Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Atlantic)   Remember that story about the IRS commissioner signing in for 157 visits to the White House in Obama's first term? Yeah, just kidding it was actually 11   (theatlantic.com) divider line 298
    More: Followup, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, President Obama, White House, IRS, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Douglas Shulman, situation room, Easter Egg Roll  
•       •       •

2383 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 May 2013 at 1:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-31 02:17:48 PM  

FlashHarry: that being said, i do trust that the americans who were killed were actively plotting against the US, but would i trust a president romney? a president santorum? a president palin with that same power? no farking way.


So then what Lincoln did was illegal because you wouldn't want Romney, Santorum or Palin to have the power to send troops against US citizens like he did?

That makes no farking sense.

(also George Washington sent troops also to quash a rebellion)
 
2013-05-31 02:18:12 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: studs up: I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.

42


lol
 
2013-05-31 02:19:56 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Have you read what the AUMF has defined as the "enemies" and where that is?

So if you don't want the president with WAR POWERS don't give them WAR POWERS but don't try to pretend war powers are not war powers like you are doing right now.

did you read my post earlier? the one in which i said, "that's the trouble with the war on terror. it's perpetual war on a global scale, which gives extraordinary power to the president."

the AUMF is bad policy. obama himself has said so recently.

my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.


So is the AUMF NOT LAW because you don't like it?

Ok lets. discuss it!! But yu refuse to answer any of my questions. You are the one refusing to discuss it.

Why are you concerned about the drone strikes but not the Clitions 70 some strikes of guided missiles under his administration?

What makes drones magically different then a guided missile? Are you ok with guided missiles killing Americans with no trial?
 
2013-05-31 02:21:24 PM  

make me some tea: Interesting.


Digby is a seasoned progressive blogger who I'm constantly learning from. Highly recommended.
 
2013-05-31 02:21:31 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Have you read what the AUMF has defined as the "enemies" and where that is?

So if you don't want the president with WAR POWERS don't give them WAR POWERS but don't try to pretend war powers are not war powers like you are doing right now.

did you read my post earlier? the one in which i said, "that's the trouble with the war on terror. it's perpetual war on a global scale, which gives extraordinary power to the president."

the AUMF is bad policy. obama himself has said so recently.

my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.


Got it. if I kill American as a president with troops like Washington did (Rum rebellion) or Lincoln did (civil war) or probably many many other presidents did during armed rebellions or wars it's ok but as soon as someone use DRONES, that magically changes everything?
 
2013-05-31 02:21:38 PM  
Oh and Not Only is the OEB (which I can look out my window at) part of the "white House Campus" So is the New Executive Office Building at 17&G...AND...wait for it...The HQ building for the US dept of Treasury (of which the IRS is a sub agency) which is at 1700 Peenslyvania Avenue, (which is why the rent-acops checking your badge are actually US Secret Service, and if you are in the stairwells at just the right time you can have the exciting exerience of running into a group of men in fatigues with Barret 50 cal rifles  slung over thier shoulders-which is a startling occurance for your first week on a new job)
 
2013-05-31 02:22:18 PM  

Corvus: Depends on what country it's in.


what if it's on a city street in yemen? a country with whom we are not currently at war. or pakistan.

my point is, your definition of "battlefield" is the entire planet, basically. and the war on terror has no end. that means that the president can kill any american anywhere whenever he deems it necessary. and that is patently unconstitutional.

now if you're in an actual battle on an actual battlefield and you're fighting actual american troops, then, fark yes, you deserve to die. but if you're not currently making war against the us - say you're riding in an SUV through the streets of lahore - then you should at least have a right to some sort of trial.
 
2013-05-31 02:22:59 PM  
you should be careful poking around for the Truth.  It might bite you in the butt.
 
2013-05-31 02:23:53 PM  

Corvus: What makes drones magically different then a guided missile? Are you ok with guided missiles killing Americans with no trial?


drone strikes are no different. no, i'm not ok with killing americans with guided missiles without a trial. UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS ON AN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD.
 
2013-05-31 02:24:54 PM  

FlashHarry: that being said, i do trust that the americans who were killed were actively plotting against the US, but would i trust a president romney? a president santorum? a president palin with that same power? no farking way.


I don't trust these people being the Commander in chief THEREFOR it must be illegal for all presidents to be commander in chief.

Ummmm, no. Presidents have lots of power as commander in chief. That is done on purpose so courts do not second guess them running the military in times of war (or rebellion) that's how it is always been. Which is what you want to be done.
 
2013-05-31 02:25:04 PM  

FlashHarry: my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.


Yes, it would be, if the Republicans did not already support the use of drones by Obama.  You cannot have a political controversy in the U.S. when both the major parties agree with each other on the policy.  That would be a very short discussion.  That's why they have to try to gin up controversies over this other type of stuff.
 
2013-05-31 02:25:21 PM  

Corvus: Got it. if I kill American as a president with troops like Washington did (Rum rebellion) or Lincoln did (civil war) or probably many many other presidents did during armed rebellions or wars it's ok but as soon as someone use DRONES, that magically changes everything?


my point has nothing to do with drones. but you know that, don't you. you obviously haven't read a single thing i've written. drones. missiles. bombs. bullets. i don't care. that's not the point.

but go ahead and argue that. obviously a straw man is easier to attack.
 
2013-05-31 02:27:37 PM  

Corvus: Presidents have lots of power as commander in chief.


only congress had the power to make war prior to 9/11. of course this didn't stop us getting into 'police actions' and the like... but it's not what the founders wanted.

and i'm not comfortable with the president of the us, whomever he or she may be, having the power to kill an american without a fair trial. unless, of course, that american is taking up arms against the US and actively doing so on a bona fide battlefield.
 
2013-05-31 02:27:58 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What makes drones magically different then a guided missile? Are you ok with guided missiles killing Americans with no trial?

drone strikes are no different. no, i'm not ok with killing americans with guided missiles without a trial. UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS ON AN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD.


That's what it is!

Are you saying someone running military operations against the US is not "taking up arms against the US"?
If we can't get to them how do you think we can have a trial? How is a "command and control" location not part of the battlefield?

What do you think we should do with these people exactly? You tell us.
 
2013-05-31 02:28:29 PM  

FlashHarry: and the other half:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?"

Approve: 24%
Disapprove: 67%
Unsure: 9%

keep farking that chicken, republicans!


This might come as a shock to some of you, but I'm not a Republican, they're responsible for just as much dumb shiat as Democrats. Unlike most people I like to look at everything independently instead of just going with the "my side good, your side bad" way of thinking that you see from most people. If you can't admit your side farks up and the other side does something right from time to time, you have a lot of growing up to do.
 
2013-05-31 02:28:36 PM  

Corvus: I don't trust these people being the Commander in chief THEREFOR it must be illegal for all presidents to be commander in chief.


nowhere did i say commander in chief. i was talking about the power to kill noncombatant americans without trial.
 
2013-05-31 02:29:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What makes drones magically different then a guided missile? Are you ok with guided missiles killing Americans with no trial?

drone strikes are no different. no, i'm not ok with killing americans with guided missiles without a trial. UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS ON AN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD.


But but but "heritage not hate".
 
2013-05-31 02:29:36 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I have a Facebook friend who is going to be absolutely crushed that his latest rant has proven to be just more of the same bullshiat.


Was that the one about how the 157 meetings all involved necessary government business so people should shut up? Yeah, he's going to feel like such a fool when he realises they never took place.
 
2013-05-31 02:30:47 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Got it. if I kill American as a president with troops like Washington did (Rum rebellion) or Lincoln did (civil war) or probably many many other presidents did during armed rebellions or wars it's ok but as soon as someone use DRONES, that magically changes everything?

my point has nothing to do with drones. but you know that, don't you. you obviously haven't read a single thing i've written. drones. missiles. bombs. bullets. i don't care. that's not the point.

but go ahead and argue that. obviously a straw man is easier to attack.


Then why do you keep saying DRONES in all your statements?

Stop saying it then!!!

FlashHarry: i agree that extrajudicial executions via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "scandals" that the GOP have ginned up.



FlashHarry: my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.

 
2013-05-31 02:31:33 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I don't trust these people being the Commander in chief THEREFOR it must be illegal for all presidents to be commander in chief.

nowhere did i say commander in chief. i was talking about the power to kill noncombatant americans without trial.


What noncombatant Americans have been targeted and killed exactly?
 
2013-05-31 02:31:37 PM  

Corvus: That's what it is!

Are you saying someone running military operations against the US is not "taking up arms against the US"?
If we can't get to them how do you think we can have a trial? How is a "command and control" location not part of the battlefield?

What do you think we should do with these people exactly? You tell us.


• a street in yemen is not a battlefield. we are not at war with yemen. or pakistan. or somalia. or [insert country here]
• somebody accused of terrorism isn't "running military operations against the US" if they were, they would be running military operations rather than engaging in terrorism.
• gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?
 
2013-05-31 02:33:06 PM  

Corvus: Stop saying it then!!!

FlashHarry: i agree that extrajudicial executions via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "scandals" that the GOP have ginned up.


FlashHarry: my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.


i'm sorry you're fixated on a single word and are having trouble digesting my point, which is the EXTRAJUDICIAL killing of americans by any means.

the word "drone" is  being bandied about because that's the current preferred method of execution.

i'm sorry it threw you off; i'll try to keep it simpler next time.
 
2013-05-31 02:33:22 PM  

FlashHarry: Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining.

obama's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: up
the GOP's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: down

yup, sounds like crashing and burning to me...


Look up.  Do you see what's up there?  And on fire?  It's crashing straight into the sun.
 
2013-05-31 02:34:08 PM  

Corvus: What noncombatant Americans have been targeted and killed exactly?


four of them, from what i understand.

noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.
 
2013-05-31 02:34:27 PM  

studs up: Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you just asking questions?

It has to do with the actual number of meetings that the IRS had with the WH regarding Obamacare? It's a fairly large bureaucratic change that probably requires quite a lot of oversight. I'm assuming that would mean a good number of meetings to ensure a smooth implementation. I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.
Or are you just obtuse for the sake of "my team"?


The only reason anyone ever brought up the number of Shulman's 'meetings' at the WH was in an attempt to demonstrate collusion between the WH and IRS regarding the scrutiny given to tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status. The only thing I'm 'obtuse' about is why you would suddenly be concerned about the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed, but immediately following a lame attempt to use the number of meetings in a witch hunt.
 
2013-05-31 02:34:29 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: That's what it is!

Are you saying someone running military operations against the US is not "taking up arms against the US"?
If we can't get to them how do you think we can have a trial? How is a "command and control" location not part of the battlefield?

What do you think we should do with these people exactly? You tell us.

• a street in yemen is not a battlefield. we are not at war with yemen. or pakistan. or somalia. or [insert country here]
• somebody accused of terrorism isn't "running military operations against the US" if they were, they would be running military operations rather than engaging in terrorism.
• gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?


Sorry according to the AUMF (which you can say you don't like but is still law) you are wrong.

Give me this "noncombatant" American you say exists that was targeted and killed.
 
2013-05-31 02:36:00 PM  

theknuckler_33: the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed,


1776
 
2013-05-31 02:36:19 PM  
btw, before we go further:

battlefield |ˈbatlˌfēld|(also battleground |-ˌground|)
noun
the piece of ground on which a battle is or was fought: death on the battlefield | [ as modifier ] : battlefield conditions.

just to be clear. you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield. just as you cannot declare war on a tactic (e.g. terror). doing so gives you extraordinary powers that are ripe for abuse.
 
2013-05-31 02:36:56 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: AdolfOliverPanties: I have a Facebook friend who is going to be absolutely crushed that his latest rant has proven to be just more of the same bullshiat.

Was that the one about how the 157 meetings all involved necessary government business so people should shut up? Yeah, he's going to feel like such a fool when he realises they never took place.


This "scandal" was pure horse manure from the start. Nobody, except the tiny fraction of the population who work at that level of the federal govt, has any idea what a "normal" number of meetings should be. It's sheer idiocy to try to gauge the number of meetings the IRS commissioner should have with the White House based on, say, one's experience managing a Quiznos franchise. But people did it anyway, because they HAD to find a way to politicize it, facts be damned.
 
2013-05-31 02:37:31 PM  

FlashHarry: you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield


A challenger appears.
 
2013-05-31 02:38:15 PM  
That was Travolta in Battlefield Earth in preview.

GODDAMN IT.
 
2013-05-31 02:38:17 PM  

Corvus: Sorry according to the AUMF (which you can say you don't like but is still law) you are wrong.


obama doesn't like it either. and, yes, in my opinion (this is fark, remember?), the AUMF is wrong.

that's the whole point of the argument. not drones per se.

and my point in this thread was that the extrajudicial killing of americans is an actual controversy, whereas benghazi, IRS and AP aren't.
 
2013-05-31 02:38:20 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


You might want to lower the light on that projector.
 
2013-05-31 02:39:25 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: theknuckler_33: the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed,

1776


More like 1980-1988.
 
2013-05-31 02:41:29 PM  
And not a single teabagger will ever change the number. It will be 157 visits in every email, every speech, every show. The correction will never be seen.
 
2013-05-31 02:43:43 PM  

FlashHarry: and my point in this thread was that the extrajudicial killing of americans is an actual controversy,


In another thread I proposed a drone strike on Fox and Friends when Stossel was on and I didn't see any controversy such as you have described.
 
2013-05-31 02:45:12 PM  

FlashHarry: btw, before we go further:

battlefield |ˈbatlˌfēld|(also battleground |-ˌground|)
noun
the piece of ground on which a battle is or was fought: death on the battlefield | [ as modifier ] : battlefield conditions.

just to be clear. you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield. just as you cannot declare war on a tactic (e.g. terror). doing so gives you extraordinary powers that are ripe for abuse.


The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy - everything.
 
2013-05-31 02:47:05 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: And not a single teabagger will ever change the number. It will be 157 visits in every email, every speech, every show. The correction will never be seen.


"Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
 
2013-05-31 02:47:51 PM  

theknuckler_33: studs up: Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you just asking questions?

It has to do with the actual number of meetings that the IRS had with the WH regarding Obamacare? It's a fairly large bureaucratic change that probably requires quite a lot of oversight. I'm assuming that would mean a good number of meetings to ensure a smooth implementation. I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.
Or are you just obtuse for the sake of "my team"?

The only reason anyone ever brought up the number of Shulman's 'meetings' at the WH was in an attempt to demonstrate collusion between the WH and IRS regarding the scrutiny given to tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status. The only thing I'm 'obtuse' about is why you would suddenly be concerned about the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed, but immediately following a lame attempt to use the number of meetings in a witch hunt.


Ah I see your confusion. My fault. I was referring to discussions yesterday. The issue of the number of visits the IRS had at the WH initially was eyed by the GOP as proof that the IRS and WH colluded to oppress right wing 501(c)s as you mentioned. This was explained away as meetings required to implement Obamacare that was indeed passed years ago but is really just starting to roll out in Jan14. I assumed that a great number of these meetings would be required for the reasons above. I thought the GOP was scandal hunting to pin something evil on BHO and make him out to be the "lead from behind" puppeteer of this issue. I accepted the explanation regarding the need for these meetings regarding Obamacare. Now yo'u'e caught up, sorry I left you out of the loop.
 
2013-05-31 02:47:57 PM  
You know, I try. I tell my teabagger peeps to not get all excited and start slinging poo like monkeys every time another "scandal" from Fox News comes up, but they never listen. Ever. Then I'm forced to rub their little noses in it every damn time. It's my burden, and I'm willing to bear it. I'm a giver like that.
 
2013-05-31 02:48:38 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: FlashHarry: and my point in this thread was that the extrajudicial killing of americans is an actual controversy,

In another thread I proposed a drone strike on Fox and Friends when Stossel was on and I didn't see any controversy such as you have described.


well, fox is an actual battlefield and stossel is an actual enemy combatant. i would have no problem seeing him and his mustache droned to high heaven.
 
2013-05-31 02:57:13 PM  

studs up: It has to do with the actual number of meetings that the IRS had with the WH regarding Obamacare? It's a fairly large bureaucratic change that probably requires quite a lot of oversight. I'm assuming that would mean a good number of meetings to ensure a smooth implementation. I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.
Or are you just obtuse for the sake of "my team"?

The only reason anyone ever brought up the number of Shulman's 'meetings' at the WH was in an attempt to demonstrate collusion between the WH and IRS regarding the scrutiny given to tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status. The only thing I'm 'obtuse' about is why you would suddenly be concerned about the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed, but immediately following a lame attempt to use the number of meetings in a witch hunt.

Ah I see your confusion. My fault. I was referring to discussions yesterday. The issue of the number of visits the IRS had at the WH initially was eyed by the GOP as proof that the IRS and WH colluded to oppress right wing 501(c)s as you mentioned. This was explained away as meetings required to implement Obamacare that was indeed passed years ago but is really just starting to roll out in Jan14. I assumed that a great number of these meetings would be required for the reasons above. I thought the GOP was scandal hunting to pin something evil on BHO and make him out to be the "lead from behind" puppeteer of this issue. I accepted the explanation regarding the need for these meetings regarding Obamacare. Now yo'u'e caught up, sorry I left you out of the loop.


I'll admit to not having read all the posts in that/those threads, but my take away from them was not that people were saying that all those meetings were so much 'necessary', but rather than Shulman's presence at the white house, regardless of how often, makes a lot more sense in light of Obamacare meetings rather than a nefarious plot to target right-wing groups.
 
2013-05-31 02:59:55 PM  
That's it.  This is the last straw.

  From here on out I'm going to be highly dubious of the contents contained within the forwarded chain emails sent to me from my unemployed drunk racist uncle.
 
2013-05-31 03:01:24 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: theknuckler_33: the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed,

1776


666
 
2013-05-31 03:01:33 PM  

InmanRoshi: That's it.  This is the last straw.

  From here on out I'm going to be highly dubious of the contents contained within the forwarded chain emails sent to me from my unemployed drunk racist uncle.


That's ok, as long as you believe facebook status updates that remind you to like and share them, I'm sure you want accumulate too much bad luck.
 
2013-05-31 03:07:45 PM  

FlashHarry: is a car a battlefield? is an apartment building?


Is love a battlefield?
 
2013-05-31 03:10:03 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: And not a single teabagger will ever change the number. It will be 157 visits in every email, every speech, every show. The correction will never be seen.


Actually it will probably just grow, since the records aren't 100% complete.  157 will become at least 157, which will become something along the lines of 500.  This is also how the conservative math on illegal immigrants and money Obama has spent on hiding his past has come about.
 
2013-05-31 03:14:40 PM  

BSABSVR: FlashHarry: is a car a battlefield? is an apartment building?

Is love a battlefield?


well, pat benetar does tend to drone on and on.
 
2013-05-31 03:18:41 PM  

BSABSVR: This is also how the conservative math on illegal immigrants and money Obama has spent on hiding his past has come about.


It's also useful for counting your rallys
 
2013-05-31 03:18:47 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Damn guys, I'm sorry, didn't mean to rustle some Jimmies. I like Obama, but you have to admit, there's some very questionable shiat going on in his administration.


I believe what the copter whisperer is trying to tell us is:
images.nationalgeographic.com
 
Displayed 50 of 298 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report