US Scandals

[GostHacked]

The IRS scandal is simply jaw dropping. They single handedly suppress the conservative money raising machine in the year leading up to Obama's re-election. Then they leak the scandal by planting a question in a seminar so it will be long dealt with by 2014.

And it looks like they will get away with it. It's times like these when I'm glad I live in Canada where our scandals are mostly about far less disgusting items.

Ignorance is bliss.

[GostHacked]

So this still about a left-right issue? Or is it telling you that both sides are screwing you in the ass while they claim the other side is doing it.

WTF is the IRS doing targeting ANYONE?????? When did they become the FBI?

[eyeball]

So do you think the Left's response to this is going to be denial? Nice to see Stewart upset, but I'm seeing excuses or denial from the left. It's sad, really, Benghazi was a blip on the radar and the AP phone records were a shoulder shrug to lefties. But you know had this all happened under a Republican president lefties would have been spontaneously combusting.

The fact this is happening under a lefty should appall lefties. They should be inflicting even more souveillance on lefty parties/politicians when they're in power - it pisses me off no end when the pendulum swings in the direction my hopes tend towards and the people representing that part of the political spectrum cock everything up by doing something stupid and or corrupt. Between squandering what's left of their term of office trying to cover it up, losing their next election and the next guy/party cocks things up I suppose, like everyone else, I await until things come full circle....and get cocked up soon thereafter again.

This seems like an awfully inefficient and perpetually self-defeating way to be governing ourselves. I suppose when we still had a planet for the taking there was some sort of push-me pull-you dynamic whereby we usually advanced in a two steps forward one back fashion, but now, it just makes everything seem that much more unsustainable. In a world of shrinking resources and opportunity I suspect corruption and the abuse of power will stand out significantly amongst the many grounds cited in the lead up to the next big godawful war. The partisanship will make it a particularly ugly one.

[bush_cheney2004]

The fact this is happening under a lefty should appall lefties. They should be inflicting even more souveillance on lefty parties/politicians when they're in power - it pisses me off no end when the pendulum swings in the direction my hopes tend towards and the people representing that part of the political spectrum cock everything up by doing something stupid and or corrupt....

Why would one ever place such hope in this American political context ? "Dirty tricks" are very American, regardless of party or ideology.

[eyeball]

Why would anyone even have hope never mind place it somewhere - in any nation's political context? Is American corruption better?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would anyone even have hope never mind place it somewhere - in any nation's political context? Is American corruption better?

Yes...I think it is....and the stakes are a lot higher (e.g. more than a measly 90 grand). People are paid to specifically consider the risk/reward factor in such things. I believe there is general consensus that Canadian politics is quite boring in comparison.

Edited May 25, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Is American corruption more noble than Canadian corruption as well as more profitable?

[roy baty]

Cite? Even a cite from the Daily KOS will be acceptable. I'd like to know what this "far greater margin" is.

In the meantime, is Bloomberg an acceptable source to show that the conservative victimization complex is off the charts?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-14/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row-taxes

More Kool-Aid gulping from you Bubber.. Do your own research to find many easy to find "cites" to ease your own denial. The Earth is round..do you also need a cite for that too? The saying "ignorance is bliss" has been taken to a whole new level under the Obama administration.

Edited May 25, 2013 by roy baty

[bush_cheney2004]

Is American corruption more noble than Canadian corruption as well as more profitable?

Hard to say...certainly the political stage and stakes are relatively larger/higher in the U.S., where garden variety corrupt politicians are convicted and imprisoned for bribes and graft seemingly more than in Canada. The recent "revelations" in Quebec over contracts and kickbacks (personal gain) are junior league events compared to major league political skullduggery that can tip national election outcomes. Neither the "left" or "right" are immune from such behaviours.

[eyeball]

No, but I guess it goes without saying which one of those is more better and noble.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, but I guess it goes without saying which one of those is more better and noble.

I agree....influence peddling for a mere 30 pieces of silver is hardly noble or better. Much of the world accepts bribery as the normal course of business.

[Moonlight Graham]

The missing money is the result of the corruption within government. It's only 90Gs yes, but shows bigger issue of the corruption within those who are saying they are against corruption.

I don't think it's "only 90g's", that's 2 average Canadian's salaries. Save your pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves.

[Argus]

What? Made up and of no importance?

That's correct.

1. It is a fact that the IRS illegally targeted organizations purely for their political leaning to the Right.

No, it's NOT a fact. As the IRS has already said many times, politics had no part in the decision to target these groups. Having some familiarity with anti-tax avoidance measures employed by Canada Revenue Agency, I can sympathize more with the IRS workers than perhaps most people, especially extreme right wing types.

Who makes up these tea party groups? People whos sole focus in life, to the exclusion of all else, is paying less in tax, people who basically are one step from anarchists in their view of the role of government. They don't like or want government, don't believe in government, and above all else, don't want to pay taxes to it.

Now if my job is to look for tax cheaters, well, this sounds like a pretty good pond to fish in.

And I have no particular love of Obama and am not left wing.

This is precisely why the House Congressional committee is investigating it and conveniently and as usual, nobody is talking and the director taking the 5th.

The US House? Those people who have already held 40 separate votes to repeal Obama care? Those people?

Sorry, but I don't take anything the House of Representatives does or says seriously.

2. Someone in the state dept consciously made a decision NOT to send in help to Benghazi

You mean they decided there was no way to send in help in the time available with the resources available. Probably the right decision from what I've seen.

instead uses Susan Rice to spin it as a random act based on an anti-Islam video. Again, the CIA claims they informed the state department this was not the case, yet the spin and the ignorance excuse is still being used

I've seen the breakdown in how the memos were put together by the intelligence committees, and politics was not among the reasons. I have no issue with this. Clearly a little confusion at first but no big deal and it caused no damage.

3. The DOJ targets the AP, FOX News and now a CBS reporter, seizing phone and E-mail records accusing them of aiding in espionage without any real evidence,

If they got warrants, I don't see the issue. Leaks of secret information are illegal. It wouldn't result in charges to the reporters, most likely, but would to those who leaked the information to them.

[Argus]

Is American corruption more noble than Canadian corruption as well as more profitable?

It's certainly far, far, far and away more widespread. You can't swing a cat in the House of Representatives without hitting at least a few Congressman on the take.

[Pliny]

"Dirty tricks" are very American, regardless of party or ideology.

You don't hold a monopoly though and I wouldn't be so proud as to claim it as "being very American". It's part of every culture or society and perhaps legitimizes government which then proceeds to legislate a monopoly on dirty tricks. It becomes the pimp, the drug dealer, the operator of gambling houses, taking the lions share of profits in those industries like any mafia boss would.

The lefty reasoning is that people will do these things so we might as well legalize them and tax them. Make a profit from people's vices, grow the industries for the purpose of revenues to the State to the detriment of the citizenry who escape any moral responsibility for their behavior because of the legality of their activities. Their are no longer any social responsibilities although it is destructive to the individual and the State in order to continue pays for some of the social consequences must then run programs for drug addicts, gambling addicts, STDs, battered prostitutes, and the impact of those vices on the economy.

It eventually destroys the society.

These things can be made legal but the individual must remain responsible for the consequences of his actions and choices in life. Government should not benefit from the vices of its citizens as it then will encourage them. If society rejects the individual he must recognize it is because he offers it nothing or negatively impacts it.

It is quite simple really if you wish to participate you should look at how you can positively affect other people's lives, whether it is through a job or whatever. If you wish to selfishly indulge yourself go ahead but expect no rewards.It is easy right now to be very negative about human behavior, especially if you follow politics at all, throw up your hands and join the free-for-all but it is a free fall to chaos.

Be the best you can be is all that you should ask of yourself. Don't worry about others calling for you to pay your fair share when you are already doing your best and enjoying your rewards from it. It doesn't need to be any more complex than that.

Just had to go on that rant.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Be the best you can be is all that you should ask of yourself. Don't worry about others calling for you to pay your fair share when you are already doing your best and enjoying your rewards from it. It doesn't need to be any more complex than that.

Funny, but that rant is very close to a U.S. Army recruiting slogan that ran for 20 years:

[Pliny]

That's correct.

I believe time will prove you wrong on these issues. We'll see.

Who makes up these tea party groups? People whos sole focus in life, to the exclusion of all else, is paying less in tax, people who basically are one step from anarchists in their view of the role of government. They don't like or want government, don't believe in government, and above all else, don't want to pay taxes to it.

Now if my job is to look for tax cheaters, well, this sounds like a pretty good pond to fish in.

They certainly don't want to pay unfair levels of taxation and to social engineering which is best left to society itself.

Actually tax cheaters would not necessarily like to draw attention to themselves. they would probably be more like Charley Wrangle or Tim Geithnor or left-wing anarchists that don't believe in private property and think everyone but them should pay.

The US House? Those people who have already held 40 separate votes to repeal Obama care? Those people?

Sorry, but I don't take anything the House of Representatives does or says seriously.

What a waste of money then. What you say could be taken as a suggestion it be eliminated.

You mean they decided there was no way to send in help in the time available with the resources available. Probably the right decision from what I've seen.

I've seen the breakdown in how the memos were put together by the intelligence committees, and politics was not among the reasons. I have no issue with this. Clearly a little confusion at first but no big deal and it caused no damage.

If they got warrants, I don't see the issue. Leaks of secret information are illegal. It wouldn't result in charges to the reporters, most likely, but would to those who leaked the information to them.

It was Lois Lerner in her initial statement that said the IG report was true and that right wing groups had been targeted.

If reporters phone records can be seized who is going to talk to reporters?

The more you say of late Argus the more I think you have drunk the kool-aid.

[Argus]

They certainly don't want to pay unfair levels of taxation and to social engineering which is best left to society itself.

And what is a 'fair' level of taxation? I would suggest that to most of these people it is 'none'.

Nor do I consider pensions and public health care to be 'social engineering'.

Actually tax cheaters would not necessarily like to draw attention to themselves.

You're mistaken. I can speak with some authority on this subject. Canada has a lot of tax cheaters and they are unabashed in their efforts at promoting their tax avoidance measures, most of which are utterly ludicrous. I used to sit on an interdepartmental committee called The Suspicious Activities Working Group which was tasked with sharing information about such schemes. They are not shy at all. They are self-righteous as all getout, though, highly indignant at the thought of paying taxes - any taxes.

What a waste of money then. What you say could be taken as a suggestion it be eliminated.

More like saner people should be elected to the place.

It was Lois Lerner in her initial statement that said the IG report was true and that right wing groups had been targeted.

You're paraphrasing. She also said there was nothing political about targeting tea party groups. Note, the tea party is not right wing or conservative in any rational sense. They're just a bunch of rednecks angry about paying taxes.

If reporters phone records can be seized who is going to talk to reporters?

Anyone not breaking the law? Reporters are not lawyers or psychiatrists. Their relationship with informants is not protected by law.

The more you say of late Argus the more I think you have drunk the kool-aid.

You have simply lost track of what conservative means in your zeal to align yourself with every wacko anti-Obama group out there.

[sharkman]

You sound jaded these days Argus.

[kimmy]

While it would be wrong for the IRS to specifically target Tea Party groups, there is something else to consider: it's ridiculous for political groups to be granted tax exempt status as "social welfare organizations" in the first place.

What social-welfare organization really means, in the Tea Party context, is “tax-exempt political organization that doesn’t have to reveal its donors.” It’s a dodge. In other contexts—the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club—social-welfare organization really means “tax-exempt political organization that doesn’t have to limit its lobbying and campaigning like a normal charity.” Another dodge. The obvious solution would be to eliminate the social-welfare organization as a tax entity—the technical term is 501©(4)—and stop giving tax breaks to political groups. That would bring some positive change out of the who-knew-what-where-when IRS circus.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/30/one-nation-tax-exempt/#ixzz2V5AEtaWW

This article says that there are over 1.6 MILLION tax exempt organizations in the United States. Some of them sound legit. Charitable organizations, cancer foundations, and so on. But some of the tax exempt organizations also include... Harvard University? HealthPartners Inc? The American Federation of Labor? The Miss America Pageant!? The National Football League?!?

The writer goes one step farther, by asking why even charitable organizations and cancer foundations should need tax exempt status. Taxes are paid on profits... why should a cancer foundation or the Boy Scouts or a Tea Party organization have profits to be taxed at all?

As the author points out, it's not tax exempt status that the Tea Party groups care about. It's the other perks that come from being classified as a charity rather than a political action group: their donors can be anonymous, and they become immune from rules covering lobbying and campaign spending.

-k

[GostHacked]

Anyone not breaking the law? Reporters are not lawyers or psychiatrists. Their relationship with informants is not protected by law.

Actually their relationship with informants (sources) are protected by law.

[Argus]

Actually their relationship with informants (sources) are protected by law.

No, they are not. That's why reporters go to jail from time to time when judges want the names and they won't give them.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Argus

[GostHacked]

No, they are not. That's why reporters go to jail from time to time when judges want the names and they won't give them.

They are protected by law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

Although there seems to be no law in the USA specifically regarding this. When the media uses anonymous government sources for news articles, it does not seem to be an issue as long as it falls in line with what the government is trying to put forth. But when media used anon sources against the government, then we see the double standard.

The protection of sources, sometimes also referred to as the confidentiality of sources or in the U.S. as the reporter's privilege, is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. Simply put, it means that the authorities, including the courts, cannot compel a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many people would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists. As a result, problems such as corruption or crime might go undetected and unchallenged, to the ultimate detriment of society as a whole. In spite of any such legal protections, the pervasive use of traceable electronic communications by journalists and their sources provides governments with a tool to determine the origin of information.[1] In the United States, the federal government legally contends that no such protection exists for journalists.[2][3]

The government contends that no protection exists, maybe the gov should let the courts decide.