IRS Targeted Conservative Groups

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, they should go back to letting fox and the conservatives make benganzi into a story to distract us from something else (oh, I don't know...working on improving the economy).

You mean they're not done wrecking the economy yet?

I don't know if Benghazi is necessarily THE story that has them afraid. Seems like a new scandal comes out every couple days recently. It's hard to believe the press has finally figured out they should do their jobs instead of being cheerleader and unpaid campaign PR firm.

 

[julius]

You mean they're not done wrecking the economy yet?

I don't know if Benghazi is necessarily THE story that has them afraid. Seems like a new scandal comes out every couple days recently. It's hard to believe the press has finally figured out they should do their jobs instead of being cheerleader and unpaid campaign PR firm.

They're still unpaid campaign PR firms though.

It'll be nice if the government realizes it has a job to do, instead of just coming up with crap to get bent over.

these 'scandals' that come out just speak to a need to distract people, imho. Not that they aren't worthy of news, but we've turned everything into a major scandal today, and before you know it, when something ACTUALLY happens on the level of Watergate, we'll be like "ho hum.."

 

[Denny Crane]

They're still unpaid campaign PR firms though.

It'll be nice if the government realizes it has a job to do, instead of just coming up with crap to get bent over.

these 'scandals' that come out just speak to a need to distract people, imho. Not that they aren't worthy of news, but we've turned everything into a major scandal today, and before you know it, when something ACTUALLY happens on the level of Watergate, we'll be like "ho hum.."

So you're fine with the government bugging those AP journalists?

A couple sentences on page C-34 of the newspaper? Or not even bother?

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/justice-department-secretly-subpoenas-ap-phone-records

The following statement can be attributed to Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project:

"Obtaining a broad range of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power. Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources."

 

[maxiep]

Where and for whom would they work? And how long before they disappeared?

Yet you support this Administration. Your crazy and idiotic alter ego that posts on here has at least a bit of crossover with me, in that there are areas where we value liberty. Obama is a fucking Fascist, even more than George W. Bush.

 

[blazerboy30]

Union envy is running rampant 'round these parts.

As for Masbee, have you ever had a political conversation where you weren't overly emotional?

Why would he try to have a conversation with you, somebody that can't even form logical, coherent thoughts or positions? Your contributions to threads are "unions are awesome"! And "pass the tinfoil hat", or "Republicans suck!" Yet you think other posters should mistake you for somebody with enough intellect to form reasonable thoughts? Good luck with that.

 

[julius]

So you're fine with the government bugging those AP journalists?

A couple sentences on page C-34 of the newspaper? Or not even bother?

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/justice-department-secretly-subpoenas-ap-phone-records

The following statement can be attributed to Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project:

"Obtaining a broad range of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power. Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources."

No, not fine but I think it's an overreaction. On one hand the government is incompetent while the same time it's taking away rights. Occam's razor plays the same role under Obama s it did under bush.


Oh noes, I'm blaming bush!?!1

 

[blazerboy30]

No, not fine but I think it's an overreaction. On one hand the government is incompetent while the same time it's taking away rights. Occam's razor plays the same role under Obama s it did under bush.


Oh noes, I'm blaming bush!?!1

What does Bush have to do with this?

 

[Denny Crane]

No, not fine but I think it's an overreaction. On one hand the government is incompetent while the same time it's taking away rights. Occam's razor plays the same role under Obama s it did under bush.


Oh noes, I'm blaming bush!?!1

Look, I've been arguing that the comparisons to watergate are over the top in these cases. My suggestion that there's a flood of these "lesser" scandals all at once seems to be a smokescreen to distract us from something else.

And government doing something is the worst thing imaginable. So I'm quite happy it's focused on these things. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Govt. has way too much power.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

How fucking dumb do you have to be to be this fucking dumb???

I'll ask again, because I loathe reading this stuff on my phone, can someone give me a synopsis about this scandal and what crimes were committed and how Obama has anything to do with it

Tia

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Was being glib about the dumb part, aimed at nobody

 

[Denny Crane]

Was being glib about the dumb part, aimed at nobody

Seemed pretty dumb to me that binders of women deserved more press coverage than Benghazi.

 

[maxiep]

What I think is the administration and the left leaning media have conspired to make this story the 24/7 news cycle one. To distract from something else that has them all scared.

You hit on my concern. I think all of these stories that are coming out (IRS, EPA, AP/DOJ) are all meant as diversions because there's something horrifyingly wrong about Benghazi, more than even we think we know.

 

[maxiep]

Yeah, they should go back to letting fox and the conservatives make benganzi into a story to distract us from something else (oh, I don't know...working on improving the economy).

At what point did the Obama Administration ever make "improving the economy" a priority" How many times have we heard this Administration say "After (insert policy initiative here), we're going to pivot to jobs."? Working on the economy is always over the next hill for these people. I have an idea why, but the reasoning is too craven for me to completely believe.

 

[maxiep]

You mean they're not done wrecking the economy yet?

I don't know if Benghazi is necessarily THE story that has them afraid. Seems like a new scandal comes out every couple days recently. It's hard to believe the press has finally figured out they should do their jobs instead of being cheerleader and unpaid campaign PR firm.

Oh, Denny. They're not "unpaid". They're just not paid directly.

 

[julius]

At what point did the Obama Administration ever make "improving the economy" a priority" How many times have we heard this Administration say "After (insert policy initiative here), we're going to pivot to jobs."? Working on the economy is always over the next hill for these people. I have an idea why, but the reasoning is too craven for me to completely believe.

They haven't, but the Rs and Ds haven't dine anything other than make talking points

 

[maxiep]

They're still unpaid campaign PR firms though.

It'll be nice if the government realizes it has a job to do, instead of just coming up with crap to get bent over.

these 'scandals' that come out just speak to a need to distract people, imho. Not that they aren't worthy of news, but we've turned everything into a major scandal today, and before you know it, when something ACTUALLY happens on the level of Watergate, we'll be like "ho hum.."

Their job is to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It would be pretty sweet if they actually took that job seriously. Instead, our elected leaders seems hell bent on doing what they can to destroy it.

 

[Denny Crane]

You hit on my concern. I think all of these stories that are coming out (IRS, EPA, AP/DOJ) are all meant as diversions because there's something horrifyingly wrong about Benghazi, more than even we think we know.

I don't think it's Benghazi. The truth there seems obvious. At a time of the debates, Obama's economic policies weren't popular, but getting Bin Laden and his foreign policy was a perceived strength.

Obama had quite a bit of reputation at stake in Libya. The action wasn't ever popular. The administration, and Hillary in particular, argued we must intervene to stop genocide.

We aided the rebels to overthrow Ghadaffi.

The appearance needed to be that Libya was better off thanks to Obama! The attack on the embassy brought ALL of Obama's foreign policy judgments into question. They fudged the Intel to put the best spin on it.

To me, the worst part of the whole thing was blaming it on the YouTube video, then prosecuting the guy who made it. They tossed the guy under the bus. The guy actually deserved our 1st amendment protections.

 

[julius]

What does Bush have to do with this?

Context clues are fun.

 

[julius]

Their job is to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It would be pretty sweet if they actually took that job seriously. Instead, our elected leaders seems hell bent on doing what they can to destroy it.

Because none of us hold them, both R and D, L and C, accountable

 

[Denny Crane]

Because none of us hold them, both R and D, L and C, accountable

Don't have to hold them accountable if they do nothing. Short of allowing people to physically abuse one another.

 

[blazerboy30]

Context clues are fun.

Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

 

[maxiep]

How fucking dumb do you have to be to be this fucking dumb???

I'll ask again, because I loathe reading this stuff on my phone, can someone give me a synopsis about this scandal and what crimes were committed and how Obama has anything to do with it

Tia

You cannot use the IRS to target your political enemies. In Nixon's Articles of Impeachment, using the IRS in this manner was one of the charges.

The issue at hand is that the IRS discriminated against organizations that were hostile to what the IRS viewed as being counter to Administration goals. An IRS agent actually questioned whether or not a pro-Israel group was in tune with Administration policy. They don't get to do that. It's not just "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or "9/12". It was any organization that was interested in limited government, reducing the debt, teaching people about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Additionally, pro-Israel groups were also targeted.

These organizations were asked questions no organization should have to answer to the Government about. Donor lists, Facebook pages, links to websites, friends and acquaintances, etc.

Furthermore, they attempted to hide who knew what when. They blamed it on low-level employees in a Cincinnati field office when there is a memo from the IRS general counsel that knew about this activity. The head of the IRS, Douglas Shulman, lied to Congress about activity. After he left, it didn't stop. This shit continued through the election and continued until the activity was discovered and they apologized.

The IRS holds a unique place in our government. It is the only agency where we are required to testify against ourselves. We have to provide them with our sources and amounts of income, as well as other financial information. As a result, they should be above reproach. They were not. They were acting as political hacks.

It is the job of the superiors of the IRS (in this case Tim Geithner and Jack Lew) to insure that nothing like this occurs. It doesn't have to be an active "we need you to do (x)". It's allowing an atmosphere where this behavior is tolerated. That's the standard for government accountability. For example, Navy admirals lost their job over the Tailhook scandal.

People need to go to jail over this one.

 

[maxiep]

I don't think it's Benghazi. The truth there seems obvious. At a time of the debates, Obama's economic policies weren't popular, but getting Bin Laden and his foreign policy was a perceived strength.

Obama had quite a bit of reputation at stake in Libya. The action wasn't ever popular. The administration, and Hillary in particular, argued we must intervene to stop genocide.

We aided the rebels to overthrow Ghadaffi.

The appearance needed to be that Libya was better off thanks to Obama! The attack on the embassy brought ALL of Obama's foreign policy judgments into question. They fudged the Intel to put the best spin on it.

To me, the worst part of the whole thing was blaming it on the YouTube video, then prosecuting the guy who made it. They tossed the guy under the bus. The guy actually deserved our 1st amendment protections.

What if they left them there to die because they were afraid of having to explain why the Ambassador was there? Remember Iran/Contra? What if they didn't intervene because it would have become an election issue? If he could have saved State Department employees and left them to die, that's criminal. And why haven't we killed/captured the people that admitted attacking the Consulate? Something is not right about Benghazi.

 

[Denny Crane]

What if they left them there to die because they were afraid of having to explain why the Ambassador was there? Remember Iran/Contra? Something is not right about Benghazi.

He shouldn't have been there because the country declined into lawlessness - THE failure. They didn't want to admit failure.

 

[maxiep]

Because none of us hold them, both R and D, L and C, accountable

One side has much more respect for the Constitution than the other. I'll leave you to guess which one. Hint: To which party do Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson belong?

 

[julius]

Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

Use the context of what I said in that post, to clue you into the bigger picture I was presenting. So yes, it does mean what I think it means.

 

[julius]

One side has much more respect for the Constitution than the other. I'll leave you to guess which one. Hint: To which party do Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson belong?

Hah, that's funny

 

[DaLincolnJones]

What if they left them there to die because they were afraid of having to explain why the Ambassador was there? Remember Iran/Contra? What if they didn't intervene because it would have become an election issue? If he could have saved State Department employees and left them to die, that's criminal. And why haven't we killed/captured the people that admitted attacking the Consulate? Something is not right about Benghazi.

others have danced around this premise a bit, and some feel it could be even worse..all in all, not much of a streach

 

[maxiep]

Hah, that's funny

http://cnsnews.com/node/55971

 

[DaLincolnJones]

He shouldn't have been there because the country declined into lawlessness - THE failure. They didn't want to admit failure.

true, they should have never been there..this alone would havenever caused a ripple amongst the oboma press machine. he got away with anything shy of murder, as this may very well be the case

to the point, they were there despite all reasoning to not be...and the question of why has still to be answered