Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[Razgovory]

  Yeah, I was wondering when you would bring that one up.

Now it seems to me that the "Yi standard" of diplomatic location is based on what the local security will do.  That seems hard to predict even with State Department distribution lists.  Besides the problem of predicting the future, it would seem there are a lot of variables.  The security might respond if it's a bomber or two guys shooting at the embassy but would run away if it's 150 guys.  Or they may respond of John is captain on duty but not Bob.  How is the State Department, and the President suppose to know this?

How are they supposed to know Pakistani security can't be trusted 100%?

Nobody can be 100% trusted.

Now, am I to understand that no other place other then Libya should have had American diplomats leave in last 30 years?  It was right for the American diplomatic staff to stay in Lebanon despite it being in civil war with no central control and the embassy having suffered a major attack and would suffer another major attack a year later along with a marines barracks?  It was right for the US to maintain it's diplomatic staff in Yemen after it's embassy was under assault for 20 minutes, the second attack on that facility that year?  You can think of no other occasion when the US should have withdrawn it's diplomats but did not over the last three decades except for Libya?  Is this correct, Yi?

[Admiral Yi]

Nobody can be 100% trusted.

Yet I imagine the US ambassador to Canada doesn't travel around the country an American armed escort.  Look Raz, you can't have it both ways.  Either Pakistan is an example of a place that's dangerous for diplomatic staff which we didn't leave, or there's absolutely no way to assess risk and any attack is the result of random chance.

Now, am I to understand that no other place other then Libya should have had American diplomats leave in last 30 years?  It was right for the American diplomatic staff to stay in Lebanon despite it being in civil war with no central control and the embassy having suffered a major attack and would suffer another major attack a year later along with a marines barracks?  It was right for the US to maintain it's diplomatic staff in Yemen after it's embassy was under assault for 20 minutes, the second attack on that facility that year?  You can think of no other occasion when the US should have withdrawn it's diplomats but did not over the last three decades except for Libya?  Is this correct, Yi?

I am pretty sure there are several countries we have pulled staff out of in the last 30 years. 

I think the attack on the Marine barracks is very helpful to my case.  Most people seem to agree now that the Marine deployment to Lebanon was based on the naive thinking that everybody in that country would be so happy to see the stabilizing influence of the US there that our troops would be at minimal risk.  Obviously there were at least a couple people there that didn't feel that way.

[CountDeMoney]

The pontificating from up on high in the Committee over the IRS is fantastic.  I particularly like the chairman's comparison of the agency to Enron.

[Valmy]

Barring those two things, this is just 100% pure politics. It is Obama's fault because it is politically useful to blame it on him, not because any rational analysis makes a reasonable person conclude that he had anything to do with the decision process that resulted in their death.

Yep.  And even though we established that on like page 2 we keep going around and around without managing to dredge up even one reason it deserves this sort of attention.  I mean the attack happened in September of last fucking year.

[CountDeMoney]

Barring those two things, this is just 100% pure politics. It is Obama's fault because it is politically useful to blame it on him, not because any rational analysis makes a reasonable person conclude that he had anything to do with the decision process that resulted in their death.

Yep.  And even though we established that on like page 2 we keep going around and around without managing to dredge up even one reason it deserves this sort of attention.  I mean the attack happened in September of last fucking year.

I love the committee's reference right now of how Benghazi's bleeding into the IRS issue, to the effect "this is the same administration that lied to the American public about the attack in Benghazi being caused by a video now expects us to believe the IRS office in Cincinnati was acting alone.  THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARENT BUYING IT" 

You guys should really be watching this if you can.  It's a bona fide GOPgasm.

[merithyn]

Glad you mentioned that.  Reminded me of something I forgot to post earlier.  Three more Pinocchios for your side! 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html

This whole fucking thing is like a Languish argument between grumbler, Raz, and derspiess, played out in public with a slew of reddit guys commenting as it goes. It's fucking ridiculous.

Tell me what any other president would have done differently? Of course he's going to figure out the best angle to go at this. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! He didn't lie. He didn't cover anything up. He just tried to figure out how to go at this in a way that would put things in the best possible light and wouldn't compromise the investigation. Duh. That's not only politician behavior, it's fucking HUMAN NATURE.

This is complete insanity, and sadly, now, all that matters is who said what when and whether anyone can be caught in a lie on that. Nobody is even cares anymore if any of this actually affected anything. The POINT of the argument is moot, lost in semantics, and attempts at "gotcha's".

[Razgovory]

Nobody can be 100% trusted.

Yet I imagine the US ambassador to Canada doesn't travel around the country an American armed escort.  Look Raz, you can't have it both ways.  Either Pakistan is an example of a place that's dangerous for diplomatic staff which we didn't leave, or there's absolutely no way to assess risk and any attack is the result of random chance.

Now, am I to understand that no other place other then Libya should have had American diplomats leave in last 30 years?  It was right for the American diplomatic staff to stay in Lebanon despite it being in civil war with no central control and the embassy having suffered a major attack and would suffer another major attack a year later along with a marines barracks?  It was right for the US to maintain it's diplomatic staff in Yemen after it's embassy was under assault for 20 minutes, the second attack on that facility that year?  You can think of no other occasion when the US should have withdrawn it's diplomats but did not over the last three decades except for Libya?  Is this correct, Yi?

I am pretty sure there are several countries we have pulled staff out of in the last 30 years. 

I think the attack on the Marine barracks is very helpful to my case.  Most people seem to agree now that the Marine deployment to Lebanon was based on the naive thinking that everybody in that country would be so happy to see the stabilizing influence of the US there that our troops would be at minimal risk.  Obviously there were at least a couple people there that didn't feel that way.

Wait, are you now saying the Lebanon diplomatic deployment was mistake or not?  I had given you ample opportunity do so.  I also made it clear I was talking about areas that the US had not pulled out of but should have. I also gave you an opportunity to use Pakistan as a current place diplomats should withdraw from using the the Yi doctrine of deployment, yet you declined.  Now you want to use that as an example of unreliable security forces.  Are you for withdrawing from Pakistan now?

[CountDeMoney]

Sometimes diplomacy is dangerous, and sometimes being the most forward deployed assets representing America's interests in dangerous and ambiguous environments--a role in which Ambassador Stevens embraced in Libya--can be costly when things go wrong.

It's a terrible tragedy and a terrible loss of dedicated individuals in harm's way, but it's not a scandal.  It's the cost of doing business at the tip of America's diplomatic spear.

[derspiess]

Glad you mentioned that.  Reminded me of something I forgot to post earlier.  Three more Pinocchios for your side! 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html

This whole fucking thing is like a Languish argument between grumbler, Raz, and derspiess, played out in public with a slew of reddit guys commenting as it goes. It's fucking ridiculous.

Tell me what any other president would have done differently? Of course he's going to figure out the best angle to go at this. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! He didn't lie. He didn't cover anything up. He just tried to figure out how to go at this in a way that would put things in the best possible light and wouldn't compromise the investigation. Duh. That's not only politician behavior, it's fucking HUMAN NATURE.

This is complete insanity, and sadly, now, all that matters is who said what when and whether anyone can be caught in a lie on that. Nobody is even cares anymore if any of this actually affected anything. The POINT of the argument is moot, lost in semantics, and attempts at "gotcha's".

Did you read the article?  It sounds like you're talking about something else.

[derspiess]

So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it?  Yowza.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329067/Congress-hosts-IRS-bloodbath-slamming-tax-authorities-partisan-targeting-conservatives-official-refuses-answer-questions.html

[Valmy]

So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it?  Yowza.

And you are surprised?  The Executive Branch loves its secrecy.

[Jacob]

Did you read the article?  It sounds like you're talking about something else.

The article is about saying the administration overstated allegations of Republican doctoring of White House emails. The fact remains that a major GOP talking point of last week centred around these emails, but were based on what can most charitably be described as factual misunderstandings of the content of those emails.

The White House claims that the factual misunderstanding of the emails means the GOP doctored them, which the article says there is insufficient proof for; perhaps the incorrect interpretations and the outrage they generated were honest mistakes rather than deliberately misrepresentations. In any case, the GOP talking points and attacks were counterfactual, the point being contended is whether that was deliberate or due to incompetence.

The bottom line remains that there is not - as Berkut said - "any rational analysis [that] makes a reasonable person conclude that [Obama] had anything to do with the decision process that resulted in their death.

[derspiess]

So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it?  Yowza.

And you are surprised?  The Executive Branch loves its secrecy.

But it was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history  

I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.

[Jacob]

So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it?  Yowza.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329067/Congress-hosts-IRS-bloodbath-slamming-tax-authorities-partisan-targeting-conservatives-official-refuses-answer-questions.html

Yet Issa knew back in 2012. Why didn't he spill it if it was such a big deal?

[11B4V]

So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it?  Yowza.

And you are surprised?  The Executive Branch loves its secrecy.

But it was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history  

I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.

Wait that was a campaign promise, wasn't it?