Profiling is not ok...Follow

I want my fiddy dollahs!

Too lazy to find them yourself, you fucking liberal?

Some muggings are more equal than others.

If I'm getting killed, where I'm getting killed seems fairly academic.

Better die somewhere that someone else can stretch to make a scandal then, or you'll just be arbitrarily dismissed.

Doubles as a good protest against gay marriage too! Or well, maybe not but that's what people think was the intention.

I'm sure if you pick and stretch, you can use it to protest anything.

On side note, this IRS thing is taking off pretty nicely. I'm glad we're focusing on that.

Edited, May 23rd 2013 9:12am by lolgaxe

To you, yes. But in the context of foreign policy and security (which you know, we have a whole portion of the State Department dedicated to), it does kinda matter if you were gunned down whilst walking down the street in a foreign country, or dragged out of a theoretically secure US diplomatic building after its security was overrun by an attack.

Let's see. Rodger Davies was killed just outside the US Embassy in Nicosia during a demonstration and Cleo A. Noel, Jr was inside the Saudi Embassy in Kharoum when he was taken hostage and later killed.

You know. Two of the ones you dismissed outright.

Neither one of which involved our ability to actually secure our own diplomatic buildings.



I'm not dismissing their deaths. I'm dismissing their relevance to this specific case. Can we agree that allowing one of our buildings to be stormed by armed gunmen and our ambassador dragged out of said building into the street and then killed is a bigger failure of US security protocols than having an ambassador killed on the street, or while in some other countries building? The only correct answer btw is "yes". The former is a tragedy, but unfortunately does happen. The latter is a monumental failure of security, not just because of the loss of life, but because of the failure to secure potentially sensitive documents and information contained within the building(s).

And when the decisions that lead to that failure were so obviously driven by what was claimed to be a "better" approach to foreign policy in that region than that of the previous administration, it leads one to conclude that the convenient "mistake" regarding the claimed reason for the attack is unlikely to have been a mistake at all. It's not hard to see why an administration that made such a big deal about how they knew better how to manage policy with regard to Islamic groups might have a strong desire to make this look like anything other than the planned attack that it was. A planned attack by terrorists calls into question their entire approach to that aspect of foreign policy. A protest in response to an offensive video supports their "if we don't do things to **** them off, they wont hurt us" approach.


So yeah, forgive me if I find the idea that this wasn't intentional completely ludicrous.

No!! You're not the boss of me, and you can't tell me what to do!

When someone asks you what 1+2+3+4 is, and you say the answer is 3 because you decide to arbitrarily dismiss 3 and 4, claiming they're irrelevant because they don't fit your narrow criteria, the answer is still wrong no matter how much you plug your ears and throw a temper tantrum sweety.

Not really new information though. The point of that audit was to look at how frequently conservative groups were flagged. I believe that data has already been tossed about among various media sources about the ratios both between conservative and liberal oriented groups being flagged and relative ratios within each group and the conclusion is pretty clear that your odds of getting flagged if your name clearly indicated a conservative group was significantly higher than if your name indicated a more liberal group.

A specific case was a conservative group (can't recall the exact name they initially used) that waited for nearly 2 years for tax status. They eventually gave up, renamed their organization to something like "greenhouse solutions", submitted the exact same paperwork (other than the name change) and were granted status within a few weeks. Obviously, some percentage of organizations are going to be flagged normally, so the fact that some liberal organizations were during this time doesn't mean anything. It's the relative number that's alarming and suggests a bias somewhere.