Orwellian USA

[Woodruff]

He has you foed?

Off-and-on over the years, according to his claims. Twelve times, if I've counted right. I'm not convinced he has actually ever foed me though, because he still seems to read my posts. Fascinatingly enough, he only bothers to respond when he thinks he's got a "gotcha moment", rather than as a response to serious points being made.

well by foeing you,I guess we can sumerice he is not a strong believer in the first amendment.why am I not surprised.

Eh, I don't know that that applies. I've foed a couple of individuals for a time when I've become sick of their antics. It's not a freedom of speech thing so much as a "it gets old" thing. But like with everything else, he doesn't even seem to have much integrity in his foeing.

[ooge]

He has you foed?

Off-and-on over the years, according to his claims. Twelve times, if I've counted right. I'm not convinced he has actually ever foed me though, because he still seems to read my posts. Fascinatingly enough, he only bothers to respond when he thinks he's got a "gotcha moment", rather than as a response to serious points being made.

well by foeing you,I guess we can sumerice he is not a strong believer in the first amendment.why am I not surprised.

Eh, I don't know that that applies. I've foed a couple of individuals for a time when I've become sick of their antics. It's not a freedom of speech thing so much as a "it gets old" thing. But like with everything else, he doesn't even seem to have much integrity in his foeing.

Your being fair were I was going for a low blow.

[Woodruff]

He has you foed?

Off-and-on over the years, according to his claims. Twelve times, if I've counted right. I'm not convinced he has actually ever foed me though, because he still seems to read my posts. Fascinatingly enough, he only bothers to respond when he thinks he's got a "gotcha moment", rather than as a response to serious points being made.

well by foeing you,I guess we can sumerice he is not a strong believer in the first amendment.why am I not surprised.

Eh, I don't know that that applies. I've foed a couple of individuals for a time when I've become sick of their antics. It's not a freedom of speech thing so much as a "it gets old" thing. But like with everything else, he doesn't even seem to have much integrity in his foeing.

Your being fair were I was going for a low blow.

That's ok, Phatscotty would never believe that of me anyway. <grin>

[ooge]

He has you foed?

Off-and-on over the years, according to his claims. Twelve times, if I've counted right. I'm not convinced he has actually ever foed me though, because he still seems to read my posts. Fascinatingly enough, he only bothers to respond when he thinks he's got a "gotcha moment", rather than as a response to serious points being made.

well by foeing you,I guess we can sumerice he is not a strong believer in the first amendment.why am I not surprised.

Eh, I don't know that that applies. I've foed a couple of individuals for a time when I've become sick of their antics. It's not a freedom of speech thing so much as a "it gets old" thing. But like with everything else, he doesn't even seem to have much integrity in his foeing.

Your being fair were I was going for a low blow.

That's ok, Phatscotty would never believe that of me anyway. <grin>

I know and that is sad.

[BigBallinStalin]

I like this Orwell fellow (the poster, not this IRS organization he runs and/or owns).

Interesting statement there...

If it's not his constant support of the IRS that you like, it must be his blind faith basead defense of Obama? Because that's all he's been doing.

I don't think he's supporting the IRS. I think it's his attack of your blind faith that the president is behind all this that has made me happy.

Yes, this is an accurate summation of my position.

I want an investigation. And the Cincinnati IRS office should be receiving the scrutiny here.

If we are going to play the "government is evil" game, let's bring big money into the fold - Since conjecture and conspiracy theory are considered perfectly acceptable for some in this discussion, for all we know, there are deep-pockets behind the IRS actions and a sinister plot. Maybe the Koch Brothers and their kind devised a perfect storm and enlisted Tea Party sympathizers in the IRS to implicate the Obama Administration. Sounds rather like the destruction of tea in Boston Harbor. Board the ship. Protest from within. Touch off a firestorm. Who knows, right?!? Proof isn't needed and the only thing that matters is it was under Obama's watch!! Impeach!!!

(And before anyone jumps down my throat for speculating, I am being sarcastic.)

OH MY GOD! You could be right!!! My brain is melting from the alternate realities!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

@ooge

Given that Barack Obama is holding the last political job he'll ever have, I don't think he cares much about the Republican Party or the Tea Party (which are the same things). But that's my cynical opinion. I think some dudes in the IRS thought it would be cool to f*ck the Tea Party organizations by auditing them. Probably happens a lot in every administration. I don't care if the president knew about it or not because it's fucked up no matter who does it. Phatscotty wouldn't get outraged if we were talking about a Republican president. Ooge wouldn't get outraged if we were talking about a Democratic president.

Is the underlined true?

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.

Benghazi, the IRS, Fast & Furious, these are not issues to fight about.

[Night Strike]

I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.

Benghazi, the IRS, Fast & Furious, these are not issues to fight about.

Proof it happened under Bush?

And why do you not want to know the truth about any of these Obama scandals?

[Juan_Bottom]

Because they're not scandals at all.

Obama has called for an investigation of the IRS. He was not an evil puppet master punishing people with his awesome auditing powers.

Benghazi was never an issue, the e-mail that exposed the "cover-up" has been shown to be edited to make Obama look bad. And again, Bush II had like 500 more American diplomats killed during his 8 years than Obama has, but nobody cared. This "investigation" has completely backfired, with all polls showing that American's opinion of the Republican party is going down because of it, while Hillary Clinton's approval rating has gone up. Plus, Al Sharpton was saying something about how an MSNBC poll showed that most Republicans themselves don't even know where Benghazi is..... So this is less than a half-hearted attack that's done nothing but damage public trust in the Conservative party.

Fast & Furious was, at it's heart, the fault of the gun enthusiasts in this country, and not the fault of the ATF or Obama. And here's why - nullification laws, and no background checks, means that gun-runners can buy guns in America with the intent of sending them to Mexico. And that the ATF can't stop them from buying guns without solid proof of what they are doing. Circumstantial evidence isn't good enough. I mean, wouldn't you be up in arms if the ATF was not allowing citizens to buy assault-type weapons just because? So the ATF tried to use the best tools that the Gun Enthusiasts have left them with when they tried to track the guns to find out what they already suspected.
Well they were right, yet they lost the guns. Sh*t happens, and good people die, but that's the way it's just got to be so long as there's gun freedom or whatever the hell you call it. You can't blame Obama for trying when the Gun Enthusiasts don't even want him interfering with their illegal Mexican gun trade. If anything, blaming him for this crap is going to prevent the ATF from confidently going after gun-runners in the future, leading to even more deaths.



As for the IRS thing, you can google it. Just look up BUSH IRS TARGETS LIBERALS or something. The IRS infamously hit anti-war churches, the NAACP and a bunch of others. It's been so long though that I can't remember all of them. But the one that you're most likely to find is the GREENPEACE attack. The IRS went after GREENPEACE, but then later we found out that it was a political hit brought about by pressure from EXXONMOBILE. That was in the Wall Street Journal, and should have been a much bigger deal.

[kentington]

I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.

Benghazi, the IRS, Fast & Furious, these are not issues to fight about.

That doesn't make it less of a big deal.
There should be an investigation. I think any President caught with something like this would deserve it. I don't think any President will be caught with this.
The other issues can take a back seat, since they have more to do with the President.
The IRS shouldn't be allowed to have this kind of power unchecked. As BBS said they have no fear of losing their customer base, so why change?
It would be too much of a coincidence for it to be the low level workers who organized or randomly thought to do the same thing.

[Night Strike]

Amazing how your view is so distorted from what has actually happened in reality.

Obama's "investigations" mean nothing. He's investigated everything in his administration and then nothing happens because he's weathered the media cycle (which was conveniently very short until now).

If Benghazi was never an issue, why was it covered up for so long? Why did the administration order rescue forces to stand down? Why did the State Department change talking points to remove all mentions of al-queda and to blame a youtube video and a non-existent protest? Why was there a lack of security at the consulate even before the attack? Why are these questions non-issues to you?

And it's amazing that you blame Fast & Furious on gun owners. Of course, that's what Obama hoped to be able to do with the policy, so I guess his objectives work on his fanatics. The administration chose to sell guns to cartels and then failed to track them after they were sold. Gun dealers in the US know that such transactions are illegal, which is why they wouldn't have done it without government permission/immunity. Don't forget, Obama is the one who issued executive privilege over the documents pertaining to Fast & Furious. That means he was either directly involved in the program or illegally applied executive privilege. Either of which the public deserves to know.

Let's assume that everything you claim about the IRS under Bush is true (because I'm not going to do the research for you). How does that make the actions of Obama's IRS right or acceptable? Does bad behavior by one justify bad behavior by another?

And of course, on top of those, don't forget throw in the dragnet of wiretapping AP reporters and this administration's scandals may have finally awoken the traditional media to the problems of this administration.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty wouldn't get outraged if we were talking about a Republican president.

lmfao. Greek.....lmfao That's not even true

[Phatscotty]

[ooge]

I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.

Benghazi, the IRS, Fast & Furious, these are not issues to fight about.

Its called fake republican outrage and Bill Clinton all over again,they have to have their scandal and if there is not one they will make one up. When this was done with Clinton FBI assets were used to investigate Clinton instead of hmm? I dont maybe investigating terrorists activities, that then lead to you know what.

[warmonger1981]

See the real problem is that political fanatics with agendas, big money/corporations, regulatory branches of government, CIA-FBI, and other such entities have created an extremely complex system. Its almost organic to where its morphing into system that is so big and complex it becomes unmanageable. Its really just a basic system overload that is systematically imploding. The whole world is starting to implode on itself. Governments can't keep functioning this way. Technology is outpacing governments and people are starting to became aware of major fraud committed by governments world wide. The internet is spreading info at alarming rates. Cant control sheep if your pasture is too small and your herding technique is outta date.

[ooge]

See the real problem is that political fanatics with agendas, big money/corporations, regulatory branches of government, CIA-FBI, and other such entities have created an extremely complex system. Its almost organic to where its morphing into system that is so big and complex it becomes unmanageable. Its really just a basic system overload that is systematically imploding. The whole world is starting to implode on itself. Governments can't keep functioning this way. Technology is outpacing governments and people are starting to became aware of major fraud committed by governments world wide. The internet is spreading info at alarming rates. Cant control sheep if your pasture is too small and your herding technique is outta date.

well stated.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.

Benghazi, the IRS, Fast & Furious, these are not issues to fight about.

That doesn't make it less of a big deal.
There should be an investigation. I think any President caught with something like this would deserve it. I don't think any President will be caught with this.
The other issues can take a back seat, since they have more to do with the President.
The IRS shouldn't be allowed to have this kind of power unchecked. As BBS said they have no fear of losing their customer base, so why change?
It would be too much of a coincidence for it to be the low level workers who organized or randomly thought to do the same thing.

Well yeah, I mean I agree with you. What I mean to say, is why aren't we all agreeing with each other? This seems pretty black and white and we should all be on the same side here.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.

Benghazi, the IRS, Fast & Furious, these are not issues to fight about.

That doesn't make it less of a big deal.
There should be an investigation. I think any President caught with something like this would deserve it. I don't think any President will be caught with this.
The other issues can take a back seat, since they have more to do with the President.
The IRS shouldn't be allowed to have this kind of power unchecked. As BBS said they have no fear of losing their customer base, so why change?
It would be too much of a coincidence for it to be the low level workers who organized or randomly thought to do the same thing.

According to today's WSJ article, the blame is flowing toward upper management as well, so hold on to your butts.

[BigBallinStalin]

See the real problem is that political fanatics with agendas, big money/corporations, regulatory branches of government, CIA-FBI, and other such entities have created an extremely complex system. Its almost organic to where its morphing into system that is so big and complex it becomes unmanageable..

If that is the case, then it would be difficult to argue that a particular administration is responsible/at fault in these nefarious, government activities, right?

[Juan_Bottom]

If Benghazi was never an issue, why was it covered up for so long? Why did the administration order rescue forces to stand down? Why did the State Department change talking points to remove all mentions of al-queda and to blame a youtube video and a non-existent protest? Why was there a lack of security at the consulate even before the attack? Why are these questions non-issues to you?

It was covered-up?

I believe the lack of security was due to:
a) consulates/embassy's are always asking for more security
b) some mismanagement or lack of foresight
c) Republicans de-funded the security at Benghazi prior to the attack
d) you can't always know everything

The mentions of Al-Qaeda are standard. Once it was clear that Al-Qaeda wasn't involved, they stopped blaming them.

The "rescue force" was 4 men in Tripoli. Four men couldn't assault an armed mob of thousands and live, so they were ordered to sit. That makes sense.


These accusations are childish and stupid.
And like I said, these same things happened all the time under Bush, and you and I were both here on CC when it was happening. You never complained. I didn't either.

And it's amazing that you blame Fast & Furious on gun owners. Of course, that's what Obama hoped to be able to do with the policy, so I guess his objectives work on his fanatics. The administration chose to sell guns to cartels and then failed to track them after they were sold. Gun dealers in the US know that such transactions are illegal, which is why they wouldn't have done it without government permission/immunity. Don't forget, Obama is the one who issued executive privilege over the documents pertaining to Fast & Furious. That means he was either directly involved in the program or illegally applied executive privilege. Either of which the public deserves to know.

It's not amazing at all; it's common sense. Mexican Drug Cartels pay Americans with clean records to buy guns for them. OR, they send their own agents to the USA to buy guns at trade shows where there are no background checks. And that's how Mexico's organized crime is armed. Everyone knows that. So does the ATF, and that's how this whole thing happened.
Since Gun Enthusiasts are the ones who are blocking universal background checks, the blame falls on them. They are directly to blame for arming Mexico's drug lords; not the ATF. Those guys where just trying to find a way to stop it with their limited options.

Let's assume that everything you claim about the IRS under Bush is true (because I'm not going to do the research for you). How does that make the actions of Obama's IRS right or acceptable? Does bad behavior by one justify bad behavior by another?

I literally said it "doesn't make it ok."
I'm just pointing out the giant hypocrisy.

Also, this is seriously common knowledge. I did just google, and there are about 10,000 articles online about it. I also told you it was written in the Wall Street Journal. I cannot believe how you don't already know about this. Anyone who follows politics honestly should remember this.

And of course, on top of those, don't forget throw in the dragnet of wiretapping AP reporters and this administration's scandals may have finally awoken the traditional media to the problems of this administration.

CNN is reporting today that the Benghazi email leaks were edited.
There are no great scandals. There's only more of the same human-rights violations and civil liberty violations that Bush II started. The rest of this crap is fake news.

[warmonger1981]

BBS wrote " If that is the case, then it would be difficult to argue that a particular administration is responsible/at fault in these nefarious, government activities, right?"

Argue all you want. An administration, no matter from what party, will be blamed. Remember everything you do is political. Its to what ends does it serve and it does not matter who really did it. Its who is in charge that will need answers. Like my business when I have a knuckle head mess something up even when Im not on the that job. I better have some answers and low level knuckle head gets fired. My company carries on long after knuckle head is gone.

[AndyDufresne]

Amazing how your view is so distorted from what has actually happened in reality.

I like this quote. It speaks to me.




--Andy

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.

I actually think it's a rather huge deal, no matter who engages in it.

[AndyDufresne]

I agree with TGD. However, I don't think it would be have as much coverage if it wasn't the IRS. Since most people naturally don't have any goodwill towards the IRS because of taxes, audits, and hearsay, that certainly helps add to the fervor!


--Andy

[Woodruff]

I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.

Interestingly, were that to happen in the future under a Republican President, I suspect that you would be the one to actually bring it up.