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  
•       •       •

2258 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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).
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report