Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Profiling is not ok...Follow

#152 May 21 2013 at 12:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Ur no varus.

I want my fiddy dollahs!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153 May 21 2013 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Killed in an actual attack on the physical US embassy/consulate grounds.
If Stephens and crew were attacked just outside the gate you'd have been okay with it?

Benghazi wasn't a consulate anyway. Even disregarding the CIA angle, it was a "diplomatic outpost". You couldn't go there and get a new passport or apply for a visa, for example. Even from a State Department point of view, it was pretty much just an office.

But if you narrow the scope enough, you'll be sure to find out that this is the first time the actual grounds of a diplomatic outpost with fewer than 30 employees was physically attacked in September in a nation that begins with an "L" but is not Liberia.

Scandal!


Edited, May 21st 2013 1:28pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 May 21 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
Elinda, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
wowbaggerthegreat wrote:
Everyone knows that the liberals are the fat and lazy ones so say the polls.
Polls, what polls?


Too lazy to find them yourself, you fucking liberal?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#155 May 21 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Killed in an actual attack on the physical US embassy/consulate grounds.
If Stephens and crew were attacked just outside the gate you'd have been okay with it?


Ok with it? Of course not. I'm also not ok with people getting mugged while walking down the street, but that doesn't counter the observation that people getting mugged in their own home would represent a greater crime problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#156 May 21 2013 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Some muggings are more equal than others.
#157 May 21 2013 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
Allegory wrote:
Some muggings are more equal than others.


You'd have to be a mug to believe that.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#158 May 21 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ok with it? Of course not. I'm also not ok with people getting mugged while walking down the street, but that doesn't counter the observation that people getting mugged in their own home would represent a greater crime problem.

If I'm getting killed, where I'm getting killed seems fairly academic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#159 May 22 2013 at 6:26 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,814 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Some muggings are more equal than others.


You'd have to be a mug to believe that.
It always comes back to coffee.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#160 May 22 2013 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#161 May 22 2013 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
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.

And if you're going to kill yourself do it at the alter in a world famous church. Its more interesting that way. A little luck and you may get wrapped into the next Dan Brown novel or something just as a bonus.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#162 May 22 2013 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,534 posts
Doubles as a good protest against gay marriage too! Or well, maybe not but that's what people think was the intention.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#163 May 22 2013 at 12:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
Let's hope so. You can never underestimate the value of multitasking in today's economy.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#164 May 23 2013 at 7:04 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
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
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#165 May 23 2013 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,814 posts
lolgaxe wrote:


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

What IRS thing?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#166 May 23 2013 at 12:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok with it? Of course not. I'm also not ok with people getting mugged while walking down the street, but that doesn't counter the observation that people getting mugged in their own home would represent a greater crime problem.

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


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 May 23 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, you're not the State Department but you've done a hell of a job dismissing anyone who didn't die in a manner lending itself to whining about Obama. Good job.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 May 23 2013 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
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.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#169 May 23 2013 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji was telling us before that everyone in the diplomatic outpost was killed or captured. Details, details.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#170 May 23 2013 at 1:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.


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

Quote:
You know. Two of the ones you dismissed outright.


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 piss them off, they wont hurt us" approach.


So yeah, forgive me if I find the idea that this wasn't intentional completely ludicrous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 May 23 2013 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So yeah, forgive me if I find the idea that this wasn't intentional completely ludicrous.

Forgive me for not taking seriously the opinion of someone who has repeatedly demonstrated he knows shit about what happened prior to, during or after the event.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#172 May 23 2013 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,405 posts
gbaji wrote:
So yeah, forgive me


No!! You're not the boss of me, and you can't tell me what to do!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#173 May 24 2013 at 4:46 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,797 posts
Gbaji wrote:


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


Which is a legitimate argument. If Republicans focused more on that as opposed to the "cover up", there wouldn't be as much opposition. The "cover up" has nothing to do with the ability to actually secure a building. You can't pick and choose. Well, at least without being a hypocrite.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#174 May 24 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
The only correct answer btw is "yes".
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.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#175 Jun 27 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Since the resolution to this will no doubt fizzle...

It's come out that the Inspector General who investigated the IRS was told to limit his investigation into 'profiling' to conservative groups. In reality, numerous groups were subjected to enhanced scrutiny.

The Hill wrote:
The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.

A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”

The inspector general’s audit found that groups seeking tax-exempt status with “Tea Party” and “patriots” in their name did receive extra attention from the IRS, with some facing years of delay and inappropriate questions from the agency.

But top congressional Democrats have wielded new information from the IRS this week that liberal groups were also flagged for extra attention on the sorts of “be on the lookout” lists (BOLOs) that also tripped up conservative groups.

The spokesman for the Treasury inspector general noted their audit acknowledged there were other watch lists. But the spokesman added: "We did not review the use, disposition, purpose or content of the other BOLOs. That was outside the scope of our audit.”
[...]
And while the inspector general’s office has not said they knew about BOLOs flagging liberal groups, Ways and Means Democrats said Monday that progressive organizations were among the almost 300 groups the inspector general examined for his audit.


So the GOP essentially told the IG to only look for Tea Party groups subject to enhanced scrutiny and then used this as evidence for a storyline that Tea Party groups were unfairly and uniquely subjected to enhanced scrutiny. Much like the doctored and fraudulent emails the GOP pushed for their Benghazi "scandal", the greatest finding here is how good the GOP is at lying to the American people and inventing news.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#176 Jun 27 2013 at 2:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#177 Jun 27 2013 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,009 posts
It just means that conservative groups were not very creative when naming their organizations.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#178 Jun 27 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
TirithRR wrote:
It just means that conservative groups were not very creative when naming their organizations.


The name of the group should have no bearing on whether they're flagged for further investigation though. Doubly so when the name selection targets names that are associated with one broad "side" of our political spectrum. I mean, I'm fine with them taking a close look at "terrorist bombers unite", or "child killers of america". But in this case, they were targeting based on names associated with simply being a conservative oriented organization, which is not cool at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#179 Jun 27 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not really new information though. The point of that audit was to look at how frequently conservative groups were flagged.

Useless information without knowing how often other groups were flagged. Which the IG was explictly told NOT to inspect by Rep. Issa.

I agree that Issa screwing with investigations to fabricate false political scandals isn't "new information" though. So we have some compromise there.


Edit: Unless =/= Useless

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 6:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#180 Jun 27 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,009 posts
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
It just means that conservative groups were not very creative when naming their organizations.


The name of the group should have no bearing on whether they're flagged for further investigation though. Doubly so when the name selection targets names that are associated with one broad "side" of our political spectrum. I mean, I'm fine with them taking a close look at "terrorist bombers unite", or "child killers of america". But in this case, they were targeting based on names associated with simply being a conservative oriented organization [a BOLO list of commonly used terms], which is not cool at all.

Fixed.

Here's a portion of the list, in case you were interested

Healthcare, Progressive, Blue, Medical Marijuana, Occupy, Advocacy.

Not saying it's right that they did use the name to determine the level of scrutiny, but it's clear it wasn't because they were conservative oriented. It clearly targets groups who have left leaning, "partisan and anti-republican" views.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 7:20pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#181 Jun 28 2013 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
Yeah, but those groups are pinko commie liberal scum so that's okay.

I'm totally creating a Terrorist Child Bombers of America United group.

Edited, Jun 28th 2013 9:18am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#182 Jun 28 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
It just means that conservative groups were not very creative when naming their organizations.


The name of the group should have no bearing on whether they're flagged for further investigation though. Doubly so when the name selection targets names that are associated with one broad "side" of our political spectrum. I mean, I'm fine with them taking a close look at "terrorist bombers unite", or "child killers of america". But in this case, they were targeting based on names associated with simply being a conservative oriented organization [a BOLO list of commonly used terms], which is not cool at all.

Fixed.

Here's a portion of the list, in case you were interested

Healthcare, Progressive, Blue, Medical Marijuana, Occupy, Advocacy.


Er. Did you read the paper you linked? First off, it's massively redacted. Secondly, without understanding how these different categories of applications were handled, we can't assume anything by the mere presence on this list. For example, one of the categories is "Accountable Care Organizations". These are defined as organizations created by the Affordable Care Act. They're given special attention, and I'm going to assume that "special attention" in this case doesn't mean "ignore their application for a couple years".

Also, "Occupy"? You clearly didn't bother to read the document you linked. Unless you meant to refer to organizations advocating action regarding occupied territories mostly in the middle east. Was that what you meant?

Quote:
Not saying it's right that they did use the name to determine the level of scrutiny, but it's clear it wasn't because they were conservative oriented. It clearly targets groups who have left leaning, "partisan and anti-republican" views.


No. It clearly identifies and categorizes a wide assortment of common types of applications. What it does based on those categories is the issue here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#183 Jun 28 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
The name of the group should have no bearing on whether they're flagged for further investigation though. Doubly so when the name selection targets names that are associated with one broad "side" of our political spectrum. I mean, I'm fine with them taking a close look at "terrorist bombers unite", or "child killers of america". But in this case, they were targeting based on names associated with simply being a conservative oriented organization, which is not cool at all.

I'm fine with them targeting names or potentially political organizations, especially if it's one of those "hot topic" names with a lot of abuse potential. You know, "Save the 99%" or "Tea party faithful" would be great names for con-artists to choose over the last few years, along side something like "Real people protecting the homeless Hurricane Sandy victims" or "Haitian earthquake helpers" or something.

None of that excuses going 2 years without an answer to your petition or anything, but if it means someone taking a closer look at the application I'm fine with them doing some prioritizing by potential threat kinds of stuff.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#184 Jun 28 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Sure. But that's the complaint. It's not that some internal sorting process was involved, but that said process resulted in a clear difference of outcomes based along fairly blatant political lines. If you noticed in that BOLO document, different categories of applications were sent to different numbered groups within the IRS for processing. Based on the data we're seeing, I think it's pretty reasonable to wonder what group conservative leaning organizations were steered into, and how that groups handling of applications differed from other groups in order to create such a large discrepancy. And then you kinda have to ask why those differences existed.

I know a few people who work at the IRS (and have met more through them), they come in all different political flavors. While I don't discount the possibility of the occasional rogue person with a personal political agenda, this is far too widespread to have been that. It looks far more like the group that conservative organizations were routed to was given a set of rules to follow that were more strict than other groups. Those working in the group wouldn't necessarily make note of it. They're just told that cases that come to them require X, Y, Z steps to be followed. And the folks routing the cases wouldn't necessarily make note of it either. They're just told to look for certain attributes of applications and route to different groups based on them. Add in the significant increase in new hires in the IRS over the last few years, and it's quite possible for none of the rank and file folks doing the actual work to realize there was anything unusual going on.

But someone had to set those rules for that group. And that's where the potential for abuse of power comes in. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for people to demand that we investigate and find out how that happened and who made it happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#185 Jun 28 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
Sounds reasonable to me.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 90 All times are in CDT
Aripyanfar, Jophiel, Anonymous Guests (88)