Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[Jacob]

Actually I think it is stupid to be dismissive of something that has no proof yet. 

That sounds a little totalitarian there, Yi.

[Admiral Yi]

That sounds a little totalitarian there, Yi.

I don't follow.

[Jacob]

That sounds a little totalitarian there, Yi.

I don't follow.

"There's no evidence, but it's stupid to believe they're innocent" sounds more Cultural Revolution than American Jurisprudence to me.

[Admiral Yi]

"There's no evidence, but it's stupid to believe they're innocent" sounds more Cultural Revolution than American Jurisprudence to me.

Meri doesn't just "believe they're innocent."  That's an even money bet.  I would take Meri's side of that bet.

She dismisses the possibility they're guilty.  That's a million to one bet.  I would bet against Meri.

[Berkut]

She did nothing of the sort.

[frunk]

Meri doesn't just "believe they're innocent."  That's an even money bet.  I would take Meri's side of that bet.

She dismisses the possibility they're guilty.  That's a million to one bet.  I would bet against Meri.

She didn't dismiss the possibility that they were guilty.  She just wanted proof that they were before the wailing and gnashing of teeth goes on.

When something comes up that actually shows that the head of the IRS knew about this practice and did nothing to stop it, then I'll feel like it's a major issue. Until that happens, however, it's a problem that needs to be addressed, but not a MAJOR CONCERN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLES!!

[Admiral Yi]

Right. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. 

quote fight!

[merithyn]

Right. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. 

Actually I think it is stupid to be dismissive of something that has no proof yet.  You're in effect asserting that the chances of White House involvement are zero.

What's not stupid at all, but rather quite smart, is to be dismissive of those who are ranting about White House involvement as a sure thing.

There's a difference in saying, "I have seen no proof, so I'm withholding my opinion," instead of "The chances of White House involvement are zero." Unfortunately, that distinction appears to be lost when politics are involved.

And I find it rather stupid to "assert" anything right now. No one knows enough about anything to say one way or another. Isn't it smarter to simply wait to see what is found rather than frothing over nothing?

[merithyn]

"There's no evidence, but it's stupid to believe they're innocent" sounds more Cultural Revolution than American Jurisprudence to me.

Meri doesn't just "believe they're innocent."  That's an even money bet.  I would take Meri's side of that bet.

She dismisses the possibility they're guilty.  That's a million to one bet.  I would bet against Meri.

Say what?? When did I do that??

[merithyn]

Right. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. 

quote fight!

You're picking a fight where there isn't one. You misunderstood - willfully, I'd say - this post. I'm mocking your statement that it's stupid to disregard something that hasn't happened.

[Jacob]

Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.

[Admiral Yi]

You're picking a fight where there isn't one. You misunderstood - willfully, I'd say - this post. I'm mocking your statement that it's stupid to disregard something that hasn't happened.

Before's, not mine. 

I'm not willfully misunderstanding your post.  I'm objecting to your word choice.

[Maximus]

Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.

We should name it something ending in "-gate" because Nixon invented political scandals

[Admiral Yi]

Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.

You have a much narrower definition of scandal than it seems most American posters do.  It seems that to you it can only be a scandal if there is involvement by an elected official.  Yet we seem very comfortable calling, say, sexual assault by the military a scandal, or the fabricated story for that football player that won a posthumous Medal of Honor a scandal.

[merithyn]

Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.

You have a much narrower definition of scandal than it seems most American posters do.  It seems that to you it can only be a scandal if there is involvement by an elected official.  Yet we seem very comfortable calling, say, sexual assault by the military a scandal, or the fabricated story for that football player that won a posthumous Medal of Honor a scandal.

Please don't lump me in with that. I don't believe any of those are scandals unless there was a coverup that involved multiple people/entities. I don't think the things that you're talking about qualify.