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

[rockaction]

So the IRS has employees passing along personal and confidential information for people high in the Romney campaign to the Obama campaign that is leaked out to the friendly press through other left wing organizations that Obama campaign officers are part of, applications for non profit tax status for pro Romney and Tea Party groups are sat on and the applicants are asked for tremendous volumes of personal and excessively detailed information, some of which is illegal for the IRS to ask for, and these groups are targeted in battle ground states before the 2012 election. And all of this is done with no knowledge of either candidate or President Obama. One rogue employee! The government is to big for one man to over see everything! Riiiight.

Move along nothing to see here. Our sterling AG will clear this up in a matter of months.

1. If there is plausible evidence out there that all or most of what you've written above is true, then a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate this right away.

2. If it turns out that President Obama was knowingly involved in the above actions and/or cover up, then he needs to be impeached and removed from office.

But personally I'm failing to connect the dots. Right now what we have is the IRS turning itself in for a low-level (though serious) error, along with a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff being spread around on the internet.

If it is so low-level, why did the head of the IRS just have to step down? I swear, I've never seen anyone on this board that can slip in an unsubstantiated premise like this.

 

[rockaction]

If you believe that Obama is responsible for the Benghazi, DoJ, and IRS incidents and at the same time think killing Bin Laden was all Seal Team 6, you suck.

I've seen some of that this week.

George Will sucks.

 

[Doubtingthomas]

If you believe that Obama is responsible for the Benghazi, DoJ, and IRS incidents and at the same time think killing Bin Laden was all Seal Team 6, you suck. I've seen some of that this week.

that works both ways guys..

It does. How can Obama do everything but pull the trigger on Osama but not have a clue 100s of groups opposed to him politically were blocked or stalled on forming a legal entity so they could fund raise and campaign against him? Because he says he is appalled that the teabag errrrr tea partiers were denied? O

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So the IRS has employees passing along personal and confidential information for people high in the Romney campaign to the Obama campaign that is leaked out to the friendly press through other left wing organizations that Obama campaign officers are part of, applications for non profit tax status for pro Romney and Tea Party groups are sat on and the applicants are asked for tremendous volumes of personal and excessively detailed information, some of which is illegal for the IRS to ask for, and these groups are targeted in battle ground states before the 2012 election. And all of this is done with no knowledge of either candidate or President Obama. One rogue employee! The government is to big for one man to over see everything! Riiiight.

Move along nothing to see here. Our sterling AG will clear this up in a matter of months.

1. If there is plausible evidence out there that all or most of what you've written above is true, then a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate this right away.

2. If it turns out that President Obama was knowingly involved in the above actions and/or cover up, then he needs to be impeached and removed from office.

But personally I'm failing to connect the dots. Right now what we have is the IRS turning itself in for a low-level (though serious) error, along with a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff being spread around on the internet.

If it is so low-level, why did the head of the IRS just have to step down? I swear, I've never seen anyone on this board that can slip in an unsubstantiated premise like this.

Haven't read much of Tim's stuff then have you? lol

 

[Carolina Hustler]

If you believe that Obama is responsible for the Benghazi, DoJ, and IRS incidents and at the same time think killing Bin Laden was all Seal Team 6, you suck. I've seen some of that this week.

that works both ways guys..

It does. How can Obama do everything but pull the trigger on Osama but not have a clue 100s of groups opposed to him politically were blocked or stalled on forming a legal entity so they could fund raise and campaign against him? Because he says he is appalled that the teabag errrrr tea partiers were denied? O

This is sarcasm right?

 

[rockaction]

So the IRS has employees passing along personal and confidential information for people high in the Romney campaign to the Obama campaign that is leaked out to the friendly press through other left wing organizations that Obama campaign officers are part of, applications for non profit tax status for pro Romney and Tea Party groups are sat on and the applicants are asked for tremendous volumes of personal and excessively detailed information, some of which is illegal for the IRS to ask for, and these groups are targeted in battle ground states before the 2012 election. And all of this is done with no knowledge of either candidate or President Obama. One rogue employee! The government is to big for one man to over see everything! Riiiight.

Move along nothing to see here. Our sterling AG will clear this up in a matter of months.

1. If there is plausible evidence out there that all or most of what you've written above is true, then a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate this right away.

2. If it turns out that President Obama was knowingly involved in the above actions and/or cover up, then he needs to be impeached and removed from office.

But personally I'm failing to connect the dots. Right now what we have is the IRS turning itself in for a low-level (though serious) error, along with a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff being spread around on the internet.

If it is so low-level, why did the head of the IRS just have to step down? I swear, I've never seen anyone on this board that can slip in an unsubstantiated premise like this.

Haven't read much of Tim's stuff then have you? lol

Oh, enough to give pretty much everything this... <_<

 

[timschochet]

So the IRS has employees passing along personal and confidential information for people high in the Romney campaign to the Obama campaign that is leaked out to the friendly press through other left wing organizations that Obama campaign officers are part of, applications for non profit tax status for pro Romney and Tea Party groups are sat on and the applicants are asked for tremendous volumes of personal and excessively detailed information, some of which is illegal for the IRS to ask for, and these groups are targeted in battle ground states before the 2012 election. And all of this is done with no knowledge of either candidate or President Obama. One rogue employee! The government is to big for one man to over see everything! Riiiight.

Move along nothing to see here. Our sterling AG will clear this up in a matter of months.

1. If there is plausible evidence out there that all or most of what you've written above is true, then a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate this right away.

2. If it turns out that President Obama was knowingly involved in the above actions and/or cover up, then he needs to be impeached and removed from office.

But personally I'm failing to connect the dots. Right now what we have is the IRS turning itself in for a low-level (though serious) error, along with a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff being spread around on the internet.

If it is so low-level, why did the head of the IRS just have to step down? I swear, I've never seen anyone on this board that can slip in an unsubstantiated premise like this.

When I use the term "low-level", what I'm implying is that, so far as we know, it's not on the level of Obama or key members of his administration, though many of you apparently would like that to be so. Obviously the head of the IRS is not "low-level" in the big scheme of things. But just as obviously (at least to me), his resignation does not suggest his personal involvement in what took place, only that it happened under his watch.

In order to make the link to Obama that some of you are so desperate for, you're going to have to come up with evidence that so far isn't out there. Surmise is not enough.

 

[timschochet]

I don't understand the comparison to Osama bin Laden

In the case of Osama, my understanding is that President Obama had to give the go ahead for the raid, and that it was a difficult decision to make, because of the potential diplomatic consequences of our troops entering Pakistan. Presidents Clinton and Bush were both offered a similar choice during their terms; both chose not to take that choice, and allowed Osama to escape. (Bill Clinton was often blamed for 9/11 by conservatives for this very reason.) Obama specifically campaigned for President on the notion that if given a similar chance, he would authorize such a raid, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain termed this irresponsible. Therefore, Obama must by all rights be given credit for the Osama raid. (If I have any of this wrong, please feel free to correct me.)

In the case of the IRS story, and the AP story, and Benghazi, so far as we know there is no link to Obama making any decisions on these matters whatsoever. Maybe somebody will find one, but right now it doesn't exist. So why are you guys comparing this to Osama? Why is Carolina Hustler arguing that "it goes both ways"? Obviously, any simple examination of the facts demonstrates that it doesn't.

 

[17seconds]

The POTUS is a very high level position. By default I don't believe he is involved or aware of anything specific within a government agency unless there is evidence to show he was.

There is clear evidence that he was a major decision maker in the Bin Laden raid, not just the guy who happens to be at the top.

So it doesn't really go both ways with these incidents until I see evidence he was involved or aware.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Aside from determing who did this and whether it is criminal, maybe the biggest damage to Obama and his political team is teh notion he's been pounding on since 2006 that big government is not only necessary but good.

 

[larry_boy_44]

How can Obama do everything but pull the trigger on Osama but not have a clue 100s of groups opposed to him politically were blocked or stalled on forming a legal entity so they could fund raise and campaign against him? Because he says he is appalled that the teabag errrrr tea partiers were denied? O

Oooh. I know this one! Because in one case you had Obama's direct reports telling him they weren't sure the action was worth the risk and he personally made the decision to go in.And in the other neither Obama or anyone who reports directly to Obama had nothing to do with it.

I don't think your second point means what you meant it to...

 

[ichris]

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/irs-face-lawsuit-over-theft-60-million-patient-health-records

A very politicized IRS handling/stealing medical records.Just what America needs.

 

[17seconds]

Danny Wuerffel is the new IRS commissioner. Crazy pick. What is he, like 40 now?

 

[pittstownkiller]

So the IRS has employees passing along personal and confidential information for people high in the Romney campaign to the Obama campaign that is leaked out to the friendly press through other left wing organizations that Obama campaign officers are part of, applications for non profit tax status for pro Romney and Tea Party groups are sat on and the applicants are asked for tremendous volumes of personal and excessively detailed information, some of which is illegal for the IRS to ask for, and these groups are targeted in battle ground states before the 2012 election. And all of this is done with no knowledge of either candidate or President Obama. One rogue employee! The government is to big for one man to over see everything! Riiiight. Move along nothing to see here. Our sterling AG will clear this up in a matter of months.

1. If there is plausible evidence out there that all or most of what you've written above is true, then a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate this right away. 2. If it turns out that President Obama was knowingly involved in the above actions and/or cover up, then he needs to be impeached and removed from office. But personally I'm failing to connect the dots. Right now what we have is the IRS turning itself in for a low-level (though serious) error, along with a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff being spread around on the internet.

If it is so low-level, why did the head of the IRS just have to step down? I swear, I've never seen anyone on this board that can slip in an unsubstantiated premise like this.

He was planning to retire in June.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't understand the comparison to Osama bin Laden In the case of Osama, my understanding is that President Obama had to give the go ahead for the raid, and that it was a difficult decision to make, because of the potential diplomatic consequences of our troops entering Pakistan. Presidents Clinton and Bush were both offered a similar choice during their terms; both chose not to take that choice, and allowed Osama to escape. (Bill Clinton was often blamed for 9/11 by conservatives for this very reason.) Obama specifically campaigned for President on the notion that if given a similar chance, he would authorize such a raid, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain termed this irresponsible. Therefore, Obama must by all rights be given credit for the Osama raid. (If I have any of this wrong, please feel free to correct me.) In the case of the IRS story, and the AP story, and Benghazi, so far as we know there is no link to Obama making any decisions on these matters whatsoever. Maybe somebody will find one, but right now it doesn't exist. So why are you guys comparing this to Osama? Why is Carolina Hustler arguing that "it goes both ways"? Obviously, any simple examination of the facts demonstrates that it doesn't.

Obama gets all the credit for good things but is completely insulated from all bad; that is a high-wire act, that is impossible to survive.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So the IRS has employees passing along personal and confidential information for people high in the Romney campaign to the Obama campaign that is leaked out to the friendly press through other left wing organizations that Obama campaign officers are part of, applications for non profit tax status for pro Romney and Tea Party groups are sat on and the applicants are asked for tremendous volumes of personal and excessively detailed information, some of which is illegal for the IRS to ask for, and these groups are targeted in battle ground states before the 2012 election. And all of this is done with no knowledge of either candidate or President Obama. One rogue employee! The government is to big for one man to over see everything! Riiiight. Move along nothing to see here. Our sterling AG will clear this up in a matter of months.

1. If there is plausible evidence out there that all or most of what you've written above is true, then a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate this right away. 2. If it turns out that President Obama was knowingly involved in the above actions and/or cover up, then he needs to be impeached and removed from office. But personally I'm failing to connect the dots. Right now what we have is the IRS turning itself in for a low-level (though serious) error, along with a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff being spread around on the internet.

If it is so low-level, why did the head of the IRS just have to step down? I swear, I've never seen anyone on this board that can slip in an unsubstantiated premise like this.

He was planning to retire in June.

Is this true?

If so then he's really not being canned at all, is he?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

The POTUS is a very high level position. By default I don't believe he is involved or aware of anything specific within a government agency unless there is evidence to show he was.

There is clear evidence that he was a major decision maker in the Bin Laden raid, not just the guy who happens to be at the top.

So it doesn't really go both ways with these incidents until I see evidence he was involved or aware.

Reminds me of

.

 

[17seconds]

The POTUS is a very high level position. By default I don't believe he is involved or aware of anything specific within a government agency unless there is evidence to show he was.

There is clear evidence that he was a major decision maker in the Bin Laden raid, not just the guy who happens to be at the top.

So it doesn't really go both ways with these incidents until I see evidence he was involved or aware.

Reminds me of

I remember that one, pretty funny.

Actually I was going to bring this up...

How do you conservatives feel about Reagan's responsibility in Iran-Contra? There is less evidence right now of Obama being involved with these "scandals" than there was with Reagan.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

The POTUS is a very high level position. By default I don't believe he is involved or aware of anything specific within a government agency unless there is evidence to show he was.

There is clear evidence that he was a major decision maker in the Bin Laden raid, not just the guy who happens to be at the top.

So it doesn't really go both ways with these incidents until I see evidence he was involved or aware.

Reminds me of

I really don't identify with either party exactly but F them all. Follow the rules or go to jail.

 

[17seconds]

The POTUS is a very high level position. By default I don't believe he is involved or aware of anything specific within a government agency unless there is evidence to show he was.

There is clear evidence that he was a major decision maker in the Bin Laden raid, not just the guy who happens to be at the top.

So it doesn't really go both ways with these incidents until I see evidence he was involved or aware.

Reminds me of

that was kind of a dual purpose post, wasn't addressing you specifically with that part

 

[timschochet]

I don't understand the comparison to Osama bin Laden In the case of Osama, my understanding is that President Obama had to give the go ahead for the raid, and that it was a difficult decision to make, because of the potential diplomatic consequences of our troops entering Pakistan. Presidents Clinton and Bush were both offered a similar choice during their terms; both chose not to take that choice, and allowed Osama to escape. (Bill Clinton was often blamed for 9/11 by conservatives for this very reason.) Obama specifically campaigned for President on the notion that if given a similar chance, he would authorize such a raid, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain termed this irresponsible. Therefore, Obama must by all rights be given credit for the Osama raid. (If I have any of this wrong, please feel free to correct me.) In the case of the IRS story, and the AP story, and Benghazi, so far as we know there is no link to Obama making any decisions on these matters whatsoever. Maybe somebody will find one, but right now it doesn't exist. So why are you guys comparing this to Osama? Why is Carolina Hustler arguing that "it goes both ways"? Obviously, any simple examination of the facts demonstrates that it doesn't.

Obama gets all the credit for good things but is completely insulated from all bad; that is a high-wire act, that is impossible to survive.

Which part of what I wrote above do you specifically take issue with?

 

[ericttspikes]

The POTUS is a very high level position. By default I don't believe he is involved or aware of anything specific within a government agency unless there is evidence to show he was.

There is clear evidence that he was a major decision maker in the Bin Laden raid, not just the guy who happens to be at the top.

So it doesn't really go both ways with these incidents until I see evidence he was involved or aware.

Reminds me of

Now that was a good scandal.

I'm not even in a Tea Party group and the IRS hassles me. A group intent on abolishing the IRS actually had to jump through hoops to get tax exempt status? The horror. Wish they had a Senate hearing for me when the cops would pull me over for having Dead stickers on my car in the 80's.

 

[Statorama]

Almost forgot : "Hope and Change!"

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't understand the comparison to Osama bin Laden In the case of Osama, my understanding is that President Obama had to give the go ahead for the raid, and that it was a difficult decision to make, because of the potential diplomatic consequences of our troops entering Pakistan. Presidents Clinton and Bush were both offered a similar choice during their terms; both chose not to take that choice, and allowed Osama to escape. (Bill Clinton was often blamed for 9/11 by conservatives for this very reason.) Obama specifically campaigned for President on the notion that if given a similar chance, he would authorize such a raid, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain termed this irresponsible. Therefore, Obama must by all rights be given credit for the Osama raid. (If I have any of this wrong, please feel free to correct me.) In the case of the IRS story, and the AP story, and Benghazi, so far as we know there is no link to Obama making any decisions on these matters whatsoever. Maybe somebody will find one, but right now it doesn't exist. So why are you guys comparing this to Osama? Why is Carolina Hustler arguing that "it goes both ways"? Obviously, any simple examination of the facts demonstrates that it doesn't.

Obama gets all the credit for good things but is completely insulated from all bad; that is a high-wire act, that is impossible to survive.

Which part of what I wrote above do you specifically take issue with?

It is hard to have a specific dispute on any of your points because they are all based on speculation; the fact is that you don't know what, if any of it, is true.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So the IRS has employees passing along personal and confidential information for people high in the Romney campaign to the Obama campaign that is leaked out to the friendly press through other left wing organizations that Obama campaign officers are part of, applications for non profit tax status for pro Romney and Tea Party groups are sat on and the applicants are asked for tremendous volumes of personal and excessively detailed information, some of which is illegal for the IRS to ask for, and these groups are targeted in battle ground states before the 2012 election. And all of this is done with no knowledge of either candidate or President Obama. One rogue employee! The government is to big for one man to over see everything! Riiiight.

Move along nothing to see here. Our sterling AG will clear this up in a matter of months.

1. If there is plausible evidence out there that all or most of what you've written above is true, then a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate this right away.2. If it turns out that President Obama was knowingly involved in the above actions and/or cover up, then he needs to be impeached and removed from office.

But personally I'm failing to connect the dots. Right now what we have is the IRS turning itself in for a low-level (though serious) error, along with a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff being spread around on the internet.

If it is so low-level, why did the head of the IRS just have to step down? I swear, I've never seen anyone on this board that can slip in an unsubstantiated premise like this.

He was planning to retire in June.

Is this true?

If so then he's really not being canned at all, is he?

http://reason.com/24-7/2013/05/16/irs-chief-who-obama-announced-has-resign

 

[17seconds]

I don't understand the comparison to Osama bin Laden

In the case of Osama, my understanding is that President Obama had to give the go ahead for the raid, and that it was a difficult decision to make, because of the potential diplomatic consequences of our troops entering Pakistan. Presidents Clinton and Bush were both offered a similar choice during their terms; both chose not to take that choice, and allowed Osama to escape. (Bill Clinton was often blamed for 9/11 by conservatives for this very reason.) Obama specifically campaigned for President on the notion that if given a similar chance, he would authorize such a raid, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain termed this irresponsible. Therefore, Obama must by all rights be given credit for the Osama raid. (If I have any of this wrong, please feel free to correct me.)

In the case of the IRS story, and the AP story, and Benghazi, so far as we know there is no link to Obama making any decisions on these matters whatsoever. Maybe somebody will find one, but right now it doesn't exist. So why are you guys comparing this to Osama? Why is Carolina Hustler arguing that "it goes both ways"? Obviously, any simple examination of the facts demonstrates that it doesn't.

Obama gets all the credit for good things but is completely insulated from all bad; that is a high-wire act, that is impossible to survive.

Which part of what I wrote above do you specifically take issue with?

It is hard to have a specific dispute on any of your points because they are all based on speculation; the fact is that you don't know what, if any of it, is true.

The raid is not speculation. Not only did he give the order but he did it against the desires of Biden, Panetta, and his #2 military advisor General Cartwright. Admiral Mullen was quoted as saying Obama had the idea of sending in a backup chopper, which as we know allowed the mission to succeed.

Here's the handwritten memo from the CIA

Received phone call from (National Security Adviser) Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 a.m.

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rycqsxnQJc2aH7adP.hrVw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/cia-memo-panetta.jpg

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't understand the comparison to Osama bin Laden

In the case of Osama, my understanding is that President Obama had to give the go ahead for the raid, and that it was a difficult decision to make, because of the potential diplomatic consequences of our troops entering Pakistan. Presidents Clinton and Bush were both offered a similar choice during their terms; both chose not to take that choice, and allowed Osama to escape. (Bill Clinton was often blamed for 9/11 by conservatives for this very reason.) Obama specifically campaigned for President on the notion that if given a similar chance, he would authorize such a raid, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain termed this irresponsible. Therefore, Obama must by all rights be given credit for the Osama raid. (If I have any of this wrong, please feel free to correct me.)

In the case of the IRS story, and the AP story, and Benghazi, so far as we know there is no link to Obama making any decisions on these matters whatsoever. Maybe somebody will find one, but right now it doesn't exist. So why are you guys comparing this to Osama? Why is Carolina Hustler arguing that "it goes both ways"? Obviously, any simple examination of the facts demonstrates that it doesn't.

Obama gets all the credit for good things but is completely insulated from all bad; that is a high-wire act, that is impossible to survive.

Which part of what I wrote above do you specifically take issue with?

It is hard to have a specific dispute on any of your points because they are all based on speculation; the fact is that you don't know what, if any of it, is true.

The raid is not speculation. Not only did he give the order but he did it against the desires of Biden, Panetta, and his #2 military advisor General Cartwright. Admiral Mullen was quoted as saying Obama had the idea of sending in a backup chopper, which as we know allowed the mission to succeed.

Here's the handwritten memo from the CIA

Received phone call from (National Security Adviser) Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 a.m.

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/r...s.com/en/blogs/theticket/cia-memo-panetta.jpghttp://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rycqsxnQJc2aH7adP.hrVw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/cia-memo-panetta.jpg

@ the Bucky; you can barely get laid, what the hell do you know about being owned. The above is certainly not the only version of "facts" out there and I imagine somewhere there is an assault planner laughing at the concept that only the President thought up the second helicopter as an emergency vehicle. I do not have any problems with lauding praise on Obama for the attack on bin Laden; though, I am confident he would have been distancing himself from it if it was a disaster. I do have a problem of cherry picking successes and failures as if one is only capable of the former and immune to the latter.

 

[17seconds]

Obama is tied closely to the success of the Bin Laden raid, regardless of what you imagine a nameless assualt planner might be thinking.

Tie him to any of these scandals and we can start comparing the 2 things.

 

[MaxThreshold]

@ the Bucky; you can barely get laid, what the hell do you know about being owned. The above is certainly not the only version of "facts" out there and I imagine somewhere there is an assault planner laughing at the concept that only the President thought up the second helicopter as an emergency vehicle. I do not have any problems with lauding praise on Obama for the attack on bin Laden; though, I am confident he would have been distancing himself from it if it was a disaster. I do have a problem of cherry picking successes and failures as if one is only capable of the former and immune to the latter.

Pretty sure he would have said he didn't know anything about and that the first he heard of it was on TV like everyone else.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Obama is tied closely to the success of the Bin Laden raid, regardless of what you imagine a nameless assualt planner might be thinking.

Tie him to any of these scandals and we can start comparing the 2 things.

Well, that's certainly the sticking point isn't it? Progressives like yourself refuse to see anything at all in the way of evidence if it reflects badly on your dear leader. Even a notarized videotape of him saying to go after conservative groups would not meet your threshold of evidence.

That's why it's ridiculous to even argue with you guys - you've drank so much progressive kool-aid you have become the Kool-Aid man himself.

 

[17seconds]

@ the Bucky; you can barely get laid, what the hell do you know about being owned. The above is certainly not the only version of "facts" out there and I imagine somewhere there is an assault planner laughing at the concept that only the President thought up the second helicopter as an emergency vehicle. I do not have any problems with lauding praise on Obama for the attack on bin Laden; though, I am confident he would have been distancing himself from it if it was a disaster. I do have a problem of cherry picking successes and failures as if one is only capable of the former and immune to the latter.

Pretty sure he would have said he didn't know anything about and that the first he heard of it was on TV like everyone else.

...and if execution of the mission failed the right would have been all over Obama like flies on ####. The 2nd copter goes down and, there you go, another "scandal"

 

[MaxThreshold]

@ the Bucky; you can barely get laid, what the hell do you know about being owned. The above is certainly not the only version of "facts" out there and I imagine somewhere there is an assault planner laughing at the concept that only the President thought up the second helicopter as an emergency vehicle. I do not have any problems with lauding praise on Obama for the attack on bin Laden; though, I am confident he would have been distancing himself from it if it was a disaster. I do have a problem of cherry picking successes and failures as if one is only capable of the former and immune to the latter.

Pretty sure he would have said he didn't know anything about and that the first he heard of it was on TV like everyone else.

...and if execution of the mission failed the right would have been all over Obama like flies on ####. The 2nd copter goes down and, there you go, another "scandal"

You're right, that wouldn't have been a big deal. Just like it wasn't when the chopper went down trying to rescue the hostages in Iran.

 

[17seconds]

Obama is tied closely to the success of the Bin Laden raid, regardless of what you imagine a nameless assualt planner might be thinking.

Tie him to any of these scandals and we can start comparing the 2 things.

Well, that's certainly the sticking point isn't it? Progressives like yourself refuse to see anything at all in the way of evidence if it reflects badly on your dear leader. Even a notarized videotape of him saying to go after conservative groups would not meet your threshold of evidence.

That's why it's ridiculous to even argue with you guys - you've drank so much progressive kool-aid you have become the Kool-Aid man himself.

That's not how I am at all, and a huge assumption on your part. The recent incidents have lowered my opinion of Obama's ability to pick and manage leaders. That's a big part of the job.

But I'm not going to assume he's directly involved without evidence. A videotape showing political intent would be convincing evidence. That's a Watergate type of scandal. We have nothing like that right now.

It doesn't help that conservatives have been trying so damn hard for 5 years to stick Obama with some kind of scandal. The level of obsession is amazing, really. That has made me more skeptical of these stories than any love for Obama.

 

[Hang 10]

Surprise suprise

http://www.fox19.com/story/22265631/four-cincy-irs-workers-not-two-allegedly-connected-to-scandal

"One of FOX19's two sources went on say that these four IRS workers claim "they simply did what their bosses ordered." FOX19 reported on Tuesday that the report by the Office of Inspector General states that senior IRS officials knew agents were targeting Tea Party groups as early as 2011."

 

[tommyboy]

they weren't just going after tea part groups either, they audited conservative groups as well

 

[CrossEyed]

And now we find out that the IRS official in charge of tax-exempt organizations at the time the targeting occurred is now running the office responsible for health care legislation.

You couldn't even make this stuff up.

 

[Hang 10]

Now it looks like the main broad in charge at the IRS collected over 100k in bonus' during the scandal. Why the hell is anyone in the IRS taking home a 35k bonus (on top of her 177k salary) in the middle of a recession? Public servants my ###. You literally can't make this #### up.

 

[Sand]

And now we find out that the IRS official in charge of tax-exempt organizations at the time the targeting occurred is now running the office responsible for health care legislation.You couldn't even make this stuff up.

And why is she still with job? Why have two gone down and she is being protected?

 

[adonis]

Just for the record, I think this is a big deal and should result in quite a lot of folks losing their jobs. Don't think Obama's involved, but still, everyone should be treated fairly by the IRS...targeting swings both ways. Fair in one party's term, fair in another. Hope this gets fixed asap and those responsible are held accountable, without unnecessary witch-hunts.

 

[Fennis]

You couldn't even make this stuff up.

You literally can't make this #### up.

guess who listens to the same talk shows

 

[CrossEyed]

You couldn't even make this stuff up.

You literally can't make this #### up.

guess who listens to the same talk shows

I read it on an ABC blog.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You couldn't even make this stuff up.

>You literally can't make this #### up.

guess who listens to the same talk shows

You and my 7 year old?

What do I win?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Just for the record, I think this is a big deal and should result in quite a lot of folks losing their jobs. Don't think Obama's involved, but still, everyone should be treated fairly by the IRS...targeting swings both ways. Fair in one party's term, fair in another. Hope this gets fixed asap and those responsible are held accountable, without unnecessary witch-hunts.

I agree for the most part. But I do want an investigation. Otherwise the truth will not revel it self..

 

[adonis]

Just for the record, I think this is a big deal and should result in quite a lot of folks losing their jobs. Don't think Obama's involved, but still, everyone should be treated fairly by the IRS...targeting swings both ways. Fair in one party's term, fair in another. Hope this gets fixed asap and those responsible are held accountable, without unnecessary witch-hunts.

I agree for the most part. But I do want an investigation. Otherwise the truth will not revel it self..

Yeah, investigations are fine...but hopefully they're interested in the truth and not just making examples out of folks. Those who did something wrong should lose their jobs, but no one should lose it just to make a show of strength here.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't understand the comparison to Osama bin Laden

In the case of Osama, my understanding is that President Obama had to give the go ahead for the raid, and that it was a difficult decision to make, because of the potential diplomatic consequences of our troops entering Pakistan. Presidents Clinton and Bush were both offered a similar choice during their terms; both chose not to take that choice, and allowed Osama to escape. (Bill Clinton was often blamed for 9/11 by conservatives for this very reason.) Obama specifically campaigned for President on the notion that if given a similar chance, he would authorize such a raid, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain termed this irresponsible. Therefore, Obama must by all rights be given credit for the Osama raid. (If I have any of this wrong, please feel free to correct me.)

In the case of the IRS story, and the AP story, and Benghazi, so far as we know there is no link to Obama making any decisions on these matters whatsoever. Maybe somebody will find one, but right now it doesn't exist. So why are you guys comparing this to Osama? Why is Carolina Hustler arguing that "it goes both ways"? Obviously, any simple examination of the facts demonstrates that it doesn't.

Obama gets all the credit for good things but is completely insulated from all bad; that is a high-wire act, that is impossible to survive.

Which part of what I wrote above do you specifically take issue with?

It is hard to have a specific dispute on any of your points because they are all based on speculation; the fact is that you don't know what, if any of it, is true.

The raid is not speculation. Not only did he give the order but he did it against the desires of Biden, Panetta, and his #2 military advisor General Cartwright. Admiral Mullen was quoted as saying Obama had the idea of sending in a backup chopper, which as we know allowed the mission to succeed.

Here's the handwritten memo from the CIA

Received phone call from (National Security Adviser) Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven's hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 a.m.

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/r...s.com/en/blogs/theticket/cia-memo-panetta.jpghttp://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rycqsxnQJc2aH7adP.hrVw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/cia-memo-panetta.jpg

@ the Bucky; you can barely get laid, what the hell do you know about being owned. The above is certainly not the only version of "facts" out there and I imagine somewhere there is an assault planner laughing at the concept that only the President thought up the second helicopter as an emergency vehicle. I do not have any problems with lauding praise on Obama for the attack on bin Laden; though, I am confident he would have been distancing himself from it if it was a disaster. I do have a problem of cherry picking successes and failures as if one is only capable of the former and immune to the latter.

Classy. You don't know #### about me, buddy.

You're right Bucky, I do not know anything about you. I thought about this post a dozen times tonight and regretted it every time I did. I hope you accept my apology.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Y'know after careful thought, I'm thinking that I hope this doesn't lead to the WH. The only thing worse than Obama as President would be that buffoon Biden as President.

Let's hope this scandal stays local.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't think Obama was involved in this. That's not to say some democratic higher ups were not.

I see Obama looking hot at this topic. I think he knows for certain it will not lead back to him. And he's likely happy for another scandal to take the emphasis off of the other current scandal that hits closer to his home base..

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And now we find out that the IRS official in charge of tax-exempt organizations at the time the targeting occurred is now running the office responsible for health care legislation.You couldn't even make this stuff up.

And why is she still with job? Why have two gone down and she is being protected?

Because it is the law?

 

[Sand]

Y'know after careful thought, I'm thinking that I hope this doesn't lead to the WH. The only thing worse than Obama as President would be that buffoon Biden as President.

Let's hope this scandal stays local.

The entertainment value would be off the charts.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And now we find out that the IRS official in charge of tax-exempt organizations at the time the targeting occurred is now running the office responsible for health care legislation.You couldn't even make this stuff up.

And why is she still with job? Why have two gone down and she is being protected?

Is she the "after they become tax exempt" person?