ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [258] -- Scandalpalooza!

[ Posted Friday, May 17th, 2013 – 16:31 PDT ]

Things have gotten so bad in Washington that both pundits and Republicans are beginning to use the "N-word" to describe the president. No, no... not that N-word! Instead, Obama is now actively being compared to Nixon. This comparison is patently...

...WE INTERRUPT THIS COLUMN FOR BREAKING NEWS -- We here at FTP News Network have obtained exclusive before-and-after photos of Angelina Jolie's breasts! In these side-by-side shots, the viewer can easily see the transformation of two of the most famous breasts on the planet. As the camera zooms in and pans around our 3-D representation, we will utter pious thoughts on cancer screening which you won't pay the slightest attention to. Later, we'll have our resident nipple expert in to discuss what you're seeing now...

Sheesh. Now, before anyone gets too irate, allow me to state that the preceding paragraph is (1) entirely fictional -- we have no exclusive shots of anyone's breasts, sorry; and (2) intended to satirize the media's take on any news item with the word "breast" in it -- and not Angelina Jolie, Angelina Jolie's breasts, breast cancer, any cancer, cancer screening, or medical decisions by anyone.

Seriously, consider that there is one medical procedure which gets shown on television in pretty much any breast story: mammogram images. Are pale silhouettes of any other body part ever routinely shown on television news, for any reason? I don't recall any testicular cancer or prostate cancer stories with such graphics, personally. Nor X-rays displayed after a story about someone getting injured. Not only are the mammogram images seemingly mandatory, but television news will also gratuitously throw in an image of a woman undergoing the procedure, just for kicks. What woman really wants a video of her boobs getting squashed by a machine to be on the news, after all? This was all on full display this week with the Angelina Jolie story, complete with CGI shots of (you just can't make this stuff up) how "the nipples were saved."

Am I the only one who has noticed this? Seems like there'd be a cries of "blatant sexism!" but if there have been, I guess I haven't noticed.

But back to the political news. Scandal! Scandal! Scandal! That's the type of week it's been, and the only way to see a silver lining is to point out that if you're going to have several scandals erupt, you might as well schedule them all for the same week -- because Washington reporters are infamous for not being able to follow more than one story at a time. When the reporters hit "scandal overload," then just imagine how the rest of the country feels.

For instance, while there really have been at least four scandals this week, the media have mostly focused on only three. None of these (Republican bloviating aside) have risen to the Nixonian level, but all have certainly been grist for the mill this week. Here are my snap judgments as to how all three scandals will play out (the fourth one I'll deal with in a minute...).

First, Benghazi. The "scandal" this week was based on some emails Republicans leaked to the media. The White House countered by releasing the actual text of the emails, which showed that the Republicans had lied to the press by significantly editing the text. This continues their long tradition of hyping the "scandal," and it truly seems like nobody outside the Fox News universe is even paying attention anymore. This "scandal" isn't going to impact Obama much (if it were going to, it already would have -- and it has not), but the target has now shifted to tarnishing Hillary Clinton in pre-emptive fashion. So expect to hear a lot more about Benghazi, with little in the way of actual news contained within. Benghazi will remain the Republican "go-to" scandal for years, when they can't dig up anything else.

Second, the IRS. Obama moved pretty quickly on this one, and his damage control may indeed work. This scandal was the easiest one to fix, when it gets right down to it. Two IRS leaders have already been cashiered, and they likely won't be the last ones to get their walking papers. Fire those responsible in any way (all the way up and down the chain of command), institute strict rules so it cannot happen again, and the scandal goes away. That's assuming there isn't some sort of "other shoe to drop" in terms of the known facts, of course, but so far this scandal looks like the one which won't go much further after the initial outrage.

Third, the AP phone records to identify leaks. This scandal may generate more outrage than the other ones, because the press was the target. Whenever the press is the target of governmental overreach, they tend to close ranks and defend their own. So this scandal will be the only one without the taint of partisanship, really. The Republicans' hands are somewhat tied on this one, because they themselves demanded aggressive investigation over the leaks when they happened. So it'll be hard for them to say they're shocked that the Justice Department did exactly what they demanded, in the end. The White House damage control on this one is just getting going, after a rather pathetic appearance by Attorney General Eric Holder before a congressional committee (which, bizarrely, involved asparagus... more on this at the end). Now the White House seems to have pivoted to arguing the case on its merits -- making the case of how dire this leak was to national security, and how irresponsible it was for the media to have reported on it. This isn't going to make them friends in the media, but it may convince the public. Of all the scandals, this is the toughest to predict the outcome -- again, because the outrage is mostly going to come from the media itself.

Whew! If all this is just too much scandal for you to contemplate (and if you thought my anti-mammogram rant was too prudish), well, there was always the video of Barbara Walters donning a Playboy bunny costume for distraction (it's a very, very old clip, we should mention, when Walters was first starting out in the business). Bunny dip, anyone?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Alas, we're not done yet with Scandalpalooza Week. Because the story that kind of got ignored this week was a second military man getting charged with sexual impropriety when his job was supposed to be policing sexual propriety in the ranks.

The magnitude of this brings to mind two acronyms from the military world: SNAFU and FUBAR. Think about it: not only is the military incapable of preventing or policing sexual assaults, they are incapable of doing so within the units responsible for doing so. That's beyond incompetent, really.

President Obama had all the military big brass over for a chat about the situation, and by his report, they're all feeling pretty bad about the state of things. But you know what? That's really not good enough. Imagine if Obama had taken the same route with the military as he just took with the IRS. Start firing people from the top down. Or, if they cannot be fired for some reason, then (at the very least) assign some generals the important duty of moving to Antarctica to protect penguins from Russian ICBMs. For the rest of their military careers.

Think a few actions of this type would change things in a hurry over at the Pentagon? I do. If it doesn't, then start working your way down the chain of command. That penguin defense base can grow to be as big as necessary, really.

Hmmph.

One Democrat is really getting out in front of this issue, and for doing so Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Gillibrand, along with a few other senators (such as Barbara Boxer), introduced a bill to remove any decisions regarding punishment for sexual assaults from the military chain of command. No longer would a Colonel or a Major be able to wave a magic wand and erase a conviction for rape from a soldier's record. This is such a basic reform it is stunning that it hasn't already happened. The Pentagon doesn't like it, because it reduces the power commanding officers have, but you know what? Tough. Tough biscuits. This power is so obviously being misused that it is time to remove it altogether.

For taking a giant step in the direction of fixing the Pentagon's lackadaisical attitude towards rape and other sexual crimes, and for such a commonsense solution, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand more than deserves the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week. More power to you, Senator Gillibrand.

[Congratulate Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

While it might seem that there would be a lot of disappointment to choose from in such a scandal-plagued week, it's actually hard to identify anyone bearing responsibility for the "big three" scandals.

The IRS scandal involved non-partisan employees, for the most part. The presidentially-appointed head of the IRS has already been fired, and he wasn't exactly "a Democrat" to begin with, from all reports. Eric Holder would seem to be a logical choice over at the Justice Department, but he recused himself from the decision to grab the AP phone records, and we've already suggested once this week that it might be time for him to go, just on general principles. Benghazi has always been a "scandal" and not a real scandal, if you know what I mean.

I could give Obama the award for his rather timid "let's give the Joint Chiefs more time to solve the problem" attitude on rape in the military, but we'll see whether he gets behind Gillibrand's bill first.

There's always Harry Reid, of course, who just announced that he (yet again) made another "mistake" by not changing filibuster rules when he had the chance earlier this year -- even though he had made the same "mistake" two years ago. Now, apparently, he's talking tough about maybe using the "nuclear option" in a month or two. Yawn. Wake me when he caves (yet again), someone.

Instead, we're going to fall back on a story with no national importance, but which is about as disappointing as you can get. South Carolina state lawmaker Ted Vick has been charged with drunk driving, on the grounds of the statehouse, no less. Normally, a drunk driving arrest wouldn't rise to the level of a MDDOTW, but almost exactly a year ago we let Ted off the hook with only a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, because (as we wrote back in FTP [212]):

Vick was arrested for suspected drunken driving and speeding. Oh, and he had a handgun in his pocket. And by the way, a 21-year-old college student was reportedly in the car with him, because he had "offered the student a ride home" -- after he met her at a local bar.

Second time's the charm, Ted. You have more than earned this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, in fact. You quite obviously need some sort of help, and we hope that you get it soon.

[Contact South Carolina state Representative Ted Vick via his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 258 (5/17/13)

In such a scandaliferous week, our talking points are mostly going to be playing defense this time around. Although there are a few at the end which I threw in just to lighten things up. But before we get there, we've got to slog through the scandals, so let's just get on with it, shall we?

 

1
   Rolling, rolling, rolling...

We'll start with the best damage control from the White House all week.

"In the case of the IRS, the scandal was exposed by the Treasury Department's internal investigation, and President Obama has taken immediate action in firing people from the top down at the agency. Two heads have already rolled as a result of Obama's quick action. And it's entirely likely that a few more people at the IRS will soon be 'spending time with their families,' as they say in Washington. The IRS situation was indeed a scandal, but so far it looks like it is already well on its way to being fixed, and I have to credit the president for doing so. There was no coverup, there was no sweeping it under a rug, the report was publicly released and punitive action swiftly followed."

 

2
   Nixon reforms worked (backwards)

Again, with the "N-word."

"I see that some are comparing President Obama with Richard Nixon in the IRS scandal, which is laughably wrong -- at least from the information that has so far surfaced. Yes, Nixon did use the IRS for revenge on his perceived political enemies. When it came to light, reforms were put in place. One of those reforms is that if the White House has anything to say to anyone at the IRS, they have to direct their communications through the Treasury Secretary's office -- they are not allowed to contact the IRS in any other way. This wall of separation was installed to prevent political misuse of the agency. It was put in place to make the IRS almost completely independent of the White House, to protect the IRS from political interference. This reform actually worked, although it worked in the other direction than intended. Instead of protecting the IRS from political interference from the White House, it instead isolated the White House from the political shenanigans which took place within the IRS. It's ironic, when you think about it. But that's the only connection to how Nixon abused the agency, sorry."

 

3
   Investigate Benghazi lies!

Here's another one to turn around.

"The Republican Party has adamantly decried all the lying about Benghazi for over half a year now. So I find it mysterious that they're not outraged over what happened last week. Emails were leaked to reporters which were false -- they were, in fact, lies -- about Benghazi and the talking points. I find it rather telling that no Republicans have called for investigating these lies, and no Republicans are denouncing this misinformation from government sources to the media. Perhaps this is because those doing the lying were in Republican congressional offices? The more we hear from Republicans on Benghazi, the more the naked partisanship shows. Can anyone now doubt that this is only about scoring partisan points?"

 

4
   Tie it to promotion

Gillibrand's bill doesn't really go far enough, the more I think about all those poor, vulnerable penguins....

"I appreciate the fact that President Obama is taking the problem of rape and sexual assault in the military seriously, but I have my doubts about how seriously the Pentagon is taking the situation. So why not hit them where it hurts? For any officer up for any type of promotion, create an explicit review of how many sexual assaults and other problems occurred under that officer's command. Too high a rate? No promotion. Those with the highest rates in their military branch should be transferred to the most remote dead-end postings available, or demoted, or even discharged. The head of the IRS was just fired because he was ultimately responsible for what happened on his watch. Any private corporation would fire the boss of any department with an obvious sexual assault problem. The military is supposed to set the gold standard for accountability and taking responsibility for those under any officer's command. So why not hold these officers responsible? You want to change the culture in the military overnight? Send some officers to Antarctica to count penguins. I bet that would do it."

 

5
   National Privacy Association?

This one is just wishful thinking, unfortunately.

"In seeing how much time and energy the Justice Department puts into wiretapping and searching reporters' phone data -- to say nothing of such efforts against those who aren't journalists -- I find myself wishing that there were an organization devoted to the Fourth Amendment in the same way the National Rifle Association was dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. Maybe America needs a National Privacy Association, what do you think?"

 

6
   Why voting matters

The ultimate argument for the importance of voting, really.

"Christina Mercado just won an election to a school board in Texas by a margin of one vote this week. What is truly astounding, though, is that the vote that put Mercado over the top was, in fact, the only vote cast in the race for any candidate. Her opponent didn't even bother to vote, apparently. Kids, there's a lesson here: your vote is important! Don't forget to vote -- especially when you are a candidate yourself -- because your vote may well be the one that makes all the difference!"

 

7
   Questioning my quiche! Denigrating my dumplings!

Amazingly enough, that wasn't the most bizarre story of the week.

"I'd like to take this opportunity to ask what in the heck Republican Representative Louie Gohmert was alluding to during the appearance of Eric Holder in front of his committee. Gohmert was upset that Holder was, and I quote, casting aspersions on my asparagus. Unquote. Um, aspersions? On his asparagus? Now, I can usually decode what Republicans are saying or at least trying to say, but I have to admit I've watched the video a number of times, and I am still completely stumped on this one. Maybe Holder said something nasty about Britney Spears, and Gohmert just misinterpreted it? OK, I apologize, that was a pretty bad pun, but still -- can anyone tell me what Gohmert was thinking? Anyone?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

98 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [258] -- Scandalpalooza!”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: the Pentagon and rape -- first, I am a female and a feminist and I certainly do not condone rape, period. But every time I see a report (and they come out periodically) about rape in the military I think about what the military is, and what get's done to people who enlist.

    I read an interesting book recently called Soul Repair: Recovering from Moral Injury after War, written about the kind of psychological / spiritual damage that soldiers experience after combat. Per the book, Army Leaders concluded after WW II that something had to be done about the fact that a very large percentage of soldiers avoided killing the enemy -- could not bring themselves to look at people and shoot them. So the Army instituted the training, used now, that turns soldiers into robot-like beings who literally shoot first, then think about whether they should have later. The kill reflex is ground in and becomes automatic. But the price is paid later as soldiers come home and begin to face up to things they've done.

    My point is that when barbarism is deliberately, expertly inculcated in people, how can we be surprised that barbaric acts, like rape, take place?

    Frankly, it is not clear to me whether soldiers can be fully responsible for their actions -- in my view they've been systematically broken and then rebuilt into not-quite-humans. In particular, those who have served in these conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan -- many enduring multiple tours.

    At the same time, the military creates the perfect cover for people who might well perform such acts anyway, or who might have that latent potential sparked by the environment or by the experiences they've had.

    The military, after all, is all about violence. They dress it up by painting the violence as "justified" (our violence is good, the enemy's violence is bad) but in the end, it's violence. They blast away the layers of restraint that most of us have, (combinations of nature and nurture) and then pretend they can reverse-engineer the results. (I expect they know perfectly well that it can't be done, but if they admitted that people might have doubts about the wisdom of such things and we can't have that, can we?)

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a lot of people hear nixon, think watergate and don't go any further. as i understand world events, nixon is more responsible for winning the cold war than any other president, reagan included.

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula -

    I had to do an emergency edit to your comment, as you left out a rather important "not" in your first sentence. I didn't think you'd mind...

    nypoet22 -

    Just saw a recap (40th anniv!) of Watergate with both MacNeil and Lehrer on tonight's News Hour. Yeah, Nixon did some stuff (he created the EPA and the signed the Clean Air/Clean Water Acts, probably the biggest environmental step forward of any president, period), but then again, he was still Nixon...

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    Thanks Chris!

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    "In the case of the IRS, the scandal was exposed by the Treasury Department's internal investigation, and President Obama has taken immediate action in firing people from the top down at the agency. Two heads have already rolled as a result of Obama's quick action. And it's entirely likely that a few more people at the IRS will soon be 'spending time with their families,' as they say in Washington. The IRS situation was indeed a scandal, but so far it looks like it is already well on its way to being fixed, and I have to credit the president for doing so. There was no coverup, there was no sweeping it under a rug, the report was publicly released and punitive action swiftly followed."

    Let's be fair here..

    The "firing" of the head guy is ludicrous. The guy was leaving the job next week anyways.

    And these "firings" are much like the firings over Benghazi. Those people weren't fired. They were simply moved over to HIGHER paying jobs...

    So, Obama hasn't done dick over the IRS's targeting of conservative groups... Hell, they lady that was in charge of the group has already received a promotion to head the IRS Section on ObamaCare AKA TrainWreck Care...

    Further, this targeting of conservative groups was known by the top IRS people a year ago!!!!

    It's simply outside the realm of possibility that someone in the White House did not know about this.. It's as I said before. If Obama didn't know, he SHOULD have known...

    Further, I find it interesting that Obama hasn't DENIED that anyone in the White House knew about the targeting of Conservative groups by the IRS...

    Finally, I have to admit that ya'all amaze me once again...

    If someone would have told me that a group of die-hard dyed in the wool progressives and liberals would defend an administration that has targeted Americans for extra-judicial execution without ANY due process whatsoever, that would defend an administration who has expanded extra-legal wiretappings to unheard of heights, that would defend an administration whose IRS had targeted and intimidated political opponents of said administration...

    If anyone had told me 5 years ago that ya'all would defend such an administration, I would have told them that they were completely and unequivocally nuts!!

    And yet.. Here we are.. Ya'all are staunchly defending an administration who has done all that and more...

    It simply boggles the mind...

    Doesn't any of that bother anyone at all???

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    but then again, he was still Nixon...

    Lemme ask ya this CW (and anyone else who wants to chime in..)

    What did Nixon do that was so bad?? Although I don't think Nixon deserves more credit than Reagan for winning the cold war, Nixon DID do a lot of good things...

    So, what did Nixon do that really was so bad??

    And, when you answer that, compare and contrast what you think Nixon did to what Obama has done..

    You might find yourself unpleasantly surprised at how much Nixon's actions and Obama's actions parallel.

    The same actions with the same motivations..

    The acquisition and the continuation of power..

    From where an objective person sits (that's me) there isn't much daylight between Nixon and Obama...

    Again, I have to marvel at David's point from a while back..

    Considering a lot of Obama's actions, he SHOULD be my favorite POTUS ever! :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh grrrrrrr.....

    CW, ya mind????

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    LewDan wrote:

    CW,

    You should have done an emergency edit and added the scare quotes each of the other three "scandals" deserve. Not one is an actual issue! The farce that is Benghazi and its nonsensical assertions that who knew, and said, what in the first week somehow had some impact on both the past (four dead Americans!) and the future (Obama's reelection months later) is, to everyone but Republicans, self-evidently a smear campaign.

    The insistence that the IRS investigating political groups who are claiming tax-exemptions based on NOT being political groups is partisan(?!) intimidation, (even though no one was denied an exemption) because these non-political social welfare groups were targeted for their political affiliations sets a new standard for patently absurd faux outrage doublespeak, even for Republicans! Apparently you can only investigate political groups who may be committing tax-fraud by claiming to be non-political if you don't pay any attention to their politics?!

    Then there's the insistence that just because someone likely committed treason by providing classified information that compromised a national security counter-terrorist operation, outed an undercover agent, and jeopardized the life of both the agent and his family, is no reason for Justice to actually investigate journalists, do to their being super-citizens with a Constitutionally protected right to receive stolen information, use intellectual property owned by the U.S. for their own gain, and give aid and comfort to our enemies anytime they see fit. Because the first amendment absolutely guarantees all these things (apparently written in invisible ink) to "journalists" while immunizing them from anything as mundane as "the law," which is clearly reserved for poor people and the unincorporated. Obviously government has no right to investigate treasonous acts just because they jeopardize lives, if the sovereignty of media conglomerates must be compromised

    And for your forth "scandal" you should award yourself a MDDOT! While an officer arrested for sexual impropriety while charged with prosecuting it for the military is a juicy headline, there is no actual linkage, to say nothing of the supposed presumption of innocence? This may, one day, actually be a "scandal." But, right now, it isn't.

    Apparently we no longer substitute Republican talking points for news, we now define news as whatever will make good Republican talking points. Necessary spin, innuendo, misinformation, false equivalency, and hypocrisy notwithstanding. It only adds insult to injury to elevate "journalists" reporting this crap above the law when they've collectively become nothing more than sensationalist propagandists whose only journalism is yellow journalism.

  9. [9] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Bull!! Nixon broke the law. Then broke it again trying to cover it up. And in spite of four years determined effort on the part of Republicans they've been unable to find any laws Obama has broken. Sure, they claim, everything he's ever done has been illegal! But if they had even a shred of actual evidence they'd be voting to impeach for the 37th time! Actual, proven law-breaking only equates to Republican smear campaigns in the minds of people who simply want them to, and don't particularly care if they really do or not.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bull!! Nixon broke the law. Then broke it again trying to cover it up.

    And the same is likely true of Obama... Many times over..

    And in spite of four years determined effort on the part of Republicans they've been unable to find any laws Obama has broken.

    The available evidence to date surely indicates that laws were broken.. The fact that it can't be PROVED is not because Obama is completely innocent but rather because Obama and his minions have thwarted every investigation at every turn..

    Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence...

    But if they had even a shred of actual evidence they'd be voting to impeach for the 37th time!

    I am constrained to point out that Democrats have also pushed for Impeachment as well.. At least one has...

    Don't tell me, let me guess.. He is not a "REAL" Democrat, right?? :D

    To be honest, he is likely more of a REAL Democrat than the sheeps that have supported Obama in being more Bush than Bush....

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not one is an actual issue!

    Of course not..

    But ONLY because the POTUS has a '-D' after his name..

    If the POTUS had a '-R' after his name, these scandals would be the most important thing since sliced bread..

    Don't bother denying it because EVERYONE here knows it to be true...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Coalition for Life of Iowa found itself in the IRS’s crosshairs when the group applied for tax exempt status in October 2008. Nearly ten months of interrogation about the group’s opposition to Planned Parenthood included a demand by a Ms. Richards from the IRS’ Cincinnati office unlawfully insisted that all board members sign a sworn declaration promising not to picket/protest Planned Parenthood. Further questioning by the IRS requested detailed information about the content of the group’s prayer meetings, educational seminars, and signs their members hold outside Planned Parenthood.

    Ya'all are on board with this!!????

    SERIOUSLY??

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    db wrote:

    Michale,

    Once again (still) you're getting it backwards. It's not about being able to picket Planned Parenthood, NPR, or local funerals. It's doing so while holding Tax-exempt status. They're using your & my tax dollars to.....

    Deep breath. I promised CW not to rant on the issue.

    Change of subject.

    As I understand the story from a few weeks ago the AF(?) Col. in charge of stopping sexual harassment got drunk & sexually harassed someone.

    I do not view this as a sexual harassment issue as much as a drunk issue. Is there any amount of training or teaching, penalties or punishment, that can control the actions of someone who is drunk? Is the outrage here mis-aimed?

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again (still) you're getting it backwards. It's not about being able to picket Planned Parenthood, NPR, or local funerals. It's doing so while holding Tax-exempt status. They're using your & my tax dollars to.....

    I have already proved that false, because they didn't question the tax-exempt status of PROGRESSIVE or LIBERAL groups..

    But, let's run with your position..

    Let's say it was ALL about the tax-exempt status..

    Could you please explain WHY the IRS had to know the prayers of a group to determine whether or not they should have tax-exempt status??

    Why would they have to have family information to determine tax-exempt status??

    No matter how ya'all want to spin this, this scandal had absolutely NOTHING to do with tax-exempt status and EVERYTHING to do with political ideological discrimination.

    Pure and simple...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not about being able to picket Planned Parenthood, NPR, or local funerals. It's doing so while holding Tax-exempt status. They're using your & my tax dollars to.....

    Can you show me the reg that states a person cannot picket or boycott while holding tax-exempt status??

    How many LEFT Wing tax-exempt groups picket and boycott??

    Are you SURE you want to put your eggs in that basket??

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    an organization's purpose of preserving and protecting the environment is charitable within the meaning of IRC 501(c)(3). Therefore, if such
    activities as economic boycotts, mass demonstrations, and picketing, etc., further the purposes of the organization and are not illegal, contrary to public policy, or in conflict with express statutory restrictions or limitations, they will not preclude
    IRC 501(c)(3) exemption.

    -IRS Manual On Illegal Activities Of Tax-Exempt Groups..

    Let's face the facts people..

    These groups were persecuted for NO OTHER REASON than their political ideology and their opposition to the Left's One True Savior...

    PERIOD...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW-

    There was a fascinating interview on NPR Thursday night as I was driving back from the airport with a woman who had been repeatedly raped during her time in the Air Force.

    She argued for the type of bill that Gillibrand recommended because when you report to a superior officer it is automatically reported up through the chain of command and basically, your career in the military is ruined.

    Will have to find the interview as there were many insightful points I would never have thought about that she raised. Good for Gillibrand!

    I wrote her a quick kudos note!

    If the POTUS had a '-R' after his name, these scandals would be the most important thing since sliced bread.

    Really?

    http://oi42.tinypic.com/fdt8iw.jpg

    Ah, the endless unsubstantiated rants against big government and liberals. Always entertaining :)

    -David

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really?

    http://oi42.tinypic.com/fdt8iw.jpg

    Where's the scandal??

    Did Bush ignore multiple warnings prior to the attack??

    No he did not..

    Did Bush refuse military assistance during the attack???

    No he did not...

    Did Bush LIE to the American people for almost two weeks trying to cover his incompetence so as not to screw up his re-election chances??

    No he did not..

    You are comparing apples and Eskimos....

    Ah, the endless unsubstantiated rants against big government and liberals. Always entertaining :)

    A lot more entertaining than the War Criminal or Hitler accusations that I had to endure during the Bush years... :^/

    Let's face facts.. Ya'all would have been apoplectically hysterical if the crap that has happened under Obama had happened under Bush...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-targets-conservative-groups/

    Yea, nothing to see here.. Move along.... :^/

    I honestly is taken aback how many times rank and file Weigantians will attempt to defend the indefensible...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I honestly is taken aback how many times rank and file Weigantians will attempt to defend the indefensible...

    The only question seems to be is how low will ya'alls Obama Derangement Syndrome drag ya'all down...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Where's the scandal??

    Did Bush ignore multiple warnings prior to the attack??

    Yes. The Clinton administration warned him multiple times.

    Did Bush refuse military assistance during the attack???

    Yes. He was busy reading about a goat.

    Did Bush LIE to the American people for almost two weeks trying to cover his incompetence so as not to screw up his re-election chances??

    No. He spent MONTHS lying about his mythical WMDs trying to cover his incompetence so as not to screw up his re-election chances.

    I take it those Granny-Smiths live in igloos?

    Ahhh... revisionist history. Its a wonderful thing!--till facts bite you on the ass.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes. The Clinton administration warned him multiple times.

    9/11 wasn't on the link that David showed..

    And are you SERIOUSLY comparing 9/11/01 with 9/11/12??

    Obama frak'ed up...

    Before, during and after Benghazi...

    This is documented FACT..

    If you REALLY want to compare 9/11/01 to 9/11/12, then lets compare POTUS Approval ratings after Benghazi to POTUS Approval ratings after 9/11..

    THAT comparison shows who the REAL leader is...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further, it has been established by THREE different bi-partisan commissions that Bush didn't lie after 9/11...

    I realize that facts have no place here amongst all the hysterical partisan rhetoric, but those ARE the facts...

    Whether you acknowledge them or not.

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LewDan [8]

    That was an excellent post and I just have to tell you that it was a pleasure to read, indeed!

    Except for the part about giving Chris a MDDOT... of the week, day, last five minutes? :) I feel like I've been giving him too much of a hard time lately already.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then there's the insistence that just because someone likely committed treason by providing classified information that compromised a national security counter-terrorist operation, outed an undercover agent, and jeopardized the life of both the agent and his family, is no reason for Justice to actually investigate journalists, do to their being super-citizens with a Constitutionally protected right to receive stolen information, use intellectual property owned by the U.S. for their own gain, and give aid and comfort to our enemies anytime they see fit. Because the first amendment absolutely guarantees all these things (apparently written in invisible ink) to "journalists" while immunizing them from anything as mundane as "the law," which is clearly reserved for poor people and the unincorporated. Obviously government has no right to investigate treasonous acts just because they jeopardize lives, if the sovereignty of media conglomerates must be compromised

    Except for the FACT (there's that nasty word again) that the AP had already CLEARED their report thru the CIA prior to it's release..

    So, tell me again how the AP was such a threat to national security when it was Obama's own CIA that cleared the report in the first place???

    Hello??? Hello??? {{{tap tap}}} Is this on??

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    The insistence that the IRS investigating political groups who are claiming tax-exemptions based on NOT being political groups is partisan(?!) intimidation, (even though no one was denied an exemption) because these non-political social welfare groups were targeted for their political affiliations sets a new standard for patently absurd faux outrage doublespeak, even for Republicans! Apparently you can only investigate political groups who may be committing tax-fraud by claiming to be non-political if you don't pay any attention to their politics?!

    Further IRS regulations specifically ALLOW the types of activities that the conservative groups were participating in..

    Regardless, even if those activities weren't allowed, please explain EXACTLY how the contents of members prayers are relevant to determining tax-exempt status??

    You can't because it ain't..

    Ya'all are just digging yourselves deeper and deeper by denying what the IRS did was wrong..

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/18/could-lose-everything-tea-party-groups-prepare-to-sue-irs/

    Yea, no one was hurt by the IRS targeting..

    Well, a bunch of Americans were hurt and ruined, but they are conservatives after all..

    Not REAL Americans...

    :^/

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    The AP held the story long enough for the operative, and family, to exfiltrate. The leaker, however, gave aid and comfort to our enemies making the leaker an enemy and national security threat. The AP, in shielding the leaker's identity, also gave aid and comfort to our enemies and became a national security threat. We interpret the fist amendment broadly in an abundance of caution. However, it does NOT, in fact, grant "journalists' the right to betray the interests of the United States of America. Neither does it say being a "journalist" gives you a right to receive stolen property without fear of government investigation and prosecution. We give journalists the benefit of the doubt and assume their speech is political, protected, and in the public interest. When, in fact, its none of the above, however, there is no legal or constitutional shield. Not that journalists haven't been trying to get one, for decades.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    The AP held the story long enough for the operative, and family, to exfiltrate.

    The AP held the story long enough to get clearance from Obama's CIA to release the story..

    Where's the treason???

    Face it, if the designation of the POTUS was a -R instead of a -D, ya'all would be all over him like stink on rice!

    Remember that oh so minor case of the Pentagon Papers???

    Wait for it.... Wait for it...

    "That's different".... :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/17/mccaskill-calls-for-firing-of-all-involved-in-irs-targeting-scandal/

    Hasn't Clair McCaskill received an MIDOTW or several honorable mentions???

    So, if she says that what the IRS did was serious, shouldn't ya'all believe her???

    What makes her wrong and ya'all right???

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I’m mad. It is un-American, it is wrong, and we have to make sure that this gets fixed. There’s a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold in America. That is because in America, we don’t apply the law based on who you are, who you know, or what you believe. We apply the law equally. The targeting of one group based on political beliefs infuriates me!

    We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable. It is un-American, it is wrong, and it cannot occur again.”
    -Claire McCaskill -D

    What makes her wrong and ya'all right???

    Hmmmmmmmmm???

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What makes her wrong and ya'all right?

    Huh? The IRS should be held accountable.

    The issue is that the IRS profiled Republicans incorrectly. Those involved should be fired.

    However, your accusations about Democratic involvement have no factual basis.

    -David

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huh? The IRS should be held accountable.

    The issue is that the IRS profiled Republicans incorrectly. Those involved should be fired.

    The prevailing consensus around here is that the IRS did no wrong.

    To date, only myself and CW have said otherwise...

    So, you agree that what the IRS did was heinously wrong and totally, completely and unequivocally un-American and wrong..

    Correct??

    However, your accusations about Democratic involvement have no factual basis.

    I'll just repeat what I said in the previous commentary..

    Using your reasoning, Bush was not responsible for the Second Iraq War, because it was the CIA's screw up.. After all, Bush just acted on the intel from the CIA..

    Abu Ghraib wasn't Bush's fault because it was the Pentagon's screw-up.. After all, Abu Ghraib was committed by the Pentagon's soldiers.

    Iran-Contra wasn't Reagan's fault because it was all the underlings that were making the deals and doing the deeds...

    Shall I go on??

    You see the point??

    Why is it that, when it's a GOP POTUS, EVERYTHING is the fault of the POTUS??

    Iraq?? Abu Ghraib?? Iran-Contra??

    But when it's a DEM POTUS EVERYTHING is the fault of all the agencies below the POTUS and the POTUS is pure as the driven snow??

    Benghazi?? AP WireTapping?? IRS Targeting??

    Can you explain that??

    The IRS is an Obama Administration Executive agency.. That makes it Obama's responsibility..

    Further, the highest of the Higher Ups at the IRS knew this was going on a year ago. It is simply NOT possible that they would have sat on it for that long without informing ANYONE in the White House.

    Finally, NO ONE in the White House has denied NOT knowing, despite being asked very pointed questions to that effect..

    The buck stops at Obama, David.. He *IS* the President Of The United States..

    It IS his responsibility. Not that we ever hear him say it with any force of meaning, not that anyone here will hold him accountable for all his mis-deeds and screw-ups..

    But the fact of the matter is, as the guy in charge, the responsibility is his..

    Regardless of what you think.

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the AP Story goes, here is the sequence of events..

    The AP had a story about US involvement in thwarting an airliner terrorist attack..

    The AP went to the CIA and asked if they could run the story.. The CIA asked the AP to wait.

    The AP complied.

    Five days later, the AP again contacted the CIA and asked if they could run the story. The CIA claimed that their op was done and the story could be released.

    The White House then contacted the AP and asked them to hold the story for a day or so longer.

    The AP re-contacted the CIA and were told once again that all CIA assets were secure and that the story was fine to be released into the wild.

    Further, another source within the White House told the AP that the reason the WH wanted the AP to hold the story was because the WH wanted to release the story themselves..

    The AP then released the story the day before (Now CIA Director) John Brennan went on GMA and released the story..

    Get that??

    There wasn't any concern about National Security concerns or asset concern..

    Obama was miffed because the AP released the story before he could take credit for everything.

    So Obama's Justice Department, in an attempt to punish the AP, obtained phone records without a warrant...

    Now, call me stoopid, but if a Bush Justice Department or a Reagan Justice Department or a Nixon Justice Department would have obtained phone records w/o a warrant, ya'all would be apoplectic about it and be hysterically screaming to the high heavens about the US Constitution etc etc..

    But why aren't ya'all upset about it now??

    Ahhh yes.. THAT'S right. Because this POTUS has a '-D' after his name...

    I really have to wonder..

    I have to wonder WHAT is it that Obama would have to do before ya'all start holding him accountable???

    Ah yes.. Of course.

    He would have to turn Republican... :D

    The power of the almighty '-x' after the name...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, call me stoopid, but if a Bush Justice Department or a Reagan Justice Department or a Nixon Justice Department would have obtained phone records w/o a warrant, ya'all would be apoplectic about it and be hysterically screaming to the high heavens about the US Constitution etc etc..

    Now, don't get me wrong..

    I am all for sticking it to journalists who trade in national security op/sec and meddle in things they have no business meddling in...

    Put their heads on a pike and display them at the White House fence..

    I don't care..

    What chaps my ass is that ya'all are on the same side as me in this! :D

    It's simply.... un-becoming for progressives and liberals to be as bloodthirsty as I am when it comes to sticking it to journalists over National Security concerns.. :D

    I guess I just have to console myself with the fact that, while *I* will ALWAYS feel this way, regardless of whether it's a '-D' or a '-R' as POTUS, ya'all are simply part-time aggressive neanderthal knuckle-draggers.. :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, your accusations about Democratic involvement have no factual basis.

    Whether Obama knew or not is not the point.

    Matter of fact if, as you claim, Obama DIDN'T know, then that's almost as bad as if he DID know..

    My way, Obama is Nixon reborn, using his executive agencies to hunt down and punish those who oppose him..

    Your way, he is an incompetent buffoon who's agencies are out of control and working without ANY supervision whatsoever to their own ends which, coincidentally, are the same ends as Obama's..

    So either way (Nixon-Wannabee or Incompetent Buffoon) it doesn't bode well for Obama's marks for leadership...

    But, the silver lining in all this is that at least we agree that the IRS *was* targeting conservative groups solely and completely based on their political ideology..

    Some common ground is much better than no common ground at all..

    Wouldn't you agree?? :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    It IS his responsibility. Not that we ever hear him say it with any force of meaning, not that anyone here will hold him accountable for all his mis-deeds and screw-ups..

    Ya know, I think I just had an epiphany here..

    I think that's what really bugs me here..

    Ya'all are always ready and eager to hold the GOP accountable for every misdeed, real or imagined.

    Yet, you absolutely and unequivocally refuse to hold Obama or his administration accountable for ANYTHING...

    There is not ONE SINGLE thing that ya'all have held Obama accountable for..

    NOT.... ONE.... SINGLE.... THING......

    So, either Obama is perfect....

    Or ya'all are wrong....

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The law is irrelevant."
    -Obama Aide Dan Pfeiffer

    That is EXACTLY the problem with the Obama Administration..

    They obey no law save their own...

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    wow, so much to comment upon. i guess i'll start with the nixon/reagan issue. the soviet union collapsed under its own economic weight. why? conventional wisdom is that reagan's decision to spend us into near-oblivion convinced the soviets to do the same. that's giving us a lot more credit than we deserve for determining soviet economic policy.

    ask anyone who was actually in the soviet union in the 70's and 80's, those economies were collapsing with or without our input. mostly what held them together was fear. nixon's withdrawal from vietnam and his policy of detente put us in a much more advantageous position economically. if anything, reagan took us backward in that respect. fortunately, by the time he took over most of the groundwork had already been laid for communism to end. russia didn't have enough food, and it depended on the west to feed its citizenry. the rest was just political theatre.

    Did Bush ignore multiple warnings prior to the attack??

    Yes. The Clinton administration warned him multiple times.

    Did Bush refuse military assistance during the attack???

    Yes. He was busy reading about a goat.

    Did Bush LIE to the American people for almost two weeks trying to cover his incompetence so as not to screw up his re-election chances??

    No. He spent MONTHS lying about his mythical WMDs trying to cover his incompetence so as not to screw up his re-election chances.

    I take it those Granny-Smiths live in igloos?

    i agree. however, the question at hand is whether or not obama has done essentially the same things bush did. notwithstanding the fact that obama hasn't entered us into any new wars recently, i don't think the answer's as simple as we may wish it to be. did the obama administration use the IRS the same way the bush administration used the justice department under alberto gonzalez? personally, i'm waiting until all the facts come in before rendering judgment.

    ~joshua

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    personally, i'm waiting until all the facts come in before rendering judgment.

    Fair enough..

    But the problem with the rank and file here is that they are dismissing the possibility out of hand based on NOTHING but a partisan agenda...

    As I see it, the question here is two fold..

    Was the IRS wrong for targeting conservative groups..

    Up until recently the general consensus around here has been, NO, the IRS was NOT wrong. Now, CW and I have taken the road that the IRS *WAS* wrong in targeting conservatives..

    So, that's one debate/issue..

    The OTHER debate/issue is did anyone in the Obama White House either by omission or commission (still waiting for the etymology lesson on 1 m vs 2 m's :D) order, condone or otherwise further the IRS's actions...

    *MY* position is that it is likely that someone in the WH did.. This is based on the fact that it was known almost a year ago by the highest of the High in the IRS... Given that time frame, even if Obama DIDN'T know, the fact is he SHOULD have known...

    There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this going on for a year and it was KNOWN by the highest of the High at the IRS that it WAS going on and Obama not know anything about it. What does THAT say for his leadership??

    Like I said to David, it's really really bad if Obama knew about it and allowed it to happen..

    But it STILL is pretty bad if Obama DIDN'T know..

    Because he SHOULD have known..

    That's my point..

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    I am also constrained to point out that there is absolutely NO COMPARISON between 9/11/01 and 9/11/12..

    The ONLY comparison of relevance, as far as leadership goes, would be to compare Bush's post 9/11/01 Approval ratings with Obama's post 9/11/12 Approval ratings.

    You KNOW that comparison has to drive the Hysterical Left absolutely bat-shit.. :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The prevailing consensus around here is that the IRS did no wrong.

    Are we reading different sites?

    Everything I've read here seems to say that the IRS is in the wrong.

    The IRS.

    Not Democrats. Not Obama.

    The evidence so far looks like this was an error in procedure rather than any type of political attack.

    -David

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everything I've read here seems to say that the IRS is in the wrong.

    The IRS.

    Then you have only been reading mine and CW's comments.

    Because everyone else has stated that the IRS has done no wrong..

    So, we DO agree with McCaskill then...

    Right??

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The evidence so far looks like this was an error in procedure rather than any type of political attack.

    Ahhhh..

    So you DO agree with everyone (except me and CW) that it wasn't partisan targeting...

    Seriously???

    How could targeting words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" *NOT* be partisan criteria???

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The evidence so far looks like this was an error in procedure rather than any type of political attack.

    Yea... And 9/11 was just a minor fender-bender between buildings and airplanes... :^/

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, once again... Obama has done no wrong...

    It's ALL the fault of the evil Republicans...

    Iddn't it AMAZING how it ALWAYS is that way???

    It's phenomenally amazing!!!

    Defies the odds!!!

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Speak in personally, you're right--and wrong. The IRS was wrong to target groups based on names. That's longstanding policy to avoid the appearance of political favoritism. I haven't heard anyone say they we're right. But that policy is based on a political decision. It is not law. And, as with ALL, zero-tolerance measures, that are indifferent to actual facts obtaining, its a policy that's sometimes wrong. As in this case, IMHO. So the IRS was wrong, but personally, I agree with the action. There's no evidence the IRS targeted Tea Party groups because they we're Republican, as Republicans claim. And it makes sense to target them because their names are more obviously for political organizations. We've got soup and insurance companies name "Progressive;" never heard of anything BUT political organizations named "Tea Party." "Patriot" and "Democratic" are more ambiguous. So let's be honest here, what do you expect? Quotas, so Republicans aren't reviewed more than Democrats? Now that WOULD be choosing to investigate based on political affiliations. Everyone treated equally? Wasting time, money, and harassing obviously innocent groups for no good reason? That too would be basing decisions upon political affiliation, as its counterproductive and unnecessary otherwise.

    Targeting groups because of what their politics are is wrong. Targeting groups for their politics, because they aren't supposed to be political, is not. Some political activity is allowed, but not full-time. Not groups constituted for the purpose of political advocacy. Political advocacy is not "social welfare" advocacy under the law. Claiming so for tax-exempt status is fraud and tax-evasion. Most, if not all, Tea Party groups, including those claiming 501(c) status were constituted solely to promote political agendas and to oppose President Obama. And the ones complaining are unashamedly against the IRS. They've been consistently cutting funding for enforcement and actively undercutting efforts at campaign finance reform. As a result our "non-partisan" IRS is all but useless. Not ONE 501(c) app was denied?! Insisting on a "non-partisan" enforcement that effective prevents enforcement suits them just fine, and is solely political. As always, Republicans' choice of "scandals" have nothing to do with the facts, or the public good, and everything to do with trashing Obama.

    I think the policy of selecting groups for intensive scrutiny based on their names in evaluating 501(c) applications is a good and reasonable one. But I also know its against policy and is therefore wrong.

  48. [48] 
    LewDan wrote:

    BTW, as for your usual Obama reelection conspiracy theory, as I said, the IRS policy is a political decision, not a matter of law. If Obama had been behind this then It actually wouldn't have then been wrong!

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's no evidence the IRS targeted Tea Party groups because they we're Republican, as Republicans claim.

    Yea... Because there are SO many "Tea Party" groups amongst Liberals and Progressives, right??

    Com'on!! Remember.. AT night.. Not LAST night..

    Targeting groups for their politics, because they aren't supposed to be political, is not.

    I have already proven that wrong..

    The IRS Manual on tax-exempt status clearly says what is and is not allowed.

    The groups that applied were clearly within the guidelines of the manual...

    I think the policy of selecting groups for intensive scrutiny based on their names in evaluating 501(c) applications is a good and reasonable one.

    Of course you do. And you would continue to believe that right up until am IRS under a GOP POTUS starts targeting Liberal and Progressive groups...

    If Obama had been behind this then It actually wouldn't have then been wrong!

    Of course not..

    Glad to have that out in the open now.. :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Obama had been behind this then It actually wouldn't have then been wrong!

    So, basically you subscribe to the notion that, if the President does it, it's not illegal...

    How positively Nixonian of ya... :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    No. I do not think if the President does it then it must be legal. But, unlike you, I'm not conflating "wrong" with "illegal." And I understand, unlike you, that President Obama in not, in fact, a racist Marxist socialist Manchurian-candidate criminally pretending to be President having stolen the election, but is, in fact, the President of the United States. Which means that, if, as you insist, he must be held accountable for a policy, then he gets to choose just what that policy should be. An agency cannot be "wrong" for violating policy and still be "wrong" for following it if he changes it. And, as I've said, I happen to disagree with the President's policy.

    You want to conflate "wrong" with "illegal" because you've an irrational need for Obama to be evil. And because admitting the truth, that what makes the IRS action "wrong" is that it is not the President's policy, undercuts your entire demented conspiracy theory. "Wrong" is not determined by what conservatives want. Its determined by prevailing policy and the law.

    But I understand that when you have no rational counter-argument, as is so often the case among wingers, attempting to ridicule those who disagree with you is the standard go-to tactic. I forgive you. I know that you're reality-challenged, and in thrall to right-wing propaganda, but a good man nonetheless.

  52. [52] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Let me add with regard to the AP story, the operation being reported by the AP had ended, but not all operations requiring the intelligence operative. Those operations were ended by the disclosure of the classified material that allowed him to be identified.

    The AP protecting its "source," in spite of the fact that source is a traitor, is what I take issue with. If the AP, or anyone else, thinks protecting their own interests, above ours, and choosing to shield our enemies, is "neutrality," and not only permissible, but "protected," they are wrong. It is treasonous.

    Not every "whistleblower" is a hero serving the public interest. The determination "not to judge," in order not to discourage whistleblowers, is, in fact, "judging"--and choosing sides. And not our side.

    We vigorously pursue and prosecute those who compromise classified information for the purpose of discouraging them. In fact, the entire reason we make certain activities illegal is to intimidate and discourage behaviors. "Journalists" choosing to undermine our efforts are not acting in the public interest. Just because similar actions may well be in the public interest, under other circumstances, doesn't mean that even though they clearly are not in this case you still get to wrap yourself in the flag, pretend they are, and only incidentally aid terrorists and our enemies. Your intentional actions purposely, and willfully aid terrorists and our enemies. Reality isn't defined by what you wish were true. By what you imagine or hope might be true. But by what actually is true. The AP knows exactly what it is doing. And in choosing to aid this traitor, and terrorists, by shielding him, has chosen to make themselves an enemy of the United States and responsible for the deaths of innocents. There is no public interest in that kind of behavior. Its unpatriotic, amoral, immoral, delusional, megalomaniacal, self-destructive, and in no way enjoys, or deserves, Constitutional protection.

    Journalists want shield laws precisely because they have no intention of acting responsibly or with discrimination. And that is precisely why they should not have them. I've a real problem with the idea that the forth estate is above the law. That the first amendment applies only to journalists. That copyright and intellectual property laws apply only to everyone else. The AP thinks its writings enjoy legal protection and will vigorously prosecute anyone who tries to steal and use them. But the AP has a right to steal the writings of others and use them any way they please with their unique first amendment protection. My copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about journalists--anywhere. It gives them no rights whatsoever. So I've also a real problem with the idea the AP not only gets to steal from others, but gets to prevent others from getting the full benefit of their own work because the AP stole it and intentionally conspired to sell it first, undercutting the work's rightful owner. Just as I've a problem with courts twisting the law into pretzels in order to accommodate big business.

    The forth estate has more than proven, in the last two decades, that they cannot be trusted with the power and privilege they already possess.

    --end of rant. Sorry CW.

  53. [53] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Finally, Michale,

    Only conservatives we're targeted by the words "Tea Party" and "patriot," for example. But those were not the only words used by the IRS to flag applications for closer scrutiny. And conservative groups were not the only groups targeted, to the exclusion of liberals and progressives. The Republican case for selective partisan targeting has no basis in fact. The IG report said nothing of the kind, and no one has proffered any evidence of it. Like Obama's involvement and the supposed intent to, somehow, subvert the election by "harassing" conservatives, those are fantasies, lies, claims made by Republicans without a shred of proof. I think the tactic was reasonable and appropriate, though I can also understand the politics that make it inappropriate, and the policies that make it wrong. It would naturally have garnered more conservatives than progressives because their applications were more numerous and some of the names more readily identifiable as political. So what? What's happened to the supposed zero-tolerance for law-breakers conservatives profess when it comes to illegal immigrants? Where's the intolerance for "quotas" they claim blights affirmative action? All I see is the usual faux outrage, delusional victimhood, irrational conspiracy theory, and lying hypocrisy that appears to be the conservative stock and trade.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not one single person here has answered one basic question...

    Why is it that, under Bush, ya'all blamed him completely and unequivocally for every action or mistake made by the agencies under him..

    Yet, with Obama, the agencies under him screw up left and right yet ya'all give Obama a pass and REFUSE to hold him accountable..

    Why is that??

    At least Bush was a man about it. He TOOK the responsibility for the actions of the agencies under him.

    Obama dodges the responsibility and hides behind any skirt he can find.

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    {51}

    Semantics.. I notice you don't want to play those semantic games with Bush, do you.. :D

    "Bush lied" is what you said. Even though it's been heavily documented as FACT that Bush did not, in fact, lie..

    Let me add with regard to the AP story, the operation being reported by the AP had ended, but not all operations requiring the intelligence operative. Those operations were ended by the disclosure of the classified material that allowed him to be identified.

    Bullshit...

    I can document it from multiple sources that the ONLY reason that the White House wanted the AP to wait is because OBAMA wanted to break the story himself..

    If what you say is true, if assets were still at risk, then WHY did John Brennan go on GMA the VERY next day to brag about the op on behalf of the White House??

    If those assets WERE still at risk, as you say, then the White House endangered them as MUCH, if not MORE than the AP did..

    The forth estate has more than proven, in the last two decades, that they cannot be trusted with the power and privilege they already possess.

    Where were you with this attitude when Bush was POTUS?? Back then, you LOVED how the Fourth Estate savaged Bush for each and every little misstep..

    Ahh yes... The all powerful '-x' makes all the difference in the world..

    Well, at least, to some people. Not to me..

    All I see is the usual faux outrage, delusional victimhood, irrational conspiracy theory, and lying hypocrisy that appears to be the conservative stock and trade.

    Of course you do.

    Because you are not looking at things objectively. You are looking at things as a fervent, near religious devotee of Obama..

    So, by extension, everything that happens with Obama as POTUS is perfectly OK..

    Reminds of religious wars.. Each side believes that THEIR god is just and true and that, when they kill and butcher and rape and destroy in the name of THEIR god against people who's other god is different it's perfectly acceptable..

    Here, the religion is politics and the gods are the leaders of the Democratic and Republican Partys.

    And your god can do no wrong...

    And when the god of the Republican Party is POTUS(god) then THAT god will do no right and you will blame him and castigate him and vilify him..

    For the EXACT SAME ACTIONS that you supported under your god..

    And so it goes and so it goes....

    And that IS Vonnegut... :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    “We’re not political. We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. .?.?. That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”
    -Determinations Staffer, Cincinnati IRS Office

    Seems to shoot down the case that Obama/White House did not know anything..

    When I was a cop, we looked at the evidence..

    We looked for motive.

    Who benefited? Who stood to gain the most??

    Obama, of course.

    He saw a way to stop or slow down support for the Romney Campaign.

    Either that or his minions below him did it without his knowledge.

    So, either his is Nixon Part Duex or he is an incompetent buffoon who has absolutely no control over the people below him..

    Either/or...

    No other explanation fits the facts..

    Ya'all remember "FACTS" right?

    Those things that ya'all USED to care about before you sold your soul to Obama... :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really rather ironic..

    Obama is taking the EXACT same approach to Benghazi, AP and the IRS scandals as Nixon took with Watergate.

    The EXACT same approach...

    Iddn't dat interesting, eh?? :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/19/schieffer-obama-advisor-why-are-you-here-why-isn-t-white-house-chief#ixzz2TlD5eGuq

    Impressive to see this.. Especially from a CBS outlet... Who woulda thunked it..

    But, as you can see, Bob Schieffer is getting a little fed up with the same old song and dance routine coming out of the Obama White House..

    You just HAVE to know that Obama is in trouble when it's main TorchBearer (CBS) is getting fed up with all the lies and bullshit..

    All I have to say is, it's about time!

    Time will tell if it's just a minor hiccup in the Obama Derangement Syndrome or if it represents a true change to journalists actually doing their jobs..

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    A rare peek into a Justice Department leak probe
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

    Once again, if this had been done under a GOP POTUS to a CBS or NBC reporter, the Left (including everyone here) would be hysterically apoplectic...

    But, since it's a DEM POTUS and a FNC reporter, it doesn't even rate a mention...

    Can't WAIT til we have a GOP POTUS again.. There'll be neck sprains galore around here from all the quick 180 turnarounds everyone is gonna do!! :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    We DO agree with McCaskill then.

    Yep.

    Do you agree that there is no evidence of a Democratic conspiracy?

    Why is it that, under Bush, ya'all blamed him completely and unequivocally for every action or mistake made by the agencies under him.

    Simple. We didn't.

    I think it's safe to say, however, that Bush is responsible for wars he started, his economic policies of deregulation and supply side economics, policies applying to sanctioned use of torture, and his poor handling of situations where those underneath him (and even appointed by him) performed poorly (i.e. Katrina)

    -David

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep.

    Awesome.. Common ground. :D

    So, we agree that the IRS targeted conservative groups solely and completely because they were conservative..

    And you agree that such targeting solely based on political beliefs is wrong and un-american..

    Great... Common ground is a wonderful thing! :D

    Simple. We didn't.

    Bullshit.. I was here and saw it for myself.. If you like we can peruse the CW.COM archives from 2006 thru 2008 and I can show you... :D

    I think it's safe to say, however, that Bush is responsible for wars he started, his economic policies of deregulation and supply side economics, policies applying to sanctioned use of torture, and his poor handling of situations where those underneath him (and even appointed by him) performed poorly (i.e. Katrina)

    Like I said, you blame Bush for everything..

    What else is left??? :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you agree that there is no evidence of a Democratic conspiracy?

    I agree that YOU believe that..

    However, the facts clearly show that there MUST have been Democratic influence..

    Or else, the incident wouldn't have happened..

    Regardless of all the facts and evidence, the simple fact that it was a Democrat Administration at the time MAKES it a Democrat issue..

    But Obama (as usual) ducks the responsibility and ya'all enable him instead of holding him accountable...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    you blame Bush for everything.

    Presidents are responsible for their decisions and for the policies they enact.

    Had Obama instituted a policy targeting conservatives by the IRS for political gain, this would indeed be a Watergate.

    The facts, however, show no connection.

    This hasn't, unfortunately, stopped conservatives from making up conspiracy stories.

    Do you agree that there are no facts showing a Democratic conspiracy?

    Or do you want to keep dodging the question? :)

    However, the facts clearly show that there MUST have been Democratic influence.

    Anytime someone says "the facts clearly show" without actually presenting any facts, you have to wonder ...

    -David

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking

    Ya'all were saying something about "no evidence"??? :D

    Now, I know I know..

    You'll spin it as "it means nothing" or "it's not relevant" or "we have to determine what the definition of 'is' is" or other such evasions..

    But it IS evidence of Obama/White House involvement in the illegal IRS targeting of conservative Americans..

    Now, to date, NO ONE has been able to provide *ANY* evidence of Obama/White House involvement.. Hell, Obama has refused to deny that there WASN'T any involvement..

    So, since ya'all have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support your case and there is PLENTY of evidence to support the conclusion of Obama/White House involvement, then that conclusion stands until such time as the evidence doesn't support it..

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    akadjian wrote:

    However, the facts clearly show that there MUST have been Democratic influence.

    What facts?

    Specifically, I'm looking for something that would show Democrats went to the IRS with their evil liberal plan for global dominance.

    The investigation found nothing of the kind. The investigation found that the IRS was profiling groups based on a perceived likelihood for tax evasion.

    This is wrong but it's not a liberal plot against conservatives. It's more like how black people have been pulled over by police officers for years because the police believe there is a higher statistical probability of them being criminals. Also wrong.

    So either a) someone is making up these kinds of conspiracy stories or b) Democrats are such genius conspirators they left behind no trace of their evil liberal plot to rule the world

    -David

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Presidents are responsible for their decisions and for the policies they enact.

    *AND* they are responsible for the actions of the agencies under them.

    It's called "Leadership"... Look it up...

    The facts, however, show no connection.

    You are wrong.. There are plenty of facts that show connections.

    You just won't accept them because they don't fit the partisan agenda..

    Do you agree that there are no facts showing a Democratic conspiracy?

    Or do you want to keep dodging the question? :)

    Look who's dodging! :D

    I have stated categorically and unequivocally that there are PLENTY of facts to support the Democrat/Obama/White House connection.. I have even offered evidence to support this conclusion..

    Where is your evidence to dispute the conclusion??

    You have none...

    Regardless, simply by virtue of it happening under a Democrat Administration *MAKES* the Democrat connection..

    Just like everyone here blamed the GOP for everything that happened under the Bush administration..

    Anytime someone says "the facts clearly show" without actually presenting any facts, you have to wonder ...

    I have posted all the links to the facts.

    But you refuse to even acknowledge them, let alone attempt to refute them with facts of your own.

    That's because you HAVE no facts at all.. So it's easier to just ignore the facts that dispute your conclusion.. :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    What facts?

    The facts you refuse to even acknowledge let alone read and consider..

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bushel-of-pinocchios-for-irss-lois-lerner/2013/05/19/771687d2-bfdd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html

    More facts for you, David..

    Spin away or ignore.. Doesn't matter.. I think it has been amply proven that there is PLENTY of evidence to indicate Obama/White House involvement in the IRS targeting of conservative Americans..

    Evidence that DISPUTES that conclusion??

    {{{chiiiirrrrrppppp}}} {{chirrrrppp}}

    None... Zero.... Zilch... Nada.....

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you are feeling overwhelmed by all the evidence that points to Obama/White House involvement in the illegal targeting of conservative Americans by Obama's IRS...... :D

    Bob Woodward: White House Acts Like It "Wants to Be Nixonian"

    Bob Woodward: White House Acts Like It "Wants to Be Nixonian"
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/woodward-obama-nixon-watergate/2013/05/19/id/505248?promo_code=EC70-1&utm_source=American_Spectator&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2TqEwft8A
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

    ..... we can always discuss all the lies coming out of the Obama White House over Benghazi....

    "... and the hits just keep on comin'!!"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whaa??? No one wants to talk about FACTS anymore?? :D

    Well, here's some more facts for ya...

    5 Ways Obama Can Restore the Public's Trust and Rescue His Presidency
    Painful choices include appointing a special prosecutor on the IRS and offering an apology to The Associated Press.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/5-ways-obama-can-restore-the-public-s-trust-and-rescue-his-presidency-20130520

    Seems like it's not just Republicans who are saying that there is something here...

    Oh wait.

    Don't tell me...

    Let me guess..

    Those Democrats are Republican plants, right??

    Do ya'all see how so far over the edge ya'all have gone??

    I thought ya'all were big on the 4th Amendment!??

    I hadn't realized that the principles and integrity takes a back seat to Party loyalty....

    Oh how the mighty have fallen....

    It's sooo..... disappointing... :(

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Now, to date, NO ONE has been able to provide *ANY* evidence of Obama/White House involvement.

    Yes!!!

    That's exactly what I've been saying. Common ground ...

    -David

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's all about context, David. :D

    But it IS evidence of Obama/White House involvement in the illegal IRS targeting of conservative Americans..

    Now, to date, NO ONE has been able to provide *ANY* evidence of Obama/White House involvement.. Hell, Obama has refused to deny that there WASN'T any involvement..

    Now, if the best "evidence" you have is an obvious typo...... Well, that ain't much evidence, I am sure you would agree.. :D

    Do you have ANY evidence that supports the conclusion that Obama/White House WASN'T involved in the illegal IRS targeting of conservative Americans??

    ANY evidence??

    ANY at all???

    I have provided TONS of documented evidence and statements from individuals involved that indicate that Obama/White House was involved..

    Do you have ANY evidence that refutes this evidence??

    Any at all???

    Well, then.. Until such time as ANY such evidence is produced, then the conclusion must stand..

    It's a rule.. :D

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    See the problem here is ya'all do things bass-ackwards..

    Ya'all start with a CONCLUSION (Obama is as pure as the driven snow and everything is the fault of the EVIL Republicans) and then proceed to find evidence that supports the conclusion and ignoring the evidence that refutes the conclusion...

    It's called Opinion BAsed Evidence MAking....

    And to be perfectly honest, it's really beneath ya'all....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Why is it that, under Bush, ya'all blamed him completely and unequivocally for every action or mistake made by the agencies under him..

    Yet, with Obama, the agencies under him screw up left and right yet ya'all give Obama a pass and REFUSE to hold him accountable..

    Why is that??

    The same should be asked of you. Obama does the slightest wrong, real or imagined, and we get tirade after tirade. Yet, during the Bush years rarely if ever a peep from you on anything Bush did. Why is that?? Could it be there was an R after Bush and a D after Obama? How does this make you any different than those you rail against?

  75. [75] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    What is it with you wingnuts and lying and projection? We're "doing things ass-backwards?!" but you're insisting that there's no evidence, but Obama's guilty, unless its proven he wasn't involved? That the difference between "wrong" and "illegal" is "semantics" rather than completely different meanings? That the President had no right to ask the AP for a hold so he could break the story first? Because, having stolen it, the AP had a "right" to it? Not the U.S.?! If anyone had stolen an AP story, and insisted on breaking it first, the AP'd be in court in heartbeat. No AP "journalist" uncovered the story. They received the stolen property of the U.S. government. But, of course, the law doesn't apply to them, now, does it? And not one of your cites is about facts. Every single one of them is an opinion piece. Every single one of them is about opinions based on unsupported assumptions, not facts. And you know perfectly well that just because an intelligence operative completes an operation their work is not done. We'll never use them again, so its OK to out them?! The disclosure of classified information identifying our agent forced us to pull him for his own safety. Not the AP story, the leak. Whether the AP ever published or not the agent's identity was insecure and his life in jeopardy. You know this. Pretending the Whitehouse presser proves we were done with that operative is a willful lie. The Presser was scheduled for the same reason the AP was given permission to publish. The damage had been done. There was no going back. And the Whitehouse had every right to break the story first. It was their story. The AP stole it. I say again, if anyone had done this to the AP they'd be in court screaming bloody murder. But they know our corrupt courts won't enforce the law against them. They'll enforce it against you or I. They'll defend the AP, but they won't punish them. SCOTUS pretends their are two Constitutions. The one that guarantees rights only applies to corporations and the uber-wealthy. The one that applies to citizens only empowers government, there are no "rights." Every innocent killed by terrorists who remain free because the AP is shielding a leak that aids terrorists is blood on their hands. You know that too. And if Bush we're in office you'd be the first to proclaim it. You we're fine with torture because of it. But now that Obama is President you're suddenly a libertarian?! A card carrying member of the ACLU championing the first amendment?! Under Bush you didn't even care about habeas corpus!! When Bush was in office you were claiming to be against laws outlawing torture because of your supposed concern for intelligence officers. Now that Obama's President you cheerfully throw intelligence operatives under a bus, and anyone else who gets in the way of your psychotic need to validate your irrational prejudice by demonizing the President. I've seen it before and its never pretty. Do you seriously think nobody is supposed to notice your sanctimonious lying and hypocrisy as you arrogantly falsely condemn everyone else's credibility?

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    The same should be asked of you.

    I asked first :D

    Obama does the slightest wrong, real or imagined, and we get tirade after tirade.

    I guess we have different views of what constitutes "slightest"..

    But I am secure in my determination of what constitutes "serious" or not..

    Do you know WHY I am secure in such determination??

    Because ya'all would think it "serious" if we had a GOP POTUS..

    So, if it's "serious" under a GOP POTUS then it *must* be serious under a DEM POTUS...

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk, STAR TREK IV: The Voyage Home

    :D

    Yet, during the Bush years rarely if ever a peep from you on anything Bush did.

    We sure heard "peeps" from ya'all though...

    You have to keep in mind, many of my "tirades" are NOT against what Obama is doing..

    They are more wondering why you refuse to hold Obama accountable when, under Bush, ya'all fell all over yourselves to hold Bush accountable..

    NO ONE has been able to answer the "why" of that...

    How does this make you any different than those you rail against?

    Simple.. I am railing against ya'all because you support the actions under a -D POTUS but ya'all were hysterically against those VERY same actions when it was a -R POTUS..

    Under Bush, ya'all claimed those actions were "war crimes" and "immoral" and "unethical"...

    NOW, under a DEM POTUS, why are those actions any different???

    How is it that that '-D' made the "war crimes" legal, made the "immoral" moral, made the "unethical" ethical??

    Can ANYONE explain that??

    Of course no one can...

    Or more accurately, no one WANTS to...

    LD,

    The Presser was scheduled for the same reason the AP was given permission to publish. The damage had been done. There was no going back.

    Ahhhh So, since the bird was already out of the bag, the Obama White House figured that they might as well grab some of the glory themselves, right??

    EVEN THOUGH ASSETS WERE STILL AT RISK!!!

    Is THAT your claim???

    Face it.. The *only* "risk" was that Obama wouldn't be able to get all the glory...

    As for "deserving" it??

    What utter crap...

    When Obama actually puts his life on the line, when Obama actually does something for the good of the country, rather than for the good of Obama, THEN he may be deserving of some glory..

    But Obama hasn't shown an IOTA of leadership in the 4+ years he has been POTUS.. He is always hiding behind some flunky, blaming everyone and anyone rather than take responsibility for his moronic actions..

    The jackass isn't fit to be dog catcher, let alone President Of The United States..

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The jackass isn't fit to be dog catcher, let alone President Of The United States..

    For the record, I am showing Obama a LOT more respect than ya'all showed Bush during his years as POTUS...

    Think about that...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do you have ANY evidence that supports the conclusion that Obama/White House WASN'T involved in the illegal IRS targeting of conservative Americans?

    So you assume guilt and then ask for proof of innocence?

    Sorry, Michale. Last time I checked our justice system was still innocent until proven guilty.

    -David

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you assume guilt and then ask for proof of innocence?

    Sorry, Michale. Last time I checked our justice system was still innocent until proven guilty.

    Let's be accurate, David..

    Here in Weigantia, innocent until proven guilty only applies to Democrats, progressives and liberals. With conservatives, Republicans etc etc, it's always GUILTY, period..

    Irregardless, no one is professing guilt or innocence..

    I am simply commenting on the evidence..

    Something you, to date, haven't done. Nor have you provided ANY evidence to support your conclusion..

    So, until you do.. The conclusion supported by evidence stands..

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    - thin-skinned
    - felt persecuted by the opposition party
    - a penchant for classifying political adversaries as “enemies,”
    - control his image fiercely

    Sounds like anyone we know???

    :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    akadjian wrote:

    With conservatives, Republicans etc etc, it's always GUILTY, period.

    Except it's not. Nor ever was. And you don't have any evidence for this either.

    And even better ... you know it! That's what I think really drives you up the wall.

    Irregardless, no one is professing guilt or innocence.

    So your accusation that Democrats and Obama targeted conservatives is ... what exactly?

    I mean other than unfounded. Or do you just like to accuse people of things ... because ... ?

    So, until you do.. The conclusion supported by evidence stands.

    Where's your evidence that conservatives haven't targeted liberals?

    - Michal-ogic

    Unless you can prove they haven't they have.

    And also, I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you :)

    I do believe I've coined a new term though.

    -David

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except it's not. Nor ever was. And you don't have any evidence for this either.

    I have the last 8 years of CW.COM postings.

    By why bother. Everyone here ( with a couple exceptions) have proven time and time again that FACTS are not welcome, unless they acknowledge the greatness of Emperor Barack The First...

    So your accusation that Democrats and Obama targeted conservatives is ... what exactly?

    It's a conclusion based on the available evidence..

    Evidence, I point out again for the 10th time, you have refused to even acknowledge...

    - Michal-ogic

    I had wondered where Michty had gotten himself to... :D

    Unless you can prove they haven't they have.

    I don't have to PROVE anything..

    I simply put forth the available evidence..

    Something you, to date, have NOT done..

    Why is that??

    I do believe I've coined a new term though.

    yes you have... Michty... :D

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    I do believe I've coined a new term though.

    Maybe after you finish patting yourself on the back, you can address the evidence that's been raised about the IRS debacle..

    But, since it doesn't paint Emperor Barack The First in the best possible light, I can see why you don't even want to acknowledge it... :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Am watching the White House press briefing. Gods, Carney is a frakin' weasel!

    I feel slimy just WATCHING him...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    If ya'all are feeling too beat up over Benghazi, AP and IRS scandals, we can always talk about ObamaCare.. Er Tax... er.. Whatever it is...

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/sharp-shoppers-scuttle-obamacare/

    It's a great time to be a political agnostic... :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cincinnati Ground Zero of Exploding IRS Scandal, But Answers Hard to Find
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-scandal-stonewalled-cincinnati/story?id=19206140#.UZqAqfXn-Ul

    Welcome to Freedom Of the Press, OBAMA-Style...

    Another Obama TorchBearer turning against The One

    Can ya'all feel it??

    The house of cards crashing down???

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like what I have been saying all along has been proven to be true.

    Someone in the White House *DID* know about the IRS illegal targeting of conservatives..

    So, who's crazy now, eh?? :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/20/is-obama-white-house-failing-crisis-management-test/?intcmp=HPBucket

    Once again, a DEMOCRAT totally and completely agrees with me..

    If Obama was a good leader, an effective leader he SHOULD have known what was going on in the IRS...

    But, as the CURRENT story goes, everyone in the White House BUT Obama knew...

    I bet I can predict what the NEXT story is going to be..

    Obama, seeing he can get more kudos by claiming effective Crisis Management will come out with, "yea, I knew! Of Course I knew!! I am the POTUS!!"

    You watch... :D

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Time for a little frivolity.. But IS it frivolity?? :D

    The once and future 'Star Trek'
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/20/once-and-future-star-trek/?intcmp=HPBucket

    Yea, I know it's long (horror!!) and it's on FNC (horror of horrors!!!) but hold yer noses and try to read it anyways. :D

    I am not much of a fan of the new STAR TREK 90210 and doubt it has any real bearing on our society, other than to cash in on a legend..

    But it's an interesting article, nonetheless...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I mentioned above, it's a great time to be a political agnostic..

    Obama Scandals Bring MSNBC 7-Year Low While Fox News Rises
    http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/obama-msnbc-fox-news-scandals/

    Apparently, it's a very bad time to be an Obama TorchBearer... :D

    No wonder ABC and CBS are trying to jump off the Obama Bandwagon...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    akadjian wrote:

    yes you have... Michty... :D

    Heh. I take that as quite the compliment.

    No need to get so angry though, Michale. We're actually just trying to help you out.

    Scandals would be much more credible if conservatives hadn't made up so many fake scandals like Benghazi and if they would stick to the facts instead of devolving into conspiracy theory.

    I mean, I'm all for fixing the problem at the IRS. Also for a thriving media free from intimidation. When it comes to these things, I'm with 'ya.

    But it looks more like it's going to be the usual blame Obama 24x7 witch hunt. I think you're going to have trouble mustering support for this - especially given an improving economy.

    -David

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heh. I take that as quite the compliment.

    Yea, I knew you would. :D

    No need to get so angry though, Michale. We're actually just trying to help you out.

    Who's angry??

    I am in hog heaven. The Obama Administration is being brought down by the death of a thousand cuts and even though most die hard of Obama Supporters are taking a step back and saying, "Whoaaa Maybe something isn't right here.."

    Those who still think that Obama is the second coming and can do no wrong (which is 97% of Weigantians) are going to find themselves ever increasingly isolated..

    And then it ain't going to be pretty..

    Ya remember Jonestown??

    Scandals would be much more credible if conservatives hadn't made up so many fake scandals like Benghazi and if they would stick to the facts instead of devolving into conspiracy theory.

    How can Benghazi be a "fake scandal" under a DEM POTUS, but be a real and hysterical scandal under a GOP POTUS???

    But it looks more like it's going to be the usual blame Obama 24x7 witch hunt. I think you're going to have trouble mustering support for this - especially given an improving economy.

    Apparently, you are not up on current events.

    Even DEMS are coming out against the Obama Administration..

    I know, I know.. You don't want to listen to any FACTS that show Obama to be the incompetent moron he is...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    The IRS Scandal is a perfect example of ya'all not living in reality..

    Ya'all have been arguing for the past week that no one in the White House knew anything until the media released the news..

    NOW we come to find out that practically EVERYONE in the White House knew over a month ago. Up to AND INCLUDING Obama's chief of staff...

    These are the facts, David. I was right, you were wrong..

    But you'll spin it because, in your eyes, Obama can do or say no wrong..

    The house of cards is collapsing...

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also remember, you said that Benghazi was just an election "scandal", that we wouldn't hear anything about it after Obama won..

    Here it is 8 months later and Benghazi is not only still hot, it's getting hotter...

    PJM EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama
    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

    More facts that you don't care about....

    How long can ya keep denying reality???

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exclusive: Hillary's Benghazi 'Scapegoat' Speaks Out
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/exclusive-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html

    More Benghazi facts...

    Amazing how this "non scandal" continues to become more and more scandalous.. :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/05/21/carney-sweats/

    And the hits (AND facts) just keep on coming.. :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-went-after-83-year-old-tea-party-granny/article/2530131

    Oh ya'all must be SOOO proud of your Obama's IRS, eh??

    Have to make sure that those 83 yr old Internment Camp Survivor Tea Party people don't get too out of line, right!??

    What's so sad is that people are STILL defending the IRS....

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, just for those in the know.... :D

    i want the first scene of season 9 to be some sleazy creep trying to pick up this girl and he wraps his greasy arm around her and goes “so… did it hurt when you fell from heaven?” and she yanks out her angel blade and ganks him and as his mutilated corpse falls to the ground she mutters “i hate this planet”

    :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]