IRS Targeted Conservative Groups - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-15-2013, 10:19 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Cause them libruls can't possibly be capable of non partisan rational thought? Does not compute?
The complaints of conservative groups have been a publicly known story since the fall of 2010 and do you think the ACLU has shown the least concern for the civil liberties of conservative groups. Ah no.

You can, however, in 15 minutes have a van-full of ACLU pointy heads at the doorstep of any school or courthouse in the country with one phone call and the words "Ten Commandments on display."
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:11 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The complaints of conservative groups have been a publicly known story since the fall of 2010 and do you think the ACLU has shown the least concern for the civil liberties of conservative groups. Ah no.
A publicly known story since the fall of 2010?! You conservatives need to get your talking points straight; Glenn's reporting 2012, Rush 2011, and Hannity January of this year. And now INDY tells us 2010, you talking heads need to read your memos.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:13 PM   #18
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:50 AM
The interesting fact that conservative talking heads aren't telling you is that there are only two politically appointed positions in the IRS and both are leftovers from Bush's administration.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:17 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 02:50 AM
While I know nothing about this (not my country) and care less, the image of Bush-era political holdovers still at the IRS conjures up images of a Ron Swanson figure, mug in hand.

Continue.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 12:41 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:

The New York Times reported that President Barack Obama has spoken privately of "going Bulworth," a reference to the 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a California Senate candidate who becomes unusually honest after having run as a centrist Democrat.
"Probably every president says that from time to time," Obama adviser David Axelrod told the Times. “It’s probably cathartic just to say it. But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying."
Obama Speaks Of 'Going Bulworth' In Second Term

So, enough of the PR and BS?*

 
* I think I should trademark that
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 01:17 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Pearl, did you mean to post that in the IRS thread?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 02:40 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Yes, its related to what's going on.


Well, I can see you meant the Obama Discussion thread. I guess this whole thread can go there.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:05 PM   #23
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:50 AM
So do you think he's lying about the IRS scandal?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 04:56 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:50 PM
I was referring to him saying he was going to go "Bulworth" now. What I should've been more clearer on was how in 2008 when he was campaigning on Change and Hope, and how so many supporters acted like he was the savior of America and how he inspired them. Back then, I got the impression his campaign went along with that infatuation and hammed it up. Hence the PR and BS, which is what every public figure lives by.

So, by making his comments regarding Bulworth now, is he dropping the bull? That's what I'm asking.

And maybe he is lying about the IRS scandal. Who knows. There's no honesty in politics.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:14 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:50 AM
I want to come out in support of the president regarding the AP "scandal."
I don't think it's a scandal in the least bit. He won the election; he should be able to breath life into a living, breathing Constitution.

The president should be able to independently choose not to enforce statutes as he deems fit re: DOMA, immigration.

The president must be able to reinterpret the First Amendment rights of the individual for the good of the collective re: religious freedom, freedom to associate, or freedom of the press.

For the children he must be able to reread the Second Amendment.

We must no longer allow the rights of the states to supercede or limit the powers of the federal goverment.

For our health it is crucial that the president have the power to turn the Commerce Clause upside down to actually compel individuals to purchase health care.

These things are much too important for our newly reelected president to be handcuffed by a dusty, old document.

Forward!!
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:31 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Funny, took you seriously for a moment, after all the times you've labeled the NYT treasonous for its national security reporting.

But when Bush/Cheney/Rummy do it, it's ok.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:44 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Actually I'm more than willing to give the administration the benefit of doubt on this.

What amuses sickens me is the press for 4 years acted as cheerleaders as this president twisted the Constitution and Executive Powers but turned on a dime when they were lied to and their rights may have been abused.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 10:50 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Actually I'm more than willing to give the administration the benefit of doubt on this.

What amuses sickens me is the press for 4 years acted as cheerleaders as this president twisted the Constitution and Executive Powers but turned on a dime when they were lied to and their rights may have been abused.

So you're done with the whole "liberal bias" nonsense now?

Good. The rest of us have known this for years.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:49 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:50 AM
oh well.

Quote:
The scandals are falling apart
By Ezra Klein, Published: May 16, 2013 at 11:47 am


Things go wrong in government. Sometimes it’s just bad luck. Sometimes it’s rank incompetence. Sometimes it’s criminal wrongdoing. Most of the time you never hear about it. Or, if you do hear about it, the media eventually gets bored talking about it (see warming, global).

But every so often an instance of government wrongdoing sprouts wings and becomes something quite exciting: A political scandal.

The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level White House involvement and wide political repercussions. Government wrongdoing is boring. Scandals can bring down presidents, decide elections and revive down-and-out political parties. Scandals can dominate American politics for months at a time.

On Tuesday, it looked like we had three possible political scandals brewing. Two days later, with much more evidence available, it doesn’t look like any of them will pan out. There’ll be more hearings, and more bad press for the Obama administration, and more demands for documents. But — and this is a key qualification — absent more revelations, the scandals that could reach high don’t seem to include any real wrongdoing, whereas the ones that include real wrongdoing don’t reach high enough. Let’s go through them.


1) The Internal Revenue Service: The IRS mess was, well, a mess. But it’s not a mess that implicates the White House, or even senior IRS leadership. If we believe the agency inspector general’s report, a group of employees in a division called the “Determinations Unit” — sounds sinister, doesn’t it? — started giving tea party groups extra scrutiny, were told by agency leadership to knock it off, started doing it again, and then were reined in a second time and told that any further changes to the screening criteria needed to be approved at the highest levels of the agency.

The White House fired the acting director of the agency on the theory that somebody had to be fired and he was about the only guy they had the power to fire. They’re also instructing the IRS to implement each and every one of the IG’s recommendations to make sure this never happens again.

If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that there’s no evidence of that. And so it’s hard to see where this one goes from here.

2) Benghazi: We’re long past the point where it’s obvious what the Benghazi scandal is supposed to be about. The inquiry has moved on from the events in Benghazi proper, tragic as they were, to the talking points about the events in Benghazi. And the release Wednesday night of 100 pages of internal e-mails on those talking points seems to show what my colleague Glenn Kessler suspected: This was a bureaucratic knife fight between the State Department and the CIA.

As for the White House’s role, well, the e-mails suggest there wasn’t much of one. “The internal debate did not include political interference from the White House, according to the e-mails, which were provided to congressional intelligence committees several months ago,” report The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung. As for why the talking points seemed to blame protesters rather than terrorists for the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans? Well:

According to the e-mails and initial CIA-drafted talking points, the agency believed the attack included a mix of Islamist extremists from Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaeda, and angry demonstrators.

White House officials did not challenge that analysis, the e-mails show, nor did they object to its inclusion in the public talking points.

But CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and because FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation, said senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate.

So far, it’s hard to see what, exactly, the scandal here is supposed to be.

3) AP/Justice Department:. This is the weirdest of the three. There’s no evidence that the DoJ did anything illegal. Most people, in fact, think it was well within its rights to seize the phone records of Associated Press reporters. And if the Obama administration has been overzealous in prosecuting leakers, well, the GOP has been arguing that the White House hasn’t taken national security leaks seriously enough. The AP/DoJ fight has caused that position to flip, and now members of Congress are concerned that the DoJ is going after leaks too aggressively. But it’s hard for a political party to prosecute wrongdoing when they disagree with the potential remedies.

Insofar as there’s a “scandal” here, it’s more about what is legal than what isn’t. The DoJ simply has extraordinary power, under existing law, to spy on ordinary citizens — members of the media included. The White House is trying to change existing law by encouraging Sen. Chuck Schumer to reintroduce the Media Shield Act. The Post’s Rachel Weiner has a good rundown of what the bill would do. It’s likely that the measure’s national security exemption would make it relatively toothless in this particular case, but if Congress is worried, they always can — and probably should — take that language out. Still, that legislation has been killed by Republicans before, and it’s likely to be killed by them again.

The scandal metanarrative itself is also changing. Because there was no actual evidence of presidential involvement in these events, the line for much of this week was that the president was not involved enough in their aftermath. He was “passive.” He seemed to be a “bystander.” His was being controlled by events, rather than controlling them himself.

That perception, too, seems to be changing. Mike Allen’s Playbook, which is ground zero for scandal CW, led Thursday with a squib that says “the West Wing got its mojo back” and is “BACK ON OFFENSE.” Yes, the caps are in the original.

The smarter voices on the right are also beginning to counsel caution. ”While there’s still more information to be gathered and more investigations to be done, all indications are that these decisions – on the AP, on the IRS, on Benghazi – don’t proceed from [Obama],” wrote Ben Domenech in The Transom, his influential conservative morning newsletter. “The talk of impeachment is absurd. The queries of ‘what did the president know and when did he know it’ will probably end up finding out “’just about nothing, and right around the time everyone else found out.’”

I want to emphasize: It’s always possible that evidence could emerge that vaults one of these issues into true scandal territory. But the trend line so far is clear: The more information we get, the less these actually look like scandals.

And yet, even if the scandals fade, the underlying problems might remain. The IRS. could give its agents better and clearer guidance on designating 501(c)(4), but Congress needs to decide whether that status and all of its benefits should be open to political groups or not. The Media Shield Act is not likely to go anywhere, and even if it does, it doesn’t get us anywhere close to grappling with the post-9/11 expansion of the surveillance state. And then, of course, there are all the other problems Congress is ignoring, from high unemployment to sequestration to global warming. When future generations look back on the scandals of our age, it’ll be the unchecked rise in global temperatures, not the Benghazi talking points, that infuriate them.

The scandals are falling apart
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:56 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Bill Maher put it perfectly on a recent episode of Real Time (I paraphrase): The Republicans are certain that Obama has done something horrible, they just don't know what it is yet.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com