Support NeoGAF

[Cloudy]

I don't like the fact that the media is in a herd mentality. Every site using "targeted" for the IRS story and "seized" and "spying" for the AP case. Very omnious sounding words.

The tea party folks got extra (and maybe unnecessary) scrutiny but I don't think any group was "targeted". NONE of the groups even got denied and the tax-exempt status is barely mentioned in any of the stories. The IRS was just "targeting" conservatives!!!!!

And I'm not sure how you can "seize" or "spy" when you have a subpeona signed by a judge. The fact is, the DOJ is operating within the law and folks can rail against that but mischaracterizing it as surreptitious or wire-tapping is just dishonest.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Okay, having said that, before anyone jumps on me, I'm not advocating we actually start doing that. As annoying and insufferable as liberals can be when it comes to matters like this, this is also the sort of thing that makes me side with the liberals to begin with. This was just me venting my frustration more than anything, I guess. I'm just tired that liberals have to always try and be fair and honorable when engaging the enemy, whereas Republicans have no problem bringing a fucking bazooka to a knife fight.

Well that's why Obama's trying to pass gun control. We can't have bazookas at knife fights. Home-made bombs and handguns, maybe. We'll hold a luncheon with Senate Republicans to hear what they think.

 

[pigeon]

So let me sum the week up for you.

The IRS report is out:

The key story of the report seems to be this: In the summer of 2010, in response to a huge surge in 501(c)(4) applications and media stories that some of these groups were illegally acting like political organizations, a group of IRS officials developed inappropriate criteria for identifying overly politicized 501(c)(4)s applicants. Those criteria included looking for the words "tea party" or related terms. In July 2011, the director of the IRS told them to knock it off and use more politically neutral criteria that focused on the activities of the group rather than the name or ideology of the group.

Here's where things get interesting: In January 2012, that same group of IRS officials goes rogue and changes the test back without getting management approval. According to the IG report, "they believed the July 2011 criteria were too broad." They're found out three months later and, in May 2012, a new IRS director again demands the test is revised to "more clearly focus on activities permitted under the Treasury Regulations." That's the test the IRS is using now, and the IG seems comfortable with it.

Management, however, isn't happy with what's been going on. They issue "a memorandum requiring all original entries and changes to criteria be approved at the executive level prior to implementation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ot-much-of-a-conspiracy/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

In other words, management found out and fixed it, and then the same people started doing it again in 2012, and then it got fixed again. The IRS commissioner said it wasn't happening during the three-month period where it WAS happening but management hadn't found out yet. No conspiracy necessary.

The original Benghazi email came out. Turned out Karl's descriptions weren't all that accurate. Metaphoreus reproduced his response above, but here's Josh Marshall:

I guarantee you Karl had a sinking feeling in the pit of his stomach when he saw that explanation. Because that explanation by reference to earlier comments in the thread is pretty weak. Karl’s follow on piece is entitled “More Details on Benghazi Talking Points Emerge” but the substance is, ‘How the Story Changes When I Realize the Notes I Was Using Weren’t Reliable.’ The answer here is that Karl pretty clearly got burned by his source. But he at least seriously singed himself by making it really, really look like he was looking at the emails themselves when he wasn’t.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/better_answer_please.php

Basically, Karl's Washington source either lied or misrepresented the email. The fact that Karl's response does not make any comment on his sources's statement, but merely repeats it verbatim and moves on as fast as possible, should be a clear enough indication that Karl recognizes he got played.

The AP probe, of course, was never really a scandal in the first place:

U.S. law allows the government to engage in this type of surveillance—on media organizations or anyone else—without meaningful judicial oversight.

The key here is a legal principle known as the “third party doctrine,” which says that users don’t have Fourth Amendment rights protecting information they voluntarily turn over to someone else. Courts have said that when you dial a phone number, you are voluntarily providing information to your phone company, which is then free to share it with the government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-scandal-is-whats-legal/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

If there's a scandal here, you'll have to lay it at the feet of the late Harry Blackmun.

Conclusion: Republican media machine continues to attempt and fail to manufacture controversy as a substitute for actual appealing policies and attitudes.

 

[Jackben]

Cheers for the summaries, pigeon.

I think if any further action is deemed necessary, it should be inter-department discipline of the group responsible for changing the inappropriate flagging criteria back after it was overwritten and repeatedly using it despite two IRS director mandates to the contrary. Other than that, everything else appears to be appropriately concluded.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So let me sum the week up for you.

The IRS report is out:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ot-much-of-a-conspiracy/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

In other words, management found out and fixed it, and then the same people started doing it again in 2012, and then it got fixed again. The IRS commissioner said it wasn't happening during the three-month period where it WAS happening but management hadn't found out yet. No conspiracy necessary.

The original Benghazi email came out. Turned out Karl's descriptions weren't all that accurate. Metaphoreus reproduced his response above, but here's Josh Marshall:



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/better_answer_please.php

Basically, Karl's Washington source either lied or misrepresented the email. The fact that Karl's response does not make any comment on his sources's statement, but merely repeats it verbatim and moves on as fast as possible, should be a clear enough indication that Karl recognizes he got played.

The AP probe, of course, was never really a scandal in the first place:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-scandal-is-whats-legal/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

If there's a scandal here, you'll have to lay it at the feet of the late Harry Blackmun.

Conclusion: Republican media machine continues to attempt and fail to manufacture controversy as a substitute for actual appealing policies and attitudes.

So when do the impeachment proceedings begin?

 

[el retorno]

So when do the impeachment proceedings begin?

Not out of the question

 

[empty vessel]

The IRS report is out:

The key story of the report seems to be this: In the summer of 2010, in response to a huge surge in 501(c)(4) applications and media stories that some of these groups were illegally acting like political organizations, a group of IRS officials developed inappropriate criteria for identifying overly politicized 501(c)(4)s applicants. Those criteria included looking for the words "tea party" or related terms. In July 2011, the director of the IRS told them to knock it off and use more politically neutral criteria that focused on the activities of the group rather than the name or ideology of the group.

Here's where things get interesting: In January 2012, that same group of IRS officials goes rogue and changes the test back without getting management approval. According to the IG report, "they believed the July 2011 criteria were too broad." They're found out three months later and, in May 2012, a new IRS director again demands the test is revised to "more clearly focus on activities permitted under the Treasury Regulations." That's the test the IRS is using now, and the IG seems comfortable with it.

Management, however, isn't happy with what's been going on. They issue "a memorandum requiring all original entries and changes to criteria be approved at the executive level prior to implementation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ot-much-of-a-conspiracy/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

In other words, management found out and fixed it, and then the same people started doing it again in 2012, and then it got fixed again. The IRS commissioner said it wasn't happening during the three-month period where it WAS happening but management hadn't found out yet. No conspiracy necessary.

I think it's too early to say that management "fixed" anything and the scandal is not that the IRS is failing to properly enforce the law with respect to 501(c)(4) entities. I need to read the actual report, which I will do, but the reported descriptions I've seen do nothing to dispel the suggestion to me that IRS management was telling officials who review applications to stop scrutinizing organizations that may not deserve tax exempt privileges.

 

[jamesinclair]

If Chris Chris ever runs for president, his "amazing" Sandy record will be run into the mud.

Basically, everyone knew the storm was coming. SEPTA and MTA said "we should put our trains where theyl be safe".

NJT said "lets put all our trains in Hoboken, which floods during a light drizzle, and the meadowlands....wich are a swamp".

Hundreds of extremely expensive rail cars were destroyed.


The media has been trying to figure out what happened.

Heres what NJT released yesterday about their storm preparedness plan.

Why are they redacting almost everything?

Al Queda.

An extremely long article about it;
http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2013/may/13/njtransit-sandy/

 

[Link]

Not out of the question

*chortles*

 

[Aaron Strife]

Not out of the question

You really have to wonder what they'd actually impeach him on.

Possibly mishandling a touchy situation abroad? Not (directly) his responsibility, that'd be on the state department. Plus if we impeached every president for presiding over some sort of crisis, well... We wouldn't have any presidents now would we.

Not providing adequate funding and protection for the embassy? Not his responsibility, that's on Congress.

Saying "act of terror" instead of "terrorist attack" at a news conference? yeah ok

I hope they go for it, put their money where their mouths are. I want to see Obama mad as hell. "You asshats have been wasting time trying to impeach me on some trivial bullshit, when immigration reform still hasn't been done, we're a week away from hitting the debt limit, and the only reason unemployment hasn't skyrocketed is because you crazy fuckers haven't lifted a finger to screw anything up. The American people are tired of your bullshit." And then he kicks John Boehner in the groin and puts on his presidentin' suit.

 

[Wilsongt]

So essentially Obama's scandals this worked turned out to be... non-scandals?

Who'd have thunk it!

 

[Snake]

So essentially Obama's scandals this worked turned out to be... non-scandals?

Who'd have thunk it!

No.

Much like secession, impeachment is coming. So sayeth the prophet somedude (pbuh).

 

[Link]

So essentially Obama's scandals this worked turned out to be... non-scandals?

Who'd have thunk it!

Anyone that lives outside of the Fox News bubble.

 

[B-Dubs]

No.

Much like secession, impeachment is coming. So sayeth the prophet somedude (pbuh).

Well, on the bright side Somedude's found something new.

Not out of the question

Why am I even surprised anymore?

 

[el retorno]

You really have to wonder what they'd actually impeach him on.

Possibly mishandling a touchy situation abroad? Not (directly) his responsibility, that'd be on the state department. Plus if we impeached every president for presiding over some sort of crisis, well... We wouldn't have any presidents now would we.

Not providing adequate funding and protection for the embassy? Not his responsibility, that's on Congress.

Saying "act of terror" instead of "terrorist attack" at a news conference? yeah ok

I hope they go for it, put their money where their mouths are. I want to see Obama mad as hell. "You asshats have been wasting time trying to impeach me on some trivial bullshit, when immigration reform still hasn't been done, we're a week away from hitting the debt limit, and the only reason unemployment hasn't skyrocketed is because you crazy fuckers haven't lifted a finger to screw anything up. The American people are tired of your bullshit." And then he kicks John Boehner in the groin and puts on his presidentin' suit.

Theyll just make something up.

Besides, he need commit no conventional crime. A high crime or misdemeanor is whatever the House majority decides it is. Remember, in January 1998, impeachment talk started before Clinton had perjured himself.

I hope they get him for promoting sharia law.

 

[RustyNails]

So let me sum the week up for you.

The IRS report is out:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ot-much-of-a-conspiracy/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

In other words, management found out and fixed it, and then the same people started doing it again in 2012, and then it got fixed again. The IRS commissioner said it wasn't happening during the three-month period where it WAS happening but management hadn't found out yet. No conspiracy necessary.

The original Benghazi email came out. Turned out Karl's descriptions weren't all that accurate. Metaphoreus reproduced his response above, but here's Josh Marshall:



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/better_answer_please.php

Basically, Karl's Washington source either lied or misrepresented the email. The fact that Karl's response does not make any comment on his sources's statement, but merely repeats it verbatim and moves on as fast as possible, should be a clear enough indication that Karl recognizes he got played.

The AP probe, of course, was never really a scandal in the first place:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-scandal-is-whats-legal/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

If there's a scandal here, you'll have to lay it at the feet of the late Harry Blackmun.

Conclusion: Republican media machine continues to attempt and fail to manufacture controversy as a substitute for actual appealing policies and attitudes.

But Wolf Blitzer had a panel and they were saying this is Obama's 2nd term curse.

 

[Jackben]

If Chris Chris ever runs for president, his "amazing" Sandy record will be run into the mud.

Basically, everyone knew the storm was coming. SEPTA and MTA said "we should put our trains where theyl be safe".

NJT said "lets put all our trains in Hoboken, which floods during a light drizzle, and the meadowlands....wich are a swamp".

Hundreds of extremely expensive rail cars were destroyed.


The media has been trying to figure out what happened.

Heres what NJT released yesterday about their storm preparedness plan.

*completely censored doc*

Why are they redacting almost everything?

Al Queda.

An extremely long article about it;
http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2013/may/13/njtransit-sandy/

I don't think it would be wise for him to promote Sandy as a pillar of his campaign if he does run. I could see it being a dicey issue either way so he would probably just do it anyway to spin it in his favor as he has been. I could definitely see how the emotional aspect of his leadership would be used to drown out the actual data NJT got wrong when calculating the storm map and his prior comments of disinterest in climate change.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

If Chris Chris ever runs for president, his "amazing" Sandy record will be run into the mud.

Basically, everyone knew the storm was coming. SEPTA and MTA said "we should put our trains where theyl be safe".

NJT said "lets put all our trains in Hoboken, which floods during a light drizzle, and the meadowlands....wich are a swamp".

Hundreds of extremely expensive rail cars were destroyed.


The media has been trying to figure out what happened.

Heres what NJT released yesterday about their storm preparedness plan.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/f125cd2108650cf85e7fff50ef6c50ef/tumblr_mmqs4mhaDp1qm7j32o2_r1_500.png

Why are they redacting almost everything?

Al Queda.

An extremely long article about it;
http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2013/may/13/njtransit-sandy/

THATS MY STATE! :3

*sigh*

 

[Black Mamba]

WASHINGTON—Saying that none of the facts quite add up, first daughter Sasha Obama, 11, reported being “highly suspicious” today after poking around the details of the 2012 Benghazi attack. “I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense—first they blame the attack on a spontaneous demonstration, but now we find out the CIA talking points were secretly revised?” said the sixth-grader, sitting in the darkened White House library intensely scrolling through pages of articles about the controversy and classified Pentagon briefings. “Obviously, someone’s hiding something: the poor security; the al-Qaeda link; the leaked emails. All I’m asking for here is a simple explanation from the State Department and the White House, and I’m not getting one. I mean, who are they protecting here? And why?” Sasha went on to tell reporters she felt even more suspicious after former defense secretary Leon Panetta failed to respond to any of her 24 voicemails.

Fucking onion, lol

 

[Matugi]

How do I react when one of my friends says that BENGHAZI is worse than Watergate?

 

[Tamanon]

How do I react when one of my friends says that BENGHAZI is worse than Watergate?

Ask them what Watergate was

 

[Matugi]

Ask them what Watergate was

i don't think his comprehension is that good. he's one of those people that thinks that "act of terror" does not mean terrorism

 

[el retorno]

How do I react when one of my friends says that BENGHAZI is worse than Watergate?

tell him he's absolutely right.

 

[789shadow]

How do I react when one of my friends says that BENGHAZI is worse than Watergate?

Remove him from your life.

 

[Link]

How do I react when one of my friends says that BENGHAZI is worse than Watergate?

Laugh in his face and walk away. Anyone that truly believes that is not interested in intellectual debate and is not worth wasting your time with.

 

[Matugi]

Is "Obama lied" a buzz term on the issue for "I'm too lazy to actually look up information regarding the case so I will just listen to the media manufactured bullshit that I am spoon fed by my 'news' sources daily"?

 

[Link]

Is "Obama lied" a buzz term on the issue for "I'm too lazy to actually look up information regarding the case so I will just listen to the media manufactured bullshit that I am spoon fed by my 'news' sources daily"?

Yeah, the slogan is "Obama lied, people died."

Sub in Hillary for Obama as needed.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Is "Obama lied" a buzz term on the issue for "I'm too lazy to actually look up information regarding the case so I will just listen to the media manufactured bullshit that I am spoon fed by my 'news' sources daily"?

Everything they say is a buzz term for that.

These people will uncritically parrot literally anything if it plays into their world view. Most of the time they honestly don't even read past the headlines of whatever schizophasic blog they've latched onto this week.

If it comes from a "trusted" source, it's true. Authoritarian in the extreme.

 

[jamesinclair]

How do I react when one of my friends says that BENGHAZI is worse than Watergate?

Ask him what country Benghazi is in.

 

[Link]

Ask him what country Benghazi is in.

Then ask him what the Watergate is.

 

[jamesinclair]

I don't think it would be wise for him to promote Sandy as a pillar of his campaign if he does run. I could see it being a dicey issue either way so he would probably just do it anyway to spin it in his favor as he has been. I could definitely see how the emotional aspect of his leadership would be used to drown out the actual data NJT got wrong when calculating the storm map and his prior comments of disinterest in climate change.

$10 he runs a Guiliani campaign.


"Mr Chris, how would you solve unemployment"
"Sandy"
Whats the biggest threat facing todays youth"
"Sandy"
"Is North Korea a threat?"
"Sandy"

 

[Matugi]

I showed him the CNN article about the manufactured leaks and his response is "Hahaha I don't even know what to say that is not true"

smh

 

[sc0la]

Hillary Lied, Benghazified!

 

[Link]

I showed him the CNN article about the manufactured leaks and his response is "Hahaha I don't even know what to say that is not true"

smh

I'm telling you, just walk away. It's not worth the frustration. I was out to dinner on Mother's Day with my mom, her husband, and some of their friends. Her husband exclaimed aloud that he's wondering why they haven't started impeachment proceedings on Obama yet, while the rest of the table just nodded their heads and agreed. I just kept quiet and continued eating my ribeye, because there's nowhere to go from there.

 

[Matugi]

Hillary Lied, Benghazified!

benghazified should be a term for being shat upon when you're fully cooperating

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm telling you, just walk away. It's not worth the frustration. I was out to dinner on Mother's Day with my mom, her husband, and some of their friends. Her husband exclaimed aloud that he's wondering why they haven't started impeachment proceedings on Obama yet, while the rest of the table just nodded their heads and agreed. I just kept quiet and continued eating my ribeye, because there's nowhere to go from there.

I had a similar experience that my dad and I encountered over holidays. Someone mentioned how we had to watch 2016 Obama movie. Just nodded. The Internet is okay but irl I don't have time to deal with it. Ill have real political conversations but those types of conversations NEVER end well.

 

[RustyNails]

Is "Obama lied" a buzz term on the issue for "I'm too lazy to actually look up information regarding the case so I will just listen to the media manufactured bullshit that I am spoon fed by my 'news' sources daily"?

Obama lied, PD got banned.

 

[Oblivion]

I had a similar experience that my dad and I encountered over holidays. Someone mentioned how we had to watch 2016 Obama movie. Just nodded. The Internet is okay but irl I don't have time to deal with it. Ill have real political conversations but those types of conversations NEVER end well.

Yeah, today I was overhearing some co-workers talk about Fast and the Furious, lol. I wanted to enter, but it's a new job and I don't want to make any enemies just yet.



Oh by the way, I talked to that one douchebag who said he was going to cancel his health insurance to spite Obama. I asked him why he plugged his site if he didn't want anyone to know who he was:

1st said don't use name, then realized already outed myself with American Thinker article & said could use name if plugged blog.

Sarah apparently forgot to change her original text, when I had said not to use name.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

$10 he runs a Guiliani campaign.


"Mr Chris, how would you solve unemployment"
"Sandy"
Whats the biggest threat facing todays youth"
"Sandy"
"Is North Korea a threat?"
"Sandy"

I wonder if he'll get permission to play this at his events: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB1d0eey5ho

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah, today I was overhearing some co-workers talk about Fast and the Furious, lol. I wanted to enter, but it's a new job and I don't want to make any enemies just yet.

How do you know they weren't talking about this

 

[RustyNails]

How do you know they weren't talking about this

wtf, is that a real poster?

 

[B-Dubs]

wtf, is that a real poster?

I hope not. I really really hope not.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

So is it safe to say Obama won't get much done legislatively like the media claims? Or is that just hyperbole? I haven't taken a look at what he wants to do besides immigration reform and the grand bargain.

 

[Jooney]

The republican fervor for Benghazi reminds of the hysteria around the 9/11 mosque. It was the worst thing in the world up until the moment it was not reported on in conservative media and now no one cares about it.

 

[RDreamer]

I haven't had a lot of time lately to get into this stuff, but I'm not sure I understand all this IRS hubbub. I had seen snippets before and just head an NPR story on it this morning. So Tea Party groups are upset that they were scrutinized heavily to see if they were political? And not only that, but they pretty much all got tax-exempt status anyway?

It doesn't make much sense to me. If you're part of a political movement then what the hell is wrong with the IRS really making sure your tax-exempt group isn't actually fucking political (to the point that it can be)? It's like someone walking into an airport claiming they're a terrorist and then getting a bit angry when they're checked out a little bit more. Not to mention I'd bet some of these are probably people that say we should do profiling...

Then, when it was blamed on the fact that only one person was working on approving this stuff, and these groups started up like crazy in 2010 the Tea Party group on NPR said that's no excuse. They should hire more people or contract out more. Yeah, a Tea Party guy said the government should just hire more. WUT!?

They were also bitching that, "omg, the IRS asked me if we were doing rallies for political candidates." Oh noes!

I suppose I might be biased since probably none of those groups should be tax-exempt anyway. Fuck 'em.

 

[Tom_Cody]

How do I react when one of my friends says that BENGHAZI is worse than Watergate?

Tell them they are wrong, then send them some fun youtube clips of Nixon's self-incriminating white house recordings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbFzpq343s8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oe3OgU8W0s

 

[Avon Barksdale]

The republican fervor for Benghazi reminds of the hysteria around the 9/11 mosque. It was the worst thing in the world up until the moment it was not reported on in conservative media and now no one cares about it.

I didn't even find out that it opened until Bill Maher mentioned it on his show a week later.

 

[adamsappel]

I haven't had a lot of time lately to get into this stuff, but I'm not sure I understand all this IRS hubbub. I had seen snippets before and just head an NPR story on it this morning. So Tea Party groups are upset that they were scrutinized heavily to see if they were political? And not only that, but they pretty much all got tax-exempt status anyway?

It doesn't make much sense to me. If you're part of a political movement then what the hell is wrong with the IRS really making sure your tax-exempt group isn't actually fucking political (to the point that it can be)? It's like someone walking into an airport claiming they're a terrorist and then getting a bit angry when they're checked out a little bit more. Not to mention I'd bet some of these are probably people that say we should do profiling...

Then, when it was blamed on the fact that only one person was working on approving this stuff, and these groups started up like crazy in 2010 the Tea Party group on NPR said that's no excuse. They should hire more people or contract out more. Yeah, a Tea Party guy said the government should just hire more. WUT!?

They were also bitching that, "omg, the IRS asked me if we were doing rallies for political candidates." Oh noes!

I suppose I might be biased since probably none of those groups should be tax-exempt anyway. Fuck 'em.

This made me so angry. How can they say this with a straight face? Do they not understand that they are asking the dreaded IRS to hire more people?

 

[TestOfTide]

So I'm confused. Who/what exactly are the sources that republicans are using to claim that orders were sent to change the talking points? I hear claims from some crazy friends of mine but never hear about the actual sources.

 

[The Librarian]

I'm completely at a lost with all these scandals.