The Swamp

howard wrote:Apologize my fucking ass. Of course, this was vehemently denied when the accusation was first made. There should be indictments not fucking apologies. But, of course, no one will face trial much less go to jail.

Using the IRS to attack, attempt to destroy, one's political opponents? There should be a fuck of a lot more than indictments.

Interestingly, Article 2 Section 1 of the Nixon impeachment concerns using the IRS to target political opponents.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/artic ... mpeachment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

Indictment, impeachment. Tomato, to-mah-to.

The Obama dick-sucking media will call the whole thing off.

(Not singling out Obama--they suck the dick of whomever is in the Oval office these days. They sucked Bush's dick until we got two stupid fucking wars.)

Obamacare: Taxpayers Must Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS
I am resisting the urge to restart a fake reform thread. As the clusterfuck will assume full force shortly, over the next few months. Why else is he going on a PR tour for a law? Don't see that too often by a lame duck not facing reelection.

Maybe I'm just so damn conditioned by the absurdity of the GOP and the whateverthefuck of the Lib'ruls that I can't muster the slightest of fucks for Benghazi.

It's all like advertising. I've tuned out every last bit of it. I don't listen to the radio. I don't watch TV. I watch programs without interruption and stay in my bubble. The second some form of me having to be "sold" on something happens, it's an instant channel change. I think this permeates my generation. We already know we're fucked beyond all repair because the boomers won't die quick enough, so we're powerless to actually muster any significant change. We can't take the reigns because people won't let us.

So when I see everyone going batshit over 4 dead bodies in Libya, but not over thousands of dead bodies in Afghanistan and Iraq because it's something they can finally stick on the Teflon President, my cynicism and entropy meter ping off the scale. Everyone's corrupt all of the fucking time.

What am I supposed to believe anymore?

There's not much to give a fuck about with Benghazi, because there isn't any real scandal there.

If it turns out the Obama Administration was involved with the IRS thing, then there is a scandal. But even then, until it turns out that Obama himself was involved, I don't think Tricky Dick comes into play.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 63862.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brontoburglar wrote:http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 63862.html

That one could finally be a real scandal.

http://zandarvts.blogspot.com/2013/05/a ... on-to.html

This has been another episode of its ok if you're a republican.

When one party has completely abandoned the idea of governing and are only looking for ways to sink Obama, this is the shit you get. All not for profits should be scrutinized for activities that are disallowed under the not for profit identification.

vandwagon wrote:http://zandarvts.blogspot.com/2013/05/a ... on-to.html

This has been another episode of its ok if you're a republican.

When one party has completely abandoned the idea of governing and are only looking for ways to sink Obama, this is the shit you get. All not for profits should be scrutinized for activities that are disallowed under the not for profit identification.

Bin. Go.

And when you make everyfuckingthing the worst scandal in the world, then people stop listening to you.

What I've learned from the IRS thing is that the Republicans are against profiling.

Who knew?

howard wrote:I.R.S. Apologizes to Tea Party Groups Over Audits of Applications for Tax Exemption

I dunno.

First off, I want the IRS auditing the fuck out of ANYONE applying for tax exempt status.

Secondly, isn't it somewhat commonsensical to look extra deep into an application for tax free status from a group whose core mission statement involves anti tax sentiments? Am I just paranoid, or is that not automatic reason to doubt their integrity on this particular subject?

ZMan wrote:

howard wrote:I.R.S. Apologizes to Tea Party Groups Over Audits of Applications for Tax Exemption

I dunno.

First off, I want the IRS auditing the fuck out of ANYONE applying for tax exempt status.

Secondly, isn't it somewhat commonsensical to look extra deep into an application for tax free status from a group whose core mission statement involves anti tax sentiments? Am I just paranoid, or is that not automatic reason to doubt their integrity on this particular subject?

Crossroads GPS spent $70 million on last year's elections and they are, or were, tax-exempt. Ridiculous.

ZMan wrote:

howard wrote:I.R.S. Apologizes to Tea Party Groups Over Audits of Applications for Tax Exemption

I dunno.

First off, I want the IRS auditing the fuck out of ANYONE applying for tax exempt status.

Secondly, isn't it somewhat commonsensical to look extra deep into an application for tax free status from a group whose core mission statement involves anti tax sentiments? Am I just paranoid, or is that not automatic reason to doubt their integrity on this particular subject?

It isn't just about their core mission being anti tax - it's about the fact that there are clearly political organizations, claiming tax exempt status as "social welfare" organizations. The rules do allow such groups to engage in political activity, and also to promote or oppose specific candidates for office, but the candidate stuff has to account for less than half of the group's activity.

This point doesn't seem to be making into the press much - the headine of the article in our local paper yesterday was about "Hatch Backers" being "targeted" by the IRS. First, this isn't "targeting," like an audit would be. It's the other way around - these groups are "targeting" the IRS by applying for the 501(c)(4) exemption. Second, if the defining feature of this group is that they backed Orrin Hatch in the last election, then they shouldn't have that exemption. So the IRS was right to look at them more closely.

The real problem, as I see it, is that the IRS appeared to be scrutinizing right-wing groups more than left-wing groups. This may be legit, in that there may not have been any significant number of left-wing groups applying for that exemption, at least not in that time period. But more likely, the IRS was being biased in the sense of scrutinizing the right more than the left.

So what it comes down to is whether it is OK for the IRS to scrutinize the right-wing groups on the basis that they, as a whole, are more likely to be playing games with the exemption.

In other words, is it ok to profile?

Anyway, one thing that should be clear is that this is nothing like what Nixon was doing. Not only is there no evidence of administration involvement yet - as far as I know - but what Nixon was doing was much more sinister. Nixon responded to political opponents by having the IRS choose them for audits. That is not happening here. Instead, these groups are coming to the IRS for a special exemption, and the IRS was choosing to scrutinize their applications more closely than other groups.

Steve of phpBB wrote:Anyway, one thing that should be clear is that this is nothing like what Nixon was doing. Not only is there no evidence of administration involvement yet - as far as I know - but what Nixon was doing was much more sinister. Nixon responded to political opponents by having the IRS choose them for audits. That is not happening here. Instead, these groups are coming to the IRS for a special exemption, and the IRS was choosing to scrutinize their applications more closely than other groups.

Exactly. And not a single one of which, by the way, was turned down. Some scandal.

This press release is a bit self-serving, but imho, the points made are very valid. I noted this issue in one of the olde swampes.

CDW: Third Circuit Deals Second Strike To NLRB
Another Court Decision Finds “Recess” Appointments Illegal

WASHINGTON, D.C. // MAY 16, 2013 // Today, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace praised the Third Circuit US Court of Appeals' decision declaring illegal National Labor Relations Board recess appointments made by President Obama.

The decision in New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation v NLRB is the second such to deal a blow to the Obama administration. The other, Noel Canning v. NLRB was supported by business organizations, including CDW.

CDW chairman Geoffrey Burr said, “This is yet more evidence the President went outside his constitutional authority and wrongly circumvented the role of the Senate as the administration attempted to stack the deck in favor of organized labor. Simply calling a long weekend a ‘recess’ in order to pack the NLRB was wrong, and so is the President’s effort to renominate those individuals who illegally held posts within the Board.”

Burr concluded, “With two different courts finding the President’s appointments illegal, it is time for him to withdraw his current nominations and provide new, qualified nominees for advice and consent of the Senate.”

The decision in this case can be viewed here: http://t.co/YVgc7siuAP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm pretty sure the points aren't valid at all. Obama has been begging the Senate for years to use its power to "advise and consent" regarding NLRB nominees, and the Senate has refused to do so.

The Republicans don't like the NLRB. So Senate Republicans have filibustered any attempt to get a vote on any of Obama's nominations to the Board. By doing so, they have unilaterally repealed the National Labor Relations Act - even though they don't even have a majority of seats in the Senate (and even though their Senators represent something like 40% of Americans).

So after years of that bullshit, Obama finally used the recess appointment power. The power that is written into the Constitution and has been used by Presidents all along, including the Republicans.

Then, a court comprised of Republican appointees found that the recess power doesn't really exist. And one reason the Court is comprised of Republicans is that Republicans in the Senate are refusing to advise or consent on Obama's judicial nominees either.

So the only point is that if the Republicans keep more than 40 seats in the Senate, they can prevent the NLRB from even functioning. Despite the fact that the National Labor Relations Act, which governs the NLRB, is the law of the land.

Steve, I guess we have to agree to disagree, because I think you are being ridiculous. The NLRB has been equally divided between labor and corporate orientation for decades, which is important, given its role as an arbiter of labor issues. Now, in an obvious desire to reward his organized union supporters, the president made a clumsy attempt to circumvent the rules that everybody has always played by to pack to NLRB with a majority of pro-Labor members. And, you think that is dandy, despite the fact that two different courts have made the obvious decision that he did not play by the established rules. You say it is because the courts are biased. C'mon. As an attorney, I'd hope you would recognize it as a correct interpretation of law.

sancarlos wrote:Steve, I guess we have to agree to disagree, because I think you are being ridiculous. The NLRB has been equally divided between labor and corporate orientation for decades, which is important, given its role as an arbiter of labor issues. Now, in an obvious desire to reward his organized union supporters, the president made a clumsy attempt to circumvent the rules that everybody has always played by to pack to NLRB with a majority of pro-Labor members. And, you think that is dandy, despite the fact that two different courts have made the obvious decision that he did not play by the established rules. You say it is because the courts are biased. C'mon. As an attorney, I'd hope you would recognize it as a correct interpretation of law.

I'll admit I don't know the details of labor versus management and who's been on the board lately. However, I don't know how a 5-member board could possibly be "equally divided."

Anyway, are you sure he has packed the board with pro-Labor guys? One of the guys Obama appointed earlier was Brian Hayes, who was described (on Wiki) as the "Republican Labor Policy Director for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions". I don't think he was pro-labor.

And one of the three recess appointments was Terence Flynn. He is described in the media as a "Republican." His background was with a corporate law firm. Apparently, however, Mr. Flynn is no longer on the board:

The National Labor Relations Board announced on Sunday that one of its five members, Terence F. Flynn, had resigned after the board’s inspector general found that Mr. Flynn, a Republican, leaked documents to G.O.P. allies.

The board’s chairman, Mark Gaston Pearce, said Mr. Flynn, who joined the board in January, had submitted his resignation on Saturday evening by fax and e-mail.

The N.L.R.B.’s inspector general, David P. Berry, issued a report in early May that found that Mr. Flynn had committed serious ethical violations by leaking drafts of board decisions and details of internal deliberations to Peter Schaumber, a former labor board chairman who had been co-chairman of Mitt Romney’s labor advisory committee.

So I'm pretty sure he was not pro-Labor, either.

Anyway, the point is that under the current Republican insanity, there basically is no National Labor Relations Board without recess appointments.

Edit: Also, the two "member-designates" on the Board are both management-side lawyers. Brainbo might even know one of them, since he is a partner in Brainbo's old firm.

Obama Supporter Has Perfectly Improbable Explanation Absolving President From Blame For Scandals


(just fucking wit ya, steve)

howard wrote:Obama Supporter Has Perfectly Improbable Explanation Absolving President From Blame For Scandals


(just fucking wit ya, steve)

Heh. Perfect.

What is the fucking deal with this umbrella bullshit? Is everyone really going apeshit because a Marine is holding an umbrella? America sucks.

McCain really staying on point with this Apple computer Tax hearing today. Trying to get on the Daily Show is my guess.
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcc ... gle+Reader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fuck John McCain.

Apple didn't write or vote for the tax code. McCain voted for that shit. And he took campaign contributions from people who benefit from the fucked up tax code. He probably took money from Apple. These goddamned legislators can legislate a new tax code anytime they want. Fuck the lot of them.

Fuck Carl Levin, too. As howard notes, there is nothing illegal going on. Congress makes the tax rules and it's stupid for them to be upset that Apple plays well by their rules. Legal tax avoidance employs thousands of accountants, and we reward the guys who do it well.

eta: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook ... xes-2013-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why have these seen the light of day only now? Wow. Been pimpin' since pimpin' was pimpin'.

So he tried to get some when he was a kid? Stop the presses.

Of course he's at some kind of jungle-themed party.

Johnnie wrote:

That little heart in the "Love Barry" is far more troubling than Benghazi, the IRS thing, and the AP subpoenas put together.

We gotta bring back 'Foxy!"

P.D.X. wrote:Of course he's at some kind of jungle-themed party.

It's actually prom night and those are leis.

And Brian, I just thought the pics were great. Just like any old photos of powerful people when they were just regulars like the rest of us.

I hadn't seen those particular pictures, but I've seen plenty of BO as a kid, teenager, college student, etc. The right loved to show the pic of him at Harvard where he's wearing a black leather jacket and looks like a Black Panther.

Also, seen plenty of pictures of Bush 43, Clinton, etc. when they were younger too. If you're saying it's kinda cool to seem prom pics, etc. of famous people then I'm basically on board with you. But the implication of "why haven't we seen this before" seemed to imply that there was something especially interesting or noteworthy about the picture. So, in other words, it's all good.

Johnnie wrote:

P.D.X. wrote:Of course he's at some kind of jungle-themed party.

It's actually prom night and those are leis.

Traditional Kenyan jungle-themed prom leis, no doubt.

It's getting pretty fucking bad.

Biggest Scandals Of The Obama Administration

President Barack Obama has recently come under fire for the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, the White House’s handling of last September’s attack in Benghazi, and the Justice Department’s seizure of reporters’ phone records. Here are some other scandals that have tainted the Obama Administration:

August 1961: Obama born

January 2009: President Obama accidentally gets sworn in on a copy of Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret instead of a Bible

June 2009: The Presidential limousine gets booted after being left in a handicapped parking spot all night

February 2010: Obama allegedly asks for a cup for water at Chipotle and fills it up with soda

July 2011: While sitting in front of a third-grade classroom, Obama unconsciously lights up a smoke and puffs away as he continues to read to the students

November 2012: Sasha is caught learning how to kiss with a bust of Abraham Lincoln

January 2013: Vice President Biden is thrown in county overnight for selling counterfeit tickets to the inauguration

March 2013: A wig mishap reveals that while Obama’s been off sowing his wild oats, his secret twin Tito has been running the country since the beginning of his second term

January 2009–May 2013: No one really says anything at all about climate change

brian wrote:So he tried to get some when he was a kid? Stop the presses.

HELLO?!?!?!!??! That's a white girl on his arm. And he called her Foxy. FFS, brian, how'd you miss that?

Fuck The NSA!

How's that Liberty for Security trade working out for you, America?

It's awesome that exactly zero Republicans are even bringing up Dubya.

And I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible.