| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh huh and what about all of the ones talking about how he should have stopped it and that after the first plane it was all his fault for not acting fast enough to stop the rest.
You're comparing some bozo on the interwebz on the left with a full on congressional hearing from the right?
Our internet bozos need to up their game, but not much...
Also define WMD, iraq was known to have access to so many chemical/biological weapons it is not funny.
We still had the receipts, but apparently they did chuck chuck it all into the desert somewhere... ie , they were disposed of. In any case, there was no rational explanation for why we had to invade NOW for wmds. On the other hand the plan to invade iraq and carve up its oil reserves had been around since Kissinger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is going bad places. Time to punch out.
I am astonished! Who could have predicted you fleeing this thread?
No one, I say!
Benghazi is a big deal because Obama would rather see four Americans die than proclaim the unspoken but unavoidable fact that the Middle East is still a tumultuous place, filled with radical ideology and a mentality of revenge for slights hundreds, even thousands of years oldSo how on earth is getting 5,000 americans killed knowing that no big deal but getting 4 americans killed in that meatgrinder suddenly all anyone can talk about?
I apologize, could you point me to what you a referring to? I'm at a loss.
I apologize, could you point me to what you a referring to? I'm at a loss.Benghazi is a big deal because Obama would rather see four Americans die than proclaim the unspoken but unavoidable fact that the Middle East is still a tumultuous place, filled with radical ideology and a mentality of revenge for slights hundreds, even thousands of years oldSo how on earth is getting 5,000 americans killed knowing that no big deal but getting 4 americans killed in that meatgrinder suddenly all anyone can talk about?
Point, I know that trickI apologize, could you point me to what you a referring to? I'm at a loss.Benghazi is a big deal because Obama would rather see four Americans die than proclaim the unspoken but unavoidable fact that the Middle East is still a tumultuous place, filled with radical ideology and a mentality of revenge for slights hundreds, even thousands of years oldSo how on earth is getting 5,000 americans killed knowing that no big deal but getting 4 americans killed in that meatgrinder suddenly all anyone can talk about?
Ah. You see, there is a difference. I thought you might be referring to some attack against American citizens abroad.
Ambassadors and the like are a representative to a country, and as such are expected to be protected. In addition, the embassy actually stand on US soil. Yes, embassies belong to the country of which they represent. Now, this was an attack on US soil against a US representative. All the while, we had drones watching the whole debacle from the air. Meanwhile, jets were waiting on the order to take off and provide air support (a low-altitude fly-over most likely would have been sufficient).
Soldiers are fighters. Warriors. People who, bluntly, kill for a living and try not to get killed. They volunteered to go to a dangerous location, to present themselves as targets, and to be willing to die for their nation's ideologies. This will sound as if I'm minimizing their deaths, but they knew full well they might not live, and they went in knowing that they were going to be in dangerous combat situations. Pretending that they had some cruelty forced upon them is pure hogwash.
I'm trying really hard not to sound cold and unfeeling, and that's really hard to get from a text format, I know. But please, I'm just throwing in my opinion and defending it. This isn't meant to belittle anyone or any political view.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Don't fling mud, lest ye have no ground to stand on.
That wasn't aimed at a poster, but if you took offense...
Ah. It was simply the juxtaposition. The positioning of the posts made it look directed at me.
Remember, the internet makes it hard to understand people accurately.
EDIT: Autocorrect, man.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Benghazi is nothing more than a bunch of politically motivated Monday morning quarterbacking. Though it does go nicely with the "scandal-ridden 2nd term" narrative. I suppose impeachment is the next best thing after the whole "one-term" president thing didn't pan out.
Benghazi is nothing more than a bunch of politically motivated Monday morning quarterbacking. Though it does go nicely with the "scandal-ridden 2nd term" narrative. I suppose impeachment is the next best thing after the whole "one-term" president thing didn't pan out.
Other than the impeachment bit, I agree.
Also, 20/20 retrospect plays a role here, I suspect.
Also, 20/20 retrospect plays a role here, I suspect.
Absolutely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The AP business is bad, but frankly we've essentially sold ourselves out for "security." WE told the government they could look through our stuff in the name of protecting us. Now they're doing it. Should we really be surprised?
To me, the closest thing to a real scandal is the prospect of politically or ideologically motivated IRS action.
I think the Tea Party is bone-headed to the point of self-parody, but that doesn't excuse what the IRS is accused of doing.
To me, the closest thing to a real scandal is the prospect of politically or ideologically motivated IRS action.
I think the Tea Party is bone-headed to the point of self-parody, but that doesn't excuse what the IRS is accused of doing.
Why?
The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups. The law states that to have tax exempt status they must operate exclusively to promote social welfare. Nevermind that the IRS changed their own procedures to circumvent the law and redefined "exclusively" to mean "primarily," these groups don't even work primarily for social welfare.For the record, I'm totally fine with liberal groups having their tax exempt status revoked due to political activity. I'm sick of the tax dodges.
What the IRS is accused of doing is actually attempting to vet new organizations that sprung up in the wake of Obama's presidency and, later, Citizens United.
There is such a gobsmacking amount of money being thrown into these organizations that if you stacked it up in $100 denominations you could use it to beat whales to death.
If the IRS is used "ideologically" to actually enforce the law, and the sum total of their crusade is to make organizations that should be paying taxes...actually pay taxes, I'm fine with it.
It's a basic fair play issue. It's like gerrymandering. Everyone likes to point out that, hey, both parties do it. Yes, and it's always wrong. Let's fix this s#+*!
Impeachment hearings before the end of the term.
I am not so sure about that.
If the GOP's attempt to impeach is seen by the public as political, then it will likely backfire on them.
This would be true even if there is substance to the charges - a.k.a.: Bill Clinton.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Impeachment hearings before the end of the term.I am not so sure about that.
If the GOP's attempt to impeach is seen by the public as political, then it will likely backfire on them.
This would be true even if there is substance to the charges - a.k.a.: Bill Clinton.
Except that the GOP are so completely sealed in their bubble that they would never have any notion that it might backfire. They're gonzo. I'll be willing to bet someone will at least make a motion before the year is out. Probably a teabagger.
It doesn't matter if the republicans did the same thing.
It doesn't matter if the republicans would have done it worse.
It doesn't even matter if its TRUE.It makes Obama look bad, so they're going to grarg about it.
This is what I mean about it potentially blowing up in the Republican's faces.
The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups.
Then they (and every other group fitting the criteria) should be denied tax-exempt status. But the process shouldn't treat groups differently simply based on name. Which, if I"m not mistaken, is basically what happened. Everyone should be evaluated in the same way using the same criteria.
In other words, don't judge a book by its cover. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups.Then they (and every other group fitting the criteria) should be denied tax-exempt status. But the process shouldn't treat groups differently simply based on name. Which, if I"m not mistaken, is basically what happened. Everyone should be evaluated in the same way using the same criteria.
In other words, don't judge a book by its cover. :)
Its even less sinister than that.
The tea party groups CAN be political and be tax exempt. The reason that they're so big on filing under the exact exemption they did (540-c i think) is that way they don't have to disclose their donors.
So all the IRS agents were trying to do is catch people cheating the system to hide a massive amount of astroturfing from shadowy billionaires trying to sway an election without getting caught: you know, their jobs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. You see, there is a difference. I thought you might be referring to some attack against American citizens abroad.
There is no difference. And I'm pretty sure that they don't stop being americans just because we stuck a gun in their hands.
Ambassadors and the like are a representative to a country, and as such are expected to be protected.
Its a heavily armed country where a large segment of the population is fanatically devoted to making you leave the country, in a pine box if neccesary. On top of that they know full well you cannot put an armed garrison in the country, you need to rely on the horribly unreliable local government to provide your security.
In addition, the embassy actually stand on US soil. Yes, embassies belong to the country of which they represent. Now, this was an attack on US soil against a US representative.
So the 43 other attacks are... ?
All the while, we had drones watching the whole debacle from the air.
Which were looking down and seeing a lot of smoke and chaos.
Meanwhile, jets were waiting on the order to take off and provide air support (a low-altitude fly-over most likely would have been sufficient).
I find that incredibly doubtful.
Soldiers are fighters. Warriors. People who, bluntly, kill for a living and try not to get killed. They volunteered to go to a dangerous location, to present themselves as targets, and to be willing to die for their nation's ideologies. This will sound as if I'm minimizing their deaths, but they knew full well they might not live, and they went in knowing that they were going to be in dangerous combat situations. Pretending that they had some cruelty forced upon them is pure hogwash.
They've been fed a lie about a mom and apple pie America since they could walk. I have some sympathy for that. But any hogwash about knowing the risks should apply doubly to an ambassador as a soldier.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups.Then they (and every other group fitting the criteria) should be denied tax-exempt status. But the process shouldn't treat groups differently simply based on name. Which, if I"m not mistaken, is basically what happened. Everyone should be evaluated in the same way using the same criteria.
In other words, don't judge a book by its cover. :)
So you're working for the IRS and there's a stack of 501(c)4 applications on your desk and your job is to vet them to make sure they're on the up and up.
Group 1 is called Kitties for Kiddies, a group that purports to fund the adoption of cats to families with small children.
Group 2 is called Real America Patriots Against President Blackenstein.
And you give them both the same amount of attention?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So all the IRS agents were trying to do is catch people cheating the system to hide a massive amount of astroturfing from shadowy billionaires trying to sway an election without getting caught: you know, their jobs.
This is precisely why Congress is so upset.
It is an IRS agent's job to make up their own screening criteria based on political viewpoint and then delay applications as long as they want based on that criteria?
No. But, there is a "gray area."
An IRS agent is required to use his/her discretion on prioritizing what cases to pursue - and in what order.
This is what meatrace is saying:
So you're working for the IRS and there's a stack of 501(c)4 applications on your desk and your job is to vet them to make sure they're on the up and up.
Group 1 is called Kitties for Kiddies, a group that purports to fund the adoption of cats to families with small children.
Group 2 is called Real America Patriots Against President Blackenstein.
And you give them both the same amount of attention?
|
The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups.Then they (and every other group fitting the criteria) should be denied tax-exempt status. But the process shouldn't treat groups differently simply based on name. Which, if I"m not mistaken, is basically what happened. Everyone should be evaluated in the same way using the same criteria.
In other words, don't judge a book by its cover. :)
Its even less sinister than that.
The tea party groups CAN be political and be tax exempt. The reason that they're so big on filing under the exact exemption they did (540-c i think) is that way they don't have to disclose their donors.
So all the IRS agents were trying to do is catch people cheating the system to hide a massive amount of astroturfing from shadowy billionaires trying to sway an election without getting caught: you know, their jobs.
Thats bull and i'd hope you are smart enough to know it. they targeted one side and let the other slide doing the exact same stuff. If the they walked in to scrutinize every liberal office would you be pleased? Or is it just your stupid hatred of republicans talking here
Thats bull and i'd hope you are smart enough to know it. they targeted one side and let the other slide doing the exact same stuff. If the they walked in to scrutinize every liberal office would you be pleased? Or is it just your stupid hatred of republicans talking hereThe tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups.Then they (and every other group fitting the criteria) should be denied tax-exempt status. But the process shouldn't treat groups differently simply based on name. Which, if I"m not mistaken, is basically what happened. Everyone should be evaluated in the same way using the same criteria.
In other words, don't judge a book by its cover. :)
Its even less sinister than that.
The tea party groups CAN be political and be tax exempt. The reason that they're so big on filing under the exact exemption they did (540-c i think) is that way they don't have to disclose their donors.
So all the IRS agents were trying to do is catch people cheating the system to hide a massive amount of astroturfing from shadowy billionaires trying to sway an election without getting caught: you know, their jobs.
a better question would be- do you have no problem with organizations using that status to hide funds for electoral purposes?
Thats bull and i'd hope you are smart enough to know it. they targeted one side and let the other slide doing the exact same stuff. If the they walked in to scrutinize every liberal office would you be pleased? Or is it just your stupid hatred of republicans talking here
Except that's not true. They absolutely scrutinized liberal groups. The NAACP was audited in 2004 merely because their leader said something negative about the Bush presidency.
Of the 300 or so groups seeking tax exempt status, only 25% (roughly 75) were conservative groups. They were "targeting" groups with political sounding names. As it happens, when they were doing this was a time when previously unimagined gobs of cash were flowing into conservative groups' hands and, thus, the majority of new groups applying for 501(c)4 status were indeed conservative.
If there are 500 Tea Party groups and 1 progressive group all applying, should that one progressive group get the same amount of time dedicated to its vetting as all 500 TP groups combined?
I'd be extremely happy if they scrutinized liberal groups, personally, though I can't speak for BNW I suspect he'd feel the same. It's a matter of fairness, like the gerrymandering issue I mentioned earlier.
It's all a matter of seeing a trend, and the trend at the time was conservative political groups masquerading as social welfare organizations.
Take note that precisely zero of the groups scrutinized were actually denied their requested status.
Also, if we want another fact to debate the deep political, no one in the media knows where Obama was for 5 hours, during which the consulate was attacked.
Where does the 'social welfare group' play into it?
Is that the only way to get tax exempt status?
Where does the 'social welfare group' play into it?
Is that the only way to get tax exempt status?
The specific type of tax exempt status they were applying for requires them to be a social welfare group and not a political organization. It also allows them to be able to provide annonimity to their donors, which they wouldn't be able to do with other tax exempt statuses.
Seems a bit wonky.
Who do social welfare groups get to hide who their donors are when no other tax exempt group can?
|
Thats bull and i'd hope you are smart enough to know it. they targeted one side and let the other slide doing the exact same stuff. If the they walked in to scrutinize every liberal office would you be pleased? Or is it just your stupid hatred of republicans talking hereExcept that's not true. They absolutely scrutinized liberal groups. The NAACP was audited in 2004 merely because their leader said something negative about the Bush presidency.
Of the 300 or so groups seeking tax exempt status, only 25% (roughly 75) were conservative groups. They were "targeting" groups with political sounding names. As it happens, when they were doing this was a time when previously unimagined gobs of cash were flowing into conservative groups' hands and, thus, the majority of new groups applying for 501(c)4 status were indeed conservative.
If there are 500 Tea Party groups and 1 progressive group all applying, should that one progressive group get the same amount of time dedicated to its vetting as all 500 TP groups combined?
I'd be extremely happy if they scrutinized liberal groups, personally, though I can't speak for BNW I suspect he'd feel the same. It's a matter of fairness, like the gerrymandering issue I mentioned earlier.
It's all a matter of seeing a trend, and the trend at the time was conservative political groups masquerading as social welfare organizations.
Take note that precisely zero of the groups scrutinized were actually denied their requested status.
So I would say the NAACP being audited because they said something about the Bush presidency is completely wrong.
Same goes for what the IRS did. What they did was wrong. They are supposed to be an unbiased group. President Obama came out and said this is wrong and he has no patience for it and I applaud him for that. We need to make changes I hope he does follow up with this and changes are made because of three of the situations are bad and in turn make him look bad. But he has an oppertunity to make it better and I hoipe he does for these circumstances are not good and can not be tolerated. I understand that you feel this is no worse than what has been done in the past and that you feel he is unjustly being singled out ... but the fact is it happened under his watch and it shouldn't be happening. You can't forgive it it just like you won't let Bush be forgiven for what he did. We are US citizens and we need to expect more.
link to President Obama coming out and saying the IRS was wrong for what they did.[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/obama-irs-scandal_n_3266577.html[/url]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats bull and i'd hope you are smart enough to know it. they targeted one side and let the other slide doing the exact same stuff. If the they walked in to scrutinize every liberal office would you be pleased? Or is it just your stupid hatred of republicans talking here
One side is wearing camo. The other side is wearing a giant bulls-eye. then whining when they get targeted more. Come of it. Finding out that Food for Felons was bad mouthing the bush administration would require wiretaping their meetings. Finding out that "People United for the american way" is another piece of AstroTurf only requires looking at their mission statement, which was literally copy pasted from the tea party how to hand book.
They broke the law, stop whining they got caught.
They broke the law blatantly, stop whining you got caught more than the other guy who at least took the time to look up plausible deniability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is an IRS agent's job to make up their own screening criteria based on political viewpoint and then delay applications as long as they want based on that criteria?
Seriously?
If you work in the department that handles the educational organization exception its your job to be able to tell a blatant political organization from a legitimate educational organization. Its not the IRSs fault that the tea party made doing so so easy a government employee could do it.
Seems a bit wonky.
Who do social welfare groups get to hide who their donors are when no other tax exempt group can?
I have had a problem with this type is tax exemption for some time, it is easy to abuse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who broke the law? As I understand it, the IRS applied extra scrutiny, demanded more extensive documentation, but didn't actually deny anyone.
If these groups were breaking the law, shouldn't they have been denied?
Filing as a social welfare organization when you are in fact a political organization is breaking the law.
Apparently the irs was afraid of being labeled as partisan and so took no action to actually enforce that law. Crazy notion huh? ... that not actually acting on it would be a shield or something. Even the mere THOUGHT of doing your job raises too much of a specter of big brother...
Basically title.
Benghazi isn't what the Republicans need it to be.
The IRS "scandal" isn't a big deal either; the IRS audited hundreds of groups with obvious political agendas, on both ends of the political spectrum. What's scandalous to me is that all the tea party groups investigated were cleared and given their c4 status.
If the Republicans really want to make a meaningful stand, and regain some (any) respect from the American people, they should be on this DOJ AP story.
I was kind of feeling blase about that. I mean, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Anwar al-Awlaki, his son, warrantless wiretapping, FISA, etc., etc., ad nauseam, I just couldn't work up the outrage.
Fortunately, there's always Chris Hedges to get appropriately apocalyptic about the AP story.
"And so, yeah, I think we’re in a very, very frightening moment."
And, just for fun, Guardian article where Cornel West calls Obama a war criminal.
Vive le Galt!
So your claim here is that all these organizations were breaking the law by filing as social welfare groups, despite the agency in charge deciding they were?
Yup, mostly. I might replace all with most or "the preponderance of". Certainly enough for the language in the groups to become a red flag.
That rather than being too partisan by selecting these groups for scrutiny, they were actually being too soft on conservative groups by giving them the status in the end? That's going to take some proving. It's not going to work well as a defense, without a lot more evidence than we've seen so far.
Which part do you think is unevidenced? That the tea party spinoffs are primarily political, not educational or that filing a false statement to the IRS about the purpose of your organization is illegal?