home

Sunday Night Open Thread

Move over, Bon Jovi. One of the happiest and funniest videos, from of all places, the Jay Leno Show's Pumpcast News. In three days, it's gotten 6 million views. (Thanks to reader Magster for pointing me to it last night.)

Jay brought the couple back to the show to sing with the Late Show band. Is The Voice next?

My agenda tonight: The Survivor finale, Celebrity Apprentice and Nurse Jackie.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Happy Mother's Day Open Thread | O.J. Simpson in Court for Hearing on Motion for New Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    OMG!! That was great. Those two do have (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Sun May 12, 2013 at 09:25:34 PM EST
    talent. If they are like this most of the time they must have a very happy home.

    Watching this lifted my spirits immeasurably.

    That was great fun to watch... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Sun May 12, 2013 at 09:39:15 PM EST
    but how come I can never see anything like that when I go to get gas?  Sheesh...

    We're watching "Mad Men." (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 12, 2013 at 11:42:13 PM EST
    Haven't seen "Nurse Jackie" because we have basic cable and don't subscribe to the pay channels, but I hear Edie Falco is great. We watched "The Sopranos" when it was released on DVD, and she was awesome as the long-suffering but incorrigibly materialistic Carmela.

    She is great. It is fun to see her (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 03:26:38 PM EST
    in such a different role. The show is not always great, but worth watching if you can stream previous seasons on Neflix or something.

    Parent
    On TV, (none / 0) (#4)
    by lentinel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 06:30:22 AM EST
    I enjoy "Elementary" starring Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Dr. Joan Watson.

    Lucy Liu is great. Subtle acting.
    And I like the way she is treated in the script, and the way that Sherlock relates to her as a person.

    I also like Jonny Lee Miller's conception of Sherlock Holmes.
    It is original - but it captures qualities of Sherlock's quick intelligence.

    The other show I do watch is "Mad Men", but I must admit that I am repelled by the increasingly numerous sex scenes. Why the writers, or producers or whomever think we want to see this stuff baffles me.

    Mad Men is just twisted nostalgia... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    ...with great production design. IMHO, of course.

    Parent
    I like (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    the characters - and it is a bit of nostalgia as you say... For awhile (not too long) I worked in a Madison Avenue ad agency - and I find their portrayal to be quite evocative.

    The way someone who comes up with a little phrase ... "Heinz - what else?" - or some such is elevated to genius status... really brings back memories of that demented scene.

    I just wonder who it is that thinks that we need to see the cast in various stages of undress... I wonder if Hamm (who is listed as a director in some of the episodes) is responsible for displaying himself in these increasingly obnoxious diversions...

    Parent

    Obviously, some people do want to see it, ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 13, 2013 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    ... or the producers and writers wouldn't do it. But I do wholeheartedly agree with you, because I've also found a lot of the sex scenes on "Mad Men" to be perfectly gratuitous -- titillating, but without serving any apparent useful purpose to further the plot.

    For example, look at the torrid affair that Don Draper has been conducting this season with his married condo neighbor from downstairs, Sylvia. The producers had them just sort of drift into this extramarital fling in the season premiere without giving the audience any compelling reason why it was even occurring -- unless, of course, they were trying to show the audience how truly shallow and self-absorbed Don really is, as though we somehow didn't already know that, given his behavior over the course of previous seasons.

    And last night, after a very uncomfortable (for me, anyway) episode-long scene of humiliation in that hotel room, in which Don treats Sylvia like a prostitute -- I mean, really, a red dress? Puh-LEEEZE! How cliché! I just KNEW that box from Sack's 5th Avenue was going to have a red dress in it, even before she opened it! -- she finally summons up the self-esteem to break it off, leaving him in that elevator looking like a hurt puppy that just got hit with a rolled-up newspaper.

    Okay, we get it, Don Draper's a serial womanizer, a total cad and a perfect louse of a husband, with a nice wife who now comes across as a well-meaning but clueless bimbo, because the writers apparently didn't quite know what to do with her formerly interesting character except to dumb her down, once she quit the firm and married him. His personal life is certainly well beyond the stage where it can be described as merely a mess. At some point before the end of the series, I expect him to take that swan dive off the 40th floor balcony, per the opening titles.

    But this season in particular, in sharp contrast to how the other characters have grown and shined, Don's often desperate narcissism has become incredibly uninteresting to me, and quite boring to watch. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    He does have his issues, what with being (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    raised in a house of prostitution and all, but I agree it is a little too on the nose this season. Lat night's theme of him wanting to demonstrate control carried all the way through to his treatment of Ted though. I always find Don and Peggy's relationship the most interesting, so I'm glad they found a way to get her back in the office. And Ted adds a different dynamic.

    The new mistress is the illustration of how he left the marriage emotionally when Megan got successful and 'left him'. Peggy did the same thing....but he got her back. Now what will he do to get Megan back in line?

    I don't see the show as just nostalgia at all. It may be heavy handed at times, but it does explore relationships and people's attitudes toward power and change, and power and change in relationships.

    Parent

    I like Sherlock too (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    but for some reason it puts me to sleep every time. The lighting needs to be a little better I think!!!

    Parent
    I liked it at first (none / 0) (#86)
    by shoephone on Mon May 13, 2013 at 04:03:38 PM EST
    but Jonny Lee Miller gives his Sherlock such a stew of physical tics I find it really distracting and annoying. Plus, it seems like it took forever (a whole season) for Moriarty to finally make his entrance.

    Overall, I enjoyed Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock on Masterpiece a lot more.

    Parent

    Yes on the Cumberbatch (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    At best the Jonny Lee Miller show is just something to get me through the long dry spell between those seasons!

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 04:30:26 PM EST
    never saw Benedict Cumberbatch.

    I'm interested and will try to search a sample out - maybe on Youtube...

    I know the tics you're talking about, but for some reason they don't bother me. I like his take on Sherlock. And I like that he is not patronizing toward "Watson". Miller has an integrated personality.. imo.

    I didn't mind not seeing Moriarty - because I think the plots were reasonably good for each episode and did not really need him. But now that he has made his appearance, and the first plot involving him was I thought a good mystery... I am interested.
    And Irene is back... Who knew?

    And I also like the NY policeman - the equivalent of Inspector Lastrade.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#106)
    by lentinel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    Jeez..

    Now I know who Benedict Cumberbatch is... I saw an episode on tv but did not know his name.

    I just didn't care for his take.
    Much prefer Miller.

    And, I must say, I was unfortunate enough to see an episode in which Mr. Cumberbatch bared his bottom. Phooey.

    Not for me.

    Parent

    I saw the original video (none / 0) (#5)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 13, 2013 at 07:06:29 AM EST
    a few days ago.  These two are a lot of fun.  "Dance Break".  Leno has a great new bit, very funny.  I kind of feel bad for him getting canned.

    Television?  Downton Abbey, can't wait for next season.  Still watching Glee because I was one of those kids way back in the 70s. Still love Homeland, don't feel the need to pick it apart, it's TV folks not real life.
    In the category of lame reality TV that I watch, Dancing With the Stars.  Some of those people are good. Plus I love Latin Dance Music.  It comes from having spent years in South Florida I guess.  If you have not watched it this year, tune in.  Kellie Pickler is not much of a song writer.  She is a hell of a dancer and more than that she is a lovely, funny young woman.  If I had a daughter I'd want her to be as sweet as this kid.

    Did anyone watch Splash? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    Or am I the only one?

    I'm not ashamed to say I enjoyed it thoroughly.  

    Even though it was slightly unfair that an extreme skier was in the competition with a bunch of actors.

    None the less good times.

    Parent

    I am ashamed to say I do watch Smash (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    but I hate-watch it, so it's ok.

    Parent
    You should feel ok (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:15:07 PM EST
    I unabashedly enjoyed it.

    My wife liked the first episode but said something to the effect..."I am not supposed to like this so I'm not watching it anymore".

    I said fine and watched it on fast forward.   I loved seeing how good Greg L was doing and found the challenge of it fascinating.   Also they all seemed to get into it so it made it fun.

    I hope they renew it.

    Parent

    I think you might be talking about two (none / 0) (#107)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 13, 2013 at 06:10:45 PM EST
    different TV shows.  One is Splash which is a diving competition among low-grade celebrities. The other is Smash which is a drama about a Broadway musical.

    I think either show is a contender for hate-watching.

    Parent

    I love Smash, lol (none / 0) (#122)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:13:21 AM EST
    But then I am a musical theater person/actor/singer/director.  Love all that stuff.  I don't really breath as free anywhere else as in the theater.  
    Yes the show is somewhat cheesy... it's MUSICAL THEATER!

    Parent
    Have not seen it (none / 0) (#121)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:09:53 AM EST
    I have to be very selective in my guilty TV watching since my semi significant other spends most of his time watching cop shows and is very stingy with the remote.  

    Parent
    Been watching storms (none / 0) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Mon May 13, 2013 at 07:37:26 AM EST
    rolling off Africa on NOAA'S National Hurricane Center site.  They are still close to the equator but when they move up to 10 degrees latitude and higher we start watching for hurricanes.  It's still quite early but with the Atlantic allegedly a couple of degrees warmer anything's possible.  I live 25 degrees north of the equator and Donald lives even closer at 20 degrees.  My eyes tell me we are starting to get Sahara dust in the air which is also a bad sign.  The torture never stops.

    Send some of that warming my way (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 09:19:13 AM EST
    woke up this morning to near freezing temperatures in May.

    Parent
    We can only hope (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    the stream takes them back out to sea again this year like last hurricane season. The heat wave that settled in over us starting last Friday makes outside feel like a rotisserie oven. Not much doubt the storms will be firing up early this year. I've got the hurricame glass in now but that doesn't do much for the roof.

    Parent
    More Benghazigate news this past week (none / 0) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 13, 2013 at 07:56:03 AM EST

    Among the unanswered questions:

    Is Nakoula a political prisoner?

    Is the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 13, 2013 at 08:59:19 AM EST
    and their right wing puppets basing their realty on cartoons?

    Parent
    Not at all (none / 0) (#113)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:41:45 AM EST
    .

    "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted."

    Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012

    The scapegoat is still in the slammer.

    .

    Parent

    Quotation marks (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Yman on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    When used with someone's name, are supposed to indicate something they actually said.  This is a paraphrasing of a conversation as reported by Charles Woods, not Hillary Clinton.

    As believable as several of his other outrageous claims.

    Parent

    Sorry about the punctuation (none / 0) (#117)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:46:19 PM EST

    The point remains, the scapegoat is in the slammer while every one of the perps walks free.  

    Parent
    The point collapses under the truth (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    You claimed she said this because you think it supports your fantasy about Naloula being jailed for political reasons.  It doesn't.  We know for a fact that he was jailed due to several violations of his parole.

    The rest of your claims are the usual, specious, baseless garbage.

    Parent

    Fairy tales aren't "questions" (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Yman on Mon May 13, 2013 at 09:01:06 AM EST
    Nakoula plead guilty to four counts of violating his probation.

    But when someone frames their accusations as "questions", you know their working with no evidence.

    Parent

    Violations (none / 0) (#16)
    by gaf on Mon May 13, 2013 at 09:40:01 AM EST
    The parole was for a bank fraud crime. And his parole violations were
    • using an alias
    • using the internet without permission from his parole officer.


    Parent
    And? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    Setting aside the fact that none of the charges were for "using the internet without permission from his parole officer", I'm not sure of your point.  Nakoula was convicted of a bank fraud scheme in 2010, using fake names and stolen social security numbers in a check kiting scheme.  The feds tend to frown upon someone on probation using fake names and lying to parole officers, which is why he what he plead guilty to.

    The "political prisoner" garbage is simply a baseless allegation - par for the course with AAA.

    Parent

    "Gate?" (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MKS on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    Republicans have Watergate envy.   If they lose elections, they try impeachment.  Sore losers.

    Parent
    So true (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    I had a conservative friend down here for a visit over the weekend and she was getting all excited and starry eyed about it being 'as bad as Watergate'. As you can imagine, I begged to differ rather vehemently and we changed the subject.

    Parent
    The GOP (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 13, 2013 at 08:34:16 AM EST
    once again has managed to turn a tragedy into a punchline.

    Parent
    4 Dead people isn't funny (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 09:18:07 AM EST
    Neither is the fact that Hillary lied to the families.

    Nothing funny about it.

    Parent

    Oh, please spare me your phony outrage. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Angel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:11:19 AM EST
    Let's talk about all the men and women and children Dubya killed through his two ill-conceived wars, and all the lies he and Cheney, et al, told to the American people.  Ready when you are.

    Parent
    OMG - please just stop with this. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    Instead of continuing to post these right-wing screeds, how about you apply some critical thinking and analysis of your own?  Answer the many - many - comments with substantive refutation of your accusations.

    You've really got to do more than keep repeating "_____ lied."

    Parent

    I have an opinion (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:23:05 AM EST
    An opinion shared by many including some on the left.

    Dennis Kucinich.

    You can choose to look the other way.  That's your choice but stop acting like I'm a 9/11 truth-er.

    Parent

    OMG - Dennis Kucinich agrees?!? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Yman on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    (yawn)

    But it's good to hear that your allegations of "LIES!" have regressed from "facts beyond dispute" to merely your opinion.

    Progress.

    Parent

    Hillary lied (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    to the family of the dead.

    No doubt about that.

    Parent

    There's a new open thread (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by nycstray on Mon May 13, 2013 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    that you haven't typed " Hillary lied " in yet . . .

    just sayin' :)

    Parent

    Not in YOUR mind (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon May 13, 2013 at 06:58:51 PM EST
    Reality and the facts, OTOH, beg to differ.

    1.  Fact - The CIA believed the Benghazi attack was caused by the video from the time it drafted the very first talking points.  There was evidence at the time that it was prompted by the video and that was the assessment of the intelligence community immediately afterwards, just as the video sparked protests all across the Middle East.

    2.  Fact - Petraeus testified why the terrorist references were dropped from the TPs - to avoid prejudicing the investigation and tipping off the terrorists.

    3.  Fact - You keep claiming that all of these people were "lying", when in fact you haven't provided one bit of evidence that they knew the attack wasn't a protest caused by the video.

    But if you keep repeating your own lie often enough, you might convince a few, gullible people to believe it, right?

    Parent
    Slado, here is the quote you link to (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MKS on Mon May 13, 2013 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    Hillary said:

    This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We've seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."

    Each of these sentences is correct.  Then and now.  I assume you take issue with the third setence.  But it is true.   At roughly the same time as Benghazi, our empbassies were under attack in Cairo and across the Islamic World.  The stated reason by the protesters was the video.  Fact.

    The third sentence cannot refer to Benghazi because there was no U.S. embassy or even consulate there.  It was a mission and a CIA annex.

    To dicuss both events back-to-back maeks sense because both events happened back-to-bak in real time.

    Don't rely on slogans--show us the lie.

    Parent

    We are now at the point where (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Anne on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:59:05 PM EST
    people like Darrell Issa are taking Obama to task because he referred to what happened at Benghazi as an "act of terror" instead of a "terrorist attack."

    Seems to me that if they have to parse the rhetoric that closely, they really don't actually have a scandal as much as they are revealing how badly they want to make this a scandal.

    Under questioning, a parade of people attempting to masturb@te the events into a gigantic Benghazm were just revealed to be a bunch of wankers with their pants around their ankles and not much between their legs.

    Here's the real problem: the nakedly partisan zeal with which the right went after the Obama administration, and their signal that they intend to go after Obama and his proxies at every opportunity has guaranteed that we will be maxed out on scandal fatigue AND that no attention will be given to things that are, you know, actual scandals.  They have rendered it impossible for one word to be uttered by anyone in the administration without it being parsed, investigated, blue-ribbon paneled, select committee'd and stockpiled for future negative campaign ads.

    I am not in love with this administration - I do not swallow whole whatever it dishes up, and I have been hugely critical of their actions and policies on many, many issues.  

    Hindsight always tells us how we could have done something better, but I'm at the point where, if Republicans - some of the dullest knives in the drawer - are involved, the only "hindsight" they could possibly have is that which involves the view from somewhere inside the lower end of their colons.

    Parent

    If Obama had called it... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by unitron on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:42:12 AM EST
    ...a terrorist attack, they'd have been all up in arms demanding to know how dare he not be willing to call it an act of terror.

    Parent
    Slado, a piece of advice for you, buddy. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Angel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    Facts first.  Analysis second.  Opinion third.  But number three has to be based on numbers one and two, you can't just say it's your opinion "because."

    Parent
    Well, there is ONE thing funny ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Yman on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:21:27 AM EST
    ... about it.

    The fact that you think that repeating the same accusation will make it true, then linking to the DailyCaller as "evidence".

    Parent

    You want to look the other way (none / 0) (#97)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:24:18 PM EST
    and that's your right.   Just stop hiding behind the attacking sources BS.  It's not just the daily caller that's just the link I found.

    The National Journal had a summary article showing how bad both Obama and Hillary look on this and that is an understatement.

    Both pushed the video story long after it was known that it had nothing to do with Benghazi.   Do you deny that fact?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Yman on Mon May 13, 2013 at 07:08:34 PM EST
    I deny that fairy tale.

    That was easy.

    BTW - The National Journal piece is an opinion piece that says - not that anyone lied (as you claim) - but that this situation makes both sides look bad.  The Fox News piece (heh) you linked to doesn't even claim that anyone was "lying" - and that's Fox News.  They merely complain the President didn't call it a terrorist act and that Rice downplayed the likelihood of a terrorist attack a mere 5 days after the attack.

    Do you need someone to look up the definition of "fact" for you?

    ... cause you seem to be having difficulty with it.

    Parent

    Even conservatives agree (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    Tragedy used to attack Hillary as a fund raising event.

    "It's ridiculous! There's no campaign going on."

    Parent

    Hillary told the accurate truth (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    Paste the quote here, and tell us what is false with it.

    If you actually put forward your "evidence" of the quote, the whole thing falls apart.

    You repeatedly  trot out this accusation, yet do not respond when I aske you to specify the lie.

    Parent

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    and 15 times that many people died under George W. Bush at embassies and consulates and what did the GOP say about that? Nothing. The deaths were horrible but the GOP acting like a bunch of crazed ninnies about the whole thing and loading it up once again with conspiracy theories makes then look like full blown nuts. It seems that no one should get in their way while they are shooting themselves in the foot but this is what they do.

    This is just another thing the far right has taken and is trying to turn it into something it's not. It's real easy to see why they are doing it. They are terrified of Hillary but the problem is the voting population is more afraid of them.

    We had thousands times the people die in Iraq because George W. Bush lied to them about WMD's. The GOP takes no responsibility for that and frankly people have just become immune to our citizens dying the middle east sad to say. But if teh GOP could not get outrages over something that cost the tax payers trillions of dollars, they just don't have any credibility and even before that remember all the stuff they were saying back in the 90's? Whitewater/Watergate same thing? I mean how many times can the GOP lie to you before you give up on them? They've got a great game going fleecing the "rubes" ti would seem and I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.

    Parent

    While I am disgusted by (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    the Obama administration and Hillary I am going to give them a pass on this one.

    Granted without the false accusations by the administration that the video was meaningful to Benghazi this is not an innocent man and he obviously violated his parole.

    Chalk it up to criminal stupidity.

    Parent

    Criminal stupidity is... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    ...thinking you can predict or control what happens in a war zone, in a chaotic mass-murder zone. When you let war start, NOTHING is predictable. Absolutely nothing. That is what mass murder is. I cannot parse here like you can. Obama is an idiot, IMO, but this incident, please, it is called Hell turning Hell into a Greater Hell.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#98)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    It was shocking how much I agreed with Dennis K on Fox News yesterday.

    10 years ago I was another idiot republican Hawk who thought he US Military could solve any problem.

    I was wrong and we continue under a Democratic administration to keep making the same mistakes.   We need to stay the hell out of Syria and the rest of the Middle East.

    But unfortunately we've convinced ourselves that we can "help" the world by getting involved in their conflicts.

    We shouldn't have been in Lybia in the first place and the disaster of our Ambassador getting killed was more of the same type of hubris that we've seen for decades.  

    We simply don't do occupation and nation building well and these incidents as you point out are inevitable.

    Parent

    I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 09:12:38 AM EST
    Now this is a scandal.

    These people are crucial to the implementation of Obama care.   God help us.

    When you are a libertarian you are often criticized for leaping to conclusions.  No need to leap here.  It's as scary as any right wing nut job could dream up.

    Have a buddy who is a CPA.  He says the people he talks too often make him cringe at the IRS.  One time a women literally said..."This guy makes a ton of money, he doesn't need that tax break."  He said, "Are your kidding?".  She said, "No, but it is technically legal".  He said thanks and hung up.

    Can't wait till these people start coming for me.

    But, But, But..... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 13, 2013 at 09:57:38 AM EST
    I hate that they targeting anyone because of political views, but the thing I just can't get past is that every republican in the country is whining about being targeted by the IRS when we have been told for years that the Tea Party is an independent 3rd party.

    Republicans, the target was the Tea Party, not the Republican Party, so why the outrage ?  It's like they are one in the same...

    Parent

    I am a tea partier (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    slash libertarian.

    This is exactly what we get worked up about.

    This country was founded by people tired of over taxation and mistreatment by their government.

    This is the sort of thing we should all be alarmed by.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:32:46 AM EST
    There really is a Tea Party. Please someone tell Jim. :o)

    Parent
    It was also founded by people who read Cicero (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by jondee on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:06:21 PM EST
    and Plato, not Atlas Shrugged and Soldier of Fortune magazine.

    Parent
    It was run by a Bush appointee (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Mon May 13, 2013 at 01:50:25 PM EST
    so the accusations about political motivation from higher up would not be supported by the evidence.

    Parent
    Whose immediate watch? (none / 0) (#91)
    by christinep on Mon May 13, 2013 at 04:48:39 PM EST
    As i understand, Slado, the IRS Commisssioner (who purportedly did not testify accurately when earlier asked about any such targetting) at the time when the targetting in the Ohio branch allegedly occurred was a holdover Bush II appointee.  Is that accurate?

    As President Obama said today at his joint press conference with visiting Prime Minister Cameron:  That kind of conduct by any employees in the IRS cannot be tolerated. To root out how far beyond the Ohio office--if at all--the targetting occurred, the IG is investigating.  It does make sense to await that investigation in the long run.  For now, Senator Harry Reid has announced that the Senate will begin hearings looking into the matter as well. That seems to make sense as well.

    Parent

    I agree with your post (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    but what does it matter if a Bush appointee was around?

    That the first comment from Jay Carney about this was that exact point should be telling.

    I'm sorry but career bureaucrats don't do something like this, on this level on their own.

    Not saying Team Obama had anything to do with it but organizations get their orders from the top and a tone is set from the top.

    Something made these employees feel that there was nothing wrong with this and if Obama does his job and puts a stop to this and holds people accountable I'll be the first to praise him.

    We'll see.   Excuse me if I get the feeling that Obama likes to talk a lot without actually doing anything.

    In the meantime stop with the Bush this and that stuff.  That's just partisan deflection.

    Parent

    It matters because (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Yman on Tue May 14, 2013 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    but what does it matter if a Bush appointee was around?
    ...

    I'm sorry but career bureaucrats don't do something like this, on this level on their own.

    Not saying Team Obama had anything to do with it but organizations get their orders from the top and a tone is set from the top.

    ... the IRS is an independent agency, being run by a Bush appointee at the time.  The accusation flying around now is that Obama ordered this for political reasons.  The relevance of this fact is that if - as you claim - this was done by someone "at the top", then it would be a Republican IRS Director going after TP groups ... doesn't make sense to me, but anything's possible.  That being said, while this should be investigate there is zero evidence the WH was involved.

    Parent

    Whose immediate watch? (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Mon May 13, 2013 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    As i understand, Slado, the IRS Commisssioner (who purportedly did not testify accurately when earlier asked about any such targetting) at the time when the targetting in the Ohio branch allegedly occurred was a holdover Bush II appointee.  Is that accurate?

    As President Obama said today at his joint press conference with visiting Prime Minister Cameron:  That kind of conduct by any employees in the IRS cannot be tolerated. To root out how far beyond the Ohio office--if at all--the targetting occurred, the IG is investigating.  It does make sense to await that investigation in the long run.  For now, Senator Harry Reid has announced that the Senate will begin hearings looking into the matter as well. That seems to make sense as well.

    Parent

    It is bad.... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by magster on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:05:49 AM EST
    I do find it ironic that many of the supporters who comprise these right wing groups were probably all for profiling Muslims, or blacks or whoever for criminal suspicion before this incident.

    Parent
    What does that have to do with (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    anything?

    Wrong is wrong.  Don't make it less wrong by bringing in another issues because of partisanship.

    This type of abuse was done by Nixon.   If you let them get away with it now you will have it turned right back at you later.

    Be for freedom in all forms and you'll be fine.

    Parent

    Wrong: (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jondee on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    dragging the national political debate into the sewer by promoting racist/xenophobic Birther paranoia about foreigners, and demonizing inconsequential, primarily benign organizations like ACORN and practically nonexistent ones like the New Black Panthers.

    Because you've got nothing more constructive, or relevant to contribute.

     

    Parent

    Profiling (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:41:57 PM EST
    is profiling Slado no matter which group is on the losing end of it.

    The larger problem is with the way the 501C laws are written. What some of these groups like the tea party are doing is technically legal as I understand it but are abusing the spirit of the law. If it's technically legal I don't think the IRS can really do much and I don't even know why they were trying. Does anyone think that Karl Rove's Crossroads is a charity organization????

    Parent

    No disagreement there (none / 0) (#101)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    but it's not the issue.

    There are also democratic progressives unseemly groups.

    None the less they weren't targeted.

    Parent

    Just pointing out irony.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by magster on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    "Don't profile me.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 01:53:24 PM EST
    profile them!"

    Hypocrisy abounds....

    Parent

    Hitting a harmless little old lady (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jondee on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    and a thug are both acts of violence..

    Excuse me while I take a solid three minutes out of my day to weep for the Tea Party.

    Parent

    No tears for the Teas... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:31:36 PM EST
    to be sure, but how the IRS rolls effects us all.  Profiling is profiling...no place for it at the IRS or DHS.  Tomorrow it might be one of our oxen being gored.

    Parent
    Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    ...it's one thing for a bunch of nitwits to profile, it's quite another for a powerful agency of the US Government to do it.

    But what even more unsavory, is the idiots who didn't care when Bush did it, but now are all up in arms because Obama is President.

    Either you think it's wrong or it's not, the political party in office should not determine one's reaction to the same circumstances.

    For the record, anyone involved in this should be canned.  Positions that hold this kind of power should have real consequences when that power is abused.  But I also believe that of the Bush administration when they were on their mission to politicize the government with pro-party christians.

    Can any of the ruffled feathered, in need of a fainting couch, over outraged conservatives say the same ?  Nope, Bush did no wrong and Obama is the GD devil.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    I don't think that critique applies to our buddy Slado though...I find him to be a man of principle...certainly principle over party.  Fox News and Drudge otoh are flaming hypocrites.

    Brand D loyalists do the same thing...what was criminal under Bush is ok under Obama.  And we wonder why some sh*t never changes...

    Parent

    Yup... (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 13, 2013 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    ...it's true, but thing is, around here they aren't many brand D's whoa are all it.  There is lot of Obama criticism from the left here.

    I think many, like myself are just sick of hearing the right whine about the very things their bosses did to a far greater degree.

    I strongly disagree about you characterization of Slado, and I will leave it at that.

    The thing I have noticed, that the political divide has only enabled both parties to do somethings that are beyond anything I ever believed could happen.  One party cries 'foul', the other 'political witch hunt' and no one is held accountable.  Which is leading to a fairly quick erosion of our rights.

    Parent

    I am a true believer (none / 0) (#102)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:37:34 PM EST
    I used to be a republican apologist but got burned by my man W and the party too many times.  Partly because I used to go on TL and read about what a crappy job they were doing from '04-'08.

    But dems hold the presidency and the Senate now so it's my turn at the table to be the patriotic critic.

    Parent

    Nothing patriotic about the nonsense you spout. (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Angel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    Talkleft is the bomb that way... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 08:48:55 PM EST
    outside of a lil' fall-in-line election time, this blog and the lion's share of it's commenters are principled and issue-based.  

    I think you're all hard on Slado sometimes...variety is the slice of life, he's no Abdul or diogenes trolling. I feel he's hear to bang heads, educate, and learn like us....just started on the other side of the political divide.  Left-leaners don't have all the answers.

    Correct me if I'm wrong Slado.  

    Parent

    Slado: Affirmative. Left-leaners don't have (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Mon May 13, 2013 at 08:58:07 PM EST
    all the answers.

    Parent
    kdog: Dontcha want to wait on the evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by christinep on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:10:50 PM EST
    So far...the only thing that has even been shown is that some rogue employeees in the Ohio office started targetting applications from the right.  The head of that branch--about 3 rungs down from the national Commissioner -- stopped the practice as soon as she found out.  

    I should think that, based on what we know to date, President Obama appropriately responded in directly stating his zero tolerance for any such practice on either side of the aisle and in furthering an independent IG investigation. (The Senate is also set to start hearings shortly.)  Since the news only came to attention on Friday last, and the response of immediate investigative action came 3 days later, the timing does not seem belated.  Granted, the facts in any investigation may show something broader than what we know now.  But, the fact that you (or I) are not fans of the IRS--particularly in some of its rough & established past practicies--does not convert our feelings to facts.

    Now, while I have respect for many of your position (even when I disagree), the conclusionary "always-find-Obama-culpable" approach of one like Slado is a different matter.  Anytime one can only state a conclusionary judgment against another with a different political position, that is when I take that provocateur with less than the salt grain.  IMO, the rush by the Slado-types here & in the House to convict & pummel without even knowing the full outline of an alleged action/inaction strikes me as looking for a scandal to fit a political conclusion.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#103)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    No evidence Obama had anything to do with it but the buck stops with him and this is bad.

    We'll see if he backs up his tough talk today.  If he does I'll be the firs to praise him.

    I just don't like him so I tend to get my dander up.  I'll work on that.


    Parent

    As a sometime Tea Partier, Slado (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jondee on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    when did you get so sensitive about political eye-gouging and hitting below-the-belt?

    What are the rules here? Edited footage of Shirly Sherrod and ACORN workers, and red-baiting a centrist Democrat, o.k? Siccing the IRS on the Tea Party, not o.k?

     

    Parent

    You're right... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 08:39:29 PM EST
    really just accusations outside what has been admitted...certainly my anti-government slip is showing, what else is new eh? ;)

    I (sometimes we) take the speculation/preconceived notion ball and run with it in our discussions...guilty as charged repeat offender. Fair criticism.

    And hard for me to stay totally subjective when it comes to the IRS after what they did to Joe Louis, Karl Hess, countless others.  On the list of government acronyms whose mere mention makes me cringe, as necessary as the intended purpose is.  Tough job being hall monitor, I grant 'em that, which is why I could never be hall monitor.

    I like the honor system;)

    Parent

    Not quite right (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:23:54 AM EST
    Seems like this went all the way up to the IRS in DC - not just some locals in the Cincinnati branch, as you claim.

    Lois Lerner is in some hot water.....

    Parent

    Medicare for all (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kmblue on Mon May 13, 2013 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    Medicare for all, Medicare for all.

    Parent
    I.R.S... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    the "S" stands for shady as f*ck.

    But I don't think it's anything new, the IRS has always used their authority to play politics...remember Karl Hess.

    Parent

    Why didn't the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 13, 2013 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    Commissioner, appointed to office by President George W. Bush, stop the IRS from targeting conservative groups and why did he tell a congressional committee the agency wasn't targeting conservative groups?

    As expected, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Doug Shulman, the 47th commissioner to serve, has officially announced his plans to step down at the end of his term. That makes November 9, 2012, his last day in office. Shulman has served as IRS Commissioner since March 24, 2008.
    ...
    Shulman was appointed to office by President George W. Bush. link

    The investigation also revealed that a high-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted--nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn't targeting conservative groups. link


    Parent
    Well, the fact that Schulman stepped down ... (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:03:00 PM EST
    ... seven months ago sure didn't stop Sen. Marco Rubio from calling for his resignation yesterday.

    And to think that this babooze actually has aspirations to run for the White House. Yeah, right. To quote President Abraham Lincoln, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Another example of a Republican disinfomation (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    campaign disrupted by FACTS.

    Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the GOP's Benghazi Oversight Committee:

    They began being attacked, and were attacked for more than seven hours and we're to believe that no response could even be started that could have helped them seven hours later? Quite frankly, you can take off from Washington, DC on a commercial flight and practically be in Benghazi by the end of seven hours.
    ....
    Yeah, it'd take 27 hours to fly commercial on the shortest available commercial flight from Washington to Benghazi, not seven. link


    Parent
    President Obama going down (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    Looks like a NeoCon at state was involved in the rewrites of the early public message on Benghazi, or maybe it was just a NeoCon leaking too because I'm pretty sure every public release on anything important gets several rewrites.

    Now the IRS has been targeting tea party 501s, and it looks like the practice originated with a Bush appointee but Chris Matthews just said the buck stops with Obama.

    Could today maybe be the day that Obama notices the long knives are out?  He is being hunted IMO, and I'm not crazy about him, just calling it as I see it.  And the press is loving it that as Matthews just said, "The President is under the heat now!"

    Go home Barack, to the roots of your party.  You can change all the narratives now by adopting a few very liberal stances on a few choice things that aren't guns and start arguing for them. Outflank the flankers. The Republican party does not want you so give up, and the United States is about to notice soon that they are getting some healthcare so the GOP and every hedge fund manager and every corporate CEO wants your head my man. Man up and become a noticeable Democrat, change the hunt, and have a great legacy!  It would be a pity if your presidency finishes up knee deep in all this horse$hit splatter.

    the targettng of the 501's was to verify (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    their tax exempt status. Progressives should welcome a complete and full investigation of this scandal. It is about time the media and the Congress did some scrutiny of these supposedly non-political "educational" organizations.

    Looking forward to the GOP scattering like cockroaches as the investigations really get going. Watch the gymnastics they do to try to limit the scope.

    BRING IT ON!

    Parent

    The NRA is a 501(c)4 non-profit. They shouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Angel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:17:16 AM EST
    be, in my opinion. The say their mission is "education" and I say they're nothing more than a lobby for the gun manufacturers and sellers.  Why should they be exempt?  Let's start the investigation with them.  Then let's investigate all the religious organizations.  


    Parent
    No need to start (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    in any particular place. I think all tax exempts should be examined regularly. Hell, I think they should up the audits considerably of both individuals and businesses. You only have about a 1% chance of being audited. I'd like to see them up it to 20%.

    Parent
    No wonder... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    I can't pick a horse to save my life lately...NYS Dept of Taxation and Finance has audited me 3 years running....must be my Rumpelstiltskin-esque middle name or the state is monitoring Talkleft.  Not the IRS, but still...wtf?

    You're ice cold CG...I wouldn't wish an audit on anybody, tax collectors are ruthless;)

    Parent

    There must be something ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:59:11 AM EST
    ... that's triggering an audit, Kdog.  I don't know what the NYS auditing rate is, but I would guess you have better odds of winning the Powerball than being chosen at random for three years in a row.  Did they ever give a reason for choosing your return?  I would be straight up and just ask them - there's probably something that's causing your return to get flagged.

    Parent
    Oh there is... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    they didn't like a deduction I took for tax year '07, I pleaded my case but lost...still think I was in the right, but like Karl Hess said the IRS man told him "it doesn't matter if it is right, only if it is legal."

    I first got audited in 2010 for tax year 2007, and I took the same deduction through tax year 2011.  So I think I got one more audit and back-tax bill coming next year, then they should leave me alone...I hope.  

    What kills me with second-guessing is if I didn't try to fight the first one and just paid 'em straight off, would they have checked all the other years? Or was that my punishment for daring to question the first audit and calling the findings in my written response, and I quote, "erroneous and outlandish"? ;)

    Parent

    The IRS collects (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    on about 6 of 7 they audit (the other walks or gets money back). If I was betting and hit 6 of 7 I'd be jumping in for much more. If they audit 1% and find 85% of them cheating, I'd like them to keep adding to the total until it's closer to 50/50.

    And yes, I'd definitely up the non-profit audits so they get checked regularly and if they get caught cheating the non-profit status is gone.

    Parent

    An audit is a hardship though... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    if you'll take 50/50 that means half the people audited will be burdened and stressed the f8ck out for no reason...not cool.

    Also, I wouldn't assume they currently collect on 6 out of 7 because they're in the right on 6 out of 7.  People plead guilty to sh*t they didn't do all the time out of convenience.

    Parent

    Not sure I'd go that far on individuals, (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    but corporations and tax exempt groups of all political persuasions -  heck yeah.


    Parent
    You know how to fight (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:11:25 AM EST
    As shady as these 501's.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    may well be, that's not nearly as concerning as the IRS cherry picking who to run the fine tooth comb over based on purely political reasons.

    Like I said above, nothing new at the IRS, but it's about damn time we put a stop to it.  

    Parent

    My point is this scrutiny was (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    for a very specific purpose. It is for enforcement of the new rules that came about as a result of the Citizens United decision, which let groups set up these organizations that are supposedly divorced from their spawning political organizations.  Yes, if the IRS said they would just scrutinize the conservative groups, that was wrong. But it happens that the majority of these groups are conservative, according to what I read last year when they started multiplying like kudzu.

    I would hate to see the result if this scandal be that all such groups get a free ride to tax exemption.

    Parent

    I see your point... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:55:46 AM EST
    but like I always say in our criminal justice debates, it's far less about the individual criminal than it is about what is done in all our names by the authorities.  

    Give every single organization claiming tax exemption the same scrutiny, or if not feasible spot check totally random...what the IRS has admitted to is criminal imo.

    Parent

    I agree..... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    and I think a full complete investigation will kill two birds with one stone.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:04:56 PM EST
    I daydream about starting a church or a 501 to stop paying taxes for diservices rendered, but settle for dodging tobacco taxes shopping with my Native American friends...don't wanna be a glutton, and they do pay for at least one or two things I like;)

    Parent
    Even if they gave them extra scrutiny (none / 0) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:59:25 AM EST
    bottom line is no one had their status changed or denied.

    Parent
    Well I think we need to investigate (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:01:17 PM EST
    just to make sure. I want them to release as much information about this as possible.

    Parent
    agree (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by vicndabx on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    let's open it up.

    Parent
    One of the organizations they looked into was (none / 0) (#54)
    by Angel on Mon May 13, 2013 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    the Waco Tea Party.  But...but...according to jimakajjp who posts here there isn't a Tea Party.  Heh.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 13, 2013 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    After all, Republicans never used the IRS to go after their critics, have they?

    Look, even the appearance of the IRS being wielded as a cudgel to smite thy foe is wrong, regardless of whoever's in the Oval Office. But once again, it's about consistency of purpose, or in the GOP's case, the lack thereof.

    It would be funny, were it not so infuriating, to note how the Republicans who are presently squawking the loudest about the IRS, were completely and conspicuously silent when the tax-exempt status of All Saints Church in Pasadena was threatened by the Bush administration -- a confrontation that first began in March 2003 when its rector, the Rev. J. Edwin Bacon, Jr., offered the faithful an impassioned sermon in favor of peace and against war on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, which subsequently went viral on the internet.

    Actually, let me correct that. Those Republicans weren't silent at all. Rather, they were cheering the IRS on in a partisan snipe hunt that All Saints parishioners voted to challenge in federal court. The case was dropped by the government in 2007, but not before it had cost All Saints Church some $200,000 in legal expenses.

    The same GOP clowns who are currently screaming that Benghazi is "worse than Watergate," were similarly silent in the face of mounting evidence that the Bush administration deliberately misled both Congress and the American people about the existence of WMD in Iraq, creating a false pretext for an armed invasion od now-failed oil grab that subsequently cost some 4,500 Americans and 125,000 Iraqis their lives. Funny, but we never saw Rep. Darrell Issa or Sen. John McCain hold any investigations into that, did we?

    You're absolutely right. The real story behind this current IRS kerfuffle is the serial misuse and abuse of the federal not-for-profit tax laws by myriad political "public education" groups now operating in the shadows in the wake of Citizens United -- not some imaginary IRS victimization of what's arguably the most unabashedly obnoxious bunch of ignorant and malleable right-wing hicks to roll down this country's political turnpikes in a long, long while.

    I refuse to allow the stupid kids in school to dumb down the classroom discussions, at the greater overall expense of the rest of the student body. Like you said, bring it on.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    I'm still not sure he'll get it. He's had numerous opportunities and gave it a pass.

    Oh, the irony is so rich on all this that you could cut it with a knife.

    Parent

    Breathtaking partisan (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    excuse making Tracy.

    I'll leave Benghazi for a moment since you're already in the tank but to try and turn around the IRS thing shows you've lost all ability to look at something without your partisan glasses on.

    Even Obama came down hard today.


    Parent

    I hope he did come down hard (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    It would be a win-win-win for him. Look tough on liberals, punish the hated IRS, and get a lot of light shone on thew whole issue of these conservative "non political" groups.

    Parent
    What I do not see is any big win for the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Mon May 13, 2013 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    But they've got the tiger by the tail now.

    Parent
    He is too damaged a personality (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Mon May 13, 2013 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    Where he comes from is his blessing and his curse. As a normal human, his history tends to make him a decent and caring person. As President, his history makes him a complete coward. He is a person who cannot see past the utter lack of imagination facing him. An evolved person with a robust sense of their own bullsh*t would realize, Jaysus, now is the the time to fight.

    He won't.

    The biggest waste of 8 years in the history of the democratic presidency.

    Just the way it is.

    I ain't no huge Hillary fan, but sheesh, bring her on. Bring ANYone else on.

    Parent

    How he finishes up here (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 13, 2013 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    Will play a role in the race she must run.  If he crashes and burns like an idiot he can crash and burn her.  I guess I'm getting old because I don't see a time anymore where we end pressuring anyone in office and in power.  That current person is Barack Obama.

    I don't know him personally but I just can't see him as being that kind of damaged.  I did see him depressed at first, but he has not struck me as depressed lately.  His  daddy was nobody though who could open doors for him to get where he is, he did climb a big ladder getting where he is.  He is intelligent enough to learn lessons too.  He is very intelligent, he just doesn't often make choices that I would have made.

    I am not completely unhappy with him though.  The state legislature of Alabama is now even saying that only fools don't run to Obamacare with open arms.  More things are beginning to happen as we move to enactment of ACA that will bring more quality of life to people who desperately need it.

    Parent

    jeralyn (none / 0) (#62)
    by kmblue on Mon May 13, 2013 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    There's a long article on the front page of the NY times today, title is "Cliffhangers for Networks as ratings and profits fall".  The article is fascinating in itself, but more fun to read are the comments from folks explaining why they don't watch television anymore. They are scathing.

    As for me, I finally bought a 47 inch flat screen, so I'm not willing to cancel my cable bundle just yet.  I probably will though. It will be Netflix for me.

    I love HBO (none / 0) (#105)
    by Slado on Mon May 13, 2013 at 05:42:00 PM EST
    but if you're patient you can watch it all later.

    Enjoy your TV.

    Parent