Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
Many more American combat deaths in Afghan under you Messiah's watch, than under W. If you do not know this, then you should take a break and get informed.
Completely irrelevent to the point I was making. Obama didn't START the Afghan War.
[
Secondly, in the first Gulf War, the US had less than 300 combat deaths. Hardly thousands coming home in body bags.
Hundreds is still a lot. Especially if one of them is someone you cared about.
[
So by your standard, we have TWO Ds (LBJ and Big Ears) and only one R.
So, not only do you not know math, you do not know history.
I think you are flaying to make a weak argument- again.
Hey, I'd love to go back to the Clinton years when we had peace, prosperity and the worst thing we had to worry about was if the president had lied about getting a blow job.
Lying about weapons that didn't exist to fight a war we didn't need to have seems a lot worse.
Okay then, we can't include Afghan war since under W, combat deaths were 575....but under BO they are almost 1,700. Funny how you squirm.
And now you twist the deaths in the Gulf War....you stated thousands coming home in body bags....twist and turn is your nature.
So...we are back to one D and one R the past 50 years....yet your erroneously think Rs start more big wars.
Okay then, we can't include Afghan war since under W, combat deaths were 575....but under BO they are almost 1,700. Funny how you squirm.
Well, no. Bush gave us that war. And then ran it badly, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama is just the guy who had to clean up the mess.
And now you twist the deaths in the Gulf War....you stated thousands coming home in body bags....twist and turn is your nature.
Thousands. Hundreds.. Still too many. You do see that the Gulf War was a major war and the bombing of Kosovo wasn't, right? You do see the difference?
So...we are back to one D and one R the past 50 years....yet your erroneously think Rs start more big wars.
Uh, yeah. Three in the last 50 years. Now, if you want to count little ones, we could give the R's Grenada and Somalia, which they started. Fuck, and I forgot about the war with Iran in the Hormuz in 1986, or Lebanon. Actually, we can almost count Lebanon as a big one, as nearly 300 marines died in that fiasco. So that brings us up to four for the Republicans. So four Wars and Four Recessions.
And I notice you don't even dispute the Recessions.
Republicans give us wars and recessions. And you guys cheer all the way.
The assholes e-mails and the tax exempt status applications are unrelated.
You have nothing.
Welllllllllll, not entirely.......seeing how the applications were approved.....after the election. It does kinda show playing politics on behalf of the IRS shows volumes, then adding in the emails.......shows some dots being connected to those with any kind of an open mind.
You seem confused. Were the applications approved.....or not?
[
LOL...when the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division is emailing others that she thinks conservatives are crazies and assholes...and THEN that person's Division targets conservatives it's hard to portray this as anything else, Laugher!
But you got the sequence of events wrong, guy. She called them assholes and crazies AFTER the election. You know, when they were all getting on Hate Radio and talking about guns and ammo and stocking food and overthrowing the government because they didn't win an election.
There's no evidence that she 'targeted' anyone before the election.
[
Let's face facts...Lois Lerner doesn't like conservatives. She's admitted that in the few emails of hers that have survived the IRS coverup. She also apologized for improperly targeting conservatives right before the IG's report was to be made public in a rather transparent attempt at damage control.
You mean she apologized for the method she used to detect fraud.
[
My "gripe" is that the IRS seems to be spending more time hiding the truth from the American people and protecting IRS employees that were involved in this then they've been spending on fixing the problem. Who's been punished for what took place? You've had 3 different IRS Heads that have come before Congress and gave "misleading" (and I'm being generous with that description!) testimony. At what point are they going to stop shoveling bullshit on this issue and start providing real answers?
Fixing the problem would be admitting Citizen's United was a huge mistake. The problem is that a lot of groups are trying to hide where their money is coming from.
Frankly, we need more and more stringent enforcement of the laws. This is pretty much what John McCain once called "Legalized Bribery". I'm a lot more concerned that the Koch Brothers and George Soros are trying to buy our democracy than whether Lois Lerner said mean things about you.
Why aren't you?
[
LOL...when the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division is emailing others that she thinks conservatives are crazies and assholes...and THEN that person's Division targets conservatives it's hard to portray this as anything else, Laugher!
But you got the sequence of events wrong, guy. She called them assholes and crazies AFTER the election. You know, when they were all getting on Hate Radio and talking about guns and ammo and stocking food and overthrowing the government because they didn't win an election.
There's no evidence that she 'targeted' anyone before the election.
[
Let's face facts...Lois Lerner doesn't like conservatives. She's admitted that in the few emails of hers that have survived the IRS coverup. She also apologized for improperly targeting conservatives right before the IG's report was to be made public in a rather transparent attempt at damage control.
You mean she apologized for the method she used to detect fraud.
[
My "gripe" is that the IRS seems to be spending more time hiding the truth from the American people and protecting IRS employees that were involved in this then they've been spending on fixing the problem. Who's been punished for what took place? You've had 3 different IRS Heads that have come before Congress and gave "misleading" (and I'm being generous with that description!) testimony. At what point are they going to stop shoveling bullshit on this issue and start providing real answers?
Fixing the problem would be admitting Citizen's United was a huge mistake. The problem is that a lot of groups are trying to hide where their money is coming from.
Frankly, we need more and more stringent enforcement of the laws. This is pretty much what John McCain once called "Legalized Bribery". I'm a lot more concerned that the Koch Brothers and George Soros are trying to buy our democracy than whether Lois Lerner said mean things about you.
Why aren't you?
[
LOL...when the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division is emailing others that she thinks conservatives are crazies and assholes...and THEN that person's Division targets conservatives it's hard to portray this as anything else, Laugher!
But you got the sequence of events wrong, guy. She called them assholes and crazies AFTER the election. You know, when they were all getting on Hate Radio and talking about guns and ammo and stocking food and overthrowing the government because they didn't win an election.
There's no evidence that she 'targeted' anyone before the election.
You mean she apologized for the method she used to detect fraud.
[
My "gripe" is that the IRS seems to be spending more time hiding the truth from the American people and protecting IRS employees that were involved in this then they've been spending on fixing the problem. Who's been punished for what took place? You've had 3 different IRS Heads that have come before Congress and gave "misleading" (and I'm being generous with that description!) testimony. At what point are they going to stop shoveling bullshit on this issue and start providing real answers?
Fixing the problem would be admitting Citizen's United was a huge mistake. The problem is that a lot of groups are trying to hide where their money is coming from.
Frankly, we need more and more stringent enforcement of the laws. This is pretty much what John McCain once called "Legalized Bribery". I'm a lot more concerned that the Koch Brothers and George Soros are trying to buy our democracy than whether Lois Lerner said mean things about you.
Why aren't you?
We don't know what Lois Lerner was saying about conservatives in her emails from the period prior to that because they were destroyed under highly dubious circumstances. There has to be a REASON why the emails of those 7 IRS employees all magically disappeared following the start of an investigation into the targeting of conservatives. What we know for a fact is that she DID unfairly target conservative groups prior to the election. We also know for a fact that she made highly inflammatory remarks about conservatives AFTER the election. We also know that she apologized for targeting conservatives immediately before she knew that the IG's report was about to be made public so it's safe to assume that Lois knew full well that she'd been doing something that she shouldn't. It had ZERO to do with her detecting fraud! She knew full well what was going on in the Cinn. office. We know THAT because she took the 5th when called before Congress.
This isn't about Lois Lerner "saying mean things"...this is about an IRS official using the power of that organization to target American citizens who's political beliefs she disagreed with...delaying their applications for tax free status...and even more appalling...turning over confidential tax payer information to fellow liberals to use against conservatives. That ISN'T saying mean things...that's breaking the law!
But you got the sequence of events wrong, guy. She called them assholes and crazies AFTER the election. You know, when they were all getting on Hate Radio and talking about guns and ammo and stocking food and overthrowing the government because they didn't win an election.
There's no evidence that she 'targeted' anyone before the election.
You mean she apologized for the method she used to detect fraud.
Fixing the problem would be admitting Citizen's United was a huge mistake. The problem is that a lot of groups are trying to hide where their money is coming from.
Frankly, we need more and more stringent enforcement of the laws. This is pretty much what John McCain once called "Legalized Bribery". I'm a lot more concerned that the Koch Brothers and George Soros are trying to buy our democracy than whether Lois Lerner said mean things about you.
Why aren't you?
We don't know what Lois Lerner was saying about conservatives in her emails from the period prior to that because they were destroyed under highly dubious circumstances. There has to be a REASON why the emails of those 7 IRS employees all magically disappeared following the start of an investigation into the targeting of conservatives. What we know for a fact is that she DID unfairly target conservative groups prior to the election. We also know for a fact that she made highly inflammatory remarks about conservatives AFTER the election. We also know that she apologized for targeting conservatives immediately before she knew that the IG's report was about to be made public so it's safe to assume that Lois knew full well that she'd been doing something that she shouldn't. It had ZERO to do with her detecting fraud! She knew full well what was going on in the Cinn. office. We know THAT because she took the 5th when called before Congress.
This isn't about Lois Lerner "saying mean things"...this is about an IRS official using the power of that organization to target American citizens who's political beliefs she disagreed with...delaying their applications for tax free status...and even more appalling...turning over confidential tax payer information to fellow liberals to use against conservatives. That ISN'T saying mean things...that's breaking the law!
actually, we don't know that she targeted anybody. she did allow it to happen by not giving proper guidance, but there has still been no evidence that says she ordered, or suggested, or promoted the targeting of any group.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.We don't know what Lois Lerner was saying about conservatives in her emails from the period prior to that because they were destroyed under highly dubious circumstances. There has to be a REASON why the emails of those 7 IRS employees all magically disappeared following the start of an investigation into the targeting of conservatives. What we know for a fact is that she DID unfairly target conservative groups prior to the election. We also know for a fact that she made highly inflammatory remarks about conservatives AFTER the election. We also know that she apologized for targeting conservatives immediately before she knew that the IG's report was about to be made public so it's safe to assume that Lois knew full well that she'd been doing something that she shouldn't. It had ZERO to do with her detecting fraud! She knew full well what was going on in the Cinn. office. We know THAT because she took the 5th when called before Congress.
This isn't about Lois Lerner "saying mean things"...this is about an IRS official using the power of that organization to target American citizens who's political beliefs she disagreed with...delaying their applications for tax free status...and even more appalling...turning over confidential tax payer information to fellow liberals to use against conservatives. That ISN'T saying mean things...that's breaking the law!
actually, we don't know that she targeted anybody. she did allow it to happen by not giving proper guidance, but there has still been no evidence that says she ordered, or suggested, or promoted the targeting of any group.
Her words and her actions did suggest AND promote the targeting of a group. Make no mistake about that.
She pleaded the 5th for a reason......twice.
She asked about IM's being saved or not......these are the actions of a person who has something to hide.
You wanna play politics with Joe and LL, be my guest, but you and them aren't fooling anyone.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.actually, we don't know that she targeted anybody. she did allow it to happen by not giving proper guidance, but there has still been no evidence that says she ordered, or suggested, or promoted the targeting of any group.
Her words and her actions did suggest AND promote the targeting of a group. Make no mistake about that.
She pleaded the 5th for a reason......twice.
She asked about IM's being saved or not......these are the actions of a person who has something to hide.
You wanna play politics with Joe and LL, be my guest, but you and them aren't fooling anyone.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.Her words and her actions did suggest AND promote the targeting of a group. Make no mistake about that.
She pleaded the 5th for a reason......twice.
She asked about IM's being saved or not......these are the actions of a person who has something to hide.
You wanna play politics with Joe and LL, be my guest, but you and them aren't fooling anyone.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
You wanna play politics, go ahead, dude.
But your premise IS wrong. A innocent person doesn't need to plead the 5th.
A guilty person pleads the 5th.
A innocent person wants to tell her side to show that indeed, she's innocent.
A guilty person wants to plead the 5th to put the burden on the prosecution.
A guilty person doesn't want a trail leading back to her as in her emails along with those who received the emails. What are the odds that they all are missing? And yes, that can be used in a court of law.
A guilty person doesn't want IM's to be archived.
It comes down to connecting the dots and
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
You wanna play politics, go ahead, dude.
But your premise IS wrong. A innocent person doesn't need to plead the 5th.
A guilty person pleads the 5th.
A innocent person wants to tell her side to show that indeed, she's innocent.
A guilty person wants to plead the 5th to put the burden on the prosecution.
A guilty person doesn't want a trail leading back to her as in her emails along with those who received the emails. What are the odds that they all are missing? And yes, that can be used in a court of law.
A guilty person doesn't want IM's to be archived.
It comes down to connecting the dots and
Innocent people plead the 5th all the time.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.Her words and her actions did suggest AND promote the targeting of a group. Make no mistake about that.
She pleaded the 5th for a reason......twice.
She asked about IM's being saved or not......these are the actions of a person who has something to hide.
You wanna play politics with Joe and LL, be my guest, but you and them aren't fooling anyone.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
You wanna play politics, go ahead, dude.
But your premise IS wrong. A innocent person doesn't need to plead the 5th.
A guilty person pleads the 5th.
A innocent person wants to tell her side to show that indeed, she's innocent.
A guilty person wants to plead the 5th to put the burden on the prosecution.
A guilty person doesn't want a trail leading back to her as in her emails along with those who received the emails. What are the odds that they all are missing? And yes, that can be used in a court of law.
A guilty person doesn't want IM's to be archived.
It comes down to connecting the dots and
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
You wanna play politics, go ahead, dude.
But your premise IS wrong. A innocent person doesn't need to plead the 5th.
A guilty person pleads the 5th.
A innocent person wants to tell her side to show that indeed, she's innocent.
A guilty person wants to plead the 5th to put the burden on the prosecution.
A guilty person doesn't want a trail leading back to her as in her emails along with those who received the emails. What are the odds that they all are missing? And yes, that can be used in a court of law.
A guilty person doesn't want IM's to be archived.
It comes down to connecting the dots and
Innocent people plead the 5th all the time.
Innocent people also plead the 5th.
no, your mind is made up. you don't need facts to back up your opinion, you've already convicted her because she wanted to say as little as possible in front of a partisan witch hunt.
but none of that matters, because unless you can prove something - which you can't - you're just left with a conspiracy theory.
You wanna play politics, go ahead, dude.
But your premise IS wrong. A innocent person doesn't need to plead the 5th.
A guilty person pleads the 5th.
A innocent person wants to tell her side to show that indeed, she's innocent.
A guilty person wants to plead the 5th to put the burden on the prosecution.
A guilty person doesn't want a trail leading back to her as in her emails along with those who received the emails. What are the odds that they all are missing? And yes, that can be used in a court of law.
A guilty person doesn't want IM's to be archived.
It comes down to connecting the dots and
Meister, you are dead wrong. There are many good reason why an innocent person would plead the Fifth Amendment - especially when the government is involved.
"What Does She Have To Hide?"
I've been seeing a lot of comments to the effect of "why should Lois Lerner take the Fifth if she has nothing to hide?" Ironically these comments often come from people who profess to oppose expansive government power, and from people who accept the proposition that Lerner was part of wrongdoing in the first place in other words, that there was a government conspiracy to target people with the machinery of the IRS for holding unpopular political views. Such people do not seem to grasp how their predicate assumptions answer their own question.
You take the Fifth because the government can't be trusted. You take the Fifth because what the truth is, and what the government thinks the truth is, are two very different things. You take the Fifth because even if you didn't do anything wrong your statements can be used as building blocks in dishonest, or malicious, or politically motivated prosecutions against you. You take the Fifth because if you answer questions truthfully the government may still decide you are lying and prosecute you for lying.
Pardon me: if you accept the proposition that the government targets organizations for IRS scrutiny because of their political views, and you still say things like "why take the Fifth if you have nothing to hide", then you're either an idiot or a dishonest partisan hack.
MORE: A Few Notes On Lois Lerner And The Fifth Amendment | Popehat
I like this little summation on how invoking the Fifth Amendment can be perfectly logical - even if one has nothing to hide. However, based on my personal opinion and the opinions of others whose legal opinions I value - Lois Lerner should have simply pled the Fifth and shut up. Period. She muddied the legal waters by saying more. Her counsel failed her.
You wanna play politics, go ahead, dude.
But your premise IS wrong. A innocent person doesn't need to plead the 5th.
A guilty person pleads the 5th.
A innocent person wants to tell her side to show that indeed, she's innocent.
A guilty person wants to plead the 5th to put the burden on the prosecution.
A guilty person doesn't want a trail leading back to her as in her emails along with those who received the emails. What are the odds that they all are missing? And yes, that can be used in a court of law.
A guilty person doesn't want IM's to be archived.
It comes down to connecting the dots and
Meister, you are dead wrong. There are many good reason why an innocent person would plead the Fifth Amendment - especially when the government is involved.
"What Does She Have To Hide?"
I've been seeing a lot of comments to the effect of "why should Lois Lerner take the Fifth if she has nothing to hide?" Ironically these comments often come from people who profess to oppose expansive government power, and from people who accept the proposition that Lerner was part of wrongdoing in the first place in other words, that there was a government conspiracy to target people with the machinery of the IRS for holding unpopular political views. Such people do not seem to grasp how their predicate assumptions answer their own question.
You take the Fifth because the government can't be trusted. You take the Fifth because what the truth is, and what the government thinks the truth is, are two very different things. You take the Fifth because even if you didn't do anything wrong your statements can be used as building blocks in dishonest, or malicious, or politically motivated prosecutions against you. You take the Fifth because if you answer questions truthfully the government may still decide you are lying and prosecute you for lying.
Pardon me: if you accept the proposition that the government targets organizations for IRS scrutiny because of their political views, and you still say things like "why take the Fifth if you have nothing to hide", then you're either an idiot or a dishonest partisan hack.
MORE: A Few Notes On Lois Lerner And The Fifth Amendment | Popehat
I like this little summation on how invoking the Fifth Amendment can be perfectly logical - even if one has nothing to hide. However, based on my personal opinion and the opinions of others whose legal opinions I value - Lois Lerner should have simply pled the Fifth and shut up. Period. She muddied the legal waters by saying more. Her counsel failed her.
I'm sure you agree that we need to find out the truth.
Meister, you are dead wrong. There are many good reason why an innocent person would plead the Fifth Amendment - especially when the government is involved.
"What Does She Have To Hide?"
I've been seeing a lot of comments to the effect of "why should Lois Lerner take the Fifth if she has nothing to hide?" Ironically these comments often come from people who profess to oppose expansive government power, and from people who accept the proposition that Lerner was part of wrongdoing in the first place in other words, that there was a government conspiracy to target people with the machinery of the IRS for holding unpopular political views. Such people do not seem to grasp how their predicate assumptions answer their own question.
You take the Fifth because the government can't be trusted. You take the Fifth because what the truth is, and what the government thinks the truth is, are two very different things. You take the Fifth because even if you didn't do anything wrong your statements can be used as building blocks in dishonest, or malicious, or politically motivated prosecutions against you. You take the Fifth because if you answer questions truthfully the government may still decide you are lying and prosecute you for lying.
Pardon me: if you accept the proposition that the government targets organizations for IRS scrutiny because of their political views, and you still say things like "why take the Fifth if you have nothing to hide", then you're either an idiot or a dishonest partisan hack.
MORE: A Few Notes On Lois Lerner And The Fifth Amendment | Popehat
I like this little summation on how invoking the Fifth Amendment can be perfectly logical - even if one has nothing to hide. However, based on my personal opinion and the opinions of others whose legal opinions I value - Lois Lerner should have simply pled the Fifth and shut up. Period. She muddied the legal waters by saying more. Her counsel failed her.
I'm sure you agree that we need to find out the truth.
Sure, but that doesn't mean violating Lois Lerner's Constitutional right to plead the Fifth.
