Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 43621 - 43640 of total 52587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dirtbag

climber
May 20, 2013 - 03:28pm PT
Abrams you are an excellent fascist.
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
May 20, 2013 - 03:40pm PT
The scandals will play out as more facts get uncovered.

I suppose another way to phrase that would be... oh, never mind.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
May 20, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
Recent poll confirms the obvious.

Republicans aren't fooling anybody except their own base:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/20/poll-benghazi-irs-politics-blame-gop-obama/2343519/
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2013 - 05:32pm PT
Expect the gun confiscation SWAT teams to arrive to disarm you mentally
disturbed Democrats harmless. Suggest you all strip naked, spread eagle in the street in front of your rebel domiciles, and confess your guilt to the first leo who puts boot to your neck.
And then we will shoot you in the vagina

Republicans, what will they say next??
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2013 - 05:37pm PT
What really is happening now
The Republican base is just seething with hate, and just ready to explode!!

while the rest of America is watching, and now understand what's going on with these wackos, they are crazy!
and anyone with any brains should just ignore their idiocy, and vote against their screwed up ideology, which means voting against ALL Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
May 20, 2013 - 05:41pm PT
I'm not so sure of that, Dr F. What's the name of the guy who ran against Elizabeth Warren? Scott Brown? I won't vote for him, but he seems like a pretty moderate republican.

Edit: I can't vote for or against him currently, but he is rumored to be considering a run here in NH in '14.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2013 - 05:49pm PT
Check out Scott Brown's record, he is a typical Repub, and will vote in lock step with the rest of them

Everyone needs to be informed of what these people are really up to, not what they say
because they will say anything, that is their game
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2013 - 05:52pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
May 20, 2013 - 05:56pm PT
Given the current political climate, he's a moderate.

But, he's going to have a hard time in NH. Both senators, both congress members, and the governor, are women. Kelly Ayotte is the only republican, and given her recent gun control voting, she will most likely be voted out.

I know, I'm getting into state politics, but NH is in a unique position right now.

Personally, I'm proud of our little state. We wield a lot of power in relation to our size.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 20, 2013 - 06:04pm PT
The only moderates now are democrats
ask JE
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
May 20, 2013 - 07:32pm PT



What a bunch of republigoons….


Editing leaked emails supposedly leaked by the administration?


Which of the birthed goons wants to take a crack at this one?
The Warbler

climber
the edge of America
May 20, 2013 - 07:40pm PT
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Again.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
May 20, 2013 - 09:41pm PT
I'm not so sure of that, Dr F. What's the name of the guy who ran against Elizabeth Warren? Scott Brown? I won't vote for him, but he seems like a pretty moderate republican.

Scott Brown is clearly a moderate Republican (after all he was elected to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts) but that leads to a couple of interesting observations.

1) He's a dying breed.

2) "Moderate" is a regional concept. In a more conservative (i.e. Republican) state, he would simply be labeled a RINO and be unable to even win his party's nomination for any office.

Curt
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 21, 2013 - 07:19am PT
that means he uses more tame language to describe the protion of the electorate hes dedicated to screwing under


anyone noticed how many resources boston had dedicated to spying on peace activists during the recent bombing?

"sorry about that jack the ripper incident, we had betty crocker under the microscope..."

http://www.progressive.org/spying-on-occupy-activists
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
May 21, 2013 - 08:03am PT
Brandon said
But, he's going to have a hard time in NH. Both senators, both congress members, and the governor, are women. Kelly Ayotte is the only republican, and given her recent gun control voting, she will most likely be voted out.

Eh, don't be so sure. 2016 is a long ways away. She's tacked to the middle on a number of things and is paling around with some of the "more moderate" *cough* members of the RNC like McCain and Graham. That will pull a lot of water with NH independents. She was voted in during the 2010 tea party midterm when most sensible NH voters stayed home and the whole place went "coocoo banana town" as my daughter would say.


Dave Kos taunted
Recent poll confirms the obvious.

Republicans aren't fooling anybody except their own base:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/20/poll-benghazi-irs-politics-blame-gop-obama/2343519/

That poll...I do not think it means what you think it means. All it is saying is that people think Obama's job just got harder....kind of a no-brainer and a stupid question to ask. According to WaPo, 60% of Americans think that Republicans have acted "properly" in their response to Benghazi. I personally think that's just because they assume that people keep talking about it because there is something worth talking about but I could be wrong. There is something worth talking about in regards to Libya, but I don't see anyone talking about it.
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 21, 2013 - 08:12am PT
wonder why a liberal media would ketow to the conservative establishment in sliming the president and the facts?


Conservative Groups Were Not “Targeted,” “Singled Out” Or Anything Else

You are hearing that conservative groups were “targeted.” What you are not hearing is that progressive groups were also “targeted.” So were groups that are not progressive or conservative.

All that happened here is that groups applying to the IRS for special tax status were checked to see if they were engaged in political activity. They were checked, not targeted. Only 1/3 of the groups checked were conservative groups.

Once again: Only 1/3 of the groups checked were conservative groups.

Conservative groups were not “singled out,” were not “targeted” and in the end none were denied special tax status — even though many obviously should have been.

From last week’s House hearings on this:

Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL: “How come only conservative groups got snagged?”

Outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller: “They didn’t sir. Organizations of all walks and all persuasions were pulled in. That’s shown by the fact that only 70 of the 300 organizations were tea party organizations, of the ones that were looked at by TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration].”

Bet you didn’t see that blasted all over your TV news that night.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/21-1
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 21, 2013 - 08:18am PT
Click here to watch the video clip of this. It’s worth it.

And from Bloomberg reporting: IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row, (emphasis added, for emphasis)

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. Progress Texas … faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.

In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants — including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4451984
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
May 21, 2013 - 08:34am PT

The IRS Targeted Conservatives Because It Could

Peter Suderman|May. 20, 2013 11:01 am


The opening day excuse for the IRS targeting conservative groups requesting tax exempt status was that the IRS was facing an unusual influx of applicants. But that turns out not to have been the case. Applications for tax exempt 501 groups didn’t surge in 2010. In fact, the number of applicants was down in every category from 2009. The new line on the scandal is that it was a product of poor management, incompetence, and a struggling, understaffed agency. Here, for example, is The New York Times, in a reported piece from yesterday: “Overseen by a revolving cast of midlevel managers, stalled by miscommunication with IRS lawyers and executives in Washington, and confused about the rules they were enforcing, the Cincinnati specialists flagged virtually every application with Tea Party in its name.”

The IRS doesn’t look particularly good in this version of events. But it’s useful to liberals who want to argue that the problems stem from lack of resources—not a government that is too big, but one that is too small.

That’s somewhat complicated, of course, by the argument being made by folks like former White House adviser David Axelrod, who argued last week that the president couldn’t possibly have known about (and therefore couldn’t have any responsibility for) the actions of midlevel bureaucrats in a regional office.

I lean toward a version of the bigness argument that is a little less friendly to the administration than Axelrod’s: Yes, the federal government is so vast that accountability has become extremely difficult. That’s not so much an argument for absolving the guys at the top as it is for limiting the size of government—for making it less vast.

But I think that critiques that focus on the government’s size miss an important factor. This isn’t just a problem of bigness or smallness. It’s a problem of power.

When public servants have the power to make life difficult for narrowly defined groups of people—their political enemies, or disfavored causes, or people on the wrong side of a national discussion—they’ll end up using, and abusing, that power. It’s all but inevitable, whatever the reason. Sometimes they’ll do it because they’re out to punish their foes. Sometimes because they honestly believe it’s the fairest and most reasonable way to do their jobs. Sometimes because they’re mean and petty people. Sometimes because they think they’re making the nation a better place for all. Sometimes because they’re instructed to do so from on high. Sometimes because they’re not given enough instruction. Sometimes because they’re just plain incompetent.

It’s not that the reasons don’t matter at all. They do. But in some ways the particular reasons miss the larger point. Power will find a reason. It always does.

That’s the point that James Bovard made last week in a Wall Street Journal piece reviewing the history of IRS abuses. Bovard starts with a quote from David Burnham, who wrote a book on the revenue agency’s scandals: "In almost every administration since the IRS's inception the information and power of the tax agency have been mobilized for explicitly political purposes." Roosevelt used the IRS to battle opposition newspaper publishers and protect political allies. Kennedy’s IRS went after conservative tax-exempt organizations. Nixon’s White House created special oversight for “all IRS activities involving ideological, militant, subversive, [and] radical” organizations. It eventually targeted more than 10,000 individuals. Under Clinton, conservative activist groups and publications were singled out by the revenue agency for extra special scrutiny.

The scandal in the news today may be primarily attributed to the incompetence and mismanagement of a relatively small cohort of mid-level tax bureaucrats. It may be confined to a few IRS offices. There may be no evidence explicitly tying the targeting to political motivations.

But focusing on the narrow particulars of this specific scandal misses the larger point. Which is that this is a problem of power—a problem that has a long history, and a problem that the IRS has fought to avoid fixing. As Bovard notes, despite a record of politically charged abuses, the IRS “has usually done an excellent job of stifling investigations into its practices” and "has a long history of seeking to intimidate congressional critics." Big or small, smartly managed or incompetent—what allowed the IRS to target conservative groups was that it could. And what the agency’s history indicates is that when it can, it will.
dirtbag

climber
May 21, 2013 - 08:49am PT
boo-hoo-hoo
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 21, 2013 - 08:51am PT
goddamned christians


head in a bucket where the voices they imagine are amplified ...


targetting those who want to drown the state in the bathtub news?!?!?!
except of course it didnt happen!??!?!?!

except in your fact addled dream world where law enforcement will soon be given theologically based marching orders

and suddenly, everything will turn into dasies?
Messages 43621 - 43640 of total 52587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews