Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[11B4V]

If he said it and called it in the rose garden, why not be a man about it in various interviews following. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPGmN7Zw9Fk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFzwYGc1Ag

[Maximus]

You know Max, I've met you and you're a bright guy, so I'm a little puzzled why you feel the need to ask a question that has already been asked in this thread and already answered.

I'm sorry but that's weak. The only way you can call that a lie is if you ignore context.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm sorry but that's weak. The only way you can call that a lie is if you ignore context.

Now we wrestle with the semantic issue of what's a lie and what's not.  The Wash Post dude gave it 4 Pinnochios (I assume out of 10).  That sounds about right to me.  Obama was asked for clarification on several occaisions and waffled.  He was asked a yes or no question and chose not t answer yes or no. It's a little odd to me that he would waffle on it, I don't really see the harm in calling it a terrorist act, I don't understand Obama's motivation to waffle, but there it is.  Then after waffling 6 or 7 times he says in a debate he says he called it a terrorist act from the get go.

How many Pinnochios do you think that rates?  Zero?

[derspiess]

Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually.  It's 4 out of 4.

[merithyn]

If he said it and called it in the rose garden, why not be a man about it in various interviews following. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPGmN7Zw9Fk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFzwYGc1Ag

Wow. This is ridiculous. How is adding or not adding -ism not "manning up"? How can you guys not see how absolutely insane this is? We're in debt up to our eyeballs, there's an energy crisis on the horizon, parts of the government have been shut down, people are trying to kill American citizens, and there's a fucking debate - an actual DEBATE - on whether or not Obama should be investigated for "lying" by misquoting himself. Un-fucking-believable.

FWIW, the juxtaposition of the terms has been going on for a while.... A lot longer than Obama's been president...

July 14, 2004
Nunberg on "terror" vs "terrorism"

Stanford linguist Geoffrey Nunberg has an excellent column in today's New York Times, The -ism Schism.

Nunberg has been studying the rate at which politicians and journalists are swapping the phrase "war on terror" for "war on terrorism". In the first year after 9/11, the White House called our enemy "terrorism" twice as often as they called it "terror." But over the last year, the ratio reversed, with the White House using "war on terror" twice as often as "war on terrorism."

It was bad enough to declare war terrorism, a tactic. Now, our leaders are spurring us to fight terror as such. As Nunberg observes, this shift expands the scope of an already vague term. "Terror" is now being used as an umbrella term for virtually anything frightening or undesirable from unfriendly governments to Americans' reaction to the threat of terrorist attacks.

"Terror" rhetoric becomes especially toxic when it is juxtaposed with war metaphors:

"The war on terror," too, suggests a campaign aimed not at human adversaries but at a pervasive social plague. At its most abstract, terror comes to seem as persistent and inexplicable as evil itself, without raising any inconvenient theological qualms. And in fact, the White House's use of "evil" has declined by 80 percent over the same period that its use of "terror" has been increasing.

Like wars on ignorance and crime, a "war on terror" suggests an enduring state of struggle - a "never ending fight against terror and its relentless onslaughts," as Camus put it in "The Plague," his 1947 allegory on the rise and fall of Fascism. It is as if the language is girding itself for the long haul.

At the end of the day, neither word is appropriate. So maybe we should just call all y'all ignorant and call it a fucking day.

[Valmy]

It's a little odd to me that he would waffle on it, I don't really see the harm in calling it a terrorist act, I don't understand Obama's motivation to waffle, but there it is.

Um....to win the election by pointing out his amazing record at fighting terrorism?  I am not sure why the motivation is unclear.  It was all about spin.  But since this is what most of Washington politicians spend most of their time doing, controlling the message for their political advantage, I do not see why this is somehow a scandal.

[merithyn]

It's a little odd to me that he would waffle on it, I don't really see the harm in calling it a terrorist act, I don't understand Obama's motivation to waffle, but there it is.

Um....to win the election by pointing out his amazing record at fighting terrorism?  I am not sure why the motivation is unclear.  It was all about spin.

Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along. Every politician does it! But somehow, for some reason, when Obama does it, it's this ugly nefarious thing. It's insanity!

[Kleves]

For some insane reason whether or not something is terrorism is really important.  The Boston Marathon thing?  Terrorism so HUGE.

IIRC, it is actually extremely important whether or not something is designated terrorism for insurance purposes.

[merithyn]

For some insane reason whether or not something is terrorism is really important.  The Boston Marathon thing?  Terrorism so HUGE.

IIRC, it is actually extremely important whether or not something is designated terrorism for insurance purposes.

It's important to the insurance of a US consolate in Benghazi if it's called an "act of terror" or an "act of terrorism"?

[Admiral Yi]

Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually.  It's 4 out of 4.

Whoa.  Harsh toke.  I think it's more like 1 out 4.

[frunk]

For some insane reason whether or not something is terrorism is really important.  The Boston Marathon thing?  Terrorism so HUGE.

IIRC, it is actually extremely important whether or not something is designated terrorism for insurance purposes.

Were there insurance issues involved in the Benghazi situation?  Is all of this a ploy by the insurance lobby to get out of having to pay off claims?

[Admiral Yi]

Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along. Every politician does it! But somehow, for some reason, when Obama does it, it's this ugly nefarious thing. It's insanity!

Is your position that every politician except Obama gets a pass when they present "nuanced versions of the truth?"

[11B4V]

Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually.  It's 4 out of 4.

Whoa.  Harsh toke.  I think it's more like 1 out 4.

I'd go along those lines too. Shall we dub him the waffler. I dont get his waffling either. Unless for some odd reason he was trying to protect Susan Rice.

[Admiral Yi]

Unless for some odd reason he was trying to protect Susan Rice.

Well she is one fine looking high yella soul sister.

[Kleves]

It's important to the insurance of a US consolate in Benghazi if it's called an "act of terror" or an "act of terrorism"?

Dunno. I was talking specifically about the Boston bombing, which Valmy referenced.

In other (on topic) news, the DoJ is opening a criminal investigation into the IRS: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/politics/facing-trio-of-crises-white-house-dodges-questions.html?hp&_r=0

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on Tuesday that he had ordered the Justice Department and the F.B.I. to open an investigation into whether Internal Revenue Service officials broke any criminal laws by singling out conservative groups for special scrutiny.

The activities of I.R.S. officials are already the subject of an investigation by the agency's inspector general. The results of that inquiry, which are expected in the next several days, are likely to detail how officials at the agency selected political groups for extra scrutiny about their tax status.

Speaking at a news conference called on Tuesday to discuss Medicare fraud, Mr. Holder said that he had ordered a second investigation to determine whether any criminal laws may have been broken by the officials at the tax collection agency.

The attorney general said there were "a variety of statutes within the I.R.S. code" that could be the basis of a criminal violation. He said officials conducting the investigation would also look at "other things in Title 18" of the United States Code. Title 18 is the overall criminal code for the federal government.

Mr. Holder also fielded questions about the seizure of telephone records from reporters and editors at The Associated Press, which apparently came in connection with an investigation of leaks inside the executive branch.

Mr. Holder said that he had recused himself last year from the leak investigation and therefore had not made the decision to seek sweeping subpoenas for two months of call records for 20 telephone lines used by The A.P. and its journalists. He said he decided to turn over supervision of leak inquiries to his deputy, James M. Cole, "to make sure that this investigation was seen as independent" after F.B.I. agents interviewed him about leaks in June 2012.

But Mr. Holder said that the leak in question — the revelation by The A.P. of a foiled terrorist plot by Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen a year ago — was among the two or three most serious leaks he had seen since the 1970s. "It put the American people at risk," he said, without elaborating.

Mr. Holder said he was confident that his subordinates had sought the subpoenas in accord with Justice Department regulations. Members of Congress and press advocates have expressed concern about the subpoenas, revealed on Monday by The A.P., as a dangerously broad incursion into the ability of the news media to operate without government scrutiny and a violation of press freedom.

Mr. Holder declined to say whether he had also recused himself from a separate investigation of unauthorized disclosures to The New York Times about American cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear program.

The leak about the Yemen plot is being investigated by the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen Jr., and the disclosures about the cyberattacks on Iran are being examined by the United States attorney for Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein.

The White House deflected questions on both controversies during its own press briefing Tuesday.

The press secretary, Jay Carney, said he could not comment on the Justice Department's actions amid the continuing investigation. He was similarly reticent about the I.R.S., citing the investigation by the inspector general of the agency, which he said would shed more light on what happened. I.R.S. officials have admitted singling out dozens of Tea Party-inspired groups that had applied for tax-exempt status, submitting them to detailed questioning.

On Monday, President Obama said he would not tolerate such behavior by the I.R.S. and promised to "make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this."

The raft of allegations, on top of a recurring dispute over the White House's handling of the deadly attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, has put Mr. Obama on the defensive more so than at any other time in his presidency, threatening to engulf his domestic agenda.

At the daily news briefing, Mr. Carney manifested the difficult spot in which the White House finds itself, dodging and weaving under tough questioning over the leak investigation, the I.R.S. case and Benghazi.