IRS targeting Conservative groups

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Hammartroll:

I like the part where he says "in the past couple weeks you've managed to show when the government wants to do good things your managerial competence falls somewhere between David Brent and a cat chasing a laser pointer, but when the government wants to flex it's more malevolent muscles YOUR FUCKING IRON MAN!"

So if the government cannot be trusted to not take advantage of it's powers with something as fundamental as collecting taxes, how can people trust it to have good intentions when it tries to pass gun control laws or something like NDAA, or how the Pentagon recently gave it's self the power to take control of "civil disturbances".

"He's the one, who likes, all our pretty songs, and he likes to sing along, and he, likes to shoot his guns, but he, don't know what it means."

Hap2:
You aren't delving thoroughly enough into the implications; you aren't asking the right questions. All you are interested in is the continued gratification and affirmation of your beliefs about the government, and its blinding you to some really nasty shit in US politics that this 'scandal' is being used as a smokescreen to distract us from.

All you are doing is lopping off the top of one less significant weed and leaving a system of poisonous roots in the ground.

Believe me, I heard you loud and clear from the soap box. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's remotely possible to go after the top of the food chain, at least not without a stronger case (and officials that will actually cooperate).

As much as it pains me to admit, the culpable parties, including the Obama administration, are basically untouchable. Call it realism. I'm actually (ideally) for the abolition of political parties, hard term limits and completely restructuring appointees so that the President and Congress cannot subvert different agencies or the Supreme Court. Am I going to pretend any of that is possible? Well I'm not in a laughing mood as of right now, or I would give a haughty chuckle.

"I'm quite convinced that no crime has been committed, but just in case, I'm going to plead the fifth to avoid incriminating myself of said non-crimes."

M'kay.

AgedGrunt:

I especially loved your take that this is GOP/conservatives trying to deceive Americans with revised talking points, when in a neighboring scandal the State Department trampled all over CIA reports and revised talking points on Benghazi which contradicted the current administration and would have made it look bad right before the election.

It's good that you are blindly defending a party based on the fact that the other side does it, too. As an independent, I don't have that problem, I have license to think for myself and have consistent ideals. Although I would be called a 'democrat' and a 'liberal' for simply stating the truth that the Republicans entire strategy is based around re-branding out-dated and ineffective ideas. One example of the counter shows- well, it doesn't really show anything compared to the republicans, who have re-branded their ideology more than the proponents of Intelligent design and it's no coincidence that the two are often in bed together.

Oh by the way, the next time you apply for a job, hand your potential employer every social media post you've ever made and tell them what content you watch on TV, Internet and what you post about on forums. Or maybe you wouldn't do that, because it's totally insane. You do want the job though, don't you?

I don't really know where you're going with this. Are you one of those insane?

Loonyyy:

Hammartroll:

just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you

"He's the one, who likes, all our pretty songs, and he likes to sing along, and he, likes to shoot his guns, but he, don't know what it means."

touche

AgedGrunt:

Hap2:
You aren't delving thoroughly enough into the implications; you aren't asking the right questions. All you are interested in is the continued gratification and affirmation of your beliefs about the government, and its blinding you to some really nasty shit in US politics that this 'scandal' is being used as a smokescreen to distract us from.

All you are doing is lopping off the top of one less significant weed and leaving a system of poisonous roots in the ground.

Believe me, I heard you loud and clear from the soap box. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's remotely possible to go after the top of the food chain, at least not without a stronger case (and officials that will actually cooperate).

As much as it pains me to admit, the culpable parties, including the Obama administration, are basically untouchable. Call it realism. I'm actually (ideally) for the abolition of political parties, hard term limits and completely restructuring appointees so that the President and Congress cannot subvert different agencies or the Supreme Court. Am I going to pretend any of that is possible? Well I'm not in a laughing mood as of right now, or I would give a haughty chuckle.

Realistically speaking, rarely does one ever get a stronger or 'ideal' case. We do what we can with what we have. Do I always expect my criticisms to have a major effect whenever I write a piece or an article? Not at all, change takes a long time and my power is limited, it doesn't always happen within our lifetimes. I understand that better than most people. Nonetheless, constant pressure is important if any seeds of change are to grow, and if I am not using what little power I have responsibly (to make critical thought and holistic understanding significant again in a world that would rather silence them with distractions), then what meaning does my life have right here and now? The world does not change if we sit back, filled with doubt, in fear of the worst possibilities. Doubt is a useful tool, and one should always question whether oneself or another person is doing the right thing, but it can be poisonous if we aren't mindful of our expectations.

Think about it this way. If people couldn't hurt these politicians and corporations as you imply, why are they in such a panic to pump up the notion of a 'scandal' wherever and whenever as much as possible? They've well established that they aren't credible or caring when it comes to the public's privacy, so that reason is highly unlikely, and the mainstream media has proven to be little more than complacent when it comes to selling their propaganda both today and in the past. The key factor here is public opinion. People trust the mainstream media outlets and rarely question them or investigate beyond them (as one should with all of one's sources), often due to time constraints, lack of education, other priorities, etc. Politicians and corporations fear public opinion turning on them, therefore they use the mainstream media to keep it in their favour whenever they can (not to say that the mainstream media cannot be critical at all, it isn't monolithic, there are, after all, good journalists out there working in the mainstream, but overall the outlets from the mainstream are less reliable when it comes to critical or holistic thought).

These guys are sitting on a tinderbox filled with the resentment of people bitter from war, income disparity, unemployment, etc. One thing, even one stupid or ridiculous thing, could ignite it, and send them and their buddies up in smoke. Just look at the Arab Spring or World War I if you need an example. Things are bound to get worse too, especially with the potentially disastrous effects of climate change (which we are already getting a glimpse of in the form of massive hurricanes, rainstorms, and cyclones), if we cannot curb emissions (e.g. more destructive storm systems, flooding, drought - leading potentially to food shortages, fresh water shortages, etc.). For the sake of expediency and necessity, there really is no better time than now to put pressure on the politicians and corporations.

Notsomuch:
> It's good that you are blindly defending a party based on the fact that the other side does it, too.

>> I don't really know where you're going with [Facebook]. Are you one of those insane?

> I didn't defend it, and have trouble believing your allegedly impartial opinion. It's not worth dragging the parties into this when so much truth is out there, truth that you don't appear to want to discuss.

>> The IRS asked tea party/patriot groups for that type of information and more. This is what you allege is the GOP, having no ideas, "drumming up controversy". If this stuff happened to you or your friends/family, I'm sure you would reconsider your conclusion.

Hap2:
Think about it this way. If people couldn't hurt these politicians and corporations as you imply, why are they in such a panic to pump up the notion of a 'scandal' wherever and whenever as much as possible? They've well established that they aren't credible or caring when it comes to the public's privacy, so that reason is highly unlikely, and the mainstream media has proven to be little more than complacent when it comes to selling their propaganda both today and in the past.

For the sake of expediency and necessity, there really is no better time than now to put pressure on the politicians and corporations.

I want to make this abundantly clear: I'm not giving anyone a clean bill of health here. Neither party, administration nor media outlet. I don't care if they say one thing and do another. That is irrelevant. The underlying virtue of truth is that it has one version, and if I see one side doing all it can to prevent it coming out, I will support anyone that goes after it.

More i learn about this "scandal", less important it seems.
People apply for tax exempt status (funny thing, they don't need to apply for it), get investigated, receive the status, claim persecution.
Best part being, of course, how only 3rd of the groups targeted for extra scrutiny were tea party groups, and only group that did not get their c4, was a progressive one (from what i hear, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong).

As for pleading the fifth, it's her right, and with those nutcases, i'd plead the fifth if they asked me what time it was.

AgedGrunt:

Notsomuch:
> It's good that you are blindly defending a party based on the fact that the other side does it, too.

>> I don't really know where you're going with [Facebook]. Are you one of those insane?

> I didn't defend it, and have trouble believing your allegedly impartial opinion. It's not worth dragging the parties into this when so much truth is out there, truth that you don't appear to want to discuss.

>> The IRS asked tea party/patriot groups for that type of information and more. This is what you allege is the GOP, having no ideas, "drumming up controversy". If this stuff happened to you or your friends/family, I'm sure you would reconsider your conclusion.

Except that this particular issue has little to do with the public (if your interest was really in the issue of privacy, you had many more suitable targets than this one), and more to do with corporations and politicians losing access to one of their favourite loopholes. Far from being equivalent to 'friends and family', don't you think?

Hap2:
Think about it this way. If people couldn't hurt these politicians and corporations as you imply, why are they in such a panic to pump up the notion of a 'scandal' wherever and whenever as much as possible? They've well established that they aren't credible or caring when it comes to the public's privacy, so that reason is highly unlikely, and the mainstream media has proven to be little more than complacent when it comes to selling their propaganda both today and in the past.

For the sake of expediency and necessity, there really is no better time than now to put pressure on the politicians and corporations.

I want to make this abundantly clear: I'm not giving anyone a clean bill of health here. Neither party, administration nor media outlet. I don't care if they say one thing and do another. That is irrelevant. The underlying virtue of truth is that it has one version, and if I see one side doing all it can to prevent it coming out, I will support anyone that goes after it.

For somebody allegedly driven to promoting the truth, you sure have had an interest in only telling half of it at best. The truth doesn't leave anything out, unlike your narrative of 'the government is only out to get conservatives/right-wing libertarians, etc.' which has already been contradicted. Rhetoric is pretty, but action is a lot more revealing.

Since we're at it, here's another article on six key facts that are getting overlooked in this matter.

Hammartroll:

I like the part where he says "in the past couple weeks you've managed to show when the government wants to do good things your managerial competence falls somewhere between David Brent and a cat chasing a laser pointer, but when the government wants to flex it's more malevolent muscles YOUR FUCKING IRON MAN!"

So if the government cannot be trusted to not take advantage of it's powers with something as fundamental as collecting taxes, how can people trust it to have good intentions when it tries to pass gun control laws or something like NDAA, or how the Pentagon recently gave it's self the power to take control of "civil disturbances".

Very great thing for Comedy Central to publish. I wonder if they'll learn from this. The burden of proof is now, not on the tinfoil had wearing but on Government. Yup.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked