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.

(Examiner)   You can retire, but you can't hide. Newly-released emails of IRS' Lois Lerner reportedly show that she committed a felony by sending private information about those conservative groups to the FEC. That's a no-no, of course   (examiner.com) divider line 390
    More: Followup, Lois Lerner, Fe C, Federal Election Commission, IRS, watchdog journalism, Judicial Watch, confidential information, felony  
•       •       •

2466 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2013 at 10:04 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-02 11:13:07 AM
This was reported back awhile ago.  The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business.  But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.
 
2013-11-02 11:13:29 AM

TheBigJerk: Moving on, why is telling the federal election commission things illegal?


Because they aren't an auditing agency for taxes.   Tax returns are subject to insanely byzantine rules about who is allowed to read them.

They actually had to write in an exception for Obamacare so HHS could read tax returns to verify income.  Otherwise HHS would have been breaking the law.
 
2013-11-02 11:14:28 AM

Granny_Panties: But, what Snowden did was completely a-okay because it made Obama look bad.


No one says this.
 
2013-11-02 11:14:44 AM
How does this help get Fartbongo?
 
2013-11-02 11:15:38 AM
Didn't they do the same thing to "liberal" groups?
 
2013-11-02 11:15:49 AM

d23: ....and I can't log onto the Obamacare web site, either!


Keep adding all this together and it is not difficult to see why his approval rating is hurtling toward Bush-like levels.

Also much of the reason Democrats seemingly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory after that government shutdown debacle.
 
2013-11-02 11:17:15 AM
<blockquote>The materials that Lerner sent as an IRS employee to the FEC included confidential information about the conservative and/or Tea Party organizations. This is a felony as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dictates that an IRS official - which Lerner was at the time - may not disclose either income tax return information or taxpayer income tax return information - not even to another governmental agency. </blockquote>

So, I read some of 6103 of the IRS Code, and from what I can tell, anybody who thinks there was a crime committed is an idiot. There's no mention of the IRS not giving returns to other governmental agencies. There is mention of governmental agencies not sharing the information received by the IRS to others, without proper authorization. But the IRS has to give that information to any government agency that requests it. Would be kind of hard for tax fraud to get prosecuted otherwise.
 
2013-11-02 11:17:23 AM

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

If we took every self referencing story from the echo chamber seriously we'd be stuck in a vortex of derp. There's nothing wrong with ignoring a "story" until it references reputable sources and loses the quotes.

unless, of course, it is a story you like, then no reputable references required to take at face value


Nope. I'll wait for reputable sources until I jump all over it. I have to reference everything I say in a grant proposal so I expect at least a modicum of the same discipline for news.
 
2013-11-02 11:18:25 AM

jaytkay: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?
 
2013-11-02 11:20:27 AM

skullkrusher: jaytkay: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?


And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?
 
2013-11-02 11:23:19 AM

Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago


Where?  I remember the discussion about private emails being used, but not for this specific action.
 
2013-11-02 11:23:36 AM

verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?


You didn't even click the link, did you? It contains a PDF of the source emails and faxes the article is based on... yeah, your "stopped reading right there" serves you well...
 
2013-11-02 11:24:30 AM

s2s2s2: Granny_Panties: But, what Snowden did was completely a-okay because it made Obama look bad.

Giving away private info is bad. Also, stealing private info is bad. Snowmen informed us that we were being spied on. Obama looks bad, because he did bad.


Snowden stole private info and released it genius. Also known as classified info. Like I said it made Obama look bad, so it's was okay in your partisan eyes. If McCain/Palin was president, you would be calling for this head for treason right now.

Both parties were wrong. Period. Taking ANYTHING that doesn't legally belong to you is wrong. Then again, Republicans have their own version of law depending how they personally feel on the subject. Republicans are lawless and despise the US Constitution because it doesn't fit into their extreme ideology.
 
2013-11-02 11:24:34 AM
This is Obama's Gettysburg.
 
2013-11-02 11:26:08 AM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago

Where?  I remember the discussion about private emails being used, but not for this specific action.


Back since early October?  Otherwise why would it be a problem for Federal enforcement agencies to communicate with each other.
 
2013-11-02 11:26:49 AM
Well, I'm sure the Examiner is on it. *snort*
 
2013-11-02 11:27:43 AM

spcMike: This guy in the comments needs help

Ihatelibs: Just like her ARROGANT CRIMINAL MASSA OBOGUS. He TOO is a Felon and BEYOND. FRAUD ILLEGAL KENYA TRAITOR


Oh wow, that guy's brain is seriously misfiring. I wonder if he has physical ticks too.
 
2013-11-02 11:28:03 AM

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?

You didn't even click the link, did you? It contains a PDF of the source emails and faxes the article is based on... yeah, your "stopped reading right there" serves you well...


I don't doubt that they obtained the emails in question. What I do doubt is there interpretation that this amounts to a felony. Until I see that any reputable source other than a bunch of gadflies are considering this an actual felony I'll place this in the "birther and other nonsense" pile.
 
2013-11-02 11:28:44 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: spcMike: This guy in the comments needs help

Ihatelibs: Just like her ARROGANT CRIMINAL MASSA OBOGUS. He TOO is a Felon and BEYOND. FRAUD ILLEGAL KENYA TRAITOR

Oh wow, that guy's brain is seriously misfiring. I wonder if he has physical ticks too.


it's not the best commenter handle but unfortunately skullkrusher was already taken there.
 
2013-11-02 11:29:33 AM

verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?

You didn't even click the link, did you? It contains a PDF of the source emails and faxes the article is based on... yeah, your "stopped reading right there" serves you well...

I don't doubt that they obtained the emails in question. What I do doubt is there interpretation that this amounts to a felony. Until I see that any reputable source other than a bunch of gadflies are considering this an actual felony I'll place this in the "birther and other nonsense" pile.


despite the fact that I've just handed you the actual emails so you can decide for yourself? OK, like I said. Badge of honor.
 
2013-11-02 11:30:38 AM
TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

/post decent links or don't expect people to take you seriously.
 
2013-11-02 11:31:18 AM
I'll bet she also gave the IRS info about the liberal groups to the FEC also.
but no one is outraged about that.
I for one think that if they were suspect of violating FEC rules that they should have given them the info
but that's just my opinion.
 
2013-11-02 11:32:03 AM

Fart_Machine: Back since early October?


Source please.  I don't see any.  Again, we are looking for one that references this specific illegal activity.
 
2013-11-02 11:32:04 AM

skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: spcMike: This guy in the comments needs help

Ihatelibs: Just like her ARROGANT CRIMINAL MASSA OBOGUS. He TOO is a Felon and BEYOND. FRAUD ILLEGAL KENYA TRAITOR

Oh wow, that guy's brain is seriously misfiring. I wonder if he has physical ticks too.

it's not the best commenter handle but unfortunately skullkrusher was already taken there.


Ahhh, Republicans. Without their burning hatred of libs, they would just blow away, like dust on the wind.

/Libs means "people smarter than you"
 
2013-11-02 11:33:03 AM

skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.


Fair enough.  Let's assume the facts as presented are accurate.  The article claims the following:

This is a felony as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dictates that an IRS official - which Lerner was at the time - may not disclose either income tax return information or taxpayer income tax return information - not even to another governmental agency.

Section 6103 directs thusly:

(i) Disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of Federal laws not relating to tax administration (1) Disclosure of returns and return information for use in criminal investigations (A) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (6), any return or return information with respect to any specified taxable period or periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant of an ex parte order by a Federal district court judge or magistrate judge under subparagraph (B), be open (but only to the extent necessary as provided in such order) to inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of any Federal agency who are personally and directly engaged in-
(i) preparation for any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,
(ii) any investigation which may result in such a proceeding, or
(iii) any Federal grand jury proceeding pertaining to enforcement of such a criminal statute to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,
solely for the use of such officers and employees in such preparation, investigation, or grand jury proceeding.



The tea party is a purely political organization that specifically endorses and opposes people for office (Translation:  It's a GOP group that passes BS along about Democratic candidates and elected officials for the purpose of impacting elections).  The FEC obviously (and most likely correctly) believed they were in violation of law and made a written request for certain information, according to the article.  Section 6103 specifically provides for the disclosure of such information to other federal agencies in the course of investigations.  The article, very boldly and inaccurately, states that the IRS is prohibited from disclosing such information when the Internal Revenue Code that they specifically cite for such a prohibition boldly provides for such disclosure.

The short version:  The teabaggers are, once again, full of shiat and the source of this fantasy (TFA) is painfully wrong.
 
2013-11-02 11:33:18 AM
Lots of peril sensitive glasses being deployed by Farkers.


NOPE NOPE NOPE NOT GONNA LOOK!!!!!!


If you talk bad about the Obama administration I will report you to the mods and to attackwatch.
 
2013-11-02 11:33:30 AM

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?

You didn't even click the link, did you? It contains a PDF of the source emails and faxes the article is based on... yeah, your "stopped reading right there" serves you well...

I don't doubt that they obtained the emails in question. What I do doubt is there interpretation that this amounts to a felony. Until I see that any reputable source other than a bunch of gadflies are considering this an actual felony I'll place this in the "birther and other nonsense" pile.

despite the fact that I've just handed you the actual emails so you can decide for yourself? OK, like I said. Badge of honor.


Of course all of us on Fark are experts in law.

You know, actually, I'm having trouble with some microarray data analysis. Mind if I send you the data and my question and you go ahead and give me your thoughts ... cause I'm sure all you need is the data and no actual training to figure any of it out. *Eyeroll*
 
2013-11-02 11:34:43 AM
I am outraged!

/that anybody takes this shiat seriously
 
2013-11-02 11:35:08 AM
See, this is the problem with fark, the best article doesn't always get greenlit. The actual emails from judicial watch might help.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-conte nt/uploads/2013/10/2325_response - 11.pdf

Kind of hard to deny wrongdoing once you look at it. Warning 176 pages.
 
2013-11-02 11:35:44 AM

dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.


So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read.  Are you for real?
 
2013-11-02 11:36:47 AM

HeadLever: dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read.  Are you for real?


it's hard to believe that they are sometimes, isn't it? But *we're* the low-information wingnuts...
 
2013-11-02 11:38:33 AM

grumpyguru: See, this is the problem with fark, the best article doesn't always get greenlit. The actual emails from judicial watch might help.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-conte nt/uploads/2013/10/2325_response - 11.pdf

Kind of hard to deny wrongdoing once you look at it. Warning 176 pages.


STUDY IT OUT!

*snert*
 
2013-11-02 11:39:06 AM

ghare: skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: spcMike: This guy in the comments needs help

Ihatelibs: Just like her ARROGANT CRIMINAL MASSA OBOGUS. He TOO is a Felon and BEYOND. FRAUD ILLEGAL KENYA TRAITOR

Oh wow, that guy's brain is seriously misfiring. I wonder if he has physical ticks too.

it's not the best commenter handle but unfortunately skullkrusher was already taken there.

Ahhh, Republicans. Without their burning hatred of libs, they would just blow away, like dust on the wind.

/Libs means "people smarter than you"


not smart enough to see an obvious joke it would seem...
 
2013-11-02 11:39:17 AM

skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.


Skull, I got to be honest.  You're not always retarded.  You're not a stupid person.

How many times must a source be full of unqualified bullshiat before you dismiss them entirely?  100 times in a row?  1000?  Do you pick up a copy of the Enquirer in the grocery store every week and say to yourself, "Hey, it might be real this time!"
 
2013-11-02 11:39:56 AM

grumpyguru: See, this is the problem with fark, the best article doesn't always get greenlit. The actual emails from judicial watch might help.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-conte nt/uploads/2013/10/2325_response - 11.pdf

Kind of hard to deny wrongdoing once you look at it. Warning 176 pages.


Eh, it's actually pretty easy. You just need the right joke that combines the right level of memes and dismissiveness. Now disproving it is a lot harder. But denying is as easy as eating pie.
 
2013-11-02 11:40:44 AM

Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

Fair enough.  Let's assume the facts as presented are accurate.  The article claims the following:

This is a felony as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dictates that an IRS official - which Lerner was at the time - may not disclose either income tax return information or taxpayer income tax return information - not even to another governmental agency.

Section 6103 directs thusly:

(i) Disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of Federal laws not relating to tax administration (1) Disclosure of returns and return information for use in criminal investigations (A) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (6), any return or return information with respect to any specified taxable period or periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant of an ex parte order by a Federal district court judge or magistrate judge under subparagraph (B), be open (but only to the extent necessary as provided in such order) to inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of any Federal agency who are personally and directly engaged in-
(i) preparation for any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or such age ...


hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.
 
2013-11-02 11:41:56 AM

skullkrusher: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?


Done.

In the PDF you linked, we see the IRS shared details of an exemption application with the FEC (not tax returns as claimed by The Examiner).
 

Its public information.

US Code 11.3.9.12  (12-28-2007)
Public Inspection of Certain Information Returns
The information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).
 
2013-11-02 11:43:43 AM

skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.


I'm curious. When Alex Jones goes on a bender about FEMA camps and black helicopters, do you ask yourself, "Hmmm. Maybe he's got a point this time."
 
2013-11-02 11:44:48 AM

skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.


Word.  I wasn't trying to be an asshole, so I hope it didn't come off that way.  It's just that right wing information sources are so dreadfully immune to facts (not that other ones aren't as well) that it's tough to take anything they say on face value.  That said, here's a GIF of the butt fumble, because that brightens everyone's day...well, except for Sanchez, I guess.
 
2013-11-02 11:44:52 AM

HeadLever: So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read. Are you for real?


Study it out?

Pointing to a giant, impenetrable wall of raw information with no specific indication about where exactly I'm supposed to find the outrageous, tyrannical violation of human rights and privacy doesn't count as "facts".

Wake me when a lawyer - or at least someone with some journalistic integrity - goes through it and summarizes exactly what the problem is, with quotes from the emails, legal citations, etc. etc.  Preferably in under 3 pages.
 
2013-11-02 11:45:15 AM

skullkrusher: HeadLever: dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read.  Are you for real?

it's hard to believe that they are sometimes, isn't it? But *we're* the low-information wingnuts...


Is this really the blog post you want to die on? Did you read it? I did, it is FARKING HILARIOUSLY TERRIBLE. I have zero confidence that the person who wrote this... thing... can read the Sunday funnies, let alone 160 pages of emails written by adults and the relevant legislation. I think I will hold off on the outrage until this is tackled by someone with a press pass.
 
2013-11-02 11:45:37 AM

verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.

I'm curious. When Alex Jones goes on a bender about FEMA camps and black helicopters, do you ask yourself, "Hmmm. Maybe he's got a point this time."


if he actually presents source documents for his claims, I'll take a look at the source documents for the insight into his insanity at the very least. I won't see a link to the source docs posted on the alexjones domain and refuse to look at objective information because of where it lives
 
2013-11-02 11:45:42 AM
Booo!  Fark dumped my butt fumble GIF!  Damn your ways!
 
2013-11-02 11:45:46 AM

HeadLever: dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read.  Are you for real?


Ideally Obama supporters should be more outraged about this since it's their guy's people doing this and it makes him look bad (assuming he's completely uninvolved in this). The reflexive need to defend it just makes it easier to tie it around their necks. If in an alternate world the scandal unfolded where the second it came to light Obama pushed the DoJ to investigate it, he sacked Lerner, pushed for jail time, and suspended staff members who knew about this then this would make him look pretty damn good. Instead we get the stonewalling. The exact same thing that happened with Fast & Furious.
 
2013-11-02 11:47:02 AM
skullkrusher

Well, I failed hard on that, so you're just going to have to imagine Sanchez going face first into some lineman's ass.
 
2013-11-02 11:47:50 AM

Eddie Barzoom: skullkrusher: HeadLever: dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read.  Are you for real?

it's hard to believe that they are sometimes, isn't it? But *we're* the low-information wingnuts...

Is this really the blog post you want to die on? Did you read it? I did, it is FARKING HILARIOUSLY TERRIBLE. I have zero confidence that the person who wrote this... thing... can read the Sunday funnies, let alone 160 pages of emails written by adults and the relevant legislation. I think I will hold off on the outrage until this is tackled by someone with a press pass.


missing the point. I don't really give a fark if it's true. Just another example of the "smart" side of the aisle acting very, very Republican
 
2013-11-02 11:49:27 AM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Back since early October?

Source please.  I don't see any.  Again, we are looking for one that references this specific illegal activity.


Well here is the liberal Washington Free Beacon talking about it on October 8th.

It deals with sending confidential information over private e-mail accounts to be the "possible violation" of Federal Law.  Not that you cannot communicate with other Federal Agencies over possible legal violations.
 
2013-11-02 11:50:35 AM

Mrbogey: HeadLever: dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read.  Are you for real?

Ideally Obama supporters should be more outraged about this since it's their guy's people doing this and it makes him look bad (assuming he's completely uninvolved in this). The reflexive need to defend it just makes it easier to tie it around their necks. If in an alternate world the scandal unfolded where the second it came to light Obama pushed the DoJ to investigate it, he sacked Lerner, pushed for jail time, and suspended staff members who knew about this then this would make him look pretty damn good. Instead we get the stonewalling. The exact same thing that happened with Fast & Furious.


So clearly *you've* examined the 176 page pdf in detail.  Maybe you could post some brief selections that best highlight the crimes against humanity being perpetrated here?  Y'know, for all us Obama-fellating libby lib sycophants who require things like "evidence" before jumping on the outrage train?
 
2013-11-02 11:51:40 AM

skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.


Your basic premise is sound, but doesn't scale in practice. In the real world once a source has proven itself unreliable multiple times it is perfectly reasonable to no longer give them the benefit of the doubt and stop wasting your own time proving it over and over.

TL:DR; I don't bother fact checking the homeless guy that jacks off behind the Chick Filet and yells about McDonald's being owned by vampires. At least not anymore.
 
2013-11-02 11:51:53 AM

Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher

Well, I failed hard on that, so you're just going to have to imagine Sanchez going face first into some lineman's ass.


I live in NY. The Post ran that pic every day for about 6 months. Quite familiar :)
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report