AWArulz
Scrapple
Level: 124
   
Posts: 3169/3908
EXP: 21576407
For next: 260255
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 2 days
| | | Y!: |  |
|
|  #1 Posted on 16.5.13 1453.38
Reposted on: 16.5.20 1454.34 | I have never been a President Obama fan, but in recent days, he has looked like a bit of a buffoon, even for him.
Benghazi - when did the whitehouse know it was terrorism and why did they seem to change their message about it, and why did they ignore and remove warnings?
AP -The DO grabs reporters phone records, first amendment stuff
IRS - we know, conservative groups couldn't get couldn't get non profit status and liberal groups could. Conservative groups were audited because their name met a criteria.
The Prez "fired" a guy who was leaving in two weeks anyway over this and the AG has recused himself from the AP thing.
Not to mention things like seemingly dropping the ball on that Tsarnaev character, the screwed up Operation Fast and Furious thing, and a few others.
Is this a President in his second term doing things now that he no longer needs to be re-elected, or just a series of coincidences of power abuse?
| Promote this thread! |             | wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 95
Posts: 2136/2190
EXP: 8614443
For next: 54195
Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX
Since last post: 2267 days
Last activity: 1251 days
| #2 Posted on 16.5.13 1526.51
Reposted on: 16.5.20 1528.34 | The Benghazi thing comes across as a whole lot of nothing to me. I don't get what I'm supposed to be outraged over. Editing talking points? Cause we should always use a first draft?
AP - not sure how I feel on this. Need more detail as to why they went looking for these particular phone records to know if it was justified or not. Just like I was kinda okay with the Patriot Act, I'm kinda okay with going after a leak if this is what their reasoning was.
IRS - Actually all of the groups did get their non-profit status, it was just delayed. Stupid move that was hopefully just the locals in Cincy. I can understand any group having a political sounding name being targeted for more scrutiny, that fits with what their job is. But clearly some idiots involved in this, though I have no clue why anyone should be pointing fingers at Obama for it. Nothing to do with him.
I think the conservatives need to be careful here. There are some legitimate concerns over this stuff, but by trying to pile on, link every bit of it to the President, add in as much as they can whether legit or not, it's going to look like a silly witch hunt more than anything.
| lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 128
Posts: 3299/4785
EXP: 24295656
For next: 86110
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1387 days
Last activity: 1225 days
| #3 Posted on 16.5.13 1556.04
Reposted on: 16.5.20 1556.29 | Its the GOP way of trying to get to Obama, because they can't beat him in the very legal elections. If you are an ambassador in the Middle East, you know the risks. I doubt two or three more guards would have made a difference. A lot of this is fog of war where no one knew what was going and said stupid things. It is sad Congress is more concerned with dead people who knew the risk than dead school kids.
The AP would concern me if I cared about the media and it didn't involve in national security.
Tea Party crying over being treated unfairly is just eye rolling. They also got their exemptions even if its a corporate entity.
| CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 237
Posts: 15426/17652
EXP: 207788515
For next: 190725
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #4 Posted on 16.5.13 1643.41
Reposted on: 16.5.20 1647.25 | I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Republicans aren't worried about losing to President Obama in any future elections.
I think what grabs me the most about Benghazi is the fact that Jay Carney could probably actually come out and say "yes, we covered it up, the 'protesting a video' was a complete fabrication and we knew it, we were concerned about how our re-election chances might be affected if it got out that a terrorist attack occurred on US soil on the anniversary of 9/11 under this administration's watch" and really, what would anybody do about it? The lapdog press would probably give the administration a pass...
...up until this AP story came out. NOW, the press is much less inclined to take it, getting increasingly hostile and saying "Nixonian" a whole lot more. And yet...do the American people care about this stuff? Certainly not a majority of them, I think. That's a pity, but no more a pity than all the other serious cases of the American people not giving a rip about things which are even more important than this - and the abuse of power by this administration is admittedly pretty low on the importance scale, since "everybody does it."
On the other hand, repeated attempts to convince the public that this administration would be "the most transparent in history" should be rightfully laughed off, quickly.
The IRS thing is only interesting to me in that it allows people (or me!) to ask "hey, how many of these things do we need to hear about before we settle on it as a trend/pattern/standard operating procedure for this administration?" But, again - even if that's the case, do enough people even care? What's the next step?
President Obama won't be impeached, and there's nothing here for him to resign over. I DO happen to think Benghazi accountability could have been exploited by the Romney campaign IN 2012, but they failed to find a way to explain it in a way that would resonate (and a complicit press was willing to take the administration's story at face value), so that's on them. It WOULD be nice if someone owned up to bungling the response, but let's not hold our breath - although I think if Hillary runs in 2016, this will still be something valid to bring up against her. I can see the "What does it even matter?" ads now...oh boy!
(Now, having said all that, someone be sure to save this post so years from now we can come back and laugh at me - or acknowledge my foresight - or both!) | Scottyflamingo
Bratwurst
Level: 75
Posts: 1406/1423
EXP: 3692508
For next: 134413
Since: 23.6.10
From: Auburn, AL
Since last post: 3610 days
Last activity: 3339 days
| #5 Posted on 16.5.13 2135.02
Reposted on: 16.5.20 2138.03 | | The AP stuff seems the most likely to do damage. I mean, how is it any different than Watergate? Plus that is messing with the press and they have been a huge ally of the President. They turn on him and he better hope there are no more Fast and Furious type incidents out there. | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1511/1777
EXP: 6453226
For next: 197464
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 158 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #6 Posted on 17.5.13 0132.07
Reposted on: 17.5.20 0136.33 | Originally posted by CRZ
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Republicans aren't worried about losing to President Obama in any future elections.
I think what grabs me the most about Benghazi is the fact that Jay Carney could probably actually come out and say "yes, we covered it up, the 'protesting a video' was a complete fabrication and we knew it, we were concerned about how our re-election chances might be affected if it got out that a terrorist attack occurred on US soil on the anniversary of 9/11 under this administration's watch" and really, what would anybody do about it? The lapdog press would probably give the administration a pass...
Funny, what strikes ME most is that the lapdog press has been making a mountain out of a bunch of completely false accusations. The whole thing about the White House changing the talking points has been COMPLETELY disproved, but it's still been a big story.
A Republican President has to have a MUCH, MUCH worse scandal to get the same level of press scrutiny. The Bush White House actually fired prosecutors for not bringing politically motivated prosecutions against Democrats, and it took ages to get anywhere near the level of coverage that the IRS thing is getting. | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 128
Posts: 3301/4785
EXP: 24295656
For next: 86110
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1387 days
Last activity: 1225 days
| #7 Posted on 17.5.13 0239.39
Reposted on: 17.5.20 0240.13 | Here is the thing about Fast and the Furious, Arizona has shit gun laws. It is almost impossible to convict anyone on illegal possession and the Cartels know this. The whistle blowers turned out to be rather shitty in their job and acted without orders. Yet were smart enough to go TV and say its someone else's fault ie Obama.
So, if Congress were to actually pass tough gun laws, we would end up having fewer dead DEA agents. It won't happen instead we will only get some bullshit immigration bill, because the GOP has to kiss Latino ass or never see the Presidency or Senate again. And yet, the GOP will use it to bash Obama in some way, because they have no desire to govern while he is in charge. | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 141
Posts: 5061/5284
EXP: 33979207
For next: 140891
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 1381 days
Last activity: 1381 days
| #8 Posted on 17.5.13 1019.06
Reposted on: 17.5.20 1020.00 | Originally posted by Scottyflamingo
The AP stuff seems the most likely to do damage. I mean, how is it any different than Watergate?
Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in. So far, there is no proof that Obama ordered the seizure of the AP records. | wannaberockstar
Frankfurter
Level: 61
Posts: 518/745
EXP: 1791483
For next: 85124
Since: 7.3.02
Since last post: 2441 days
Last activity: 151 days
| #9 Posted on 17.5.13 1048.56
Reposted on: 17.5.20 1048.59 | The Benghazi issue is bogus to begin with, considering the Republicans - including some of the leading voices on the "scandal" - denied funding that would go towards security at the embassy.
The IRS thing is really no connection to the Obama administration and might have not even happened had the Republicans not continued to block the nominees to head the division. Besides, considering the number of groups aligned with the tea party that are pushing anti-tax measures (along with the continued disaster that is Citizens United, can you blame them).
And, not that it makes it any better, but can the Republicans really cry foul when they did the same thing under Bush to liberal groups?
As for the AP issue, considering President Obama has called for the re-instatement of the Shield law, what is the problem there.
I think the bigger issue that should be asked - at the very least by the media - is why are the Republicans continuing to not do anything substantial? Oh, wait, I'm sorry - I guess bringing up a symbolic vote to repeal 'Obamacare' for the 37th time is something. | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong
Level: 88
Posts: 1512/1777
EXP: 6453226
For next: 197464
Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 158 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #10 Posted on 17.5.13 1207.15
Reposted on: 17.5.20 1209.53 | Originally posted by Zeruel
Originally posted by Scottyflamingo
The AP stuff seems the most likely to do damage. I mean, how is it any different than Watergate?
Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in. So far, there is no proof that Obama ordered the seizure of the AP records.
Also, Watergate was getting information from the opposing party in an attempt to get a partisan advantage; the AP thing is getting information from a media outlet in an attempt to investigate a leak. In what way are they similar? | Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni
Level: 72
Posts: 985/1117
EXP: 3265331
For next: 58447
Since: 27.6.02
Since last post: 3220 days
Last activity: 443 days
| #11 Posted on 17.5.13 1523.49
Reposted on: 17.5.20 1524.51 | As reported by CBS This Morning - Apparently some Republican Congress people CAN do something, if that something is altering quotes from emails RE: Bhengazi fed to reporters in an attempt to make the Obama Administration look bad.
(edited by Mike Zeidler on 20.5.13 0412) | Amos Cochran
Lap cheong
Level: 79
Posts: 1206/1568
EXP: 4404160
For next: 175327
Since: 28.8.09
Since last post: 3081 days
Last activity: 3081 days
|  #12 Posted on 20.5.13 0334.34
Reposted on: 20.5.20 0334.36 | | I'm kind of confused by the IRS scandal here. You've got large groups whose sole aim is to shout about how they don't want to pay taxes, and so the IRS is putting them under more scrutiny than other groups which don't shout about they don't want to pay taxes. Why is this considered a scandal? | Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni
Level: 72
Posts: 989/1117
EXP: 3265331
For next: 58447
Since: 27.6.02
Since last post: 3220 days
Last activity: 443 days
| #13 Posted on 20.5.13 0413.17
Reposted on: 20.5.20 0414.28 | | Especially when they're applying for tax-exempt status. | wannaberockstar
Frankfurter
Level: 61
Posts: 519/745
EXP: 1791483
For next: 85124
Since: 7.3.02
Since last post: 2441 days
Last activity: 151 days
| #14 Posted on 20.5.13 0945.39
Reposted on: 20.5.20 0947.05 | | Especially when not one of them was denied anything. | Downtown Bookie
Morcilla
Level: 57
Posts: 643/653
EXP: 1467174
For next: 18763
Since: 7.4.02
From: USA
Since last post: 2156 days
Last activity: 1846 days
| #15 Posted on 21.5.13 1730.47
Reposted on: 21.5.20 1730.53 | IRS official Lerner refuses to testify before Congress (news.yahoo.com)
Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner, who leads the exempt organizations division under scrutiny for targeting conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status, is refusing to testify before Congress, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Not what I personally would expect from an open and transparent government; but it should be noted that a refusal to testify does not mean that one is guilty. However, I believe that it is fair to state that Ms. Lerner's refusal to answer questions under oath more than suggests that the issues being investigated are not easily hand waved away, despite what others may state (or hope).
For those interested, the full LA Times article is available here (latimes.com).
DB | lotjx
Scrapple
Level: 128
Posts: 3311/4785
EXP: 24295656
For next: 86110
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1387 days
Last activity: 1225 days
| #16 Posted on 21.5.13 1741.12
Reposted on: 21.5.20 1745.42 | Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
IRS official Lerner refuses to testify before Congress (news.yahoo.com)
Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner, who leads the exempt organizations division under scrutiny for targeting conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status, is refusing to testify before Congress, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Not what I personally would expect from an open and transparent government; but it should be noted that a refusal to testify does not mean that one is guilty. However, I believe that it is fair to state that Ms. Lerner's refusal to answer questions under oath more than suggests that the issues being investigated are not easily hand waved away, despite what others may state (or hope).
For those interested, the full LA Times article is available here (latimes.com).
DB
Or she doesn't want to be part of this nothing circus. Yeah, why are the Tea Party exempt why is any party tax exempt is the real scandal. | AWArulz
Scrapple
Level: 124
Posts: 3172/3908
EXP: 21576407
For next: 260255
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 2 days
| | | Y!: | |
|
| #17 Posted on 21.5.13 1934.41
Reposted on: 21.5.20 1938.01 | I believe that if you were any sort of organization asking for status as a NPO you should have a reasonable expectation of status being granted or denied within a reasonable time. Liberal or conservative.
but this report: http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.html
says
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax‑exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.
Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months. This was due to delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some for more than three years and crossing two election cycles).
More than 20 months after the initial case was identified, processing the cases began in earnest. Many organizations received requests for additional information from the IRS that included unnecessary, burdensome questions (e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS later informed some organizations that they did not need to provide previously requested information. IRS officials stated that any donor information received in response to a request from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.
-----------------------------
The fact that none were "denied" is irrelevant. Unreasonable delay (Especially while others were not being delayed. -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/
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.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
| drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 126
Posts: 3923/4035
EXP: 22514400
For next: 569767
Since: 22.4.02
From: New Hampshire
Since last post: 471 days
Last activity: 55 days
| | ICQ: |  |
| | Y!: |  |
|
| #18 Posted on 21.5.13 2139.12
Reposted on: 21.5.20 2139.33 | | Liberal groups were also being targeted as well, and some had their non-profit status denied. The best theory I've heard so far is that they were making shit up as they went along, in the absence of any direction as to how to handle the whole "political activity" question. Far from an abuse of power (because we all know he's really concentrating on HAARP lol jk). | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 141
Posts: 5067/5284
EXP: 33979207
For next: 140891
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 1381 days
Last activity: 1381 days
| #19 Posted on 23.5.13 0007.24
Reposted on: 23.5.20 0007.32 | My GF and I were talking about this IRS thing during dinner. According to her, she just got her Masters in Public Administration, these organizations (501(c)(4)) do not need to file with the IRS. They can if they want to, but there is no requirement to do it.
Also, electioneering (politics) can not be their primary focus. So, by filing when they didn't have to and using politically charged names, they opened themselves up to undue scrutiny. | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 105
Posts: 2662/2743
EXP: 12174972
For next: 87328
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 2051 days
Last activity: 1953 days
| #20 Posted on 23.5.13 0621.00
Reposted on: 23.5.20 0621.55 | Originally posted by Zeruel
My GF and I were talking about this IRS thing during dinner. According to her, she just got her Masters in Public Administration, these organizations (501(c)(4)) do not need to file with the IRS. They can if they want to, but there is no requirement to do it.
Also, electioneering (politics) can not be their primary focus. So, by filing when they didn't have to and using politically charged names, they opened themselves up to undue scrutiny.
You have got to quit using facts. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
