[kbell]

I doubt they will keep their promise.

[Clyde Rules]

lol no one is going to impeach the president over this.... You can't impeach a president for something you cannot prove he had a hand in personally.

[durangotang]

On moral grounds alone Obama should be impeached. The same should have been done with George W. Bush as well. I don't think the Obama administration would be so eager to overstep it's constitutional authority if Bush was thrown out of office. If Obama is not impeached, I cringe to think of future administrations.

I have been listening to a little Doug Casey lately, and he made an interesting prediction. After four more years of Obama and the massive political corruption that reigns supreme in Washington, the Republicans will run a right wing general. The economy will be in the tank and people won't want to elect another democratic president at that time. Citizens of the US are extremely jingoistic, and worship the military, so they will elect a no nonsense general who they perceive will sort out the corruption and restore order to the system.

I think it is imperative to impeach Obama now to try to restore some sanity to the system.

[bacon]

Its real easy to let this shit get to you especially if you give a shit about the future of America. This video puts things into perspective.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-14-2013 09:40 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  

C'mon Tuthmosis, don't be such an Obama bootlicker

Easy on the name-calling.

Pointing out parallels to this "scandal" (or much worse examples) in the recent past doesn't amount to supporting Obama. I'm one of his most vocal critics. This isn't a two-sided, good-guys-versus-bad-guys contest.

I'm simply pointing out that the Obama-hating often blinds people to much worse things that have gone down, and encourages them to attribute blame to him for things that are bigger than him, or anyone else for that matter (e.g., corporate ownership of our entire political system).

[Vicious]

TCP is blowing up from Republican water cooler talk with little basis in reality. Seriously dude you have a knack for latching on to the silliest ideas with a passion at times.

Here's a good article that explains the issue:
http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comm...sight.html

Quote:

It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501©(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501©(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

So apart from some overzealous government worker, what's the conspiracy here again?

[Vicious]

TCP is blowing up from Republican water cooler talk with little basis in reality. Seriously dude you have a knack for latching on to the the silliest ideas with a passion at times.

Here's a good article that explains the issue:
http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comm...sight.html

Quote:

It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501©(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501©(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

So apart from some overzealous government worker, what's the conspiracy here again?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I think it's hilarious that people are presenting Obama as some kind of grand puppet master that tramples on the Constitution and gets away with it, when in reality he is to tied-up and ineffective that he can barely do anything. It's like UN being rumored to be composed of Illuminati, while the reality is that it has been unable to stop Israel and Palestine from fighting for 50 years. For an evil overlord, he/it is strangely... ignored.

[EisenBarde]

Fuck it, let it all just burn!

[Matt Forney]

Like a few people have already said, Obama likely had nothing to do with the IRS/Tea Party scandal. As an ex-civil servant, I know for a fact that most government employees are psychotically leftist and perfectly willing to do something like this on their own. Given that the Tea Party explicitly makes cutting the size of government (by firing civil servants) one of their big issues, the IRS likely went after them as an act of solidarity with their fellow parasites.

Really, people need to get it through their heads that our elected officials are closer to puppets than anything else. And no, they're not puppets of the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers or whatever, but of the civil service, the corporate lobbyists, the universities, and the Fed. You can't vote for any of these people or exercise any oversight over them, but they rule us.

Politics is nothing more than team sports for nerds. Actually, it's worse, because playing a sport requires skill and physical fitness. All politicians have to do is lie and wear pancake makeup.

[JayMillz]

(05-14-2013 07:33 PM)j r Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 07:30 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 07:23 PM)AFspecOps Wrote:  

Just wait until the IRS starts using all your healthcare info they will collect as enforcers of Obamacare.

How much are the Koch Brothers paying to go on various websites and forums and spew their talking points?

The Koch brothers are private citizens. They can spend their money however they like.

I already know this? I wanted to know if someone knew how much they are paying.

[j r]

(05-14-2013 10:05 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:03 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

These kinds of "but... but... both parties are bad" type objections get us nowhere.

Nor are they intended to. They are the usual response when the bad behavior itself can't be denied. The point is to end the discussion. It is like when a feminist responds to any criticism by saying you hate women or citing male privilege.

Right. Refusing to choose a side between two groups of assholes is like feminism... That's great logic.

For the most part, politics isn't really about choosing the best policy. Policies are decided in back rooms. Electoral politics is about signaling and tribal affiliation. That is just the reality.

[j r]

(05-15-2013 01:00 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

TCP is blowing up from Republican water cooler talk with little basis in reality. Seriously dude you have a knack for latching on to the the silliest ideas with a passion at times.

Here's a good article that explains the issue:
http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comm...sight.html

Quote:

It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501©(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501©(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

So apart from some overzealous government worker, what's the conspiracy here again?

That article is bullshit. It's leftist propaganda trying to minimize what happen and trying to counter a the right-wing propaganda calling for Obama'a head. It tries to deflect attention away from what the IRS did by claiming that the "real scandal" is that conservatives are raising too much money tax-free. Maybe the 501©(4) designation is bullshit, but that's the law. It's not the IRS' job to selectively enforce he law on ideological grounds. Change for America, which is essentially just the Obama campaign under a different name, is a 501©(4). Did the IRS go after them?

What the IRS did was serious and whoever is responsible should be fired, whether it's some low-level civil servant or the president.

And that New Yorker article is exactly what I mean when I talk about the red team-blue team matrix. When Bush was in office and ginning up some bullshit reason to go to war with Iraq, all the conservatives had his back and anyone who spoke out against it was labeled an unserious hippy who obviously didn't love America enough. And now that Obama is in office continuing and expanding the extra-constitutional powers first asserted by Bush, everything is flipped. The left is now firmly part of the establishment and anyone who questions this administration is labeled a dangerous wingnut. This is how the game is played. It is so obvious and I'm not sure why so many people fall for. Probably cause most people don't really care to stop and think critically, but would rather just tke the short cut and root for one side.

By the way, the New Yorker is terrible. It exists almost for the sole purpose of convincing rich white people who live in cities and vote for Democrats that they are smarter, cooler and more moral than rich white people who live in the suburbs or vote for Republicans.

[TheMachinist]

Bill Clinton was impeached for getting a blow job and lying about it...Obama has done way worse than lie about his sex life.Fast and Furious,Benghazi,Obamacare there were some SERIOUS half truths and omissisions told about all of those situations.The diffrence being Obama hasn't been under oath when he did any of his lying.If they can get him under oath and he continues to lie then there are grounds for impeachment.

[Bad Hussar]

I'm not an Obama fan either, but NO he is not going to be impeached. Even if any of the recent scandals can logically be stuck to him personally, and this hasn't been shown, all media of any size, apart from Fox obviously, has his back. I think they are fools for this, but it is the way it is. The media will do anything and everything possible, legal/illegal, moral/immoral, in order to protect him in the event he really does get himself into trouble. Also, as s a very last resort he will throw others under the bus:

Benghazi >>> Rodham-Clinton's fault. >>> Splat goes her presidential hopes.
IRS >>> This is an easy one. Everybody already hates them. Chief Tax Collector (or whatever) at IRS gets it. >> Splat goes his future.
AP Media Scandal >>> What was Eric Holder doing? Nothing I asked him to. No way.>>> Splat goes a faithful servant.

[Vicious]

(05-15-2013 06:08 AM)j r Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 01:00 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

TCP is blowing up from Republican water cooler talk with little basis in reality. Seriously dude you have a knack for latching on to the the silliest ideas with a passion at times.

Here's a good article that explains the issue:
http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comm...sight.html

Quote:

It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501©(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501©(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

So apart from some overzealous government worker, what's the conspiracy here again?

That article is bullshit. It's leftist propaganda trying to minimize what happen and trying to counter a the right-wing propaganda calling for Obama'a head. It tries to deflect attention away from what the IRS did by claiming that the "real scandal" is that conservatives are raising too much money tax-free. Maybe the 501©(4) designation is bullshit, but that's the law. It's not the IRS' job to selectively enforce he law on ideological grounds. Change for America, which is essentially just the Obama campaign under a different name, is a 501©(4). Did the IRS go after them?

The article's slant is irrelevant to the point. The fact remains that the 501©(4) designation makes political organizations an open target for auditing. Selective? Probably. Still don't alter the fact.

Personally I don't think the Republican party is doing itself any favours by rushing to defend the Tea Party. Likely it's just alienating middle America.

[eradicator]

Even if Obama does get impeached and goes to a senate hearing and gets convicted, we would be looking at 3 and a half years of President Biden. Who would want that?

[TheRookie]

(05-15-2013 01:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I think it's hilarious that people are presenting Obama as some kind of grand puppet master that tramples on the Constitution and gets away with it,

Of course he tramples on the Constitution and gets away with it. All presidents do. In this case, he was trampling so egregiously it awoke a lethargic press and public.

(05-15-2013 01:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

when in reality he is to tied-up and ineffective that he can barely do anything. It's like UN being rumored to be composed of Illuminati, while the reality is that it has been unable to stop Israel and Palestine from fighting for 50 years. For an evil overlord, he/it is strangely... ignored.

Obama is tied-up and ineffective on some issues (i.e. gun control, Guantanamo - although I doubt he cares that much if it is closed) but on others he has certainly gotten his way:

1. Obamacare
2. NDAA renewals
3. Patriot Act renewals
4. GM bailout
5. Stimulus
6. Escapade in Libya
7. Escapade in Syria?

I will give him credit for preventing an Israeli-Iranian war thus far.

[TheRookie]

(05-15-2013 01:00 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

So apart from some overzealous government worker, what's the conspiracy here again?

This thing likely goes higher up and involves a number of government workers.

Also, they apparently singled out Tea Party groups and quickly approved liberal groups

Many conservatives and outspoken opponents of Obama have complained about being targeted by audits, although proof is lacking that these audits were ordered from on high (for now at least).

[TheRookie]

(05-15-2013 12:33 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:40 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  

C'mon Tuthmosis, don't be such an Obama bootlicker

Easy on the name-calling.

Pointing out parallels to this "scandal" (or much worse examples) in the recent past doesn't amount to supporting Obama. I'm one of his most vocal critics. This isn't a two-sided, good-guys-versus-bad-guys contest.

I'm simply pointing out that the Obama-hating often blinds people to much worse things that have gone down, and encourages them to attribute blame to him for things that are bigger than him, or anyone else for that matter (e.g., corporate ownership of our entire political system).

Good point. It is bigger than Obama. However, I don't see him as an innocent pawn. He has played the game expertly and been groomed for this position. He knew exactly what he was getting into, and his extremely fortuitous rise to the top means he has kissed all the right rings.

Of course, just saying that worse things have gone down before Obama is a tepid excuse at best. Wouldn't it be nice to see one of these guys held to account for once?

[Dexter Morgan]

What pisses me off isn't the scandals - which, lets face it, are no better or worse than the scandals of any other administration, republican or democrat. What really annoys me is the way the media gives Democrat administrations a pass, in a way they NEVER would have for a republican. If Hurricane Sandy had happened under Bush, we'd STILL be hearing about how some people on Staten Island were left homeless and cold and starving for weeks. But because it happened under The Chosen One, that story appears on page 14 of the Village Voice. <Insert one of countless other examples here>.

[Hooligan Harry]

(05-14-2013 08:00 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

If Obama is responsible, it's probably payback for all the (often racist) bullshit he took at the Tea Party rallies. I would actually respect him if he had the balls to go after his enemies.

Jesus. You cannot seriously be suggesting that state sanctioned auditing of political opponents is justified for any reason simply because you took moral or personal offense to something.

Its exactly this reasoning that makes the average lefty the most intolerant person in the room. They are absolute tyrants.

No president or prime minister should ever be allowed to go after political opponents by abusing the power he has over state or federal organisations. That is not a democracy or a republic.

That is not balls either, its a gross transgression on YOUR rights and the rights of every citizen.

Fuck me, it never ceases to amaze me how people are so quick to excuse blatant infringements when they believe there is moral justification for it.

This is not about your feelings. Simple fact is that the IRS has been used to target political opponents and it has been used to drum up dirt on presidential candidates in an effort to slander or jeapordise their candidacy.

If anyone thinks that this in in their personal interest, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they sit on, then they need their heads read.

[bacon]

Daily show covered the IRS scandal

[Jaydublin]

Anyone watching the hearing on this? They are hammering Mr. Miller and he doesn't have too many answers.

[MidniteSpecial]

(05-14-2013 08:24 PM)painter Wrote:  

I'm sure this is all George Bush's fault. Obama is a product of honest Chicago machine politics.

Only evil conservatives can be guilty of doing wrong. Progressive, feminist lovers like Obama only want what they know is best for the peons so if they have to use the IRS to intimidate and subvert the opposition like Nixon did then it's totally justified.

Read this article. The storm clouds are gathering.

http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-nap...gathering/