Other Resources The Political Joe » IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 4
 
 
2013-05-14 10:10 AM
in reply to: #4741651

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 9:50 AM

What's the biggest issue of the 4 right now?

-Benghazi

-IRS

-DOJ/AP

-Kathleen Sebelius shaking-down executives for funds to implement the Affordable Care Act even after spending over $150 Million that was not earmarked for the ACA on its implementation.

Hello, you forgot the Birth Certificate. 

On an older note you can throw in Fast and Furious and more recently Ammo Gate as well.

Of the three I'd say the IRS is the worse from a potential abuse of power standpoint.  Benghazi was obviously the worse from the standpoint of lives being lost, but it's more of an incompetence/coverup type thing versus abuse of power.  I'm still reading more about DOJ/AP, but it's rising to a solid 2 spot in my book.

Even though I have a lot of issues with the press, they still need to be free to do their jobs without the fear of government persecution.  The sad part is it was likely legal under the Patriot Act, which is yet another reason everyone should be against that horrible piece of legislation.



2013-05-14 1:28 PM
in reply to: #4741607

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

Yes, that was the world I grew up in.  When I worked for someone other than myself, I was responsible to managers who were responsible to managers all the way up to the top.  The guy at the top gave the directives and everyone worked within the parameters they were given.  So no one worked outside of the directives.  In my businesses, everyone knows what is expected and not to deviate from stated policy without permission from a higher authority.  So I know what is going on, and whether I like it or not, I am ultimately responsible for my employees actions.  Mr. Obama put in place (appointed) people to carry out his vision and directives.  There is no doubt in my mind he knew the policy carried out by the IRS.  It fits the MO of how he got elected in IL.  Find personal info. (confidential) on your opposition and have it leaked to your benefit.  This has nothing to do with him as dem, its about abuse of power and breaking the law.  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.

2013-05-14 1:50 PM
in reply to: #4742110

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
Ladies and gentlemen, your official White House Press Secretary responding to a reporter:

"If I could then go back to the IRS issue," said a reporter from the AP. "The president did use the word 'if these activities had taken place,' but there has been an acknowledgement on the part of the IRS leadership that these things did indeed occur. I wondered why the president used that phrasing in claiming that it was outrageous?"

"Those from the IRS that have spoken about this obviously have much greater insight into what took place than we do. We have not seen the report. We have not independently collected information about what transpired. We need the independent inspector general's report to be released before we can make judgments. One person's view of what actions were taken or what that individual did is not enough for us to say something concretely happened that was inappropriate," said Carney.

At what point does this Administration take responsibility for anything that happens on its watch? At what point does it do some honest self-assessment and admit, yeah, we're doing some things wrong and we'll correct them?



2013-05-14 1:59 PM
in reply to: #4742110

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.



Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something.

I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.
2013-05-14 2:09 PM
in reply to: #4742155

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:59 PM

NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.



Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something.

I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.



Don't you find it more than a little coincidental that the outcome of each one these brewing scandals-- IRS, Benghazi and the AP phone records-- directly benefitted this Administration that claims to have no role in them rather than the lower-level bureaucrats who supposedly carried them out (Benghazi possibly excepted, as that also directly benefitted HRC)?


2013-05-14 3:08 PM
in reply to: #4742155

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:59 PM
NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.

Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something. I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.

It's interesting to me that people who made arguments one direction a few years ago with Abu Ghraib are making the opposite argument now.  

Abu G was a good example of something that the President could have had no knowledge of.  Three troops taking pictures of themselves mistreating prisoners.  But the argument was "This is part of Bush/Cheney's policy."

You can take one tactic by saying "The President is accountable for everything in his administration."  So the IRS falls on Obama and Abu G falls on Bush.  

Or you can say "I don't hold the President accountable for anything below his secretary/direct appointee level" in this case, you'd still have Holder and the DOJ/AP, Benghazi (talking points, etc), and Kathleen Sebelius.  But the IRS would drop out.  

I guess I'm curious what would people hold the president of their own party accountable for.  Everything? Nothing? Where's the line?



2013-05-14 3:17 PM
in reply to: #4742289

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 3:08 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:59 PM
NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.

Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something. I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.

It's interesting to me that people who made arguments one direction a few years ago with Abu Ghraib are making the opposite argument now.  

Abu G was a good example of something that the President could have had no knowledge of.  Three troops taking pictures of themselves mistreating prisoners.  But the argument was "This is part of Bush/Cheney's policy."

You can take one tactic by saying "The President is accountable for everything in his administration."  So the IRS falls on Obama and Abu G falls on Bush.  

Or you can say "I don't hold the President accountable for anything below his secretary/direct appointee level" in this case, you'd still have Holder and the DOJ/AP, Benghazi (talking points, etc), and Kathleen Sebelius.  But the IRS would drop out.  

I guess I'm curious what would people hold the president of their own party accountable for.  Everything? Nothing? Where's the line?

Holder recused himself from the leak investigation last year so it will fall on one of the deputies.  Thus, there is more than one degree of separation from the President.

2013-05-14 3:26 PM
in reply to: #4742307

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
Hook'em - 2013-05-14 3:17 PM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 3:08 PM 

It's interesting to me that people who made arguments one direction a few years ago with Abu Ghraib are making the opposite argument now.  

Abu G was a good example of something that the President could have had no knowledge of.  Three troops taking pictures of themselves mistreating prisoners.  But the argument was "This is part of Bush/Cheney's policy."

You can take one tactic by saying "The President is accountable for everything in his administration."  So the IRS falls on Obama and Abu G falls on Bush.  

Or you can say "I don't hold the President accountable for anything below his secretary/direct appointee level" in this case, you'd still have Holder and the DOJ/AP, Benghazi (talking points, etc), and Kathleen Sebelius.  But the IRS would drop out.  

I guess I'm curious what would people hold the president of their own party accountable for.  Everything? Nothing? Where's the line?

Holder recused himself from the leak investigation last year so it will fall on one of the deputies.  Thus, there is more than one degree of separation from the President.

Ah, but doesn't he appoint the Deputies too?  He does in DOE.  

2013-05-14 4:34 PM
in reply to: #4742289

User image

Elite
4564
200020005002525
Boise
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 2:08 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:59 PM
NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.

Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something. I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.

It's interesting to me that people who made arguments one direction a few years ago with Abu Ghraib are making the opposite argument now.  

Abu G was a good example of something that the President could have had no knowledge of.  Three troops taking pictures of themselves mistreating prisoners.  But the argument was "This is part of Bush/Cheney's policy."

You can take one tactic by saying "The President is accountable for everything in his administration."  So the IRS falls on Obama and Abu G falls on Bush.  

Or you can say "I don't hold the President accountable for anything below his secretary/direct appointee level" in this case, you'd still have Holder and the DOJ/AP, Benghazi (talking points, etc), and Kathleen Sebelius.  But the IRS would drop out.  

I guess I'm curious what would people hold the president of their own party accountable for.  Everything? Nothing? Where's the line?

It's interesting to me that people will vote for either side. We have clearly seen what they will both willingly do. It only comes to light when the ones out of power try to regain their power by exposing it. 

2013-05-14 4:54 PM
in reply to: #4742289

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 3:08 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:59 PM
NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.

Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something. I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.

It's interesting to me that people who made arguments one direction a few years ago with Abu Ghraib are making the opposite argument now.  

Abu G was a good example of something that the President could have had no knowledge of.  Three troops taking pictures of themselves mistreating prisoners.  But the argument was "This is part of Bush/Cheney's policy."

You can take one tactic by saying "The President is accountable for everything in his administration."  So the IRS falls on Obama and Abu G falls on Bush.  

Or you can say "I don't hold the President accountable for anything below his secretary/direct appointee level" in this case, you'd still have Holder and the DOJ/AP, Benghazi (talking points, etc), and Kathleen Sebelius.  But the IRS would drop out.  

I guess I'm curious what would people hold the president of their own party accountable for.  Everything? Nothing? Where's the line?

To add on, Accountability and Responsibility are two different things.  The administration is responsible for putting people in place to manage their respective branches of government effectively.  When those people do not do their job appropriately the president is ultimately accountable for what goes wrong.

I own a business and I hire employees.  I am 100% responsible for my hiring process and who I put out in the field, even if I delegate that hiring process to one of my managers.  If one of those employees goes out and steals from a business or causes a financial loss due to negligence, who do you think is responsible to pay for the damages?  Me, not them because I am ultimately accountable for everything that takes place in my business, even if I had no direct control over what the employee was doing.  Can I 100% prevent all bad things from happening?  Absolutely not, but I am still responsible for all things that happen.
It doesn't matter if I have 12 employees or 120,000 employees, the accountability is still the same.

BTW, this is called leadership.  The President, on the other hand, is not portraying good leadership.  He appears to be leaving all of his teams out to dry and throwing them under the bus in order to protect his own political hide.

2013-05-14 6:23 PM
in reply to: #4742169

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 2:09 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:59 PM

NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.



Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something.

I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.



Don't you find it more than a little coincidental that the outcome of each one these brewing scandals-- IRS, Benghazi and the AP phone records-- directly benefitted this Administration that claims to have no role in them rather than the lower-level bureaucrats who supposedly carried them out (Benghazi possibly excepted, as that also directly benefitted HRC)?




How did the AP phone records directly benefit the administration? Isn't the story that the DOJ was looking for records that might indicate who leaked information that could have compromised national security? Not sure how that benefits the POTUS. Is not like they were gathering information solely from right-wing news outlets. And isn't the IRS thing still in the early stages of the investigation? At best, one out of the three "directly benefits the administration" and that's only if the investigation concludes that the administration was directly involved, a conclusion that you've obviously already jumped to, but which is far from having been proven.



2013-05-14 8:02 PM
in reply to: #4742289

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 3:08 PM

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:59 PM
NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.

Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something. I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.

It's interesting to me that people who made arguments one direction a few years ago with Abu Ghraib are making the opposite argument now.  

Abu G was a good example of something that the President could have had no knowledge of.  Three troops taking pictures of themselves mistreating prisoners.  But the argument was "This is part of Bush/Cheney's policy."

You can take one tactic by saying "The President is accountable for everything in his administration."  So the IRS falls on Obama and Abu G falls on Bush.  

Or you can say "I don't hold the President accountable for anything below his secretary/direct appointee level" in this case, you'd still have Holder and the DOJ/AP, Benghazi (talking points, etc), and Kathleen Sebelius.  But the IRS would drop out.  

I guess I'm curious what would people hold the president of their own party accountable for.  Everything? Nothing? Where's the line?




Ok, we'll, based in the standard of conduct that people want to hold Obama to, shouldn't Bush have accepted personal responsibility for what happened? Rumsfeld (supposedly) offered to resign but Bush wouldn't let him. Seems to me that at the very least the SecDef deserved to lose his job over what happened. Of course, the liberal media covered up most of the abuses ("mistreating" is a gigantic understatement) that took place there--most people think that Lyddie England mugging in front of a naked pile of prisoners was as far as it went, but far worse things happened according to eyewitness accounts and even according to photographs and videos. As far as i know, no senior Bush administration official took the fall, just a bunch of soldiers, and most of them got off more lightly than what they would have received in a civilian court for similar offenses. No one in the Bush administration resigned or was held accountable, and when you read accounts of the scandal, you hardly ever even read Bush's name, so insulated from it was he by the people around him.

Listen, sorry to do the whole, "but they did it too" thing, but you brought it up. Again, I wouldn't (and didn't) hold the POTUS personally responsible for what some soldiers did, regardless of whether or not the culture created by Rumsfeld and Cheney led then to think it would be condoned, but if you're going to say that Obama is personally accountable for the IRS and the AP thing, there's no way you can say that Bush wasn't accountable for Abu G, yet he bore almost no fallout from it personally. Neither did Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, or any other senior official.

2013-05-14 8:47 PM
in reply to: #4742713

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 8:02 PM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 3:08 PM

It's interesting to me that people who made arguments one direction a few years ago with Abu Ghraib are making the opposite argument now.  

Abu G was a good example of something that the President could have had no knowledge of.  Three troops taking pictures of themselves mistreating prisoners.  But the argument was "This is part of Bush/Cheney's policy."

You can take one tactic by saying "The President is accountable for everything in his administration."  So the IRS falls on Obama and Abu G falls on Bush.  

Or you can say "I don't hold the President accountable for anything below his secretary/direct appointee level" in this case, you'd still have Holder and the DOJ/AP, Benghazi (talking points, etc), and Kathleen Sebelius.  But the IRS would drop out.  

I guess I'm curious what would people hold the president of their own party accountable for.  Everything? Nothing? Where's the line?

Ok, we'll, based in the standard of conduct that people want to hold Obama to, shouldn't Bush have accepted personal responsibility for what happened? Rumsfeld (supposedly) offered to resign but Bush wouldn't let him. Seems to me that at the very least the SecDef deserved to lose his job over what happened. Of course, the liberal media covered up most of the abuses ("mistreating" is a gigantic understatement) that took place there--most people think that Lyddie England mugging in front of a naked pile of prisoners was as far as it went, but far worse things happened according to eyewitness accounts and even according to photographs and videos. As far as i know, no senior Bush administration official took the fall, just a bunch of soldiers, and most of them got off more lightly than what they would have received in a civilian court for similar offenses. No one in the Bush administration resigned or was held accountable, and when you read accounts of the scandal, you hardly ever even read Bush's name, so insulated from it was he by the people around him. Listen, sorry to do the whole, "but they did it too" thing, but you brought it up. Again, I wouldn't (and didn't) hold the POTUS personally responsible for what some soldiers did, regardless of whether or not the culture created by Rumsfeld and Cheney led then to think it would be condoned, but if you're going to say that Obama is personally accountable for the IRS and the AP thing, there's no way you can say that Bush wasn't accountable for Abu G, yet he bore almost no fallout from it personally. Neither did Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, or any other senior official.
.

I appreciate your response and I do think these situations (Abu G, IRS) are similar when it comes to accountability. So does that mean you think Jack Lew shouldn't be elevated to Treasury Secretary? (Whether he will or not).

The main difference for me is that the IRS was against US Citizens while Abu G was against enemy combatant prisoners. Maybe it's because I was fighting in that war, but I do feel more concern for our own. "Mistreatment" is an appropriate term as I'd guarantee they get worse treatment in US prisons or most assuredly in Iraqi prisons.

For the record: The Commander of Abu G was relieved, as were all of the officers between. So at the very least the Cincinnati office should have all new leadership.

2013-05-15 5:25 AM
in reply to: #4736601

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status

Interesting twist: (lead story on Drudge this morning)

Progressive Group: IRS Gave Us Conservative Groups' Confidential Docs

 

 

2013-05-15 6:26 AM
in reply to: #4736601

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
Watching Morning Joe as I generally enjoy doing.

Even Chris Matthews is going after Barack Obama and saying he's "failing as a president".

They're saying he isolates himself with fawning supporters and that's how he can believe this is all just a conspiracy by Rush Limbaugh. They also say that he wants plausible deniability on so many things that he knows absolutely nothing about what's going on.

Just repeating what I'm hearing really. But I find it interesting that his biggest supporter (MSNBC) has completely turned on him but many on here are still wholeheartedly defending him. Gotta stand for something right?

Oh good! Charlie Rangel is on now. I hope they ask him about the IRS.
2013-05-15 6:34 AM
in reply to: #4743041

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status

GomesBolt - 2013-05-15 6:26 AM Watching Morning Joe as I generally enjoy doing.

Even Chris Matthews is going after Barack Obama and saying he's "failing as a president".

They're saying he isolates himself with fawning supporters and that's how he can believe this is all just a conspiracy by Rush Limbaugh. They also say that he wants plausible deniability on so many things that he knows absolutely nothing about what's going on.

Just repeating what I'm hearing really. But I find it interesting that his biggest supporter (MSNBC) has completely turned on him but many on here are still wholeheartedly defending him. Gotta stand for something right?

Oh good! Charlie Rangel is on now. I hope they ask him about the IRS.

Politico had a pretty tough article on him as well.

D.C. turns on Obama

Even if he has absolutely nothing to do with any of these things, he is going to be judged on how he leads his administration through it all.  So far, he's not doing very well, IMHO.

 

 



2013-05-15 7:46 AM
in reply to: #4736601

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status

I'm sure all of you guys are going to come to the rescue of the Democratic leaning organizations that got the same letter and one actually go denied right?

"One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

2013-05-15 7:55 AM
in reply to: #4742595

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 6:23 PM

scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 2:09 PM


Don't you find it more than a little coincidental that the outcome of each one these brewing scandals-- IRS, Benghazi and the AP phone records-- directly benefitted this Administration that claims to have no role in them rather than the lower-level bureaucrats who supposedly carried them out (Benghazi possibly excepted, as that also directly benefitted HRC)?




How did the AP phone records directly benefit the administration? Isn't the story that the DOJ was looking for records that might indicate who leaked information that could have compromised national security? Not sure how that benefits the POTUS. Is not like they were gathering information solely from right-wing news outlets. And isn't the IRS thing still in the early stages of the investigation? At best, one out of the three "directly benefits the administration" and that's only if the investigation concludes that the administration was directly involved, a conclusion that you've obviously already jumped to, but which is far from having been proven.



The DoJ sought the phone records of AP reporters because one of them was leaked info of a foiled plot by Al Qaeda to blow up an American airliner headed to America ala the infamous "underwear" bomber. This was in May 2012, when the narrative being pushed by the Obama campaign was that they had decimated Al Qaeda. Obviously, a nearly successful attempt by Al Qaeda to blow up an airliner heading to the U.S. would have undermined that narrative and damaged the campaign. Were there national security concerns at stake? Probably. But as I said it also directly benefitted Obama by continuing their narrative and providing them a tool to plug a leak by someone within the CIA who was not afraid to release info damaging to the administration/re-eelection campaign. Considering what was to follow in September, it's small wonder they were looking to plug leaks.

I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that the IRS targeting conservative groups and preventing them from raising funds in a key battleground state did not benefit Obama.

The AP phone records, the IRS scandal and Benghazi "misdirection" (I'm being generous there) all directly benefitted the Obama Administration/re-election campaign in varying degrees.




2013-05-15 10:15 AM
in reply to: #4736601

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status

And now we find that the IRS approved liberal group's applications while holding conservative group's applications in limbo for 27 months...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

At the very least should not the President be asking for resignations?

2013-05-15 10:33 AM
in reply to: #4743118

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
Marvarnett - 2013-05-15 7:46 AM

I'm sure all of you guys are going to come to the rescue of the Democratic leaning organizations that got the same letter and one actually go denied right?

"One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html

There's all kinds of stories flying back and forth on both sides, but the masses seem to show the IRS pretty heavily weighted against the conservative crowd. 
Obviously all I have to go by is what I read in the media and the IRS did apologize/admit that they were unfairly targeting the Tea Party causes.  So that does hold some weight for me.

2013-05-15 10:38 AM
in reply to: #4743466

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
TriRSquared - 2013-05-15 10:15 AM

And now we find that the IRS approved liberal group's applications while holding conservative group's applications in limbo for 27 months...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

At the very least should not the President be asking for resignations?

Am I the only one who noticed that TriRSquared has IRS in his username?  I think he's a plant, so everyone watch what you say here. 



2013-05-15 10:39 AM
in reply to: #4743497

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
Guess this means this controversy isn't ramping down anytime soon...

Boehner: "My question isn't who is going to resign. It's who is going to jail over this scandal?"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/15/boehner-irs-whos-go...

2013-05-15 10:43 AM
in reply to: #4742595

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status

jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 6:23 PM How did the AP phone records directly benefit the administration? Isn't the story that the DOJ was looking for records that might indicate who leaked information that could have compromised national security? Not sure how that benefits the POTUS. Is not like they were gathering information solely from right-wing news outlets. And isn't the IRS thing still in the early stages of the investigation? At best, one out of the three "directly benefits the administration" and that's only if the investigation concludes that the administration was directly involved, a conclusion that you've obviously already jumped to, but which is far from having been proven.

Are you laying out the argument that abuse of power is acceptable as long as there was no benefit gained? 

Ok, so probably Obama would have won the election anyway without the whole Bengazi cover-up or the IRS harassing conservative group which possibly made it more difficult to mount an opposition. Heck, Nixon won 49 states and probably didn't need to wiretap Watergate to win. But what if these actions by government did change the election? All I'm saying is government over reach and abuse needs to be looked independently of the resulting benefit or lack thereof.



Edited by Jackemy1 2013-05-15 10:44 AM
2013-05-15 10:48 AM
in reply to: #4742595

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 6:23 PM
scoobysdad - 2013-05-14 2:09 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:59 PM
NXS - 2013-05-14 1:28 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 9:38 AM
NXS - 2013-05-14 7:39 AM
GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 8:03 PM
jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:59 PMMr. Obama said he learned about those allegations from news media reports on Friday. He repeatedly called the charges “outrageous,” if true, and said that anyone found to be guilty of such actions should be held accountable.“I’ve got no patience for it,” he said. “I will not tolerate it.”Is that the proper response? Or do we just think this is CYA? Is the assumption that he knew about it or that he even directed it?

I guess I'm wondering what he does know about. He didn't know about the Talking Points on Benghazi, he didn't know about Fast and Furious, he didn't know about the IRS, he didn't know about the AP wire tap, what does he know about?

Personally I have two choices.  Either I believe he didn't know about any of these things, which means this guy is an absolute moron and people under him just do whatever they want, or he knew about everything and its part of his game.  If I am to believe what dems and media types lead people to believe about his great intelligence, deep thought, smartest president, etc., then he is guilty as sin.  About the only thing he claims to have known about his whole time in office is the killing of bin Laden.

And that is exactly the sort of black-and-white, all or nothing thinking that is at the heart of the cultural divide in American society today. He's either 100% one thing, or 100% the other, and either way, he's wrong. How can there possibly be any worthwhile discussion in a society where you have a large segment of the population that thinks this way?

  I find it interesting that about a year ago Glen Beck wrote about the 9/12 project being targeted by the IRS and being called a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy by everyone in the media.  You know, deep down I wish they would have been right.

Glen Beck is a conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat guy. That he may have been right about this particular issue does nothing to change that fact. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Again, there's a difference between knowlege and accountability. Whether or not a CEO should be accountable for the actions committed by people one or two or ten levels below him is a different question than whether he or she should be expected to know that they were taking place. I don't believe that Obama said, "Under no circumstances should anyone at the IRS target Tea Party's tax status", but the fact that he didn't explicitly tell people not to do something isn't the same as telling them to do something. I dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that if we're setting the expectation that the POTUS is always, 100%, responsible for everything that every federal employee does, regardless of what extent to which it can be traced directly back to the Oval Office, we're setting ourselves up for a very long hard road in terms of our expectations of what a president is capable of. Running the country is an enormously complex job. I don't want the POTUS so ingrained in the minutia of ensuring that every single employee is not doing something inappropriate on his own that he becomes a micromanager. I want him focused on the big pictures-- foreign policy, the economy, etc. Unless there's a clear indication that the IRS scandal goes up to the Oval Office, or the DOJ went after the AA on White House orders, or the POTUS made the decision to re-script Benghazi, I'm more inclined to hold the heads of those departments accountable than him directly, though I think it certainly calls into question his ability to appoint competant leadership and I'd definitely want to try to establish to what extent, if at all, he was directly involved. If we're all comfortable with holding him directly accountable for things that he may not have had knowlege of, I hope, when a Republican eventually wins a presidential election, we're all prepared for this level of scrutiny on the other side.
Don't you find it more than a little coincidental that the outcome of each one these brewing scandals-- IRS, Benghazi and the AP phone records-- directly benefitted this Administration that claims to have no role in them rather than the lower-level bureaucrats who supposedly carried them out (Benghazi possibly excepted, as that also directly benefitted HRC)?
How did the AP phone records directly benefit the administration? Isn't the story that the DOJ was looking for records that might indicate who leaked information that could have compromised national security? Not sure how that benefits the POTUS. Is not like they were gathering information solely from right-wing news outlets. And isn't the IRS thing still in the early stages of the investigation? At best, one out of the three "directly benefits the administration" and that's only if the investigation concludes that the administration was directly involved, a conclusion that you've obviously already jumped to, but which is far from having been proven.

 

As to what the AG said yesterday about phone records of the AP.  He said that leaks FROM the white house we at a security level of the highest ever scene since the 1970's.  He recuses himself, and turns it over to his assistant.  It is inconceivable to me that [(1) a leak of this magnitude from the white house and (2) the attorney general recusing himself during the investigation],  the president would not be informed. 

2013-05-15 11:02 AM
in reply to: #4743509

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status
tuwood - 2013-05-15 11:38 AM
TriRSquared - 2013-05-15 10:15 AM

And now we find that the IRS approved liberal group's applications while holding conservative group's applications in limbo for 27 months...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

At the very least should not the President be asking for resignations?

Am I the only one who noticed that TriRSquared has IRS in his username?  I think he's a plant, so everyone watch what you say here. 

I'm going to need to see your W2s for the last, oh... 25 years....

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 4