IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

It is amazing that some of you actually defend and make excues for this crap and Fast and Furious and Benghazi and the AP and Foxnews and Obamacare back room deals.

This is truly the most corrupt and dishonest administration ever but you still love him and think he is doing a good job.

#### on the economy alone he has screwed this countrys future, hell that is not even worth mentioning anymore with all this around him.

Its AMAZING that conservatives make scandals on everything and anything in a democratic white house since Clinton took office.

Remember Libya? It was a scandal to help and it was a scandal to not help.

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

Obama Must Protect Government Unions in IRS Scandal

 

[Mr Two Cents]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

Obama Must Protect Government Unions in IRS Scandal

Obama is obliged politically and practically to protect unionized government workers. He owes them and they may hold the key to insulating his administration from the worst of the scandal. While it might help with the press and public to crack down on the IRS as former President Bill Clinton once did, Obama may not be able to take on this key part of the Democratic constituency. Times have changed and so has the Democratic base.

The involvement of these powerful political patrons may help explain not only why Obama isn’t showing more spine on the scandal but also why his top aides were so anxious and secretive about news of the scandal itself.

 

[tommyboy]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

because like all scandals that come out of Washington DC you have a series of misstatements from mulitple parties and you have more stories being revealed on a daily basis, its what you would term a feeding frenzy. Normally you guys like this when its Bush or Reagan in the white house, but not so much when its a Clinton or Obama. But its the same thing,.

 

[drummer]

Been listening to C-SPAN all day. How about you guys?

 

[drummer]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

Obama Must Protect Government Unions in IRS Scandal

Obama is obliged politically and practically to protect unionized government workers. He owes them and they may hold the key to insulating his administration from the worst of the scandal. While it might help with the press and public to crack down on the IRS as former President Bill Clinton once did, Obama may not be able to take on this key part of the Democratic constituency. Times have changed and so has the Democratic base.

The involvement of these powerful political patrons may help explain not only why Obama isn’t showing more spine on the scandal but also why his top aides were so anxious and secretive about news of the scandal itself.

Have you showered yet?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

because like all scandals that come out of Washington DC you have a series of misstatements from mulitple parties and you have more stories being revealed on a daily basis, its what you would term a feeding frenzy. Normally you guys like this when its Bush or Reagan in the white house, but not so much when its a Clinton or Obama. But its the same thing,.

So your excuse for your "feeding frenzy" of posting nonsense is "both sides do it"? Do you really think that the House republicans are giving Obama the free pass the House democrats gave the Reagan admin on Iran-Contra?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

Obama Must Protect Government Unions in IRS Scandal

Ever hear the expression that it is better to be silent and thought a fool?

 

[tommyboy]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

because like all scandals that come out of Washington DC you have a series of misstatements from mulitple parties and you have more stories being revealed on a daily basis, its what you would term a feeding frenzy. Normally you guys like this when its Bush or Reagan in the white house, but not so much when its a Clinton or Obama. But its the same thing,.

So your excuse for your "feeding frenzy" of posting nonsense is "both sides do it"? Do you really think that the House republicans are giving Obama the free pass the House democrats gave the Reagan admin on Iran-Contra?

you seem intent on arguing, i just meant to give you an answer on your question. I don't really give a crap what the republicans do quite frankly, the story has legs on its own. I mean you have Andrea Mitchell of all people coming to the defense of a Fox news reporter. The hive will protect its interests without help from washington. And you're pretty smart, you've seen this before this isn't some grand revelation here.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Interesting

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

because like all scandals that come out of Washington DC you have a series of misstatements from mulitple parties and you have more stories being revealed on a daily basis, its what you would term a feeding frenzy. Normally you guys like this when its Bush or Reagan in the white house, but not so much when its a Clinton or Obama. But its the same thing,.

So your excuse for your "feeding frenzy" of posting nonsense is "both sides do it"? Do you really think that the House republicans are giving Obama the free pass the House democrats gave the Reagan admin on Iran-Contra?

you seem intent on arguing, i just meant to give you an answer on your question. I don't really give a crap what the republicans do quite frankly, the story has legs on its own. I mean you have Andrea Mitchell of all people coming to the defense of a Fox news reporter. The hive will protect its interests without help from washington. And you're pretty smart, you've seen this before this isn't some grand revelation here.

Sure I've seen it before. That is why I know its better not to get to far ahead of the known information. If the story has legs on its own (and I agree with this) why not hang back and allowing the story to play itself out? Why are you talking nonsense about health care reform? Questioning the integrity of those that offered testimony? etc. You are a big part of the feeding frenzy - why?

 

[Doubtingthomas]

It is amazing that some of you actually defend and make excues for this crap and Fast and Furious and Benghazi and the AP and Foxnews and Obamacare back room deals. This is truly the most corrupt and dishonest administration ever but you still love him and think he is doing a good job. #### on the economy alone he has screwed this countrys future, hell that is not even worth mentioning anymore with all this around him.

Its AMAZING that conservatives make scandals on everything and anything in a democratic white house since Clinton took office. Remember Libya? It was a scandal to help and it was a scandal to not help.

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

He apologized just cause he wants to be a fair and just president! He just wants to make sure everything is fair so his political opponents get a chance to organize. That poor overworked IRS agent in Cincinnati, if only there had been more people to help they could have gone thru the reams of illegal and unethical information they were asking for! What a complete load of crap. If anyone truly believes that you are a naive idiot.

 

[otello]

Interesting

Move along, Bob. Nothing to see here. Just a bunch of overworked bureaucrats taking unreasonable shortcuts. It happens.

 

[tommyboy]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

because like all scandals that come out of Washington DC you have a series of misstatements from mulitple parties and you have more stories being revealed on a daily basis, its what you would term a feeding frenzy. Normally you guys like this when its Bush or Reagan in the white house, but not so much when its a Clinton or Obama. But its the same thing,.

So your excuse for your "feeding frenzy" of posting nonsense is "both sides do it"? Do you really think that the House republicans are giving Obama the free pass the House democrats gave the Reagan admin on Iran-Contra?

you seem intent on arguing, i just meant to give you an answer on your question. I don't really give a crap what the republicans do quite frankly, the story has legs on its own. I mean you have Andrea Mitchell of all people coming to the defense of a Fox news reporter. The hive will protect its interests without help from washington. And you're pretty smart, you've seen this before this isn't some grand revelation here.

Sure I've seen it before. That is why I know its better not to get to far ahead of the known information. If the story has legs on its own (and I agree with this) why not hang back and allowing the story to play itself out? Why are you talking nonsense about health care reform? Questioning the integrity of those that offered testimony? etc. You are a big part of the feeding frenzy - why?

lol. Yes its all my fault this thread is like 14 pages

 

[CrossEyed]

The IRS is charged with implementing 47 sections of the ACA and plans to staff almost 2000 additional full time workers this year.

So those departments will be adequately staffed and won't need to take the inappropriate short cuts like the short staffed office in Cincinnati. Funny how the "starve the beast" guys always jump all over the government failures as indicative of something other than the policies they demand.

So you're now going to insinuate that the IRS is poorly funded, because of conservatives, and tha'ts why they deserve a violation..? Have I got that right?You have a link showing us the IRS is broke? Not saying they are or aren't but if you're going to make that claim, lets see your intell..

I have the testimony from Friday that the office that decided who to audit had staffing issues. Is this even being debated?

Link:

Part of the issue, he said, was staffing. He said the IRS has “a limited number of people” — 140 to 200 — who work on applications for tax-exempt status of all types. “We do not have enough people right now,” he said.

And Link
Why were IRS staff looking for a shortcut? Because their workload had mushroomed. Applications for C4 status rose from 1,735 in 2010 to 3,357 last year. Meanwhile, budget cuts had reduced the staffing of the Cincinnati office processing the applications.

Except that the targeting began in 2010, before the increase in applications.

 

[CrossEyed]

Interesting

Hope. Change. Transparency.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

 

[timschochet]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

The Foreign Emergency Support Team known as "FEST" is described as "the US Government's only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide." It even boasts hostage-negotiating expertise. With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset. Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start. That decision became a source of great internal dissent and the cause of puzzlement to some outsiders.

Thursday, an administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News: "I wish we'd sent it."

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

lol. Yes its all my fault this thread is like 14 pages

I probably have more post than anyone in this thread. Probably a page and a half worth (give or take). So what does this reply have to do with anything? Let me state another way -

Is not the current "agreed upon" scandal worthy of discussion in its own right? What is lost by focusing on what we know especially if you are proven correct that by keep turning over stones a much larger scandal will soon be revealed ?

 

[Slapdash]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

At you, not with you.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

At you, not with you.

On top of the troubles the administration is facing over its handling of the attack on the Benghazi mission, the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups, and the Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press phone records, Republicans hope to target Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

They are questioning her soliciting of funds on behalf of a non-profit group, called Enroll America, from two private entities, a practice which if not unprecedented is at the very least unusual. Federal law bars officials from soliciting any organization or individual with whom they do business or regulate.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

At you, not with you.

You don't have to explain yourself, we all know what you are.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

After a week of revelations about government spying on reporters and the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservatives, most voters feel “like the federal government has gotten out of control and is threatening the basic civil liberties of Americans.”

Disapproval of President Obama’s job performance is above 50 percent for the first time in a year, his honesty rating is at a new low and half of voters already think he’s a lame-duck.

More than two-thirds of voters -- 68 percent -- feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. About one quarter disagree (26 percent). Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent), as well as large numbers of independents (76 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) feel Uncle Sam is taking liberties with their liberties.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The IRS is charged with implementing 47 sections of the ACA and plans to staff almost 2000 additional full time workers this year.

So those departments will be adequately staffed and won't need to take the inappropriate short cuts like the short staffed office in Cincinnati. Funny how the "starve the beast" guys always jump all over the government failures as indicative of something other than the policies they demand.

So you're now going to insinuate that the IRS is poorly funded, because of conservatives, and tha'ts why they deserve a violation..? Have I got that right?You have a link showing us the IRS is broke? Not saying they are or aren't but if you're going to make that claim, lets see your intell..

I have the testimony from Friday that the office that decided who to audit had staffing issues. Is this even being debated?

Link:

Part of the issue, he said, was staffing. He said the IRS has “a limited number of people” — 140 to 200 — who work on applications for tax-exempt status of all types. “We do not have enough people right now,” he said.

And Link
Why were IRS staff looking for a shortcut? Because their workload had mushroomed. Applications for C4 status rose from 1,735 in 2010 to 3,357 last year. Meanwhile, budget cuts had reduced the staffing of the Cincinnati office processing the applications.

Except that the targeting began in 2010, before the increase in applications.

Citizen's United was late January. Prior to that there was restrictions that made this type of status less meaningful for these political advocacy groups. By March enough Tea Party applications had flooded into the office that "Tea Party" was a scrutinized keyword. It would be written down with others in May on the "be on the lookout" spreadsheet.

The increased workload is not just the pure number of applications, but from the changed nature of who was applying.

There is also reporting that there was also pressure from above - congress at about this same time to scrutinize these applications. However, the earliest documented example I have seen is Sept 2010. But it could very well be that congress, especially democrats also placed demands on this unit with their reaction to Citizen's United - but this is just speculative based on the reporting and the one example. Not something to safely run with at this time.

 

[timschochet]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

The Foreign Emergency Support Team known as "FEST" is described as "the US Government's only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide." It even boasts hostage-negotiating expertise. With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset. Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start. That decision became a source of great internal dissent and the cause of puzzlement to some outsiders.

Thursday, an administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News: "I wish we'd sent it."

Umm, while that is very interesting, it has nothing to do with the question I asked, which was for you to back up your statement regarding public opinion.

 

[timschochet]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

So in other words, no?

 

[tommyboy]

lol. Yes its all my fault this thread is like 14 pages

I probably have more post than anyone in this thread. Probably a page and a half worth (give or take). So what does this reply have to do with anything? Let me state another way -

Is not the current "agreed upon" scandal worthy of discussion in its own right? What is lost by focusing on what we know especially if you are proven correct that by keep turning over stones a much larger scandal will soon be revealed ?

which scandal are we talking about, i can't keep these threads straight there's so many of them now

 

[Mr Two Cents]

The IRS is charged with implementing 47 sections of the ACA and plans to staff almost 2000 additional full time workers this year.

So those departments will be adequately staffed and won't need to take the inappropriate short cuts like the short staffed office in Cincinnati. Funny how the "starve the beast" guys always jump all over the government failures as indicative of something other than the policies they demand.

So you're now going to insinuate that the IRS is poorly funded, because of conservatives, and tha'ts why they deserve a violation..? Have I got that right?You have a link showing us the IRS is broke? Not saying they are or aren't but if you're going to make that claim, lets see your intell..

I have the testimony from Friday that the office that decided who to audit had staffing issues. Is this even being debated?

Link:

Part of the issue, he said, was staffing. He said the IRS has “a limited number of people” — 140 to 200 — who work on applications for tax-exempt status of all types. “We do not have enough people right now,” he said.

And Link
Why were IRS staff looking for a shortcut? Because their workload had mushroomed. Applications for C4 status rose from 1,735 in 2010 to 3,357 last year. Meanwhile, budget cuts had reduced the staffing of the Cincinnati office processing the applications.

Except that the targeting began in 2010, before the increase in applications.

Citizen's United was late January. Prior to that there was restrictions that made this type of status less meaningful for these political advocacy groups. By March enough Tea Party applications had flooded into the office that "Tea Party" was a scrutinized keyword. It would be written down with others in May on the "be on the lookout" spreadsheet.

The increased workload is not just the pure number of applications, but from the changed nature of who was applying.

There is also reporting that there was also pressure from above - congress at about this same time to scrutinize these applications. However, the earliest documented example I have seen is Sept 2010. But it could very well be that congress, especially democrats also placed demands on this unit with their reaction to Citizen's United - but this is just speculative based on the reporting and the one example. Not something to safely run with at this time.

Talk about beating a dead horse, give you an A for effort though.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

So in other words, no?

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

The new poll, released Tuesday, shows 62 percent of voters think Obama could have done more to help those at the consulate in Benghazi on the night of the attack.

Even Democrats are about equally likely to say the president could have done more (44 percent) as to say he did all he could (43 percent). Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think Obama could have done more.

Nearly two-thirds of voters who have served in the military think Obama could have done more.

The violent attack on the anniversary of September 11 killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Overall, 27 percent think the president did everything he could to help.

In 2008, Obama pledged to have the most open and transparent administration ever. On Benghazi, voters say the opposite is true: A 60-percent majority says the administration is covering up what happened. That’s more than twice as many as the 28 percent who say the Obama administration is being open and transparent.

Sixty percent of independents and a third of Democrats (33 percent) think the administration is hiding something on Benghazi. Almost all Republicans think so (88 percent).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Talk about beating a dead horse, give you an A for effort though.

Is posting a factual timeline really just going too far? Are you suggesting that I should I just give up all hope on you guys ever being rational players in the market place of ideas?

That would be pretty damn depressing. And with a couple of exceptions I have had meaningful discussion with most of the guys that I'm engaged in conversation here so if that is what you are saying, my experience tells me you are incorrect and that there is reason to hope.

Is tomorrow's Restaurant Stakeout a repeat or a new episode? (And can I really tell the difference either way?)

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Talk about beating a dead horse, give you an A for effort though.

Is posting a factual timeline really just going too far? Are you suggesting that I should I just give up all hope on you guys ever being rational players in the market place of ideas?

That would be pretty damn depressing. And with a couple of exceptions I have had meaningful discussion with most of the guys that I'm engaged in conversation here so if that is what you are saying, my experience tells me you are incorrect and that there is reason to hope.

Is tomorrow's Restaurant Stakeout a repeat or a new episode? (And can I really tell the difference either way?)

Hope and change, buddy hope and change. There is no hope and the change is what America is now realizing. A lot of us knew it years ago. Your late to the party.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Talk about beating a dead horse, give you an A for effort though.

Is posting a factual timeline really just going too far? Are you suggesting that I should I just give up all hope on you guys ever being rational players in the market place of ideas?

That would be pretty damn depressing. And with a couple of exceptions I have had meaningful discussion with most of the guys that I'm engaged in conversation here so if that is what you are saying, my experience tells me you are incorrect and that there is reason to hope.

Is tomorrow's Restaurant Stakeout a repeat or a new episode? (And can I really tell the difference either way?)

Hope and change, buddy hope and change. There is no hope and the change is what America is now realizing. A lot of us knew it years ago. Your late to the party.

So there is no hope for you? Should I really use that wide brush to paint that there is no hope for any right winger? Is that really what you are saying?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

shocking seems like telling the truth is frowned upon in Washington these days

Well, she has rights.. I don't blame her, but this certainly insinuates guilt..

 

[timschochet]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

So in other words, no?

>Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

The new poll, released Tuesday, shows 62 percent of voters think Obama could have done more to help those at the consulate in Benghazi on the night of the attack.

Even Democrats are about equally likely to say the president could have done more (44 percent) as to say he did all he could (43 percent). Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think Obama could have done more.

Nearly two-thirds of voters who have served in the military think Obama could have done more.

The violent attack on the anniversary of September 11 killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Overall, 27 percent think the president did everything he could to help.

In 2008, Obama pledged to have the most open and transparent administration ever. On Benghazi, voters say the opposite is true: A 60-percent majority says the administration is covering up what happened. That’s more than twice as many as the 28 percent who say the Obama administration is being open and transparent.

Sixty percent of independents and a third of Democrats (33 percent) think the administration is hiding something on Benghazi. Almost all Republicans think so (88 percent).

You see, that's all I asked for. Thank you.

I'm a bit surprised about the "cover-up" numbers. But i don't believe that it will hurt either him or Hillary in the long run. Could be wrong about this, though, we'll see. In any case, it's never wise to take issue with poll results.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

shocking seems like telling the truth is frowned upon in Washington these days

Well, she has rights.. I don't blame her, but this certainly insinuates guilt..

It's awful. Probably her attorney told her to do it. But it still looks terrible. Whatever the truth about this matter is, it's really bad publicity for the administration.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The former U.S. Attorney for Arizona could be disbarred, after an investigation found he lied to the Justice Department about his role in trying to discredit the federal whistle-blower who exposed the botched gun-running scheme known as Fast and Furious.

After IRS, Benghazi scandals, public trust shifts to GOP

Obamas approval rating has gone up... because people understand the conservatives scandals for what they are.

An Office of Inspector General report showed that Dennis Burke -- the former chief of staff for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano appointed as U.S. Attorney for Arizona by President Obama in September 2009 -- lied when asked if he leaked sensitive documents to the press meant to undermine the credibility of ATF whistle-blower John Dodson.

Not surprised at all..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation?

(And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

The funny thing is that you don't want to hear any evidence, you're content with the White house's explanations for everything.. You don't want an investigation, you've made that clear..

 

[pittstownkiller]

why would the president of the united states apologize the american people and fire someone, then claim that it was "outrageous and unacceptable" if it wasn't some type of scandal in and of itself? You lost me there. conservatives don't need to "make" this one.

Why can't that be enough? At least until evidence starts making the current explanations no longer the best explanation? (And to be clear when I say "best explanation" I mean the simplest explanation that fits the available information. Normally this is the correct explanation but of course there are always exceptions to prove this rule. And this may turn out to be one of those exceptional cases, but nothing based only on the current info suggests it needs to be one.)

because like all scandals that come out of Washington DC you have a series of misstatements from mulitple parties and you have more stories being revealed on a daily basis, its what you would term a feeding frenzy. Normally you guys like this when its Bush or Reagan in the white house, but not so much when its a Clinton or Obama. But its the same thing,.

So your excuse for your "feeding frenzy" of posting nonsense is "both sides do it"? Do you really think that the House republicans are giving Obama the free pass the House democrats gave the Reagan admin on Iran-Contra?

you seem intent on arguing, i just meant to give you an answer on your question. I don't really give a crap what the republicans do quite frankly, the story has legs on its own. I mean you have Andrea Mitchell of all people coming to the defense of a Fox news reporter. The hive will protect its interests without help from washington. And you're pretty smart, you've seen this before this isn't some grand revelation here.

Sure I've seen it before. That is why I know its better not to get to far ahead of the known information. If the story has legs on its own (and I agree with this) why not hang back and allowing the story to play itself out? Why are you talking nonsense about health care reform? Questioning the integrity of those that offered testimony? etc. You are a big part of the feeding frenzy - why?

lol. Yes its all my fault this thread is like 14 pages

Most of the page count can be directly linked to the rotten quote function.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

Didn't Tim vote for Romney?

Tim said he was going to vote for Romney.

 

[drummer]

The former U.S. Attorney for Arizona could be disbarred, after an investigation found he lied to the Justice Department about his role in trying to discredit the federal whistle-blower who exposed the botched gun-running scheme known as Fast and Furious.

After IRS, Benghazi scandals, public trust shifts to GOP

Obamas approval rating has gone up... because people understand the conservatives scandals for what they are.

An Office of Inspector General report showed that Dennis Burke -- the former chief of staff for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano appointed as U.S. Attorney for Arizona by President Obama in September 2009 -- lied when asked if he leaked sensitive documents to the press meant to undermine the credibility of ATF whistle-blower John Dodson.

Not surprised at all..

New cloud tags: Suprise pitts How to shoe a Horse Sean Micheals Hedgehog Palin Gout Rothlisberger Carolina Hustler

 

[Statorama]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irss-lerner-had-history-harassment-inappropriate-religious-inquiries-fec_725004.html?nopager=1]The administrations "under the busing" of Lois Lerner begins

The administration thinks it has found it's scapegoat, and will start leaking little stories like this over the next few weeks to build the narrative around her (and subsequently away from the administration).

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story]Lerner to plead the fifth when brought before the House Committee

Civil actions are looming, and I'm sure that Lerner would love to make a deal. Her only problem is that the only people she can "make a deal" with are in the Justice Department, which is nothing but the strong-arm division of the Obama administration. Sucks to be her.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The funny thing is that you don't want to hear any evidence, you're content with the White house's explanations for everything.. You don't want an investigation, you've made that clear..

This post sums up all of your post in this thread, and really most that I have ever seen from you. Jump right over the evidence (all of my right out in the open posts) to your conclusions based instead almost exclusively on your biases and beliefs. All three of your claims above are wrong. I hope my numerous posts in this thread are clear enough to have already demonstrated this clearly to any neutral observer. To most biased observers.

 

[Sand]

tommyboy, on 21 May 2013 - 10:39, said:its funny how when gov't doesn't work its always those evil republicans fault. But when it does good its Democrats great ideas.actually, its not really funny its point at the shirt territory.

What else is an an informed, logical person is supposed to think?For the last 30+ years the leading lights of the Republican Party talk about drowning government in a bath tub, worked to convince the public for 30 years that government is the source of all evil, ensured that the Senate becomes completely paralyzed, and used every crisis to starve the government of the funds it needs to perform the tasks required of it under the law.The only sensible conclusion is that Republicans are serious about trying to kill the effectiveness of the Federal government.

I'd settle for Democrats acknowledging the existence of the ninth and tenth amendments.

 

[timschochet]

Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.

Can you provide a link to back up this statement? Because it contradicts everything I've been reading about this.

Why, if I provided 5 links to this you would still not believe it because you are an Obama shill. He could punch your wife in front of you and you would forgive him because of the way his people were treated. You are beyond hope and will continue to ignore truth.

Didn't Tim vote for Romney?

I certainly did. But let's not push it- I don't want to disrupt his preconceived notions about me.

 

[Statorama]

 

[timschochet]

I was listening to John Dean on the radio this morning, and he discussed how Nixon instructed his aides, Ehrlichman and Haldeman, to have the IRS deliberately target certain foes of the administration. It seems to me that, based on what we know, that is certainly much more serious than this situation, which appears to be low level bungling. In fact, despite the attempts of some conservatives to draw parallels, there really aren't any.

 

[Statorama]

The question to ask here, just like it was at the early stages of watergate, is who benefits from the action. Figure out who benefitted the most from conservative political action groups being harassed by the IRS, and you'll have your culprit

 

[timschochet]

The question to ask here, just like it was at the early stages of watergate, is who benefits from the action. Figure out who benefitted the most from conservative political action groups being harassed by the IRS, and you'll have your culprit

No, because your question presumes deliberate intent, and unlike Watergate, right now we have no evidence whatsoever of deliberate intent.

Watergate began when a bunch of guys were caught trying to break into Democratic National Headquarters. Almost immediately, it was discovered that these guys had deliberate intent, and that they worked for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (Nixon). From there everything unraveled. Once deliberate intent has been established, THEN it's OK to ask "who benefits"? Not before.

In this case, not only do we have no evidence of deliberate intent, there is plenty of evidence that it was NOT deliberate- for instance, the fact that Tea Party groups actually made up a minority of the total groups being investigated.