In Lois Lerner’s case, it was the insistence on absolute propriety combined with taking the 5th that is so offensive and ludicrous. And it should be recalled that the classic example of taking the 5th was mobsters who had every reason to deny and obfuscate.
Accepting blame for screwups is part of life in Washington officialdom, as is being grilled by politicians playing to the cameras. Most bureaucrats manage to get by without invoking their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.
Maybe, but the 5th isn’t actually a right against self-incrimination, it’s a right to (among other things) not have to testify in investigations and trials directed against you. That mobsters used it is irrelevant - anyone can.
Anyway, Lerner will probably end up fired, but if there are criminal charges against her, I’m okay with her saying “I’m not going to answer that question - fuck you.”
Haven’t you said several times in this thread that someone questioning your premise demonstrates an intolerance for what you call original thought? I’ll just run though quickly, pick the more obvious examples:
Post 24:
Some debate forum where one can’t ask an original question.
Post 36:
So your inability to pose an intellectual and objective argument in opposition to the question I have originally posed on this forum caused you to declare my question “One more tired Conspiracy Theory” although you have never come across this question before.
It truly does appear that original questions are not welcome here as I see most responses are directed personally against the one asking the question.
Post 58:
Will that be for those who cannot debate reasonable questions and possibilities on matters of importance?
It seems that dismissing speculative things as silly is a cop out by those who are more interested in personal attack than having a great debate.
Post 65:
I see oeiginal [sic] questions are not welcome here.
Post 274:
You reply is duly noted. There is no effort to debate or discuss anything. I am not dissappointed at all.
I am quite thrilled to record and reflect upon the variety of anti-intellectual and quite visceral reactions to the simple question that I’ve asked.
There are issues here but I am quite certain they are not mine.
…and having given myself a quick (indeed masochistic) crash course in the thoughts and words of NotfooledbyW, I feel perfectly justified in saying your comments are indeed incoherent and, no, I will not be bothering to explain how they are incoherent.
I see. You can lay out your case against me but not be bothered with any cross examination or rebuttal on my part.
Duly noted.
When I asked what if, it was at the peak of rightwing hysteria and scandal-mongering and one thing I noted was that this tax revolt if it happens would be triggered if the Republicans don’t use the scandal to try to impeach Obama and repeal Obama Care because the IRS is involved in it.
Since when I asked the question we knew of two rogue agents being involved but since we have learned that a Republican manager and his underling kicked up the whole mess.
I was concerned at the time that RW hysteria would continue to escalate to keep this antigovernment hatred going much longer than it has.
Thanks goes to Rep Cummings for getting the news this boss who did it was a Republican.
I have noticed a swift decline of hysteria on right wing radio and websites since Rep Cummings brought out the facts,
Should we have to bow to right wing pressure to eliminate the Federal Government from collecting revenue over any mistake they decide to get hysterical about?
Think about the PR damage done to the IRS and thus to government programs such as Obama Care from what s Republican apparently did.
65% of Americans believe the IRS targeted political enemies (Republicans) when asked what they hear about the TeaParty harassment.
That damage of misbegotten perception is serious problem that should be addressed,
Some think it is just a fact of life and nothing can be done.
That is the debate or a big part of it.
Nah, that’s just after-the-fact rationalization. You posted a stupid OP, got slapped around for its silliness, and have been thrashing about trying to salvage something from the wreckage.
So it goes.
Regards,
Shodan
I think in America, we call that trolling
Maybe, but not in Great Debates.
Regards,
Shodan
Feel free to lay out your case in rebuttal and see which gets more traction.
You’re out of order! The whole trial is out of order!
Regards,
Shodan
Many were saying two IRS employees could Not do this. It looks like they were wrong.
You were the only one claiming that. You thought it was a plot by Republicans to stage a tax revolt.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought he thought the Republicans thought that an IRS agent thought Tea Partiers thought it justified a tax revolt.
Not?
That’s what they’d like you to think he thought he thought they thought.
At least that’s what I think.
Regards,
Shodan
As Shodan correctly notes, it is not permitted to refer to other posters as trolls outside The BBQ Pit.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
Then that should have been the point outlined in the OP, rather than resorting to silly CT conjectures.
Well, if that was the debate, well… it’s not much of a debate, really just speculation on what the effect might be if perception of IRS misconduct (justified or not) takes hold. Heck, we hear stats on sizable percentages of Americans who genuinely believe in conspiracy theories about JFK or September 11th but they don’t actually act on those beliefs.
I suppose a more pointed question would be “what effect will this have, if any, on the 2014 and 2016 elections?” Personally, I figure unless some rich vein of IRS corruption is exposed, this scandal will get replaced with other, sexier scandals and the only people who will still care 17 months from now have already decided how they’re voting.
This is another related point for discussion.
These “anyones” were “informed” by whom - so why is there no obligation (some kind of societal/political standards) to ‘inform’ all these people that they were not targeted for their political beliefs - it was essentially a mistake or bad judgment made by someone of sympathetic political persuasion and nothing more.
Then why are these knee-jerk reactionary “anyones” not understanding and do not quit bitching when the facts become known that they were not targeted because of their political beliefs?
Why don’t we bring the same people back who went down the jack-boot of tyranny route in Testimony to Congress and have them meet face to face with the Republican who effed-up brought such wrath against the IRS and make a big public spectacle of who idiots can be set off and need to learn how to think for themselves and understand what was going on as I did.
Lots of people, 2/3 of those polled, who desired to believe the worst of the IRS under the Obama Administration with absolutely no evidence are now convinced that it was politically motivated.
Do you think that will ever be corrected by the facts and if not - do you think it is a problem alongside many others that will disturb our ability to govern ourselves for decades to come?
I’d really like to know what people think here about this.
It is not exactly as I opened up this discussion with, but it is closer than what many suggested it could be.
One Republican minded Manager in a Cinci IRS office and one underling has caused a great deal of damage to the IRS and the Obama Administration.
Many here ridiculed that it could be started by just a couple people.
They knee-jerk bought into the Daryl Issa dishonesty of not revealing this testimony early on but publicizing other testimony trying to lead the public to believe the problem came from Washington and 'must be Obama himself.
Posters who said it was impossible that a couple of lower ranking employees could pull this off - are not coming back and admitting their misjudgment on that aspect of this.
Is that the problem? Can we no longer admit that even the most perfect of informed and sensible among us can make mistakes too?
I disagree. Please refer to my preceding Post.
I think permanent damage has been done to the IRS and there may be some radioactive fallout on Obama’s presidency and its ability to get more of his agenda done than if it had not happened.
The other scandal Mongering - Benghazi and the AP will not and could not do the same kind of harm.
Anti-Government political forces are having a heyday with this IRS Scandal Mongering and I say the impact not just on elections is more serious than you offer as a matter of concern.
I like the debates within the debates that crop up.
I don’t think a scandal is a scandal just because an employee or a few in a large 70,000 employee agency like the IRS do something wrong.
This discussion was not finished because most of the focus went toward personal attacks and ridicule of the OP writer.
I believe HA and JM have succumbed to Issa’s / Rush Limbaugh’s / Mark Levin’s et al right wing hacks’ conspiracy theory to make a mistake by a couple of IRS employees (we now know the boss was a Republican and his underling) caused all the hoopla.
My point is merely that it should not be labeled a scandal until there is evidence that it is a scandal.. In this case with the IRS… that level of scandal would be once it was determined factually that the TEA PARTY Groups were Targeted specifically for their political positions as Republicans/Conservatives.
Given the credence of 'SCANDAL on the basis of hearsay and political witch hunting is not proper as I see it.
[QUOTE=Human Action;16353241 ]
Yep, this is a scandal. As John Mace already pointed out, the scope of the scandal can be debated, such as whether Obama was personally involved (which I highly doubt, unless evidence emerges).
But this ‘mistake’ was a scandal.
[/QUOTE]
Addressed to me:
Drunky Smurf has succumbed to Daryl Issa’s conspiracy theory not Daryl Issa’s investigation.
Adahar throws in some sarcasm:
Here HA Bent my asking a question to a 'statement of fact, that "IT WAS:
I’ll put it in the “it’ll boil over in time” category. Hey, do people still judge the BATF by Ruby Ridge and Waco? I’m sure some do…but a meaningful number? Do we still judge the FBI and CIA by Watergate? Do we still judge the U.S. Army by the Sand Creek massacre?
The die-hard IRS haters already hated the IRS. They’ve been making up shit for years. Gold-fringed flags and “accepted for services” and whatnot. There will always be lunatics. They sort of cancel each other out, as there are lunatics on either side of any issue.
Our ability to govern ourselves has always been imperiled, and always will be, by people behaving badly both within the government and outside of it. Every time a government official does something bad, it weakens legitimacy. But every time some criminal or terrorist or enemy does something bad, it reinforces our desire for law, and order, and protection. We’re always walking back and forth along that see-saw.