The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2013, 09:41 AM   #101
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Well, 52% favorability isn't bad, but it isn't great either. The key to this match-up is who they run against him. They always have a good ground game (GOP), and outside a few college towns (Moorhead, Duluth, Mankato, etc.) and Minneapolis/St. Paul -- the state has a lot of red to it. The demographic that helped push Franken through last time are likely going to be absent from this mid-term (younger voters, college kids, etc.) this time around. This is also one of the trends (like the one mentioned prior) you see in elections.

Minnesota is pretty much "purple." The state has always had polarizing figures as representatives. Jesse Ventura, Michelle Bachmann, Al Franken, etc. They go for loonies and crazies. It isn't a stable political arena and is becoming the Midwestern bastion of state sponsored welfare. I'm willing to bet that this seat is held on to, but it is definitely up for grabs.

I think SD, AK, LA are sure-fire gains for the GOP. I've seen Hagan up anywhere from 10 points at her high, to within the margin of error on others. I don't expect her to get the same sort of push she did back in 2008 when Obama carried the state, which undoubtedly helped her in the polls because people likely just voted down the ticket. That was a coat tail effect for sure. So as of now, I'll keep my 5-7 estimation.

As for Oregon, Merkley probably wins, but it won't be a cakewalk. He has been fundraising for a while now because he know the Republican friendly SuperPAC's are going to do all they can to go after him. I think Udall (D-CO) is up for re-election too and that could be a squeaker as well. The Republicans will have to pick and choose which places they want to invest the most money in. If I were them, I'd dump little money into SD, AK and LA -- and focus the resources on OR, MT, MN, CO and NC.
It's less about favorability and more about inertia. There is no real reason to unseat the incumbent in this case. No public mandate, no outcry. Incumbents are historically very difficult to get rid of, regardless of party............................

...........................Which is why Merkley only barely squeaked by last time in Oregon. If I were a betting man, I would put lots of money on a Democratic incumbent in the "blue as the day is long" state of Oregon.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:45 AM   #102
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,733

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
This next 8 months are going to make careers. The media machine is ramping into full overdrive right now. The thirst for information on these three scandals is driving the press into full throttle mode. I can only guess that you aren't following the news too closely right now if you don't think this is going to be a huge story. We're not even seeing the tip of the iceberg on this yet.
You're right, the media is in a feeding frenzy especially when the Feds single out one of their own to investigate. They will not only look under the rug they will remove the floor looking for dirt.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 09:55 AM   #103
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,733

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
None of that seems weird when you're asking someone to clarify whether or not they are an organization that engages in political action -- which is what they were being asked to clarify.


Are you guys seriously thinking that it's way out of line to question whether or not a group called XXX Tea Party is a political group?
Apparently the IRS thinks it's out of line ..........come on Fradykat get your head out

Last edited by Pony Boy; 11-02-2013 at 06:27 PM..
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 10:15 AM   #104
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,339

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
It's less about favorability and more about inertia. There is no real reason to unseat the incumbent in this case. No public mandate, no outcry. Incumbents are historically very difficult to get rid of, regardless of party............................

...........................Which is why Merkley only barely squeaked by last time in Oregon. If I were a betting man, I would put lots of money on a Democratic incumbent in the "blue as the day is long" state of Oregon.
I'm not saying there is a reason in Franken's case, just that Minnesota has an unstable and ambiguous voting history with an easily swayed electorate. And I agree with you that Merkley will likely win out. Either way, I think these races will be within the MOE.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:02 AM   #105
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Its clear that you don't understand the main purposes of a 501c4 like Rove's Crossroads or Moveon.org. And to the idea that it was just some sort of misunderstanding of mission...
http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/2158831
501c4 are not supposed to be engaging in political functions for the majority of their effort, and definitely NOT in a partisan manner. The NRA engages in

Moveon.org and Crossroads supposedly fit into this category (I would not agree that either of those organizations are not primarily political and are not partisan) but that's beside the point.

That's why those organizations that were claiming/implying association with a political party were being asked to clarify what their organization was about.

The only on here not understanding what's going on, once again, is you.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:04 AM   #106
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,100

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Apparently the IRS thinks it's out of line ..........come on Fradykat get your head out
There's that famed conservative maturity, shining through!

Of course, if you were not incapable of reading comprehension you'd understand that I'm talking about the queries themselves, not the manner in which the set of queries was decided upon.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:21 AM   #107
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,733

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
There's that famed conservative maturity, shining through!

Of course, if you were not incapable of reading comprehension you'd understand that I'm talking about the queries themselves, not the manner in which the set of queries was decided upon.
Again, pull your head out ...... The name of an organization should not trigger anything, all groups applying for tax exempt status should be treated the same or be subject to a random check, not based on a name of the organization.

So according to your logic any passenger on a commercial airline that wears a turban should be single out for a full body cavity search.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:26 AM   #108
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
501c4 are not supposed to be engaging in political functions for the majority of their effort, and definitely NOT in a partisan manner. The NRA engages in

Moveon.org and Crossroads supposedly fit into this category (I would not agree that either of those organizations are not primarily political and are not partisan) but that's beside the point.

That's why those organizations that were claiming/implying association with a political party were being asked to clarify what their organization was about.

The only on here not understanding what's going on, once again, is you.
I'm not saying there isn't grey area in the way those tax exemptions have been issued and utilized. It's always been a very sketchy area of campaign finance and political spending.

But all that is a red herring. The IRS didn't simply change its standards of what constituted "too political." It started holding one (green light) standard for friends of the administration and another (minefield) standard for potential enemies, with a generous helping of big-brotheresque information gathering about donors (violating the whole purpose of a 501c4), ideas, influences, contacts... just about everything you could imagine. And then the applications mostly just went to IRS purgatory, whilst the progressive applications processed like clockwork.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:37 AM   #109
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,733

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo

WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...roups/2158831/
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:45 AM   #110
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,733

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
There's that famed conservative maturity, shining through!

Of course, if you were not incapable of reading comprehension you'd understand that I'm talking about the queries themselves, not the manner in which the set of queries was decided upon.
The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.

It asked for printouts of Facebook posts And it asked what books people were reading.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ing-91378.html
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 11:45 AM   #111
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

The IRS isn't going anywhere, and there isn't going to be any huge political fallout from this like some people are sitting at home fapping about.

If anything, it's going to be used as a jumping off point for both sides to re-introduce campaign finance reform into the discussion. There is plenty of support on either side of the aisle for this, and if the Republicans were smart, they wouldn't focus on trying to tie this to individual Senate races, because the details will largely be forgotten about. Rather, they'd be better off introducing and taking the lead on bi-partisan legislation to reform the system, and then benefit from the goodwill that creates, which translates into votes.

Smear campaigns rarely work over the long-term, but reform is something everyone likes to get behind, D or R, and something every politician likes to take credit for, D or R.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 12:15 PM   #112
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,670

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

The Economist take. (highlights)

The IRS errs
May 13th 2013, 20:02 by E.M. | WASHINGTON, DC


Quote:
WHAT bigger gaffe could the Internal Revenue Service commit than to single out groups that criticised the government for greater scrutiny? Republicans, naturally enough, are outraged by the revelation that America’s taxmen consciously and explicitly did so, picking on the applications for charitable status from tea-party chapters and other right-leaning campaign outfits.
Quote:
Happily, the Obama administration does not seem to have been involved in this idiocy at all, although with its usual defensiveness, it took some time to condemn it strongly.
Quote:
In all the huffing and puffing, however, two bigger scandals are being ignored. The first is the frequent abuse of America’s system of regulation of political campaigns, which the IRS, for all its incompetence, was rightly seeking to investigate.
Quote:
The applications the IRS handled so ill-advisedly were for a particular tax status—501(c)(4), in the jargon—that has become a common means to avoid these restrictions..........Clever lawyers spotted a loophole in all this: a group that had no discernible purpose other than promoting a particular political viewpoint could still register as a 501(c)(4), as long as it was careful to spend at least half its money on campaigns that were not explicitly tied to an election.
Quote:
The fact that the IRS has not found a way to stop this kind of thing is an indicator of the second scandal: the willful neglect of the taxman by politicians from both parties. The agency has 10% fewer employees than it did three years ago. Its budget has been cut three years running. It has not had a director since November. Starving the IRS is popular with voters of all stripes, but it leads to diminished revenues and thus extra debt for all Americans to bear. If those complaining about the agency’s conduct want better results, they will have to pay for them.
(comments about 501(c)(4) including one supporting Obama here.)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...cans-and-taxes
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 12:27 PM   #113
NorCalBronco7
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

What the hell is that noise on CSPN for the Justice Department oversight committee where Eric Holder is being questioned? I watch CSPN from time to time but Ive never heard these annoying beeps or whatever they are. Kinda sounds like morris code.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 12:58 PM   #114
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,637
Default Outrage!

Pony, beavis and the rest of the righties..where was the outrage?

Bush Used the IRS, FBI, CIA and Secret Service to Go After Opponents -- Where Was the Fox and GOP Outrage?

As your kindergarten teacher probably told you, two wrongs do not make a right. But the discrepancy in reactions to wrongs does, indeed, show how Washington so often serves the interests of the political right.

That's one of the big -- if deliberately ignored -- takeaways from the reaction to news that the Internal Revenue Service allegedly targeting conservative organizations for extra scrutiny in their larger review of political groups' tax exempt status. In the last few days, the allegations have generated a wave of national headlines, a congressional investigation, federal legislation and ever-louder calls for impeachment.

Considering the gravity of the allegations against the Obama IRS from the Treasury Department's inspector general, congressional scrutiny is certainly warranted. However, there's just one problem: most of the lawmakers and pundits today decrying the use of public resources against a White House's political opponents had little -- if anything -- to say about equally troubling revelations about the Bush administration's deployment of public resources against its opponents. In fact, conservatives said so little back then that Fox News apparently doesn't even know (or is pretending not to know) the Bush administration used the IRS in the same way the Obama administration allegedly did.

And here's the even more incredible thing: the Bush cabal didn't just use the IRS for its political hackery -- it mounted a full-scale government-wide assault on its enemies, marshaling disparate agencies in its smear efforts.

Bush's use of the IRS was but one part of that larger assault. As my Salon colleague Alex Seitz-Wald notes today in greater detail, in 2005, Bush's IRS began what became an extensive two-year investigation into a Pasadena church after an orator dared to speak out against President Bush's Iraq War. Not coincidentally, the Los Angeles Times reports that the church targeted just so happened to be "one of Southern California's largest and most liberal congregations." That IRS church audit came a year after it launched a near-identical attack on the NAACP after the civil rights organization criticized various Bush administration policies.

That is not where the story ends, however. The Bush administration's crusade against its enemies moved from the IRS into the Secret Service.

Under the Republican president, that law enforcement agency was repeatedly deployed to physically block suspected antiwar activists from attending public presidential events. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, the scheme eventually targeted some peaceful antiwar activists for arrest for the alleged crime of "holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone" of free speech (yes, the Bush White House cemented the precedent that the right to dissent is no longer a fundamental right, but is instead only allowed in certain "free speech zones"). Ultimately, in a case dealing with a man who was arrested for simply telling Vice President Dick Cheney that his "policies on Iraq are disgusting," the Republican-dominated Supreme Court upheld the Bush administration's use of "retaliatory arrests" against the administration's ideological critics.

Then, in 2010, we learned that Bush's targeting operation was also operating inside the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Recounting findings from the Justice Department's Inspector General, the Washington Post reported that "the FBI improperly investigated some left-leaning U.S. advocacy groups after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks ... citing cases in which agents put activists on terrorist watch lists even though they were planning nonviolent civil disobedience."

A year later, we learned that along with the IRS, Secret Service and FBI, the Bush administration may have also been using the Central Intelligence Agency against its political enemies. As the New York Times reported, "A former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information" on prominent Iraq War critic Juan Cole. That story had an eerie similarity to the Bush administration's effort to out CIA operative Valerie Plame as retribution for her husband's criticism of that same war.

Unlike the noisy outrage that met today's allegations of IRS misconduct under President Obama, these earlier -- and well-documented -- revelations of systemic IRS, Secret Service, FBI and CIA misconduct were met with a collective shrug of the shoulders in Washington. Sure, a few newspapers wrote about them, and a few Democratic lawmakers tried to raise questions about the Bush administration's actions, but compared to today's sound and fury over the IRS allegations, there was veritable silence. Indeed, as alluded to before, so little outrage was voiced about this kind of thing during the Bush years that a Fox News' headline this week summarizing a Karl Rove interview blared: "What if IRS Under President Bush targeted liberal groups?" -- as if that never actually happened...even though it most certainly did.

What explains this obvious double standard in the reactions to Bush era and Obama era misconduct? Partisanship, expectations and ideological bias.

In terms of partisanship, Republicans now screaming bloody murder over the IRS allegations clearly don't care about the principles of equal protection, nonpartisan public services or impartial governance. We know this because most of them had nothing to say about the Bush administration's actions against the GOP's ideological opponents. In the context of that record, the GOP is really saying it is outraged when government resources are aimed at its friends, but more than happy to have those resources aimed at its enemies.

That context, though, hasn't been publicly referenced by most Democrats. Indeed, other than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), most Democratic lawmakers have not dared to mention that the problem of politicized government goes back many years.

That gets to expectations and ideological bias -- simply put, the expectation in a Washington where both parties and most media outlets tilt to the right is that conservative groups should never be treated the same way liberal groups so often are. Why? Because conservative causes (say, the anti-tax movement) tend to be aligned with the interests of the transpartisan moneyed establishment while liberal causes (say, the anti-war movement) tend to be at odds with those interests.

Thus, when conservative groups happen to be treated like liberal groups, the Washington Outrage Machine turns the noise up to 11 -- even though when liberal groups were targeted, that Outrage Machine remained dormant. And with today's national press corps reoriented around amplifying -- rather than challenging -- power, this double standard is then predictably reflected in a corresponding discrepancy in coverage.

Taken together, the lesson should be straightforward: according to Washington, politicized government is perfectly fine when it is punishing liberal forces that challenge the status quo, but totally outrageous when it is targeting conservative groups that preserve the status quo.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bus...30514-490.html
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 01:22 PM   #115
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,733

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Pony, beavis and the rest of the righties..where was the outrage?

Bush Used the IRS, FBI, CIA and Secret Service to Go After Opponents -- Where Was the Fox and GOP Outrage?

As your kindergarten teacher probably told you, two wrongs do not make a right. But the discrepancy in reactions to wrongs does, indeed, show how Washington so often serves the interests of the political right.

That's one of the big -- if deliberately ignored -- takeaways from the reaction to news that the Internal Revenue Service allegedly targeting conservative organizations for extra scrutiny in their larger review of political groups' tax exempt status. In the last few days, the allegations have generated a wave of national headlines, a congressional investigation, federal legislation and ever-louder calls for impeachment.

Considering the gravity of the allegations against the Obama IRS from the Treasury Department's inspector general, congressional scrutiny is certainly warranted. However, there's just one problem: most of the lawmakers and pundits today decrying the use of public resources against a White House's political opponents had little -- if anything -- to say about equally troubling revelations about the Bush administration's deployment of public resources against its opponents. In fact, conservatives said so little back then that Fox News apparently doesn't even know (or is pretending not to know) the Bush administration used the IRS in the same way the Obama administration allegedly did.

And here's the even more incredible thing: the Bush cabal didn't just use the IRS for its political hackery -- it mounted a full-scale government-wide assault on its enemies, marshaling disparate agencies in its smear efforts.

Bush's use of the IRS was but one part of that larger assault. As my Salon colleague Alex Seitz-Wald notes today in greater detail, in 2005, Bush's IRS began what became an extensive two-year investigation into a Pasadena church after an orator dared to speak out against President Bush's Iraq War. Not coincidentally, the Los Angeles Times reports that the church targeted just so happened to be "one of Southern California's largest and most liberal congregations." That IRS church audit came a year after it launched a near-identical attack on the NAACP after the civil rights organization criticized various Bush administration policies.

That is not where the story ends, however. The Bush administration's crusade against its enemies moved from the IRS into the Secret Service.

Under the Republican president, that law enforcement agency was repeatedly deployed to physically block suspected antiwar activists from attending public presidential events. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, the scheme eventually targeted some peaceful antiwar activists for arrest for the alleged crime of "holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone" of free speech (yes, the Bush White House cemented the precedent that the right to dissent is no longer a fundamental right, but is instead only allowed in certain "free speech zones"). Ultimately, in a case dealing with a man who was arrested for simply telling Vice President Dick Cheney that his "policies on Iraq are disgusting," the Republican-dominated Supreme Court upheld the Bush administration's use of "retaliatory arrests" against the administration's ideological critics.

Then, in 2010, we learned that Bush's targeting operation was also operating inside the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Recounting findings from the Justice Department's Inspector General, the Washington Post reported that "the FBI improperly investigated some left-leaning U.S. advocacy groups after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks ... citing cases in which agents put activists on terrorist watch lists even though they were planning nonviolent civil disobedience."

A year later, we learned that along with the IRS, Secret Service and FBI, the Bush administration may have also been using the Central Intelligence Agency against its political enemies. As the New York Times reported, "A former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information" on prominent Iraq War critic Juan Cole. That story had an eerie similarity to the Bush administration's effort to out CIA operative Valerie Plame as retribution for her husband's criticism of that same war.

Unlike the noisy outrage that met today's allegations of IRS misconduct under President Obama, these earlier -- and well-documented -- revelations of systemic IRS, Secret Service, FBI and CIA misconduct were met with a collective shrug of the shoulders in Washington. Sure, a few newspapers wrote about them, and a few Democratic lawmakers tried to raise questions about the Bush administration's actions, but compared to today's sound and fury over the IRS allegations, there was veritable silence. Indeed, as alluded to before, so little outrage was voiced about this kind of thing during the Bush years that a Fox News' headline this week summarizing a Karl Rove interview blared: "What if IRS Under President Bush targeted liberal groups?" -- as if that never actually happened...even though it most certainly did.

What explains this obvious double standard in the reactions to Bush era and Obama era misconduct? Partisanship, expectations and ideological bias.

In terms of partisanship, Republicans now screaming bloody murder over the IRS allegations clearly don't care about the principles of equal protection, nonpartisan public services or impartial governance. We know this because most of them had nothing to say about the Bush administration's actions against the GOP's ideological opponents. In the context of that record, the GOP is really saying it is outraged when government resources are aimed at its friends, but more than happy to have those resources aimed at its enemies.

That context, though, hasn't been publicly referenced by most Democrats. Indeed, other than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), most Democratic lawmakers have not dared to mention that the problem of politicized government goes back many years.

That gets to expectations and ideological bias -- simply put, the expectation in a Washington where both parties and most media outlets tilt to the right is that conservative groups should never be treated the same way liberal groups so often are. Why? Because conservative causes (say, the anti-tax movement) tend to be aligned with the interests of the transpartisan moneyed establishment while liberal causes (say, the anti-war movement) tend to be at odds with those interests.

Thus, when conservative groups happen to be treated like liberal groups, the Washington Outrage Machine turns the noise up to 11 -- even though when liberal groups were targeted, that Outrage Machine remained dormant. And with today's national press corps reoriented around amplifying -- rather than challenging -- power, this double standard is then predictably reflected in a corresponding discrepancy in coverage.

Taken together, the lesson should be straightforward: according to Washington, politicized government is perfectly fine when it is punishing liberal forces that challenge the status quo, but totally outrageous when it is targeting conservative groups that preserve the status quo.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bus...30514-490.html
Well at least you are predictable ..........

Last edited by Pony Boy; 11-02-2013 at 06:27 PM..
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 01:27 PM   #116
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,339

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Lol. . .
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 01:27 PM   #117
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Well at least you are predictable ..........
Got nothing huh? figures..run along now and find another outrageous claim your whining party can cry about.

Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 01:29 PM   #118
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Pony, beavis and the rest of the righties..where was the outrage?

Bush Used the IRS, FBI, CIA and Secret Service to Go After Opponents -- Where Was the Fox and GOP Outrage?

As your kindergarten teacher probably told you, two wrongs do not make a right. But the discrepancy in reactions to wrongs does, indeed, show how Washington so often serves the interests of the political right.

That's one of the big -- if deliberately ignored -- takeaways from the reaction to news that the Internal Revenue Service allegedly targeting conservative organizations for extra scrutiny in their larger review of political groups' tax exempt status. In the last few days, the allegations have generated a wave of national headlines, a congressional investigation, federal legislation and ever-louder calls for impeachment.

Considering the gravity of the allegations against the Obama IRS from the Treasury Department's inspector general, congressional scrutiny is certainly warranted. However, there's just one problem: most of the lawmakers and pundits today decrying the use of public resources against a White House's political opponents had little -- if anything -- to say about equally troubling revelations about the Bush administration's deployment of public resources against its opponents. In fact, conservatives said so little back then that Fox News apparently doesn't even know (or is pretending not to know) the Bush administration used the IRS in the same way the Obama administration allegedly did.

And here's the even more incredible thing: the Bush cabal didn't just use the IRS for its political hackery -- it mounted a full-scale government-wide assault on its enemies, marshaling disparate agencies in its smear efforts.

Bush's use of the IRS was but one part of that larger assault. As my Salon colleague Alex Seitz-Wald notes today in greater detail, in 2005, Bush's IRS began what became an extensive two-year investigation into a Pasadena church after an orator dared to speak out against President Bush's Iraq War. Not coincidentally, the Los Angeles Times reports that the church targeted just so happened to be "one of Southern California's largest and most liberal congregations." That IRS church audit came a year after it launched a near-identical attack on the NAACP after the civil rights organization criticized various Bush administration policies.

That is not where the story ends, however. The Bush administration's crusade against its enemies moved from the IRS into the Secret Service.

Under the Republican president, that law enforcement agency was repeatedly deployed to physically block suspected antiwar activists from attending public presidential events. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, the scheme eventually targeted some peaceful antiwar activists for arrest for the alleged crime of "holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone" of free speech (yes, the Bush White House cemented the precedent that the right to dissent is no longer a fundamental right, but is instead only allowed in certain "free speech zones"). Ultimately, in a case dealing with a man who was arrested for simply telling Vice President Dick Cheney that his "policies on Iraq are disgusting," the Republican-dominated Supreme Court upheld the Bush administration's use of "retaliatory arrests" against the administration's ideological critics.

Then, in 2010, we learned that Bush's targeting operation was also operating inside the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Recounting findings from the Justice Department's Inspector General, the Washington Post reported that "the FBI improperly investigated some left-leaning U.S. advocacy groups after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks ... citing cases in which agents put activists on terrorist watch lists even though they were planning nonviolent civil disobedience."

A year later, we learned that along with the IRS, Secret Service and FBI, the Bush administration may have also been using the Central Intelligence Agency against its political enemies. As the New York Times reported, "A former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information" on prominent Iraq War critic Juan Cole. That story had an eerie similarity to the Bush administration's effort to out CIA operative Valerie Plame as retribution for her husband's criticism of that same war.

Unlike the noisy outrage that met today's allegations of IRS misconduct under President Obama, these earlier -- and well-documented -- revelations of systemic IRS, Secret Service, FBI and CIA misconduct were met with a collective shrug of the shoulders in Washington. Sure, a few newspapers wrote about them, and a few Democratic lawmakers tried to raise questions about the Bush administration's actions, but compared to today's sound and fury over the IRS allegations, there was veritable silence. Indeed, as alluded to before, so little outrage was voiced about this kind of thing during the Bush years that a Fox News' headline this week summarizing a Karl Rove interview blared: "What if IRS Under President Bush targeted liberal groups?" -- as if that never actually happened...even though it most certainly did.

What explains this obvious double standard in the reactions to Bush era and Obama era misconduct? Partisanship, expectations and ideological bias.

In terms of partisanship, Republicans now screaming bloody murder over the IRS allegations clearly don't care about the principles of equal protection, nonpartisan public services or impartial governance. We know this because most of them had nothing to say about the Bush administration's actions against the GOP's ideological opponents. In the context of that record, the GOP is really saying it is outraged when government resources are aimed at its friends, but more than happy to have those resources aimed at its enemies.

That context, though, hasn't been publicly referenced by most Democrats. Indeed, other than Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), most Democratic lawmakers have not dared to mention that the problem of politicized government goes back many years.

That gets to expectations and ideological bias -- simply put, the expectation in a Washington where both parties and most media outlets tilt to the right is that conservative groups should never be treated the same way liberal groups so often are. Why? Because conservative causes (say, the anti-tax movement) tend to be aligned with the interests of the transpartisan moneyed establishment while liberal causes (say, the anti-war movement) tend to be at odds with those interests.

Thus, when conservative groups happen to be treated like liberal groups, the Washington Outrage Machine turns the noise up to 11 -- even though when liberal groups were targeted, that Outrage Machine remained dormant. And with today's national press corps reoriented around amplifying -- rather than challenging -- power, this double standard is then predictably reflected in a corresponding discrepancy in coverage.

Taken together, the lesson should be straightforward: according to Washington, politicized government is perfectly fine when it is punishing liberal forces that challenge the status quo, but totally outrageous when it is targeting conservative groups that preserve the status quo.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bus...30514-490.html
Sirota's a serial exaggerationist, but even assuming everything he says is 100% true, how does that excuse the IRS's systematic exclusion of an entire political movement?

I could point out similar onesie-twosie stories to these from the Clinton administration as well. But then we'd further degenerate into what you're doing. Using the possibility of past wrongdoing to excuse the current (and far more widespread)

You do realize that your approach, left unchecked, would only lead to more and more brazen rounds of abuse next time.

For the record, I don't want my government involved in any of these kinds of things. The irony you're missing is that these are the same IRS hacks you guys are depending on to expand federal influence even further, even in effect becoming our neighborhood health police. The IRS shouldn't be monitoring speech at all to decide who does or doesn't get a cookie. It defies the meaning of the 1st amendment.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 01:36 PM   #119
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Sirota's a serial exaggerationist, but even assuming everything he says is 100% true, how does that excuse the IRS's systematic exclusion of an entire political movement?

I could point out similar onesie-twosie stories to these from the Clinton administration as well. But then we'd further degenerate into what you're doing. Using the possibility of past wrongdoing to excuse the current (and far more widespread)

You do realize that your approach, left unchecked, would only lead to more and more brazen rounds of abuse next time.
For the record, I don't want my government involved in any of these kinds of things. The irony you're missing is that these are the same IRS hacks you guys are depending on to expand federal influence even further, even in effect becoming our neighborhood health police. The IRS shouldn't be monitoring speech at all to decide who does or doesn't get a cookie. It defies the meaning of the 1st amendment.
Ok, if you wanna go down that road, then the GOP should also hold hearings on bush using the FBI as well don't you think?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 01:46 PM   #120
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Sirota's a serial exaggerationist, but even assuming everything he says is 100% true, how does that excuse the IRS's systematic exclusion of an entire political movement?

I could point out similar onesie-twosie stories to these from the Clinton administration as well. But then we'd further degenerate into what you're doing. Using the possibility of past wrongdoing to excuse the current (and far more widespread)

You do realize that your approach, left unchecked, would only lead to more and more brazen rounds of abuse next time.

For the record, I don't want my government involved in any of these kinds of things. The irony you're missing is that these are the same IRS hacks you guys are depending on to expand federal influence even further, even in effect becoming our neighborhood health police. The IRS shouldn't be monitoring speech at all to decide who does or doesn't get a cookie. It defies the meaning of the 1st amendment.
Exactly. Which is why turning this into a R vs. D thing is the height of imbecility. Thinking this will have any effect on the elections is the height of imbecility.

If you were truly serious about your stance on the things I bolded, you wouldn't be participating in that argument, you would be discussing how best to reform the current system to shield from further abuses, regardless of party.

But look at your posts. You're one of the ringleaders in the fingerpointing. Methinks you don't actually believe the way you want us to think you do.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 01:51 PM   #121
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Ok, if you wanna go down that road, then the GOP should also hold hearings on bush using the FBI as well don't you think?
Maybe. If it happened as described.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:00 PM   #122
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
If you were truly serious about your stance on the things I bolded, you wouldn't be participating in that argument, you would be discussing how best to reform the current system to shield from further abuses, regardless of party..
You kids are funny. One says we shouldn't comment at all until every fact is out on the table. The other says we should only talk about how to fix a problem we don't even fully understand yet because all the facts aren't out on the table.

I don't usually subscribe to the further-regulate-and-reform approach to this sort of thing. Government runs farthest amok when it is charged to do things it never should have been doing in the first place.

The mere fact that they have to ask "what kind of speech is tax exempt" is your first clue that something isn't quite right.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:07 PM   #123
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,339

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

CNN is reporting that they have identified two "rogue" employees who began this adventure after the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:11 PM   #124
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,253

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Mark my words,these so called "scandals" will amount to nothing but a political witch hunt.
peacepipe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 02:15 PM   #125
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You kids are funny. One says we shouldn't comment at all until every fact is out on the table. The other says we should only talk about how to fix a problem we don't even fully understand yet because all the facts aren't out on the table.

I don't usually subscribe to the further-regulate-and-reform approach to this sort of thing. Government runs farthest amok when it is charged to do things it never should have been doing in the first place.

The mere fact that they have to ask "what kind of speech is tax exempt" is your first clue that something isn't quite right.
Oh please...the righties are calling for impeachemnt. Quit being a drama queen.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:16 PM.


Denver Broncos