Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Hár]

It's fascinating that there's no mention of the IRS or AP scandal in this thread. Surely big government must be defended against these false allegations of corruption?

[SalmonGod]

It's fascinating that there's no mention of the IRS or AP scandal in this thread. Surely big government must be defended against these false allegations of corruption?

I'm pretty sure the AP scandal has been mentioned, actually.  Maybe it was in another thread.  I don't think you'll find many of your strawman liberals here, who are unable to comprehend government corruption.

[bulborbish]

It's fascinating that there's no mention of the IRS or AP scandal in this thread. Surely big government must be defended against these false allegations of corruption?

Too be honest, I don't care much for the overblown scandals. The IRS seems to be mostly minor, and while the groups were targeted, unless they can definitively put it on someone it really can't do much.

The AP is a bit more major, but I've been to busy to look up enough information to judge on it.

[palsch]

My favourite part is the correction suggesting Obama should have just photoshopped the image.



As to the IRS thing, this is the best summary I've read so far.

And a quick look at the AP question;

Based on what we know so far, then, I don’t see much evidence of an abuse. Of course, I realize that some VC readers strongly believe that everything the government does is an abuse: All investigations are abuses unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary. To not realize this is to be a pro-government lackey. Or even worse, Stewart Baker. But I would ask readers inclined to see this as an abuse to identify exactly what the government did wrong based on what we know so far. Was the DOJ wrong to investigate the case at all? If it was okay for them to investigate the case, was it wrong for them to try to find out who the AP reporters were calling? If it was okay for them to get records of who the AP reporters were calling, was it wrong for them to obtain the records from the personal and work phone numbers of all the reporters whose names were listed as being involved in the story and their editor? If it was okay for them to obtain the records of those phone lines, was the problem that the records covered two months — and if so, what was the proper length of time the records should have covered?

This is a more detailed look at the facts and law which might help with that.

[bulborbish]

And a quick look at the AP question;

Based on what we know so far, then, I don’t see much evidence of an abuse. Of course, I realize that some VC readers strongly believe that everything the government does is an abuse: All investigations are abuses unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary. To not realize this is to be a pro-government lackey. Or even worse, Stewart Baker. But I would ask readers inclined to see this as an abuse to identify exactly what the government did wrong based on what we know so far. Was the DOJ wrong to investigate the case at all? If it was okay for them to investigate the case, was it wrong for them to try to find out who the AP reporters were calling? If it was okay for them to get records of who the AP reporters were calling, was it wrong for them to obtain the records from the personal and work phone numbers of all the reporters whose names were listed as being involved in the story and their editor? If it was okay for them to obtain the records of those phone lines, was the problem that the records covered two months — and if so, what was the proper length of time the records should have covered?

This is a more detailed look at the facts and law which might help with that.

Ok, now I have some reading to dismiss it entirely. If all they are complaining about is Subpoena power, than not that significant compared to other abuses of the executive on the Judicial, such as Andrew Jackson ignoring a Supreme Court Decision.

[Moghjubar]

My favourite part is the correction suggesting Obama should have just photoshopped the image.

Mine is the 'rotating eagle' snark... they need one that has a light show, spins and vibrates, and plays Dubstep, of course.  I guess that would be Saint's Row 4's President though.

[misko27]

I love the phrase big government. It is so meaningless. We are a country of over 300 million people. Do you think administrating that is easy? Even under a hypothetical situation purged of all inefficiencies, that is still a lot of man power.


It seems civil servants got scared and self-defensive, and combined with the whole "Conservative non-profits coming out of your ears" thing, it is almost unsurprising.

[Sheb]

Still, unless we get evidence that Obama knew/directed the IRS, I think he did the right think by firing the IRS's directors rather quickly.

[Descan]

I thought the IRS director he fired recently was an acting director, put in place after the administration found out that the old director...

Was targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups for additional scrutiny?

I.E. was basically a sacrificial lamb, the recent firing.

[GlyphGryph]

It's fascinating that there's no mention of the IRS or AP scandal in this thread. Surely big government must be defended against these false allegations of corruption?

I don't know the details of the IRS bit - it sounded like one of those right-wing-echo-chamber-scandals-in-name-only that means some good employees do their job for doing the right thing in a way that could seen as "inappropriate". Maybe it isn't, but the only arguments I've seen have been of that sort, so I've mostly ignored it. But the right-wing desperately loves it's non-scandals, because they really like getting upset about things, and this feels exactly like all the other non-scandals they've come up with.

On the other hand, the AP bullshit is exactly the same sort of bullshit this administration has been shoveling since it came into office - it's disappointing, but not surprising, as it's a pretty straightforward continuation of the war on leaks and transparency. Rage-inducing, though, and I've seen people complaining about it here. But compared to the stuff Obama and Bush before him got up to on the same front it's just... tiring to discuss, really. It's more of the same. At least this time it looks like the did it legally. As messed up as it seems to be, they seem to be going after the "right" people in the "right" way, so...

Essentially, I don't understand WHY it's such a big deal? I'd love it if some positive change came out of this, but that's not the narrative I'm getting from the people complaining about it. The most I can see is a backlash supporting Republican's who will promptly... do more of the same, maybe even worse? It's one of those aggressively bipartisan problems, and there's a reason it probably doesn't show up much in this particular thread beyond it's political implications.

There's quite a few legislative scandals that people complained quite a bit about here on the board not that long ago of which there was barely a whisper in this thread for the same reason.

[palsch]

So I'm pretty sure the Republicans just got called out for being racist by their own Floridian Hispanic outreach director.

Yes, I have changed my political affiliation to the Democratic Party.

It doesn’t take much to see the culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today. I have wondered before about the seemingly harsh undertones about immigrants and others. Look no further; a well-known organization recently confirms the intolerance of that which seems different or strange to them.
...
When the political discourse resorts to intolerance and hate, we all lose in what makes America great and the progress made in society.

Although I was born an American citizen, I feel that my experience, and that of many from Puerto Rico, is intertwined with those who are referred to as illegal. My grandfather served in an all-Puerto Rican segregated Army unit, the 65th Infantry Regiment. He then helped, along my grandmother, shatter glass ceilings for Puerto Rican women raising my aunt to become the first Puerto Rican woman astronomer with a PhD in astrophysics (an IQ of a genius as far as I’m concerned). Puerto Ricans, as many other Americans still today have to face issues of discrimination in voting and civil rights.

 Regardless of what political affiliation people choose, my respect for some remains. I don’t expect all Hispanics to do the same (although I would hope so) but I’m taking a stand against this culture of intolerance.

 I am also making a modest contribution (here: http://bit.ly/12uf3g8) to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for the efforts in helping protect the rights of immigrants and civil liberties in general.

[Dutchling]

Florida is where the Republicans have mastered the art of gerrymandering right?

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/house-gop-panel-moves-deep-budget-cuts-222042022.html

So sequestration is not bad enough. Lets gut MORE liberal education and govornment while forcing the military to buy tanks they do not want or need instead of spending on actual preparedness. These people god damn traitors attempting to sacrifice America on the alter of their fevered Ayn Rand inspired fiscal suicide.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Things are not good when you're so pro-military that the military is telling you to slow the fuck down.

Personally, I wouldn't mind an expansion to military R&D in exchange for reductions in other areas but the Republicans are single-minded on this stuff.

[misko27]

Oh god, WE DON'T NEED TANKS. WE HAVE NO ONE TO USE THEM ON. There are ZERO people who we can use tanks on.


We need all sorts of things in the military *cough more lazers* Tanks are not one of them.