by Ugh
As I noted in a comment, another post on the IRS exempt organizations scandal. As usual, all the links to everything you would ever want to know about it are available at the taxprof blog, who for some reason is determined to number the days (as if there is going to be some definitive endpoint).
Since my last post, we've had three congressional hearings, a newly appointed Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue (that no one had ever heard of), and a relatively high-level IRS employee invoke her 5th Amendment right not to incriminate herself (and perhaps improperly at that). We've learned that, perhaps, this was not the sole idea of the IRS office in Cincinnati, or that maybe people in Washington had some involvement somehow. We've also learned that high level officials at the IRS should have probably volunteered the information that, yes, "Tea Party" groups (and the like) were singled out for extra scrutiny, even if it was not a partisan effort (as the TIGTA report confirms).
I noted in my last post that I haven't had any interaction with the IRS's exempt organization division and still haven't. However, I have been in meetings with former Commissioner Douglas Shulman and (now) former Acting Commissioner Steven Miller, as well as other high ranking IRS officials. And I will say again, there is simply no way either of them, or the other officials I know, would have engaged in a top-down targeting of Tea Party and similar groups. What they appear to be "guilty" of is not showing Congress where the fire is when Congress smelled smoke (once they themselves learned of the fire's location).
A number of other things to say:
(i) The executive branch should not treat inquiries from Congress like they are interrogatories in an adversarial legal proceeding, parsing through them wondering what the meaning of "is is." Several times Miller said that he answered Congress's questions "truthfully" in letters to them. I believe that, but once you learned that there had been some inappropriate selection criteria, and since that was what Congress was asking about – even if un-artfully – shouldn't you have told them?
(ii) You always look better standing up and taking responsibility and offering an apology than trying to weasel around questions and state lack of knowledge. In the hearings, Miller did the former and has gotten high marks for it (not that that's going to help him much), Shulman did the latter and has been excoriated (which I was surprised at as he's generally a pretty savvy guy).
(iii) If someone tells Congress of their intention to assert their 5th Amendment right not to testify, then Congress shouldn't call them to testify in a sort of shaming exercise. Leave it for the court proceeding (if any).
(iv) It has become apparent, in hindsight at least, that Obama made a huge mistake in not nominating a permanent IRS Commissioner when Shulman announced his intention to leave the post several months in advance of November 2012. Obviously Obama was a little busy running for President last year, but there's no reason he couldn't have nominated someone in December given the advance warning. If that person came from outside the IRS (as did Shulman), s/he would have been able to say "Sh1t, I just started here, why are you looking at me?" Now, of course, he's going to have to appoint some member of the GOP to "end" the scandal. Super.
Ugh, Some extremely partisan replies:
(i) When the inquiries are from extremists who have taken over the opposition party this is wholly justified, since the inquiry is, in fact, a partisan witch hunt. Take the HUAC, please.
(ii) Hahahahahahahaha…I give you Ollie North. Did he look better in his jut jawed defense of contemptuously breaking the law? Well, yes, to his partisan supporters. But then, them’s politics. To me, he showed criminal contempt.
(iii)Oh, please. Politics dictates this. You have something against politics? Perhaps those former imperial overlords have a deeper understanding of this.
(iv) Jayzus ‘effing you know what. Obama can’t get a dogcatcher confirmed. Where have you been since January, 2009?
Let the partisan warfare begin. Thanks.
Ugh, Some extremely partisan replies:
(i) When the inquiries are from extremists who have taken over the opposition party this is wholly justified, since the inquiry is, in fact, a partisan witch hunt. Take the HUAC, please.
(ii) Hahahahahahahaha…I give you Ollie North. Did he look better in his jut jawed defense of contemptuously breaking the law? Well, yes, to his partisan supporters. But then, them’s politics. To me, he showed criminal contempt.
(iii)Oh, please. Politics dictates this. You have something against politics? Perhaps those former imperial overlords have a deeper understanding of this.
(iv) Jayzus ‘effing you know what. Obama can’t get a dogcatcher confirmed. Where have you been since January, 2009?
Let the partisan warfare begin. Thanks.
Ugh, Some extremely partisan replies:
(i) When the inquiries are from extremists who have taken over the opposition party this is wholly justified, since the inquiry is, in fact, a partisan witch hunt. Take the HUAC, please.
(ii) Hahahahahahahaha…I give you Ollie North. Did he look better in his jut jawed defense of contemptuously breaking the law? Well, yes, to his partisan supporters. But then, them’s politics. To me, he showed criminal contempt.
(iii)Oh, please. Politics dictates this. You have something against politics? Perhaps those former imperial overlords have a deeper understanding of this.
(iv) Jayzus ‘effing you know what. Obama can’t get a dogcatcher confirmed. Where have you been since January, 2009?
Let the partisan warfare begin. Thanks.
bobbyp – thanks, although I have no idea which way you’re going there.
bobbyp – thanks, although I have no idea which way you’re going there.
bobbyp – thanks, although I have no idea which way you’re going there.
iv: The nominee would have been filibustered under the pre-Civil War rules of caning via filibuster because he or she would have presumed to lead the IRS to do its job, which is to say, govern, which would include determining if self-proclaimed “social welfare” entities were a loose affiliation of f*cking lying motherf*ckers, or not.
v. The Republican Party is not an American entity. It will be dealt with as the enemy al Qaeda has and the Symbionese Liberation Army was, eventually, probably too late, by killing as many of their operatives as possible as ruthlessly as possible.
iv: The nominee would have been filibustered under the pre-Civil War rules of caning via filibuster because he or she would have presumed to lead the IRS to do its job, which is to say, govern, which would include determining if self-proclaimed “social welfare” entities were a loose affiliation of f*cking lying motherf*ckers, or not.
v. The Republican Party is not an American entity. It will be dealt with as the enemy al Qaeda has and the Symbionese Liberation Army was, eventually, probably too late, by killing as many of their operatives as possible as ruthlessly as possible.
iv: The nominee would have been filibustered under the pre-Civil War rules of caning via filibuster because he or she would have presumed to lead the IRS to do its job, which is to say, govern, which would include determining if self-proclaimed “social welfare” entities were a loose affiliation of f*cking lying motherf*ckers, or not.
v. The Republican Party is not an American entity. It will be dealt with as the enemy al Qaeda has and the Symbionese Liberation Army was, eventually, probably too late, by killing as many of their operatives as possible as ruthlessly as possible.
bobbyp – thanks, although I have no idea which way you’re going there.
Please see that damned Countme-in diatribe at 11:17 PM on or about May 29 above which, by the way, the sentiment contained therein I totally agree with. To give credence with the despicable scum who are trying to fluff this up as a “scandal” is to lend the
‘effing enemy credence. As they say, “Whose side are you on?”
Best Regards.
bobbyp – thanks, although I have no idea which way you’re going there.
Please see that damned Countme-in diatribe at 11:17 PM on or about May 29 above which, by the way, the sentiment contained therein I totally agree with. To give credence with the despicable scum who are trying to fluff this up as a “scandal” is to lend the
‘effing enemy credence. As they say, “Whose side are you on?”
Best Regards.
bobbyp – thanks, although I have no idea which way you’re going there.
Please see that damned Countme-in diatribe at 11:17 PM on or about May 29 above which, by the way, the sentiment contained therein I totally agree with. To give credence with the despicable scum who are trying to fluff this up as a “scandal” is to lend the
‘effing enemy credence. As they say, “Whose side are you on?”
Best Regards.
Republican President Barack Obama, the hopeless romantic, just nominated a Republican former Deputy Attorney General under the Bush Administration to head up the FBI.
He can forget it, because there was nothing the Confederacy hated more than giving a black man water during cotton harvesting season.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum
Were Lincoln President alive today and President, we’d be two years into Civil War with the current Confederacy.
But he was a Democrat, otherwise known as a member of the Democratic Party, for those who mispronounciate funny.
Republican President Barack Obama, the hopeless romantic, just nominated a Republican former Deputy Attorney General under the Bush Administration to head up the FBI.
He can forget it, because there was nothing the Confederacy hated more than giving a black man water during cotton harvesting season.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum
Were Lincoln President alive today and President, we’d be two years into Civil War with the current Confederacy.
But he was a Democrat, otherwise known as a member of the Democratic Party, for those who mispronounciate funny.
Republican President Barack Obama, the hopeless romantic, just nominated a Republican former Deputy Attorney General under the Bush Administration to head up the FBI.
He can forget it, because there was nothing the Confederacy hated more than giving a black man water during cotton harvesting season.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum
Were Lincoln President alive today and President, we’d be two years into Civil War with the current Confederacy.
But he was a Democrat, otherwise known as a member of the Democratic Party, for those who mispronounciate funny.
The TIGTA report does not confirm that it was not a partisan effort. It says that they had not identified a partisan effort, to this date. In testimony it was pretty clear that they the IG, reasonably enough, didn’t really see that assessment as part of the audit.
I am not sure what hearings you watched, but at the one I watched Miller was arrogant, duplicitous, and obviously guilty of, at a minimum,lying purposefully. I don’t know your personal relationship, but I can certainly believe the guy I saw would only be upset that Congress thought they had a say in how his IRS is run.
It ain’t Watergate yet, but it is a scandal. Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.
Lets not even start on intimidating the free press. Which, of course, has been pretty much ignored here. I suspect because it gets harder to defend the President with each revelation of his maniacal desire for more power. ( And there is your Nixon comparison.)
The TIGTA report does not confirm that it was not a partisan effort. It says that they had not identified a partisan effort, to this date. In testimony it was pretty clear that they the IG, reasonably enough, didn’t really see that assessment as part of the audit.
I am not sure what hearings you watched, but at the one I watched Miller was arrogant, duplicitous, and obviously guilty of, at a minimum,lying purposefully. I don’t know your personal relationship, but I can certainly believe the guy I saw would only be upset that Congress thought they had a say in how his IRS is run.
It ain’t Watergate yet, but it is a scandal. Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.
Lets not even start on intimidating the free press. Which, of course, has been pretty much ignored here. I suspect because it gets harder to defend the President with each revelation of his maniacal desire for more power. ( And there is your Nixon comparison.)
The TIGTA report does not confirm that it was not a partisan effort. It says that they had not identified a partisan effort, to this date. In testimony it was pretty clear that they the IG, reasonably enough, didn’t really see that assessment as part of the audit.
I am not sure what hearings you watched, but at the one I watched Miller was arrogant, duplicitous, and obviously guilty of, at a minimum,lying purposefully. I don’t know your personal relationship, but I can certainly believe the guy I saw would only be upset that Congress thought they had a say in how his IRS is run.
It ain’t Watergate yet, but it is a scandal. Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.
Lets not even start on intimidating the free press. Which, of course, has been pretty much ignored here. I suspect because it gets harder to defend the President with each revelation of his maniacal desire for more power. ( And there is your Nixon comparison.)
If I get BobbyP and other’s position, the Repubs are so unhinged, they can’t be trusted to investigate the Dems fairly. Taking this to its logical conclusion, we should let the Dems investigate themselves in-house or simply accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*. Which is reasonable, because the Dems have a long history of deferring to the Repubs when roles are reversed. A long history.
If I get BobbyP and other’s position, the Repubs are so unhinged, they can’t be trusted to investigate the Dems fairly. Taking this to its logical conclusion, we should let the Dems investigate themselves in-house or simply accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*. Which is reasonable, because the Dems have a long history of deferring to the Repubs when roles are reversed. A long history.
If I get BobbyP and other’s position, the Repubs are so unhinged, they can’t be trusted to investigate the Dems fairly. Taking this to its logical conclusion, we should let the Dems investigate themselves in-house or simply accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*. Which is reasonable, because the Dems have a long history of deferring to the Repubs when roles are reversed. A long history.
What scandal?
There’s nothing wrong with checkingout the teaparty groups, which are political and should not be exempt from paying taxes. IF there was a scandal it would be if the IRS had been directed from the top where Obama would know about it to take actions which were illegal ( as happened in the Nixon administration) or actually put organizations through extensive audit hassles (as did the Bush administration) or ignored leftwing groups while concentrating on rightwing ones.Is there any evidence that the IRS office that was lookikng at teaparty groups was ignoring groups that were political but not Koch-funded rightwing exstremists?
Of coourse the Repubs can’t be trusted to take part in the investigation. Look at their track record during this administration! It’s been one false accusation after another for years. Obviously Congressional Rebubs have to be included, but we should be honest about the situation. People with well established track rtecords of hyperpartisan dishoestly will continue to be hyper partisan and dishonest.
Now the righwing borg is doing what they do–all out hate and fear mongering. Noonan who was right next to Reagan during Iran/contra was sniffing distastefully on the Sunday “news” shows about how Obama’s scandal is the Worst Thing Ever. The National Review going from this psuedo scandal to the claim that Obama cheated in the election. The NRC is using the issue to smear Democrats in Congressional races that had nothing to do with the situation at all.
ANd the thirty percenters and their enablers will jump right in playing let’s pretend. They have politicized everything but take no responsibility.
What scandal?
There’s nothing wrong with checkingout the teaparty groups, which are political and should not be exempt from paying taxes. IF there was a scandal it would be if the IRS had been directed from the top where Obama would know about it to take actions which were illegal ( as happened in the Nixon administration) or actually put organizations through extensive audit hassles (as did the Bush administration) or ignored leftwing groups while concentrating on rightwing ones.Is there any evidence that the IRS office that was lookikng at teaparty groups was ignoring groups that were political but not Koch-funded rightwing exstremists?
Of coourse the Repubs can’t be trusted to take part in the investigation. Look at their track record during this administration! It’s been one false accusation after another for years. Obviously Congressional Rebubs have to be included, but we should be honest about the situation. People with well established track rtecords of hyperpartisan dishoestly will continue to be hyper partisan and dishonest.
Now the righwing borg is doing what they do–all out hate and fear mongering. Noonan who was right next to Reagan during Iran/contra was sniffing distastefully on the Sunday “news” shows about how Obama’s scandal is the Worst Thing Ever. The National Review going from this psuedo scandal to the claim that Obama cheated in the election. The NRC is using the issue to smear Democrats in Congressional races that had nothing to do with the situation at all.
ANd the thirty percenters and their enablers will jump right in playing let’s pretend. They have politicized everything but take no responsibility.
What scandal?
There’s nothing wrong with checkingout the teaparty groups, which are political and should not be exempt from paying taxes. IF there was a scandal it would be if the IRS had been directed from the top where Obama would know about it to take actions which were illegal ( as happened in the Nixon administration) or actually put organizations through extensive audit hassles (as did the Bush administration) or ignored leftwing groups while concentrating on rightwing ones.Is there any evidence that the IRS office that was lookikng at teaparty groups was ignoring groups that were political but not Koch-funded rightwing exstremists?
Of coourse the Repubs can’t be trusted to take part in the investigation. Look at their track record during this administration! It’s been one false accusation after another for years. Obviously Congressional Rebubs have to be included, but we should be honest about the situation. People with well established track rtecords of hyperpartisan dishoestly will continue to be hyper partisan and dishonest.
Now the righwing borg is doing what they do–all out hate and fear mongering. Noonan who was right next to Reagan during Iran/contra was sniffing distastefully on the Sunday “news” shows about how Obama’s scandal is the Worst Thing Ever. The National Review going from this psuedo scandal to the claim that Obama cheated in the election. The NRC is using the issue to smear Democrats in Congressional races that had nothing to do with the situation at all.
ANd the thirty percenters and their enablers will jump right in playing let’s pretend. They have politicized everything but take no responsibility.
Well, some GOPsters do not want a special prosecutor because they claim that it would necessarily become a whitewash (since (s)he would be named by the JD ergo a Dem lackey).
Some synics say they fear more that a specprosec could also look at the ‘nonpolitical’ social welfare groups that got their tax exempt status despite obviously not being qualified and lying about it (that includes both Rove’s PAC and the equivalent on the Obama side btw).
As I said in a comment to a different post, it’s pure ‘de repetundis pecuniis’, i.e. the outcome is predetermined by the partisan side doing the inspection and the result will under no circumstances get accepted by the (also partisan) side that is not.
And you will not find many here that defend Obama on the press thing. As for Watergate, anything Obama or his people do is the worst scandal in the history of the world (at least according to some congresscritters). Tricky Dick is laughing his unclean spirit out over this.
Well, some GOPsters do not want a special prosecutor because they claim that it would necessarily become a whitewash (since (s)he would be named by the JD ergo a Dem lackey).
Some synics say they fear more that a specprosec could also look at the ‘nonpolitical’ social welfare groups that got their tax exempt status despite obviously not being qualified and lying about it (that includes both Rove’s PAC and the equivalent on the Obama side btw).
As I said in a comment to a different post, it’s pure ‘de repetundis pecuniis’, i.e. the outcome is predetermined by the partisan side doing the inspection and the result will under no circumstances get accepted by the (also partisan) side that is not.
And you will not find many here that defend Obama on the press thing. As for Watergate, anything Obama or his people do is the worst scandal in the history of the world (at least according to some congresscritters). Tricky Dick is laughing his unclean spirit out over this.
Well, some GOPsters do not want a special prosecutor because they claim that it would necessarily become a whitewash (since (s)he would be named by the JD ergo a Dem lackey).
Some synics say they fear more that a specprosec could also look at the ‘nonpolitical’ social welfare groups that got their tax exempt status despite obviously not being qualified and lying about it (that includes both Rove’s PAC and the equivalent on the Obama side btw).
As I said in a comment to a different post, it’s pure ‘de repetundis pecuniis’, i.e. the outcome is predetermined by the partisan side doing the inspection and the result will under no circumstances get accepted by the (also partisan) side that is not.
And you will not find many here that defend Obama on the press thing. As for Watergate, anything Obama or his people do is the worst scandal in the history of the world (at least according to some congresscritters). Tricky Dick is laughing his unclean spirit out over this.
Re: Marty’s “badger and weaken your political opposition” – if the groups being “badgered” were in fact “political opposition” and not primarily “social welfare” organizations, then they deserved the extra scrutiny.
Re: McKinney’s “accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*”, refresh my memory about all those partisan hearings the Dem.-controlled House started in January 2007 on Bush/Cheney war crimes and torture, or Obama’s DOJ investigating same in January 2009. Oh, that’s right, we were supposed to look forward, not backward.
Mind you, I’m not in favor of bureaucratic inefficiency or incompetence, and, if anything, there should be more Congressional oversight and when warranted *sober* investigations of questionable activities.
But when you have multiple right-wing figures describing this as the worst government malfeasance since Watergate, it’s clear that sobriety has gone out the window (down the drain?).
Re: Marty’s “badger and weaken your political opposition” – if the groups being “badgered” were in fact “political opposition” and not primarily “social welfare” organizations, then they deserved the extra scrutiny.
Re: McKinney’s “accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*”, refresh my memory about all those partisan hearings the Dem.-controlled House started in January 2007 on Bush/Cheney war crimes and torture, or Obama’s DOJ investigating same in January 2009. Oh, that’s right, we were supposed to look forward, not backward.
Mind you, I’m not in favor of bureaucratic inefficiency or incompetence, and, if anything, there should be more Congressional oversight and when warranted *sober* investigations of questionable activities.
But when you have multiple right-wing figures describing this as the worst government malfeasance since Watergate, it’s clear that sobriety has gone out the window (down the drain?).
Re: Marty’s “badger and weaken your political opposition” – if the groups being “badgered” were in fact “political opposition” and not primarily “social welfare” organizations, then they deserved the extra scrutiny.
Re: McKinney’s “accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*”, refresh my memory about all those partisan hearings the Dem.-controlled House started in January 2007 on Bush/Cheney war crimes and torture, or Obama’s DOJ investigating same in January 2009. Oh, that’s right, we were supposed to look forward, not backward.
Mind you, I’m not in favor of bureaucratic inefficiency or incompetence, and, if anything, there should be more Congressional oversight and when warranted *sober* investigations of questionable activities.
But when you have multiple right-wing figures describing this as the worst government malfeasance since Watergate, it’s clear that sobriety has gone out the window (down the drain?).
“Lets not even start on intimidating the free press.”
Well, Ill say these in defense- first, it was done legally, not via an extra-constitutional claim to do anything the President wants as CIC. Second, there is a line somewhere where reporters ferreting out and publishing national security issues is a bad thing. Discussing that balancing point is *exactly* what the GOP does not want to do now, because 1)their actual position has been more anti-civil-liberties and 2)debating the details turns this from a finger-pointing exercise to a genuine debate about where that line should be. And maybe this (investigate the leak, charge the leaker, don’t charge the press) is about right.
I mean, in all seriousness, one of the biggest complaints from the press now is that sources are less willing to break the law and leak classified information to them. Which was *already against the law*. Note that we can have a conversation about whistleblower protection, but this isn’t that conversation since this wasn’t a case of whistleblowing…
So yes Marty, let’s not even start actually having those discussions. Some general gesticulating and invocations of “Nixon! Nixon!” are about as far as this conversation can go without getting awkward, right?
“Lets not even start on intimidating the free press.”
Well, Ill say these in defense- first, it was done legally, not via an extra-constitutional claim to do anything the President wants as CIC. Second, there is a line somewhere where reporters ferreting out and publishing national security issues is a bad thing. Discussing that balancing point is *exactly* what the GOP does not want to do now, because 1)their actual position has been more anti-civil-liberties and 2)debating the details turns this from a finger-pointing exercise to a genuine debate about where that line should be. And maybe this (investigate the leak, charge the leaker, don’t charge the press) is about right.
I mean, in all seriousness, one of the biggest complaints from the press now is that sources are less willing to break the law and leak classified information to them. Which was *already against the law*. Note that we can have a conversation about whistleblower protection, but this isn’t that conversation since this wasn’t a case of whistleblowing…
So yes Marty, let’s not even start actually having those discussions. Some general gesticulating and invocations of “Nixon! Nixon!” are about as far as this conversation can go without getting awkward, right?
“Lets not even start on intimidating the free press.”
Well, Ill say these in defense- first, it was done legally, not via an extra-constitutional claim to do anything the President wants as CIC. Second, there is a line somewhere where reporters ferreting out and publishing national security issues is a bad thing. Discussing that balancing point is *exactly* what the GOP does not want to do now, because 1)their actual position has been more anti-civil-liberties and 2)debating the details turns this from a finger-pointing exercise to a genuine debate about where that line should be. And maybe this (investigate the leak, charge the leaker, don’t charge the press) is about right.
I mean, in all seriousness, one of the biggest complaints from the press now is that sources are less willing to break the law and leak classified information to them. Which was *already against the law*. Note that we can have a conversation about whistleblower protection, but this isn’t that conversation since this wasn’t a case of whistleblowing…
So yes Marty, let’s not even start actually having those discussions. Some general gesticulating and invocations of “Nixon! Nixon!” are about as far as this conversation can go without getting awkward, right?
“It ain’t Watergate yet, but it is a scandal. Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.”
Scandal, to me, implies agency. For example, when some soliders in Iraq went nuts and killed a bunch of civilians, it was not a ‘scandal of the Bush Administration’, bc the Bush Administration didn’t plan, direct, execute, suggest, hint at wanting, etc those events. It happened on Bush’s watch and could reasonably raise questions about oversight etc, but it just wasn’t a scandal for the Administration.
So far, afaict nothing indicates this goes anywhere near the WH.
If anything, the larger scandal here is that ‘charities’ which aren’t supposed to be primarily poltical entities are often exactly that. On both sides.
“Taking this to its logical conclusion, we should let the Dems investigate themselves in-house or simply accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*.”
Seems like projection to me. The major special investigations of my life have all been by Republicans- Ken Starr, Patrick Fitzgerald, Lawrence Walsh. Because only a member of the GOP can be trusted not to turn an investigation of a fellow-GOPer into a partisan witch hunt, and only a fellow-GOPer can be trusted to get to the truth of allegations against a Dem. (At least, in David Sentelle’s eyes- note that even GOPer Robert Fiske was not apparently a willing enough soldier in the Whitewater matter for Sentelle’s purposes).
Besides, Id take bobbyp’s point to be “unhinged Republicans are unhinged”, not “all Republicans are unhinged”. At least, some Republicans who are House Committee Chairs are unhinged, and pretending that they’re reasonable people is grounds for not being taken seriously IMO.
Is is seriously the case that the only two alternatives you see are 1)never investigate the executive for anything and 2)launch special investigations every time the most unhinged member of the other party holds a hearing about some manufactured scandal? If so, can we at least wait until there’s an alleged scandal that involves the WH in some manner other than Nooner speculating about ‘culture of corruption’?
“It ain’t Watergate yet, but it is a scandal. Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.”
Scandal, to me, implies agency. For example, when some soliders in Iraq went nuts and killed a bunch of civilians, it was not a ‘scandal of the Bush Administration’, bc the Bush Administration didn’t plan, direct, execute, suggest, hint at wanting, etc those events. It happened on Bush’s watch and could reasonably raise questions about oversight etc, but it just wasn’t a scandal for the Administration.
So far, afaict nothing indicates this goes anywhere near the WH.
If anything, the larger scandal here is that ‘charities’ which aren’t supposed to be primarily poltical entities are often exactly that. On both sides.
“Taking this to its logical conclusion, we should let the Dems investigate themselves in-house or simply accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*.”
Seems like projection to me. The major special investigations of my life have all been by Republicans- Ken Starr, Patrick Fitzgerald, Lawrence Walsh. Because only a member of the GOP can be trusted not to turn an investigation of a fellow-GOPer into a partisan witch hunt, and only a fellow-GOPer can be trusted to get to the truth of allegations against a Dem. (At least, in David Sentelle’s eyes- note that even GOPer Robert Fiske was not apparently a willing enough soldier in the Whitewater matter for Sentelle’s purposes).
Besides, Id take bobbyp’s point to be “unhinged Republicans are unhinged”, not “all Republicans are unhinged”. At least, some Republicans who are House Committee Chairs are unhinged, and pretending that they’re reasonable people is grounds for not being taken seriously IMO.
Is is seriously the case that the only two alternatives you see are 1)never investigate the executive for anything and 2)launch special investigations every time the most unhinged member of the other party holds a hearing about some manufactured scandal? If so, can we at least wait until there’s an alleged scandal that involves the WH in some manner other than Nooner speculating about ‘culture of corruption’?
“It ain’t Watergate yet, but it is a scandal. Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.”
Scandal, to me, implies agency. For example, when some soliders in Iraq went nuts and killed a bunch of civilians, it was not a ‘scandal of the Bush Administration’, bc the Bush Administration didn’t plan, direct, execute, suggest, hint at wanting, etc those events. It happened on Bush’s watch and could reasonably raise questions about oversight etc, but it just wasn’t a scandal for the Administration.
So far, afaict nothing indicates this goes anywhere near the WH.
If anything, the larger scandal here is that ‘charities’ which aren’t supposed to be primarily poltical entities are often exactly that. On both sides.
“Taking this to its logical conclusion, we should let the Dems investigate themselves in-house or simply accept the current party line and, you know, *move on*.”
Seems like projection to me. The major special investigations of my life have all been by Republicans- Ken Starr, Patrick Fitzgerald, Lawrence Walsh. Because only a member of the GOP can be trusted not to turn an investigation of a fellow-GOPer into a partisan witch hunt, and only a fellow-GOPer can be trusted to get to the truth of allegations against a Dem. (At least, in David Sentelle’s eyes- note that even GOPer Robert Fiske was not apparently a willing enough soldier in the Whitewater matter for Sentelle’s purposes).
Besides, Id take bobbyp’s point to be “unhinged Republicans are unhinged”, not “all Republicans are unhinged”. At least, some Republicans who are House Committee Chairs are unhinged, and pretending that they’re reasonable people is grounds for not being taken seriously IMO.
Is is seriously the case that the only two alternatives you see are 1)never investigate the executive for anything and 2)launch special investigations every time the most unhinged member of the other party holds a hearing about some manufactured scandal? If so, can we at least wait until there’s an alleged scandal that involves the WH in some manner other than Nooner speculating about ‘culture of corruption’?
James Goodale, the lawyer who defended the NYT in the Pentagon Papers case, says Obama might be worse than Nixon on the issue of press freedom. He does go on to say Nixon was worse overall, because Nixon was out to destroy his political enemies. Here’s a link to an interview–
link
James Goodale, the lawyer who defended the NYT in the Pentagon Papers case, says Obama might be worse than Nixon on the issue of press freedom. He does go on to say Nixon was worse overall, because Nixon was out to destroy his political enemies. Here’s a link to an interview–
link
James Goodale, the lawyer who defended the NYT in the Pentagon Papers case, says Obama might be worse than Nixon on the issue of press freedom. He does go on to say Nixon was worse overall, because Nixon was out to destroy his political enemies. Here’s a link to an interview–
link
ah, the usual social Marxist sodomites defending their chocolate messiah regardless of how egregious his deprivations of the letter and intent of the Constitution; a document that they despise, of course.
ah, the usual social Marxist sodomites defending their chocolate messiah regardless of how egregious his deprivations of the letter and intent of the Constitution; a document that they despise, of course.
ah, the usual social Marxist sodomites defending their chocolate messiah regardless of how egregious his deprivations of the letter and intent of the Constitution; a document that they despise, of course.
I never realized how many ways one could expose one’s self in a single sentence. (I’m assuming MW’s post won’t get deleted–if it is, nevermind.)
I never realized how many ways one could expose one’s self in a single sentence. (I’m assuming MW’s post won’t get deleted–if it is, nevermind.)
I never realized how many ways one could expose one’s self in a single sentence. (I’m assuming MW’s post won’t get deleted–if it is, nevermind.)
DJ- Goodale’s article looks like it has several problems to me.
1)Obama is worse because he’s pursuing Assange, which in Goodale’s opinion is just like pursuing the NYTimes. And Obama is worse because ‘he might win’- but Goodale doesn’t consider that he might win because the wikileaks model is incompatible with protecting national security-related information. I am not a kill-wikileaks kind of person, but pretending that it doesn’t pose serious questions that need serious answers is pointless IMO.
2)He argues that anything short of an existential crisis can’t be used to protect information- The claim is that Assange can’t be punished if, in fact, there’s no clear and present danger to the country. If you look at the stuff that Assange published I would argue there’s no clear and present danger to the country. It’s been three years, where is the danger? You’re still here and I’m still here.
This is Clarence-Thomas-level sophistry IMO, preserving the category of’ protecting national security’ but defining it down to nonexistence in regards to leaks. We can only prosecute if we aren’t ‘here’ because the leak was so damaging?
3)Goodale also weirdly conflates firing employees who leak and the government pursuing criminal charges against people who leak classified matieral. Running those two things together is nonsensical and appears to only serve the purpose of suggesting Assange shouldn’t be pursued because he wasn’t a US government employee.
4)He accuses Obama of ‘trying to intimidate those who leak’. Whistleblower protection is important, and worth discussing. As are media shield laws, to more clearly define what’s protected and what isn’t. But trying to stop people from leaking classified information is part of the executive’s job IMO. Intimidating whistleblowers is bad. Intimidating guys who leak bc they have personal or political (or financial etc) agendas is *good*. Differentiating is hard, but IMO that’s no reason to just criticize leak-prevention efforts.
5)And he also bizarrely claims that when the president speaks to you, he’s leaking. Have you ever thought about that? Every piece of information in Washington, particularly the information which he has his hands on, is classified… I don’t even know what to do with that, other than note it’s verging on Woodward territory.
Having said that, I hope the discussion doesn’t turn into another Wikileaks good-wikileaks bad thing. That’s been done elsewhere. But since Goodale’s entire thesis of Obama being worse than Nixon on press freedom seems to rest on wikileaks being the same as the NYTimes, I couldn’t help but touch on it.
DJ- Goodale’s article looks like it has several problems to me.
1)Obama is worse because he’s pursuing Assange, which in Goodale’s opinion is just like pursuing the NYTimes. And Obama is worse because ‘he might win’- but Goodale doesn’t consider that he might win because the wikileaks model is incompatible with protecting national security-related information. I am not a kill-wikileaks kind of person, but pretending that it doesn’t pose serious questions that need serious answers is pointless IMO.
2)He argues that anything short of an existential crisis can’t be used to protect information- The claim is that Assange can’t be punished if, in fact, there’s no clear and present danger to the country. If you look at the stuff that Assange published I would argue there’s no clear and present danger to the country. It’s been three years, where is the danger? You’re still here and I’m still here.
This is Clarence-Thomas-level sophistry IMO, preserving the category of’ protecting national security’ but defining it down to nonexistence in regards to leaks. We can only prosecute if we aren’t ‘here’ because the leak was so damaging?
3)Goodale also weirdly conflates firing employees who leak and the government pursuing criminal charges against people who leak classified matieral. Running those two things together is nonsensical and appears to only serve the purpose of suggesting Assange shouldn’t be pursued because he wasn’t a US government employee.
4)He accuses Obama of ‘trying to intimidate those who leak’. Whistleblower protection is important, and worth discussing. As are media shield laws, to more clearly define what’s protected and what isn’t. But trying to stop people from leaking classified information is part of the executive’s job IMO. Intimidating whistleblowers is bad. Intimidating guys who leak bc they have personal or political (or financial etc) agendas is *good*. Differentiating is hard, but IMO that’s no reason to just criticize leak-prevention efforts.
5)And he also bizarrely claims that when the president speaks to you, he’s leaking. Have you ever thought about that? Every piece of information in Washington, particularly the information which he has his hands on, is classified… I don’t even know what to do with that, other than note it’s verging on Woodward territory.
Having said that, I hope the discussion doesn’t turn into another Wikileaks good-wikileaks bad thing. That’s been done elsewhere. But since Goodale’s entire thesis of Obama being worse than Nixon on press freedom seems to rest on wikileaks being the same as the NYTimes, I couldn’t help but touch on it.
DJ- Goodale’s article looks like it has several problems to me.
1)Obama is worse because he’s pursuing Assange, which in Goodale’s opinion is just like pursuing the NYTimes. And Obama is worse because ‘he might win’- but Goodale doesn’t consider that he might win because the wikileaks model is incompatible with protecting national security-related information. I am not a kill-wikileaks kind of person, but pretending that it doesn’t pose serious questions that need serious answers is pointless IMO.
2)He argues that anything short of an existential crisis can’t be used to protect information- The claim is that Assange can’t be punished if, in fact, there’s no clear and present danger to the country. If you look at the stuff that Assange published I would argue there’s no clear and present danger to the country. It’s been three years, where is the danger? You’re still here and I’m still here.
This is Clarence-Thomas-level sophistry IMO, preserving the category of’ protecting national security’ but defining it down to nonexistence in regards to leaks. We can only prosecute if we aren’t ‘here’ because the leak was so damaging?
3)Goodale also weirdly conflates firing employees who leak and the government pursuing criminal charges against people who leak classified matieral. Running those two things together is nonsensical and appears to only serve the purpose of suggesting Assange shouldn’t be pursued because he wasn’t a US government employee.
4)He accuses Obama of ‘trying to intimidate those who leak’. Whistleblower protection is important, and worth discussing. As are media shield laws, to more clearly define what’s protected and what isn’t. But trying to stop people from leaking classified information is part of the executive’s job IMO. Intimidating whistleblowers is bad. Intimidating guys who leak bc they have personal or political (or financial etc) agendas is *good*. Differentiating is hard, but IMO that’s no reason to just criticize leak-prevention efforts.
5)And he also bizarrely claims that when the president speaks to you, he’s leaking. Have you ever thought about that? Every piece of information in Washington, particularly the information which he has his hands on, is classified… I don’t even know what to do with that, other than note it’s verging on Woodward territory.
Having said that, I hope the discussion doesn’t turn into another Wikileaks good-wikileaks bad thing. That’s been done elsewhere. But since Goodale’s entire thesis of Obama being worse than Nixon on press freedom seems to rest on wikileaks being the same as the NYTimes, I couldn’t help but touch on it.
nominated a Republican former Deputy Attorney General under the Bush Administration to head up the FBI.
Comey distinguished himself for honorable behavior in the Bush Adminstration:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/on_comey.php?ref=fpblg
nominated a Republican former Deputy Attorney General under the Bush Administration to head up the FBI.
Comey distinguished himself for honorable behavior in the Bush Adminstration:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/on_comey.php?ref=fpblg
nominated a Republican former Deputy Attorney General under the Bush Administration to head up the FBI.
Comey distinguished himself for honorable behavior in the Bush Adminstration:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/on_comey.php?ref=fpblg
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
I can’t see why Assange should be prosecuted at all (for wikileaks, that is–there’s the rape charge, but I don’t want to get into that either.) I think wikileaks uncovered stories that rival in importance anything that any leaker has ever exposed–this for instance–
Guardian story on torture in Iraq
On the Obama comment, I took that to be a dramatic way of saying that Washington is full of leakers, it happens all the time, usually with some sort of political motive behind it, and the only ones who seem to get prosecuted are the ones who embarrass the government rather than the ones who make it look good.
I can’t see why Assange should be prosecuted at all (for wikileaks, that is–there’s the rape charge, but I don’t want to get into that either.) I think wikileaks uncovered stories that rival in importance anything that any leaker has ever exposed–this for instance–
Guardian story on torture in Iraq
On the Obama comment, I took that to be a dramatic way of saying that Washington is full of leakers, it happens all the time, usually with some sort of political motive behind it, and the only ones who seem to get prosecuted are the ones who embarrass the government rather than the ones who make it look good.
I can’t see why Assange should be prosecuted at all (for wikileaks, that is–there’s the rape charge, but I don’t want to get into that either.) I think wikileaks uncovered stories that rival in importance anything that any leaker has ever exposed–this for instance–
Guardian story on torture in Iraq
On the Obama comment, I took that to be a dramatic way of saying that Washington is full of leakers, it happens all the time, usually with some sort of political motive behind it, and the only ones who seem to get prosecuted are the ones who embarrass the government rather than the ones who make it look good.
On Comey, Greenwald says his record is mixed, but I don’t want to summarize.
link
On Comey, Greenwald says his record is mixed, but I don’t want to summarize.
link
On Comey, Greenwald says his record is mixed, but I don’t want to summarize.
link
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
do you have the statistics as to how many of each so-named group applied during the relevant period, and of those, what percentage were targeted, and how many were denied?
but, a hypothetical…
if:
1. a lot of “Tea Party” or “Patriot” groups suddenly applied, and
2. it looked like some of them, especially at the beginning of the period in question, were acting counter to the regulations*, then
3. someone with an eye towards finding fraud might decide that “Tea Party” was a good signal that there might be something funny going on with that group.
* and remember, the regulations here are a little fuzzy, and as of Citizens United, they got even fuzzier.
go ahead, pretend it’s impossible.
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
do you have the statistics as to how many of each so-named group applied during the relevant period, and of those, what percentage were targeted, and how many were denied?
but, a hypothetical…
if:
1. a lot of “Tea Party” or “Patriot” groups suddenly applied, and
2. it looked like some of them, especially at the beginning of the period in question, were acting counter to the regulations*, then
3. someone with an eye towards finding fraud might decide that “Tea Party” was a good signal that there might be something funny going on with that group.
* and remember, the regulations here are a little fuzzy, and as of Citizens United, they got even fuzzier.
go ahead, pretend it’s impossible.
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
do you have the statistics as to how many of each so-named group applied during the relevant period, and of those, what percentage were targeted, and how many were denied?
but, a hypothetical…
if:
1. a lot of “Tea Party” or “Patriot” groups suddenly applied, and
2. it looked like some of them, especially at the beginning of the period in question, were acting counter to the regulations*, then
3. someone with an eye towards finding fraud might decide that “Tea Party” was a good signal that there might be something funny going on with that group.
* and remember, the regulations here are a little fuzzy, and as of Citizens United, they got even fuzzier.
go ahead, pretend it’s impossible.
Brett- Im not saying that’s defensible, it’s pretty bad on its face. Best I can think of is that there was a lot more TP activity in that timeframe, and they were trying to cull out as many possibly-political ‘charities’ as possible. ‘Progressive’ might not be nearly as good of a keyword for naked political activity anyway eg on the first google page for “progressive charity” I see “Progressive Animal Welfare Society” and “Association for Progressive Communications”, which could easily be legit charities.
That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be a “9/12 Tea Party Patriots Feeding The Homeless” charity, or excuse what was obviously a very bad decision on the part of someone.
On the third hand, these guys had a basically impossible job: with a small staff, determine which groups have politics as their ‘primary activity’ and which don’t, *without* even the appearance of political bias and without undue burden on those organizations. That they ^#&$ed up seems inevitable, the only remarkable thing is that they did so in such a spectacularly foolish manner.
Brett- Im not saying that’s defensible, it’s pretty bad on its face. Best I can think of is that there was a lot more TP activity in that timeframe, and they were trying to cull out as many possibly-political ‘charities’ as possible. ‘Progressive’ might not be nearly as good of a keyword for naked political activity anyway eg on the first google page for “progressive charity” I see “Progressive Animal Welfare Society” and “Association for Progressive Communications”, which could easily be legit charities.
That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be a “9/12 Tea Party Patriots Feeding The Homeless” charity, or excuse what was obviously a very bad decision on the part of someone.
On the third hand, these guys had a basically impossible job: with a small staff, determine which groups have politics as their ‘primary activity’ and which don’t, *without* even the appearance of political bias and without undue burden on those organizations. That they ^#&$ed up seems inevitable, the only remarkable thing is that they did so in such a spectacularly foolish manner.
Brett- Im not saying that’s defensible, it’s pretty bad on its face. Best I can think of is that there was a lot more TP activity in that timeframe, and they were trying to cull out as many possibly-political ‘charities’ as possible. ‘Progressive’ might not be nearly as good of a keyword for naked political activity anyway eg on the first google page for “progressive charity” I see “Progressive Animal Welfare Society” and “Association for Progressive Communications”, which could easily be legit charities.
That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be a “9/12 Tea Party Patriots Feeding The Homeless” charity, or excuse what was obviously a very bad decision on the part of someone.
On the third hand, these guys had a basically impossible job: with a small staff, determine which groups have politics as their ‘primary activity’ and which don’t, *without* even the appearance of political bias and without undue burden on those organizations. That they ^#&$ed up seems inevitable, the only remarkable thing is that they did so in such a spectacularly foolish manner.
“I can’t see why Assange should be prosecuted at all”
I think there’s a substantial difference between releases of information that support a specific news story and a document dump. Just as Id see a difference between a journalist using info from a classified source to describe a cover-up or controversy etc about some part of the F-22 program and a ‘journalist’ publishing a document dump of the entire classified technical specs of that fighter.
Saying ‘send us government secrets and we will publish them for all to see’ is IMO not the same activity as journalism. Unfortunately, I can see why people defend it- the only line between the two is formed by judgment on a case-by-case basis. And therefore that line is mutable depending on the individual, moment in history, mood of the times, etc. Id much rather a hard line, but I just dont see one that 1)protects journalists and 2)protects classified information.
Im entirely open to trying to find one. Im even open to discussing the virtues of tossing out the latter, to some extent (ie if the cure is worse than the disease). But I can’t accept the assertion that wikileaks=journalism on its face.
Should the government be able to keep some information secret? And if so, what mechanisms should it have for doing so? Esp while maintaining protection for whistleblowers?
“On the Obama comment, I took that to be a dramatic way of saying that Washington is full of leakers, it happens all the time, usually with some sort of political motive behind it, and the only ones who seem to get prosecuted are the ones who embarrass the government rather than the ones who make it look good. ”
Well, in the Rosen case, from what I know so far the government seems to be going after someone who compromised national security- as opposed to going after people who release embarrassing info. And I agree with the sentiment that whistleblowers need protection, but not with the sentiment that all leakers pursued by the government are whistleblowers.
“I can’t see why Assange should be prosecuted at all”
I think there’s a substantial difference between releases of information that support a specific news story and a document dump. Just as Id see a difference between a journalist using info from a classified source to describe a cover-up or controversy etc about some part of the F-22 program and a ‘journalist’ publishing a document dump of the entire classified technical specs of that fighter.
Saying ‘send us government secrets and we will publish them for all to see’ is IMO not the same activity as journalism. Unfortunately, I can see why people defend it- the only line between the two is formed by judgment on a case-by-case basis. And therefore that line is mutable depending on the individual, moment in history, mood of the times, etc. Id much rather a hard line, but I just dont see one that 1)protects journalists and 2)protects classified information.
Im entirely open to trying to find one. Im even open to discussing the virtues of tossing out the latter, to some extent (ie if the cure is worse than the disease). But I can’t accept the assertion that wikileaks=journalism on its face.
Should the government be able to keep some information secret? And if so, what mechanisms should it have for doing so? Esp while maintaining protection for whistleblowers?
“On the Obama comment, I took that to be a dramatic way of saying that Washington is full of leakers, it happens all the time, usually with some sort of political motive behind it, and the only ones who seem to get prosecuted are the ones who embarrass the government rather than the ones who make it look good. ”
Well, in the Rosen case, from what I know so far the government seems to be going after someone who compromised national security- as opposed to going after people who release embarrassing info. And I agree with the sentiment that whistleblowers need protection, but not with the sentiment that all leakers pursued by the government are whistleblowers.
“I can’t see why Assange should be prosecuted at all”
I think there’s a substantial difference between releases of information that support a specific news story and a document dump. Just as Id see a difference between a journalist using info from a classified source to describe a cover-up or controversy etc about some part of the F-22 program and a ‘journalist’ publishing a document dump of the entire classified technical specs of that fighter.
Saying ‘send us government secrets and we will publish them for all to see’ is IMO not the same activity as journalism. Unfortunately, I can see why people defend it- the only line between the two is formed by judgment on a case-by-case basis. And therefore that line is mutable depending on the individual, moment in history, mood of the times, etc. Id much rather a hard line, but I just dont see one that 1)protects journalists and 2)protects classified information.
Im entirely open to trying to find one. Im even open to discussing the virtues of tossing out the latter, to some extent (ie if the cure is worse than the disease). But I can’t accept the assertion that wikileaks=journalism on its face.
Should the government be able to keep some information secret? And if so, what mechanisms should it have for doing so? Esp while maintaining protection for whistleblowers?
“On the Obama comment, I took that to be a dramatic way of saying that Washington is full of leakers, it happens all the time, usually with some sort of political motive behind it, and the only ones who seem to get prosecuted are the ones who embarrass the government rather than the ones who make it look good. ”
Well, in the Rosen case, from what I know so far the government seems to be going after someone who compromised national security- as opposed to going after people who release embarrassing info. And I agree with the sentiment that whistleblowers need protection, but not with the sentiment that all leakers pursued by the government are whistleblowers.
Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.
and in this case, it’s also a hypothetical.
Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.
and in this case, it’s also a hypothetical.
Using the apparatus of government agencies to badger and weaken your political opposition is a scandal.
and in this case, it’s also a hypothetical.
I will try and weigh in on some of the comments tonight.
I will try and weigh in on some of the comments tonight.
I will try and weigh in on some of the comments tonight.
“mighty whitey” is either blackhawk or from blackhawk’s neck of the backwoods.
“mighty whitey” is either blackhawk or from blackhawk’s neck of the backwoods.
“mighty whitey” is either blackhawk or from blackhawk’s neck of the backwoods.
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
A reasonable explanation:
Post Citizens’ United, lots of new groups were applying for tax-exempt status. The IRS had to sort it out.
A highly likely marker for groups applying for “social welfare” status, but which were actually intending to engage in political activity not allowed under 501(c)(4), would be the presence of “tea party” or “patriot” in the group’s name.
“Progressive” might have been an equally likely marker. It’s unclear that there were many groups with “progressive” in the name applying for the tax-exempt status.
Don’t know if that’s what happened or not. It is, however, reasonable.
My druthers in all of this would be to fire or, minimally, re-assign the folks who used an OBVIOUSLY PARTISAN filter to select groups for review, regardless of their personal intent, simply on the basis of making a freaking mess of their jobs.
I’d also like the bread crumb trail to be followed as high as it goes.
And, no further.
What I’d really, really, really like is for anyone who funds political speech to have to do so openly. I don’t really care what the tax status of your organization is, if you’re engaged in the so-called “marketplace of ideas”, then you need to step up and let us know who you are.
And yes, I recognize that that will make lots of folks uncomfortable, including folks whose agendas I support.
I might actually be one of those folks, every now and then.
So be it.
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
A reasonable explanation:
Post Citizens’ United, lots of new groups were applying for tax-exempt status. The IRS had to sort it out.
A highly likely marker for groups applying for “social welfare” status, but which were actually intending to engage in political activity not allowed under 501(c)(4), would be the presence of “tea party” or “patriot” in the group’s name.
“Progressive” might have been an equally likely marker. It’s unclear that there were many groups with “progressive” in the name applying for the tax-exempt status.
Don’t know if that’s what happened or not. It is, however, reasonable.
My druthers in all of this would be to fire or, minimally, re-assign the folks who used an OBVIOUSLY PARTISAN filter to select groups for review, regardless of their personal intent, simply on the basis of making a freaking mess of their jobs.
I’d also like the bread crumb trail to be followed as high as it goes.
And, no further.
What I’d really, really, really like is for anyone who funds political speech to have to do so openly. I don’t really care what the tax status of your organization is, if you’re engaged in the so-called “marketplace of ideas”, then you need to step up and let us know who you are.
And yes, I recognize that that will make lots of folks uncomfortable, including folks whose agendas I support.
I might actually be one of those folks, every now and then.
So be it.
I’ve yet to see a reasonable explanation, (As opposed to a simple denial.) of how one can target groups with “Tea party” in their name, but not “Progressive” in their name, and imagine you’re not engaged in something partisan.
A reasonable explanation:
Post Citizens’ United, lots of new groups were applying for tax-exempt status. The IRS had to sort it out.
A highly likely marker for groups applying for “social welfare” status, but which were actually intending to engage in political activity not allowed under 501(c)(4), would be the presence of “tea party” or “patriot” in the group’s name.
“Progressive” might have been an equally likely marker. It’s unclear that there were many groups with “progressive” in the name applying for the tax-exempt status.
Don’t know if that’s what happened or not. It is, however, reasonable.
My druthers in all of this would be to fire or, minimally, re-assign the folks who used an OBVIOUSLY PARTISAN filter to select groups for review, regardless of their personal intent, simply on the basis of making a freaking mess of their jobs.
I’d also like the bread crumb trail to be followed as high as it goes.
And, no further.
What I’d really, really, really like is for anyone who funds political speech to have to do so openly. I don’t really care what the tax status of your organization is, if you’re engaged in the so-called “marketplace of ideas”, then you need to step up and let us know who you are.
And yes, I recognize that that will make lots of folks uncomfortable, including folks whose agendas I support.
I might actually be one of those folks, every now and then.
So be it.
It is utterly bewildering to me why this is even being considered a scandal, aside from the amount of noise being made by GOP hacks and the president’s unfortunate tendency to throw his own people under the bus out of an abundance of caution.
Let’s put this in perspective: in reviewing applications for a tax-exempt status which prohibits a group from engaging in partisan political activity, some people at the IRS flagged for closer scrutiny any application that included the name of a partisan political movement whose entire raison d’etre is that they don’t like being taxed.
Scandal? I call that exercising a bare minimum requirement of common sense. For crying out loud, there are Republicans running as “Tea Party” candidates, there is a “Tea Party” caucus in Congress composed exclusively of Republicans, and yet somehow it’s beyond the pale to more closely scrutinize whether or not a group with “Tea Party” in the name is actually a partisan political organization?
This entire “scandal” is ridiculous on its face.
It is utterly bewildering to me why this is even being considered a scandal, aside from the amount of noise being made by GOP hacks and the president’s unfortunate tendency to throw his own people under the bus out of an abundance of caution.
Let’s put this in perspective: in reviewing applications for a tax-exempt status which prohibits a group from engaging in partisan political activity, some people at the IRS flagged for closer scrutiny any application that included the name of a partisan political movement whose entire raison d’etre is that they don’t like being taxed.
Scandal? I call that exercising a bare minimum requirement of common sense. For crying out loud, there are Republicans running as “Tea Party” candidates, there is a “Tea Party” caucus in Congress composed exclusively of Republicans, and yet somehow it’s beyond the pale to more closely scrutinize whether or not a group with “Tea Party” in the name is actually a partisan political organization?
This entire “scandal” is ridiculous on its face.
It is utterly bewildering to me why this is even being considered a scandal, aside from the amount of noise being made by GOP hacks and the president’s unfortunate tendency to throw his own people under the bus out of an abundance of caution.
Let’s put this in perspective: in reviewing applications for a tax-exempt status which prohibits a group from engaging in partisan political activity, some people at the IRS flagged for closer scrutiny any application that included the name of a partisan political movement whose entire raison d’etre is that they don’t like being taxed.
Scandal? I call that exercising a bare minimum requirement of common sense. For crying out loud, there are Republicans running as “Tea Party” candidates, there is a “Tea Party” caucus in Congress composed exclusively of Republicans, and yet somehow it’s beyond the pale to more closely scrutinize whether or not a group with “Tea Party” in the name is actually a partisan political organization?
This entire “scandal” is ridiculous on its face.
“Let’s put this in perspective: in reviewing applications for a tax-exempt status which prohibits a group from engaging in partisan political activity, some people at the IRS flagged for closer scrutiny any application that included the name of” partisan political movements of one persuasion, but not the opposite. Thereby exhibiting partisan bias.
“Let’s put this in perspective: in reviewing applications for a tax-exempt status which prohibits a group from engaging in partisan political activity, some people at the IRS flagged for closer scrutiny any application that included the name of” partisan political movements of one persuasion, but not the opposite. Thereby exhibiting partisan bias.
“Let’s put this in perspective: in reviewing applications for a tax-exempt status which prohibits a group from engaging in partisan political activity, some people at the IRS flagged for closer scrutiny any application that included the name of” partisan political movements of one persuasion, but not the opposite. Thereby exhibiting partisan bias.
If you name your organization after the acts of political revolutionaries and claim that your organization is non-political, then cite Ayn Rand as an influence and claim that your organization is exclusively concerned with furthering goals of social welfare, you are up to no good, that’s for damn sure.
If you name your organization after the acts of political revolutionaries and claim that your organization is non-political, then cite Ayn Rand as an influence and claim that your organization is exclusively concerned with furthering goals of social welfare, you are up to no good, that’s for damn sure.
If you name your organization after the acts of political revolutionaries and claim that your organization is non-political, then cite Ayn Rand as an influence and claim that your organization is exclusively concerned with furthering goals of social welfare, you are up to no good, that’s for damn sure.
Yes, let’s put it in perspective. The Bush administration targetted liveral churches and put them through extensive adudits, while protecting Karl Rove’s network of churches that were a major component of the Republican GOTV effort.
Remember all the Democratic screaming about that, the scandal in the ews for weks, the Congressional hearings, the demands for a special prosecutor, the Democrats on Sunday shows innsisting that it was th egreatest scandal in living memory…
Meanwhile this situation consists of …what? Some staffers out in Cincinnati may have been looking harder at rightwing political groups than others, their behavior was corrected, and some heads rolled.
So what scandal?
There’s partisan bias aplenty, but it is as usual the hyper partisan bias of Republican politicians and their enablers.
Yes, let’s put it in perspective. The Bush administration targetted liveral churches and put them through extensive adudits, while protecting Karl Rove’s network of churches that were a major component of the Republican GOTV effort.
Remember all the Democratic screaming about that, the scandal in the ews for weks, the Congressional hearings, the demands for a special prosecutor, the Democrats on Sunday shows innsisting that it was th egreatest scandal in living memory…
Meanwhile this situation consists of …what? Some staffers out in Cincinnati may have been looking harder at rightwing political groups than others, their behavior was corrected, and some heads rolled.
So what scandal?
There’s partisan bias aplenty, but it is as usual the hyper partisan bias of Republican politicians and their enablers.
Yes, let’s put it in perspective. The Bush administration targetted liveral churches and put them through extensive adudits, while protecting Karl Rove’s network of churches that were a major component of the Republican GOTV effort.
Remember all the Democratic screaming about that, the scandal in the ews for weks, the Congressional hearings, the demands for a special prosecutor, the Democrats on Sunday shows innsisting that it was th egreatest scandal in living memory…
Meanwhile this situation consists of …what? Some staffers out in Cincinnati may have been looking harder at rightwing political groups than others, their behavior was corrected, and some heads rolled.
So what scandal?
There’s partisan bias aplenty, but it is as usual the hyper partisan bias of Republican politicians and their enablers.
No, no, no. You’re missing the point. The point is that the groups explicitly used, in their name, the name of a partisan political movement that is dedicated to not having to pay taxes. And they were applying for a tax-exempt status that requires them to not engage in partisan political activities. Do you not see why this wouldn’t be a giant flashing red flag to anyone reviewing those applications who was actually doing their job? In a way that is simply not true of, say, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS?
Any additional scrutiny on these groups was absolutely warranted. It would’ve been negligence not to look more closely at whether or not they were really on the level, or if they were just looking to avoid paying taxes while engaging in political activity as their very name suggests.
No, no, no. You’re missing the point. The point is that the groups explicitly used, in their name, the name of a partisan political movement that is dedicated to not having to pay taxes. And they were applying for a tax-exempt status that requires them to not engage in partisan political activities. Do you not see why this wouldn’t be a giant flashing red flag to anyone reviewing those applications who was actually doing their job? In a way that is simply not true of, say, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS?
Any additional scrutiny on these groups was absolutely warranted. It would’ve been negligence not to look more closely at whether or not they were really on the level, or if they were just looking to avoid paying taxes while engaging in political activity as their very name suggests.
No, no, no. You’re missing the point. The point is that the groups explicitly used, in their name, the name of a partisan political movement that is dedicated to not having to pay taxes. And they were applying for a tax-exempt status that requires them to not engage in partisan political activities. Do you not see why this wouldn’t be a giant flashing red flag to anyone reviewing those applications who was actually doing their job? In a way that is simply not true of, say, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS?
Any additional scrutiny on these groups was absolutely warranted. It would’ve been negligence not to look more closely at whether or not they were really on the level, or if they were just looking to avoid paying taxes while engaging in political activity as their very name suggests.
and those of us who dislike the Republican President Obama, mighty whitey’s comment just fill me with untold laughter and amazement at these “kind” who live in their la la land. i can’t stand Obama. i do enjoy watching the Right go full out Nixon in their hate for Obama. talk about insanity.
also it is fun the watch the Republicans here claim this is nothing but a Democratic President going after Republicans, via the IRS. and the indignation of the Rightwingers at such a prospect of being investigated for being “partisan”. having the obvious bigotry of low expectations of the name Tea Party attached to your “group” with that Title being investigated by the IRS. Frankly, i liked to hear of ONE, just one Tea Party Group, that isn’t a front for the Koch Bros, Karl Rove, and the rest of the usual cast of suspects that call themselves Rightwingers.
please don’t waste your breath trying to sound noble and injured at the prospect of such obvious partisan hackery. i’d expect teh IRS to investigate any and all groups who want “tax benefits” free goodies. it is just so plain to see what is going on with the Rightwingers in Congress and their cohorts in Money fueled groups.
do you really have to take these people’s word’s and expect them to be telling the truth. lol if you do, then, i have some wetlands in West Texas for sale.
or as the famous St. Reagan said to Gorbachev, “Trust but Verify.”
lol. and of course Both sides do it!!!
and those of us who dislike the Republican President Obama, mighty whitey’s comment just fill me with untold laughter and amazement at these “kind” who live in their la la land. i can’t stand Obama. i do enjoy watching the Right go full out Nixon in their hate for Obama. talk about insanity.
also it is fun the watch the Republicans here claim this is nothing but a Democratic President going after Republicans, via the IRS. and the indignation of the Rightwingers at such a prospect of being investigated for being “partisan”. having the obvious bigotry of low expectations of the name Tea Party attached to your “group” with that Title being investigated by the IRS. Frankly, i liked to hear of ONE, just one Tea Party Group, that isn’t a front for the Koch Bros, Karl Rove, and the rest of the usual cast of suspects that call themselves Rightwingers.
please don’t waste your breath trying to sound noble and injured at the prospect of such obvious partisan hackery. i’d expect teh IRS to investigate any and all groups who want “tax benefits” free goodies. it is just so plain to see what is going on with the Rightwingers in Congress and their cohorts in Money fueled groups.
do you really have to take these people’s word’s and expect them to be telling the truth. lol if you do, then, i have some wetlands in West Texas for sale.
or as the famous St. Reagan said to Gorbachev, “Trust but Verify.”
lol. and of course Both sides do it!!!
and those of us who dislike the Republican President Obama, mighty whitey’s comment just fill me with untold laughter and amazement at these “kind” who live in their la la land. i can’t stand Obama. i do enjoy watching the Right go full out Nixon in their hate for Obama. talk about insanity.
also it is fun the watch the Republicans here claim this is nothing but a Democratic President going after Republicans, via the IRS. and the indignation of the Rightwingers at such a prospect of being investigated for being “partisan”. having the obvious bigotry of low expectations of the name Tea Party attached to your “group” with that Title being investigated by the IRS. Frankly, i liked to hear of ONE, just one Tea Party Group, that isn’t a front for the Koch Bros, Karl Rove, and the rest of the usual cast of suspects that call themselves Rightwingers.
please don’t waste your breath trying to sound noble and injured at the prospect of such obvious partisan hackery. i’d expect teh IRS to investigate any and all groups who want “tax benefits” free goodies. it is just so plain to see what is going on with the Rightwingers in Congress and their cohorts in Money fueled groups.
do you really have to take these people’s word’s and expect them to be telling the truth. lol if you do, then, i have some wetlands in West Texas for sale.
or as the famous St. Reagan said to Gorbachev, “Trust but Verify.”
lol. and of course Both sides do it!!!
I should weigh in seriously, but – aside from the fact I have nothing new to say – I got distracted by the concept of “Marxist sodomites.”
Is the implication that all Marxists are sodomites? Or that all sodomites are Marxists? Neither claim seems plausible, though we could at least attempt empirical investigation.
Or is there a particular subset of both groups who are both Marxists AND sodomites? If so, are these separate and distinct categories – one intellectual/political, the other pertaining to sexual behavior – and, if so, is the overlap merely coincidental?
Or – and here where my mind troubles me – should we be imagining scenarios in which one performs sodomy in a Marxist manner, or, conversely, deploys Marxist analysis in a sodomitical style? (The exact details of these alternatives are left as an exercise for the reader.)
This is the kind of question that comes up when one is easily distracted . . .
. . . Squirrel! Squirrel!
I should weigh in seriously, but – aside from the fact I have nothing new to say – I got distracted by the concept of “Marxist sodomites.”
Is the implication that all Marxists are sodomites? Or that all sodomites are Marxists? Neither claim seems plausible, though we could at least attempt empirical investigation.
Or is there a particular subset of both groups who are both Marxists AND sodomites? If so, are these separate and distinct categories – one intellectual/political, the other pertaining to sexual behavior – and, if so, is the overlap merely coincidental?
Or – and here where my mind troubles me – should we be imagining scenarios in which one performs sodomy in a Marxist manner, or, conversely, deploys Marxist analysis in a sodomitical style? (The exact details of these alternatives are left as an exercise for the reader.)
This is the kind of question that comes up when one is easily distracted . . .
. . . Squirrel! Squirrel!
I should weigh in seriously, but – aside from the fact I have nothing new to say – I got distracted by the concept of “Marxist sodomites.”
Is the implication that all Marxists are sodomites? Or that all sodomites are Marxists? Neither claim seems plausible, though we could at least attempt empirical investigation.
Or is there a particular subset of both groups who are both Marxists AND sodomites? If so, are these separate and distinct categories – one intellectual/political, the other pertaining to sexual behavior – and, if so, is the overlap merely coincidental?
Or – and here where my mind troubles me – should we be imagining scenarios in which one performs sodomy in a Marxist manner, or, conversely, deploys Marxist analysis in a sodomitical style? (The exact details of these alternatives are left as an exercise for the reader.)
This is the kind of question that comes up when one is easily distracted . . .
. . . Squirrel! Squirrel!
There seems to be a strong tendency here to ignore elements of the, yes, scandal that don’t fit the “Nothing to see here, move on.” narrative.
For instance, the almost wistful hope that scads of mistreated liberal organizations are just lurking in the background, inexplicably not disclosed yet. Despite the IRS already having admitted they inappropriately targeted conservative organizations.
The asking of questions, under penalty of perjury, that the IRS is simply not entitled to the answers to. Like what you’re praying about. Whether any of your officers have political ambitions. Print out all of your members’ facebook posts.
Demands for donor lists. Donors get audited, too.
Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones.
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
There seems to be a strong tendency here to ignore elements of the, yes, scandal that don’t fit the “Nothing to see here, move on.” narrative.
For instance, the almost wistful hope that scads of mistreated liberal organizations are just lurking in the background, inexplicably not disclosed yet. Despite the IRS already having admitted they inappropriately targeted conservative organizations.
The asking of questions, under penalty of perjury, that the IRS is simply not entitled to the answers to. Like what you’re praying about. Whether any of your officers have political ambitions. Print out all of your members’ facebook posts.
Demands for donor lists. Donors get audited, too.
Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones.
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
There seems to be a strong tendency here to ignore elements of the, yes, scandal that don’t fit the “Nothing to see here, move on.” narrative.
For instance, the almost wistful hope that scads of mistreated liberal organizations are just lurking in the background, inexplicably not disclosed yet. Despite the IRS already having admitted they inappropriately targeted conservative organizations.
The asking of questions, under penalty of perjury, that the IRS is simply not entitled to the answers to. Like what you’re praying about. Whether any of your officers have political ambitions. Print out all of your members’ facebook posts.
Demands for donor lists. Donors get audited, too.
Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones.
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
For instance, the almost wistful hope that scads of mistreated liberal organizations are just lurking in the background, inexplicably not disclosed yet.
Does anyone have an actual breakdown on how many groups with obvious liberal or progressive language in their name or mission statement applied for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4)?
If 100 groups with “tea party” in the name applied, and 100 groups with “progressive” in the name applied, and only tea party groups were singled out, that’s one scenario.
If 100 groups with “tea party” in the name applied, and 1 or 5 or 0 with “progressive” in the name applied, that’s a different scenario.
And, last but not least, I will make the observation that this kind of horseshit is pretty much exactly what you can expect when you try to fashion a legal code around the fiction that lobbying members of Congress and advocating explicitly partisan positions on matters of public interest are any kind of “social welfare”.
They’re not. They’re acts of political speech.
If you want to engage in political speech, you should give up the veil of anonymity. In particular, if you want to contribute money to fund political speech, you should definitely give up the veil of anonymity.
We should figure out whose bright idea it was to use “tea party” and “patriot” as the red flags to identify groups to audit, and find something else for them to do, because their actions and decisions were, at a minimum, harmfully inappropriate.
If it can be demonstrated that there was partisan intent, they should be liable for whatever criminal or civil penalties apply.
Whatever investigation is conducted should go as high as the facts lead.
But all of this is a freaking side-show.
We’re trying to trim away the rotten part of the apple, and then everybody screams when their little bit gets carved away.
The whole apple is rotten.
Here’s a very simple solution to crap like this.
If you engage in political speech, including funding political speech (since, as we know, money is speech) then you sign your name to it. You disclose who you are, and what you did, including how much you spent.
If you want to engage in political speech in the name of “social welfare”, it’s still political freaking speech. No anonymity, no tax exemption, no special treatment.
If you want to engage in social welfare, buy somebody lunch. And for “somebody”, read “not a Congressperson”.
For instance, the almost wistful hope that scads of mistreated liberal organizations are just lurking in the background, inexplicably not disclosed yet.
Does anyone have an actual breakdown on how many groups with obvious liberal or progressive language in their name or mission statement applied for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4)?
If 100 groups with “tea party” in the name applied, and 100 groups with “progressive” in the name applied, and only tea party groups were singled out, that’s one scenario.
If 100 groups with “tea party” in the name applied, and 1 or 5 or 0 with “progressive” in the name applied, that’s a different scenario.
And, last but not least, I will make the observation that this kind of horseshit is pretty much exactly what you can expect when you try to fashion a legal code around the fiction that lobbying members of Congress and advocating explicitly partisan positions on matters of public interest are any kind of “social welfare”.
They’re not. They’re acts of political speech.
If you want to engage in political speech, you should give up the veil of anonymity. In particular, if you want to contribute money to fund political speech, you should definitely give up the veil of anonymity.
We should figure out whose bright idea it was to use “tea party” and “patriot” as the red flags to identify groups to audit, and find something else for them to do, because their actions and decisions were, at a minimum, harmfully inappropriate.
If it can be demonstrated that there was partisan intent, they should be liable for whatever criminal or civil penalties apply.
Whatever investigation is conducted should go as high as the facts lead.
But all of this is a freaking side-show.
We’re trying to trim away the rotten part of the apple, and then everybody screams when their little bit gets carved away.
The whole apple is rotten.
Here’s a very simple solution to crap like this.
If you engage in political speech, including funding political speech (since, as we know, money is speech) then you sign your name to it. You disclose who you are, and what you did, including how much you spent.
If you want to engage in political speech in the name of “social welfare”, it’s still political freaking speech. No anonymity, no tax exemption, no special treatment.
If you want to engage in social welfare, buy somebody lunch. And for “somebody”, read “not a Congressperson”.
For instance, the almost wistful hope that scads of mistreated liberal organizations are just lurking in the background, inexplicably not disclosed yet.
Does anyone have an actual breakdown on how many groups with obvious liberal or progressive language in their name or mission statement applied for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4)?
If 100 groups with “tea party” in the name applied, and 100 groups with “progressive” in the name applied, and only tea party groups were singled out, that’s one scenario.
If 100 groups with “tea party” in the name applied, and 1 or 5 or 0 with “progressive” in the name applied, that’s a different scenario.
And, last but not least, I will make the observation that this kind of horseshit is pretty much exactly what you can expect when you try to fashion a legal code around the fiction that lobbying members of Congress and advocating explicitly partisan positions on matters of public interest are any kind of “social welfare”.
They’re not. They’re acts of political speech.
If you want to engage in political speech, you should give up the veil of anonymity. In particular, if you want to contribute money to fund political speech, you should definitely give up the veil of anonymity.
We should figure out whose bright idea it was to use “tea party” and “patriot” as the red flags to identify groups to audit, and find something else for them to do, because their actions and decisions were, at a minimum, harmfully inappropriate.
If it can be demonstrated that there was partisan intent, they should be liable for whatever criminal or civil penalties apply.
Whatever investigation is conducted should go as high as the facts lead.
But all of this is a freaking side-show.
We’re trying to trim away the rotten part of the apple, and then everybody screams when their little bit gets carved away.
The whole apple is rotten.
Here’s a very simple solution to crap like this.
If you engage in political speech, including funding political speech (since, as we know, money is speech) then you sign your name to it. You disclose who you are, and what you did, including how much you spent.
If you want to engage in political speech in the name of “social welfare”, it’s still political freaking speech. No anonymity, no tax exemption, no special treatment.
If you want to engage in social welfare, buy somebody lunch. And for “somebody”, read “not a Congressperson”.
Actually, Brett, you are ignoring the point. The point is that the Bush Adminitsrtion engaged in using the IRS to audit on a differential basis with no outrage from the Republicans who now claim to be nonparitsanly concerned, while the problem of using key words to find rightwinig political groups that don’t merit tax exemption has been solved, repsonsiblity has been taken and people have lost their jobs by the current Democratic administration. In other words the Democratic administration, unlike the Republican one, TOOK RESPONSIBLITY AND ACTION SO THST THE PROBLEM IS GONE.
Yet the screaming mimis on the right scream on, because that’s all they have, except for Ayn Rand and religous faaticism.
Actually, Brett, you are ignoring the point. The point is that the Bush Adminitsrtion engaged in using the IRS to audit on a differential basis with no outrage from the Republicans who now claim to be nonparitsanly concerned, while the problem of using key words to find rightwinig political groups that don’t merit tax exemption has been solved, repsonsiblity has been taken and people have lost their jobs by the current Democratic administration. In other words the Democratic administration, unlike the Republican one, TOOK RESPONSIBLITY AND ACTION SO THST THE PROBLEM IS GONE.
Yet the screaming mimis on the right scream on, because that’s all they have, except for Ayn Rand and religous faaticism.
Actually, Brett, you are ignoring the point. The point is that the Bush Adminitsrtion engaged in using the IRS to audit on a differential basis with no outrage from the Republicans who now claim to be nonparitsanly concerned, while the problem of using key words to find rightwinig political groups that don’t merit tax exemption has been solved, repsonsiblity has been taken and people have lost their jobs by the current Democratic administration. In other words the Democratic administration, unlike the Republican one, TOOK RESPONSIBLITY AND ACTION SO THST THE PROBLEM IS GONE.
Yet the screaming mimis on the right scream on, because that’s all they have, except for Ayn Rand and religous faaticism.
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
and you’re inventing details to make it look bad while pretending innocent explanations are impossible because of hand waving.
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
and you’re inventing details to make it look bad while pretending innocent explanations are impossible because of hand waving.
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
and you’re inventing details to make it look bad while pretending innocent explanations are impossible because of hand waving.
A Marxist sodomite is a right-wing Tea Party member, ahem, who looks you in the eyes and claims all government subsidy is theft and then reaches around the back way to claim his, the minx.
A Marxist sodomite is a right-wing Tea Party member, ahem, who looks you in the eyes and claims all government subsidy is theft and then reaches around the back way to claim his, the minx.
A Marxist sodomite is a right-wing Tea Party member, ahem, who looks you in the eyes and claims all government subsidy is theft and then reaches around the back way to claim his, the minx.
Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones.
And that is? Because let’s face it, without that this just isn’t an Obama Administration scandal, it’s a bureaucratic cock-up. Im perfectly willing to admit ‘bureaucratic cock-up’ with the caveats above that this was more likely a bad response to a bad problem than some sort of witch hunt.
Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones.
And that is? Because let’s face it, without that this just isn’t an Obama Administration scandal, it’s a bureaucratic cock-up. Im perfectly willing to admit ‘bureaucratic cock-up’ with the caveats above that this was more likely a bad response to a bad problem than some sort of witch hunt.
Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones.
And that is? Because let’s face it, without that this just isn’t an Obama Administration scandal, it’s a bureaucratic cock-up. Im perfectly willing to admit ‘bureaucratic cock-up’ with the caveats above that this was more likely a bad response to a bad problem than some sort of witch hunt.
Now, a “chocolate messiah” is what poor Yorick Yorickson sees in the mirror after his wife tells him, “I see you put your foot in it again on FOX, sh*thead!”
As an aside, I notice Yorick referenced the animal kingdom as a model for his wife staying home to launder his shorts and keep her shotgun cleaned and oiled, which, I don’t know, seems like a nod to Godless evolution, but the science escapes me.
But it could be that “Chocolate Messiah” was originally the runner-up contender
for the name of a best-selling Swedish candy bar.
The winning entry was “Plop”.
You can look it up.
Now, a “chocolate messiah” is what poor Yorick Yorickson sees in the mirror after his wife tells him, “I see you put your foot in it again on FOX, sh*thead!”
As an aside, I notice Yorick referenced the animal kingdom as a model for his wife staying home to launder his shorts and keep her shotgun cleaned and oiled, which, I don’t know, seems like a nod to Godless evolution, but the science escapes me.
But it could be that “Chocolate Messiah” was originally the runner-up contender
for the name of a best-selling Swedish candy bar.
The winning entry was “Plop”.
You can look it up.
Now, a “chocolate messiah” is what poor Yorick Yorickson sees in the mirror after his wife tells him, “I see you put your foot in it again on FOX, sh*thead!”
As an aside, I notice Yorick referenced the animal kingdom as a model for his wife staying home to launder his shorts and keep her shotgun cleaned and oiled, which, I don’t know, seems like a nod to Godless evolution, but the science escapes me.
But it could be that “Chocolate Messiah” was originally the runner-up contender
for the name of a best-selling Swedish candy bar.
The winning entry was “Plop”.
You can look it up.
the followers of the Chocolate Messiah call him “Choco”.
the followers of the Chocolate Messiah call him “Choco”.
the followers of the Chocolate Messiah call him “Choco”.
err, umm… choco?
err, umm… choco?
err, umm… choco?
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
Oh, it does look bad. Just not in the way or to the degree you seem to think, Brett. See Carleton Wu | May 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM for something concise (or read through the whole damned thread again, not that I think either will matter).
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
Oh, it does look bad. Just not in the way or to the degree you seem to think, Brett. See Carleton Wu | May 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM for something concise (or read through the whole damned thread again, not that I think either will matter).
You’re just eliding any details that make it look bad, and then declaring it doesn’t look bad.
Oh, it does look bad. Just not in the way or to the degree you seem to think, Brett. See Carleton Wu | May 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM for something concise (or read through the whole damned thread again, not that I think either will matter).
Look, I don’t think for a second this was orchestrated from the White House. The payoff was way too small to take the blow if it were traced back to them. Rather, I think that this is one of those “Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest?” cases, where the guy on the top expresses his less than obsessive opposition to the idea, (Publicly joking about abusive audits, for instance.) and the underlings leap to please him, because almost all of them are of his ideological persuasion to begin with.
That, IMO, is the real scandal here: That the institutional culture at the IRS is open to doing things like this. The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left, and insufficiently scrupulous about what they’re doing, that it never struck them that doing this was unseemly.
Look, I don’t think for a second this was orchestrated from the White House. The payoff was way too small to take the blow if it were traced back to them. Rather, I think that this is one of those “Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest?” cases, where the guy on the top expresses his less than obsessive opposition to the idea, (Publicly joking about abusive audits, for instance.) and the underlings leap to please him, because almost all of them are of his ideological persuasion to begin with.
That, IMO, is the real scandal here: That the institutional culture at the IRS is open to doing things like this. The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left, and insufficiently scrupulous about what they’re doing, that it never struck them that doing this was unseemly.
Look, I don’t think for a second this was orchestrated from the White House. The payoff was way too small to take the blow if it were traced back to them. Rather, I think that this is one of those “Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest?” cases, where the guy on the top expresses his less than obsessive opposition to the idea, (Publicly joking about abusive audits, for instance.) and the underlings leap to please him, because almost all of them are of his ideological persuasion to begin with.
That, IMO, is the real scandal here: That the institutional culture at the IRS is open to doing things like this. The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left, and insufficiently scrupulous about what they’re doing, that it never struck them that doing this was unseemly.
So let me get this straight: when you said Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones, you meant “the activity was the idea of some low level drones” (nb this is the opposite thing btw) and also “that activity has some nebulous by-definition-untraceable connection with Obama” and added “the IRS is dominated by liberals just like every other organization that disagrees with conservatives, eg Science”.
So let me get this straight: when you said Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones, you meant “the activity was the idea of some low level drones” (nb this is the opposite thing btw) and also “that activity has some nebulous by-definition-untraceable connection with Obama” and added “the IRS is dominated by liberals just like every other organization that disagrees with conservatives, eg Science”.
So let me get this straight: when you said Evidence that the activity wasn’t just the idea of some low level drones, you meant “the activity was the idea of some low level drones” (nb this is the opposite thing btw) and also “that activity has some nebulous by-definition-untraceable connection with Obama” and added “the IRS is dominated by liberals just like every other organization that disagrees with conservatives, eg Science”.
“because almost all of them are of his ideological persuasion to begin with.”
Could you break down the party registrations and voting records of the 90,000 or so IRS employees?
We’ll skip the part-time seasonal workers, since they only skew socialist on a part-time basis.
You might explain how you are privy to this information as well, since I thought one’s voting habits were private affairs in those secretive little voting booths.
Or is your statistical methodology something along the lines of gaydar?
I could help you find the campaign contributions skew of IRS employees if you like, but I don’t feel like it because it gives new meaning to the words “almost all”.
By almost all, do you mean 90%?
Did George Bush have a handle on, or maybe a direct line, to the very few (more than a dozen? two dozen of the 90,000?) IRS employees who shared his ideological persuasion when his administration investigated churches, individuals, and liberal groups who were against the War in IRAQ, not to mention all things Republican?
Seems like a hell of a workload for so few employees. I wonder if they dragooned some of the remaining liberal “most” to help them with that intimidation and harassment, which, if so, looks like cannibalism to me.
IRS employees must have skewed wildly Left from 1968 through 1974 too, given it was hippie-time, which must have made it doubly difficult for Richard Nixon to order so many IRS audits of his liberal and Jewish enemies in the media, the universities, and well, just about any bed the man looked under.
Typical liberal (not all … ALMOST ALL) IRS employee of the time: “I hate Richard Nixon and all conservatives, but baby, I loves me an audit!”
Public Employee Unions always skew wildly Left because they sleep with Obama?
Maybe not:
From a recent New Yorker article, a magazine that almost always skew Left, but who manages to interview Republican politicians and their lapdogs in the right-wing public employee unions:
“Organized labor, though, has not always been pro-immigration, and there are union locals that oppose the current reform, notably two public-employee unions that together represent twenty thousand workers in the Department of Homeland Security. Chris Crane, the president of one, has loudly campaigned against the Senate bill and against the Administration’s immigration policy, to the point of suing his boss, Janet Napolitano, in federal court for allegedly violating immigration law. He was recently joined by Kenneth Palinkas, the head of the other union, who says that national security will be compromised, as his members, who handle immigration paperwork, face “an insurmountable bureaucracy.” Crane told the Senate Judiciary Committee, regarding the bill, “Never before have I seen such contempt for law-enforcement officers.” He works closely with Jeff Sessions and other legislators. Watching conservative Republicans tout the views of union bosses—bosses of public-employee unions, no less—has a certain piquancy. But Crane, a telegenic former marine, may be a key player in the reform opponents’ endgame. He has already bullied Marco Rubio, of Florida, the leading figure among the Republican drafters of the bill, into embarrassing protestations of respect. Rubio plans to increase the border-security features of the legislation when it comes before the full Senate.”
After a sandwich, I’m going to make up a bunch of sh#t about the ideological skew, voting habits, and party registrations of the more than several millions of civilian and uniformed members of the Department of Defense, the several branches of the Armed Forces, and the edifice of civilian defense contractors and I’ll bet you another sandwich my “almost all” is closer to the mark than your “almost all.”
In closing, (always be closing, and I wish I would already) let me say that a former neighbor of mine (nice guy) was a managerial class employee with the IRS and he was a gun-loving Republican.
But he may have been the only one.
“because almost all of them are of his ideological persuasion to begin with.”
Could you break down the party registrations and voting records of the 90,000 or so IRS employees?
We’ll skip the part-time seasonal workers, since they only skew socialist on a part-time basis.
You might explain how you are privy to this information as well, since I thought one’s voting habits were private affairs in those secretive little voting booths.
Or is your statistical methodology something along the lines of gaydar?
I could help you find the campaign contributions skew of IRS employees if you like, but I don’t feel like it because it gives new meaning to the words “almost all”.
By almost all, do you mean 90%?
Did George Bush have a handle on, or maybe a direct line, to the very few (more than a dozen? two dozen of the 90,000?) IRS employees who shared his ideological persuasion when his administration investigated churches, individuals, and liberal groups who were against the War in IRAQ, not to mention all things Republican?
Seems like a hell of a workload for so few employees. I wonder if they dragooned some of the remaining liberal “most” to help them with that intimidation and harassment, which, if so, looks like cannibalism to me.
IRS employees must have skewed wildly Left from 1968 through 1974 too, given it was hippie-time, which must have made it doubly difficult for Richard Nixon to order so many IRS audits of his liberal and Jewish enemies in the media, the universities, and well, just about any bed the man looked under.
Typical liberal (not all … ALMOST ALL) IRS employee of the time: “I hate Richard Nixon and all conservatives, but baby, I loves me an audit!”
Public Employee Unions always skew wildly Left because they sleep with Obama?
Maybe not:
From a recent New Yorker article, a magazine that almost always skew Left, but who manages to interview Republican politicians and their lapdogs in the right-wing public employee unions:
“Organized labor, though, has not always been pro-immigration, and there are union locals that oppose the current reform, notably two public-employee unions that together represent twenty thousand workers in the Department of Homeland Security. Chris Crane, the president of one, has loudly campaigned against the Senate bill and against the Administration’s immigration policy, to the point of suing his boss, Janet Napolitano, in federal court for allegedly violating immigration law. He was recently joined by Kenneth Palinkas, the head of the other union, who says that national security will be compromised, as his members, who handle immigration paperwork, face “an insurmountable bureaucracy.” Crane told the Senate Judiciary Committee, regarding the bill, “Never before have I seen such contempt for law-enforcement officers.” He works closely with Jeff Sessions and other legislators. Watching conservative Republicans tout the views of union bosses—bosses of public-employee unions, no less—has a certain piquancy. But Crane, a telegenic former marine, may be a key player in the reform opponents’ endgame. He has already bullied Marco Rubio, of Florida, the leading figure among the Republican drafters of the bill, into embarrassing protestations of respect. Rubio plans to increase the border-security features of the legislation when it comes before the full Senate.”
After a sandwich, I’m going to make up a bunch of sh#t about the ideological skew, voting habits, and party registrations of the more than several millions of civilian and uniformed members of the Department of Defense, the several branches of the Armed Forces, and the edifice of civilian defense contractors and I’ll bet you another sandwich my “almost all” is closer to the mark than your “almost all.”
In closing, (always be closing, and I wish I would already) let me say that a former neighbor of mine (nice guy) was a managerial class employee with the IRS and he was a gun-loving Republican.
But he may have been the only one.
“because almost all of them are of his ideological persuasion to begin with.”
Could you break down the party registrations and voting records of the 90,000 or so IRS employees?
We’ll skip the part-time seasonal workers, since they only skew socialist on a part-time basis.
You might explain how you are privy to this information as well, since I thought one’s voting habits were private affairs in those secretive little voting booths.
Or is your statistical methodology something along the lines of gaydar?
I could help you find the campaign contributions skew of IRS employees if you like, but I don’t feel like it because it gives new meaning to the words “almost all”.
By almost all, do you mean 90%?
Did George Bush have a handle on, or maybe a direct line, to the very few (more than a dozen? two dozen of the 90,000?) IRS employees who shared his ideological persuasion when his administration investigated churches, individuals, and liberal groups who were against the War in IRAQ, not to mention all things Republican?
Seems like a hell of a workload for so few employees. I wonder if they dragooned some of the remaining liberal “most” to help them with that intimidation and harassment, which, if so, looks like cannibalism to me.
IRS employees must have skewed wildly Left from 1968 through 1974 too, given it was hippie-time, which must have made it doubly difficult for Richard Nixon to order so many IRS audits of his liberal and Jewish enemies in the media, the universities, and well, just about any bed the man looked under.
Typical liberal (not all … ALMOST ALL) IRS employee of the time: “I hate Richard Nixon and all conservatives, but baby, I loves me an audit!”
Public Employee Unions always skew wildly Left because they sleep with Obama?
Maybe not:
From a recent New Yorker article, a magazine that almost always skew Left, but who manages to interview Republican politicians and their lapdogs in the right-wing public employee unions:
“Organized labor, though, has not always been pro-immigration, and there are union locals that oppose the current reform, notably two public-employee unions that together represent twenty thousand workers in the Department of Homeland Security. Chris Crane, the president of one, has loudly campaigned against the Senate bill and against the Administration’s immigration policy, to the point of suing his boss, Janet Napolitano, in federal court for allegedly violating immigration law. He was recently joined by Kenneth Palinkas, the head of the other union, who says that national security will be compromised, as his members, who handle immigration paperwork, face “an insurmountable bureaucracy.” Crane told the Senate Judiciary Committee, regarding the bill, “Never before have I seen such contempt for law-enforcement officers.” He works closely with Jeff Sessions and other legislators. Watching conservative Republicans tout the views of union bosses—bosses of public-employee unions, no less—has a certain piquancy. But Crane, a telegenic former marine, may be a key player in the reform opponents’ endgame. He has already bullied Marco Rubio, of Florida, the leading figure among the Republican drafters of the bill, into embarrassing protestations of respect. Rubio plans to increase the border-security features of the legislation when it comes before the full Senate.”
After a sandwich, I’m going to make up a bunch of sh#t about the ideological skew, voting habits, and party registrations of the more than several millions of civilian and uniformed members of the Department of Defense, the several branches of the Armed Forces, and the edifice of civilian defense contractors and I’ll bet you another sandwich my “almost all” is closer to the mark than your “almost all.”
In closing, (always be closing, and I wish I would already) let me say that a former neighbor of mine (nice guy) was a managerial class employee with the IRS and he was a gun-loving Republican.
But he may have been the only one.
The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left
So, we have some kind of left-wing Gramscian hegemonic dynamic going on at the IRS?
This is a load of crap.
Demonstrate otherwise if you can and care to.
Otherwise, it will be filed under load o’ crap.
The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left
So, we have some kind of left-wing Gramscian hegemonic dynamic going on at the IRS?
This is a load of crap.
Demonstrate otherwise if you can and care to.
Otherwise, it will be filed under load o’ crap.
The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left
So, we have some kind of left-wing Gramscian hegemonic dynamic going on at the IRS?
This is a load of crap.
Demonstrate otherwise if you can and care to.
Otherwise, it will be filed under load o’ crap.
Yet another load of crap:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/story-you-knew-was-bullshit-yeah-it-was-bullshit
If you read Drum’s commentary, you’ll find that he uses the term “nearly all”, which I’ll wager is nearer to the mark than “almost all”.
I think the IRS should prioritize scrutiny and tax audits according to who in the country is most full of lying bullsh*t, and then cross-reference that list with the one keep of the Republican power elite in media and government and, in the interest of bureaucratic efficiency, make one list for the auditors to sharpen their chops.
Why have two identical lists?
The only question remaining, then, will be to audit these people before they are killed and eaten, or afterwards.
Well, not ALL of them, but most of them.
Say, 35%, which would send a message to the other 65%.
Yet another load of crap:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/story-you-knew-was-bullshit-yeah-it-was-bullshit
If you read Drum’s commentary, you’ll find that he uses the term “nearly all”, which I’ll wager is nearer to the mark than “almost all”.
I think the IRS should prioritize scrutiny and tax audits according to who in the country is most full of lying bullsh*t, and then cross-reference that list with the one keep of the Republican power elite in media and government and, in the interest of bureaucratic efficiency, make one list for the auditors to sharpen their chops.
Why have two identical lists?
The only question remaining, then, will be to audit these people before they are killed and eaten, or afterwards.
Well, not ALL of them, but most of them.
Say, 35%, which would send a message to the other 65%.
Yet another load of crap:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/story-you-knew-was-bullshit-yeah-it-was-bullshit
If you read Drum’s commentary, you’ll find that he uses the term “nearly all”, which I’ll wager is nearer to the mark than “almost all”.
I think the IRS should prioritize scrutiny and tax audits according to who in the country is most full of lying bullsh*t, and then cross-reference that list with the one keep of the Republican power elite in media and government and, in the interest of bureaucratic efficiency, make one list for the auditors to sharpen their chops.
Why have two identical lists?
The only question remaining, then, will be to audit these people before they are killed and eaten, or afterwards.
Well, not ALL of them, but most of them.
Say, 35%, which would send a message to the other 65%.
Brett- your theory is also overdetermined. If the IRS is full of liberal 5th-columnists, why did they need an Invisible Secret Nod from Obama to begin to question right-wing organizations? Shouldn’t they have been eager to do this regardless of the Secret Nod? Why haven’t they been doing this for decades?
Brett- your theory is also overdetermined. If the IRS is full of liberal 5th-columnists, why did they need an Invisible Secret Nod from Obama to begin to question right-wing organizations? Shouldn’t they have been eager to do this regardless of the Secret Nod? Why haven’t they been doing this for decades?
Brett- your theory is also overdetermined. If the IRS is full of liberal 5th-columnists, why did they need an Invisible Secret Nod from Obama to begin to question right-wing organizations? Shouldn’t they have been eager to do this regardless of the Secret Nod? Why haven’t they been doing this for decades?
More on the morsel of right-wing scat referenced by Drum:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-fake-story-about-the-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/
The article breaks down the meanings of “most”, and “more”, “hardly at all”, and “shut up”.
More on the morsel of right-wing scat referenced by Drum:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-fake-story-about-the-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/
The article breaks down the meanings of “most”, and “more”, “hardly at all”, and “shut up”.
More on the morsel of right-wing scat referenced by Drum:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-fake-story-about-the-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/
The article breaks down the meanings of “most”, and “more”, “hardly at all”, and “shut up”.
So much to process, so I will cherry pick in no particular order. The fact that there is a Tea Party caucus means little. There is a Progressive caucus, a Women’s caucus, a Black caucus, so I suspect we can’t use that as a rationale for picking political only groups.
I also suspect that the designation, generally accepted above IMO, of the Tea Party issues as political issues only, is because some believe that educating people on the social impact of the large government, tax and spend issues doesn’t agree with others views of those social impacts.
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education, thus the point of some of russell’s post.
By far my most overriding reaction to this discussion is: The head of the agency tap danced the party line in front of Congress, at least a dozen times stating that he didn’t have the names of those responsible. Like he just couldn’t figure it out.
Then the person most likely to have information to corroborate (or not) his testimony pled the fifth. Her right, doesn’t make her (or him, or anyone else) guilty of a thing.
So who the heck knows, that’s a problem. Both sides in this thread keep asking for the proof, which exists but is not being shared. My cynical side says that the proof is more likely to prove some additional culpability somewhere.
Which makes it a scandal IMHO.
So much to process, so I will cherry pick in no particular order. The fact that there is a Tea Party caucus means little. There is a Progressive caucus, a Women’s caucus, a Black caucus, so I suspect we can’t use that as a rationale for picking political only groups.
I also suspect that the designation, generally accepted above IMO, of the Tea Party issues as political issues only, is because some believe that educating people on the social impact of the large government, tax and spend issues doesn’t agree with others views of those social impacts.
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education, thus the point of some of russell’s post.
By far my most overriding reaction to this discussion is: The head of the agency tap danced the party line in front of Congress, at least a dozen times stating that he didn’t have the names of those responsible. Like he just couldn’t figure it out.
Then the person most likely to have information to corroborate (or not) his testimony pled the fifth. Her right, doesn’t make her (or him, or anyone else) guilty of a thing.
So who the heck knows, that’s a problem. Both sides in this thread keep asking for the proof, which exists but is not being shared. My cynical side says that the proof is more likely to prove some additional culpability somewhere.
Which makes it a scandal IMHO.
So much to process, so I will cherry pick in no particular order. The fact that there is a Tea Party caucus means little. There is a Progressive caucus, a Women’s caucus, a Black caucus, so I suspect we can’t use that as a rationale for picking political only groups.
I also suspect that the designation, generally accepted above IMO, of the Tea Party issues as political issues only, is because some believe that educating people on the social impact of the large government, tax and spend issues doesn’t agree with others views of those social impacts.
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education, thus the point of some of russell’s post.
By far my most overriding reaction to this discussion is: The head of the agency tap danced the party line in front of Congress, at least a dozen times stating that he didn’t have the names of those responsible. Like he just couldn’t figure it out.
Then the person most likely to have information to corroborate (or not) his testimony pled the fifth. Her right, doesn’t make her (or him, or anyone else) guilty of a thing.
So who the heck knows, that’s a problem. Both sides in this thread keep asking for the proof, which exists but is not being shared. My cynical side says that the proof is more likely to prove some additional culpability somewhere.
Which makes it a scandal IMHO.
What?! The IRS has drones too?! If I don’t pay my taxes, do I, and anyone near me, risk being taken out by a hellfire missile? And when they do it, will they be low level or at 25,000 feet?
What?! The IRS has drones too?! If I don’t pay my taxes, do I, and anyone near me, risk being taken out by a hellfire missile? And when they do it, will they be low level or at 25,000 feet?
What?! The IRS has drones too?! If I don’t pay my taxes, do I, and anyone near me, risk being taken out by a hellfire missile? And when they do it, will they be low level or at 25,000 feet?
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education, thus the point of some of russell’s post.
Which I think we’re agreeing is part of the problem. The IRS is tasked with denying tax-exempt status for ‘charities’ whose primary activities are influencing/taking part in/etc political campaigns. That’s a lot of vagueness, and in trying to process that vagueness they went off of the reservation.
(Or, Brett will say, they took advantage of that vagueness to reveal their secret agendas as leftists).
So who the heck knows, that’s a problem. Both sides in this thread keep asking for the proof, which exists but is not being shared. My cynical side says that the proof is more likely to prove some additional culpability somewhere.
Which makes it a scandal IMHO.
Im assuming you mean that *would* make it a scandal, not that your cynical side’s belief makes it a scandal.
I admit, there could be a document out there implicating Obama or someone else in the WH directly. I would be *vastly* surprised, you apparently would not be surprised at all.
Yet, I think we ought to restrict ourselves to what’s known. I think we can all admit that partisans of one stripe or another *suspect* or *believe* all manner of different things that are incompatible. But we ought to be able to agree on the facts, and more or less what those mean.
Here, the facts don’t show a scandal. You think more facts will. I would wish you good luck with that, but of course I hope they dont. Still, we can both agree that while there might be a scandal tomorrow, there isn’t one today, and that’s some progress I suppose.
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education, thus the point of some of russell’s post.
Which I think we’re agreeing is part of the problem. The IRS is tasked with denying tax-exempt status for ‘charities’ whose primary activities are influencing/taking part in/etc political campaigns. That’s a lot of vagueness, and in trying to process that vagueness they went off of the reservation.
(Or, Brett will say, they took advantage of that vagueness to reveal their secret agendas as leftists).
So who the heck knows, that’s a problem. Both sides in this thread keep asking for the proof, which exists but is not being shared. My cynical side says that the proof is more likely to prove some additional culpability somewhere.
Which makes it a scandal IMHO.
Im assuming you mean that *would* make it a scandal, not that your cynical side’s belief makes it a scandal.
I admit, there could be a document out there implicating Obama or someone else in the WH directly. I would be *vastly* surprised, you apparently would not be surprised at all.
Yet, I think we ought to restrict ourselves to what’s known. I think we can all admit that partisans of one stripe or another *suspect* or *believe* all manner of different things that are incompatible. But we ought to be able to agree on the facts, and more or less what those mean.
Here, the facts don’t show a scandal. You think more facts will. I would wish you good luck with that, but of course I hope they dont. Still, we can both agree that while there might be a scandal tomorrow, there isn’t one today, and that’s some progress I suppose.
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education, thus the point of some of russell’s post.
Which I think we’re agreeing is part of the problem. The IRS is tasked with denying tax-exempt status for ‘charities’ whose primary activities are influencing/taking part in/etc political campaigns. That’s a lot of vagueness, and in trying to process that vagueness they went off of the reservation.
(Or, Brett will say, they took advantage of that vagueness to reveal their secret agendas as leftists).
So who the heck knows, that’s a problem. Both sides in this thread keep asking for the proof, which exists but is not being shared. My cynical side says that the proof is more likely to prove some additional culpability somewhere.
Which makes it a scandal IMHO.
Im assuming you mean that *would* make it a scandal, not that your cynical side’s belief makes it a scandal.
I admit, there could be a document out there implicating Obama or someone else in the WH directly. I would be *vastly* surprised, you apparently would not be surprised at all.
Yet, I think we ought to restrict ourselves to what’s known. I think we can all admit that partisans of one stripe or another *suspect* or *believe* all manner of different things that are incompatible. But we ought to be able to agree on the facts, and more or less what those mean.
Here, the facts don’t show a scandal. You think more facts will. I would wish you good luck with that, but of course I hope they dont. Still, we can both agree that while there might be a scandal tomorrow, there isn’t one today, and that’s some progress I suppose.
Carleton,
No, the facts as known show a scandal. There may be facts that EXPAND the scandal to others. The facts as known implicate, at a minimum, the people who did it and IRS management that covered it up. The intentional misleading of Congress, the announcement outside normal channels, these are known facts.
That is a scandal. In this administration. The head of the IRS is an administration official. Does it damn higher officials? Well, there is no evidence yet.
Carleton,
No, the facts as known show a scandal. There may be facts that EXPAND the scandal to others. The facts as known implicate, at a minimum, the people who did it and IRS management that covered it up. The intentional misleading of Congress, the announcement outside normal channels, these are known facts.
That is a scandal. In this administration. The head of the IRS is an administration official. Does it damn higher officials? Well, there is no evidence yet.
Carleton,
No, the facts as known show a scandal. There may be facts that EXPAND the scandal to others. The facts as known implicate, at a minimum, the people who did it and IRS management that covered it up. The intentional misleading of Congress, the announcement outside normal channels, these are known facts.
That is a scandal. In this administration. The head of the IRS is an administration official. Does it damn higher officials? Well, there is no evidence yet.
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education
If your interest in promoting the social welfare involves lobbying members of Congress, it’s political speech.
As such, it doesn’t deserve 501(c)(4) status.
And I’m an equal opportunity grinch, I would apply the same standard equally to folks of all political persuasions.
And, I have no problem with people lobbying members of Congress or contributing to the same. Likewise making movies about political candidates, or running ads on the TV during campaign cycles, etc etc etc.
All good. Live it up.
It ain’t “social welfare”, and it doesn’t deserve tax exempt status or the shield of anonymity.
Give the IRS something useful to do, instead of parsing all of this “it’s not really politics” bullsh*t.
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education
If your interest in promoting the social welfare involves lobbying members of Congress, it’s political speech.
As such, it doesn’t deserve 501(c)(4) status.
And I’m an equal opportunity grinch, I would apply the same standard equally to folks of all political persuasions.
And, I have no problem with people lobbying members of Congress or contributing to the same. Likewise making movies about political candidates, or running ads on the TV during campaign cycles, etc etc etc.
All good. Live it up.
It ain’t “social welfare”, and it doesn’t deserve tax exempt status or the shield of anonymity.
Give the IRS something useful to do, instead of parsing all of this “it’s not really politics” bullsh*t.
All to say that one persons politics is another persons social education
If your interest in promoting the social welfare involves lobbying members of Congress, it’s political speech.
As such, it doesn’t deserve 501(c)(4) status.
And I’m an equal opportunity grinch, I would apply the same standard equally to folks of all political persuasions.
And, I have no problem with people lobbying members of Congress or contributing to the same. Likewise making movies about political candidates, or running ads on the TV during campaign cycles, etc etc etc.
All good. Live it up.
It ain’t “social welfare”, and it doesn’t deserve tax exempt status or the shield of anonymity.
Give the IRS something useful to do, instead of parsing all of this “it’s not really politics” bullsh*t.
So it’s a scandal, just not one that implicates anyone in the White House or anyone appointed by Obama. So far the most obvious players are a middle-level bureaucrat and a Bush appointee.
So I suppose it’s a scandal in the general sense of the word. I think it’s quite a hopeful stretch to call it an administration scandal. Like saying that a general harassing a subordinate is an administration scandal insofar as the president is the CIC and therefore ‘responsible’ in an abstract sense for those below him in the chain of command.
So it’s a scandal, just not one that implicates anyone in the White House or anyone appointed by Obama. So far the most obvious players are a middle-level bureaucrat and a Bush appointee.
So I suppose it’s a scandal in the general sense of the word. I think it’s quite a hopeful stretch to call it an administration scandal. Like saying that a general harassing a subordinate is an administration scandal insofar as the president is the CIC and therefore ‘responsible’ in an abstract sense for those below him in the chain of command.
So it’s a scandal, just not one that implicates anyone in the White House or anyone appointed by Obama. So far the most obvious players are a middle-level bureaucrat and a Bush appointee.
So I suppose it’s a scandal in the general sense of the word. I think it’s quite a hopeful stretch to call it an administration scandal. Like saying that a general harassing a subordinate is an administration scandal insofar as the president is the CIC and therefore ‘responsible’ in an abstract sense for those below him in the chain of command.
“just not one that implicates anyone in the White House or anyone appointed by Obama.”
Well, not as yet, anyway. Just the institutional culture of the IRS, which is sufficiently warped that nobody there apparently noticed that what they were doing was wrong.
“just not one that implicates anyone in the White House or anyone appointed by Obama.”
Well, not as yet, anyway. Just the institutional culture of the IRS, which is sufficiently warped that nobody there apparently noticed that what they were doing was wrong.
“just not one that implicates anyone in the White House or anyone appointed by Obama.”
Well, not as yet, anyway. Just the institutional culture of the IRS, which is sufficiently warped that nobody there apparently noticed that what they were doing was wrong.
Does Marty drown kittens in the bathtub for fun? Well, there is no evidence yet.
Does Marty drown kittens in the bathtub for fun? Well, there is no evidence yet.
Does Marty drown kittens in the bathtub for fun? Well, there is no evidence yet.
With regard to CharlesWT’s cartoon: I just want to point out that being blown up with a missile is not anything like having your application for 501(c)(4) status refused.
I’m sure that, to folks who are prone to dramatic fantasies of persecution, they may seem similar.
They are not.
With regard to CharlesWT’s cartoon: I just want to point out that being blown up with a missile is not anything like having your application for 501(c)(4) status refused.
I’m sure that, to folks who are prone to dramatic fantasies of persecution, they may seem similar.
They are not.
With regard to CharlesWT’s cartoon: I just want to point out that being blown up with a missile is not anything like having your application for 501(c)(4) status refused.
I’m sure that, to folks who are prone to dramatic fantasies of persecution, they may seem similar.
They are not.
“Does Marty drown kittens in the bathtub for fun? Well, there is no evidence yet.”
Fortunately none of my employees have drowned any kittens either. The two pita cats I have are good evidence to the contrary and I would not take the fifth if questioned.
“Does Marty drown kittens in the bathtub for fun? Well, there is no evidence yet.”
Fortunately none of my employees have drowned any kittens either. The two pita cats I have are good evidence to the contrary and I would not take the fifth if questioned.
“Does Marty drown kittens in the bathtub for fun? Well, there is no evidence yet.”
Fortunately none of my employees have drowned any kittens either. The two pita cats I have are good evidence to the contrary and I would not take the fifth if questioned.
I’m sure that, to folks who are prone to dramatic fantasies of persecution, they may seem similar.
What about folks who are morons?
I mean, maybe CharlesWT is so ignorant that he thinks getting your 501c(4) application rejected is just like getting a hellfire missile delivered to your door. Is it possible that he’s just really dumb?
I’m just saying that the incidence of stupidity in the general population is a lot higher than paranoia…
I’m sure that, to folks who are prone to dramatic fantasies of persecution, they may seem similar.
What about folks who are morons?
I mean, maybe CharlesWT is so ignorant that he thinks getting your 501c(4) application rejected is just like getting a hellfire missile delivered to your door. Is it possible that he’s just really dumb?
I’m just saying that the incidence of stupidity in the general population is a lot higher than paranoia…
I’m sure that, to folks who are prone to dramatic fantasies of persecution, they may seem similar.
What about folks who are morons?
I mean, maybe CharlesWT is so ignorant that he thinks getting your 501c(4) application rejected is just like getting a hellfire missile delivered to your door. Is it possible that he’s just really dumb?
I’m just saying that the incidence of stupidity in the general population is a lot higher than paranoia…
Folks, folks, we’re getting our metaphors in a twist.
Bathtubs are for drowning government.
Drones are for peacekeeping
IRS employees are bloody Jihadists, against whom, presumably, one could launch drones, not the other way round:
http://theblacksphere.net/2013/05/bloody-jihadists-working-in-the-irs/
The IRS, a voracious metaphor hog if there ever was one, is Nazi Germany, dressed up like Abraham Lincoln, who is the founder of the Republican Party AND the Income Tax:
http://downersgrove.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/tea-party-group-protests-outside-irs-office-in-downers-grove
Wait, it’s the Soviet Union, dressed up like William Howard Taft, with room to spare, and Woodrow Wilson, who were instrumental in starting the damned Nazi, Soviet nest of Jihadists by getting the 16th Amendment passed:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/nom-on-irs-targeting-were-victims-too-its-just-like-the-soviet-union/politics/2013/05/13/66877
Because, Obama is Nixon, just as Linda Lovelace was Deepthroat:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/31/2083121/in-new-ad-gop-senate-leader-likens-obama-to-nixon/
Now cats, cats are tax deductions that lie in the sun and purr poetry to themselves.
Whoa there, protest the birds and the mice, cats are jackbooted murdering alien zombie stalkers who are ready to pounce at any moment to eat everything but feather and tail.
Oddly just like the alien seedpod spore who have sprouted and infested today’s Republican Party.
But that’s a simile.
Got it?
Folks, folks, we’re getting our metaphors in a twist.
Bathtubs are for drowning government.
Drones are for peacekeeping
IRS employees are bloody Jihadists, against whom, presumably, one could launch drones, not the other way round:
http://theblacksphere.net/2013/05/bloody-jihadists-working-in-the-irs/
The IRS, a voracious metaphor hog if there ever was one, is Nazi Germany, dressed up like Abraham Lincoln, who is the founder of the Republican Party AND the Income Tax:
http://downersgrove.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/tea-party-group-protests-outside-irs-office-in-downers-grove
Wait, it’s the Soviet Union, dressed up like William Howard Taft, with room to spare, and Woodrow Wilson, who were instrumental in starting the damned Nazi, Soviet nest of Jihadists by getting the 16th Amendment passed:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/nom-on-irs-targeting-were-victims-too-its-just-like-the-soviet-union/politics/2013/05/13/66877
Because, Obama is Nixon, just as Linda Lovelace was Deepthroat:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/31/2083121/in-new-ad-gop-senate-leader-likens-obama-to-nixon/
Now cats, cats are tax deductions that lie in the sun and purr poetry to themselves.
Whoa there, protest the birds and the mice, cats are jackbooted murdering alien zombie stalkers who are ready to pounce at any moment to eat everything but feather and tail.
Oddly just like the alien seedpod spore who have sprouted and infested today’s Republican Party.
But that’s a simile.
Got it?
Folks, folks, we’re getting our metaphors in a twist.
Bathtubs are for drowning government.
Drones are for peacekeeping
IRS employees are bloody Jihadists, against whom, presumably, one could launch drones, not the other way round:
http://theblacksphere.net/2013/05/bloody-jihadists-working-in-the-irs/
The IRS, a voracious metaphor hog if there ever was one, is Nazi Germany, dressed up like Abraham Lincoln, who is the founder of the Republican Party AND the Income Tax:
http://downersgrove.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/tea-party-group-protests-outside-irs-office-in-downers-grove
Wait, it’s the Soviet Union, dressed up like William Howard Taft, with room to spare, and Woodrow Wilson, who were instrumental in starting the damned Nazi, Soviet nest of Jihadists by getting the 16th Amendment passed:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/nom-on-irs-targeting-were-victims-too-its-just-like-the-soviet-union/politics/2013/05/13/66877
Because, Obama is Nixon, just as Linda Lovelace was Deepthroat:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/31/2083121/in-new-ad-gop-senate-leader-likens-obama-to-nixon/
Now cats, cats are tax deductions that lie in the sun and purr poetry to themselves.
Whoa there, protest the birds and the mice, cats are jackbooted murdering alien zombie stalkers who are ready to pounce at any moment to eat everything but feather and tail.
Oddly just like the alien seedpod spore who have sprouted and infested today’s Republican Party.
But that’s a simile.
Got it?
For the love of God, this scandal is out of control.
They’ve been dancing!
Who, you ask?
Who? Who do you think?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/newly-released-irs-video-shows-employees-dancing.php
The Nazis, jihadists, and Stalinists, that’s who! The ones who take your cash for the fancy goods and the noggins and the piggins and the frikins, cash for the hogdhead, cask and demijohn. Cash for the crackers and the pickels and the flypaper
Look whatayatalk. whatayatalk, whatayatalk, whatayataalk, whatayatalk?
Weredayagitit?
Whatayatalk?
Ya can talk, ya can talk, ya can bicker ya can talk, ya can bicker, bicker bicker ya can talk all ya want
In broad daylight. Dancing, which starts with D, which rhymes with P, and that sounds like T, I say we’ve got trouble, next thing ya know ya got Pol Pot saying “how’s your old man”, and he’ll leave off pounding your beefsteak.
Next thing, ya don’t watch out they’ll be whistling while they work too, that’s right, they’ll put their lips together and blow while looking over the short cuts ya took on your long, I say, your long form.
They’ll be asking too many questions and folks that’s the first big step on the road
To the depths of deg-ra-Day–
I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon,
Then beer from a bottle.
you’ll have to tell em you’ve been list’nin to some big out-a-town Jasper name of Koch
Hearin’ him tell about horse-race gamblin’.
Not a wholesome trottin’ race, no!
But a race where they set down right on the horse!
Whistling while they work, I say. And dancing!
One fine night, they leave their desks,
Headin’ for the dance at the Arm’ry!
Libertine men and Scarlet women!
And Rag-time, shameless music
That’ll grab your son and your daughter
With the arms of a jungle animal instink!
Mass’steria!
Friends, the idle brain is the devil’s playground!
For the love of God, this scandal is out of control.
They’ve been dancing!
Who, you ask?
Who? Who do you think?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/newly-released-irs-video-shows-employees-dancing.php
The Nazis, jihadists, and Stalinists, that’s who! The ones who take your cash for the fancy goods and the noggins and the piggins and the frikins, cash for the hogdhead, cask and demijohn. Cash for the crackers and the pickels and the flypaper
Look whatayatalk. whatayatalk, whatayatalk, whatayataalk, whatayatalk?
Weredayagitit?
Whatayatalk?
Ya can talk, ya can talk, ya can bicker ya can talk, ya can bicker, bicker bicker ya can talk all ya want
In broad daylight. Dancing, which starts with D, which rhymes with P, and that sounds like T, I say we’ve got trouble, next thing ya know ya got Pol Pot saying “how’s your old man”, and he’ll leave off pounding your beefsteak.
Next thing, ya don’t watch out they’ll be whistling while they work too, that’s right, they’ll put their lips together and blow while looking over the short cuts ya took on your long, I say, your long form.
They’ll be asking too many questions and folks that’s the first big step on the road
To the depths of deg-ra-Day–
I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon,
Then beer from a bottle.
you’ll have to tell em you’ve been list’nin to some big out-a-town Jasper name of Koch
Hearin’ him tell about horse-race gamblin’.
Not a wholesome trottin’ race, no!
But a race where they set down right on the horse!
Whistling while they work, I say. And dancing!
One fine night, they leave their desks,
Headin’ for the dance at the Arm’ry!
Libertine men and Scarlet women!
And Rag-time, shameless music
That’ll grab your son and your daughter
With the arms of a jungle animal instink!
Mass’steria!
Friends, the idle brain is the devil’s playground!
For the love of God, this scandal is out of control.
They’ve been dancing!
Who, you ask?
Who? Who do you think?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/newly-released-irs-video-shows-employees-dancing.php
The Nazis, jihadists, and Stalinists, that’s who! The ones who take your cash for the fancy goods and the noggins and the piggins and the frikins, cash for the hogdhead, cask and demijohn. Cash for the crackers and the pickels and the flypaper
Look whatayatalk. whatayatalk, whatayatalk, whatayataalk, whatayatalk?
Weredayagitit?
Whatayatalk?
Ya can talk, ya can talk, ya can bicker ya can talk, ya can bicker, bicker bicker ya can talk all ya want
In broad daylight. Dancing, which starts with D, which rhymes with P, and that sounds like T, I say we’ve got trouble, next thing ya know ya got Pol Pot saying “how’s your old man”, and he’ll leave off pounding your beefsteak.
Next thing, ya don’t watch out they’ll be whistling while they work too, that’s right, they’ll put their lips together and blow while looking over the short cuts ya took on your long, I say, your long form.
They’ll be asking too many questions and folks that’s the first big step on the road
To the depths of deg-ra-Day–
I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon,
Then beer from a bottle.
you’ll have to tell em you’ve been list’nin to some big out-a-town Jasper name of Koch
Hearin’ him tell about horse-race gamblin’.
Not a wholesome trottin’ race, no!
But a race where they set down right on the horse!
Whistling while they work, I say. And dancing!
One fine night, they leave their desks,
Headin’ for the dance at the Arm’ry!
Libertine men and Scarlet women!
And Rag-time, shameless music
That’ll grab your son and your daughter
With the arms of a jungle animal instink!
Mass’steria!
Friends, the idle brain is the devil’s playground!
This whole drama is so silly. The “targeting,” such as it was, was clearly a bunch of employees looking for a shortcut to make their job easier. Tea Party groups were focused on because they were the ones flooding the IRS with applications.
Shortcuts are what America is all about these days. Everyone is just too lazy to do the real work.
The Republican Party, with all their hissy fits, have become the Party of Aunt Pittipat.
This whole drama is so silly. The “targeting,” such as it was, was clearly a bunch of employees looking for a shortcut to make their job easier. Tea Party groups were focused on because they were the ones flooding the IRS with applications.
Shortcuts are what America is all about these days. Everyone is just too lazy to do the real work.
The Republican Party, with all their hissy fits, have become the Party of Aunt Pittipat.
This whole drama is so silly. The “targeting,” such as it was, was clearly a bunch of employees looking for a shortcut to make their job easier. Tea Party groups were focused on because they were the ones flooding the IRS with applications.
Shortcuts are what America is all about these days. Everyone is just too lazy to do the real work.
The Republican Party, with all their hissy fits, have become the Party of Aunt Pittipat.
Have Republicans ever uncovered a real political scandal?*
I also cannot help but note that they are obviously pretty inept at covering their own messes up.
*Billy Sol Estes and Abe Fortas seem to be the best they can do, but a lot of the heavy lifting was done by Dixiecrats.
This latest? Piffle. The GOP should be ashamed.
Have Republicans ever uncovered a real political scandal?*
I also cannot help but note that they are obviously pretty inept at covering their own messes up.
*Billy Sol Estes and Abe Fortas seem to be the best they can do, but a lot of the heavy lifting was done by Dixiecrats.
This latest? Piffle. The GOP should be ashamed.
Have Republicans ever uncovered a real political scandal?*
I also cannot help but note that they are obviously pretty inept at covering their own messes up.
*Billy Sol Estes and Abe Fortas seem to be the best they can do, but a lot of the heavy lifting was done by Dixiecrats.
This latest? Piffle. The GOP should be ashamed.
Shame left that house decades ago:
http://ceinquiry.us/2013-05-12-heritage-irs
Shame left that house decades ago:
http://ceinquiry.us/2013-05-12-heritage-irs
Shame left that house decades ago:
http://ceinquiry.us/2013-05-12-heritage-irs
Who is this link-making Count impostor?
Who is this link-making Count impostor?
Who is this link-making Count impostor?
I think you’re demonstrating that shame left YOUR house years ago. The President may or may not be secretly laughing about this, but he knows he has to at least feign outrage in public. You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
Yes, they were just trying to save themselves work by conducting endless reviews and demanding moving vans worth of documents. Because, you know, it’s so much work to instantly approve, and back-date a few years, the approval of a charity like the President’s half brother ran. They wanted to avoid that workload by intensively examining these groups, instead.
I’ve said it before: The delightful thing about THIS scandal is that it is finally driving a wedge between the people who merely give Obama the benefit of any slightest doubt, and those who simply don’t care.
I think you’re demonstrating that shame left YOUR house years ago. The President may or may not be secretly laughing about this, but he knows he has to at least feign outrage in public. You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
Yes, they were just trying to save themselves work by conducting endless reviews and demanding moving vans worth of documents. Because, you know, it’s so much work to instantly approve, and back-date a few years, the approval of a charity like the President’s half brother ran. They wanted to avoid that workload by intensively examining these groups, instead.
I’ve said it before: The delightful thing about THIS scandal is that it is finally driving a wedge between the people who merely give Obama the benefit of any slightest doubt, and those who simply don’t care.
I think you’re demonstrating that shame left YOUR house years ago. The President may or may not be secretly laughing about this, but he knows he has to at least feign outrage in public. You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
Yes, they were just trying to save themselves work by conducting endless reviews and demanding moving vans worth of documents. Because, you know, it’s so much work to instantly approve, and back-date a few years, the approval of a charity like the President’s half brother ran. They wanted to avoid that workload by intensively examining these groups, instead.
I’ve said it before: The delightful thing about THIS scandal is that it is finally driving a wedge between the people who merely give Obama the benefit of any slightest doubt, and those who simply don’t care.
The whole tax exempt system is rotten to the core (and the rot started under Eisenhower). Rule of thumb: any organisation with ‘party’ in its name should be denied unless it is a non profit catering service.
Any organisation endorsing any candidate for public office should instantly lose it too. PACs in disguise first, churches next. Put certain archbishops on trial for violation (those ‘vote for Kerry and you can’t receive eucharisty’ guys). Hit them hard and send the members personal letters with a detailed explanation. If a lot of charities get hit, maybe they will be a bit more careful the next time about what their leaders say and do. Cry me a river about your violated 1st amendment rights but tell me first where the ‘tax exempt’ appears in it.
Unfortunately it would be necessary to strip ALL organisations first and have them ALL re-apply to weed out the system and drain the swamp. Chances: Zero.
Of course the country could become honest and go the full way into the opposite direction: Anything political gets tax exempt, bribery becomes formally legal at last and openness/disclosure becomes fully optional (default anonymity). That would at least have the legal framework resembling reality much better.
Next step: bullets are free speech (at least in German guns/weapons already talk: ‘Laßt die Waffen sprechen’/’Jetzt sprechen die Pistolen’)
The whole tax exempt system is rotten to the core (and the rot started under Eisenhower). Rule of thumb: any organisation with ‘party’ in its name should be denied unless it is a non profit catering service.
Any organisation endorsing any candidate for public office should instantly lose it too. PACs in disguise first, churches next. Put certain archbishops on trial for violation (those ‘vote for Kerry and you can’t receive eucharisty’ guys). Hit them hard and send the members personal letters with a detailed explanation. If a lot of charities get hit, maybe they will be a bit more careful the next time about what their leaders say and do. Cry me a river about your violated 1st amendment rights but tell me first where the ‘tax exempt’ appears in it.
Unfortunately it would be necessary to strip ALL organisations first and have them ALL re-apply to weed out the system and drain the swamp. Chances: Zero.
Of course the country could become honest and go the full way into the opposite direction: Anything political gets tax exempt, bribery becomes formally legal at last and openness/disclosure becomes fully optional (default anonymity). That would at least have the legal framework resembling reality much better.
Next step: bullets are free speech (at least in German guns/weapons already talk: ‘Laßt die Waffen sprechen’/’Jetzt sprechen die Pistolen’)
The whole tax exempt system is rotten to the core (and the rot started under Eisenhower). Rule of thumb: any organisation with ‘party’ in its name should be denied unless it is a non profit catering service.
Any organisation endorsing any candidate for public office should instantly lose it too. PACs in disguise first, churches next. Put certain archbishops on trial for violation (those ‘vote for Kerry and you can’t receive eucharisty’ guys). Hit them hard and send the members personal letters with a detailed explanation. If a lot of charities get hit, maybe they will be a bit more careful the next time about what their leaders say and do. Cry me a river about your violated 1st amendment rights but tell me first where the ‘tax exempt’ appears in it.
Unfortunately it would be necessary to strip ALL organisations first and have them ALL re-apply to weed out the system and drain the swamp. Chances: Zero.
Of course the country could become honest and go the full way into the opposite direction: Anything political gets tax exempt, bribery becomes formally legal at last and openness/disclosure becomes fully optional (default anonymity). That would at least have the legal framework resembling reality much better.
Next step: bullets are free speech (at least in German guns/weapons already talk: ‘Laßt die Waffen sprechen’/’Jetzt sprechen die Pistolen’)
I might add that up to the 80ies bribery was tax deductible over here because the highest court decided that morality or legality of expenditures are no criteria in the context of tax law. Die Sittenwidrigkeit einer Zahlung hat keinen Einfluß auf die steuerliche Absetzbarkeit.
The law got changed at last after some scandals involving the Fat One himself.
I might add that up to the 80ies bribery was tax deductible over here because the highest court decided that morality or legality of expenditures are no criteria in the context of tax law. Die Sittenwidrigkeit einer Zahlung hat keinen Einfluß auf die steuerliche Absetzbarkeit.
The law got changed at last after some scandals involving the Fat One himself.
I might add that up to the 80ies bribery was tax deductible over here because the highest court decided that morality or legality of expenditures are no criteria in the context of tax law. Die Sittenwidrigkeit einer Zahlung hat keinen Einfluß auf die steuerliche Absetzbarkeit.
The law got changed at last after some scandals involving the Fat One himself.
You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
And you are assuming as fact things which are not at all in evidence.
I’m not interested in your opinion about who is, or is not, too far around the bend.
Physician, heal thyself.
You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
And you are assuming as fact things which are not at all in evidence.
I’m not interested in your opinion about who is, or is not, too far around the bend.
Physician, heal thyself.
You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
And you are assuming as fact things which are not at all in evidence.
I’m not interested in your opinion about who is, or is not, too far around the bend.
Physician, heal thyself.
Cry me a river about your violated 1st amendment rights but tell me first where the ‘tax exempt’ appears in it.
There you have it. And, thank you.
My name is russell, and I endorse every word of Hartmut’s 7:32.
You can say anything you like, including with your dollars. If you want to lobby members of Congress, or produce obviously partisan ads during election cycle, or do anything else that is freaking obvious political speech, you don’t get to write it off, and you don’t get to do it anonymously, because it ain’t social welfare, it’s politicking.
We can all stamp our feet and get pissed off at the IRS, but it’s worth keeping in mind that they’ve been tasked with parsing nonsensical laws, and making distinctions that contain not an ounce of difference.
No wonder they’re defensive.
Cry me a river about your violated 1st amendment rights but tell me first where the ‘tax exempt’ appears in it.
There you have it. And, thank you.
My name is russell, and I endorse every word of Hartmut’s 7:32.
You can say anything you like, including with your dollars. If you want to lobby members of Congress, or produce obviously partisan ads during election cycle, or do anything else that is freaking obvious political speech, you don’t get to write it off, and you don’t get to do it anonymously, because it ain’t social welfare, it’s politicking.
We can all stamp our feet and get pissed off at the IRS, but it’s worth keeping in mind that they’ve been tasked with parsing nonsensical laws, and making distinctions that contain not an ounce of difference.
No wonder they’re defensive.
Cry me a river about your violated 1st amendment rights but tell me first where the ‘tax exempt’ appears in it.
There you have it. And, thank you.
My name is russell, and I endorse every word of Hartmut’s 7:32.
You can say anything you like, including with your dollars. If you want to lobby members of Congress, or produce obviously partisan ads during election cycle, or do anything else that is freaking obvious political speech, you don’t get to write it off, and you don’t get to do it anonymously, because it ain’t social welfare, it’s politicking.
We can all stamp our feet and get pissed off at the IRS, but it’s worth keeping in mind that they’ve been tasked with parsing nonsensical laws, and making distinctions that contain not an ounce of difference.
No wonder they’re defensive.
“Rule of thumb: any organisation with ‘party’ in its name should be denied unless it is a non profit catering service.”
Rule of thumb: The name of an organization is utterly irrelevant to any determination under the laws the IRS is supposed to be enforcing.
Essentially your complaint boils down to, they not only should have done it, they should have done it HARDER.
As I say, at least the President knows he needs to feign outrage over this. This outrage happened because too many people at the IRS think like you do, Hartmut.
“Rule of thumb: any organisation with ‘party’ in its name should be denied unless it is a non profit catering service.”
Rule of thumb: The name of an organization is utterly irrelevant to any determination under the laws the IRS is supposed to be enforcing.
Essentially your complaint boils down to, they not only should have done it, they should have done it HARDER.
As I say, at least the President knows he needs to feign outrage over this. This outrage happened because too many people at the IRS think like you do, Hartmut.
“Rule of thumb: any organisation with ‘party’ in its name should be denied unless it is a non profit catering service.”
Rule of thumb: The name of an organization is utterly irrelevant to any determination under the laws the IRS is supposed to be enforcing.
Essentially your complaint boils down to, they not only should have done it, they should have done it HARDER.
As I say, at least the President knows he needs to feign outrage over this. This outrage happened because too many people at the IRS think like you do, Hartmut.
The problem is that it’s legal for 501(c)(4)’s to engage in political activity except when it isn’t.
The problem is that it’s legal for 501(c)(4)’s to engage in political activity except when it isn’t.
The problem is that it’s legal for 501(c)(4)’s to engage in political activity except when it isn’t.
The problem is that it’s legal for 501(c)(4)’s to engage in political activity except when it isn’t.
Yes, that’s my point exactly. It’s not a well written law.
I have no problem believing that the IRS could have been used, incorrectly and possibly illegally, to suppress unwelcome political activity. It’s not like there isn’t a long and storied history of EXACTLY that happening, over and over again.
It’s not clear that this happened in this case, and we should find out if it did happen in this case. But if it did, we’d be foolish to be shocked.
And not just the IRS, but pretty much every intelligence, police, regulatory, or other authority in the US government. The list of abuses of government power is very, very, very long. By all parties, currently existing or historical.
So, by all means the “tea party witchhunt” should be investigated.
And, of course, the investigation itself will be an act of political theater. So, make some popcorn.
But none of that addresses the basic problem, which is that the law itself is, IMO, really poorly written. It invites abuse, both by folks participating in 501(c)(4)’s and by those charged with regulating them.
Change the freaking law.
The problem is that it’s legal for 501(c)(4)’s to engage in political activity except when it isn’t.
Yes, that’s my point exactly. It’s not a well written law.
I have no problem believing that the IRS could have been used, incorrectly and possibly illegally, to suppress unwelcome political activity. It’s not like there isn’t a long and storied history of EXACTLY that happening, over and over again.
It’s not clear that this happened in this case, and we should find out if it did happen in this case. But if it did, we’d be foolish to be shocked.
And not just the IRS, but pretty much every intelligence, police, regulatory, or other authority in the US government. The list of abuses of government power is very, very, very long. By all parties, currently existing or historical.
So, by all means the “tea party witchhunt” should be investigated.
And, of course, the investigation itself will be an act of political theater. So, make some popcorn.
But none of that addresses the basic problem, which is that the law itself is, IMO, really poorly written. It invites abuse, both by folks participating in 501(c)(4)’s and by those charged with regulating them.
Change the freaking law.
The problem is that it’s legal for 501(c)(4)’s to engage in political activity except when it isn’t.
Yes, that’s my point exactly. It’s not a well written law.
I have no problem believing that the IRS could have been used, incorrectly and possibly illegally, to suppress unwelcome political activity. It’s not like there isn’t a long and storied history of EXACTLY that happening, over and over again.
It’s not clear that this happened in this case, and we should find out if it did happen in this case. But if it did, we’d be foolish to be shocked.
And not just the IRS, but pretty much every intelligence, police, regulatory, or other authority in the US government. The list of abuses of government power is very, very, very long. By all parties, currently existing or historical.
So, by all means the “tea party witchhunt” should be investigated.
And, of course, the investigation itself will be an act of political theater. So, make some popcorn.
But none of that addresses the basic problem, which is that the law itself is, IMO, really poorly written. It invites abuse, both by folks participating in 501(c)(4)’s and by those charged with regulating them.
Change the freaking law.
I don’t think it’s clear that the IRS was “used” to do this. It’s fairly clear that they did this, though possibly less out of a partisan objective, than a partisan conviction: That the ‘Tea party’, ‘Patriot’, and so forth groups just HAD to be up to something wrong, and if they weren’t turning it up, that just meant they hadn’t looked hard enough. (While the contra-positive conviction, that if you were a ‘Progressive’ or “People’s’ organization, you were on the side of the angels, kept lefty organizations from getting even the nominally required review.)
So they just kept looking harder and harder, unwilling to admit that the groups could possibly be legit. And somewhere along the process crossed the line between what they were allowed to look into, and what they weren’t.
OTOH, there’s increasing evidence that the donors they asked about, (Despite not being entitled to that information.) got audited by the IRS, (And other bureaus!) at a disproportionate rate. And it’s hard to paint that as just a heuristic gone wrong, that sounds like real harassment.
As I’ve said, this appears, at first glance, to be one of those “Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest?” situations, where the underlings don’t need an explicit order, just a hint sufficed.
Rather different from what you saw with Nixon, who, while history records he tried to use the IRS against his enemies, it is seldom related that the end result was NIXON getting audited, instead. It makes a difference if most of the people in the bureaucracy are members of your party.
I don’t think it’s clear that the IRS was “used” to do this. It’s fairly clear that they did this, though possibly less out of a partisan objective, than a partisan conviction: That the ‘Tea party’, ‘Patriot’, and so forth groups just HAD to be up to something wrong, and if they weren’t turning it up, that just meant they hadn’t looked hard enough. (While the contra-positive conviction, that if you were a ‘Progressive’ or “People’s’ organization, you were on the side of the angels, kept lefty organizations from getting even the nominally required review.)
So they just kept looking harder and harder, unwilling to admit that the groups could possibly be legit. And somewhere along the process crossed the line between what they were allowed to look into, and what they weren’t.
OTOH, there’s increasing evidence that the donors they asked about, (Despite not being entitled to that information.) got audited by the IRS, (And other bureaus!) at a disproportionate rate. And it’s hard to paint that as just a heuristic gone wrong, that sounds like real harassment.
As I’ve said, this appears, at first glance, to be one of those “Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest?” situations, where the underlings don’t need an explicit order, just a hint sufficed.
Rather different from what you saw with Nixon, who, while history records he tried to use the IRS against his enemies, it is seldom related that the end result was NIXON getting audited, instead. It makes a difference if most of the people in the bureaucracy are members of your party.
I don’t think it’s clear that the IRS was “used” to do this. It’s fairly clear that they did this, though possibly less out of a partisan objective, than a partisan conviction: That the ‘Tea party’, ‘Patriot’, and so forth groups just HAD to be up to something wrong, and if they weren’t turning it up, that just meant they hadn’t looked hard enough. (While the contra-positive conviction, that if you were a ‘Progressive’ or “People’s’ organization, you were on the side of the angels, kept lefty organizations from getting even the nominally required review.)
So they just kept looking harder and harder, unwilling to admit that the groups could possibly be legit. And somewhere along the process crossed the line between what they were allowed to look into, and what they weren’t.
OTOH, there’s increasing evidence that the donors they asked about, (Despite not being entitled to that information.) got audited by the IRS, (And other bureaus!) at a disproportionate rate. And it’s hard to paint that as just a heuristic gone wrong, that sounds like real harassment.
As I’ve said, this appears, at first glance, to be one of those “Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest?” situations, where the underlings don’t need an explicit order, just a hint sufficed.
Rather different from what you saw with Nixon, who, while history records he tried to use the IRS against his enemies, it is seldom related that the end result was NIXON getting audited, instead. It makes a difference if most of the people in the bureaucracy are members of your party.
“Rather different from what you saw with Nixon, who, while history records he tried to use the IRS against his enemies, it is seldom related that the end result was NIXON getting audited, instead. It makes a difference if most of the people in the bureaucracy are members of your party.”
For good or ill, let’s unpack that paragraph.
First, Nixon was audited by the IRS in the early 1960s and the “end result” of THAT was the champion grudge-holder Nixon ordering audits (not a hinter or winker he) and harassment of HIS enemies once he became President, despite there being no proof that I can find that the Kennedy White House was complicit in those audits, though I’m pursuadable on that.
True, the IRS audited Nixon’s tax returns in 1974, but the words “end result”, you sly, winking turbulent priest, Father Bellmore, at first glance and second askance, seem to indicate that these audits were IRS reprisals for … what, exactly, when in reality Nixon’s tax returns were highly suspicious with a very funky (illegal, as we say in the wink/wink business) tax deduction claimed (you can peruse the links below, which I’ll try to lift — I don’t know how my most recent link got linked — maybe my assembled monkeys at the keyboard finally hit on something), and minimal taxes paid given the 70% marginal tax rate at the time, rates which by the way, had the virtue of paying for Nixon initiatives like the bombing of Hanoi and dialysis coverage, unlike the deadbeat tax rates of today.
Given that the highest marginal tax rates today are roughly half what they were in 1974, you’d think the IRS would be hated only half as much now as then, but math is not the Tea Party’s strong point, he added.
Again, I’d like to see the party registrations and the voting records of all IRS employees circa 1974, since you seem to keep them in the same place as the same records I requested for today’s IRS — in Rosemary’s Woods top right-hand desk drawer.
The heads of the IRS in the 1972-74 period were Republicans appointed by Nixon and they acquitted themselves nobly in the face of White House thuggishness, so I’m not sure how the political pursuasions and actions thereof of the IRS leadership and staff can be so glancingly assumed by troublesome turbulent priests.
Further, not to be outdone, the 1974 White House tried to get the Nixon audits squashed as well, illegally so (THIS, at the bitter end of all of the other Watergate revelations), only to be sabotaged by George Schultz (a decent man, all things considered), who told Nixon’s staff, who thought maybe they ought to get a second opinion, to back the f*ck off.
As you will see from the links (well, linky), in fact, Nixon was cleared by the mean, partisan liberals at the IRS, unlike any hohum citizen would have been, despite the fact that subsequent analysis of his returns shows that he broke the law and would have faced a very large payment in arrears, a fine, and possibly fraud charges and jail time.
Lift, please.
Lift, please.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19770201&id=ZbgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fuUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6660,28082
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/artweb/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?opendocument
“Rather different from what you saw with Nixon, who, while history records he tried to use the IRS against his enemies, it is seldom related that the end result was NIXON getting audited, instead. It makes a difference if most of the people in the bureaucracy are members of your party.”
For good or ill, let’s unpack that paragraph.
First, Nixon was audited by the IRS in the early 1960s and the “end result” of THAT was the champion grudge-holder Nixon ordering audits (not a hinter or winker he) and harassment of HIS enemies once he became President, despite there being no proof that I can find that the Kennedy White House was complicit in those audits, though I’m pursuadable on that.
True, the IRS audited Nixon’s tax returns in 1974, but the words “end result”, you sly, winking turbulent priest, Father Bellmore, at first glance and second askance, seem to indicate that these audits were IRS reprisals for … what, exactly, when in reality Nixon’s tax returns were highly suspicious with a very funky (illegal, as we say in the wink/wink business) tax deduction claimed (you can peruse the links below, which I’ll try to lift — I don’t know how my most recent link got linked — maybe my assembled monkeys at the keyboard finally hit on something), and minimal taxes paid given the 70% marginal tax rate at the time, rates which by the way, had the virtue of paying for Nixon initiatives like the bombing of Hanoi and dialysis coverage, unlike the deadbeat tax rates of today.
Given that the highest marginal tax rates today are roughly half what they were in 1974, you’d think the IRS would be hated only half as much now as then, but math is not the Tea Party’s strong point, he added.
Again, I’d like to see the party registrations and the voting records of all IRS employees circa 1974, since you seem to keep them in the same place as the same records I requested for today’s IRS — in Rosemary’s Woods top right-hand desk drawer.
The heads of the IRS in the 1972-74 period were Republicans appointed by Nixon and they acquitted themselves nobly in the face of White House thuggishness, so I’m not sure how the political pursuasions and actions thereof of the IRS leadership and staff can be so glancingly assumed by troublesome turbulent priests.
Further, not to be outdone, the 1974 White House tried to get the Nixon audits squashed as well, illegally so (THIS, at the bitter end of all of the other Watergate revelations), only to be sabotaged by George Schultz (a decent man, all things considered), who told Nixon’s staff, who thought maybe they ought to get a second opinion, to back the f*ck off.
As you will see from the links (well, linky), in fact, Nixon was cleared by the mean, partisan liberals at the IRS, unlike any hohum citizen would have been, despite the fact that subsequent analysis of his returns shows that he broke the law and would have faced a very large payment in arrears, a fine, and possibly fraud charges and jail time.
Lift, please.
Lift, please.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19770201&id=ZbgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fuUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6660,28082
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/artweb/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?opendocument
“Rather different from what you saw with Nixon, who, while history records he tried to use the IRS against his enemies, it is seldom related that the end result was NIXON getting audited, instead. It makes a difference if most of the people in the bureaucracy are members of your party.”
For good or ill, let’s unpack that paragraph.
First, Nixon was audited by the IRS in the early 1960s and the “end result” of THAT was the champion grudge-holder Nixon ordering audits (not a hinter or winker he) and harassment of HIS enemies once he became President, despite there being no proof that I can find that the Kennedy White House was complicit in those audits, though I’m pursuadable on that.
True, the IRS audited Nixon’s tax returns in 1974, but the words “end result”, you sly, winking turbulent priest, Father Bellmore, at first glance and second askance, seem to indicate that these audits were IRS reprisals for … what, exactly, when in reality Nixon’s tax returns were highly suspicious with a very funky (illegal, as we say in the wink/wink business) tax deduction claimed (you can peruse the links below, which I’ll try to lift — I don’t know how my most recent link got linked — maybe my assembled monkeys at the keyboard finally hit on something), and minimal taxes paid given the 70% marginal tax rate at the time, rates which by the way, had the virtue of paying for Nixon initiatives like the bombing of Hanoi and dialysis coverage, unlike the deadbeat tax rates of today.
Given that the highest marginal tax rates today are roughly half what they were in 1974, you’d think the IRS would be hated only half as much now as then, but math is not the Tea Party’s strong point, he added.
Again, I’d like to see the party registrations and the voting records of all IRS employees circa 1974, since you seem to keep them in the same place as the same records I requested for today’s IRS — in Rosemary’s Woods top right-hand desk drawer.
The heads of the IRS in the 1972-74 period were Republicans appointed by Nixon and they acquitted themselves nobly in the face of White House thuggishness, so I’m not sure how the political pursuasions and actions thereof of the IRS leadership and staff can be so glancingly assumed by troublesome turbulent priests.
Further, not to be outdone, the 1974 White House tried to get the Nixon audits squashed as well, illegally so (THIS, at the bitter end of all of the other Watergate revelations), only to be sabotaged by George Schultz (a decent man, all things considered), who told Nixon’s staff, who thought maybe they ought to get a second opinion, to back the f*ck off.
As you will see from the links (well, linky), in fact, Nixon was cleared by the mean, partisan liberals at the IRS, unlike any hohum citizen would have been, despite the fact that subsequent analysis of his returns shows that he broke the law and would have faced a very large payment in arrears, a fine, and possibly fraud charges and jail time.
Lift, please.
Lift, please.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19770201&id=ZbgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fuUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6660,28082
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/artweb/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?opendocument
I confess, I am the count’s monkey. Thank god for this prehensile tail.
I confess, I am the count’s monkey. Thank god for this prehensile tail.
I confess, I am the count’s monkey. Thank god for this prehensile tail.
Links levitated:
Merci and gracias.
Doumo arigatou gozaimasu
Salamat po.
Links levitated:
Merci and gracias.
Doumo arigatou gozaimasu
Salamat po.
Links levitated:
Merci and gracias.
Doumo arigatou gozaimasu
Salamat po.
Show me one, just one, “Tea Party” group whose mission is not primarily political in nature. Just one, please.
Show me one, just one, “Tea Party” group whose mission is not primarily political in nature. Just one, please.
Show me one, just one, “Tea Party” group whose mission is not primarily political in nature. Just one, please.
Just one, please.
Just one, please.
Just one, please.
I read recently that law enforcement in Washington State is in the process of retraining their sniffing dogs so they leave marijuana alone, now that the stuff is legal and taxed, I sure hope, in that state.
Maybe the IRS could receive the dogs on loan and teach them to detect Earl Grey.
I read recently that law enforcement in Washington State is in the process of retraining their sniffing dogs so they leave marijuana alone, now that the stuff is legal and taxed, I sure hope, in that state.
Maybe the IRS could receive the dogs on loan and teach them to detect Earl Grey.
I read recently that law enforcement in Washington State is in the process of retraining their sniffing dogs so they leave marijuana alone, now that the stuff is legal and taxed, I sure hope, in that state.
Maybe the IRS could receive the dogs on loan and teach them to detect Earl Grey.
That the ‘Tea party’, ‘Patriot’, and so forth groups just HAD to be up to something wrong, and if they weren’t turning it up, that just meant they hadn’t looked hard enough
prove it.
your fantasies are not relevant to anything.
That the ‘Tea party’, ‘Patriot’, and so forth groups just HAD to be up to something wrong, and if they weren’t turning it up, that just meant they hadn’t looked hard enough
prove it.
your fantasies are not relevant to anything.
That the ‘Tea party’, ‘Patriot’, and so forth groups just HAD to be up to something wrong, and if they weren’t turning it up, that just meant they hadn’t looked hard enough
prove it.
your fantasies are not relevant to anything.
I think some people need to realize that the alternative to filing as a 501(c)(4) organization is as a 527 organization, the one for politicking…and those are _also_ non-profit.
Or, to put it another way, none of those organizations have to pay taxes, because what they do is accept money from people, and spend it on stuff. They do not pay taxes because they make no corporate profits, and have no stockholders to present those profits _to_. (Non-profits are ‘owned’ by members or the board, but they are expressly forbidden from disbursing money to them. Even if the organization dissolves, it has to give all its assets to another non-profit.)
So this wasn’t about paying taxes or not.
And don’t confuse either of these for _tax deductible_ organizations, which are 501(c)(3) organizations. People who give to 501(c)(4) or 527 don’t get to deduce that from their income. (Now, there actually are some idiots abusing 501(c)(3) for political purposes, but it’s much rarer, and not what we’re talking about here.)
The reason the Tea Parties attempted to get 501(c)(4) status (In advance, which they don’t actually need to do) is _solely_ so they could keep from disclosing their donors.
There is no other point to that vs. 501(c)(4). It has no advantage at all. In fact, it has a rather large disadvantage in that being 501(c)(4) means they can only spend 49% their spending on politics, instead of all. (The law actually forbids political action, period, but the IRS has wrongly decided that means ‘more-than-half political activity’.)
This isn’t about taxes. None of these groups are going to pay taxes. This is about whether blatantly political organizations can hide who is funding them.
I think some people need to realize that the alternative to filing as a 501(c)(4) organization is as a 527 organization, the one for politicking…and those are _also_ non-profit.
Or, to put it another way, none of those organizations have to pay taxes, because what they do is accept money from people, and spend it on stuff. They do not pay taxes because they make no corporate profits, and have no stockholders to present those profits _to_. (Non-profits are ‘owned’ by members or the board, but they are expressly forbidden from disbursing money to them. Even if the organization dissolves, it has to give all its assets to another non-profit.)
So this wasn’t about paying taxes or not.
And don’t confuse either of these for _tax deductible_ organizations, which are 501(c)(3) organizations. People who give to 501(c)(4) or 527 don’t get to deduce that from their income. (Now, there actually are some idiots abusing 501(c)(3) for political purposes, but it’s much rarer, and not what we’re talking about here.)
The reason the Tea Parties attempted to get 501(c)(4) status (In advance, which they don’t actually need to do) is _solely_ so they could keep from disclosing their donors.
There is no other point to that vs. 501(c)(4). It has no advantage at all. In fact, it has a rather large disadvantage in that being 501(c)(4) means they can only spend 49% their spending on politics, instead of all. (The law actually forbids political action, period, but the IRS has wrongly decided that means ‘more-than-half political activity’.)
This isn’t about taxes. None of these groups are going to pay taxes. This is about whether blatantly political organizations can hide who is funding them.
I think some people need to realize that the alternative to filing as a 501(c)(4) organization is as a 527 organization, the one for politicking…and those are _also_ non-profit.
Or, to put it another way, none of those organizations have to pay taxes, because what they do is accept money from people, and spend it on stuff. They do not pay taxes because they make no corporate profits, and have no stockholders to present those profits _to_. (Non-profits are ‘owned’ by members or the board, but they are expressly forbidden from disbursing money to them. Even if the organization dissolves, it has to give all its assets to another non-profit.)
So this wasn’t about paying taxes or not.
And don’t confuse either of these for _tax deductible_ organizations, which are 501(c)(3) organizations. People who give to 501(c)(4) or 527 don’t get to deduce that from their income. (Now, there actually are some idiots abusing 501(c)(3) for political purposes, but it’s much rarer, and not what we’re talking about here.)
The reason the Tea Parties attempted to get 501(c)(4) status (In advance, which they don’t actually need to do) is _solely_ so they could keep from disclosing their donors.
There is no other point to that vs. 501(c)(4). It has no advantage at all. In fact, it has a rather large disadvantage in that being 501(c)(4) means they can only spend 49% their spending on politics, instead of all. (The law actually forbids political action, period, but the IRS has wrongly decided that means ‘more-than-half political activity’.)
This isn’t about taxes. None of these groups are going to pay taxes. This is about whether blatantly political organizations can hide who is funding them.
That’s an important clarification.
However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.
That’s an important clarification.
However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.
That’s an important clarification.
However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.
I think you’re demonstrating that shame left YOUR house years ago. The President may or may not be secretly laughing about this, but he knows he has to at least feign outrage in public. You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
So we have no shame and are ‘around the bend’, because you imagine that Obama’s expressed outrage is probably fake? Or we’re ‘around the bend’ because we don’t realize that Obama has to publicly express outrage? Im not sure what you’re trying to say here.
And, just for the record, we don’t all live in the same house. Thinking the ‘other side’ is some monolithic entity with a single purpose, goal, method etc is the source of much sloppy thinking about politics.
The delightful thing about THIS scandal is that it is finally driving a wedge between the people who merely give Obama the benefit of any slightest doubt, and those who simply don’t care.
The especially delightful part is how the most damning accusation you’ve got against Obama is you suspect his outrage is faked. Yeah, I admit, Id (merely?) give him the benefit of the doubt on that point. But then mindreading has never given me much joy, so that’s really more of a “lazy man’s way of waiting for the facts before passing judgment” than anything sinister.
But then, you’ve probably sussed that my lack of outrage is also feigned, you crafty guy you. Oh, how can I hope to sustain a political debate against such a powerful Jedi?
I think you’re demonstrating that shame left YOUR house years ago. The President may or may not be secretly laughing about this, but he knows he has to at least feign outrage in public. You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
So we have no shame and are ‘around the bend’, because you imagine that Obama’s expressed outrage is probably fake? Or we’re ‘around the bend’ because we don’t realize that Obama has to publicly express outrage? Im not sure what you’re trying to say here.
And, just for the record, we don’t all live in the same house. Thinking the ‘other side’ is some monolithic entity with a single purpose, goal, method etc is the source of much sloppy thinking about politics.
The delightful thing about THIS scandal is that it is finally driving a wedge between the people who merely give Obama the benefit of any slightest doubt, and those who simply don’t care.
The especially delightful part is how the most damning accusation you’ve got against Obama is you suspect his outrage is faked. Yeah, I admit, Id (merely?) give him the benefit of the doubt on that point. But then mindreading has never given me much joy, so that’s really more of a “lazy man’s way of waiting for the facts before passing judgment” than anything sinister.
But then, you’ve probably sussed that my lack of outrage is also feigned, you crafty guy you. Oh, how can I hope to sustain a political debate against such a powerful Jedi?
I think you’re demonstrating that shame left YOUR house years ago. The President may or may not be secretly laughing about this, but he knows he has to at least feign outrage in public. You folks are too far around the bend to even realize that.
So we have no shame and are ‘around the bend’, because you imagine that Obama’s expressed outrage is probably fake? Or we’re ‘around the bend’ because we don’t realize that Obama has to publicly express outrage? Im not sure what you’re trying to say here.
And, just for the record, we don’t all live in the same house. Thinking the ‘other side’ is some monolithic entity with a single purpose, goal, method etc is the source of much sloppy thinking about politics.
The delightful thing about THIS scandal is that it is finally driving a wedge between the people who merely give Obama the benefit of any slightest doubt, and those who simply don’t care.
The especially delightful part is how the most damning accusation you’ve got against Obama is you suspect his outrage is faked. Yeah, I admit, Id (merely?) give him the benefit of the doubt on that point. But then mindreading has never given me much joy, so that’s really more of a “lazy man’s way of waiting for the facts before passing judgment” than anything sinister.
But then, you’ve probably sussed that my lack of outrage is also feigned, you crafty guy you. Oh, how can I hope to sustain a political debate against such a powerful Jedi?
There is no other point to that vs. 501(c)(4).
Obviously, I meant there’s no point to that vs. a 527.
To clarify:
527 – non-profit so pays no taxes, people donating get no tax advantage, can spend 100% on political stuff, must disclose donors
501(c)(4) – non-profit so pays no taxes, people donating get no tax advantage, can only spend 49% on ‘political stuff’, does not have to disclose donors
So ask yourself what the _only_ advantage of a 501(c)(4) is.
There is no other point to that vs. 501(c)(4).
Obviously, I meant there’s no point to that vs. a 527.
To clarify:
527 – non-profit so pays no taxes, people donating get no tax advantage, can spend 100% on political stuff, must disclose donors
501(c)(4) – non-profit so pays no taxes, people donating get no tax advantage, can only spend 49% on ‘political stuff’, does not have to disclose donors
So ask yourself what the _only_ advantage of a 501(c)(4) is.
There is no other point to that vs. 501(c)(4).
Obviously, I meant there’s no point to that vs. a 527.
To clarify:
527 – non-profit so pays no taxes, people donating get no tax advantage, can spend 100% on political stuff, must disclose donors
501(c)(4) – non-profit so pays no taxes, people donating get no tax advantage, can only spend 49% on ‘political stuff’, does not have to disclose donors
So ask yourself what the _only_ advantage of a 501(c)(4) is.
However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.
Interestingly, that’s almost illegal for _another_ reason. 😉 501(c)(4) cannot operate primary for the benefit of members or donors.
There are actually plenty of classes of 501(c) that _are_ for that, like 501(c)(10), which is for stuff like the Freemasons, or 501(c)(6), which is stuff like Chambers of Commerce, or 501(c)(12), which is stuff like co-op phone companies.
But a 501(c)(4) is supposed to be ‘Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees’. I think of them as ‘near charities’. 501(c)(4) are basically charities that failed the 501(c)(3) test, so people don’t get a tax deduction for donating to them. In fact, the IRS explicitly points out that if you’re a normally 501(c)(3) but have been disqualified a year or two, you should file as a 501(c)(4).
They are supposed to exist for the benefit of the community, but can also ‘support causes’. And just like a 501(c)(3), they can’t operate for the sole or even majority benefit of members or donors. (I doubt that lobbying for those donors goals _technically_ is in violation of the ‘for benefit of the donors’ law…of course, as I pointed out, they’re not actually supposed to be political at all, despite the delusional regulations the IRS has come up instead of the _actual law_.)
However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.
Interestingly, that’s almost illegal for _another_ reason. 😉 501(c)(4) cannot operate primary for the benefit of members or donors.
There are actually plenty of classes of 501(c) that _are_ for that, like 501(c)(10), which is for stuff like the Freemasons, or 501(c)(6), which is stuff like Chambers of Commerce, or 501(c)(12), which is stuff like co-op phone companies.
But a 501(c)(4) is supposed to be ‘Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees’. I think of them as ‘near charities’. 501(c)(4) are basically charities that failed the 501(c)(3) test, so people don’t get a tax deduction for donating to them. In fact, the IRS explicitly points out that if you’re a normally 501(c)(3) but have been disqualified a year or two, you should file as a 501(c)(4).
They are supposed to exist for the benefit of the community, but can also ‘support causes’. And just like a 501(c)(3), they can’t operate for the sole or even majority benefit of members or donors. (I doubt that lobbying for those donors goals _technically_ is in violation of the ‘for benefit of the donors’ law…of course, as I pointed out, they’re not actually supposed to be political at all, despite the delusional regulations the IRS has come up instead of the _actual law_.)
However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.
Interestingly, that’s almost illegal for _another_ reason. 😉 501(c)(4) cannot operate primary for the benefit of members or donors.
There are actually plenty of classes of 501(c) that _are_ for that, like 501(c)(10), which is for stuff like the Freemasons, or 501(c)(6), which is stuff like Chambers of Commerce, or 501(c)(12), which is stuff like co-op phone companies.
But a 501(c)(4) is supposed to be ‘Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees’. I think of them as ‘near charities’. 501(c)(4) are basically charities that failed the 501(c)(3) test, so people don’t get a tax deduction for donating to them. In fact, the IRS explicitly points out that if you’re a normally 501(c)(3) but have been disqualified a year or two, you should file as a 501(c)(4).
They are supposed to exist for the benefit of the community, but can also ‘support causes’. And just like a 501(c)(3), they can’t operate for the sole or even majority benefit of members or donors. (I doubt that lobbying for those donors goals _technically_ is in violation of the ‘for benefit of the donors’ law…of course, as I pointed out, they’re not actually supposed to be political at all, despite the delusional regulations the IRS has come up instead of the _actual law_.)
Daffy Duck could be the Democratic President for all I care and I’d still want the Republican Party dead and buried.
The outrage to me is that Obama didn’t traipse, or waltz, or pimp-walk, or however conservatives think liberals move themselves from Point A to Point B, over to the Cincinnati IRS office and congratulate the employees for their due diligence and then hand out performance awards.
In other news, Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal decries the imposition of bicycles and, by God, racks, I say, racks to hold (setting right down on the horse) them by the totalitarian government of New York City.
Meanwhile, her Party elite (Rohrbacher, Cohen, and Bachmann, no less, led by noted Homeland Security and Soviet history expert and marzipan movie prop Steven Seagal) visit Putin’s Russian security forces to seek out methods and measures of bringing Soviet-style totalitarian murder and oppression to the USA should the Republican Party return to power in all three branches of government.
First order of business: Disappearing bike riders.
Does the IRS have an Air Force, I hope? Shooting down that delegation’s plane on its return flight would start the ball rolling toward the elimination of our internal enemies.
Daffy Duck could be the Democratic President for all I care and I’d still want the Republican Party dead and buried.
The outrage to me is that Obama didn’t traipse, or waltz, or pimp-walk, or however conservatives think liberals move themselves from Point A to Point B, over to the Cincinnati IRS office and congratulate the employees for their due diligence and then hand out performance awards.
In other news, Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal decries the imposition of bicycles and, by God, racks, I say, racks to hold (setting right down on the horse) them by the totalitarian government of New York City.
Meanwhile, her Party elite (Rohrbacher, Cohen, and Bachmann, no less, led by noted Homeland Security and Soviet history expert and marzipan movie prop Steven Seagal) visit Putin’s Russian security forces to seek out methods and measures of bringing Soviet-style totalitarian murder and oppression to the USA should the Republican Party return to power in all three branches of government.
First order of business: Disappearing bike riders.
Does the IRS have an Air Force, I hope? Shooting down that delegation’s plane on its return flight would start the ball rolling toward the elimination of our internal enemies.
Daffy Duck could be the Democratic President for all I care and I’d still want the Republican Party dead and buried.
The outrage to me is that Obama didn’t traipse, or waltz, or pimp-walk, or however conservatives think liberals move themselves from Point A to Point B, over to the Cincinnati IRS office and congratulate the employees for their due diligence and then hand out performance awards.
In other news, Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal decries the imposition of bicycles and, by God, racks, I say, racks to hold (setting right down on the horse) them by the totalitarian government of New York City.
Meanwhile, her Party elite (Rohrbacher, Cohen, and Bachmann, no less, led by noted Homeland Security and Soviet history expert and marzipan movie prop Steven Seagal) visit Putin’s Russian security forces to seek out methods and measures of bringing Soviet-style totalitarian murder and oppression to the USA should the Republican Party return to power in all three branches of government.
First order of business: Disappearing bike riders.
Does the IRS have an Air Force, I hope? Shooting down that delegation’s plane on its return flight would start the ball rolling toward the elimination of our internal enemies.
They can have my bike when they pry it from my cold, dead butt!!
They can have my bike when they pry it from my cold, dead butt!!
They can have my bike when they pry it from my cold, dead butt!!
“However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.”
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
But, seriously, this is just the sort of accusation you generally hear from liberals, like claiming the NRA is an industry front group. It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you. So they MUST be paid stooges. No other explanation fits, once you’ve ruled out sincere disagreement.
“However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.”
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
But, seriously, this is just the sort of accusation you generally hear from liberals, like claiming the NRA is an industry front group. It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you. So they MUST be paid stooges. No other explanation fits, once you’ve ruled out sincere disagreement.
“However, the 501(c)(4) groups have as their political goal, for the most part, reducing or eliminating taxes and regulation for their anonymous donors.”
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
But, seriously, this is just the sort of accusation you generally hear from liberals, like claiming the NRA is an industry front group. It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you. So they MUST be paid stooges. No other explanation fits, once you’ve ruled out sincere disagreement.
like claiming the NRA is an industry front group
what else would you call a group that takes tens of millions of dollars from businesses in a single industry, then relentlessly lobbies, advertises, advocates and speechifies in favor of laws that help that industry ?
like claiming the NRA is an industry front group
what else would you call a group that takes tens of millions of dollars from businesses in a single industry, then relentlessly lobbies, advertises, advocates and speechifies in favor of laws that help that industry ?
like claiming the NRA is an industry front group
what else would you call a group that takes tens of millions of dollars from businesses in a single industry, then relentlessly lobbies, advertises, advocates and speechifies in favor of laws that help that industry ?
It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you
For a counterexample, Ive heard quite a few conservatives claiming that the NAACP is a front group which doesn’t represent the interests of those it claims to represent.
Point being, you have these categories of ‘bad liberal thinking’, but they are more correctly ‘bad thinking for which Brett has an example of liberals using therefore proving that all liberals are like this and it demonstrates a typical liberal character flaw’. Were I you I might call this sort of thinking representative of some conservative character flaw, but I know better now, it is all too common everywhere.
It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you
For a counterexample, Ive heard quite a few conservatives claiming that the NAACP is a front group which doesn’t represent the interests of those it claims to represent.
Point being, you have these categories of ‘bad liberal thinking’, but they are more correctly ‘bad thinking for which Brett has an example of liberals using therefore proving that all liberals are like this and it demonstrates a typical liberal character flaw’. Were I you I might call this sort of thinking representative of some conservative character flaw, but I know better now, it is all too common everywhere.
It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you
For a counterexample, Ive heard quite a few conservatives claiming that the NAACP is a front group which doesn’t represent the interests of those it claims to represent.
Point being, you have these categories of ‘bad liberal thinking’, but they are more correctly ‘bad thinking for which Brett has an example of liberals using therefore proving that all liberals are like this and it demonstrates a typical liberal character flaw’. Were I you I might call this sort of thinking representative of some conservative character flaw, but I know better now, it is all too common everywhere.
In other news, I now dub Brett “The Patron Saint Of Empathic Sincere Disagreement”. I will be back online after a quick trip to the ER to have my tongue surgically removed from my cheek.
Seriously- it is a sign that liberals cannot comprehend sincere disagreement that they want to sincerely disagree with Brett about the nature and goals of the modern NRA. Clearly a liberal who groked sincere disagreement would demonstrate this by *agreeing* with Brett, fer chrissake.
That, fellow agoraphobes, is comedy gold.
In other news, I now dub Brett “The Patron Saint Of Empathic Sincere Disagreement”. I will be back online after a quick trip to the ER to have my tongue surgically removed from my cheek.
Seriously- it is a sign that liberals cannot comprehend sincere disagreement that they want to sincerely disagree with Brett about the nature and goals of the modern NRA. Clearly a liberal who groked sincere disagreement would demonstrate this by *agreeing* with Brett, fer chrissake.
That, fellow agoraphobes, is comedy gold.
In other news, I now dub Brett “The Patron Saint Of Empathic Sincere Disagreement”. I will be back online after a quick trip to the ER to have my tongue surgically removed from my cheek.
Seriously- it is a sign that liberals cannot comprehend sincere disagreement that they want to sincerely disagree with Brett about the nature and goals of the modern NRA. Clearly a liberal who groked sincere disagreement would demonstrate this by *agreeing* with Brett, fer chrissake.
That, fellow agoraphobes, is comedy gold.
It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you.
There are plenty of people disagreeing sincerely. I’m sure you and I disgree sincerely on gun control, Brett. Whether the NRA, as an organization, would be what it is without and industry to front is another question, but the existence of such a question does not rely on anyone being unable to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing.
Hell, even Wayne LaPierre is probably sincere. He’s just a sandwich short of a picnic, it seems.
Maybe something along the lines of what cleek wrote more accurately describes the logic of people thinking the NRA is an industry front group than does your always-interesting mind reading.
It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you.
There are plenty of people disagreeing sincerely. I’m sure you and I disgree sincerely on gun control, Brett. Whether the NRA, as an organization, would be what it is without and industry to front is another question, but the existence of such a question does not rely on anyone being unable to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing.
Hell, even Wayne LaPierre is probably sincere. He’s just a sandwich short of a picnic, it seems.
Maybe something along the lines of what cleek wrote more accurately describes the logic of people thinking the NRA is an industry front group than does your always-interesting mind reading.
It comes from a lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you.
There are plenty of people disagreeing sincerely. I’m sure you and I disgree sincerely on gun control, Brett. Whether the NRA, as an organization, would be what it is without and industry to front is another question, but the existence of such a question does not rely on anyone being unable to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing.
Hell, even Wayne LaPierre is probably sincere. He’s just a sandwich short of a picnic, it seems.
Maybe something along the lines of what cleek wrote more accurately describes the logic of people thinking the NRA is an industry front group than does your always-interesting mind reading.
“what else would you call a group that takes tens of millions of dollars from businesses in a single industry, then relentlessly lobbies, advertises, advocates and speechifies in favor of laws that help that industry ?”
Somebody other than the NRA?
“what else would you call a group that takes tens of millions of dollars from businesses in a single industry, then relentlessly lobbies, advertises, advocates and speechifies in favor of laws that help that industry ?”
Somebody other than the NRA?
“what else would you call a group that takes tens of millions of dollars from businesses in a single industry, then relentlessly lobbies, advertises, advocates and speechifies in favor of laws that help that industry ?”
Somebody other than the NRA?
Hairshirt, Cleek accurately describes said “reasoning”, but “reasoning” doesn’t describe what’s going on in the heads of people who think that a 5 million member organization most of whose budget comes from member donations is an industry front. My God, why would any rational person think that, except that they can’t conceive of a substantial number of people genuinely agreeing with the NRA?
Now, I can see somebody thinking that of a movement that implodes when a few wealthy foundations defund it, but that would be the NRA’s opposition, not the NRA.
Hairshirt, Cleek accurately describes said “reasoning”, but “reasoning” doesn’t describe what’s going on in the heads of people who think that a 5 million member organization most of whose budget comes from member donations is an industry front. My God, why would any rational person think that, except that they can’t conceive of a substantial number of people genuinely agreeing with the NRA?
Now, I can see somebody thinking that of a movement that implodes when a few wealthy foundations defund it, but that would be the NRA’s opposition, not the NRA.
Hairshirt, Cleek accurately describes said “reasoning”, but “reasoning” doesn’t describe what’s going on in the heads of people who think that a 5 million member organization most of whose budget comes from member donations is an industry front. My God, why would any rational person think that, except that they can’t conceive of a substantial number of people genuinely agreeing with the NRA?
Now, I can see somebody thinking that of a movement that implodes when a few wealthy foundations defund it, but that would be the NRA’s opposition, not the NRA.
Brett,
First, if I say something like “the polls Ive seen indicate that many, even a plurality, of NRA members would support including non-dealer gun sales in the background check requirements- yet they are opposed vehemently by the NRA” that wouldn’t be reasoning or logic or facts or any of that junk. It’s crazy talk. My God! Is that even thinking? And where is my empathy?
Seriously, you want to understand the arguments being made against the NRA? Read them. When you can repeat the actual positions of those you oppose, then maybe you can start countering them. As opposed to caricaturing them, which is all you’ve managed so far. Well, that and then basing all sorts of psychoanalysis on those caricatures.
Second, your second paragraph is a parody of your first paragraph. The NRA exactly represents the needs and desires of its base, but the large number of people who support some form of firearms restriction are nonexistent and are actually a front paid for by Big Bad Lib. Presumably you aren’t questioning your own lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you? Because your caricature, unlike the Bad Lib caricature, is true! Or true enough, anyway. True in spirit.
Your last half-dozen posts have been following this format down to the letter: pleading for logical debate, empathy, and refraining from demonization followed immediately by illogical dismissal of dissent and the use of demonization. It’s like you want to convince yourself that you’re in it for the rational debate, but the other side just won’t accommodate you.
Brett,
First, if I say something like “the polls Ive seen indicate that many, even a plurality, of NRA members would support including non-dealer gun sales in the background check requirements- yet they are opposed vehemently by the NRA” that wouldn’t be reasoning or logic or facts or any of that junk. It’s crazy talk. My God! Is that even thinking? And where is my empathy?
Seriously, you want to understand the arguments being made against the NRA? Read them. When you can repeat the actual positions of those you oppose, then maybe you can start countering them. As opposed to caricaturing them, which is all you’ve managed so far. Well, that and then basing all sorts of psychoanalysis on those caricatures.
Second, your second paragraph is a parody of your first paragraph. The NRA exactly represents the needs and desires of its base, but the large number of people who support some form of firearms restriction are nonexistent and are actually a front paid for by Big Bad Lib. Presumably you aren’t questioning your own lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you? Because your caricature, unlike the Bad Lib caricature, is true! Or true enough, anyway. True in spirit.
Your last half-dozen posts have been following this format down to the letter: pleading for logical debate, empathy, and refraining from demonization followed immediately by illogical dismissal of dissent and the use of demonization. It’s like you want to convince yourself that you’re in it for the rational debate, but the other side just won’t accommodate you.
Brett,
First, if I say something like “the polls Ive seen indicate that many, even a plurality, of NRA members would support including non-dealer gun sales in the background check requirements- yet they are opposed vehemently by the NRA” that wouldn’t be reasoning or logic or facts or any of that junk. It’s crazy talk. My God! Is that even thinking? And where is my empathy?
Seriously, you want to understand the arguments being made against the NRA? Read them. When you can repeat the actual positions of those you oppose, then maybe you can start countering them. As opposed to caricaturing them, which is all you’ve managed so far. Well, that and then basing all sorts of psychoanalysis on those caricatures.
Second, your second paragraph is a parody of your first paragraph. The NRA exactly represents the needs and desires of its base, but the large number of people who support some form of firearms restriction are nonexistent and are actually a front paid for by Big Bad Lib. Presumably you aren’t questioning your own lack of capacity for empathy, the inability to conceive of people sincerely disagreeing with you? Because your caricature, unlike the Bad Lib caricature, is true! Or true enough, anyway. True in spirit.
Your last half-dozen posts have been following this format down to the letter: pleading for logical debate, empathy, and refraining from demonization followed immediately by illogical dismissal of dissent and the use of demonization. It’s like you want to convince yourself that you’re in it for the rational debate, but the other side just won’t accommodate you.
Although if it makes you feel any better, I am virtually certain that you aren’t getting paid for any of this.
Although if it makes you feel any better, I am virtually certain that you aren’t getting paid for any of this.
Although if it makes you feel any better, I am virtually certain that you aren’t getting paid for any of this.
Sincerity behind a cloak of anonymity in a request for tax exemption doesn’t inspire empathy.
Curiosity, perhaps. But contempt is not far behind.
“Please empathize with me”
“Who are ya?”
“I can’t tell you.”
“Are you bigger than a bread box?
“That’s for me to know and you to empathize.”
As Ronald Reagan orotunded: Audit, then empathize.
Text of robocalls and postcards sent to Newtown, Conn. residents by the NRA shortly after a bunch of kids and teachers in their town were butchered:
“”Despite public outcry, anti-gun legislators in the Connecticut General Assembly are aggressively forging ahead with numerous proposals that are designed to disarm and punish law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen.”
I would concede sincerity here, if not for the words “Despite public outcry” and “designed to disarm and punish law-abiding gun owners and sportsman” not to mention “in”, “the” “are” “and, “to”, “with”, “that”, and the “men” on the end of “sports”.
Empathy, I’m afraid, goes missing, having been out whoring in a threesome with sincerity and her pimply, horny cuckold — lack of tact.
Putting aside Brett’s views on these subjects, the behavior and statements by groups with Tea Party in their titles, some packing heat, and the politicians, media thugs, and corporate anonyms who supported and bankrolled that behavior, toward those without health insurance, those on Medicaid, and the politicians who defended Obamacare in public meetings during the summer of 2009 and afterwards, and toward the umemployed and folks who lost their homes as the result of the financial crisis, and toward a duly elected President who displayed a little more melanin than some might acceptable even 140 years after Reconstruction .. … did not inspire my empathy glands to secrete the necessary hormones and endorphins for mutual respect.
That Wayne LaPierre is sincere is the problem.
Sincerity in your amateur clowns is cause for a background check.
I’m Countme-In and I sincerely endorse this message.
Send your empathy and cash to the mail drop.
Sincerity behind a cloak of anonymity in a request for tax exemption doesn’t inspire empathy.
Curiosity, perhaps. But contempt is not far behind.
“Please empathize with me”
“Who are ya?”
“I can’t tell you.”
“Are you bigger than a bread box?
“That’s for me to know and you to empathize.”
As Ronald Reagan orotunded: Audit, then empathize.
Text of robocalls and postcards sent to Newtown, Conn. residents by the NRA shortly after a bunch of kids and teachers in their town were butchered:
“”Despite public outcry, anti-gun legislators in the Connecticut General Assembly are aggressively forging ahead with numerous proposals that are designed to disarm and punish law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen.”
I would concede sincerity here, if not for the words “Despite public outcry” and “designed to disarm and punish law-abiding gun owners and sportsman” not to mention “in”, “the” “are” “and, “to”, “with”, “that”, and the “men” on the end of “sports”.
Empathy, I’m afraid, goes missing, having been out whoring in a threesome with sincerity and her pimply, horny cuckold — lack of tact.
Putting aside Brett’s views on these subjects, the behavior and statements by groups with Tea Party in their titles, some packing heat, and the politicians, media thugs, and corporate anonyms who supported and bankrolled that behavior, toward those without health insurance, those on Medicaid, and the politicians who defended Obamacare in public meetings during the summer of 2009 and afterwards, and toward the umemployed and folks who lost their homes as the result of the financial crisis, and toward a duly elected President who displayed a little more melanin than some might acceptable even 140 years after Reconstruction .. … did not inspire my empathy glands to secrete the necessary hormones and endorphins for mutual respect.
That Wayne LaPierre is sincere is the problem.
Sincerity in your amateur clowns is cause for a background check.
I’m Countme-In and I sincerely endorse this message.
Send your empathy and cash to the mail drop.
Sincerity behind a cloak of anonymity in a request for tax exemption doesn’t inspire empathy.
Curiosity, perhaps. But contempt is not far behind.
“Please empathize with me”
“Who are ya?”
“I can’t tell you.”
“Are you bigger than a bread box?
“That’s for me to know and you to empathize.”
As Ronald Reagan orotunded: Audit, then empathize.
Text of robocalls and postcards sent to Newtown, Conn. residents by the NRA shortly after a bunch of kids and teachers in their town were butchered:
“”Despite public outcry, anti-gun legislators in the Connecticut General Assembly are aggressively forging ahead with numerous proposals that are designed to disarm and punish law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen.”
I would concede sincerity here, if not for the words “Despite public outcry” and “designed to disarm and punish law-abiding gun owners and sportsman” not to mention “in”, “the” “are” “and, “to”, “with”, “that”, and the “men” on the end of “sports”.
Empathy, I’m afraid, goes missing, having been out whoring in a threesome with sincerity and her pimply, horny cuckold — lack of tact.
Putting aside Brett’s views on these subjects, the behavior and statements by groups with Tea Party in their titles, some packing heat, and the politicians, media thugs, and corporate anonyms who supported and bankrolled that behavior, toward those without health insurance, those on Medicaid, and the politicians who defended Obamacare in public meetings during the summer of 2009 and afterwards, and toward the umemployed and folks who lost their homes as the result of the financial crisis, and toward a duly elected President who displayed a little more melanin than some might acceptable even 140 years after Reconstruction .. … did not inspire my empathy glands to secrete the necessary hormones and endorphins for mutual respect.
That Wayne LaPierre is sincere is the problem.
Sincerity in your amateur clowns is cause for a background check.
I’m Countme-In and I sincerely endorse this message.
Send your empathy and cash to the mail drop.
probably “tact”, not “lack of tact” in that paragraph for it to work.
probably “tact”, not “lack of tact” in that paragraph for it to work.
probably “tact”, not “lack of tact” in that paragraph for it to work.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Actually, no. Not because of who they are lobbying for, but because they’re not supposed to be lobbying.
Before you respond, I know they’re within the _IRS regulations_, what the IRS has mistakenly decided about the law over the past five decades.
But there’s no indication that ‘Social welfare’ is supposed to allow _any_ political activities at all. And, if it is allowed, there’s no logical reason to set the cutoff at 49%.
I understand that’s what the IRS thinks the law means, but the IRS just basically made all that up, and we need to step in and fix it, because that’s just sorta stupid. Hell, we should just get rid of it…there’s nothing that a 501(c)(4) can do that a 501(c)(3) plus a 527 can’t do.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Actually, no. Not because of who they are lobbying for, but because they’re not supposed to be lobbying.
Before you respond, I know they’re within the _IRS regulations_, what the IRS has mistakenly decided about the law over the past five decades.
But there’s no indication that ‘Social welfare’ is supposed to allow _any_ political activities at all. And, if it is allowed, there’s no logical reason to set the cutoff at 49%.
I understand that’s what the IRS thinks the law means, but the IRS just basically made all that up, and we need to step in and fix it, because that’s just sorta stupid. Hell, we should just get rid of it…there’s nothing that a 501(c)(4) can do that a 501(c)(3) plus a 527 can’t do.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Actually, no. Not because of who they are lobbying for, but because they’re not supposed to be lobbying.
Before you respond, I know they’re within the _IRS regulations_, what the IRS has mistakenly decided about the law over the past five decades.
But there’s no indication that ‘Social welfare’ is supposed to allow _any_ political activities at all. And, if it is allowed, there’s no logical reason to set the cutoff at 49%.
I understand that’s what the IRS thinks the law means, but the IRS just basically made all that up, and we need to step in and fix it, because that’s just sorta stupid. Hell, we should just get rid of it…there’s nothing that a 501(c)(4) can do that a 501(c)(3) plus a 527 can’t do.
I don’t see the word “empathetic” in this assessment of the Republican Party by millenials:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/gop-report-young-voters.php?ref=fpb
The problem, of course, is that a “strategic” political move to inspire empathy for conservative views as expressed by the current Republican political elite, are apt to be seen as insincere.
Marketing the John Birch Society was always a bit dicey, thus the choice of anonymity by the “donors”.
This sort of thing from vermin like Drudge, the right-wing political elitist, who inspire little more than a search for better insecticides, isn’t apt to help:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/drudge-puts-christie-on-notice-whose-side-are
I don’t see the word “empathetic” in this assessment of the Republican Party by millenials:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/gop-report-young-voters.php?ref=fpb
The problem, of course, is that a “strategic” political move to inspire empathy for conservative views as expressed by the current Republican political elite, are apt to be seen as insincere.
Marketing the John Birch Society was always a bit dicey, thus the choice of anonymity by the “donors”.
This sort of thing from vermin like Drudge, the right-wing political elitist, who inspire little more than a search for better insecticides, isn’t apt to help:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/drudge-puts-christie-on-notice-whose-side-are
I don’t see the word “empathetic” in this assessment of the Republican Party by millenials:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/gop-report-young-voters.php?ref=fpb
The problem, of course, is that a “strategic” political move to inspire empathy for conservative views as expressed by the current Republican political elite, are apt to be seen as insincere.
Marketing the John Birch Society was always a bit dicey, thus the choice of anonymity by the “donors”.
This sort of thing from vermin like Drudge, the right-wing political elitist, who inspire little more than a search for better insecticides, isn’t apt to help:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/drudge-puts-christie-on-notice-whose-side-are
“is” not “are”
“ain’t” would be better
“is” not “are”
“ain’t” would be better
“is” not “are”
“ain’t” would be better
It would be interesting to have a thread where the liberals have to make the conservative case and visa versa on some contentious issue to see who “really” has “empathy” of the other side, or which side would most likely produce a terrible parody……..
I’d jump right into this, but there are some bright moral lines that cannot be crossed, much less understood.
It would be interesting to have a thread where the liberals have to make the conservative case and visa versa on some contentious issue to see who “really” has “empathy” of the other side, or which side would most likely produce a terrible parody……..
I’d jump right into this, but there are some bright moral lines that cannot be crossed, much less understood.
It would be interesting to have a thread where the liberals have to make the conservative case and visa versa on some contentious issue to see who “really” has “empathy” of the other side, or which side would most likely produce a terrible parody……..
I’d jump right into this, but there are some bright moral lines that cannot be crossed, much less understood.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Not necessarily. “It depends”.
Hence, the IRS review.
this is just the sort of accusation you generally hear from liberals, like claiming the NRA is an industry front group.
First, financially speaking, “the NRA” is not one thing. It’s a generous handful, including the NRA-ILA, which is explicitly a political lobbying organization.
So yes, most of the overall NRA funding comes from member contributions, and a lot of those funds go to firearm training, wildlife preservation, and a number of other worthwhile, non-political programs.
And, a hell of a lot of money is contributed by firearms manufacturers, where “hell of a lot” is measured in millions. And, membership dues deliberately DO NOT go to the NRA-ILA – that arm of the overall NRA is funded through other sources. Including member contributions other than dues, but also including significant contributions from manufacturers.
There’s a lot of daylight between “the NRA is nothing but an industry funded front group” and “the NRA is just a grassroots shooting club”.
The NRA collects heaping shitloads of corporate money, and spends it on lobbying. Period.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Not necessarily. “It depends”.
Hence, the IRS review.
this is just the sort of accusation you generally hear from liberals, like claiming the NRA is an industry front group.
First, financially speaking, “the NRA” is not one thing. It’s a generous handful, including the NRA-ILA, which is explicitly a political lobbying organization.
So yes, most of the overall NRA funding comes from member contributions, and a lot of those funds go to firearm training, wildlife preservation, and a number of other worthwhile, non-political programs.
And, a hell of a lot of money is contributed by firearms manufacturers, where “hell of a lot” is measured in millions. And, membership dues deliberately DO NOT go to the NRA-ILA – that arm of the overall NRA is funded through other sources. Including member contributions other than dues, but also including significant contributions from manufacturers.
There’s a lot of daylight between “the NRA is nothing but an industry funded front group” and “the NRA is just a grassroots shooting club”.
The NRA collects heaping shitloads of corporate money, and spends it on lobbying. Period.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Not necessarily. “It depends”.
Hence, the IRS review.
this is just the sort of accusation you generally hear from liberals, like claiming the NRA is an industry front group.
First, financially speaking, “the NRA” is not one thing. It’s a generous handful, including the NRA-ILA, which is explicitly a political lobbying organization.
So yes, most of the overall NRA funding comes from member contributions, and a lot of those funds go to firearm training, wildlife preservation, and a number of other worthwhile, non-political programs.
And, a hell of a lot of money is contributed by firearms manufacturers, where “hell of a lot” is measured in millions. And, membership dues deliberately DO NOT go to the NRA-ILA – that arm of the overall NRA is funded through other sources. Including member contributions other than dues, but also including significant contributions from manufacturers.
There’s a lot of daylight between “the NRA is nothing but an industry funded front group” and “the NRA is just a grassroots shooting club”.
The NRA collects heaping shitloads of corporate money, and spends it on lobbying. Period.
Anyway, the obvious stretch in classification of many organizations is just a red herring to distract from “following the facts”.
Anyway, the obvious stretch in classification of many organizations is just a red herring to distract from “following the facts”.
Anyway, the obvious stretch in classification of many organizations is just a red herring to distract from “following the facts”.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Actually, no. Not because of who they are lobbying for, but because they’re not supposed to be lobbying.
Before you respond, I know they’re within the _IRS regulations_, what the IRS has mistakenly decided about the law over the past five decades.
But there’s no indication that ‘Social welfare’ is supposed to allow _any_ political activities at all. And, if it is allowed, there’s no logical reason to set the cutoff at 49%.
I understand that’s what the IRS thinks the law means, but the IRS just basically made all that up, and we need to step in and fix it, because that’s just sorta stupid, not to mention has the IRS doing political determinations.
Hell, we should just get rid of it…there’s nothing that a 501(c)(4) can do that a 501(c)(3) plus a 527 can’t do. The only advantage a 501(c)(4) has is it idiotically allows anonymous political speech.(1)
1) Before anyone asserts ‘But anonymous political speech is important’…no. No, it’s not. For almost all of human history, holding anonymous discussions was literally impossible, and putting on giant ad campaigns that _anonymously_ reach large sections of people was such an absurd idea it was inconceivable.
But we’re not actually talking about people speaking anonymously, anyway. We’re talking about people _funding_ something anonymously, which makes even less sense to allow.
If anonymous political speech is actually important, feel free to start a non-profit that hosts a giant discussion forum with no logs. Or have the government do it. Don’t run around asserting a right to anonymously blanket people with origin-less advertisement, which have a _very_ sordid history in this country, and, in fact, a very sordid history ever since the invention of the printing press.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Actually, no. Not because of who they are lobbying for, but because they’re not supposed to be lobbying.
Before you respond, I know they’re within the _IRS regulations_, what the IRS has mistakenly decided about the law over the past five decades.
But there’s no indication that ‘Social welfare’ is supposed to allow _any_ political activities at all. And, if it is allowed, there’s no logical reason to set the cutoff at 49%.
I understand that’s what the IRS thinks the law means, but the IRS just basically made all that up, and we need to step in and fix it, because that’s just sorta stupid, not to mention has the IRS doing political determinations.
Hell, we should just get rid of it…there’s nothing that a 501(c)(4) can do that a 501(c)(3) plus a 527 can’t do. The only advantage a 501(c)(4) has is it idiotically allows anonymous political speech.(1)
1) Before anyone asserts ‘But anonymous political speech is important’…no. No, it’s not. For almost all of human history, holding anonymous discussions was literally impossible, and putting on giant ad campaigns that _anonymously_ reach large sections of people was such an absurd idea it was inconceivable.
But we’re not actually talking about people speaking anonymously, anyway. We’re talking about people _funding_ something anonymously, which makes even less sense to allow.
If anonymous political speech is actually important, feel free to start a non-profit that hosts a giant discussion forum with no logs. Or have the government do it. Don’t run around asserting a right to anonymously blanket people with origin-less advertisement, which have a _very_ sordid history in this country, and, in fact, a very sordid history ever since the invention of the printing press.
As long as they lobby to reduce or eliminate the taxes of everyone similarly situated, rather than JUST the donors, they’re within the law.
Actually, no. Not because of who they are lobbying for, but because they’re not supposed to be lobbying.
Before you respond, I know they’re within the _IRS regulations_, what the IRS has mistakenly decided about the law over the past five decades.
But there’s no indication that ‘Social welfare’ is supposed to allow _any_ political activities at all. And, if it is allowed, there’s no logical reason to set the cutoff at 49%.
I understand that’s what the IRS thinks the law means, but the IRS just basically made all that up, and we need to step in and fix it, because that’s just sorta stupid, not to mention has the IRS doing political determinations.
Hell, we should just get rid of it…there’s nothing that a 501(c)(4) can do that a 501(c)(3) plus a 527 can’t do. The only advantage a 501(c)(4) has is it idiotically allows anonymous political speech.(1)
1) Before anyone asserts ‘But anonymous political speech is important’…no. No, it’s not. For almost all of human history, holding anonymous discussions was literally impossible, and putting on giant ad campaigns that _anonymously_ reach large sections of people was such an absurd idea it was inconceivable.
But we’re not actually talking about people speaking anonymously, anyway. We’re talking about people _funding_ something anonymously, which makes even less sense to allow.
If anonymous political speech is actually important, feel free to start a non-profit that hosts a giant discussion forum with no logs. Or have the government do it. Don’t run around asserting a right to anonymously blanket people with origin-less advertisement, which have a _very_ sordid history in this country, and, in fact, a very sordid history ever since the invention of the printing press.
Hrm, I thought that previous post didn’t post, so I wrote some more and reposted. Nevermind.
Hrm, I thought that previous post didn’t post, so I wrote some more and reposted. Nevermind.
Hrm, I thought that previous post didn’t post, so I wrote some more and reposted. Nevermind.
Regarding this IRS business: I have kept mostly silent because, after all, this is all wrestling over whether the IRS can show some kind of political colorblindness (I know: that’s carrying a heavy burden, but it’s one that doesn’t matter to me) over a narrow category of tax-exempt classification.
Which classification, I say, maybe should not exist in the first place.
So: meh.
On the other hand, the apparent heavy-handedness has left the Republicans with a can-opener with which they can expose various facets of IRS use of their power that they find excessive, in addition to other things that display how little oversight the IRS has had.
All my perceptions. So: a purge. But one that expends no bullets, nor spills blood. So: I am ok with this, provided that it serves to set perhaps more appropriate limits on IRS power, and emplaces oversight over same.
The more cynical will see this as purely political theater. I think it’d be silly to suppose there isn’t any element of said theatricality involved; this is after all happening in DC, and in the press.
Regarding this IRS business: I have kept mostly silent because, after all, this is all wrestling over whether the IRS can show some kind of political colorblindness (I know: that’s carrying a heavy burden, but it’s one that doesn’t matter to me) over a narrow category of tax-exempt classification.
Which classification, I say, maybe should not exist in the first place.
So: meh.
On the other hand, the apparent heavy-handedness has left the Republicans with a can-opener with which they can expose various facets of IRS use of their power that they find excessive, in addition to other things that display how little oversight the IRS has had.
All my perceptions. So: a purge. But one that expends no bullets, nor spills blood. So: I am ok with this, provided that it serves to set perhaps more appropriate limits on IRS power, and emplaces oversight over same.
The more cynical will see this as purely political theater. I think it’d be silly to suppose there isn’t any element of said theatricality involved; this is after all happening in DC, and in the press.
Regarding this IRS business: I have kept mostly silent because, after all, this is all wrestling over whether the IRS can show some kind of political colorblindness (I know: that’s carrying a heavy burden, but it’s one that doesn’t matter to me) over a narrow category of tax-exempt classification.
Which classification, I say, maybe should not exist in the first place.
So: meh.
On the other hand, the apparent heavy-handedness has left the Republicans with a can-opener with which they can expose various facets of IRS use of their power that they find excessive, in addition to other things that display how little oversight the IRS has had.
All my perceptions. So: a purge. But one that expends no bullets, nor spills blood. So: I am ok with this, provided that it serves to set perhaps more appropriate limits on IRS power, and emplaces oversight over same.
The more cynical will see this as purely political theater. I think it’d be silly to suppose there isn’t any element of said theatricality involved; this is after all happening in DC, and in the press.
I am ok with this, provided that it serves to set perhaps more appropriate limits on IRS power, and emplaces oversight over same.
Once again, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Slartibarfast.
I am ok with this, provided that it serves to set perhaps more appropriate limits on IRS power, and emplaces oversight over same.
Once again, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Slartibarfast.
I am ok with this, provided that it serves to set perhaps more appropriate limits on IRS power, and emplaces oversight over same.
Once again, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Slartibarfast.
…dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
…dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
…dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
“And, a hell of a lot of money is contributed by firearms manufacturers, where “hell of a lot” is measured in millions.”
They’ve got an annual budget between $250-300 million a year. Industry donations, which are often just bundled donations from customers, (The NRA being popular enough among gun owners that “$5 of your purchase price goes to the NRA!” is an effective promotion.) amount to maybe 10% of that. That hardly makes them astroturf.
Again, I think you’re demonstrating my point: The difficulty liberals have in believing that conservative organizations are on the up and up, translates into abusive behavior by regulators, when the regulators are liberals. That’s what was going on at the IRS: It’s staffed by liberal Democrats, so they assume any conservative applicants are planning abuse, and behave accordingly. They don’t need orders to be abusive, any indication that it wouldn’t be opposed is enough.
“And, a hell of a lot of money is contributed by firearms manufacturers, where “hell of a lot” is measured in millions.”
They’ve got an annual budget between $250-300 million a year. Industry donations, which are often just bundled donations from customers, (The NRA being popular enough among gun owners that “$5 of your purchase price goes to the NRA!” is an effective promotion.) amount to maybe 10% of that. That hardly makes them astroturf.
Again, I think you’re demonstrating my point: The difficulty liberals have in believing that conservative organizations are on the up and up, translates into abusive behavior by regulators, when the regulators are liberals. That’s what was going on at the IRS: It’s staffed by liberal Democrats, so they assume any conservative applicants are planning abuse, and behave accordingly. They don’t need orders to be abusive, any indication that it wouldn’t be opposed is enough.
“And, a hell of a lot of money is contributed by firearms manufacturers, where “hell of a lot” is measured in millions.”
They’ve got an annual budget between $250-300 million a year. Industry donations, which are often just bundled donations from customers, (The NRA being popular enough among gun owners that “$5 of your purchase price goes to the NRA!” is an effective promotion.) amount to maybe 10% of that. That hardly makes them astroturf.
Again, I think you’re demonstrating my point: The difficulty liberals have in believing that conservative organizations are on the up and up, translates into abusive behavior by regulators, when the regulators are liberals. That’s what was going on at the IRS: It’s staffed by liberal Democrats, so they assume any conservative applicants are planning abuse, and behave accordingly. They don’t need orders to be abusive, any indication that it wouldn’t be opposed is enough.
The difficulty liberals have in believing that conservative organizations are on the up and up
i just love that this comes from the same person who wrote this:
That the institutional culture at the IRS is open to doing things like this. The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left, and insufficiently scrupulous about what they’re doing, that it never struck them that doing this was unseemly.
that liberals think an organization is illegitimate because it’s “conservative” is proof of their insidious nature. but it’s plainly obvious that the IRS is corrupt at the core because of the leftism!
The difficulty liberals have in believing that conservative organizations are on the up and up
i just love that this comes from the same person who wrote this:
That the institutional culture at the IRS is open to doing things like this. The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left, and insufficiently scrupulous about what they’re doing, that it never struck them that doing this was unseemly.
that liberals think an organization is illegitimate because it’s “conservative” is proof of their insidious nature. but it’s plainly obvious that the IRS is corrupt at the core because of the leftism!
The difficulty liberals have in believing that conservative organizations are on the up and up
i just love that this comes from the same person who wrote this:
That the institutional culture at the IRS is open to doing things like this. The organization is sufficiently dominated by the left, and insufficiently scrupulous about what they’re doing, that it never struck them that doing this was unseemly.
that liberals think an organization is illegitimate because it’s “conservative” is proof of their insidious nature. but it’s plainly obvious that the IRS is corrupt at the core because of the leftism!
You have still not provided the statistics about party affiliation of IRS employees you have been asked for quite some time ago.
As long as you can’t provide that I see no reason to treat your claim of ‘it’s all liberals’ as anything else than unsubstantiated.
You have still not provided the statistics about party affiliation of IRS employees you have been asked for quite some time ago.
As long as you can’t provide that I see no reason to treat your claim of ‘it’s all liberals’ as anything else than unsubstantiated.
You have still not provided the statistics about party affiliation of IRS employees you have been asked for quite some time ago.
As long as you can’t provide that I see no reason to treat your claim of ‘it’s all liberals’ as anything else than unsubstantiated.
The Armed Forces are largely staffed by self-confessed conservatives, many of a Christian outlook.
Thus the epidemic of rape and sexual assault.
The Armed Forces are largely staffed by self-confessed conservatives, many of a Christian outlook.
Thus the epidemic of rape and sexual assault.
The Armed Forces are largely staffed by self-confessed conservatives, many of a Christian outlook.
Thus the epidemic of rape and sexual assault.
That hardly makes them astroturf.
No, it makes them what they are. A large and complicated organization, some of whose activities involve direct political action, the latter of which receives a lot of money from manufacturers.
To put it another way, when gun manufacturers want to lobby Congress regarding gun legislation, they frequently do so through the NRA.
This is not a matter of debate, it is simply a fact.
So, correct, not astroturf. Also correct, neither simple grass roots.
As an aside, I’m wondering if there has been a thread, on any topic, in which Brett has participated in the last year or two which has not, at some point, turned into a discussion of guns.
Just asking.
the IRS: It’s staffed by liberal Democrats
A lot of your argument seems to rest on this claim. And, it’s not in evidence.
It might be true, it might not. If you want to argue from it, you might find the strength of your argument improved by some data.
…dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
It’s pandelerium!!
That hardly makes them astroturf.
No, it makes them what they are. A large and complicated organization, some of whose activities involve direct political action, the latter of which receives a lot of money from manufacturers.
To put it another way, when gun manufacturers want to lobby Congress regarding gun legislation, they frequently do so through the NRA.
This is not a matter of debate, it is simply a fact.
So, correct, not astroturf. Also correct, neither simple grass roots.
As an aside, I’m wondering if there has been a thread, on any topic, in which Brett has participated in the last year or two which has not, at some point, turned into a discussion of guns.
Just asking.
the IRS: It’s staffed by liberal Democrats
A lot of your argument seems to rest on this claim. And, it’s not in evidence.
It might be true, it might not. If you want to argue from it, you might find the strength of your argument improved by some data.
…dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
It’s pandelerium!!
That hardly makes them astroturf.
No, it makes them what they are. A large and complicated organization, some of whose activities involve direct political action, the latter of which receives a lot of money from manufacturers.
To put it another way, when gun manufacturers want to lobby Congress regarding gun legislation, they frequently do so through the NRA.
This is not a matter of debate, it is simply a fact.
So, correct, not astroturf. Also correct, neither simple grass roots.
As an aside, I’m wondering if there has been a thread, on any topic, in which Brett has participated in the last year or two which has not, at some point, turned into a discussion of guns.
Just asking.
the IRS: It’s staffed by liberal Democrats
A lot of your argument seems to rest on this claim. And, it’s not in evidence.
It might be true, it might not. If you want to argue from it, you might find the strength of your argument improved by some data.
…dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
It’s pandelerium!!
”
In the past three election cycles, the Center for Responsive Politics’ database shows about $474,000 in political donations by individuals listing “IRS” or “Internal Revenue Service” as their employer.
This money heavily favors Democrats: $247,000 to $145,000, with the rest going to political action committees. (Oddly, half of those GOP donations come from only two IRS employees, one in Houston and one in Annandale, Va.)
IRS employees also gave $67,000 to the PAC of the National Treasury Employees Union, which in turn gave more than 96 percent of its contributions to Democrats. Add the PAC cash to the individual donations and IRS employees favor Democrats 2-to-1.
The Cincinnati office where the political targeting took place is much more partisan, judging by FEC filings. More than 75 percent of the campaign contributions from that office in the past three elections went to Democrats. In 2012, every donation traceable to employees at that office went to either President Obama or liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
The IRS officials whose names appear in the IG report are also Democrats with partisan histories. William Wilkins, IRS general counsel and one of the agency’s two explicitly political appointees, is a former Democratic congressional aide, lobbyist (clients included the Swiss Bankers Association), and Democratic donor.
Joseph H. Grant, who ran the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division that includes the Cincinnati office, is a former Democratic staffer on the House Ways & Means Committee.”
Of course, if the government bureaucracy were composed overwhelmingly of Republicans, you’d probably see similar abuse of liberals. “IF”. The shoe is on a particular foot in this world.
”
In the past three election cycles, the Center for Responsive Politics’ database shows about $474,000 in political donations by individuals listing “IRS” or “Internal Revenue Service” as their employer.
This money heavily favors Democrats: $247,000 to $145,000, with the rest going to political action committees. (Oddly, half of those GOP donations come from only two IRS employees, one in Houston and one in Annandale, Va.)
IRS employees also gave $67,000 to the PAC of the National Treasury Employees Union, which in turn gave more than 96 percent of its contributions to Democrats. Add the PAC cash to the individual donations and IRS employees favor Democrats 2-to-1.
The Cincinnati office where the political targeting took place is much more partisan, judging by FEC filings. More than 75 percent of the campaign contributions from that office in the past three elections went to Democrats. In 2012, every donation traceable to employees at that office went to either President Obama or liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
The IRS officials whose names appear in the IG report are also Democrats with partisan histories. William Wilkins, IRS general counsel and one of the agency’s two explicitly political appointees, is a former Democratic congressional aide, lobbyist (clients included the Swiss Bankers Association), and Democratic donor.
Joseph H. Grant, who ran the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division that includes the Cincinnati office, is a former Democratic staffer on the House Ways & Means Committee.”
Of course, if the government bureaucracy were composed overwhelmingly of Republicans, you’d probably see similar abuse of liberals. “IF”. The shoe is on a particular foot in this world.
”
In the past three election cycles, the Center for Responsive Politics’ database shows about $474,000 in political donations by individuals listing “IRS” or “Internal Revenue Service” as their employer.
This money heavily favors Democrats: $247,000 to $145,000, with the rest going to political action committees. (Oddly, half of those GOP donations come from only two IRS employees, one in Houston and one in Annandale, Va.)
IRS employees also gave $67,000 to the PAC of the National Treasury Employees Union, which in turn gave more than 96 percent of its contributions to Democrats. Add the PAC cash to the individual donations and IRS employees favor Democrats 2-to-1.
The Cincinnati office where the political targeting took place is much more partisan, judging by FEC filings. More than 75 percent of the campaign contributions from that office in the past three elections went to Democrats. In 2012, every donation traceable to employees at that office went to either President Obama or liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
The IRS officials whose names appear in the IG report are also Democrats with partisan histories. William Wilkins, IRS general counsel and one of the agency’s two explicitly political appointees, is a former Democratic congressional aide, lobbyist (clients included the Swiss Bankers Association), and Democratic donor.
Joseph H. Grant, who ran the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division that includes the Cincinnati office, is a former Democratic staffer on the House Ways & Means Committee.”
Of course, if the government bureaucracy were composed overwhelmingly of Republicans, you’d probably see similar abuse of liberals. “IF”. The shoe is on a particular foot in this world.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Brett- what those numbers don’t demonstrate is what percentage of employees overall were donors. If 10% donated to Dems and 5% to the GOP, Id hardly call that an office ‘dominated’ by partisan Democrats. And counting one set of PAC donations but not others is probly a methodological mistake.
And you still haven’t come anywhere near demonstrating a causal relationship. The causal relationship here appears to be in your mind, connecting ‘liberal’ with all sorts of negative character traits.
Ill bet when you get cut off in traffic by a guy with a Romney bumpersticker, you think “what an @sshole”, but when it’s an Obama sticker you think “what an entitled liberal @sshole”.
Finally, your weird biases are showing when you accuse russell at 10:07; he observes some factual information, and you use that to deduce that he believes the NRA is not ‘on the up and up’. I have no idea what your brain does with his 9:10 post to compose the belief that he thinks the NRA is somehow illegitimate.
If your thesis is that all libs are frothing NRA-haters who cannot think logically about the organization, russell is being stubbornly inconvenient evidence to the contrary. Ask not whence the froth comes- it comes from thee.
Brett- what those numbers don’t demonstrate is what percentage of employees overall were donors. If 10% donated to Dems and 5% to the GOP, Id hardly call that an office ‘dominated’ by partisan Democrats. And counting one set of PAC donations but not others is probly a methodological mistake.
And you still haven’t come anywhere near demonstrating a causal relationship. The causal relationship here appears to be in your mind, connecting ‘liberal’ with all sorts of negative character traits.
Ill bet when you get cut off in traffic by a guy with a Romney bumpersticker, you think “what an @sshole”, but when it’s an Obama sticker you think “what an entitled liberal @sshole”.
Finally, your weird biases are showing when you accuse russell at 10:07; he observes some factual information, and you use that to deduce that he believes the NRA is not ‘on the up and up’. I have no idea what your brain does with his 9:10 post to compose the belief that he thinks the NRA is somehow illegitimate.
If your thesis is that all libs are frothing NRA-haters who cannot think logically about the organization, russell is being stubbornly inconvenient evidence to the contrary. Ask not whence the froth comes- it comes from thee.
Brett- what those numbers don’t demonstrate is what percentage of employees overall were donors. If 10% donated to Dems and 5% to the GOP, Id hardly call that an office ‘dominated’ by partisan Democrats. And counting one set of PAC donations but not others is probly a methodological mistake.
And you still haven’t come anywhere near demonstrating a causal relationship. The causal relationship here appears to be in your mind, connecting ‘liberal’ with all sorts of negative character traits.
Ill bet when you get cut off in traffic by a guy with a Romney bumpersticker, you think “what an @sshole”, but when it’s an Obama sticker you think “what an entitled liberal @sshole”.
Finally, your weird biases are showing when you accuse russell at 10:07; he observes some factual information, and you use that to deduce that he believes the NRA is not ‘on the up and up’. I have no idea what your brain does with his 9:10 post to compose the belief that he thinks the NRA is somehow illegitimate.
If your thesis is that all libs are frothing NRA-haters who cannot think logically about the organization, russell is being stubbornly inconvenient evidence to the contrary. Ask not whence the froth comes- it comes from thee.
Of course, if the government bureaucracy were composed overwhelmingly of Republicans, you’d probably see similar abuse of liberals.
Btw, you havent answered this from earlier: do you think that there has been an ongoing pattern of conservative abuse for decades y federal bureaucracies? Or has the partisan makeup of the IRS or federal bureaucracy changed much in the past few years?
If the causal relationship you posit exists, then it seems that one of those two needs to be true.
Of course, if the government bureaucracy were composed overwhelmingly of Republicans, you’d probably see similar abuse of liberals.
Btw, you havent answered this from earlier: do you think that there has been an ongoing pattern of conservative abuse for decades y federal bureaucracies? Or has the partisan makeup of the IRS or federal bureaucracy changed much in the past few years?
If the causal relationship you posit exists, then it seems that one of those two needs to be true.
Of course, if the government bureaucracy were composed overwhelmingly of Republicans, you’d probably see similar abuse of liberals.
Btw, you havent answered this from earlier: do you think that there has been an ongoing pattern of conservative abuse for decades y federal bureaucracies? Or has the partisan makeup of the IRS or federal bureaucracy changed much in the past few years?
If the causal relationship you posit exists, then it seems that one of those two needs to be true.
I appreciate Brett coming up with some data points. At le(a)st something that one can actually discuss.
I appreciate Brett coming up with some data points. At le(a)st something that one can actually discuss.
I appreciate Brett coming up with some data points. At le(a)st something that one can actually discuss.
I’ll concede, in turn, that only two thirds of the sexual assaults in the Armed Forces are perpetrated and/or enabled by conservatives.
I am gratified to learn that roughly two-thirds of IRS employees (I suspect we’re talking high management here) are dedicated to electing liberal politicians who want to, if not raise taxes, at least assiduously collect all taxes owed to pay for the beloved war spending of the Republican Party, which seems intent on allowing their constituents to remain deadbeats at bill collection time.
I wonder if the roughly one-third of the IRS employees who spend money on Republican political causes also maneuver to favor the conservative individuals, corporations, and “non-profit” entities whose tax returns and requests for tax-exempt status they oversee.
Let’s investigate.
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
I’ll concede, in turn, that only two thirds of the sexual assaults in the Armed Forces are perpetrated and/or enabled by conservatives.
I am gratified to learn that roughly two-thirds of IRS employees (I suspect we’re talking high management here) are dedicated to electing liberal politicians who want to, if not raise taxes, at least assiduously collect all taxes owed to pay for the beloved war spending of the Republican Party, which seems intent on allowing their constituents to remain deadbeats at bill collection time.
I wonder if the roughly one-third of the IRS employees who spend money on Republican political causes also maneuver to favor the conservative individuals, corporations, and “non-profit” entities whose tax returns and requests for tax-exempt status they oversee.
Let’s investigate.
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
I’ll concede, in turn, that only two thirds of the sexual assaults in the Armed Forces are perpetrated and/or enabled by conservatives.
I am gratified to learn that roughly two-thirds of IRS employees (I suspect we’re talking high management here) are dedicated to electing liberal politicians who want to, if not raise taxes, at least assiduously collect all taxes owed to pay for the beloved war spending of the Republican Party, which seems intent on allowing their constituents to remain deadbeats at bill collection time.
I wonder if the roughly one-third of the IRS employees who spend money on Republican political causes also maneuver to favor the conservative individuals, corporations, and “non-profit” entities whose tax returns and requests for tax-exempt status they oversee.
Let’s investigate.
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
The prob I have with that sort of thing is that there doesnt appear to me to be a logical stopping point. If federal employees shouldnt be allowed to donate, how about individual contractors? People who work for companies that provide 100% of their goods or services to the US government? Or 50%? Or 10%?
How about people who derive significant investment income from companies with federal business contracts? Or people who are married to those people? Or their children?
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
The prob I have with that sort of thing is that there doesnt appear to me to be a logical stopping point. If federal employees shouldnt be allowed to donate, how about individual contractors? People who work for companies that provide 100% of their goods or services to the US government? Or 50%? Or 10%?
How about people who derive significant investment income from companies with federal business contracts? Or people who are married to those people? Or their children?
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
The prob I have with that sort of thing is that there doesnt appear to me to be a logical stopping point. If federal employees shouldnt be allowed to donate, how about individual contractors? People who work for companies that provide 100% of their goods or services to the US government? Or 50%? Or 10%?
How about people who derive significant investment income from companies with federal business contracts? Or people who are married to those people? Or their children?
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
Not a good idea. Germany went even further during the Weimar Republic, e.g. by not allowing members of the military to vote in order to keep them apolitical (didn’t the US do that once too?). That turned them into a state-within-a-state with no loyalty to the civil government.
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
Not a good idea. Germany went even further during the Weimar Republic, e.g. by not allowing members of the military to vote in order to keep them apolitical (didn’t the US do that once too?). That turned them into a state-within-a-state with no loyalty to the civil government.
I would favor making it illegal for federal employees (both rank and file and executive appointees) to give money to political organizations and candidates.
Not a good idea. Germany went even further during the Weimar Republic, e.g. by not allowing members of the military to vote in order to keep them apolitical (didn’t the US do that once too?). That turned them into a state-within-a-state with no loyalty to the civil government.
Having been a Federal employee twice in the past, I’m aware that idea wouldn’t fly.
How about this?
Say, you’ve got a Tea Party aficionado, who for one reason or another doesn’t want to pay taxes for government services and certainly doesn’t want THOSE people over there to receive government services, and it just so happens he sits in a Medicare-subsidized scooter with a Medicare-subsidized oxygen tank mounted thereon … would it be O.K. if I kind of sidled up to him during one of his oxygen-subsidized harangues and just took the plastic tube leading from his oxygen tank to his nose and kind of pinched it between forefinger and thumb until he turned peuse and began gesticulating frantically and wordlessly that maybe the IRS has a legitimate role in collecting revenue for the Federal Government?
Having been a Federal employee twice in the past, I’m aware that idea wouldn’t fly.
How about this?
Say, you’ve got a Tea Party aficionado, who for one reason or another doesn’t want to pay taxes for government services and certainly doesn’t want THOSE people over there to receive government services, and it just so happens he sits in a Medicare-subsidized scooter with a Medicare-subsidized oxygen tank mounted thereon … would it be O.K. if I kind of sidled up to him during one of his oxygen-subsidized harangues and just took the plastic tube leading from his oxygen tank to his nose and kind of pinched it between forefinger and thumb until he turned peuse and began gesticulating frantically and wordlessly that maybe the IRS has a legitimate role in collecting revenue for the Federal Government?
Having been a Federal employee twice in the past, I’m aware that idea wouldn’t fly.
How about this?
Say, you’ve got a Tea Party aficionado, who for one reason or another doesn’t want to pay taxes for government services and certainly doesn’t want THOSE people over there to receive government services, and it just so happens he sits in a Medicare-subsidized scooter with a Medicare-subsidized oxygen tank mounted thereon … would it be O.K. if I kind of sidled up to him during one of his oxygen-subsidized harangues and just took the plastic tube leading from his oxygen tank to his nose and kind of pinched it between forefinger and thumb until he turned peuse and began gesticulating frantically and wordlessly that maybe the IRS has a legitimate role in collecting revenue for the Federal Government?
would it be O.K. if I kind of sidled up to him during one of his oxygen-subsidized harangues and …
Nah, too harsh.
I say just hand him a bill for services rendered.
would it be O.K. if I kind of sidled up to him during one of his oxygen-subsidized harangues and …
Nah, too harsh.
I say just hand him a bill for services rendered.
would it be O.K. if I kind of sidled up to him during one of his oxygen-subsidized harangues and …
Nah, too harsh.
I say just hand him a bill for services rendered.
“Btw, you havent answered this from earlier: do you think that there has been an ongoing pattern of conservative abuse for decades y federal bureaucracies? Or has the partisan makeup of the IRS or federal bureaucracy changed much in the past few years?”
I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government. It might be a little more extreme now, I don’t know.
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated. So a lot of professional and moral barriers are starting to fall.
“Btw, you havent answered this from earlier: do you think that there has been an ongoing pattern of conservative abuse for decades y federal bureaucracies? Or has the partisan makeup of the IRS or federal bureaucracy changed much in the past few years?”
I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government. It might be a little more extreme now, I don’t know.
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated. So a lot of professional and moral barriers are starting to fall.
“Btw, you havent answered this from earlier: do you think that there has been an ongoing pattern of conservative abuse for decades y federal bureaucracies? Or has the partisan makeup of the IRS or federal bureaucracy changed much in the past few years?”
I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government. It might be a little more extreme now, I don’t know.
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated. So a lot of professional and moral barriers are starting to fall.
I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government.
Because they’re all venture capitalists? My impression of the mass of humanity is that they aspire to a job, or at best a career; my impression is that the mass of humanity doesn’t place a tremendous value on ideological purity. They like eating and TV and having a nicer car or apt or house than their brother-in-law.
A much better argument might be noting that DC + suburbs tends somewhat Democratic, although in a pretty mildly/blue doggy kind of way. So I dont think that actually helps much, but that’s more like what evidence would look like.
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
You suspect that. I think that says more about your brain than it does about liberals, but ymmv.
Anyway, you’ve got a theory. And that theory says that the IRS problem comes from the IRS being dominated by extreme, “by any means necessary” liberals.
Your evidence for that is that what political donations come from IRS people tend somewhat Democratic. Plus your intuitions about how liberals in general are now out to exterminate conservatives.
Counterargument: when you’ve got a weak case for A causes B, and then someone points out that A has presumably been true for decades but didn’t cause B until yesterday, you ought to re-examine the thesis that A caused B.
When faced with this counterargument that (IMO) kinda blows the snot out of your thesis, you retreat to some special pleading- probly liberals are becoming even less principled than ever and also probly taking over even more.
Not for one precious second do you re-examine the thesis.
You should seriously consider that point.
I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government.
Because they’re all venture capitalists? My impression of the mass of humanity is that they aspire to a job, or at best a career; my impression is that the mass of humanity doesn’t place a tremendous value on ideological purity. They like eating and TV and having a nicer car or apt or house than their brother-in-law.
A much better argument might be noting that DC + suburbs tends somewhat Democratic, although in a pretty mildly/blue doggy kind of way. So I dont think that actually helps much, but that’s more like what evidence would look like.
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
You suspect that. I think that says more about your brain than it does about liberals, but ymmv.
Anyway, you’ve got a theory. And that theory says that the IRS problem comes from the IRS being dominated by extreme, “by any means necessary” liberals.
Your evidence for that is that what political donations come from IRS people tend somewhat Democratic. Plus your intuitions about how liberals in general are now out to exterminate conservatives.
Counterargument: when you’ve got a weak case for A causes B, and then someone points out that A has presumably been true for decades but didn’t cause B until yesterday, you ought to re-examine the thesis that A caused B.
When faced with this counterargument that (IMO) kinda blows the snot out of your thesis, you retreat to some special pleading- probly liberals are becoming even less principled than ever and also probly taking over even more.
Not for one precious second do you re-examine the thesis.
You should seriously consider that point.
I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government.
Because they’re all venture capitalists? My impression of the mass of humanity is that they aspire to a job, or at best a career; my impression is that the mass of humanity doesn’t place a tremendous value on ideological purity. They like eating and TV and having a nicer car or apt or house than their brother-in-law.
A much better argument might be noting that DC + suburbs tends somewhat Democratic, although in a pretty mildly/blue doggy kind of way. So I dont think that actually helps much, but that’s more like what evidence would look like.
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
You suspect that. I think that says more about your brain than it does about liberals, but ymmv.
Anyway, you’ve got a theory. And that theory says that the IRS problem comes from the IRS being dominated by extreme, “by any means necessary” liberals.
Your evidence for that is that what political donations come from IRS people tend somewhat Democratic. Plus your intuitions about how liberals in general are now out to exterminate conservatives.
Counterargument: when you’ve got a weak case for A causes B, and then someone points out that A has presumably been true for decades but didn’t cause B until yesterday, you ought to re-examine the thesis that A caused B.
When faced with this counterargument that (IMO) kinda blows the snot out of your thesis, you retreat to some special pleading- probly liberals are becoming even less principled than ever and also probly taking over even more.
Not for one precious second do you re-examine the thesis.
You should seriously consider that point.
“I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government.”
That’s interesting. I raised the same question (bait) with some of the many self-identified conservative Republicans I came into contact with when I worked for the Feds and they took umbrage with the idea that political affiliation had anything to do with whether they chose to work for the Feds or not.
Most were professionals, tops in their fields.
Not that that stopped some of them from starting in on liberals after a drink or two, and I was just the guy to elicit the worst.
That some conservatives think they are too good for public service is their loss and an over-estimation of the talents and credentials they presume might be acceptable
to a government agency.
We’ll leave aside the tender pride and delicate standards of the many millions of private contractors who — suck Fed titty — no sorry, who seem to do good work despite their evident discomfort at their compromised ideologies.
In this survey, and others I’ll try to find, the political affiliations of Federal employees largely align with those of the American public at large:
http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/01/12/federal-employee-preferences-would-not-vote/
“In this instance, 35.1% of those who participated identified themselves as a Republican. 30.8% identified themselves as independents and 30.7% identified themselves as a Democrat. This is fairly consistent with national trends as the number of independents are generally increasing and the number of people who consider themselves Democrats is decreasing. In December 2011, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans–a total just below the high for the year of 35.6% reached in May.”
Consider: Roughly 25% of civilian Federal employees are veterans.
Consider, too, that the number of civilian Federal workers, including Postal workers, is nearly the same as it was in 1955 and is less than it was in 1970, 1980, and 1990.
Nearly all of the growth in civilian employment has come in Homeland Security types of jobs in recent years and many of those folks are veterans as well.
Tell you what, next time you’re at the airport, walk up to one of the supervisors of Homeland Security and tell them they are apt to be a socialist hippie who couldn’t hack it in the vaunted private sector and see how far your atlatl gets you with that line of crap.
“I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government.”
That’s interesting. I raised the same question (bait) with some of the many self-identified conservative Republicans I came into contact with when I worked for the Feds and they took umbrage with the idea that political affiliation had anything to do with whether they chose to work for the Feds or not.
Most were professionals, tops in their fields.
Not that that stopped some of them from starting in on liberals after a drink or two, and I was just the guy to elicit the worst.
That some conservatives think they are too good for public service is their loss and an over-estimation of the talents and credentials they presume might be acceptable
to a government agency.
We’ll leave aside the tender pride and delicate standards of the many millions of private contractors who — suck Fed titty — no sorry, who seem to do good work despite their evident discomfort at their compromised ideologies.
In this survey, and others I’ll try to find, the political affiliations of Federal employees largely align with those of the American public at large:
http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/01/12/federal-employee-preferences-would-not-vote/
“In this instance, 35.1% of those who participated identified themselves as a Republican. 30.8% identified themselves as independents and 30.7% identified themselves as a Democrat. This is fairly consistent with national trends as the number of independents are generally increasing and the number of people who consider themselves Democrats is decreasing. In December 2011, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans–a total just below the high for the year of 35.6% reached in May.”
Consider: Roughly 25% of civilian Federal employees are veterans.
Consider, too, that the number of civilian Federal workers, including Postal workers, is nearly the same as it was in 1955 and is less than it was in 1970, 1980, and 1990.
Nearly all of the growth in civilian employment has come in Homeland Security types of jobs in recent years and many of those folks are veterans as well.
Tell you what, next time you’re at the airport, walk up to one of the supervisors of Homeland Security and tell them they are apt to be a socialist hippie who couldn’t hack it in the vaunted private sector and see how far your atlatl gets you with that line of crap.
“I think the bureaucracy has long been dominated by liberals, because conservatives tend not to aspire to work for the government.”
That’s interesting. I raised the same question (bait) with some of the many self-identified conservative Republicans I came into contact with when I worked for the Feds and they took umbrage with the idea that political affiliation had anything to do with whether they chose to work for the Feds or not.
Most were professionals, tops in their fields.
Not that that stopped some of them from starting in on liberals after a drink or two, and I was just the guy to elicit the worst.
That some conservatives think they are too good for public service is their loss and an over-estimation of the talents and credentials they presume might be acceptable
to a government agency.
We’ll leave aside the tender pride and delicate standards of the many millions of private contractors who — suck Fed titty — no sorry, who seem to do good work despite their evident discomfort at their compromised ideologies.
In this survey, and others I’ll try to find, the political affiliations of Federal employees largely align with those of the American public at large:
http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/01/12/federal-employee-preferences-would-not-vote/
“In this instance, 35.1% of those who participated identified themselves as a Republican. 30.8% identified themselves as independents and 30.7% identified themselves as a Democrat. This is fairly consistent with national trends as the number of independents are generally increasing and the number of people who consider themselves Democrats is decreasing. In December 2011, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans–a total just below the high for the year of 35.6% reached in May.”
Consider: Roughly 25% of civilian Federal employees are veterans.
Consider, too, that the number of civilian Federal workers, including Postal workers, is nearly the same as it was in 1955 and is less than it was in 1970, 1980, and 1990.
Nearly all of the growth in civilian employment has come in Homeland Security types of jobs in recent years and many of those folks are veterans as well.
Tell you what, next time you’re at the airport, walk up to one of the supervisors of Homeland Security and tell them they are apt to be a socialist hippie who couldn’t hack it in the vaunted private sector and see how far your atlatl gets you with that line of crap.
“Because they’re all venture capitalists?”
You either work for the government, or you’re a venture capitalist?
“You suspect that. I think that says more about your brain than it does about liberals, but ymmv.”
Nah, it says I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.
“Because they’re all venture capitalists?”
You either work for the government, or you’re a venture capitalist?
“You suspect that. I think that says more about your brain than it does about liberals, but ymmv.”
Nah, it says I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.
“Because they’re all venture capitalists?”
You either work for the government, or you’re a venture capitalist?
“You suspect that. I think that says more about your brain than it does about liberals, but ymmv.”
Nah, it says I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.
Also:
“What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated. So a lot of professional and moral barriers are starting to fall.”
That sounds exactly like something I might say.
Except that I learned those rhetorical chops from reading Newt Gingrich’s and company’s rhetoric regarding liberals, back in the 1980s and 1990s when I was still a registered Republican.
Bout once a week I pop over to Redstate for a quick refresher course as they hold me in they hold me in their armchair and feel my disease.
The worst disease they are trying to eradicate by any means is the RINO virus.
Also:
“What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated. So a lot of professional and moral barriers are starting to fall.”
That sounds exactly like something I might say.
Except that I learned those rhetorical chops from reading Newt Gingrich’s and company’s rhetoric regarding liberals, back in the 1980s and 1990s when I was still a registered Republican.
Bout once a week I pop over to Redstate for a quick refresher course as they hold me in they hold me in their armchair and feel my disease.
The worst disease they are trying to eradicate by any means is the RINO virus.
Also:
“What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated. So a lot of professional and moral barriers are starting to fall.”
That sounds exactly like something I might say.
Except that I learned those rhetorical chops from reading Newt Gingrich’s and company’s rhetoric regarding liberals, back in the 1980s and 1990s when I was still a registered Republican.
Bout once a week I pop over to Redstate for a quick refresher course as they hold me in they hold me in their armchair and feel my disease.
The worst disease they are trying to eradicate by any means is the RINO virus.
I’d like to see the stats for the number of Federal employees who are NRA members and who own weapons.
I suspect that tracks the overall American population as well.
I wonder who they plan to shoot when the ball drops?
Themselves?
I’d like to see the stats for the number of Federal employees who are NRA members and who own weapons.
I suspect that tracks the overall American population as well.
I wonder who they plan to shoot when the ball drops?
Themselves?
I’d like to see the stats for the number of Federal employees who are NRA members and who own weapons.
I suspect that tracks the overall American population as well.
I wonder who they plan to shoot when the ball drops?
Themselves?
“You either work for the government, or you’re a venture capitalist?”
You reach the point without realizing it. Most Republicans and most Democrats work basic jobs. They aren’t in a position to refuse work because of some ideological concern. Most wouldn’t even if they could afford to, they just aren’t that into politics. Even most people who are into politics enough to donate certainly aren’t into politics enough to adopt a “by any means necessary” credo.
Your theory depends on a group with a mild liberal bias containing enough people with that “by any means necessary” credo to form a critical mass of institutional mores.
I think it is a bad theory for that reason.
It is also a bad theory because it cannot explain why that’s changed so much in the past few years. Absent any evidence, you postulate either a huge change in the political nature of the average IRS employee, or a huge change in the ruthlessness of the average liberal.
Faced with criticism, you wave your hands vigorously and call it good.
I think that the fact that you can’t even begin to admit the possibility that the theory is wrong is telling. Instead, you look for more and more outlandish ways to dismiss the problems with the theory.
It suggests that the theory- or the biases underlying it- are very important to you.
“Nah, it says I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.”
So hanging out at sites like this one leads you to believe that liberals are moving towards an exterminationist position vis-a-vis conservatives? Conversations with cleek, russell, lj, Harmut, et al convince you of this.
If that were true, it would be sad. For you. However, I don’t even think you think that.
fwiw, I dont think you’re symptomatic of anything in particular on the right- there are plenty of people of every political stripe who fossilize into viewpoints and find themselves incapable of incorporating new information except insofar as it reinforces those fossilized positions. It’s a very human behavior pattern.
“You either work for the government, or you’re a venture capitalist?”
You reach the point without realizing it. Most Republicans and most Democrats work basic jobs. They aren’t in a position to refuse work because of some ideological concern. Most wouldn’t even if they could afford to, they just aren’t that into politics. Even most people who are into politics enough to donate certainly aren’t into politics enough to adopt a “by any means necessary” credo.
Your theory depends on a group with a mild liberal bias containing enough people with that “by any means necessary” credo to form a critical mass of institutional mores.
I think it is a bad theory for that reason.
It is also a bad theory because it cannot explain why that’s changed so much in the past few years. Absent any evidence, you postulate either a huge change in the political nature of the average IRS employee, or a huge change in the ruthlessness of the average liberal.
Faced with criticism, you wave your hands vigorously and call it good.
I think that the fact that you can’t even begin to admit the possibility that the theory is wrong is telling. Instead, you look for more and more outlandish ways to dismiss the problems with the theory.
It suggests that the theory- or the biases underlying it- are very important to you.
“Nah, it says I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.”
So hanging out at sites like this one leads you to believe that liberals are moving towards an exterminationist position vis-a-vis conservatives? Conversations with cleek, russell, lj, Harmut, et al convince you of this.
If that were true, it would be sad. For you. However, I don’t even think you think that.
fwiw, I dont think you’re symptomatic of anything in particular on the right- there are plenty of people of every political stripe who fossilize into viewpoints and find themselves incapable of incorporating new information except insofar as it reinforces those fossilized positions. It’s a very human behavior pattern.
“You either work for the government, or you’re a venture capitalist?”
You reach the point without realizing it. Most Republicans and most Democrats work basic jobs. They aren’t in a position to refuse work because of some ideological concern. Most wouldn’t even if they could afford to, they just aren’t that into politics. Even most people who are into politics enough to donate certainly aren’t into politics enough to adopt a “by any means necessary” credo.
Your theory depends on a group with a mild liberal bias containing enough people with that “by any means necessary” credo to form a critical mass of institutional mores.
I think it is a bad theory for that reason.
It is also a bad theory because it cannot explain why that’s changed so much in the past few years. Absent any evidence, you postulate either a huge change in the political nature of the average IRS employee, or a huge change in the ruthlessness of the average liberal.
Faced with criticism, you wave your hands vigorously and call it good.
I think that the fact that you can’t even begin to admit the possibility that the theory is wrong is telling. Instead, you look for more and more outlandish ways to dismiss the problems with the theory.
It suggests that the theory- or the biases underlying it- are very important to you.
“Nah, it says I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.”
So hanging out at sites like this one leads you to believe that liberals are moving towards an exterminationist position vis-a-vis conservatives? Conversations with cleek, russell, lj, Harmut, et al convince you of this.
If that were true, it would be sad. For you. However, I don’t even think you think that.
fwiw, I dont think you’re symptomatic of anything in particular on the right- there are plenty of people of every political stripe who fossilize into viewpoints and find themselves incapable of incorporating new information except insofar as it reinforces those fossilized positions. It’s a very human behavior pattern.
I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.
And here, I’ve been worried that we wouldn’t be able to keep things going here. I’m relieved that there are blogs “like this” (lessee, on the contributors list, female scientist who has converted to judaism, a hyphenated American from the deep south who is teaching at a private university in Asia, a computer coding drummer, a tax lawyer who used to be right but has moved left and, as soon as we can get posting privileges sorted, a retired professor of history who taught overseas and hopefully his son, who has a doctorate in math, not to mention the all star cast of commenters!) ready to step up if we step down. I am relieved that this blog is not a unique mix of people, but something that can be replaced by another blog. At least in Brett’s mind.
I appreciate that he feels he is defending the last known reserves of individuality and uniqueness in a world that is committed to stamping them out, as blogs like this prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Pity it can’t be closer to reality.
I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.
And here, I’ve been worried that we wouldn’t be able to keep things going here. I’m relieved that there are blogs “like this” (lessee, on the contributors list, female scientist who has converted to judaism, a hyphenated American from the deep south who is teaching at a private university in Asia, a computer coding drummer, a tax lawyer who used to be right but has moved left and, as soon as we can get posting privileges sorted, a retired professor of history who taught overseas and hopefully his son, who has a doctorate in math, not to mention the all star cast of commenters!) ready to step up if we step down. I am relieved that this blog is not a unique mix of people, but something that can be replaced by another blog. At least in Brett’s mind.
I appreciate that he feels he is defending the last known reserves of individuality and uniqueness in a world that is committed to stamping them out, as blogs like this prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Pity it can’t be closer to reality.
I hang out at sites like this, and don’t ignore the things people write.
And here, I’ve been worried that we wouldn’t be able to keep things going here. I’m relieved that there are blogs “like this” (lessee, on the contributors list, female scientist who has converted to judaism, a hyphenated American from the deep south who is teaching at a private university in Asia, a computer coding drummer, a tax lawyer who used to be right but has moved left and, as soon as we can get posting privileges sorted, a retired professor of history who taught overseas and hopefully his son, who has a doctorate in math, not to mention the all star cast of commenters!) ready to step up if we step down. I am relieved that this blog is not a unique mix of people, but something that can be replaced by another blog. At least in Brett’s mind.
I appreciate that he feels he is defending the last known reserves of individuality and uniqueness in a world that is committed to stamping them out, as blogs like this prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Pity it can’t be closer to reality.
Sure glad that I enjoy political theater.
It is best when done as comedy.
But seriously someone here needs to govern.
Please do it with reason not just gut feeling.
It’s inappropriate if liberal community organizers were not ‘targeted’ proportionally, however when one puts a radically partisan group in the title of their 501c4 application do they not expect to get immediately flagged?
Think the Tea Party was setting up the IRS for a fail.
Let’s get the IRS out of campaign finance regulation.
Sure glad that I enjoy political theater.
It is best when done as comedy.
But seriously someone here needs to govern.
Please do it with reason not just gut feeling.
It’s inappropriate if liberal community organizers were not ‘targeted’ proportionally, however when one puts a radically partisan group in the title of their 501c4 application do they not expect to get immediately flagged?
Think the Tea Party was setting up the IRS for a fail.
Let’s get the IRS out of campaign finance regulation.
Sure glad that I enjoy political theater.
It is best when done as comedy.
But seriously someone here needs to govern.
Please do it with reason not just gut feeling.
It’s inappropriate if liberal community organizers were not ‘targeted’ proportionally, however when one puts a radically partisan group in the title of their 501c4 application do they not expect to get immediately flagged?
Think the Tea Party was setting up the IRS for a fail.
Let’s get the IRS out of campaign finance regulation.
The solution seems easy to me. Volunteer Fire Departments and other community organizers no longer get to keep there donors anonymous.
Why is that wrong?
The solution seems easy to me. Volunteer Fire Departments and other community organizers no longer get to keep there donors anonymous.
Why is that wrong?
The solution seems easy to me. Volunteer Fire Departments and other community organizers no longer get to keep there donors anonymous.
Why is that wrong?
“Conversations with cleek, russell, lj, Harmut, et al convince you of this.”
“The Republican Party is not an American entity. It will be dealt with as the enemy al Qaeda has and the Symbionese Liberation Army was, eventually, probably too late, by killing as many of their operatives as possible as ruthlessly as possible.”
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most, but a presumption of evil motive? Yeah, that’s rife here.
“Conversations with cleek, russell, lj, Harmut, et al convince you of this.”
“The Republican Party is not an American entity. It will be dealt with as the enemy al Qaeda has and the Symbionese Liberation Army was, eventually, probably too late, by killing as many of their operatives as possible as ruthlessly as possible.”
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most, but a presumption of evil motive? Yeah, that’s rife here.
“Conversations with cleek, russell, lj, Harmut, et al convince you of this.”
“The Republican Party is not an American entity. It will be dealt with as the enemy al Qaeda has and the Symbionese Liberation Army was, eventually, probably too late, by killing as many of their operatives as possible as ruthlessly as possible.”
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most, but a presumption of evil motive? Yeah, that’s rife here.
Count, he’s on to you!
I was going to suggest that the blog chip in to buy Brett a sense of humor, but since there are so many of us around, I’m happy to leave it to some other exterminationist liberal blog.
Count, he’s on to you!
I was going to suggest that the blog chip in to buy Brett a sense of humor, but since there are so many of us around, I’m happy to leave it to some other exterminationist liberal blog.
Count, he’s on to you!
I was going to suggest that the blog chip in to buy Brett a sense of humor, but since there are so many of us around, I’m happy to leave it to some other exterminationist liberal blog.
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most, but a presumption of evil motive? Yeah, that’s rife here.
Hot Tip: Buy Orkin on dips.
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most, but a presumption of evil motive? Yeah, that’s rife here.
Hot Tip: Buy Orkin on dips.
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most, but a presumption of evil motive? Yeah, that’s rife here.
Hot Tip: Buy Orkin on dips.
the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
The funny thing is, this is exactly what lots of folks on the left say about conservatives.
Whatever.
The IRS has been employed, incorrectly, for partisan purposes probably since the beginning of its existence. By administrations of all persuasions and parties.
Don’t know if that’s the case this time around, I’m sure we’ll hear more and more and more about it.
I’m all for reining in bureaucratic abuses, not only in the public sector but in the private sector too for that matter. I’m all for public employees going the extra mile to avoid either the appearance or the reality of abuses of power, because it destroys confidence in government and the rule of law, both of which are essential to well-ordered public life.
So, figure out whose bright idea it was to target 501(c)(4) applicants using obviously partisan markers, and find something else for them to do. They’re demonstrably not good at an important aspect of their job.
But claims of some grand liberal plot to use the IRS to eradicate conservatism is f***ing nutty.
If you want to claim that the IRS is some kind of cat’s paw for a big liberal conspiracy, you have to explain all of the many times that it’s been employed to suppress liberal and left-wing political activity. Of which there are no lack of examples.
What’s your explanation?
The other thing I’ll say is that, if the US federal government is currently being employed in any kind of organized or systematic way to suppress conservative political activity, they sure as hell suck at it.
Last but not least, as someone who has listened for the last 10+ years to armchair patriots talking about how they were going to come to where I live and shoot people like me – not “suppress my political activity via the IRS” but f***ing shoot me dead with a gun — I have to say that claims of “eliminationist” plots being ginned up by folks like me make me either want to laugh my ass off, or reply with a hearty piss off.
So I’ll just leave both on the table, and you can take your pick.
the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
The funny thing is, this is exactly what lots of folks on the left say about conservatives.
Whatever.
The IRS has been employed, incorrectly, for partisan purposes probably since the beginning of its existence. By administrations of all persuasions and parties.
Don’t know if that’s the case this time around, I’m sure we’ll hear more and more and more about it.
I’m all for reining in bureaucratic abuses, not only in the public sector but in the private sector too for that matter. I’m all for public employees going the extra mile to avoid either the appearance or the reality of abuses of power, because it destroys confidence in government and the rule of law, both of which are essential to well-ordered public life.
So, figure out whose bright idea it was to target 501(c)(4) applicants using obviously partisan markers, and find something else for them to do. They’re demonstrably not good at an important aspect of their job.
But claims of some grand liberal plot to use the IRS to eradicate conservatism is f***ing nutty.
If you want to claim that the IRS is some kind of cat’s paw for a big liberal conspiracy, you have to explain all of the many times that it’s been employed to suppress liberal and left-wing political activity. Of which there are no lack of examples.
What’s your explanation?
The other thing I’ll say is that, if the US federal government is currently being employed in any kind of organized or systematic way to suppress conservative political activity, they sure as hell suck at it.
Last but not least, as someone who has listened for the last 10+ years to armchair patriots talking about how they were going to come to where I live and shoot people like me – not “suppress my political activity via the IRS” but f***ing shoot me dead with a gun — I have to say that claims of “eliminationist” plots being ginned up by folks like me make me either want to laugh my ass off, or reply with a hearty piss off.
So I’ll just leave both on the table, and you can take your pick.
the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
The funny thing is, this is exactly what lots of folks on the left say about conservatives.
Whatever.
The IRS has been employed, incorrectly, for partisan purposes probably since the beginning of its existence. By administrations of all persuasions and parties.
Don’t know if that’s the case this time around, I’m sure we’ll hear more and more and more about it.
I’m all for reining in bureaucratic abuses, not only in the public sector but in the private sector too for that matter. I’m all for public employees going the extra mile to avoid either the appearance or the reality of abuses of power, because it destroys confidence in government and the rule of law, both of which are essential to well-ordered public life.
So, figure out whose bright idea it was to target 501(c)(4) applicants using obviously partisan markers, and find something else for them to do. They’re demonstrably not good at an important aspect of their job.
But claims of some grand liberal plot to use the IRS to eradicate conservatism is f***ing nutty.
If you want to claim that the IRS is some kind of cat’s paw for a big liberal conspiracy, you have to explain all of the many times that it’s been employed to suppress liberal and left-wing political activity. Of which there are no lack of examples.
What’s your explanation?
The other thing I’ll say is that, if the US federal government is currently being employed in any kind of organized or systematic way to suppress conservative political activity, they sure as hell suck at it.
Last but not least, as someone who has listened for the last 10+ years to armchair patriots talking about how they were going to come to where I live and shoot people like me – not “suppress my political activity via the IRS” but f***ing shoot me dead with a gun — I have to say that claims of “eliminationist” plots being ginned up by folks like me make me either want to laugh my ass off, or reply with a hearty piss off.
So I’ll just leave both on the table, and you can take your pick.
I started thinking of conservativism as a disease to be irraticated as a result of the last thirty years of conservative behavior.
One of the things I dislike the most about the conservative movement is the consistant refusal to take responsibility. Being regarded as a disease is a natural consequence of thirty years of bullying, extremism, voter suppression, hate and fearmongering, disinformation, and refusals to negotiate in good faith or to compromise.
If the Republican party wants to be treated like a legitimate political party worthy of respect, then the members need to take responsiblity and clean the thugs, fanatics, cranks, shills and ass-kissers to the oligarchy out of the party.
I started thinking of conservativism as a disease to be irraticated as a result of the last thirty years of conservative behavior.
One of the things I dislike the most about the conservative movement is the consistant refusal to take responsibility. Being regarded as a disease is a natural consequence of thirty years of bullying, extremism, voter suppression, hate and fearmongering, disinformation, and refusals to negotiate in good faith or to compromise.
If the Republican party wants to be treated like a legitimate political party worthy of respect, then the members need to take responsiblity and clean the thugs, fanatics, cranks, shills and ass-kissers to the oligarchy out of the party.
I started thinking of conservativism as a disease to be irraticated as a result of the last thirty years of conservative behavior.
One of the things I dislike the most about the conservative movement is the consistant refusal to take responsibility. Being regarded as a disease is a natural consequence of thirty years of bullying, extremism, voter suppression, hate and fearmongering, disinformation, and refusals to negotiate in good faith or to compromise.
If the Republican party wants to be treated like a legitimate political party worthy of respect, then the members need to take responsiblity and clean the thugs, fanatics, cranks, shills and ass-kissers to the oligarchy out of the party.
I cannot deny the personal urge to apply gratuitous violence to certain prominent conservatives (among them congresscritters). No use of firearms though. To quote Bertolt Brecht (an actual commie who stole the verse from somebody else): Man schlage ihnen ihre Fressen mit schweren Eisenhämmern ein!
Just personal. So, I call on them not to come over here and walk past me while I am holding a blunt instrument or an axe or I cannot guarantee their personal safety.
I cannot deny the personal urge to apply gratuitous violence to certain prominent conservatives (among them congresscritters). No use of firearms though. To quote Bertolt Brecht (an actual commie who stole the verse from somebody else): Man schlage ihnen ihre Fressen mit schweren Eisenhämmern ein!
Just personal. So, I call on them not to come over here and walk past me while I am holding a blunt instrument or an axe or I cannot guarantee their personal safety.
I cannot deny the personal urge to apply gratuitous violence to certain prominent conservatives (among them congresscritters). No use of firearms though. To quote Bertolt Brecht (an actual commie who stole the verse from somebody else): Man schlage ihnen ihre Fressen mit schweren Eisenhämmern ein!
Just personal. So, I call on them not to come over here and walk past me while I am holding a blunt instrument or an axe or I cannot guarantee their personal safety.
I like to think of that as a collision between erraticated (which is not currently a word as far as I know, but perhaps should be), irrationated (same-same) irradiated and eradicated.
Yeah, I know Laura is prone to various typographical excursions due to factors beyond her control. I tend to think of some of these as accidental art. Plus, I like to make up new words.
I like to think of that as a collision between erraticated (which is not currently a word as far as I know, but perhaps should be), irrationated (same-same) irradiated and eradicated.
Yeah, I know Laura is prone to various typographical excursions due to factors beyond her control. I tend to think of some of these as accidental art. Plus, I like to make up new words.
I like to think of that as a collision between erraticated (which is not currently a word as far as I know, but perhaps should be), irrationated (same-same) irradiated and eradicated.
Yeah, I know Laura is prone to various typographical excursions due to factors beyond her control. I tend to think of some of these as accidental art. Plus, I like to make up new words.
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
holy crap. this is parody, right?
it has to be!
(FYI, “liberalism is a disease” gets 2.4M hits on Google)
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
holy crap. this is parody, right?
it has to be!
(FYI, “liberalism is a disease” gets 2.4M hits on Google)
What I suspect is that “by any means necessary” thinking has gotten more popular among liberals, and the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated.
holy crap. this is parody, right?
it has to be!
(FYI, “liberalism is a disease” gets 2.4M hits on Google)
Oh. Naughton’s suggestion isn’t all that different from some I have seen floated here, to the effect that conservatives should just be given a separate place to live.
I don’t agree with either of those points of view, but I am all about diversity.
Oh. Naughton’s suggestion isn’t all that different from some I have seen floated here, to the effect that conservatives should just be given a separate place to live.
I don’t agree with either of those points of view, but I am all about diversity.
Oh. Naughton’s suggestion isn’t all that different from some I have seen floated here, to the effect that conservatives should just be given a separate place to live.
I don’t agree with either of those points of view, but I am all about diversity.
What Russell said.
Speak daftly and carry a big schtick.
But, beware of my inner dog. He’ll water your tree of liberty.
Anyone ever worked in a building that was cased by Timothy McVeigh?
I have.
When I stop seeing Republican candidates and officeholders brandishing weaponry and finding new ways to say “If you pass a healthcare bill or apply extra scrutiny to my request for tax-exempt status, we just might have to shoot you.”, I might cease and desist, although I’m in the mood now to cut that sentence short at “when I stop seeing Republican candidates.”
Let’s say I’m Hillary Clinton or any number of “liberals” sitting in the third row at a Ted Nugent (to name one particularly flagrant example who nevertheless finds a home on Republican media and political venues) concert and he invited me to suck on the two automatic weapons with big honking clips he’s resting on either hip bone, what should I do, especially if I’ve taken NRA advice to conceal carry at all times?
Wouldn’t a conservative take defensive action in the face of such a threat?
Shoot first, ask questions later?
Or, is Nugent just eliminationist entertainment, kind of a Weird Al Yankovic for militia types? Sort of an edgy, one-man band Heinrich Himmler with a squirting flower on his lapel touring the Borscht Belt in the Catskills?
Another question: Does Nugent know we can see him when wears camo?
Why do have I the feeling Governor Rick Perry is not talking about coyotes when he lies about shooting coyotes while on a run?
But just in case, Rick, you dickless putz, I’m a coyote. Come and get it.
At any rate, I wouldn’t takes any chances.
Can anyone point me in the direction of an armed militia for liberals?
What Russell said.
Speak daftly and carry a big schtick.
But, beware of my inner dog. He’ll water your tree of liberty.
Anyone ever worked in a building that was cased by Timothy McVeigh?
I have.
When I stop seeing Republican candidates and officeholders brandishing weaponry and finding new ways to say “If you pass a healthcare bill or apply extra scrutiny to my request for tax-exempt status, we just might have to shoot you.”, I might cease and desist, although I’m in the mood now to cut that sentence short at “when I stop seeing Republican candidates.”
Let’s say I’m Hillary Clinton or any number of “liberals” sitting in the third row at a Ted Nugent (to name one particularly flagrant example who nevertheless finds a home on Republican media and political venues) concert and he invited me to suck on the two automatic weapons with big honking clips he’s resting on either hip bone, what should I do, especially if I’ve taken NRA advice to conceal carry at all times?
Wouldn’t a conservative take defensive action in the face of such a threat?
Shoot first, ask questions later?
Or, is Nugent just eliminationist entertainment, kind of a Weird Al Yankovic for militia types? Sort of an edgy, one-man band Heinrich Himmler with a squirting flower on his lapel touring the Borscht Belt in the Catskills?
Another question: Does Nugent know we can see him when wears camo?
Why do have I the feeling Governor Rick Perry is not talking about coyotes when he lies about shooting coyotes while on a run?
But just in case, Rick, you dickless putz, I’m a coyote. Come and get it.
At any rate, I wouldn’t takes any chances.
Can anyone point me in the direction of an armed militia for liberals?
What Russell said.
Speak daftly and carry a big schtick.
But, beware of my inner dog. He’ll water your tree of liberty.
Anyone ever worked in a building that was cased by Timothy McVeigh?
I have.
When I stop seeing Republican candidates and officeholders brandishing weaponry and finding new ways to say “If you pass a healthcare bill or apply extra scrutiny to my request for tax-exempt status, we just might have to shoot you.”, I might cease and desist, although I’m in the mood now to cut that sentence short at “when I stop seeing Republican candidates.”
Let’s say I’m Hillary Clinton or any number of “liberals” sitting in the third row at a Ted Nugent (to name one particularly flagrant example who nevertheless finds a home on Republican media and political venues) concert and he invited me to suck on the two automatic weapons with big honking clips he’s resting on either hip bone, what should I do, especially if I’ve taken NRA advice to conceal carry at all times?
Wouldn’t a conservative take defensive action in the face of such a threat?
Shoot first, ask questions later?
Or, is Nugent just eliminationist entertainment, kind of a Weird Al Yankovic for militia types? Sort of an edgy, one-man band Heinrich Himmler with a squirting flower on his lapel touring the Borscht Belt in the Catskills?
Another question: Does Nugent know we can see him when wears camo?
Why do have I the feeling Governor Rick Perry is not talking about coyotes when he lies about shooting coyotes while on a run?
But just in case, Rick, you dickless putz, I’m a coyote. Come and get it.
At any rate, I wouldn’t takes any chances.
Can anyone point me in the direction of an armed militia for liberals?
Oh. Naughton’s suggestion isn’t all that different from some I have seen floated here, to the effect that conservatives should just be given a separate place to live
the big difference is that Naughton went and made an oil painting out of it. that’s a level of commitment to the idea that you’ll not find in anyone here.
but my point was that “* is a disease” is a standard trope, when talking politics. and Brett must surely know this, because the right uses it constantly.
Oh. Naughton’s suggestion isn’t all that different from some I have seen floated here, to the effect that conservatives should just be given a separate place to live
the big difference is that Naughton went and made an oil painting out of it. that’s a level of commitment to the idea that you’ll not find in anyone here.
but my point was that “* is a disease” is a standard trope, when talking politics. and Brett must surely know this, because the right uses it constantly.
Oh. Naughton’s suggestion isn’t all that different from some I have seen floated here, to the effect that conservatives should just be given a separate place to live
the big difference is that Naughton went and made an oil painting out of it. that’s a level of commitment to the idea that you’ll not find in anyone here.
but my point was that “* is a disease” is a standard trope, when talking politics. and Brett must surely know this, because the right uses it constantly.
I agree with you that some of us should be committed, more. Arguably, though, the Count’s comments count as art.
My point was more humorous than substantial, or at least so I thought at the time.
I agree with you that some of us should be committed, more. Arguably, though, the Count’s comments count as art.
My point was more humorous than substantial, or at least so I thought at the time.
I agree with you that some of us should be committed, more. Arguably, though, the Count’s comments count as art.
My point was more humorous than substantial, or at least so I thought at the time.
Conservatism as a Disease.
One of a multiptute of expamples is the refusal of red states to accept money for Medicaid. Also this from South Carolina:
“South Carolina this week could become the first state in the country to restrict the enactment of Obamacare since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law last year.
A proposed bill, on special order in the state Senate, would allow the state attorney general to take businesses, including health insurers, to court if he “has reasonable cause to believe” they are harming people by implementing the law. The bill already has passed the House.
If it passes, the bill could push South Carolina to the forefront of Obamacare resistance, giving the state’s Republican leaders a national stage. It also could push South Carolina into yet another costly legal battle in the federal courts that, critics say, is unnecessary and avoidable.”
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/06/03/2800482/obamacare-nullification-bill-on.html#storylink=cpy
The South Carolina law is a model being pushed to some degree in every Republican majority legislature as a co-ordinated effort. Of cours the sheer spitefulness of the law is revealed in the inability of the authors to say what the harm to people is.
Conservatism as a Disease.
One of a multiptute of expamples is the refusal of red states to accept money for Medicaid. Also this from South Carolina:
“South Carolina this week could become the first state in the country to restrict the enactment of Obamacare since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law last year.
A proposed bill, on special order in the state Senate, would allow the state attorney general to take businesses, including health insurers, to court if he “has reasonable cause to believe” they are harming people by implementing the law. The bill already has passed the House.
If it passes, the bill could push South Carolina to the forefront of Obamacare resistance, giving the state’s Republican leaders a national stage. It also could push South Carolina into yet another costly legal battle in the federal courts that, critics say, is unnecessary and avoidable.”
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/06/03/2800482/obamacare-nullification-bill-on.html#storylink=cpy
The South Carolina law is a model being pushed to some degree in every Republican majority legislature as a co-ordinated effort. Of cours the sheer spitefulness of the law is revealed in the inability of the authors to say what the harm to people is.
Conservatism as a Disease.
One of a multiptute of expamples is the refusal of red states to accept money for Medicaid. Also this from South Carolina:
“South Carolina this week could become the first state in the country to restrict the enactment of Obamacare since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law last year.
A proposed bill, on special order in the state Senate, would allow the state attorney general to take businesses, including health insurers, to court if he “has reasonable cause to believe” they are harming people by implementing the law. The bill already has passed the House.
If it passes, the bill could push South Carolina to the forefront of Obamacare resistance, giving the state’s Republican leaders a national stage. It also could push South Carolina into yet another costly legal battle in the federal courts that, critics say, is unnecessary and avoidable.”
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/06/03/2800482/obamacare-nullification-bill-on.html#storylink=cpy
The South Carolina law is a model being pushed to some degree in every Republican majority legislature as a co-ordinated effort. Of cours the sheer spitefulness of the law is revealed in the inability of the authors to say what the harm to people is.
Hm, interesting in light of the utterly non-politicial nature of this fake scandal:
Stephanie Cutter Attended WH Meetings With IRS Chief
I am really curious: Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner? Why would she be sitting in on ANY work related meetings at all? I can barely justify her having access to the residential part of the White house.
Hm, interesting in light of the utterly non-politicial nature of this fake scandal:
Stephanie Cutter Attended WH Meetings With IRS Chief
I am really curious: Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner? Why would she be sitting in on ANY work related meetings at all? I can barely justify her having access to the residential part of the White house.
Hm, interesting in light of the utterly non-politicial nature of this fake scandal:
Stephanie Cutter Attended WH Meetings With IRS Chief
I am really curious: Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner? Why would she be sitting in on ANY work related meetings at all? I can barely justify her having access to the residential part of the White house.
Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner?
because, one of her jobs was to head the Obama/Biden transition team. and, she was Michelle Obama’s chief of staff. and, part of her job is in public relations, including doing ‘outreach’ for Obamacare, and the IRS is deeply involved in Obamacare. pick one.
Why would she be sitting in on ANY work related meetings at all?
because she’s not just a “campaign manager”.
maybe if you’d do a little bit of research instead parroting of Newsmax headlines, the world would stop being so mysterious to you.
I can barely justify her having access to the residential part of the White house.
and now you’re in charge of who can enter the White House?
Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner?
because, one of her jobs was to head the Obama/Biden transition team. and, she was Michelle Obama’s chief of staff. and, part of her job is in public relations, including doing ‘outreach’ for Obamacare, and the IRS is deeply involved in Obamacare. pick one.
Why would she be sitting in on ANY work related meetings at all?
because she’s not just a “campaign manager”.
maybe if you’d do a little bit of research instead parroting of Newsmax headlines, the world would stop being so mysterious to you.
I can barely justify her having access to the residential part of the White house.
and now you’re in charge of who can enter the White House?
Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner?
because, one of her jobs was to head the Obama/Biden transition team. and, she was Michelle Obama’s chief of staff. and, part of her job is in public relations, including doing ‘outreach’ for Obamacare, and the IRS is deeply involved in Obamacare. pick one.
Why would she be sitting in on ANY work related meetings at all?
because she’s not just a “campaign manager”.
maybe if you’d do a little bit of research instead parroting of Newsmax headlines, the world would stop being so mysterious to you.
I can barely justify her having access to the residential part of the White house.
and now you’re in charge of who can enter the White House?
Another example of the conservative disease:
“The states that declined to expand Medicaid will lose out on a total of $8 billion in federal funds, have millions more residents uninsured, and spend about a billion dollars more on uncompensated care as compared to states that accept the expansion.
That’s the conclusion of a new study in Health Affairs by two RAND Corporation scholars, who model the impacts on the first 14 states that opted out of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which was made optional by the Supreme Court.
In total, mathematician Carter Price and economist Christine Eibner find, the 14 states that rejected the expansion will wind up with 3.6 million more uninsured people, $8.4 billion less in federal funds, and up to $1 billion more in spending on uncompensated care in 2016.”
Cutting off the taxpayer’s noses out of spite.
Another example of the conservative disease:
“The states that declined to expand Medicaid will lose out on a total of $8 billion in federal funds, have millions more residents uninsured, and spend about a billion dollars more on uncompensated care as compared to states that accept the expansion.
That’s the conclusion of a new study in Health Affairs by two RAND Corporation scholars, who model the impacts on the first 14 states that opted out of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which was made optional by the Supreme Court.
In total, mathematician Carter Price and economist Christine Eibner find, the 14 states that rejected the expansion will wind up with 3.6 million more uninsured people, $8.4 billion less in federal funds, and up to $1 billion more in spending on uncompensated care in 2016.”
Cutting off the taxpayer’s noses out of spite.
Another example of the conservative disease:
“The states that declined to expand Medicaid will lose out on a total of $8 billion in federal funds, have millions more residents uninsured, and spend about a billion dollars more on uncompensated care as compared to states that accept the expansion.
That’s the conclusion of a new study in Health Affairs by two RAND Corporation scholars, who model the impacts on the first 14 states that opted out of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which was made optional by the Supreme Court.
In total, mathematician Carter Price and economist Christine Eibner find, the 14 states that rejected the expansion will wind up with 3.6 million more uninsured people, $8.4 billion less in federal funds, and up to $1 billion more in spending on uncompensated care in 2016.”
Cutting off the taxpayer’s noses out of spite.
Maybe she brought the pizza.
Run with that one.
Maybe she brought the pizza.
Run with that one.
Maybe she brought the pizza.
Run with that one.
I agree with you that some of us should be committed, more.
One word too many, I think.
I agree with you that some of us should be committed, more.
One word too many, I think.
I agree with you that some of us should be committed, more.
One word too many, I think.
Laura wrote:
“One of a multiptute of expamples is the refusal of red states to accept money for Medicaid. Also this from South Carolina.”
It was the free preventative treatment and follow-up nurse visits (Page 1874, paragraph LXVIV for those who didn’t read it) to combat the mental illness rife in those states among diseased Republicans that scotched the deal.
Appendix XXIV also details pharmaceutical dispensations, including but not limited to: salve to sooth the savage breast, suppositories to relieve impaction of the conservative hindquarters from whence policy used to emerge before the adoption of their pure red meat diet, free blood supplies and ER care for when Annie, your two-year-old, gets your gun and shoots her brother in the face, and for those who stand athwart history and become frozen in place while saying “No!”, a team of licensed practitioners armed with butterfly nets and de-thwarting equipment to talk them down.
Laura wrote:
“One of a multiptute of expamples is the refusal of red states to accept money for Medicaid. Also this from South Carolina.”
It was the free preventative treatment and follow-up nurse visits (Page 1874, paragraph LXVIV for those who didn’t read it) to combat the mental illness rife in those states among diseased Republicans that scotched the deal.
Appendix XXIV also details pharmaceutical dispensations, including but not limited to: salve to sooth the savage breast, suppositories to relieve impaction of the conservative hindquarters from whence policy used to emerge before the adoption of their pure red meat diet, free blood supplies and ER care for when Annie, your two-year-old, gets your gun and shoots her brother in the face, and for those who stand athwart history and become frozen in place while saying “No!”, a team of licensed practitioners armed with butterfly nets and de-thwarting equipment to talk them down.
Laura wrote:
“One of a multiptute of expamples is the refusal of red states to accept money for Medicaid. Also this from South Carolina.”
It was the free preventative treatment and follow-up nurse visits (Page 1874, paragraph LXVIV for those who didn’t read it) to combat the mental illness rife in those states among diseased Republicans that scotched the deal.
Appendix XXIV also details pharmaceutical dispensations, including but not limited to: salve to sooth the savage breast, suppositories to relieve impaction of the conservative hindquarters from whence policy used to emerge before the adoption of their pure red meat diet, free blood supplies and ER care for when Annie, your two-year-old, gets your gun and shoots her brother in the face, and for those who stand athwart history and become frozen in place while saying “No!”, a team of licensed practitioners armed with butterfly nets and de-thwarting equipment to talk them down.
Another symptom of the conservative disease:
From Forbes:
“It seems that the master of the cleverly edited—if highly deceptive—video reel is now being required to pay the sum of $100,000 to Juan Carlos Vera, a one time California employee of ACORN. Mr. Vera had been portrayed by O’Keefe as being a willing participant when O’Keefe and his accomplice, Hanna Giles, proposed smuggling young women into the United States to work as prostitutes.”
O’Keefe also is being sued by Shirley Sherrod for doctoring tapes in an attmept to slander her.
He pulled a very successful scam against ACORN by doctoring tapes. He created the lie that ACORN was engaged in election fraud. the Republican party jumped right on that lie and flogged it for months. In fact members of the current House are workiing on another ant-ACORN piece of legislation even though ACORN doesn’t exist any more.
But O’Keefe’s lie about ACORN was useful to the Republican party: it’s the basis for their lie about votig irregularities which is then the basis for their nationwide attempts to pass voter suppression laws.
A legitimate political party would not tolerate a person like O”keefe, but the Republican party not only tolerates him, but uses him. He’s an essential part of the disiinformation operation.
A legitimate political party would not have a disinformation operation in place functioning for years.
A legitimate political party would not depend upon voter suppression to win elections.
I’ll dig up the link in a little while, but a Republican politician in Texas explained the need for voter suppression laws: Black Americans, ne explained, vote for Democrats. Texas is a battleground state, the Democrats are heavily iinvolved in registering voters there, so, to the Repubican party, the logical response is to deny people access to the polls based on the odds that they will vote for Democrats.
And no, there is no Democratic equivalent to O’Keefe, nor is there a Democratic equivalent of the disinformation campaigns launched to provide a basis for nefarious legislation, nor is there a Democratic equivalent to the Republican voter suppression efforts.
WE have one moderate politcal party in this country and one extremist orgainzation that exploits and abuses the processes of democracy for the purpose of ending those processes.
Another symptom of the conservative disease:
From Forbes:
“It seems that the master of the cleverly edited—if highly deceptive—video reel is now being required to pay the sum of $100,000 to Juan Carlos Vera, a one time California employee of ACORN. Mr. Vera had been portrayed by O’Keefe as being a willing participant when O’Keefe and his accomplice, Hanna Giles, proposed smuggling young women into the United States to work as prostitutes.”
O’Keefe also is being sued by Shirley Sherrod for doctoring tapes in an attmept to slander her.
He pulled a very successful scam against ACORN by doctoring tapes. He created the lie that ACORN was engaged in election fraud. the Republican party jumped right on that lie and flogged it for months. In fact members of the current House are workiing on another ant-ACORN piece of legislation even though ACORN doesn’t exist any more.
But O’Keefe’s lie about ACORN was useful to the Republican party: it’s the basis for their lie about votig irregularities which is then the basis for their nationwide attempts to pass voter suppression laws.
A legitimate political party would not tolerate a person like O”keefe, but the Republican party not only tolerates him, but uses him. He’s an essential part of the disiinformation operation.
A legitimate political party would not have a disinformation operation in place functioning for years.
A legitimate political party would not depend upon voter suppression to win elections.
I’ll dig up the link in a little while, but a Republican politician in Texas explained the need for voter suppression laws: Black Americans, ne explained, vote for Democrats. Texas is a battleground state, the Democrats are heavily iinvolved in registering voters there, so, to the Repubican party, the logical response is to deny people access to the polls based on the odds that they will vote for Democrats.
And no, there is no Democratic equivalent to O’Keefe, nor is there a Democratic equivalent of the disinformation campaigns launched to provide a basis for nefarious legislation, nor is there a Democratic equivalent to the Republican voter suppression efforts.
WE have one moderate politcal party in this country and one extremist orgainzation that exploits and abuses the processes of democracy for the purpose of ending those processes.
Another symptom of the conservative disease:
From Forbes:
“It seems that the master of the cleverly edited—if highly deceptive—video reel is now being required to pay the sum of $100,000 to Juan Carlos Vera, a one time California employee of ACORN. Mr. Vera had been portrayed by O’Keefe as being a willing participant when O’Keefe and his accomplice, Hanna Giles, proposed smuggling young women into the United States to work as prostitutes.”
O’Keefe also is being sued by Shirley Sherrod for doctoring tapes in an attmept to slander her.
He pulled a very successful scam against ACORN by doctoring tapes. He created the lie that ACORN was engaged in election fraud. the Republican party jumped right on that lie and flogged it for months. In fact members of the current House are workiing on another ant-ACORN piece of legislation even though ACORN doesn’t exist any more.
But O’Keefe’s lie about ACORN was useful to the Republican party: it’s the basis for their lie about votig irregularities which is then the basis for their nationwide attempts to pass voter suppression laws.
A legitimate political party would not tolerate a person like O”keefe, but the Republican party not only tolerates him, but uses him. He’s an essential part of the disiinformation operation.
A legitimate political party would not have a disinformation operation in place functioning for years.
A legitimate political party would not depend upon voter suppression to win elections.
I’ll dig up the link in a little while, but a Republican politician in Texas explained the need for voter suppression laws: Black Americans, ne explained, vote for Democrats. Texas is a battleground state, the Democrats are heavily iinvolved in registering voters there, so, to the Repubican party, the logical response is to deny people access to the polls based on the odds that they will vote for Democrats.
And no, there is no Democratic equivalent to O’Keefe, nor is there a Democratic equivalent of the disinformation campaigns launched to provide a basis for nefarious legislation, nor is there a Democratic equivalent to the Republican voter suppression efforts.
WE have one moderate politcal party in this country and one extremist orgainzation that exploits and abuses the processes of democracy for the purpose of ending those processes.
I actually thought about hanging a frequently on the end of that, but ignored the impulse.
Which I probably don’t do nearly enough.
I actually thought about hanging a frequently on the end of that, but ignored the impulse.
Which I probably don’t do nearly enough.
I actually thought about hanging a frequently on the end of that, but ignored the impulse.
Which I probably don’t do nearly enough.
From Brett’s link:
the 157 meetings that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman had at the White House
Shulman was cleared for 157 meetings. He signed in for – i.e., actually attended — 11.
Maybe he snuck in the back door for the other 146.
C’mon man, get your head out of Paranoid News Daily.
From Brett’s link:
the 157 meetings that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman had at the White House
Shulman was cleared for 157 meetings. He signed in for – i.e., actually attended — 11.
Maybe he snuck in the back door for the other 146.
C’mon man, get your head out of Paranoid News Daily.
From Brett’s link:
the 157 meetings that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman had at the White House
Shulman was cleared for 157 meetings. He signed in for – i.e., actually attended — 11.
Maybe he snuck in the back door for the other 146.
C’mon man, get your head out of Paranoid News Daily.
Brett,
You can cite one or two satirists who post here regularly as if they were serious and call that evidence. Im sure you could find some sporadic posters who are actually serious about this sort of thing. Like Mighty Whitey earlier, but a lefty.
What you can’t do is find any sort of regular pattern by the usual suspects. That you even try to defend this accusation rather than withdraw it in shame is, well, shameful.
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most
Oh, no, wait. Withdrawn, but shamelessly. the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated you said. You said you got that idea from the liberals here. Now, oops, did I call you guys eliminationists? My bad, I just meant you hate me irrationally.
But I forgive you, because you top it all off with your usual self-parody- what you’ve really learned is that liberals (not you, to be clear- liberals) have a presumption of evil motive by their opposite numbers.
I know, I know, you won’t actually do anything like this, but if you read your posts on this thread that is exactly what you will find- a presumption that Obama is lying when he says he is not happy about this, a presumption that it was entirely done with malice as opposed to mistake, a presumption, basically, that the other side is presuming that your side is evil.
But when I look at the liberal comments, I don’t see that at all. I mean, there will always be the shrill and dogmatic on both sides (and if you want to see some naked eliminationism sans sarcasm, sans having-to-read-between-the-lines, spend some time at Red State). Your error (other than being that which you claim to despise) is seeking out the worst example of the ‘other side’ and using it as canonical. Because it makes you feel better, I guess. Or maybe it protects you against examination of your assumptions?
Brett,
You can cite one or two satirists who post here regularly as if they were serious and call that evidence. Im sure you could find some sporadic posters who are actually serious about this sort of thing. Like Mighty Whitey earlier, but a lefty.
What you can’t do is find any sort of regular pattern by the usual suspects. That you even try to defend this accusation rather than withdraw it in shame is, well, shameful.
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most
Oh, no, wait. Withdrawn, but shamelessly. the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated you said. You said you got that idea from the liberals here. Now, oops, did I call you guys eliminationists? My bad, I just meant you hate me irrationally.
But I forgive you, because you top it all off with your usual self-parody- what you’ve really learned is that liberals (not you, to be clear- liberals) have a presumption of evil motive by their opposite numbers.
I know, I know, you won’t actually do anything like this, but if you read your posts on this thread that is exactly what you will find- a presumption that Obama is lying when he says he is not happy about this, a presumption that it was entirely done with malice as opposed to mistake, a presumption, basically, that the other side is presuming that your side is evil.
But when I look at the liberal comments, I don’t see that at all. I mean, there will always be the shrill and dogmatic on both sides (and if you want to see some naked eliminationism sans sarcasm, sans having-to-read-between-the-lines, spend some time at Red State). Your error (other than being that which you claim to despise) is seeking out the worst example of the ‘other side’ and using it as canonical. Because it makes you feel better, I guess. Or maybe it protects you against examination of your assumptions?
Brett,
You can cite one or two satirists who post here regularly as if they were serious and call that evidence. Im sure you could find some sporadic posters who are actually serious about this sort of thing. Like Mighty Whitey earlier, but a lefty.
What you can’t do is find any sort of regular pattern by the usual suspects. That you even try to defend this accusation rather than withdraw it in shame is, well, shameful.
But, “exterminationist”? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for most
Oh, no, wait. Withdrawn, but shamelessly. the left has gotten more and more bought into the idea that conservatives aren’t just the opposition, but a disease to be eradicated you said. You said you got that idea from the liberals here. Now, oops, did I call you guys eliminationists? My bad, I just meant you hate me irrationally.
But I forgive you, because you top it all off with your usual self-parody- what you’ve really learned is that liberals (not you, to be clear- liberals) have a presumption of evil motive by their opposite numbers.
I know, I know, you won’t actually do anything like this, but if you read your posts on this thread that is exactly what you will find- a presumption that Obama is lying when he says he is not happy about this, a presumption that it was entirely done with malice as opposed to mistake, a presumption, basically, that the other side is presuming that your side is evil.
But when I look at the liberal comments, I don’t see that at all. I mean, there will always be the shrill and dogmatic on both sides (and if you want to see some naked eliminationism sans sarcasm, sans having-to-read-between-the-lines, spend some time at Red State). Your error (other than being that which you claim to despise) is seeking out the worst example of the ‘other side’ and using it as canonical. Because it makes you feel better, I guess. Or maybe it protects you against examination of your assumptions?
If you want to claim that the IRS is some kind of cat’s paw for a big liberal conspiracy, you have to explain all of the many times that it’s been employed to suppress liberal and left-wing political activity. Of which there are no lack of examples.
What’s your explanation?
He’s already given us that- since he is certain that his theory is correct, it must be the case that the IRS has become much more liberal OR that liberals have become much less principled. QED. Because it just *can’t* be the case that this was more accident than attack, more of a snafu than the shadow of the coming tyranny.
Because that would mean it isn’t indicative of how evil liberals are, and Brett knows that we are, ergo everything must be proof of that. Again, QED.
If you want to claim that the IRS is some kind of cat’s paw for a big liberal conspiracy, you have to explain all of the many times that it’s been employed to suppress liberal and left-wing political activity. Of which there are no lack of examples.
What’s your explanation?
He’s already given us that- since he is certain that his theory is correct, it must be the case that the IRS has become much more liberal OR that liberals have become much less principled. QED. Because it just *can’t* be the case that this was more accident than attack, more of a snafu than the shadow of the coming tyranny.
Because that would mean it isn’t indicative of how evil liberals are, and Brett knows that we are, ergo everything must be proof of that. Again, QED.
If you want to claim that the IRS is some kind of cat’s paw for a big liberal conspiracy, you have to explain all of the many times that it’s been employed to suppress liberal and left-wing political activity. Of which there are no lack of examples.
What’s your explanation?
He’s already given us that- since he is certain that his theory is correct, it must be the case that the IRS has become much more liberal OR that liberals have become much less principled. QED. Because it just *can’t* be the case that this was more accident than attack, more of a snafu than the shadow of the coming tyranny.
Because that would mean it isn’t indicative of how evil liberals are, and Brett knows that we are, ergo everything must be proof of that. Again, QED.
I am really curious: Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner?
Oh my dog, you mean that the Obama White House sometimes mixes politics with policy? That’s H1tler!
But let’s treat your silly question seriously for a moment, and Ill ask a follow-up: why would a political operative discuss something like persecuting Tea Party charities in a meeting about Obamacare implementation? Those two things have nothing to do with each other. So you’re claiming that because the head of the IRS met a political operative during an unrelated ObamaCare implementation meeting, they must have planned an attack on TP charities? Because what else could they have been talking about- certainly not about how the implementation of ObamaCare is going or the political implications of that, since ObamaCare is just a front for destroying America and it’s going just fine thank you.
I am really curious: Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner?
Oh my dog, you mean that the Obama White House sometimes mixes politics with policy? That’s H1tler!
But let’s treat your silly question seriously for a moment, and Ill ask a follow-up: why would a political operative discuss something like persecuting Tea Party charities in a meeting about Obamacare implementation? Those two things have nothing to do with each other. So you’re claiming that because the head of the IRS met a political operative during an unrelated ObamaCare implementation meeting, they must have planned an attack on TP charities? Because what else could they have been talking about- certainly not about how the implementation of ObamaCare is going or the political implications of that, since ObamaCare is just a front for destroying America and it’s going just fine thank you.
I am really curious: Why would the President’s deputy campaign manager need to sit in on meetings at the White house with the IRS commissioner?
Oh my dog, you mean that the Obama White House sometimes mixes politics with policy? That’s H1tler!
But let’s treat your silly question seriously for a moment, and Ill ask a follow-up: why would a political operative discuss something like persecuting Tea Party charities in a meeting about Obamacare implementation? Those two things have nothing to do with each other. So you’re claiming that because the head of the IRS met a political operative during an unrelated ObamaCare implementation meeting, they must have planned an attack on TP charities? Because what else could they have been talking about- certainly not about how the implementation of ObamaCare is going or the political implications of that, since ObamaCare is just a front for destroying America and it’s going just fine thank you.
Why does Frank Luntz address and sit in on Republican policy and strategy meetings, I’d like to know.
So that … you didn’t think I’d leave that question unanswered, did you? …. when the usual suspects craft a news release that reads “We oughta shoot any uppity Kenyan socialist who loves him some shariah death panels” Luntz can, like a bobbing and weaving Uriah Heep take things in hand and suggest a more nuanced message like “Our chief bullet point has in its sights the education of the public about how Obamacare is foreign to our American way of life.”
Then he adds, “I have to say though that ‘death panels’ has a certain music to it.”
Now, Cutter sits in meetings with the President and when he states: “Stephanie, I’d like this to be presented to the American people and our friends on the other side of the aisle in a straightforward, civil manner,” she can suggest “Mr President, I’d suggest that we use the words “American people”, “our friends”, “straightforward”, and “civil manner,” in our message.”
At which point the President will say, “Thank you, Stephanie, but … those are exactly the words I used. Tell me again why you are in these meetings, because inevitably Brett is going to ask?”
Stephanie: “Might I suggest addressing him as Mr. Bellmore, because he might construe the use of his surname as a little on the casual and intimate side of eliminationist rhetoric.”
The President: “See, that’s what I’m paying you the big bucks for.”
Why does Frank Luntz address and sit in on Republican policy and strategy meetings, I’d like to know.
So that … you didn’t think I’d leave that question unanswered, did you? …. when the usual suspects craft a news release that reads “We oughta shoot any uppity Kenyan socialist who loves him some shariah death panels” Luntz can, like a bobbing and weaving Uriah Heep take things in hand and suggest a more nuanced message like “Our chief bullet point has in its sights the education of the public about how Obamacare is foreign to our American way of life.”
Then he adds, “I have to say though that ‘death panels’ has a certain music to it.”
Now, Cutter sits in meetings with the President and when he states: “Stephanie, I’d like this to be presented to the American people and our friends on the other side of the aisle in a straightforward, civil manner,” she can suggest “Mr President, I’d suggest that we use the words “American people”, “our friends”, “straightforward”, and “civil manner,” in our message.”
At which point the President will say, “Thank you, Stephanie, but … those are exactly the words I used. Tell me again why you are in these meetings, because inevitably Brett is going to ask?”
Stephanie: “Might I suggest addressing him as Mr. Bellmore, because he might construe the use of his surname as a little on the casual and intimate side of eliminationist rhetoric.”
The President: “See, that’s what I’m paying you the big bucks for.”
Why does Frank Luntz address and sit in on Republican policy and strategy meetings, I’d like to know.
So that … you didn’t think I’d leave that question unanswered, did you? …. when the usual suspects craft a news release that reads “We oughta shoot any uppity Kenyan socialist who loves him some shariah death panels” Luntz can, like a bobbing and weaving Uriah Heep take things in hand and suggest a more nuanced message like “Our chief bullet point has in its sights the education of the public about how Obamacare is foreign to our American way of life.”
Then he adds, “I have to say though that ‘death panels’ has a certain music to it.”
Now, Cutter sits in meetings with the President and when he states: “Stephanie, I’d like this to be presented to the American people and our friends on the other side of the aisle in a straightforward, civil manner,” she can suggest “Mr President, I’d suggest that we use the words “American people”, “our friends”, “straightforward”, and “civil manner,” in our message.”
At which point the President will say, “Thank you, Stephanie, but … those are exactly the words I used. Tell me again why you are in these meetings, because inevitably Brett is going to ask?”
Stephanie: “Might I suggest addressing him as Mr. Bellmore, because he might construe the use of his surname as a little on the casual and intimate side of eliminationist rhetoric.”
The President: “See, that’s what I’m paying you the big bucks for.”
It’s funny, I read Investor’s Business Daily for the stock charts.
I turn to the editorial page because I like to keep charts of lunacy, which in their case has entered the parabolic, blow-off phase with no relation to fundamentals, soaring well-above the national moving average of your run-of the-mill gibbering crackitudinous market euphoria.
I enjoy reading Ann Coulter, too, who is often featured, for all of the new suggestions she has for eliminating me.
It’s funny, I read Investor’s Business Daily for the stock charts.
I turn to the editorial page because I like to keep charts of lunacy, which in their case has entered the parabolic, blow-off phase with no relation to fundamentals, soaring well-above the national moving average of your run-of the-mill gibbering crackitudinous market euphoria.
I enjoy reading Ann Coulter, too, who is often featured, for all of the new suggestions she has for eliminating me.
It’s funny, I read Investor’s Business Daily for the stock charts.
I turn to the editorial page because I like to keep charts of lunacy, which in their case has entered the parabolic, blow-off phase with no relation to fundamentals, soaring well-above the national moving average of your run-of the-mill gibbering crackitudinous market euphoria.
I enjoy reading Ann Coulter, too, who is often featured, for all of the new suggestions she has for eliminating me.
Enough of biased liberal claptrap, let a real conservative speak, one who I disagree with on nearly all substantive policy issues, but also one who knows crazy when he sees it.
David Frum, in his own words:
“I’m a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life. I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I’ve attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush—not the “Read My Lips” Bush, the “Axis of Evil” Bush. I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea.[36]”
He also backed the nomination of Sarah Palin as Vice President and came soon to regret it.
He had the honor and distinction of being fired from the American Enterprise Institute for his growing apostasy, joining other Reagan alumni, like Bruce Bartlett, in exile from the “conservative” “intellectual” “movement” which has come to resemble not so much a movement as an ice pick-wielding thugocracy intent on hunting down and serving retribution to all impure Trotskyite traitors.
THAT David Frum, a few days ago:
“I appreciate that conservative reformers must pay lip-service to shibboleths about Barack Obama being the worst president of all time, who won’t rest until he has snuffed out the remains of constitutional liberty, etc. etc. Dissent too much from party orthodoxy, and you find yourself outside the party altogether.
Still … conservative reformers should admit, if only to themselves, the harm that has been done by the politics of total war over the past five years. Now Republicans are working themselves into a frenzy that will paralyze Congress for the next 18 months at least, and could well lead to an impeachment crisis. As it becomes clear that the IRS story is an agency scandal, not a White House scandal, conservative reformers need to be ready to do their part to apply the brakes and turn the steering wheel. There will be a Republican president again someday, and that president will need American political institutions to work. Republicans also lose as those institutions degenerate,” – David Frum, taking a breather from blogging for a while.
He’s an incurable romantic, is my take.
The current infestation of the Republican Party will take the country over the impeachment cliff in the next 18 months and they will sign the death warrant for the institutions Frum holds dear and any notion these cracker wankers entertain that this civilization will not turn against them in a paroxysm of savage violence will die with them.
It will be a parody, an earnest, high-ratings reality show, as all things American are, perhaps with cannibalism during sweeps week, of a paroxysm of violence.
Enough of biased liberal claptrap, let a real conservative speak, one who I disagree with on nearly all substantive policy issues, but also one who knows crazy when he sees it.
David Frum, in his own words:
“I’m a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life. I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I’ve attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush—not the “Read My Lips” Bush, the “Axis of Evil” Bush. I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea.[36]”
He also backed the nomination of Sarah Palin as Vice President and came soon to regret it.
He had the honor and distinction of being fired from the American Enterprise Institute for his growing apostasy, joining other Reagan alumni, like Bruce Bartlett, in exile from the “conservative” “intellectual” “movement” which has come to resemble not so much a movement as an ice pick-wielding thugocracy intent on hunting down and serving retribution to all impure Trotskyite traitors.
THAT David Frum, a few days ago:
“I appreciate that conservative reformers must pay lip-service to shibboleths about Barack Obama being the worst president of all time, who won’t rest until he has snuffed out the remains of constitutional liberty, etc. etc. Dissent too much from party orthodoxy, and you find yourself outside the party altogether.
Still … conservative reformers should admit, if only to themselves, the harm that has been done by the politics of total war over the past five years. Now Republicans are working themselves into a frenzy that will paralyze Congress for the next 18 months at least, and could well lead to an impeachment crisis. As it becomes clear that the IRS story is an agency scandal, not a White House scandal, conservative reformers need to be ready to do their part to apply the brakes and turn the steering wheel. There will be a Republican president again someday, and that president will need American political institutions to work. Republicans also lose as those institutions degenerate,” – David Frum, taking a breather from blogging for a while.
He’s an incurable romantic, is my take.
The current infestation of the Republican Party will take the country over the impeachment cliff in the next 18 months and they will sign the death warrant for the institutions Frum holds dear and any notion these cracker wankers entertain that this civilization will not turn against them in a paroxysm of savage violence will die with them.
It will be a parody, an earnest, high-ratings reality show, as all things American are, perhaps with cannibalism during sweeps week, of a paroxysm of violence.
Enough of biased liberal claptrap, let a real conservative speak, one who I disagree with on nearly all substantive policy issues, but also one who knows crazy when he sees it.
David Frum, in his own words:
“I’m a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life. I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I’ve attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush—not the “Read My Lips” Bush, the “Axis of Evil” Bush. I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea.[36]”
He also backed the nomination of Sarah Palin as Vice President and came soon to regret it.
He had the honor and distinction of being fired from the American Enterprise Institute for his growing apostasy, joining other Reagan alumni, like Bruce Bartlett, in exile from the “conservative” “intellectual” “movement” which has come to resemble not so much a movement as an ice pick-wielding thugocracy intent on hunting down and serving retribution to all impure Trotskyite traitors.
THAT David Frum, a few days ago:
“I appreciate that conservative reformers must pay lip-service to shibboleths about Barack Obama being the worst president of all time, who won’t rest until he has snuffed out the remains of constitutional liberty, etc. etc. Dissent too much from party orthodoxy, and you find yourself outside the party altogether.
Still … conservative reformers should admit, if only to themselves, the harm that has been done by the politics of total war over the past five years. Now Republicans are working themselves into a frenzy that will paralyze Congress for the next 18 months at least, and could well lead to an impeachment crisis. As it becomes clear that the IRS story is an agency scandal, not a White House scandal, conservative reformers need to be ready to do their part to apply the brakes and turn the steering wheel. There will be a Republican president again someday, and that president will need American political institutions to work. Republicans also lose as those institutions degenerate,” – David Frum, taking a breather from blogging for a while.
He’s an incurable romantic, is my take.
The current infestation of the Republican Party will take the country over the impeachment cliff in the next 18 months and they will sign the death warrant for the institutions Frum holds dear and any notion these cracker wankers entertain that this civilization will not turn against them in a paroxysm of savage violence will die with them.
It will be a parody, an earnest, high-ratings reality show, as all things American are, perhaps with cannibalism during sweeps week, of a paroxysm of violence.
Via Digby:
My pores exude empathy for these victims:
List ‘O the Day
by digby
Brendan Nyhan has compiled an amazing list of loyalty smears against President Obama:
Smears of Barack Obama’s loyalty 2006-
December 2006: Columnist Debbie Schlussel notes that Obama’s father was a Muslim and asks “Where will his loyalties be?”
February 2008: Radio talk show host Bill Cunningham calls Obama “this Manchurian candidate” but says “I do not believe Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist or a Manchurian candidate.”
April 2008: During an apperance on Glenn Beck’s show on CNN Headline News, Ann Coulter asks “Is Obama a Manchurian candidate to normal Americans who love their country? … Or is he being the Manchurian candidate to the traitor wing of the Democratic Party?”
May 2008: Fox News analyst Dick Morris states that “the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who’s sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn’t believe in our system and is more in line with [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright’s views?”
June 2008: During separate television apperances on Fox News and NBC, Dick Morris says “[T]he question that plagues Obama is … Is he pro-American?” and states that “[T]his whole debate about what kind of president [Sen. Barack] Obama would make has swirled around almost an existential level. Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent? Or is he the great hope of the future?” Fox News host E.D. Hill also asked whether a fist bump between Obama and his wife was “A terrorist fist jab?”
April 2009: Frank Gaffney claims on MSNBC that Obama’s apparent bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was “code” telling “our Muslim enemies that you are willing to submit to them.”
May 2009: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich alleges on “Fox News Sunday” that there is a “weird pattern” in which Obama administration officials were “prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists” and suggests that the Obama administration was proposing “welfare” for terrorists. He then claims on “Meet the Press” that the Obama administration’s “highest priority” is to “find some way to defend terrorists.”
June 2009: Senator James Inhofe calls Obama’s Cairo speech “un-American” and says “I just don’t know whose side he’s on.” Talk show host Lee Rodgers asserts that Obama is “an anti-American president” and that Obama’s policies will lead to a “few million dead Americans.”
August 2009: On the Lou Dobbs radio show, substitute host Tom Marr says “I have to believe that there is still an inner Muslim within this man that has some sense of sympathy towards the number one enemy of freedom and democracy in the world today, and that is Islamic terrorism.”
September 2009: Gaffney says Obama is “pursuing [an agenda] that is indistinguishable in important respects from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission ladies and gentlemen, we know from a trial in Dallas last year, is to quote to destroy Western civilization from within by its own miserable hand.” Conservative pundit Tammy Bruce says on Fox News that Obama has “some malevolence toward this country.”
November 2009: Fox’s Sean Hannity suggests that President Obama was somehow responsible for the Fort Hood shooting, stating that “our government apparently knew and did nothing” about “a terrorist act” and then asking “What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?”
December 2009: Citing a dubious report that the Obama administration had threatened Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) with closing Offutt Air Force Base, home of the US Strategic Command, if Nelson didn’t support the health care reform bill in the Senate, Glenn Beck suggests that the allegation would constitute “high crimes,” asked “[H]ow much closer do you get to treason?”, and said the claim “borders treason” and “borders on treason.”
January 2010: The New York Post publishes an editorial asking “Whose side is the Justice Department on: America’s or the terrorists’? … [T]he president and his administration also owe the American people an answer: Is the government’s prosecutorial deck stacked in favor of the terrorists?” Former senator Fred Thompson also jokes that the US could win the war in Afghanistan if we “[j]ust send Obama over there to campaign for the Taliban.”
February 2010: During a conference call with conservative bloggers, Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) accuses the Obama administration of having a “a terrorist protection policy” and conducting a “jihad to close Guantanamo.” In addition, based on a superficial resemblance between two logos, Frank Gaffney suggests that President Obama’s missile defense policies “seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah.”
April 2010: Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) writes an article for The Daily Caller alleging that Obama is “disadvantaging the United States one step at a time and undermining this country’s national defense on purpose.”
July 2010: Writing in the Washington Times, former GOP Rep. and third party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo calls Obama “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda” and “a dedicated enemy of the Constitution,” while columnist Jeffrey Kuhner of the Edmund Burke Institute describes Obama as an “usurper” who is creating “a socialist dictatorship” and has engaged in “treasonous” behavior by suing Arizona over its immigration law.
August 2010: National Review’s Andrew McCarthy publishes an entire book claiming that Obama is pursuing an agenda that will aid Islamic radicals. The dust jacket states that “the global Islamist movement’s jihad … has found the ideal partner in President Barack Obama, whose Islamist sympathies run deep.” Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin writes that Obama’s “sympathies for the Muslim World take precedence over those, such as they are, for his fellow citizens” in a post criticizing Obama’s statement on the proposed Muslim community center near Ground Zero.
September 2010: David Limbaugh suggests that Obama may be “trying intentionally to take us over the cliff” in a Newsmax.tv interview.
May 2013: When asked whether Obama “actually switched sides in the War on Terror,” former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answered, “You know, I just don’t feel competent to answer. I can’t tell.”
Yes, that guy. Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Seriously.
Via Digby:
My pores exude empathy for these victims:
List ‘O the Day
by digby
Brendan Nyhan has compiled an amazing list of loyalty smears against President Obama:
Smears of Barack Obama’s loyalty 2006-
December 2006: Columnist Debbie Schlussel notes that Obama’s father was a Muslim and asks “Where will his loyalties be?”
February 2008: Radio talk show host Bill Cunningham calls Obama “this Manchurian candidate” but says “I do not believe Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist or a Manchurian candidate.”
April 2008: During an apperance on Glenn Beck’s show on CNN Headline News, Ann Coulter asks “Is Obama a Manchurian candidate to normal Americans who love their country? … Or is he being the Manchurian candidate to the traitor wing of the Democratic Party?”
May 2008: Fox News analyst Dick Morris states that “the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who’s sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn’t believe in our system and is more in line with [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright’s views?”
June 2008: During separate television apperances on Fox News and NBC, Dick Morris says “[T]he question that plagues Obama is … Is he pro-American?” and states that “[T]his whole debate about what kind of president [Sen. Barack] Obama would make has swirled around almost an existential level. Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent? Or is he the great hope of the future?” Fox News host E.D. Hill also asked whether a fist bump between Obama and his wife was “A terrorist fist jab?”
April 2009: Frank Gaffney claims on MSNBC that Obama’s apparent bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was “code” telling “our Muslim enemies that you are willing to submit to them.”
May 2009: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich alleges on “Fox News Sunday” that there is a “weird pattern” in which Obama administration officials were “prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists” and suggests that the Obama administration was proposing “welfare” for terrorists. He then claims on “Meet the Press” that the Obama administration’s “highest priority” is to “find some way to defend terrorists.”
June 2009: Senator James Inhofe calls Obama’s Cairo speech “un-American” and says “I just don’t know whose side he’s on.” Talk show host Lee Rodgers asserts that Obama is “an anti-American president” and that Obama’s policies will lead to a “few million dead Americans.”
August 2009: On the Lou Dobbs radio show, substitute host Tom Marr says “I have to believe that there is still an inner Muslim within this man that has some sense of sympathy towards the number one enemy of freedom and democracy in the world today, and that is Islamic terrorism.”
September 2009: Gaffney says Obama is “pursuing [an agenda] that is indistinguishable in important respects from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission ladies and gentlemen, we know from a trial in Dallas last year, is to quote to destroy Western civilization from within by its own miserable hand.” Conservative pundit Tammy Bruce says on Fox News that Obama has “some malevolence toward this country.”
November 2009: Fox’s Sean Hannity suggests that President Obama was somehow responsible for the Fort Hood shooting, stating that “our government apparently knew and did nothing” about “a terrorist act” and then asking “What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?”
December 2009: Citing a dubious report that the Obama administration had threatened Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) with closing Offutt Air Force Base, home of the US Strategic Command, if Nelson didn’t support the health care reform bill in the Senate, Glenn Beck suggests that the allegation would constitute “high crimes,” asked “[H]ow much closer do you get to treason?”, and said the claim “borders treason” and “borders on treason.”
January 2010: The New York Post publishes an editorial asking “Whose side is the Justice Department on: America’s or the terrorists’? … [T]he president and his administration also owe the American people an answer: Is the government’s prosecutorial deck stacked in favor of the terrorists?” Former senator Fred Thompson also jokes that the US could win the war in Afghanistan if we “[j]ust send Obama over there to campaign for the Taliban.”
February 2010: During a conference call with conservative bloggers, Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) accuses the Obama administration of having a “a terrorist protection policy” and conducting a “jihad to close Guantanamo.” In addition, based on a superficial resemblance between two logos, Frank Gaffney suggests that President Obama’s missile defense policies “seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah.”
April 2010: Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) writes an article for The Daily Caller alleging that Obama is “disadvantaging the United States one step at a time and undermining this country’s national defense on purpose.”
July 2010: Writing in the Washington Times, former GOP Rep. and third party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo calls Obama “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda” and “a dedicated enemy of the Constitution,” while columnist Jeffrey Kuhner of the Edmund Burke Institute describes Obama as an “usurper” who is creating “a socialist dictatorship” and has engaged in “treasonous” behavior by suing Arizona over its immigration law.
August 2010: National Review’s Andrew McCarthy publishes an entire book claiming that Obama is pursuing an agenda that will aid Islamic radicals. The dust jacket states that “the global Islamist movement’s jihad … has found the ideal partner in President Barack Obama, whose Islamist sympathies run deep.” Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin writes that Obama’s “sympathies for the Muslim World take precedence over those, such as they are, for his fellow citizens” in a post criticizing Obama’s statement on the proposed Muslim community center near Ground Zero.
September 2010: David Limbaugh suggests that Obama may be “trying intentionally to take us over the cliff” in a Newsmax.tv interview.
May 2013: When asked whether Obama “actually switched sides in the War on Terror,” former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answered, “You know, I just don’t feel competent to answer. I can’t tell.”
Yes, that guy. Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Seriously.
Via Digby:
My pores exude empathy for these victims:
List ‘O the Day
by digby
Brendan Nyhan has compiled an amazing list of loyalty smears against President Obama:
Smears of Barack Obama’s loyalty 2006-
December 2006: Columnist Debbie Schlussel notes that Obama’s father was a Muslim and asks “Where will his loyalties be?”
February 2008: Radio talk show host Bill Cunningham calls Obama “this Manchurian candidate” but says “I do not believe Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist or a Manchurian candidate.”
April 2008: During an apperance on Glenn Beck’s show on CNN Headline News, Ann Coulter asks “Is Obama a Manchurian candidate to normal Americans who love their country? … Or is he being the Manchurian candidate to the traitor wing of the Democratic Party?”
May 2008: Fox News analyst Dick Morris states that “the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who’s sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn’t believe in our system and is more in line with [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright’s views?”
June 2008: During separate television apperances on Fox News and NBC, Dick Morris says “[T]he question that plagues Obama is … Is he pro-American?” and states that “[T]his whole debate about what kind of president [Sen. Barack] Obama would make has swirled around almost an existential level. Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent? Or is he the great hope of the future?” Fox News host E.D. Hill also asked whether a fist bump between Obama and his wife was “A terrorist fist jab?”
April 2009: Frank Gaffney claims on MSNBC that Obama’s apparent bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was “code” telling “our Muslim enemies that you are willing to submit to them.”
May 2009: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich alleges on “Fox News Sunday” that there is a “weird pattern” in which Obama administration officials were “prepared to take huge risks with Americans in order to defend terrorists” and suggests that the Obama administration was proposing “welfare” for terrorists. He then claims on “Meet the Press” that the Obama administration’s “highest priority” is to “find some way to defend terrorists.”
June 2009: Senator James Inhofe calls Obama’s Cairo speech “un-American” and says “I just don’t know whose side he’s on.” Talk show host Lee Rodgers asserts that Obama is “an anti-American president” and that Obama’s policies will lead to a “few million dead Americans.”
August 2009: On the Lou Dobbs radio show, substitute host Tom Marr says “I have to believe that there is still an inner Muslim within this man that has some sense of sympathy towards the number one enemy of freedom and democracy in the world today, and that is Islamic terrorism.”
September 2009: Gaffney says Obama is “pursuing [an agenda] that is indistinguishable in important respects from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission ladies and gentlemen, we know from a trial in Dallas last year, is to quote to destroy Western civilization from within by its own miserable hand.” Conservative pundit Tammy Bruce says on Fox News that Obama has “some malevolence toward this country.”
November 2009: Fox’s Sean Hannity suggests that President Obama was somehow responsible for the Fort Hood shooting, stating that “our government apparently knew and did nothing” about “a terrorist act” and then asking “What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?”
December 2009: Citing a dubious report that the Obama administration had threatened Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) with closing Offutt Air Force Base, home of the US Strategic Command, if Nelson didn’t support the health care reform bill in the Senate, Glenn Beck suggests that the allegation would constitute “high crimes,” asked “[H]ow much closer do you get to treason?”, and said the claim “borders treason” and “borders on treason.”
January 2010: The New York Post publishes an editorial asking “Whose side is the Justice Department on: America’s or the terrorists’? … [T]he president and his administration also owe the American people an answer: Is the government’s prosecutorial deck stacked in favor of the terrorists?” Former senator Fred Thompson also jokes that the US could win the war in Afghanistan if we “[j]ust send Obama over there to campaign for the Taliban.”
February 2010: During a conference call with conservative bloggers, Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) accuses the Obama administration of having a “a terrorist protection policy” and conducting a “jihad to close Guantanamo.” In addition, based on a superficial resemblance between two logos, Frank Gaffney suggests that President Obama’s missile defense policies “seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah.”
April 2010: Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) writes an article for The Daily Caller alleging that Obama is “disadvantaging the United States one step at a time and undermining this country’s national defense on purpose.”
July 2010: Writing in the Washington Times, former GOP Rep. and third party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo calls Obama “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda” and “a dedicated enemy of the Constitution,” while columnist Jeffrey Kuhner of the Edmund Burke Institute describes Obama as an “usurper” who is creating “a socialist dictatorship” and has engaged in “treasonous” behavior by suing Arizona over its immigration law.
August 2010: National Review’s Andrew McCarthy publishes an entire book claiming that Obama is pursuing an agenda that will aid Islamic radicals. The dust jacket states that “the global Islamist movement’s jihad … has found the ideal partner in President Barack Obama, whose Islamist sympathies run deep.” Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin writes that Obama’s “sympathies for the Muslim World take precedence over those, such as they are, for his fellow citizens” in a post criticizing Obama’s statement on the proposed Muslim community center near Ground Zero.
September 2010: David Limbaugh suggests that Obama may be “trying intentionally to take us over the cliff” in a Newsmax.tv interview.
May 2013: When asked whether Obama “actually switched sides in the War on Terror,” former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answered, “You know, I just don’t feel competent to answer. I can’t tell.”
Yes, that guy. Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Seriously.
State level symptoms of how the disease of conservatism affecgts the bopdy politic (from Mark Binelli, of the NYT):
“To critics, emergency managers are unelected dictators, most often installed in poor, majority black cities. Last fall, Michigan voters repealed the emergency manager law in a ballot referendum. But Governor Snyder rammed through a new version during the lame-duck session of the G.O.P.-controlled State Legislature — a flagrantly undemocratic move, seemingly driven less by ideology than fear of what a Detroit bankruptcy might do to the credit ratings of the surrounding suburbs and the state.
The hope is that Mr. Orr, who worked as a lead attorney on Chrysler’s managed bankruptcy, will be able to prevent Detroit from entering Chapter 9. Yet in one of his first acts, he signed off on the hiring of his own former law firm, Jones Day, to help restructure Detroit’s long-term debt — despite the fact that Jones Day already represents some of the very banks holding said debt, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.
Indeed, the least surprising development to anyone following Detroit’s woes has been Wall Street’s continued ability to squeeze money out of a city that can’t afford to keep its streetlights on or police its neighborhoods (there were almost as many murders in Detroit last year as there were in New York, a city with 11 times the population; Detroit officers are working 12-hour shifts with 10 percent pay cuts; and private businesses recently kicked in $8 million to buy the department new squad cars and ambulances).
In recent years, Detroit’s water department has paid Wall Street banks hundreds of millions in termination fees alone in order to get out of bad municipal bond deals. (The city utility is so broke, it issued new bonds in order to pay the fees to get out of the old bonds!)
According to a recent Reuters article, since corporate bankruptcies have declined, investors specializing in “distressed” hedge funds have begun circling troubled municipalities, with no city “attracting more attention than Detroit.” One financial adviser quoted in the story sounded a note of caution to the would-be vultures, noting that unlike a corporation, “you can’t liquidate a city.”
But apparently no one informed Mr. Orr, whose spokesman, Bill Nowling, told The Detroit Free Press that the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts, including works by van Gogh and Matisse, was being listed as an asset in the event of bankruptcy. “Creditors can really force the issue,” Mr. Nowling said. “If you go into court, they can object and say, ‘Hey, I’m taking a huge haircut, and you’ve got a billion dollars’ worth of art sitting over there.’ ”
Why stop there? Perhaps as part of a settlement, Mr. Orr can negotiate with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra to play at creditors’ annual shareholder luncheons, or work out a deal wherein laid-off autoworkers perform free annual tuneups on the limousines of bank executives. Better yet, he could tear a page from the Chrysler turnaround — which, of course, ended with the company’s being purchased by Fiat. See where I’m going with this? Italians love art, they love cars, and they know how to monetize old ruins!
In a different world, Mr. Orr might instead consider more aggressively challenging the city’s creditors, or lobbying for the sort of federal cash infusion received by the faltering banks and auto companies. Unfortunately, such scenarios aren’t likely to come up during today’s Mackinac panel on Detroit’s turnaround — moderated by the vice chairman of a bank”
State level symptoms of how the disease of conservatism affecgts the bopdy politic (from Mark Binelli, of the NYT):
“To critics, emergency managers are unelected dictators, most often installed in poor, majority black cities. Last fall, Michigan voters repealed the emergency manager law in a ballot referendum. But Governor Snyder rammed through a new version during the lame-duck session of the G.O.P.-controlled State Legislature — a flagrantly undemocratic move, seemingly driven less by ideology than fear of what a Detroit bankruptcy might do to the credit ratings of the surrounding suburbs and the state.
The hope is that Mr. Orr, who worked as a lead attorney on Chrysler’s managed bankruptcy, will be able to prevent Detroit from entering Chapter 9. Yet in one of his first acts, he signed off on the hiring of his own former law firm, Jones Day, to help restructure Detroit’s long-term debt — despite the fact that Jones Day already represents some of the very banks holding said debt, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.
Indeed, the least surprising development to anyone following Detroit’s woes has been Wall Street’s continued ability to squeeze money out of a city that can’t afford to keep its streetlights on or police its neighborhoods (there were almost as many murders in Detroit last year as there were in New York, a city with 11 times the population; Detroit officers are working 12-hour shifts with 10 percent pay cuts; and private businesses recently kicked in $8 million to buy the department new squad cars and ambulances).
In recent years, Detroit’s water department has paid Wall Street banks hundreds of millions in termination fees alone in order to get out of bad municipal bond deals. (The city utility is so broke, it issued new bonds in order to pay the fees to get out of the old bonds!)
According to a recent Reuters article, since corporate bankruptcies have declined, investors specializing in “distressed” hedge funds have begun circling troubled municipalities, with no city “attracting more attention than Detroit.” One financial adviser quoted in the story sounded a note of caution to the would-be vultures, noting that unlike a corporation, “you can’t liquidate a city.”
But apparently no one informed Mr. Orr, whose spokesman, Bill Nowling, told The Detroit Free Press that the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts, including works by van Gogh and Matisse, was being listed as an asset in the event of bankruptcy. “Creditors can really force the issue,” Mr. Nowling said. “If you go into court, they can object and say, ‘Hey, I’m taking a huge haircut, and you’ve got a billion dollars’ worth of art sitting over there.’ ”
Why stop there? Perhaps as part of a settlement, Mr. Orr can negotiate with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra to play at creditors’ annual shareholder luncheons, or work out a deal wherein laid-off autoworkers perform free annual tuneups on the limousines of bank executives. Better yet, he could tear a page from the Chrysler turnaround — which, of course, ended with the company’s being purchased by Fiat. See where I’m going with this? Italians love art, they love cars, and they know how to monetize old ruins!
In a different world, Mr. Orr might instead consider more aggressively challenging the city’s creditors, or lobbying for the sort of federal cash infusion received by the faltering banks and auto companies. Unfortunately, such scenarios aren’t likely to come up during today’s Mackinac panel on Detroit’s turnaround — moderated by the vice chairman of a bank”
State level symptoms of how the disease of conservatism affecgts the bopdy politic (from Mark Binelli, of the NYT):
“To critics, emergency managers are unelected dictators, most often installed in poor, majority black cities. Last fall, Michigan voters repealed the emergency manager law in a ballot referendum. But Governor Snyder rammed through a new version during the lame-duck session of the G.O.P.-controlled State Legislature — a flagrantly undemocratic move, seemingly driven less by ideology than fear of what a Detroit bankruptcy might do to the credit ratings of the surrounding suburbs and the state.
The hope is that Mr. Orr, who worked as a lead attorney on Chrysler’s managed bankruptcy, will be able to prevent Detroit from entering Chapter 9. Yet in one of his first acts, he signed off on the hiring of his own former law firm, Jones Day, to help restructure Detroit’s long-term debt — despite the fact that Jones Day already represents some of the very banks holding said debt, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.
Indeed, the least surprising development to anyone following Detroit’s woes has been Wall Street’s continued ability to squeeze money out of a city that can’t afford to keep its streetlights on or police its neighborhoods (there were almost as many murders in Detroit last year as there were in New York, a city with 11 times the population; Detroit officers are working 12-hour shifts with 10 percent pay cuts; and private businesses recently kicked in $8 million to buy the department new squad cars and ambulances).
In recent years, Detroit’s water department has paid Wall Street banks hundreds of millions in termination fees alone in order to get out of bad municipal bond deals. (The city utility is so broke, it issued new bonds in order to pay the fees to get out of the old bonds!)
According to a recent Reuters article, since corporate bankruptcies have declined, investors specializing in “distressed” hedge funds have begun circling troubled municipalities, with no city “attracting more attention than Detroit.” One financial adviser quoted in the story sounded a note of caution to the would-be vultures, noting that unlike a corporation, “you can’t liquidate a city.”
But apparently no one informed Mr. Orr, whose spokesman, Bill Nowling, told The Detroit Free Press that the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts, including works by van Gogh and Matisse, was being listed as an asset in the event of bankruptcy. “Creditors can really force the issue,” Mr. Nowling said. “If you go into court, they can object and say, ‘Hey, I’m taking a huge haircut, and you’ve got a billion dollars’ worth of art sitting over there.’ ”
Why stop there? Perhaps as part of a settlement, Mr. Orr can negotiate with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra to play at creditors’ annual shareholder luncheons, or work out a deal wherein laid-off autoworkers perform free annual tuneups on the limousines of bank executives. Better yet, he could tear a page from the Chrysler turnaround — which, of course, ended with the company’s being purchased by Fiat. See where I’m going with this? Italians love art, they love cars, and they know how to monetize old ruins!
In a different world, Mr. Orr might instead consider more aggressively challenging the city’s creditors, or lobbying for the sort of federal cash infusion received by the faltering banks and auto companies. Unfortunately, such scenarios aren’t likely to come up during today’s Mackinac panel on Detroit’s turnaround — moderated by the vice chairman of a bank”
I’d love it if the Republican party went back to being the party of pre-Atwood, Rove, Koch, KStreet.
The old Republican party was prone to abuses of power: red baiting, Watergate, Iran-Contra. However, there were politicians who behaved civilly and even ethically in the political realm. Congressionl Republicans seemed to repsect their offices and conductged busiess in a reasoanable spirit. There was a willingness to process factual information and respect for science. Discussion and compromise was possible. Abuses of office such as happened during the Nixon Administration was outrageous because it was unusual.
I’d love to have that party back. I thik it is important to have diversity of opinion, debate, disagreement, multiple perspectives.
But that is not what the Republican party brings to our politics now. The curent part is lead by people who do not like democracy and want to replace representative democracy with institutionalized rule by the one percent. Tom DeLay was speakig the truth when he said the Republicans wanted to have a one party state at the national level. Romeny was expressing the philosophers of DOP leadership when he dismissed most Americans as “takers”.
It’s a party of ideologues, nutcases, and cynics out for what they can loot for themselves. There’s no intellectual honestly, and there sure as hell isn’t any capacity fo ethical behavior, not in the House or Senate at least, and not in the leadership of the party itself.
At the bottom the Republican party is the party of people who are, in terms of their political lives, prone to believing errant nonsense, and easily manipulated by appeals selfishness, fear and/or hate. The rightwing lunatic fringe has taken over.
It is not a normal political party and does act in a responsible way.
The only way to get the old party back is to get rid of this one and that means facing up to how degenerate the party has become.
I’d love it if the Republican party went back to being the party of pre-Atwood, Rove, Koch, KStreet.
The old Republican party was prone to abuses of power: red baiting, Watergate, Iran-Contra. However, there were politicians who behaved civilly and even ethically in the political realm. Congressionl Republicans seemed to repsect their offices and conductged busiess in a reasoanable spirit. There was a willingness to process factual information and respect for science. Discussion and compromise was possible. Abuses of office such as happened during the Nixon Administration was outrageous because it was unusual.
I’d love to have that party back. I thik it is important to have diversity of opinion, debate, disagreement, multiple perspectives.
But that is not what the Republican party brings to our politics now. The curent part is lead by people who do not like democracy and want to replace representative democracy with institutionalized rule by the one percent. Tom DeLay was speakig the truth when he said the Republicans wanted to have a one party state at the national level. Romeny was expressing the philosophers of DOP leadership when he dismissed most Americans as “takers”.
It’s a party of ideologues, nutcases, and cynics out for what they can loot for themselves. There’s no intellectual honestly, and there sure as hell isn’t any capacity fo ethical behavior, not in the House or Senate at least, and not in the leadership of the party itself.
At the bottom the Republican party is the party of people who are, in terms of their political lives, prone to believing errant nonsense, and easily manipulated by appeals selfishness, fear and/or hate. The rightwing lunatic fringe has taken over.
It is not a normal political party and does act in a responsible way.
The only way to get the old party back is to get rid of this one and that means facing up to how degenerate the party has become.
I’d love it if the Republican party went back to being the party of pre-Atwood, Rove, Koch, KStreet.
The old Republican party was prone to abuses of power: red baiting, Watergate, Iran-Contra. However, there were politicians who behaved civilly and even ethically in the political realm. Congressionl Republicans seemed to repsect their offices and conductged busiess in a reasoanable spirit. There was a willingness to process factual information and respect for science. Discussion and compromise was possible. Abuses of office such as happened during the Nixon Administration was outrageous because it was unusual.
I’d love to have that party back. I thik it is important to have diversity of opinion, debate, disagreement, multiple perspectives.
But that is not what the Republican party brings to our politics now. The curent part is lead by people who do not like democracy and want to replace representative democracy with institutionalized rule by the one percent. Tom DeLay was speakig the truth when he said the Republicans wanted to have a one party state at the national level. Romeny was expressing the philosophers of DOP leadership when he dismissed most Americans as “takers”.
It’s a party of ideologues, nutcases, and cynics out for what they can loot for themselves. There’s no intellectual honestly, and there sure as hell isn’t any capacity fo ethical behavior, not in the House or Senate at least, and not in the leadership of the party itself.
At the bottom the Republican party is the party of people who are, in terms of their political lives, prone to believing errant nonsense, and easily manipulated by appeals selfishness, fear and/or hate. The rightwing lunatic fringe has taken over.
It is not a normal political party and does act in a responsible way.
The only way to get the old party back is to get rid of this one and that means facing up to how degenerate the party has become.
Um, let’s see.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the D to R ratio of IRS employees at 1111 Constitution was something like 70 to 30. On the one hand, I don’t think that matters the least bit. On the other hand, strange things might be afoot at the Circle K if the organization charged with enforcing the tax laws was run by people that….don’t believe in enforcing the tax laws or even in taxes at all – if we’re going to engage in a sort of “all that matters in my life is my political beliefs” paradigm.
A few weeks on it seems the IRS fncked up, mostly fixed it, and then fncked up again by not being proactive in its communications to Congress. Congress is pissed, and probably rightly so (although the GOP seems to have gone off the deep end – not that there’s anything unusual about that). And yet, folks have resigned/retired, one has taken the 5th, and new leadership is in place.
Um, let’s see.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the D to R ratio of IRS employees at 1111 Constitution was something like 70 to 30. On the one hand, I don’t think that matters the least bit. On the other hand, strange things might be afoot at the Circle K if the organization charged with enforcing the tax laws was run by people that….don’t believe in enforcing the tax laws or even in taxes at all – if we’re going to engage in a sort of “all that matters in my life is my political beliefs” paradigm.
A few weeks on it seems the IRS fncked up, mostly fixed it, and then fncked up again by not being proactive in its communications to Congress. Congress is pissed, and probably rightly so (although the GOP seems to have gone off the deep end – not that there’s anything unusual about that). And yet, folks have resigned/retired, one has taken the 5th, and new leadership is in place.
Um, let’s see.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the D to R ratio of IRS employees at 1111 Constitution was something like 70 to 30. On the one hand, I don’t think that matters the least bit. On the other hand, strange things might be afoot at the Circle K if the organization charged with enforcing the tax laws was run by people that….don’t believe in enforcing the tax laws or even in taxes at all – if we’re going to engage in a sort of “all that matters in my life is my political beliefs” paradigm.
A few weeks on it seems the IRS fncked up, mostly fixed it, and then fncked up again by not being proactive in its communications to Congress. Congress is pissed, and probably rightly so (although the GOP seems to have gone off the deep end – not that there’s anything unusual about that). And yet, folks have resigned/retired, one has taken the 5th, and new leadership is in place.
Well, ugh, in Watergate (comparing time frame only) and Iran-Contra the first wave of resignations, fifth pleading and replacements didn’t come close to answering the questions or getting to the facts. So pardon my skepticism, but I’m not ready to just declare everything ok.
Well, ugh, in Watergate (comparing time frame only) and Iran-Contra the first wave of resignations, fifth pleading and replacements didn’t come close to answering the questions or getting to the facts. So pardon my skepticism, but I’m not ready to just declare everything ok.
Well, ugh, in Watergate (comparing time frame only) and Iran-Contra the first wave of resignations, fifth pleading and replacements didn’t come close to answering the questions or getting to the facts. So pardon my skepticism, but I’m not ready to just declare everything ok.
For you exhalegeninsiouseelminationaterabators out there, Rollins Corp (NYSE: ROL)closed down a dime today.
The Liberal Apocalypse foretold in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is upon us.
Grab your totem and your gun and flee to the woods where skepticism grows on trees watered by the Natural Order of tooth and claw.
I’ll call when the coast clears.
For you exhalegeninsiouseelminationaterabators out there, Rollins Corp (NYSE: ROL)closed down a dime today.
The Liberal Apocalypse foretold in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is upon us.
Grab your totem and your gun and flee to the woods where skepticism grows on trees watered by the Natural Order of tooth and claw.
I’ll call when the coast clears.
For you exhalegeninsiouseelminationaterabators out there, Rollins Corp (NYSE: ROL)closed down a dime today.
The Liberal Apocalypse foretold in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is upon us.
Grab your totem and your gun and flee to the woods where skepticism grows on trees watered by the Natural Order of tooth and claw.
I’ll call when the coast clears.
Marty: Unfortunately, modern administrations seem to have taken Watergate as a guide to what corrupt administrations shouldn’t do, (Record conversations, maintain records, hire people with strong moral convictions, stop stonewalling…) rather than as a suggestion not to be corrupt. So I’m not all that confident we will EVER get to the bottom of things. Most investigations during the Clinton administration, for instance, didn’t establish innocence. They just petered out in a mess of people taking the fifth, destroyed evidence, and sick people dying in inexplicable solitary confinement.
Coverups do work, if you plan on covering up from day one, and don’t suffer from pangs of guilt. Because it isn’t only the good guys who learn from history. They both do, just different lessons.
Marty: Unfortunately, modern administrations seem to have taken Watergate as a guide to what corrupt administrations shouldn’t do, (Record conversations, maintain records, hire people with strong moral convictions, stop stonewalling…) rather than as a suggestion not to be corrupt. So I’m not all that confident we will EVER get to the bottom of things. Most investigations during the Clinton administration, for instance, didn’t establish innocence. They just petered out in a mess of people taking the fifth, destroyed evidence, and sick people dying in inexplicable solitary confinement.
Coverups do work, if you plan on covering up from day one, and don’t suffer from pangs of guilt. Because it isn’t only the good guys who learn from history. They both do, just different lessons.
Marty: Unfortunately, modern administrations seem to have taken Watergate as a guide to what corrupt administrations shouldn’t do, (Record conversations, maintain records, hire people with strong moral convictions, stop stonewalling…) rather than as a suggestion not to be corrupt. So I’m not all that confident we will EVER get to the bottom of things. Most investigations during the Clinton administration, for instance, didn’t establish innocence. They just petered out in a mess of people taking the fifth, destroyed evidence, and sick people dying in inexplicable solitary confinement.
Coverups do work, if you plan on covering up from day one, and don’t suffer from pangs of guilt. Because it isn’t only the good guys who learn from history. They both do, just different lessons.
wistfully wishing for data…
stupid IRS can’t even stifle the speech of its enemies correctly. must be all the liberalism.
wistfully wishing for data…
stupid IRS can’t even stifle the speech of its enemies correctly. must be all the liberalism.
wistfully wishing for data…
stupid IRS can’t even stifle the speech of its enemies correctly. must be all the liberalism.
So I’m not all that confident we will EVER get to the bottom of things.
of course you’re not. but that’s simply because you already know what the bottom looks like and you also know reality can’t match it.
So I’m not all that confident we will EVER get to the bottom of things.
of course you’re not. but that’s simply because you already know what the bottom looks like and you also know reality can’t match it.
So I’m not all that confident we will EVER get to the bottom of things.
of course you’re not. but that’s simply because you already know what the bottom looks like and you also know reality can’t match it.
Brett, I would love to see one comment where you referred to the activities of the Bush adminstration as being akin to Watergate. Just one.
Brett, I would love to see one comment where you referred to the activities of the Bush adminstration as being akin to Watergate. Just one.
Brett, I would love to see one comment where you referred to the activities of the Bush adminstration as being akin to Watergate. Just one.
Brett, I would love to see one comment where you referred to the activities of the Bush adminstration as being akin to Watergate. Just one.
Watergate was a domestic issue. If there was a comparable scandal under Bush, I’d appreciate having my memory refreshed.
Marty makes the fair point that we are early in the investigation. To turn LJ’s point back on him, I’d like to be reminded on just one Republican scandal about which the Dems treated a senior official taking the fifth barely worthy of note and generally accepted the initial positions asserted by the Repubs.
Brett, I would love to see one comment where you referred to the activities of the Bush adminstration as being akin to Watergate. Just one.
Watergate was a domestic issue. If there was a comparable scandal under Bush, I’d appreciate having my memory refreshed.
Marty makes the fair point that we are early in the investigation. To turn LJ’s point back on him, I’d like to be reminded on just one Republican scandal about which the Dems treated a senior official taking the fifth barely worthy of note and generally accepted the initial positions asserted by the Repubs.
Brett, I would love to see one comment where you referred to the activities of the Bush adminstration as being akin to Watergate. Just one.
Watergate was a domestic issue. If there was a comparable scandal under Bush, I’d appreciate having my memory refreshed.
Marty makes the fair point that we are early in the investigation. To turn LJ’s point back on him, I’d like to be reminded on just one Republican scandal about which the Dems treated a senior official taking the fifth barely worthy of note and generally accepted the initial positions asserted by the Repubs.
I think one day each of us, seeking our separate partisan ponies, will end up with that pony and it will be the same, identical pony.
The pony being the U.S. Security State’s warrentless electronic surveillance program, designed and requested by the Bush Administration, approved by Congress, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and now vastly expanded in its implementation by the Obama Administration.
It’s as if the entire Federal Government, with the acquiescence of the electorate, decided to implement Richard Nixon’s Plumbers Unit, for EVERYBODY.
But it’s a legal pony, you say, so we can’t call it a scandal.
One day, though, it will be so abused, probably for partisan political ends, and it will leave such an Everest of steaming, odiferous pony manure to clean up that we will begin impeachment proceedings against EVERYONE, with no statute of limitations, including ourselves.
And then all of us and our single gargantuan pony will be consigned to GITMO.
I would add that Domino’s Pizza is beta-testing pizza delivery by drone in England.
When that comes to the States, I expect that could be a pony, too.
When you place your order, will they ask if you would like the surveillance device ordered by NSA in the pepperoni, or in the mushrooms?
Beware the breadsticks.
I think one day each of us, seeking our separate partisan ponies, will end up with that pony and it will be the same, identical pony.
The pony being the U.S. Security State’s warrentless electronic surveillance program, designed and requested by the Bush Administration, approved by Congress, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and now vastly expanded in its implementation by the Obama Administration.
It’s as if the entire Federal Government, with the acquiescence of the electorate, decided to implement Richard Nixon’s Plumbers Unit, for EVERYBODY.
But it’s a legal pony, you say, so we can’t call it a scandal.
One day, though, it will be so abused, probably for partisan political ends, and it will leave such an Everest of steaming, odiferous pony manure to clean up that we will begin impeachment proceedings against EVERYONE, with no statute of limitations, including ourselves.
And then all of us and our single gargantuan pony will be consigned to GITMO.
I would add that Domino’s Pizza is beta-testing pizza delivery by drone in England.
When that comes to the States, I expect that could be a pony, too.
When you place your order, will they ask if you would like the surveillance device ordered by NSA in the pepperoni, or in the mushrooms?
Beware the breadsticks.
I think one day each of us, seeking our separate partisan ponies, will end up with that pony and it will be the same, identical pony.
The pony being the U.S. Security State’s warrentless electronic surveillance program, designed and requested by the Bush Administration, approved by Congress, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and now vastly expanded in its implementation by the Obama Administration.
It’s as if the entire Federal Government, with the acquiescence of the electorate, decided to implement Richard Nixon’s Plumbers Unit, for EVERYBODY.
But it’s a legal pony, you say, so we can’t call it a scandal.
One day, though, it will be so abused, probably for partisan political ends, and it will leave such an Everest of steaming, odiferous pony manure to clean up that we will begin impeachment proceedings against EVERYONE, with no statute of limitations, including ourselves.
And then all of us and our single gargantuan pony will be consigned to GITMO.
I would add that Domino’s Pizza is beta-testing pizza delivery by drone in England.
When that comes to the States, I expect that could be a pony, too.
When you place your order, will they ask if you would like the surveillance device ordered by NSA in the pepperoni, or in the mushrooms?
Beware the breadsticks.
But it’s a legal pony, you say, so we can’t call it a scandal.
It is also a pony that can be used in the same fashion as the “insensitive low level IRS employees in the Cincinnati branch office who acted without the authority or approval of more senior officials who will be suitably shocked and chagrined”. And, depending on who is in office, some will accept the initial, self-serving explanation, and others will not.
But it’s a legal pony, you say, so we can’t call it a scandal.
It is also a pony that can be used in the same fashion as the “insensitive low level IRS employees in the Cincinnati branch office who acted without the authority or approval of more senior officials who will be suitably shocked and chagrined”. And, depending on who is in office, some will accept the initial, self-serving explanation, and others will not.
But it’s a legal pony, you say, so we can’t call it a scandal.
It is also a pony that can be used in the same fashion as the “insensitive low level IRS employees in the Cincinnati branch office who acted without the authority or approval of more senior officials who will be suitably shocked and chagrined”. And, depending on who is in office, some will accept the initial, self-serving explanation, and others will not.
And, depending on who is in office, some will accept the initial, self-serving explanation, and others will not.
and some will look up at the night sky and loudly insist that a particular scattering of stars plots a clear picture of their enemies perfidy. when challenged, they will insist that increases in telescope power will improve the picture so that even the myopic will see what they’ve seen all along.
And, depending on who is in office, some will accept the initial, self-serving explanation, and others will not.
and some will look up at the night sky and loudly insist that a particular scattering of stars plots a clear picture of their enemies perfidy. when challenged, they will insist that increases in telescope power will improve the picture so that even the myopic will see what they’ve seen all along.
And, depending on who is in office, some will accept the initial, self-serving explanation, and others will not.
and some will look up at the night sky and loudly insist that a particular scattering of stars plots a clear picture of their enemies perfidy. when challenged, they will insist that increases in telescope power will improve the picture so that even the myopic will see what they’ve seen all along.
It occurs to me that since these orgs are not supposed to be political in nature there really can’t be any partisan bias concerning their politics.
It occurs to me that since these orgs are not supposed to be political in nature there really can’t be any partisan bias concerning their politics.
It occurs to me that since these orgs are not supposed to be political in nature there really can’t be any partisan bias concerning their politics.
I believe that the Obama administration went to the FISA courts and got approval for this latest batch of requested data. So: not quite the same thing. HOWEVER: it still prompts the debate about how the government can legitimately obtain, even through the courts, a sanctioned violation of the privacy of many, many ordinary law-abiding citizens.
So: I think the pony is a different one than you describe, but it’s still going to be the one we wind up getting.
I believe that the Obama administration went to the FISA courts and got approval for this latest batch of requested data. So: not quite the same thing. HOWEVER: it still prompts the debate about how the government can legitimately obtain, even through the courts, a sanctioned violation of the privacy of many, many ordinary law-abiding citizens.
So: I think the pony is a different one than you describe, but it’s still going to be the one we wind up getting.
I believe that the Obama administration went to the FISA courts and got approval for this latest batch of requested data. So: not quite the same thing. HOWEVER: it still prompts the debate about how the government can legitimately obtain, even through the courts, a sanctioned violation of the privacy of many, many ordinary law-abiding citizens.
So: I think the pony is a different one than you describe, but it’s still going to be the one we wind up getting.
That said, the reporting that I have seen notes that Verizon has been hit up for metadata on all of its customers.
Which is similar to (I am making a comparison in degree, here; not of kind) the government obtaining a warrant to toss the houses of anyone it pleases, so that random searches can be conducted in a way consistent with the law.
Question: what does a warrant mean anymore, if you can get a warrant to violate the privacy of everyone?
Again: admittedly slightly hyperbolic.
That said, the reporting that I have seen notes that Verizon has been hit up for metadata on all of its customers.
Which is similar to (I am making a comparison in degree, here; not of kind) the government obtaining a warrant to toss the houses of anyone it pleases, so that random searches can be conducted in a way consistent with the law.
Question: what does a warrant mean anymore, if you can get a warrant to violate the privacy of everyone?
Again: admittedly slightly hyperbolic.
That said, the reporting that I have seen notes that Verizon has been hit up for metadata on all of its customers.
Which is similar to (I am making a comparison in degree, here; not of kind) the government obtaining a warrant to toss the houses of anyone it pleases, so that random searches can be conducted in a way consistent with the law.
Question: what does a warrant mean anymore, if you can get a warrant to violate the privacy of everyone?
Again: admittedly slightly hyperbolic.
HOWEVER: it still prompts the debate about how the government can legitimately obtain, even through the courts, a sanctioned violation of the privacy of many, many ordinary law-abiding citizens.
I think the larger point here is that the FISA court has almost always been a rubber stamp court that gives the government what it wants. Structurally, it must be: the government stands before it making its case and there’s no one arguing against it. There’s no accountability for its decisions, no shame, nothing.
When the Bush admin bypassed the FISA court, there was an upsurge of people talking about how great the court is, how it was the right and proper way for national security issues to be hashed out, etc, but I think all that talk was wrong: FISA has always been a bad idea in that the court has gone for years without turning down the government even once.
HOWEVER: it still prompts the debate about how the government can legitimately obtain, even through the courts, a sanctioned violation of the privacy of many, many ordinary law-abiding citizens.
I think the larger point here is that the FISA court has almost always been a rubber stamp court that gives the government what it wants. Structurally, it must be: the government stands before it making its case and there’s no one arguing against it. There’s no accountability for its decisions, no shame, nothing.
When the Bush admin bypassed the FISA court, there was an upsurge of people talking about how great the court is, how it was the right and proper way for national security issues to be hashed out, etc, but I think all that talk was wrong: FISA has always been a bad idea in that the court has gone for years without turning down the government even once.
HOWEVER: it still prompts the debate about how the government can legitimately obtain, even through the courts, a sanctioned violation of the privacy of many, many ordinary law-abiding citizens.
I think the larger point here is that the FISA court has almost always been a rubber stamp court that gives the government what it wants. Structurally, it must be: the government stands before it making its case and there’s no one arguing against it. There’s no accountability for its decisions, no shame, nothing.
When the Bush admin bypassed the FISA court, there was an upsurge of people talking about how great the court is, how it was the right and proper way for national security issues to be hashed out, etc, but I think all that talk was wrong: FISA has always been a bad idea in that the court has gone for years without turning down the government even once.
Agreed, Turbulence.
This may be a first.
Agreed, Turbulence.
This may be a first.
Agreed, Turbulence.
This may be a first.
Well, ugh, in Watergate (comparing time frame only) and Iran-Contra the first wave of resignations, fifth pleading and replacements didn’t come close to answering the questions or getting to the facts. So pardon my skepticism, but I’m not ready to just declare everything ok.
Every once in a while the police pull someone over for speeding and there’s a body in the trunk.
You can wait with bated breath for the body to be revealed this time. You can even, like Brett, assume that if we find an empty trunk this will just mean that the body was moved beforehand.
The biggest tip-off I see is this: GOP partisans are coming up with some pretty nonsensical stuff to throw at the wall (see Issa’s ‘this began in Washington’ misdirection, or even Brett’s 10:14 comment. When there’s a real scandal brewing, the other side isn’t flailing around trying to make something stick, because that distracts from the real scandal.
But Id be the first to admit that rule of thumb is an uncertain guide, and that only events will tell us the truth of the matter. (Brett will be the last to admit this, apparently the real scandal of the last couple of Dem administrations is that they never got caught). Im all for giving whats-her-name immunity and asking her to explain the details of what she knows. Not sure why that hasn’t happened yet.
Well, ugh, in Watergate (comparing time frame only) and Iran-Contra the first wave of resignations, fifth pleading and replacements didn’t come close to answering the questions or getting to the facts. So pardon my skepticism, but I’m not ready to just declare everything ok.
Every once in a while the police pull someone over for speeding and there’s a body in the trunk.
You can wait with bated breath for the body to be revealed this time. You can even, like Brett, assume that if we find an empty trunk this will just mean that the body was moved beforehand.
The biggest tip-off I see is this: GOP partisans are coming up with some pretty nonsensical stuff to throw at the wall (see Issa’s ‘this began in Washington’ misdirection, or even Brett’s 10:14 comment. When there’s a real scandal brewing, the other side isn’t flailing around trying to make something stick, because that distracts from the real scandal.
But Id be the first to admit that rule of thumb is an uncertain guide, and that only events will tell us the truth of the matter. (Brett will be the last to admit this, apparently the real scandal of the last couple of Dem administrations is that they never got caught). Im all for giving whats-her-name immunity and asking her to explain the details of what she knows. Not sure why that hasn’t happened yet.
Well, ugh, in Watergate (comparing time frame only) and Iran-Contra the first wave of resignations, fifth pleading and replacements didn’t come close to answering the questions or getting to the facts. So pardon my skepticism, but I’m not ready to just declare everything ok.
Every once in a while the police pull someone over for speeding and there’s a body in the trunk.
You can wait with bated breath for the body to be revealed this time. You can even, like Brett, assume that if we find an empty trunk this will just mean that the body was moved beforehand.
The biggest tip-off I see is this: GOP partisans are coming up with some pretty nonsensical stuff to throw at the wall (see Issa’s ‘this began in Washington’ misdirection, or even Brett’s 10:14 comment. When there’s a real scandal brewing, the other side isn’t flailing around trying to make something stick, because that distracts from the real scandal.
But Id be the first to admit that rule of thumb is an uncertain guide, and that only events will tell us the truth of the matter. (Brett will be the last to admit this, apparently the real scandal of the last couple of Dem administrations is that they never got caught). Im all for giving whats-her-name immunity and asking her to explain the details of what she knows. Not sure why that hasn’t happened yet.
I agree with Turb, no, Slart, no, uh, both? My mind just can’t function this way, so please disagree on something quick.
I agree with Turb, no, Slart, no, uh, both? My mind just can’t function this way, so please disagree on something quick.
I agree with Turb, no, Slart, no, uh, both? My mind just can’t function this way, so please disagree on something quick.
I agree with Turb, no, Slart, no, uh, both?
Me too. I think we’re approaching some kind of bizarre singularity here.
My mind just can’t function this way, so please disagree on something quick.
Fried pickles: bad idea.
Vodka: not a proper martini ingredient.
That should hold us for a while.
I agree with Turb, no, Slart, no, uh, both?
Me too. I think we’re approaching some kind of bizarre singularity here.
My mind just can’t function this way, so please disagree on something quick.
Fried pickles: bad idea.
Vodka: not a proper martini ingredient.
That should hold us for a while.
I agree with Turb, no, Slart, no, uh, both?
Me too. I think we’re approaching some kind of bizarre singularity here.
My mind just can’t function this way, so please disagree on something quick.
Fried pickles: bad idea.
Vodka: not a proper martini ingredient.
That should hold us for a while.
russell: Excellent. You might have thrown something in there to the effect that not only are Macs inherently superior to PCs, but Mac users are more attractive, intelligent and generally savvy than Windows users.
Marty: I agree with you 50%.
russell: Excellent. You might have thrown something in there to the effect that not only are Macs inherently superior to PCs, but Mac users are more attractive, intelligent and generally savvy than Windows users.
Marty: I agree with you 50%.
russell: Excellent. You might have thrown something in there to the effect that not only are Macs inherently superior to PCs, but Mac users are more attractive, intelligent and generally savvy than Windows users.
Marty: I agree with you 50%.
not only are Macs inherently superior to PCs, but Mac users are more attractive, intelligent and generally savvy than Windows users.
Huh.
And here, I thought that question was long since settled.
(… ducks and leaves …)
not only are Macs inherently superior to PCs, but Mac users are more attractive, intelligent and generally savvy than Windows users.
Huh.
And here, I thought that question was long since settled.
(… ducks and leaves …)
not only are Macs inherently superior to PCs, but Mac users are more attractive, intelligent and generally savvy than Windows users.
Huh.
And here, I thought that question was long since settled.
(… ducks and leaves …)
Wow, I feel so much better. Vodka martinis are so much better conceptually, I don’t drink except for the occasional tequila shot. And mac users are wimps to class based marketing.
The world has been set right.
Wow, I feel so much better. Vodka martinis are so much better conceptually, I don’t drink except for the occasional tequila shot. And mac users are wimps to class based marketing.
The world has been set right.
Wow, I feel so much better. Vodka martinis are so much better conceptually, I don’t drink except for the occasional tequila shot. And mac users are wimps to class based marketing.
The world has been set right.
I agree that fried pickles have no place in a vodka martini.
I agree that fried pickles have no place in a vodka martini.
I agree that fried pickles have no place in a vodka martini.
Carleton,
They MIGHT have tried. They haven’t got anyone on record implicating her enough to force her to make a deal. If they can’t prove she did something wrong then she has no reason to take immunity.
Or they don’t believe she knows anything about anyone else they consider important. So giving her immunity might be counterproductive for their political desires.
Or a third I haven’t thought up.
Carleton,
They MIGHT have tried. They haven’t got anyone on record implicating her enough to force her to make a deal. If they can’t prove she did something wrong then she has no reason to take immunity.
Or they don’t believe she knows anything about anyone else they consider important. So giving her immunity might be counterproductive for their political desires.
Or a third I haven’t thought up.
Carleton,
They MIGHT have tried. They haven’t got anyone on record implicating her enough to force her to make a deal. If they can’t prove she did something wrong then she has no reason to take immunity.
Or they don’t believe she knows anything about anyone else they consider important. So giving her immunity might be counterproductive for their political desires.
Or a third I haven’t thought up.
They MIGHT have tried. They haven’t got anyone on record implicating her enough to force her to make a deal. If they can’t prove she did something wrong then she has no reason to take immunity.
I dont believe that’s how immunity works- people are compelled to testify before Congress, but they can’t be compelled to self-incriminate. Once the threat of self-incrimination is removed they can be compelled to testify, period.
Now, she could stand mute and be found in contempt, but I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t be a great outcome for the GOP since it would demonstrate that she isn’t protecting herself, she’s protecting someone or something else.
So my money is on 2)they know or suspect that she won’t have much on anyone else and that this will deflate the scandal or 3)they’re still getting their ducks in a row, it’s only been a couple of weeks
IANAL
They MIGHT have tried. They haven’t got anyone on record implicating her enough to force her to make a deal. If they can’t prove she did something wrong then she has no reason to take immunity.
I dont believe that’s how immunity works- people are compelled to testify before Congress, but they can’t be compelled to self-incriminate. Once the threat of self-incrimination is removed they can be compelled to testify, period.
Now, she could stand mute and be found in contempt, but I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t be a great outcome for the GOP since it would demonstrate that she isn’t protecting herself, she’s protecting someone or something else.
So my money is on 2)they know or suspect that she won’t have much on anyone else and that this will deflate the scandal or 3)they’re still getting their ducks in a row, it’s only been a couple of weeks
IANAL
They MIGHT have tried. They haven’t got anyone on record implicating her enough to force her to make a deal. If they can’t prove she did something wrong then she has no reason to take immunity.
I dont believe that’s how immunity works- people are compelled to testify before Congress, but they can’t be compelled to self-incriminate. Once the threat of self-incrimination is removed they can be compelled to testify, period.
Now, she could stand mute and be found in contempt, but I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t be a great outcome for the GOP since it would demonstrate that she isn’t protecting herself, she’s protecting someone or something else.
So my money is on 2)they know or suspect that she won’t have much on anyone else and that this will deflate the scandal or 3)they’re still getting their ducks in a row, it’s only been a couple of weeks
IANAL
Carleton, The problem, and I am not a lawyer, is defining what she would get immunity for. I had not thought through giving her blanket immunity and forcing her to testify.
Carleton, The problem, and I am not a lawyer, is defining what she would get immunity for. I had not thought through giving her blanket immunity and forcing her to testify.
Carleton, The problem, and I am not a lawyer, is defining what she would get immunity for. I had not thought through giving her blanket immunity and forcing her to testify.
The pony being the U.S. Security State’s warrentless electronic surveillance program, designed and requested by the Bush Administration, approved by Congress, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and now vastly expanded in its implementation by the Obama Administration.
LOL.
Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of USAPA, finds himself shocked – shocked, I say! – to find that it’s being used overly broadly.
You’d think nothing like this had ever happened before.
At least they’ve stopped writing their own warrants on Post-its. At least I think they have.
The pony being the U.S. Security State’s warrentless electronic surveillance program, designed and requested by the Bush Administration, approved by Congress, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and now vastly expanded in its implementation by the Obama Administration.
LOL.
Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of USAPA, finds himself shocked – shocked, I say! – to find that it’s being used overly broadly.
You’d think nothing like this had ever happened before.
At least they’ve stopped writing their own warrants on Post-its. At least I think they have.
The pony being the U.S. Security State’s warrentless electronic surveillance program, designed and requested by the Bush Administration, approved by Congress, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and now vastly expanded in its implementation by the Obama Administration.
LOL.
Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of USAPA, finds himself shocked – shocked, I say! – to find that it’s being used overly broadly.
You’d think nothing like this had ever happened before.
At least they’ve stopped writing their own warrants on Post-its. At least I think they have.
russell: At least they’ve stopped writing their own warrants on Post-its. At least I think they have.
Warrants? We don’t need no stinking warrants!
russell: At least they’ve stopped writing their own warrants on Post-its. At least I think they have.
Warrants? We don’t need no stinking warrants!
russell: At least they’ve stopped writing their own warrants on Post-its. At least I think they have.
Warrants? We don’t need no stinking warrants!
“I dont believe that’s how immunity works- people are compelled to testify before Congress, but they can’t be compelled to self-incriminate. Once the threat of self-incrimination is removed they can be compelled to testify, period.”
In this case, I believe the reason she took the Fifth is that she has already made contradictory statements on the subject. The result of this is that, if she testifies under oath, and is asked those same questions, her testimony could be impeached no matter what she says. She says one thing, the Republicans go after her on perjury, she says the opposite, the Democrats do.
And I don’t think you can be immunized against perjury charges steming from the testimony you’re being compelled to give as a result of being immunized.
She’s in a perjury trap, I’d have more sympathy if she hadn’t constructed it herself.
“I dont believe that’s how immunity works- people are compelled to testify before Congress, but they can’t be compelled to self-incriminate. Once the threat of self-incrimination is removed they can be compelled to testify, period.”
In this case, I believe the reason she took the Fifth is that she has already made contradictory statements on the subject. The result of this is that, if she testifies under oath, and is asked those same questions, her testimony could be impeached no matter what she says. She says one thing, the Republicans go after her on perjury, she says the opposite, the Democrats do.
And I don’t think you can be immunized against perjury charges steming from the testimony you’re being compelled to give as a result of being immunized.
She’s in a perjury trap, I’d have more sympathy if she hadn’t constructed it herself.
“I dont believe that’s how immunity works- people are compelled to testify before Congress, but they can’t be compelled to self-incriminate. Once the threat of self-incrimination is removed they can be compelled to testify, period.”
In this case, I believe the reason she took the Fifth is that she has already made contradictory statements on the subject. The result of this is that, if she testifies under oath, and is asked those same questions, her testimony could be impeached no matter what she says. She says one thing, the Republicans go after her on perjury, she says the opposite, the Democrats do.
And I don’t think you can be immunized against perjury charges steming from the testimony you’re being compelled to give as a result of being immunized.
She’s in a perjury trap, I’d have more sympathy if she hadn’t constructed it herself.
Ugh, that was basically the reasoning behind Cheney’s urgent demands to bypass FISA even when FISA would rubberstamp everything. For him it was a matter of principle that the unified executive did not need any warrant or court approval and that asking for one would undermine the very principle of the unified executive by setting a precedent.
Ugh, that was basically the reasoning behind Cheney’s urgent demands to bypass FISA even when FISA would rubberstamp everything. For him it was a matter of principle that the unified executive did not need any warrant or court approval and that asking for one would undermine the very principle of the unified executive by setting a precedent.
Ugh, that was basically the reasoning behind Cheney’s urgent demands to bypass FISA even when FISA would rubberstamp everything. For him it was a matter of principle that the unified executive did not need any warrant or court approval and that asking for one would undermine the very principle of the unified executive by setting a precedent.
I thought warantless surveillance wasn’t being used at all, in this case. I thought I had read that a warrant had been obtained.
I’m confused, I guess.
I thought warantless surveillance wasn’t being used at all, in this case. I thought I had read that a warrant had been obtained.
I’m confused, I guess.
I thought warantless surveillance wasn’t being used at all, in this case. I thought I had read that a warrant had been obtained.
I’m confused, I guess.
Hartmut – I think Cheney’s theory was that POTUS is supreme in national security matters and can do whatever he (so far) wants and yes doesn’t need permission from a court and/or Congress.
The unitary executive theory derives from the first sentence of Article II (“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”) and is generally used to argue against things like vesting power in executive branch officials that POTUS can’t countermand (IIRC).
Hartmut – I think Cheney’s theory was that POTUS is supreme in national security matters and can do whatever he (so far) wants and yes doesn’t need permission from a court and/or Congress.
The unitary executive theory derives from the first sentence of Article II (“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”) and is generally used to argue against things like vesting power in executive branch officials that POTUS can’t countermand (IIRC).
Hartmut – I think Cheney’s theory was that POTUS is supreme in national security matters and can do whatever he (so far) wants and yes doesn’t need permission from a court and/or Congress.
The unitary executive theory derives from the first sentence of Article II (“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”) and is generally used to argue against things like vesting power in executive branch officials that POTUS can’t countermand (IIRC).
Watergate was a domestic issue. If there was a comparable scandal under Bush, I’d appreciate having my memory refreshed.
Also, late to the party on this particular point, but my personal go-to “you have to be freaking sh**ing me” moment during the Bush years was Cheney’s truly fabulous “fourth branch of government” ploy for avoiding oversight on his use of the classification system.
A truly creative mind, that. And solid brass ones to go along with it.
Given world enough, and time, we could probably fill the TypePad server hard drives with tales of domestic Bush-era shenanigans.
Good times.
Watergate was a domestic issue. If there was a comparable scandal under Bush, I’d appreciate having my memory refreshed.
Also, late to the party on this particular point, but my personal go-to “you have to be freaking sh**ing me” moment during the Bush years was Cheney’s truly fabulous “fourth branch of government” ploy for avoiding oversight on his use of the classification system.
A truly creative mind, that. And solid brass ones to go along with it.
Given world enough, and time, we could probably fill the TypePad server hard drives with tales of domestic Bush-era shenanigans.
Good times.
Watergate was a domestic issue. If there was a comparable scandal under Bush, I’d appreciate having my memory refreshed.
Also, late to the party on this particular point, but my personal go-to “you have to be freaking sh**ing me” moment during the Bush years was Cheney’s truly fabulous “fourth branch of government” ploy for avoiding oversight on his use of the classification system.
A truly creative mind, that. And solid brass ones to go along with it.
Given world enough, and time, we could probably fill the TypePad server hard drives with tales of domestic Bush-era shenanigans.
Good times.
this seems relevant
this seems relevant
this seems relevant
And I don’t think you can be immunized against perjury charges steming from the testimony you’re being compelled to give as a result of being immunized.
That is true, the only safe course is telling the truth (or, not saying provably false things, anyway). Perjury is hard to prove, and just a non-sworn statement to the contrary is a far cry from evidence of perjury.
Sidenote: if there are any non-IANALs out there who know of anyone being penalized for invoking the Fifth and then, upon being immunized, not being able to produce a reasonable claim of fear of prosecution?
Again IANAL, but I dont think this has anything to do with ‘perjury trap’- that’s when someone is asked to testify under oath about something that isn’t relevant to an investigation or trial in the hopes that they’ll perjure themselves due to the embarrassing nature of the information. Here, that wouldnt apply because clearly her statements are relevant to a reasonable investigation.
Perjury traps are prosecutorial misconduct, not just ‘man I am boned if I tell the truth here’
And I don’t think you can be immunized against perjury charges steming from the testimony you’re being compelled to give as a result of being immunized.
That is true, the only safe course is telling the truth (or, not saying provably false things, anyway). Perjury is hard to prove, and just a non-sworn statement to the contrary is a far cry from evidence of perjury.
Sidenote: if there are any non-IANALs out there who know of anyone being penalized for invoking the Fifth and then, upon being immunized, not being able to produce a reasonable claim of fear of prosecution?
Again IANAL, but I dont think this has anything to do with ‘perjury trap’- that’s when someone is asked to testify under oath about something that isn’t relevant to an investigation or trial in the hopes that they’ll perjure themselves due to the embarrassing nature of the information. Here, that wouldnt apply because clearly her statements are relevant to a reasonable investigation.
Perjury traps are prosecutorial misconduct, not just ‘man I am boned if I tell the truth here’
And I don’t think you can be immunized against perjury charges steming from the testimony you’re being compelled to give as a result of being immunized.
That is true, the only safe course is telling the truth (or, not saying provably false things, anyway). Perjury is hard to prove, and just a non-sworn statement to the contrary is a far cry from evidence of perjury.
Sidenote: if there are any non-IANALs out there who know of anyone being penalized for invoking the Fifth and then, upon being immunized, not being able to produce a reasonable claim of fear of prosecution?
Again IANAL, but I dont think this has anything to do with ‘perjury trap’- that’s when someone is asked to testify under oath about something that isn’t relevant to an investigation or trial in the hopes that they’ll perjure themselves due to the embarrassing nature of the information. Here, that wouldnt apply because clearly her statements are relevant to a reasonable investigation.
Perjury traps are prosecutorial misconduct, not just ‘man I am boned if I tell the truth here’
I hear there’s a name change in the works: Harvard Non-IANAL School, starting in 2014. Applications for admission for the fall semester will be via blog comment.
I hear there’s a name change in the works: Harvard Non-IANAL School, starting in 2014. Applications for admission for the fall semester will be via blog comment.
I hear there’s a name change in the works: Harvard Non-IANAL School, starting in 2014. Applications for admission for the fall semester will be via blog comment.
Ugh, iirc the unitary executive label got used in the described context together with the ‘king in wartime’ one. In any case it was a bid for legal autocracy whatever label got put on it.
Ugh, iirc the unitary executive label got used in the described context together with the ‘king in wartime’ one. In any case it was a bid for legal autocracy whatever label got put on it.
Ugh, iirc the unitary executive label got used in the described context together with the ‘king in wartime’ one. In any case it was a bid for legal autocracy whatever label got put on it.
“Perjury is hard to prove, and just a non-sworn statement to the contrary is a far cry from evidence of perjury.”
How about non-sworn statements to officers of the government?
“Perjury is hard to prove, and just a non-sworn statement to the contrary is a far cry from evidence of perjury.”
How about non-sworn statements to officers of the government?
“Perjury is hard to prove, and just a non-sworn statement to the contrary is a far cry from evidence of perjury.”
How about non-sworn statements to officers of the government?
Brett,
If she’s opened herself to perjury by making prosecutable false statements in the past, then it depends on what kind of immunity she gets: use immunity would bar the use of her compelled testimony against her, but other evidence could still be used to prove that the earlier statements were perjury. Total immunity would protect her against prosecution, period, for those charges.
Sure, there are other ‘lying crimes’ than perjury. I would leave it to actual lawyers to determine which set of statements are controlled by which statues though.
My more general point was that saying X and then saying Y is a long way from proving a crime. Statements have to be material, intent to deceive must be shown to be present, etc. Still, maybe enough to justify taking the Fifth- but maybe there’s something else that she’s concerned about, like deleting relevant emails. Who knows.
I dont even know which statements you are so sure were false, but Ive only followed the whole thing at a distance, Im not really in a place where I want to read all of the original docs or parse language.
Brett,
If she’s opened herself to perjury by making prosecutable false statements in the past, then it depends on what kind of immunity she gets: use immunity would bar the use of her compelled testimony against her, but other evidence could still be used to prove that the earlier statements were perjury. Total immunity would protect her against prosecution, period, for those charges.
Sure, there are other ‘lying crimes’ than perjury. I would leave it to actual lawyers to determine which set of statements are controlled by which statues though.
My more general point was that saying X and then saying Y is a long way from proving a crime. Statements have to be material, intent to deceive must be shown to be present, etc. Still, maybe enough to justify taking the Fifth- but maybe there’s something else that she’s concerned about, like deleting relevant emails. Who knows.
I dont even know which statements you are so sure were false, but Ive only followed the whole thing at a distance, Im not really in a place where I want to read all of the original docs or parse language.
Brett,
If she’s opened herself to perjury by making prosecutable false statements in the past, then it depends on what kind of immunity she gets: use immunity would bar the use of her compelled testimony against her, but other evidence could still be used to prove that the earlier statements were perjury. Total immunity would protect her against prosecution, period, for those charges.
Sure, there are other ‘lying crimes’ than perjury. I would leave it to actual lawyers to determine which set of statements are controlled by which statues though.
My more general point was that saying X and then saying Y is a long way from proving a crime. Statements have to be material, intent to deceive must be shown to be present, etc. Still, maybe enough to justify taking the Fifth- but maybe there’s something else that she’s concerned about, like deleting relevant emails. Who knows.
I dont even know which statements you are so sure were false, but Ive only followed the whole thing at a distance, Im not really in a place where I want to read all of the original docs or parse language.
Sorry, this is a bit late, but McT wrote:
To turn LJ’s point back on him, I’d like to be reminded on just one Republican scandal about which the Dems treated a senior official taking the fifth barely worthy of note and generally accepted the initial positions asserted by the Repubs.
My point is not what other people are doing, it is that Brett claims that ‘modern administrations’ have learned their lesson from Watergate and I wondered if he ever felt necessary to point this out during the Bush administration. The Scooter Libby debacle would have been an ideal time. It’s not about what other dems do, it is about Brett’s pearl clutching and hysterics. Russell’s observation of filling a server come here.
As far as taking the fifth, it seems (returning us to the days before the Turb/Slart singularity) if you have a group of people hell-bent on trying to create any scandal they can in order to delegitimize the admin, how people deal with that is going to change. Despite Ugh’s interesting posts on the case, this has not been something I’ve followed too closely, so I’m not going to take the time to refute Brett’s NewsMax headlines. But I don’t see any reason to take one word that Brett says on this matter (or most others for that matter) as related to reality, that that includes ifs ands and buts.
Sorry, this is a bit late, but McT wrote:
To turn LJ’s point back on him, I’d like to be reminded on just one Republican scandal about which the Dems treated a senior official taking the fifth barely worthy of note and generally accepted the initial positions asserted by the Repubs.
My point is not what other people are doing, it is that Brett claims that ‘modern administrations’ have learned their lesson from Watergate and I wondered if he ever felt necessary to point this out during the Bush administration. The Scooter Libby debacle would have been an ideal time. It’s not about what other dems do, it is about Brett’s pearl clutching and hysterics. Russell’s observation of filling a server come here.
As far as taking the fifth, it seems (returning us to the days before the Turb/Slart singularity) if you have a group of people hell-bent on trying to create any scandal they can in order to delegitimize the admin, how people deal with that is going to change. Despite Ugh’s interesting posts on the case, this has not been something I’ve followed too closely, so I’m not going to take the time to refute Brett’s NewsMax headlines. But I don’t see any reason to take one word that Brett says on this matter (or most others for that matter) as related to reality, that that includes ifs ands and buts.
Sorry, this is a bit late, but McT wrote:
To turn LJ’s point back on him, I’d like to be reminded on just one Republican scandal about which the Dems treated a senior official taking the fifth barely worthy of note and generally accepted the initial positions asserted by the Repubs.
My point is not what other people are doing, it is that Brett claims that ‘modern administrations’ have learned their lesson from Watergate and I wondered if he ever felt necessary to point this out during the Bush administration. The Scooter Libby debacle would have been an ideal time. It’s not about what other dems do, it is about Brett’s pearl clutching and hysterics. Russell’s observation of filling a server come here.
As far as taking the fifth, it seems (returning us to the days before the Turb/Slart singularity) if you have a group of people hell-bent on trying to create any scandal they can in order to delegitimize the admin, how people deal with that is going to change. Despite Ugh’s interesting posts on the case, this has not been something I’ve followed too closely, so I’m not going to take the time to refute Brett’s NewsMax headlines. But I don’t see any reason to take one word that Brett says on this matter (or most others for that matter) as related to reality, that that includes ifs ands and buts.
Which parts of 1984 haven’t come true yet?
Which parts of 1984 haven’t come true yet?
Which parts of 1984 haven’t come true yet?
Take the quiz. 🙂
Take the quiz. 🙂
Take the quiz. 🙂
I had forgotten about #9 — Pornosec.
But when Duff Clarity raised the question, it occurred to me that if all of the provider servers (Google, Twitter, the phone companies) are now being mined by the U.S. Government, that new facility in whichever state (Utah?) storing the data, 30% of which is probably porn related (suspected terrorists come just in below the 30 percentile because they are more conservative than even your typical Republican; oddly enough, from what I’ve read, the Mormon state of Utah has the highest rate of porn usage) will be the largest repository of Jenna Jameson video and chat records in the universe.
In a non-related, but to my mind so f*cking related topic, I just watched Jon Stewart’s offering Tuesday night in which the lead was the fact that Iraq is now selling 50% of its oil (you know, THAT oil, as Stewart put it, turning the “No Blood for Oil” protests of that era head over heels into “No Oil for Blood”) to China, developing mortal enemy of the very same Republicans who told us that oil would be flowing our way so we could lower the cost of our energy usage, blah, blah, lie, blah, vomit lie, etc.
This is why when a Republican tells you anything … about IRA scandals, the reasons for war, the purported virginity of their womenfolk, anything … you upchuck on their shoes and then find your way to the nearest weapons show and buy all of the inventory so you’re ready for the next bunch of horsesh*t that comes out of their mouths.
In the meantime, I think its very sweet of liberals in America that we rely on domestic satire instead domestic violence.
I had forgotten about #9 — Pornosec.
But when Duff Clarity raised the question, it occurred to me that if all of the provider servers (Google, Twitter, the phone companies) are now being mined by the U.S. Government, that new facility in whichever state (Utah?) storing the data, 30% of which is probably porn related (suspected terrorists come just in below the 30 percentile because they are more conservative than even your typical Republican; oddly enough, from what I’ve read, the Mormon state of Utah has the highest rate of porn usage) will be the largest repository of Jenna Jameson video and chat records in the universe.
In a non-related, but to my mind so f*cking related topic, I just watched Jon Stewart’s offering Tuesday night in which the lead was the fact that Iraq is now selling 50% of its oil (you know, THAT oil, as Stewart put it, turning the “No Blood for Oil” protests of that era head over heels into “No Oil for Blood”) to China, developing mortal enemy of the very same Republicans who told us that oil would be flowing our way so we could lower the cost of our energy usage, blah, blah, lie, blah, vomit lie, etc.
This is why when a Republican tells you anything … about IRA scandals, the reasons for war, the purported virginity of their womenfolk, anything … you upchuck on their shoes and then find your way to the nearest weapons show and buy all of the inventory so you’re ready for the next bunch of horsesh*t that comes out of their mouths.
In the meantime, I think its very sweet of liberals in America that we rely on domestic satire instead domestic violence.
I had forgotten about #9 — Pornosec.
But when Duff Clarity raised the question, it occurred to me that if all of the provider servers (Google, Twitter, the phone companies) are now being mined by the U.S. Government, that new facility in whichever state (Utah?) storing the data, 30% of which is probably porn related (suspected terrorists come just in below the 30 percentile because they are more conservative than even your typical Republican; oddly enough, from what I’ve read, the Mormon state of Utah has the highest rate of porn usage) will be the largest repository of Jenna Jameson video and chat records in the universe.
In a non-related, but to my mind so f*cking related topic, I just watched Jon Stewart’s offering Tuesday night in which the lead was the fact that Iraq is now selling 50% of its oil (you know, THAT oil, as Stewart put it, turning the “No Blood for Oil” protests of that era head over heels into “No Oil for Blood”) to China, developing mortal enemy of the very same Republicans who told us that oil would be flowing our way so we could lower the cost of our energy usage, blah, blah, lie, blah, vomit lie, etc.
This is why when a Republican tells you anything … about IRA scandals, the reasons for war, the purported virginity of their womenfolk, anything … you upchuck on their shoes and then find your way to the nearest weapons show and buy all of the inventory so you’re ready for the next bunch of horsesh*t that comes out of their mouths.
In the meantime, I think its very sweet of liberals in America that we rely on domestic satire instead domestic violence.
“IRS” scandals.
I could tell some horror stories about my Roth Ira, and come to think of it, wasn’t William Roth a Republican?
He was one of the last decent conservatives before scum ascended in that Party.
“IRS” scandals.
I could tell some horror stories about my Roth Ira, and come to think of it, wasn’t William Roth a Republican?
He was one of the last decent conservatives before scum ascended in that Party.
“IRS” scandals.
I could tell some horror stories about my Roth Ira, and come to think of it, wasn’t William Roth a Republican?
He was one of the last decent conservatives before scum ascended in that Party.
Again, off topic but all of a piece because we are dealing with a “type”, and I know mentioning a “type” is politically incorrect, but I’m starting to understand the fun the Republican Party has had being politically incorrect all these years.
From a Mark Bittman article about the Farm Bill and the cuts in food assistance therein, via Balloon Juice:
“Among them is Congressman Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, who justifies SNAP cuts by quoting 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” …
This would be just another amusing/depressing example of an elected official ignoring a huge part of his constituency (about one in seven Americans rely on food stamps, though it’s one in five in Tennessee, the second highest rate in the South), were not Fincher himself a hypocrite.
For the God-fearing Fincher is one of the largest recipients of U.S.D.A. farm subsidies in Tennessee history; he raked in $3.48 million in taxpayer cash from 1999 to 2012, $70,574 last year alone. The average SNAP recipient in Tennessee gets $132.20 in food aid a month; Fincher received $193 a day. (You can eat pretty well on that.)
Fincher is not alone in disgrace, even among his Congressional colleagues, but he makes a lovely poster boy for a policy that steals taxpayer money from the poor and so-called middle class to pay the rich, while propping up a form of agriculture that’s unsustainable and poisonous….”
I suspect Obama engineered that too by a flick of his eyebrow.
God had to of said something about the most judicious use of machetes.
O.K. I’m done for the week. Bring on the next guy.
Again, off topic but all of a piece because we are dealing with a “type”, and I know mentioning a “type” is politically incorrect, but I’m starting to understand the fun the Republican Party has had being politically incorrect all these years.
From a Mark Bittman article about the Farm Bill and the cuts in food assistance therein, via Balloon Juice:
“Among them is Congressman Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, who justifies SNAP cuts by quoting 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” …
This would be just another amusing/depressing example of an elected official ignoring a huge part of his constituency (about one in seven Americans rely on food stamps, though it’s one in five in Tennessee, the second highest rate in the South), were not Fincher himself a hypocrite.
For the God-fearing Fincher is one of the largest recipients of U.S.D.A. farm subsidies in Tennessee history; he raked in $3.48 million in taxpayer cash from 1999 to 2012, $70,574 last year alone. The average SNAP recipient in Tennessee gets $132.20 in food aid a month; Fincher received $193 a day. (You can eat pretty well on that.)
Fincher is not alone in disgrace, even among his Congressional colleagues, but he makes a lovely poster boy for a policy that steals taxpayer money from the poor and so-called middle class to pay the rich, while propping up a form of agriculture that’s unsustainable and poisonous….”
I suspect Obama engineered that too by a flick of his eyebrow.
God had to of said something about the most judicious use of machetes.
O.K. I’m done for the week. Bring on the next guy.
Again, off topic but all of a piece because we are dealing with a “type”, and I know mentioning a “type” is politically incorrect, but I’m starting to understand the fun the Republican Party has had being politically incorrect all these years.
From a Mark Bittman article about the Farm Bill and the cuts in food assistance therein, via Balloon Juice:
“Among them is Congressman Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, who justifies SNAP cuts by quoting 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” …
This would be just another amusing/depressing example of an elected official ignoring a huge part of his constituency (about one in seven Americans rely on food stamps, though it’s one in five in Tennessee, the second highest rate in the South), were not Fincher himself a hypocrite.
For the God-fearing Fincher is one of the largest recipients of U.S.D.A. farm subsidies in Tennessee history; he raked in $3.48 million in taxpayer cash from 1999 to 2012, $70,574 last year alone. The average SNAP recipient in Tennessee gets $132.20 in food aid a month; Fincher received $193 a day. (You can eat pretty well on that.)
Fincher is not alone in disgrace, even among his Congressional colleagues, but he makes a lovely poster boy for a policy that steals taxpayer money from the poor and so-called middle class to pay the rich, while propping up a form of agriculture that’s unsustainable and poisonous….”
I suspect Obama engineered that too by a flick of his eyebrow.
God had to of said something about the most judicious use of machetes.
O.K. I’m done for the week. Bring on the next guy.
Another symptom of the disease of conservatism from the NYT by way of Balloon Juice:
“The current versions of the Farm Bill in the Senate (as usual, not as horrible as the House) and the House (as usual, terrifying) could hardly be more frustrating. The House is proposing $20 billion in cuts to SNAP — equivalent, says Beckmann, to “almost half of all the charitable food assistance that food banks and food charities provide to people in need.”
Deficit reduction is the sacred excuse for such cruelty, but the first could be achieved without the second. Two of the most expensive programs are food stamps, the cost of which has justifiably soared since the beginning of the Great Recession, and direct subsidy payments.
This pits the ability of poor people to eat — not well, but sort of enough — against the production of agricultural commodities. That would be a difficult choice if the subsidies were going to farmers who could be crushed by failure, but in reality most direct payments go to those who need them least.
Among them is Congressman Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, who justifies SNAP cuts by quoting 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” …
This would be just another amusing/depressing example of an elected official ignoring a huge part of his constituency (about one in seven Americans rely on food stamps, though it’s one in five in Tennessee, the second highest rate in the South), were not Fincher himself a hypocrite.
For the God-fearing Fincher is one of the largest recipients of U.S.D.A. farm subsidies in Tennessee history; he raked in $3.48 million in taxpayer cash from 1999 to 2012, $70,574 last year alone. The average SNAP recipient in Tennessee gets $132.20 in food aid a month; Fincher received $193 a day. (You can eat pretty well on that.)
Fincher is not alone in disgrace, even among his Congressional colleagues, but he makes a lovely poster boy for a policy that steals taxpayer money from the poor and so-called middle class to pay the rich, while propping up a form of agriculture that’s unsustainable and poisonous….”
I don’t know how a person could vote for these guys and still sleep at night.
Another symptom of the disease of conservatism from the NYT by way of Balloon Juice:
“The current versions of the Farm Bill in the Senate (as usual, not as horrible as the House) and the House (as usual, terrifying) could hardly be more frustrating. The House is proposing $20 billion in cuts to SNAP — equivalent, says Beckmann, to “almost half of all the charitable food assistance that food banks and food charities provide to people in need.”
Deficit reduction is the sacred excuse for such cruelty, but the first could be achieved without the second. Two of the most expensive programs are food stamps, the cost of which has justifiably soared since the beginning of the Great Recession, and direct subsidy payments.
This pits the ability of poor people to eat — not well, but sort of enough — against the production of agricultural commodities. That would be a difficult choice if the subsidies were going to farmers who could be crushed by failure, but in reality most direct payments go to those who need them least.
Among them is Congressman Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, who justifies SNAP cuts by quoting 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” …
This would be just another amusing/depressing example of an elected official ignoring a huge part of his constituency (about one in seven Americans rely on food stamps, though it’s one in five in Tennessee, the second highest rate in the South), were not Fincher himself a hypocrite.
For the God-fearing Fincher is one of the largest recipients of U.S.D.A. farm subsidies in Tennessee history; he raked in $3.48 million in taxpayer cash from 1999 to 2012, $70,574 last year alone. The average SNAP recipient in Tennessee gets $132.20 in food aid a month; Fincher received $193 a day. (You can eat pretty well on that.)
Fincher is not alone in disgrace, even among his Congressional colleagues, but he makes a lovely poster boy for a policy that steals taxpayer money from the poor and so-called middle class to pay the rich, while propping up a form of agriculture that’s unsustainable and poisonous….”
I don’t know how a person could vote for these guys and still sleep at night.
Another symptom of the disease of conservatism from the NYT by way of Balloon Juice:
“The current versions of the Farm Bill in the Senate (as usual, not as horrible as the House) and the House (as usual, terrifying) could hardly be more frustrating. The House is proposing $20 billion in cuts to SNAP — equivalent, says Beckmann, to “almost half of all the charitable food assistance that food banks and food charities provide to people in need.”
Deficit reduction is the sacred excuse for such cruelty, but the first could be achieved without the second. Two of the most expensive programs are food stamps, the cost of which has justifiably soared since the beginning of the Great Recession, and direct subsidy payments.
This pits the ability of poor people to eat — not well, but sort of enough — against the production of agricultural commodities. That would be a difficult choice if the subsidies were going to farmers who could be crushed by failure, but in reality most direct payments go to those who need them least.
Among them is Congressman Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, who justifies SNAP cuts by quoting 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” …
This would be just another amusing/depressing example of an elected official ignoring a huge part of his constituency (about one in seven Americans rely on food stamps, though it’s one in five in Tennessee, the second highest rate in the South), were not Fincher himself a hypocrite.
For the God-fearing Fincher is one of the largest recipients of U.S.D.A. farm subsidies in Tennessee history; he raked in $3.48 million in taxpayer cash from 1999 to 2012, $70,574 last year alone. The average SNAP recipient in Tennessee gets $132.20 in food aid a month; Fincher received $193 a day. (You can eat pretty well on that.)
Fincher is not alone in disgrace, even among his Congressional colleagues, but he makes a lovely poster boy for a policy that steals taxpayer money from the poor and so-called middle class to pay the rich, while propping up a form of agriculture that’s unsustainable and poisonous….”
I don’t know how a person could vote for these guys and still sleep at night.
Laura and I really aren’t a tag team.
She’s got it covered.
Laura and I really aren’t a tag team.
She’s got it covered.
Laura and I really aren’t a tag team.
She’s got it covered.
I don’t vote for Fincher. I also don’t sleep very well.
I don’t vote for Fincher. I also don’t sleep very well.
I don’t vote for Fincher. I also don’t sleep very well.
Take the quiz. 🙂
I’m sorry guys, but the 1984 boat left a long time ago. Long before 1984, in fact.
The FISA court is not some weird Obama invention, it’s been around since 1978. It was created in the wake of the Church hearings to provide some minimal oversight of the intelligence community. It provides the discipline of warrants before searches, while retaining secrecy.
It’s a kangaroo court, for sure, but it is (maybe) incrementally better than nothing at all.
“Metadata” refers to the fact that the government can look at information *about* your communications with a simple court order rather than a warrant. A warrant is (nominally) required if the government wants to look at the *content* of your communications. The analogy is looking at the outside of a letter – the to and from address, the cancellation date on the stamp – without opening the envelope and reading the letter itself.
The feds have been able to look at routing and addressing information – i.e., “metadata” – for electronic communications for a hell of a long time now. Obama may still have been in grade school.
As of 2001, the feds can look at pretty much any damned thing they like, on their own say-so, via a National Security Letter, as long as they say it has something to do with a “terrorism investigation”.
I’m surprised the feds bothered asking FISA for a warrant for the Verizon stuff.
Long story short, it sucks that the feds are gargling with everybody’s phone and other electronic communications records, but this is nothing, remotely, new.
Jump in the way-back machine for a minute and dial it to 1979, when FISA was created, or 1986 when the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed, or whenever it was when Clinton got the USA Patriot Act starter kit through Congress, or indeed 2001 when USA Patriot was passed.
Did you support any of those laws at the time?
Then thank yourself for the crap we see today.
We live under a republican form of government. The folks who run it are folks we chose.
The government we have is the government we asked for.
Take the quiz. 🙂
I’m sorry guys, but the 1984 boat left a long time ago. Long before 1984, in fact.
The FISA court is not some weird Obama invention, it’s been around since 1978. It was created in the wake of the Church hearings to provide some minimal oversight of the intelligence community. It provides the discipline of warrants before searches, while retaining secrecy.
It’s a kangaroo court, for sure, but it is (maybe) incrementally better than nothing at all.
“Metadata” refers to the fact that the government can look at information *about* your communications with a simple court order rather than a warrant. A warrant is (nominally) required if the government wants to look at the *content* of your communications. The analogy is looking at the outside of a letter – the to and from address, the cancellation date on the stamp – without opening the envelope and reading the letter itself.
The feds have been able to look at routing and addressing information – i.e., “metadata” – for electronic communications for a hell of a long time now. Obama may still have been in grade school.
As of 2001, the feds can look at pretty much any damned thing they like, on their own say-so, via a National Security Letter, as long as they say it has something to do with a “terrorism investigation”.
I’m surprised the feds bothered asking FISA for a warrant for the Verizon stuff.
Long story short, it sucks that the feds are gargling with everybody’s phone and other electronic communications records, but this is nothing, remotely, new.
Jump in the way-back machine for a minute and dial it to 1979, when FISA was created, or 1986 when the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed, or whenever it was when Clinton got the USA Patriot Act starter kit through Congress, or indeed 2001 when USA Patriot was passed.
Did you support any of those laws at the time?
Then thank yourself for the crap we see today.
We live under a republican form of government. The folks who run it are folks we chose.
The government we have is the government we asked for.
Take the quiz. 🙂
I’m sorry guys, but the 1984 boat left a long time ago. Long before 1984, in fact.
The FISA court is not some weird Obama invention, it’s been around since 1978. It was created in the wake of the Church hearings to provide some minimal oversight of the intelligence community. It provides the discipline of warrants before searches, while retaining secrecy.
It’s a kangaroo court, for sure, but it is (maybe) incrementally better than nothing at all.
“Metadata” refers to the fact that the government can look at information *about* your communications with a simple court order rather than a warrant. A warrant is (nominally) required if the government wants to look at the *content* of your communications. The analogy is looking at the outside of a letter – the to and from address, the cancellation date on the stamp – without opening the envelope and reading the letter itself.
The feds have been able to look at routing and addressing information – i.e., “metadata” – for electronic communications for a hell of a long time now. Obama may still have been in grade school.
As of 2001, the feds can look at pretty much any damned thing they like, on their own say-so, via a National Security Letter, as long as they say it has something to do with a “terrorism investigation”.
I’m surprised the feds bothered asking FISA for a warrant for the Verizon stuff.
Long story short, it sucks that the feds are gargling with everybody’s phone and other electronic communications records, but this is nothing, remotely, new.
Jump in the way-back machine for a minute and dial it to 1979, when FISA was created, or 1986 when the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed, or whenever it was when Clinton got the USA Patriot Act starter kit through Congress, or indeed 2001 when USA Patriot was passed.
Did you support any of those laws at the time?
Then thank yourself for the crap we see today.
We live under a republican form of government. The folks who run it are folks we chose.
The government we have is the government we asked for.
Fixed: Obama may still have been in
grade schoolmadrasah. 😉Fixed: Obama may still have been in
grade schoolmadrasah. 😉Fixed: Obama may still have been in
grade schoolmadrasah. 😉from the manager of the IRS Screening Group in Cinci:
odd how Darryl Issa didn’t have a big press conference to re-release that part of the hearing testimony.
oh! the liberalism!
from the manager of the IRS Screening Group in Cinci:
odd how Darryl Issa didn’t have a big press conference to re-release that part of the hearing testimony.
oh! the liberalism!
from the manager of the IRS Screening Group in Cinci:
odd how Darryl Issa didn’t have a big press conference to re-release that part of the hearing testimony.
oh! the liberalism!
More on that, cleek, lifted from Charles Pierce’s blog:
“SCHIEFFER: All right. Mr. Cummings, I also want to ask you about this outrage in Washington over reports that the White House is using the IRS to go after conservative groups. This is the charge made by the chairman of your committee, Darrell Issa, who you say has accused the White House of not only doing it but is now — he says they are lying about it. You sent a strong letter to him. What’s that all about?
CUMMINGS: Yeah, well, Chairman Issa has a tendency to make strong allegations and then go chasing the facts and usually never finding them. We have a situation here where we now have interviewed the manager of the exec office in Cincinnati of the IRS. He is a conservative, 21-year veteran who spent six hours with our committee the other day talking in an interview. And he explained to us that this Tea Party situation started with one case back in 2010. Somebody — one of his screeners brought it to him; he looked at it and said — he said, “We must send this to the technical office in Washington because this is high-profile; this is a unique situation, and we want to have consistency.” So Washington IRS technical office did not ask him for the case; he sent it. And keep in mind what I said, Bob, this was a 21-year veteran and he termed himself a conservative Republican.”
Hard to believe, I know, when we’ve been told right chere on these pages that conservatives would never lower themselves to work for the government and the IRS is little more than a cell on the SDS.
More on that, cleek, lifted from Charles Pierce’s blog:
“SCHIEFFER: All right. Mr. Cummings, I also want to ask you about this outrage in Washington over reports that the White House is using the IRS to go after conservative groups. This is the charge made by the chairman of your committee, Darrell Issa, who you say has accused the White House of not only doing it but is now — he says they are lying about it. You sent a strong letter to him. What’s that all about?
CUMMINGS: Yeah, well, Chairman Issa has a tendency to make strong allegations and then go chasing the facts and usually never finding them. We have a situation here where we now have interviewed the manager of the exec office in Cincinnati of the IRS. He is a conservative, 21-year veteran who spent six hours with our committee the other day talking in an interview. And he explained to us that this Tea Party situation started with one case back in 2010. Somebody — one of his screeners brought it to him; he looked at it and said — he said, “We must send this to the technical office in Washington because this is high-profile; this is a unique situation, and we want to have consistency.” So Washington IRS technical office did not ask him for the case; he sent it. And keep in mind what I said, Bob, this was a 21-year veteran and he termed himself a conservative Republican.”
Hard to believe, I know, when we’ve been told right chere on these pages that conservatives would never lower themselves to work for the government and the IRS is little more than a cell on the SDS.
More on that, cleek, lifted from Charles Pierce’s blog:
“SCHIEFFER: All right. Mr. Cummings, I also want to ask you about this outrage in Washington over reports that the White House is using the IRS to go after conservative groups. This is the charge made by the chairman of your committee, Darrell Issa, who you say has accused the White House of not only doing it but is now — he says they are lying about it. You sent a strong letter to him. What’s that all about?
CUMMINGS: Yeah, well, Chairman Issa has a tendency to make strong allegations and then go chasing the facts and usually never finding them. We have a situation here where we now have interviewed the manager of the exec office in Cincinnati of the IRS. He is a conservative, 21-year veteran who spent six hours with our committee the other day talking in an interview. And he explained to us that this Tea Party situation started with one case back in 2010. Somebody — one of his screeners brought it to him; he looked at it and said — he said, “We must send this to the technical office in Washington because this is high-profile; this is a unique situation, and we want to have consistency.” So Washington IRS technical office did not ask him for the case; he sent it. And keep in mind what I said, Bob, this was a 21-year veteran and he termed himself a conservative Republican.”
Hard to believe, I know, when we’ve been told right chere on these pages that conservatives would never lower themselves to work for the government and the IRS is little more than a cell on the SDS.