So there are people who still believe that Christie had no clue as to what was going on after the bridge shutdown?
Well then, Merry X'mas, Santa Claus is coming to town.
Printable View
So there are people who still believe that Christie had no clue as to what was going on after the bridge shutdown?
Well then, Merry X'mas, Santa Claus is coming to town.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;437612] And the cases examined by the IG were cherry picked, bizarrely by the IRS. Esten chooses to ignore the evidence (e.g. The NYT blogger who tracked applications for Tea Party and Progressive groups) and the mainstream press and instead quotes the DailyKos (mouthpiece for Democrat party), and an article from the Huffington Post that paints a different picture on this issue from other articles in the Huffington Post. Republican leaning organizations were clearly subjected to much more scrutiny, and their approvals were delayed.[/QUOTE]Nobody is denying that Tea Party organizations may have received additional scrutiny and delays. What is being debated is why. Was it political motivation, or a legitimate effort of IRS staffers to do their job.
The cherry-picking was in fact directed by Monkey Court Chairman Darrell Issa, a Republican who asked the IG to narrowly focus on Tea Party groups. As I noted, the IG later admitted his report was not complete because it did not cover targetting of progressive groups. But not before Republicans could pounce on the report for political purposes. Got to love how Doppel brings up the report in his argument, when the IG himself admitted it was one-sided.
It is also curious why the report did not mention the 5,500 IRS emails reviewed that failed to show any political motivation. After all, the assertion of political motivation is at the core of this so-called 'scandal'. Why do you guys think such an important detail was left out of the IG report?
Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/review-of-5-500-irs-e-mails-found-no-political-targeting.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;437626]Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/review-of-5-500-irs-e-mails-found-no-political-targeting.html[/URL][/QUOTE]From YOUR source:
[I]The documents released today include minutes from a July 28, 2010, meeting of IRS screeners in Cincinnati, where nonprofit applications are processed.
At one point, the minutes list “progressive” alongside “9/12 Project” as words meriting further review, suggesting that the groups on either side of the political spectrum were treated similarly. The “9/12 Project” is a reference to an effort promoted by commentator Glenn Beck, a small-government advocate.
At another point, the minutes say, “‘Progressive’ applications are not considered ‘Tea Parties.’”
That latter line fits Republican arguments that “progressive” groups received less attention. It also tracks with what Elizabeth Hofacre, who reviewed Tea Party cases in Cincinnati in 2010, told congressional investigators. She said she was assigned to handle Tea Party groups, concentrating on them to the exclusion of self-identified progressive and conservative groups.
“These documents, once again, refute misleading attempts to equate routine scrutiny of other groups involved in advocacy to the systematic scrutiny of Tea Party groups by IRS officials,” Ali Ahmad, a spokesman for Issa, said in a statement today. “As has been documented, while 100 percent of Tea Party applications were systematically stopped and scrutinized for a 27-month period, at the same time dozens of progressive applications were approved by the IRS.”[/I] Ahmad's statement is backed up by evidence and the mainstream press, including the very article you link to. Tea party organizations "may" have received additional scrutiny and delays? It's 100% true they did, as you finally appear to concede.
Again, getting back to your original point, Christie was not cheering from the sidelines when traffic was slowed down on a bridge. The Obama administration and some other Democrats TO THIS DAY continue their efforts to shut down / handicap 501 (c) 4 groups in a way that would work to their political advantage. For example, see [url]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304465604579222110598111076[/url]. This is a news article, not from the editorial page.
I know very little about the groups described in the article. But it's interesting that the Republican-leaning organization outraised the Democrat-leaning group by 18:1. Also note the stagnant spending by unions compared to 501(c)4 groups. That shows why this issue is of particular interest to the Obama administration and Democrat politicians, regardless of whether they have to suppress free speech to get their way.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437600]I love it!
Christie lying through his teeth.
Photos and email prove it.
"No one in my office new anything.".[/QUOTE]Washington Post letter to the editor:
[i]In case anyone needs reminding, many of us come from countries where it would be pure bliss to have political malfeasance on the level of creating traffic jams deemed newsworthy. Just think of the payback one nephew recently provided his uncle ( [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/12/kim-jong-un-just-had-his-own-uncle-killed-why/[/URL]).
Per Kurowski, Rockville [/i]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437600]I love it!
Christie lying through his teeth.
Photos and email prove it.
"No one in my office new anything.".[/QUOTE]Really?
I challenge you to post a link to a single email or photo that demonstrates that Gov. Christe had prior, personal knowledge of the closing of the 2 traffic lanes.
Otherwise, STFU.
Thanks,
Jax
[B][size=3]Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about both the House and separately the Senate official reports about Benganzi which included sworn testimony from then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wherein they stated that within minutes of the beginning of the attack they personally briefed Obama that it was an al-Qaeda organized terrorist attack. Obama went to bed to rest for his campaign fund-raising event the next day.[/size][/B]
What, I guess FOX did not show the photos and emails that are available?
The one I saw was of Christie and the guy he fired (Davi Wildstein) standing together on 9/11 in New York while the bridge back up was happening.
Christie said he did not know the guy, even though he was standing next to him.
I sure there will lots of information coming out. But, some of you will not see it on FOX.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/01/14/christie-official-who-arranged-bridge-closures-together-during-fiasco/
[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540909/New-Jersey-super-committee-issues-20-subpoenas-Chris-Christie-Bridgegate-scandal-including-CHIEF-OF-STAFF-doesnt-intend-haul-governor-questioning.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=Jackson;437645]Really?
I challenge you to post a link to a single email or photo that demonstrates that Gov. Christe had prior, personal knowledge of the closing of the 2 traffic lanes.
Otherwise, STFU.
Thanks,
Jax
[B]Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about both the House and separately the Senate official reports about Benganzi which included sworn testimony from then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wherein they stated that within minutes of the beginning of the attack they personally briefed Obama that it was an al-Qaeda organized terrorist attack. Obama went to bed to rest for his campaign fund-raising event the next day.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437648]What, I guess FOX did not show the photos and emails that are available?
The one I saw was of Christie and the guy he fired (Davi Wildstein) standing together on 9/11 in New York while the bridge back up was happening.
Christie said he did not know the guy, even though he was standing next to him.
I sure there will lots of information coming out. But, some of you will not see it on FOX.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/01/14/christie-official-who-arranged-bridge-closures-together-during-fiasco/
[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540909/New-Jersey-super-committee-issues-20-subpoenas-Chris-Christie-Bridgegate-scandal-including-CHIEF-OF-STAFF-doesnt-intend-haul-governor-questioning.html[/URL][/QUOTE]I don't know about Fox News, but I didn't see any photos or emails in the New York Times, in the Wall Street Journal, or on CNN that demonstrated that Gov. Christie had any advance knowledge of staffer Bridget Kelly's plan to move some traffic cones.
But anyway, according to your theory...
A photo of Obama standing next to Katheline Sebleious doesn't prove that he knew everything Sebleious was doing.
A photo of Obama standing next to Eric Holder doesn't prove that he knew everything Holder was doing.
A photo of Obama standing next to Lois Lerner doesn't prove that he knew everything Lerner was doing.
But according to you, a photo of Gov. Christie at a photo event that also attended by Port Authority official David Wildstein somehow proves that Christie knew everything that Bridget Kelly (another individual) was doing?
Yes, Gov. Christie knows Port Authority official David Wildstein, but Mr. Wildstein does not work for the Governor.
Christie fired his former deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly, who was the staffer who orchestrated the closing of the two traffic lanes.
Anyway, I'm still looking for that letter or email to Gov. Christie advising him about Bridget Kelly's plan to move some traffic cones.
Thanks,
Jax.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;437634]That latter line fits Republican arguments that “progressive” groups received less attention. It also tracks with what Elizabeth Hofacre, who reviewed Tea Party cases in Cincinnati in 2010, told congressional investigators. She said she was assigned to handle Tea Party groups, concentrating on them to the exclusion of self-identified progressive and conservative groups.[/QUOTE]Look at this cherry picking. One woman who said she focused only on Tea Party applications? There were probably several like her. Likewise, there were probably others focused on progressive groups. It's called "dividing up the work" to be efficient. This is no argument at all.
The quote from Issa's spokesman is also selective. He only refers to "Tea Party" applications, contrasting them with all progressive applications. He doesn't mention that some groups, like the Indiana Armstrong Patriots, were approved over this period. He doesn't mention that of the 300 groups set aside for extra review, only about 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot." He doesn't mention that progressive groups were also targetted. So, pay attention to the selective quoting.
I am certainly willing to say Tea Party groups may have received extra scrutiny (I never said they didn't). Tiny, are [i]you[/i] willing to say the extra scrutiny may not have been politically motivated, but rather a legitimate effort of the IRS to do their job?
If Republican-leaning organizations outraised Democrat-leaning groups by 18:1, obviously this so-called IRS 'scandal' didn't have much effect. What would be interesting to know is how much of that money came from individuals, who have a legitimate right to free speech, and how much came from corporations, lobbyists, and others attempting to use tax-exempt organizations as political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns. A large majority of Americans disagree with the Citizens United decision, so I suspect ongoing efforts to clamp down on inappropriate use of tax exempt organizations will be widely supported.
John Dickerson, The Slate, January 17,2014.
At a press conference hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Robert Gates told the reporters, "I have the growing feeling that my book has become like Lenin, you can find in it whatever you want to support your view".
What goes up must come down.
Spinning wheel got to go round.
Talking about your troubles it's a crying sin.
Ride a painted pony.
Let the spinning wheel spin.
(Blood, Sweat & Tears).
[QUOTE=Esten;437650]Look at this cherry picking. One woman who said she focused only on Tea Party applications? There were probably several like her. Likewise, there were probably others focused on progressive groups. It's called "dividing up the work" to be efficient. This is no argument at all.[/QUOTE]This is EXACTLY the kind of liberal sophistry that works on the LIV who isn't bright enough to analyze anything more that the balance on their EBT card.
Unfortunately, there are very few LIVs on this forum, so we will in fact dissect your argument, to wit:
A large company is interviewing prospective employees for a host of new jobs. As the job applicants are interviewed, their applications are divided into groups base on the race of the applicants, each group being assigned to HR staffers who are all white. Subsequently, when it was discovered that only 3% of the black applicants, 4% of the Latino applicants, and 93% of the white applicants were offered jobs, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "[I]dividing up the work to be efficient[/I]", right?
Let's do another scenario that's race-neutral, because you don't need to prove bias on the part of the individual "reviewer" when you have statistics to demonstrate the overall bias of the system.
So if a bank was to "divide" it's mortgage applications into different groups based on the general affluence of the various neighborhoods, and subsequently the bank disproportionately granted mortgages to the "rich" neighborhoods while simultaneously rejecting mortgages in the "poor" neighborhoods, in the face of solid statistics demonstrating a huge bias in the granting of these mortgages, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "[I]dividing up the work to be efficient[/I]", right?
Anyway, none of this really matters, as the liberals have with the re-election of Obama demonstrated that they can successfully tilt the vote by assuaging the latent concerns of any borderline LIVs with exactly the kind of sophomoric bullshit that we've come to observe from our liberal friends here on a daily basis. For this reason, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, spying on reporters, illegal recess appointments, unconfirmed czars, etc., etc., etc. are all irrelevant.
Of course, a governor's aid who moves a few traffic cones, now that's important.
Thanks,
Jax.
Esten, Jackson's analogies are spot on. Btw, LIV = Low Information Voter. For the 4th, 5th and 6th times,
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0[/URL]
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0[/URL]
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;437650]Look at this cherry picking.[/QUOTE]My "cherry picking" was a direct unaltered quote from YOUR link that you provided to support your contention that there were no politics involved in the scandal.
[QUOTE=Esten;437650] I am certainly willing to say Tea Party groups may have received extra scrutiny (I never said they didn't). Tiny, are [i]you[/i] willing to say the extra scrutiny may not have been politically motivated, but rather a legitimate effort of the IRS to do their job?[/QUOTE]I'm sure the extra scrutiny was politically motivated at the grass roots level. Just as the DEA and federal prosecutors would love to have a crack at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and would love to have a list of its donors, so too do IRS employees have a natural bias against the Tea Party. The Tea Party, in its pure form, the way it was back in 2009 when the movement got started, supports a rational system of taxation and smaller federal government. This would result in a lot of jobs lost at the IRS.
I am willing to say Obama himself didn't pass orders through his administration and onto the top brass at the IRS to target the Tea Party. He was however cheering the IRS on from the sidelines, as shown by quotes I provided earlier.
So are you and WT69 willing to admit Christie didn't order "bridgegate"? Stupid question, I know you're not, even though there's no evidence and even though Christie would have to be a complete idiot to do that.
[QUOTE=Esten;437650]What would be interesting to know is how much of that money came from individuals, who have a legitimate right to free speech, and how much came from corporations, lobbyists, and others attempting to use tax-exempt organizations as political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns. A large majority of Americans disagree with the Citizens United decision, so I suspect ongoing efforts to clamp down on inappropriate use of tax exempt organizations will be widely supported.[/QUOTE]Why do you keep coming back to polls? It's not fine if the majority screws over the minority, as long as it's justified by polls. There's a reason we have a constitution and courts.
As to the "concealment" issue, my insurance company canceled my personal liability insurance when they found out I was associated with a Tea Party organization. My insurance agent had to go to one of Warren Buffet's companies to get insurance at 3 X the cost. Why? It wasn't because I was going to get sued as a result of my position, there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. They were worried about the "Frank Vandersloot" issue. That's the potential for some bureaucrats or politicians to decide they don't like some organization, then set out to sue or ruin people associated with it. What I'm getting at, disclosing the names of donors can have a chilling effect on organizations if there's a bias in government against the groups.
Groups of people coming together in unions, corporations and even lobbyists (who I think we both have pretty low regard for) have a right to free speech without retaliation by government. Maybe there should be safeguards, to make sure a majority of union members and shareholders approve of what their organizations are doing. But otherwise it's not fair for Republicans or Democrats to suppress freedom of speech among groups they don't like.
[QUOTE=Jackson;437656]So if a bank was to "divide" it's mortgage applications into different groups based on the general affluence of the various neighborhoods, and subsequently the bank disproportionately granted mortgages to the "rich" neighborhoods while simultaneously rejecting mortgages in the "poor" neighborhoods, in the face of solid statistics demonstrating a huge bias in the granting of these mortgages, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "[I]dividing up the work to be efficient[/I]", right?[/QUOTE]So Jackson, the fact that one woman at the IRS said she only reviewed Tea Party applications, is your basis for demonstrating there was a bias at the IRS (let alone a political bias) ? [B]LMAO ![/B] That is hilarious that you actually want to get behind such an absurd argument. And this from the person who is asking others for factual evidence.
Your analogies are completely off the mark. As you know, certain IRS 501(c)(4) applications, including Tea Party applications and others, were flagged for secondary review. We know the Tea Party applications were flagged for additional scrutiny because there was a surge of them in 2010-2012, in parallel with a surge of a new political movement in the United States called... the Tea Party. Additional guidance was needed on how to handle them, to ensure they met the requirement of not being primarily political in nature. It should not be surprising there were groups and staffers within the IRS focused on these secondary reviews. It's called work specialization, Jackson, and it's very common in many workplaces. Do you know for a fact there weren't staffers focused on secondary review of applications with "Progressive" in their name (this word was on the BOLO list too) ? In your bank analogy, it would be akin to passing on certain applications to a mortgage fraud specialist, because there was something about those applications that was considered a flag for potential misrepresentation. You wouldn't expect every loan officer or processor to be trained in dealing with potential fraud, would you?
You guys really need to up your game. So far all you got is inferrential innuendo, but I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.
[QUOTE=Esten;437659]So Jackson, the fact that one woman at the IRS said she only reviewed Tea Party applications, is your basis for demonstrating there was a bias at the IRS (let alone a political bias) ? [B]LMAO ![/B] That is hilarious that you actually want to get behind such an absurd argument. And this from the person who is asking others for factual evidence.[/QUOTE] Someone takes a quote from YOUR link and you indicate he's basing his beliefs primarily on that particular quote. That's what's absurd.
For the 7th and 8th times, if you want evidence of bias, see
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1[/URL]
[URL]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1[/URL]
Again, please note from the above: [b][i]As a point of comparison, we tried to identify liberal groups approved for 501(c)(4) status since 2010. A search for “progress,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “equality” finds 32 groups....The I.R.S. approved these groups at a fairly steady rate from 2010 through 2012. The I.R.S. approved 13 in 2010, nine in 2011 and 10 in 2012.[/b][/i]
If you want evidence that Obama and Democratic Congressmen were cheering the IRS on, to go after conservative organizations and 501(c)(4)'s respectively, read the quotes of what they said. Read the letter from Schumer et al to the IRS.
[QUOTE=Esten;437659]Your analogies are completely off the mark. As you know, certain IRS 501(c)(4) applications, including Tea Party applications and others, were flagged for secondary review. We know the Tea Party applications were flagged for additional scrutiny because there was a surge of them in 2010-2012, in parallel with a surge of a new political movement in the United States called... the Tea Party. Additional guidance was needed on how to handle them, to ensure they met the requirement of not being primarily political in nature. [/QUOTE]And you accuse the other side of having weak arguments! The explanation for the hiatus for Tea Party approvals from 2010 to 2012, followed by approvals later on during 2012 and 2013 was that the IRS stonewalled approvals of the Tea Party groups until the press and congressmen forced their hand. Why did they stonewall? Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats.
Btw, it wasn't just an issue of delays. In addition the IRS preferentially audits and harasses conservative groups and their members.
Yes, for those who want to nail Obama to the cross. So who was at the wheel? Monday quarterbacking(driven by self interest) is a national sport, and yes, there are many who think they can be a better president than Obama.
[QUOTE=RevBS;437730]Yes, for those who want to nail Obama to the cross. So who was at the wheel? Monday quarterbacking (driven by self interest) is a national sport, and yes, there are many who think they can be a better president than Obama.[/QUOTE]Rev,
You're makng this too easy.
1. President Bush didn't go to bed after learning that the country had been attacked, and...
2. President Bush didn't lie to the country by trying to tell us that it was an air traffic control accident.
Thanks,
Jax.