in making it. One of the terms of his probation was to not use any fictitious names, but ordinarily, that is to prevent someone from engaging in fraud. Here, he was just making a movie and exercising his First Amendment rights. So, yes, he did use a pseudonym (not uncommon for writers or other artists) but not in connection with anything outright illegal. Yes, he's a dumbass, but other than technically violating the terms of his probation, he wasn't doing anything criminal. And then the Administration selling that as some sort of catalyst for simultaneous attacks on US interests in separate countries on 9/11 was pretty pathetic.

Wait, what? Should the administration have lied and said the protests were over something else?

Well, then why did the State Department issue a statement in September saying that it never concluded that was the cause?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/10/state_department_s ay s_innocence_of_muslims_didn_t_prompt_benghazi_attack.html

Yes, your link says it didn't spawn the attacks in Benghazi.  So again what started the riots in other countries throughout the Middle East?

Oh, just keep f*cking that chicken.

You can just admit you've got nothing.  We understand.


Did you read the CSM story?  How about a chronology from Think Progress?

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/15/1014241/timline-benghaz i- attack/?mobile=nc

On the first go around, they put the blame for Benghazi, Cairo, and other attacks on the "Innocence of Muslims," and while that may have played a part or been some sort of red herring in other attacks, there was no evidence of any protest in Benghazi before the violence occurred, unlike other places where there had been some non-violent protests before the violence happened.  They spent the next few weeks backpedaling from that claim that Benghazi was in response to "Innocence of Muslims."
 
2013-05-15 06:20:57 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: The media I listen to are Fair and Balanced.
Unlike other media which are Unfair and out of balance. (imbalanced? unbalanced?)



I believe it would be biased or unbalanced.

is it fair and balanced to assume everyone who doesn't conform to your world view has no respect for the Constitution of the U.S.?
 
2013-05-15 06:24:35 PM

I alone am best: He is saying that the government violated their civil rights which could amount to a criminal violation.

http://ww w.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/05/15/holder-potential-civ il-rights-violations-irs/mY2lq0Ua7J11XZcHS3ZlgO/story.html


Sure, but the investigation still centers around specific laws about what agency personnel can and can't do, as opposed to vague discussions about the Constitution.
 
2013-05-15 06:24:38 PM

Isitoveryet: tenpoundsofcheese: The media I listen to are Fair and Balanced.
Unlike other media which are Unfair and out of balance. (imbalanced? unbalanced?)


I believe it would be biased or unbalanced.

is it fair and balanced to assume everyone who doesn't conform to your world view has no respect for the Constitution of the U.S.?


No.  That sounds like a complete non sequitor.
People who don't conform to my world view (I am not even sure what a non conformist to a view point is) just don't conform to a viewpoint.
They may have more or less respect for the Constitution than I have.
 
2013-05-15 06:25:08 PM

Nabb1: On the first go around, they put the blame for Benghazi, Cairo, and other attacks on the "Innocence of Muslims," and while that may have played a part or been some sort of red herring in other attacks, there was no evidence of any protest in Benghazi before the violence occurred, unlike other places where there had been some non-violent protests before the violence happened. They spent the next few weeks backpedaling from that claim that Benghazi was in response to "Innocence of Muslims."


Thanks did you read my response?

Fart_Machine: Yes, your link says it didn't spawn the attacks in Benghazi. So again what started the riots in other countries throughout the Middle East?


So again, it wasn't a catalyst for Benghazi.  That doesn't mean it wasn't one for the other 20 countries where riots took place.
 
2013-05-15 06:38:27 PM
Fart_Machine:
So again, it wasn't a catalyst for Benghazi.  That doesn't mean it wasn't one for the other 20 countries where riots took place.

So farking what?
There were bigger riots during 0WS protests and "celebrations" after some sports teams won a championship game.
 
2013-05-15 06:52:56 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: wtf are you talking about the Churches?  If you want to make that point be specific otherwise people will accuse you of moving the goal posts. The threads recently about the IRS have all been about the Tea Party, Patriots, etc.
Besides you are wrong, I do have an issue with the Churches doing that and said so in the thread that was about that a while ago.


I said specifically that you had no problem when your groups violate IRS rules but you have problems when you believe liberal groups violate IRS rules.  I quote you directly defending the churches directly violating the IRS rules.  I didn't move the goal posts as I never specifically said Tea Party.

Citation that they are a subsidiary of a for-profit media outlet?
Or are you going to try and move the goal posts again?


Aggressively promoting their Tea Party rallies in order to draw viewers and generate income?  Come on now.  They are completely in bed with one another and should be classified as subsidiaries.
 
2013-05-15 07:00:45 PM

Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese: wtf are you talking about the Churches?  If you want to make that point be specific otherwise people will accuse you of moving the goal posts. The threads recently about the IRS have all been about the Tea Party, Patriots, etc.
Besides you are wrong, I do have an issue with the Churches doing that and said so in the thread that was about that a while ago.

I said specifically that you had no problem when your groups violate IRS rules but you have problems when you believe liberal groups violate IRS rules.  I quote you directly defending the churches directly violating the IRS rules.  I didn't move the goal posts as I never specifically said Tea Party.

Citation that they are a subsidiary of a for-profit media outlet?
Or are you going to try and move the goal posts again?

Aggressively promoting their Tea Party rallies in order to draw viewers and generate income?  Come on now.  They are completely in bed with one another and should be classified as subsidiaries.


Ok, so your are saying you have no proof or citations that support your lie.  Got it.
Thanks for playing.


If you do have proof, you may want to send a note to the IRS.  That could be breaking news.

And while you are at it, tell the IRS that 0WS is a subsidiary of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Comedy Central, NBC, etc.  They can look into how 0WS is dealing with their non-profit issues.
 
2013-05-15 07:01:44 PM
The media has gone into high boil over the actions of a handful of IRS employees in Cincinnati. The IRS is deliberately targeting political groups! They even admit it! Can impeachment be far behind?
Next step, tie this to Benghazi and any other fact-free psuedo-scandal close at hand. Step two, moan about the general incompetence and corruption of government. Step three, demand scalps - but not before there's time to spin out a good half dozen Sunday talk show seasons on Taxgazi, or Tax and Furious, or whatever brand the pundits decide has the most snap.
You know this one must be the real deal, because every news channel, newspaper, local anchor, radio nutjob, and water cooler wag is singing the same tune. Hell, even Jon Stewart is on step two.
There's just one minor problem: the exact purpose of the IRS office in question IS to look at political groups. Specifically, to weed out purely political groups that promote or oppose candidates from obtaining a tax status that's supposed to go to nonprofit educational organizations. The crime of the IRS agents in Cincinnati? They were doing their job.
But what about the specific targeting of Tea Party groups? Doesn't that show that this was all just a witch hunt against groups with right wing ideologies? Uh, no. It came up at exactly the time the office was getting flooded with a bunch of hastily prepared applications spewing from the Tea Party's messy birth. The edict went out expressly because the office was being flooded with a bunch of hastily prepared, clearly political, applications all using very similar terms. In fact, the entire group of IRS employees in question was created to address the influx of possibly political applications. If the office had suddenly received a hundred applications for exempt status all claiming to be from the Sierra Club, wouldn't you want them to pay a bit more attention? I would. What if those applications had all been from groups using Muslim Brotherhood in their titles? Would the same pundits still be on the air screaming about the IRS getting all political?
Behind all this are the staggering numbers. Out of thousands of applications, only a handful were rejected. You know what happens while a nonprofit organization is waiting to get this approval? They get to operate as a nonprofit organization. The harm caused by this action is exactly zero, and exactly no groups have sued the IRS in response to their rejection. They simply amended the application and tried again.
These are agents doing their job. They responded to an unusual influx of groups with political language in their applications all going after a designation that excludes groups that carry out many political actions.
The only scandal here is that this is being reported as if the IRS did something wrong in injecting itself into politics. The law requires that the IRS inject itself into politics. Don't like it? Change the law. Don't attack the people trying to enforce it.
 
2013-05-15 07:06:18 PM

Hobodeluxe: Taxgazi, or Tax and Furious


Is Furiousghazi a scandal yet?
 
2013-05-15 07:10:11 PM

Biological Ali: I alone am best: He is saying that the government violated their civil rights which could amount to a criminal violation.

http://ww w.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/05/15/holder-potential-civ il-rights-violations-irs/mY2lq0Ua7J11XZcHS3ZlgO/story.html

Sure, but the investigation still centers around specific laws about what agency personnel can and can't do, as opposed to vague discussions about the Constitution.


He did say

"It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government.  That right was apparently infringed here"

Where you looking for what the charges would be under the criminal code?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

I knew he through out a "The constitution is law" later which sort of sounds ambiguous but it is still accurate.
 
2013-05-15 07:10:57 PM

tenpoundsofcheese:
Ok, so your are saying you have no proof or citations that support your lie.  Got it.
Thanks for playing.


Plenty of evidence there. I'm sorry if you're too retarded and partisan to realize it. Never in the history of politics has a news channel specifically promoted their own rallies in order to generate income for their channel. F0x New's Tea Parties explicitly go against the principles of non-profit.

If you do have proof, you may want to send a note to the IRS.  That could be breaking news.

Nope. It would be ignored by the corporate media. Just like all of the examples of c0nservatives using the IRS to attack liberal groups have gone ignored.

And while you are at it, tell the IRS that 0WS is a subsidiary of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Comedy Central, NBC, etc.  They can look into how 0WS is dealing with their non-profit issues.

The two are no where near comparable. It's silly for you to even make the comparison considering that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et al spent months sitting there saying that the OWS movement had no real arguments to make or they had no idea what the movement was about. They weren't out there like F0x News, not only supporting their anti-Americanism, but promoting it for personal gain. The only message F0x New's Tea Party has is that they want to take their country back...just like Hitler.
 
2013-05-15 07:31:38 PM

I alone am best: He did say

"It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government. That right was apparently infringed here"


Except this doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, which is what he's talking about. The closest this gets to any Constitutional issue would be Fourteenth Amendment/equal protection stuff (and even that would be a stretch; pretty much an argument-for-the-sake-of-argument thing given the facts that are known so far).

The rational view of this situation, based on the facts known so far, is that it's a clumsy but non-malicious action on the part of some part of the bureaucratic setup. Granted, it may still be enough for administrative action like firings etc. or even criminal prosecution (though that looks unlikely), but it's certainly not a violation of fundamental free speech rights.
 
2013-05-15 07:46:02 PM

Biological Ali: I alone am best: He did say

"It is so central, that the founding fathers addressed it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. It grants citizens the right to speak freely and openly about their government without fear of reprisal by that government. That right was apparently infringed here"

Except this doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment, which is what he's talking about. The closest this gets to any Constitutional issue would be Fourteenth Amendment/equal protection stuff (and even that would be a stretch; pretty much an argument-for-the-sake-of-argument thing given the facts that are known so far).

The rational view of this situation, based on the facts known so far, is that it's a clumsy but non-malicious action on the part of some part of the bureaucratic setup. Granted, it may still be enough for administrative action like firings etc. or even criminal prosecution (though that looks unlikely), but it's certainly not a violation of fundamental free speech rights.


I would disagree. The IRS was asking for way more information than it needed to do its job. Information that it requested from noone else but these groups. Then it leaked several confidential documents to political campaigns. On more than one occasion someone was audited directly after they had become outspoken against Obama. That to me seems as if someone was trying to suppress someones right to free speech using the color of the law.

I dont think this is a OMG OBAMA MADE THEM DO IT THING. I would not put it past some mid-management government employee to dabble in this kind of civil rights violation. They have been known to do it in the past.
 
2013-05-15 07:48:03 PM
I am sorry, I should have said.

That to me seems as if someone was trying to suppress someones right to free speech by obstruction using the color of the law.
 
2013-05-15 08:01:24 PM

I alone am best: I would disagree. The IRS was asking for way more information than it needed to do its job. Information that it requested from noone else but these groups. Then it leaked several confidential documents to political campaigns. On more than one occasion someone was audited directly after they had become outspoken against Obama. That to me seems as if someone was trying to suppress someones right to free speech using the color of the law.


As far as I know, this wasn't about audits - this was just about applications for tax-exempt status. Beyond that, tax-exempt groups aren't supposed to be engaging in partisan politics (which is to say, endorsing or attacking specific candidates). If that's a suppression of free speech, then what you're saying is that the entire legal setup that defines the requirements for tax-exemption is itself a suppression of free speech.

Even then, the problem isn't with what was done in and of itself (some of the information they asked for was deemed unnecessary but I haven't heard any serious claims that the action was illegal outright), but rather with the suggestion that it wasn't done evenly. Which would, if anything, make it an equal protection issue - but as I said, that looks to be quite a stretch.
 
2013-05-15 08:20:46 PM

Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.


Here's the thing. Which part of it is the scandal? Because you and yours change their mind EVERY DAY. Benghazi's been blatantly politicized by the Republican Party to the point of exhaustion.
 
2013-05-15 09:03:40 PM

Doc Lee: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama Republicans threw over your eyes.

No evidence of a scandal apparently means that there must be a scandal according to low information Republicans.  Libtards.A few more months of testimony, and we'd have spent more time and money investigating Benghazi than we did 9/11.


OOOOO Look!! American Idol is on tonight. You better go hang out in the Entertainment tab.
 
2013-05-15 09:08:29 PM

babygoat: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.

^^^^^^
Here is a person so giddy that people are talking about Obama and scandals, that he the Libtard leadership isliterally doesn't  spewing the talking points of the day, and doesn'tknow which is which or what is happening.


Linky-winky
 
2013-05-15 09:11:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: Tumunga: Mrtraveler01: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.

This is about the IRS scandal.

Benghazi wishes it could be a scandal on the scale of the IRS scandal.

Wake me up when you have any evidence of wrongdoing as far as Benghazi is concerned.

Just look at what you're paying attention to now...The One has blown the biggest smoke screee outa his ass.

The IRS thing and Benghazi are all tied together?


The Great Fartbongo will now perform an illusion... Ok everyone, pay attention to my right hand. No, my RIGHT hand...pay no attention to what the left hand is doing.
 
2013-05-15 09:29:13 PM

Biological Ali: As far as I know, this wasn't about audits - this was just about applications for tax-exempt status.


Yes.  And it wasn't about "being outspoken against Obama" else the IRS would have put the smack-down on those 1100 pastors who dared the IRS to revoke their exemption status.  It was using key words to flag applications for extra scrutiny.  Profiling but hardly the so-called "enemies list" critics are claiming.
 
2013-05-15 11:11:03 PM

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


Ohhhh so that's why the Justice department tapped the work and private cell phones of AP employees?  Well as soon as Holder produces a court order or warrant to tap the phones, I am sure that all the curious parties will be satisfied and go about their business.
 
2013-05-15 11:11:50 PM

Tumunga: Doc Lee: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama Republicans threw over your eyes.

No evidence of a scandal apparently means that there must be a scandal according to low information Republicans.  Libtards.A few more months of testimony, and we'd have spent more time and money investigating Benghazi than we did 9/11.

OOOOO Look!! American Idol is on tonight. You better go hang out in the Entertainment tab.


Nothing new. Just more low information Republicanism on display here, folks.
 
2013-05-15 11:13:19 PM
You know what's funny? If an actual, legitimate scandal takes place that directly involves Obama, nobody's going to give two sh*ts because of all of this.

Oh, wait, it's this far into his Presidency and Obama's still being blamed for things that happened before he became President.
 
2013-05-16 12:30:51 AM

Tumunga: Mrtraveler01: Tumunga: Mrtraveler01: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.

This is about the IRS scandal.

Benghazi wishes it could be a scandal on the scale of the IRS scandal.

Wake me up when you have any evidence of wrongdoing as far as Benghazi is concerned.

Just look at what you're paying attention to now...The One has blown the biggest smoke screee outa his ass.

The IRS thing and Benghazi are all tied together?

The Great Fartbongo will now perform an illusion... Ok everyone, pay attention to my right hand. No, my RIGHT hand...pay no attention to what the left hand is doing.


You intend on explaining what the scandal is today? Or have you forgotten what you're pretending to be mad about?
 
2013-05-16 03:15:56 PM

Doc Lee: Tumunga: Doc Lee: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama Republicans threw over your eyes.

No evidence of a scandal apparently means that there must be a scandal according to low information Republicans.  Libtards.A few more months of testimony, and we'd have spent more time and money investigating Benghazi than we did 9/11.

OOOOO Look!! American Idol is on tonight. You better go hang out in the Entertainment tab.

Nothing new. Just more low information Republicanism on display here, folks.


I see you listen to Rush, and are quoting him. You might wanna hush it a bit. The FarkLibbies are going make you turn in your Media Matters credentials.
 
2013-05-16 03:18:31 PM

RevMercutio: Tumunga: Mrtraveler01: Tumunga: Mrtraveler01: Tumunga: So now, if you don't think Benghazi is a scandal, just look how thick the wool sheet is that Obama threw over your eyes.

This is about the IRS scandal.

Benghazi wishes it could be a scandal on the scale of the IRS scandal.

Wake me up when you have any evidence of wrongdoing as far as Benghazi is concerned.

Just look at what you're paying attention to now...The One has blown the biggest smoke screee outa his ass.

The IRS thing and Benghazi are all tied together?

The Great Fartbongo will now perform an illusion... Ok everyone, pay attention to my right hand. No, my RIGHT hand...pay no attention to what the left hand is doing.

You intend on explaining what the scandal is today? Or have you forgotten what you're pretending to be mad about?


The scandal today is whatever scandal Obama wants you to look at while he's attempting to quell the last one.
 
Displayed 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report