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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 28 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