Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 180

Thread: IRS Apologizes for Targeting Conservative Groups

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    I don't think it works that way. You don't waive your right against self-incrimination because you answer some questions and make a statement. Is it a dick move? Yes. Should she have been made to stay and repeatedly plead the fifth to every question? Yes. Did she maintain the right? Yes.
    Are you sure? I thought it was an all-or-nothing type deal.
    Signatures are for losers.

 

  • #92
    consequences 3catcircus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Province
    New Jersey
    Oratio
    4,167

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Thyme View Post
    Are you sure? I thought it was an all-or-nothing type deal.
    Either way, fuck her. Fuck her even harder if she is too stupid to not cave in and incriminate those she took her marching orders from.

  • #93
    Not a pony! GreyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Vancouver
    Oratio
    9,982

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    It's still a comedy show. That he uses satire on occasion or even mostly doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't get your news from a comedy show.
    As opposed to CNN and Fox?


  • #94
    I have no illusions that this "scandal" will make any useful change toward reforming the clusterfuck that earns an organization "non-profit status." Partisans of every stripe are too deeply invested in gaming the system for it to make any difference. I offer an example: the fucknut Mac Hammond "prosperity gospel" preacher of a megachuch here in Minnesota endorsed Michele Bachmann from the pulpit in 2006. The IRS slapped his wrist. Republicans are positively gleeful over chairing US House hearings investigating the IRS fuck-ups. I put their righteous indignation in the same category as their outrage over Benghazi -- if they had any moral leg to stand on over "intelligence failures," they'd have exercised it over Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

    • Benghazi = 4 Americans dead; 3 wounded
    • Iraq = 4500 Americans dead; 32,000 wounded

  • #95
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Halo View Post
    I have no illusions that this "scandal" will make any useful change toward reforming the clusterfuck that earns an organization "non-profit status." Partisans of every stripe are too deeply invested in gaming the system for it to make any difference. I offer an example: the fucknut Mac Hammond "prosperity gospel" preacher of a megachuch here in Minnesota endorsed Michele Bachmann from the pulpit in 2006. The IRS slapped his wrist. Republicans are positively gleeful over chairing US House hearings investigating the IRS fuck-ups. I put their righteous indignation in the same category as their outrage over Benghazi -- if they had any moral leg to stand on over "intelligence failures," they'd have exercised it over Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

    • Benghazi = 4 Americans dead; 3 wounded
    • Iraq = 4500 Americans dead; 32,000 wounded
    Man, that's some nice equivocating there, Rusty. I think you hit all the high points except the AP thing, which I'm sure was worse than something Bush and Republicans did as well.

    That both sides abuse 501c3/4s is rather beside the point of the government intentionally targetting groups based on nothing more than their politics. And it's worth noting that the IRS failed to reject any of the investigated groups, which, if you're allegations are correct and they were abusive of the system, means that the IRS is not only in the business of violating citizen's rights, but that they're incompetent to boot. Not a strong defense.

    As for the second, have fun standing on graves.

  • #96
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Thyme View Post
    Are you sure? I thought it was an all-or-nothing type deal.
    You must provide a clear waiver. Protestations of innocence do not rise to this bar.

  • #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Have fun standing on graves.

    I've never stood on their graves, but I've stood alongside those graves as I've interred veterans. I've delivered their eulogies.

    I've counseled a father terrified his Army daughter wouldn't return home from Iraq alive.

    I've volunteered at an overnight shelter whose guests included homeless veterans.

    I've stood with my church adjudicatory as we've appointed military chaplains to Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I have a colleague whose late parishioner founded a non-profit that helped find full-time employment for unemployed veterans.

    I have other colleagues whose churches have active relationships with the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program.

    None of those things prove anything, other than I think you misread me.

  • #98
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Halo View Post
    I have a colleague whose late parishioner founded a non-profit that helped find full-time employment for unemployed veterans.
    Is it true that vets are basically completely cut loose once they leave service? Seems kinda reprehensible that they'd be completely abandoned in such a way. I would've thought that there would be at least some sort of grace period between leaving and re-entering civilian life. I've heard the adjustment can be pretty traumatic in and of itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • #99
    diaglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Stoned Mtn, GA
    Oratio
    36,522

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Kzach View Post
    Is it true that vets are basically completely cut loose once they leave service? Seems kinda reprehensible that they'd be completely abandoned in such a way. I would've thought that there would be at least some sort of grace period between leaving and re-entering civilian life. I've heard the adjustment can be pretty traumatic in and of itself.
    they get a veterans status for hiring purposes.
    with the govt jobs that puts them at the head of the line.
    FWIW, I'm on the design team and I pretty much find WoW as fun and interesting as banging my head against a brick wall.-- Mike Mearls

    I mean, I never GET any but that would be preferable. --Rel

  • #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    You must provide a clear waiver. Protestations of innocence do not rise to this bar.
    Poking around the interwebs, it looks like there is disagreement on the issue among legal experts, but most of them are with you. Apparently there isn't any direct precedent, surprisingly.
    Signatures are for losers.

  • #101
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Halo View Post
    I've never stood on their graves, but I've stood alongside those graves as I've interred veterans. I've delivered their eulogies.

    I've counseled a father terrified his Army daughter wouldn't return home from Iraq alive.

    I've volunteered at an overnight shelter whose guests included homeless veterans.

    I've stood with my church adjudicatory as we've appointed military chaplains to Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I have a colleague whose late parishioner founded a non-profit that helped find full-time employment for unemployed veterans.

    I have other colleagues whose churches have active relationships with the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program.

    None of those things prove anything, other than I think you misread me.
    You're still standing on graves. You're using their deaths as a soapbox for your views.

    If you want to make a case against Bush for the Iraq war, those deaths are germane. If you want to excuse Benghazi because many other people died somewhere, somewhen, and somewhy else, that's using them to gain a moral high ground to support your otherwise flawed argument. Don't stand on their graves to give you height about Benghazi. It's pitable and macabre.
    Last edited by Ovinomancer; May 23rd, 2013 at 07:34 PM.

  • #102
    I don't remember this much indignation from either Republicans or Democrats involving the 60 Embassy/Consulate deaths during Bush's eight year term. Did intelligence not have an idea that any of those were imminent?

  • #103
    consequences 3catcircus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Province
    New Jersey
    Oratio
    4,167

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Devoid View Post
    I don't remember this much indignation from either Republicans or Democrats involving the 60 Embassy/Consulate deaths during Bush's eight year term. Did intelligence not have an idea that any of those were imminent?
    Knowing something might be coming and being unable to react quick enough (or not getting actionable intel quick enough) isn't the same thing as getting an emergency call as the attack is happening and purposely telling troops to stand down (at least twice), and also lying, witness tampering and covering up.

    Not to mention that most of the attacks under Bush occurred in active war zones (and the ones under Bill Clinton were fully acknowledged as planned as attacks, with no one claiming otherwise).

    Fact of the matter is that every event is a political event for the Obama administration, there is no leadership or accountability from Obama (everything is always someone else's fault, according to him), and this administration is full of a bunch of goddamn liars way worse than other administrations - specifically because Obama isn't really in charge of it.

  • #104
    Not a pony! GreyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Vancouver
    Oratio
    9,982

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by 3catcircus View Post
    Knowing something might be coming and being unable to react quick enough (or not getting actionable intel quick enough) isn't the same thing as getting an emergency call as the attack is happening and purposely telling troops to stand down (at least twice), and also lying, witness tampering and covering up.

    Not to mention that most of the attacks under Bush occurred in active war zones (and the ones under Bill Clinton were fully acknowledged as planned as attacks, with no one claiming otherwise).

    Fact of the matter is that every event is a political event for the Obama administration, there is no leadership or accountability from Obama (everything is always someone else's fault, according to him), and this administration is full of a bunch of goddamn liars way worse than other administrations - specifically because Obama isn't really in charge of it.
    When I think of balanced and nuanced analysis, 3catcircus appears at 999,000,991st place on my list, just after Rush Limbaugh.

  • #105
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,409

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    I don't think it works that way. You don't waive your right against self-incrimination because you answer some questions and make a statement. Is it a dick move? Yes. Should she have been made to stay and repeatedly plead the fifth to every question? Yes. Did she maintain the right? Yes.
    Well, correct and incorrect.

    In a legal proceeding, like Court, then yes you do waive your right to assert 5th amendment rights once you take the stand and make a statement or answer questions (aside from what's your name, and that you're innocent) - at that point the other side has the right to cross examination of your statements. If it did not work that way, every accused would just tell their whole story, then assert the 5th and sit down without any cross examination. See for example: "A defendant who chooses to take the stand waives the privilege and may be compelled to answer relevant questions on cross-examination." Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958)

    But, this is not a legal proceeding, it's a quasi-legal one. Technically, she doesn't even need to say she is taking the 5th. She can just say "Suck it" in response, and there is nothing they can do (at this stage). Which is why you appoint a special prosecutor when people start taking the 5th in these quasi-legal hearings...the special prosecutor has the right to do something if you say "suck it".
    Last edited by Mistwell; May 24th, 2013 at 10:58 PM.
    I like hats.

  • Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •