Seeking Integrity

[TemplarKormac]

Really? He sent a clear message to his followers.

What else was happening in the summer and fall of 2010? The Obama administration and its allies continue to suggest the IRS was working in some political vacuum. What they'd rather everyone forget is that the IRS's first BOLO list coincided with their own attack against "shadowy" or "front" conservative groups that they claimed were rigging the electoral system.

Below is a more relevant timeline, a political one, which seeks to remind readers of the context in which the IRS targeting happened.

Aug. 9, 2010: In Texas, President Obama for the first time publicly names a group he is obsessed with—Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch Brothers)—and warns about conservative groups. Taking up a cry that had until then largely been confined to left-wing media and activists, he says: "Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

Aug. 11: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out a fundraising email warning about "Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups."

Aug. 21: Mr. Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the threat of "attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don't know who's behind these ads and we don't know who's paying for them. . . . You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation. . . . The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."

Week of Aug. 23: The New Yorker's Jane Mayer authors a hit piece on the Koch brothers, entitled "Covert Operations," in which she accuses them of funding "political front groups." The piece repeats the White House theme, with Ms. Mayer claiming the Kochs have created "slippery organizations with generic-sounding names" that have "made it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington."

Aug. 27: White House economist Austan Goolsbee, in a background briefing with reporters, accuses Koch industries of being a pass-through entity that does "not pay corporate income tax." The Treasury inspector general investigates how it is that Mr. Goolsbee might have confidential tax information. The report has never been released.

This same week, the Democratic Party files a complaint with the IRS claiming the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is violating its tax-exempt status.

Sept. 2: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns on its website that the Kochs have "funneled their money into right-wing shadow groups."

Sept. 16: Mr. Obama, in Connecticut, repeats that a "foreign-controlled entity" might be funding "millions of dollars of attack ads." Four days later, in Philadelphia, he again says the problem is that "nobody knows" who is behind conservative groups.

Sept. 21: Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article "Obama, Dems Try to Make Shadowy Conservative Groups a Problem for Conservatives," writes that a "senior administration official" had "urged a small gathering of reporters to start writing on what he deemed 'the most insidious power grab that we have seen in a very long time.' "

Sept. 22: In New York City, Mr. Obama warns that conservative groups "pose as non-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups," even though they are "guided by seasoned Republican political operatives" who might be funded by a "foreign-controlled corporation."

Sept. 26: On ABC's "This Week," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declares outright that the "benign-sounding Americans for Prosperity, the American Crossroads Fund" are "front groups for foreign-controlled companies."

Sept. 28: The president, in Wisconsin, again warns about conservative organizations "posing as nonprofit groups." Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, writes to the IRS demanding it investigate nonprofits. The letter names conservative organizations.

On Oct. 14, Mr. Obama calls these groups "a problem for democracy." On Oct. 22, he slams those who "hide behind these front groups." On Oct. 25, he upgrades them to a "threat to our democracy." On Oct. 26, he decries groups engaged in "unsupervised spending."

These were not off-the-cuff remarks. They were repeated by the White House and echoed by its allies in campaign events, emails, social media and TV ads. ...


Strassel: An IRS Political Timeline - WSJ.com

Notice how Carbine didn't attempt to rebut this properly ^^^^^^

There's nothing to rebut. There's no evidence of wrongdoing there.

What are you even claiming that the President did wrong? Speak out against his enemies? When did that become a crime?

It's like saying that if somebody kills an abortion doctor because they heard some guy on tv calling the doctor a killer of innocent babies,

then the guy on tv is supposed to go to jail.

There is nothing to rebut, huh? Or are you afraid to rebut it? Don't disguise it as "speaking out against his enemies" he is literally pursuing them. The pattern is there, Carbine. Don't sit there and sugar coat it. Obama is a vicious man, and he has the most powerful government in the world at his disposal, to direct as he pleases; even if that means he brings its wrath to bear on the innocent.

You keep saying there is no evidence, as much as I would like to call you on your bluff, I will give you a chance to prove that there is "no evidence of wrongdoing." Or will you? You have quite the reputation of being all mouth an no balls, Carbine, just like someone else I know here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thats not true, there is just no specific evidence at Obama.....there is PLENTY of evidence to pursue.

There is no evidence implicating Obama. Tell that boedicca and the rest of the demented rightwingers on this board.

We don't know this yet, no investigation has been conducted yet.

Integrity is a double edged sword Carb.

And we see you reactionaries to the far right cut yourself to pieces on it everyday.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You keep saying there is no evidence, as much as I would like to call you on your bluff, I will give you a chance to prove that there is "no evidence of wrongdoing."

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. . . . Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist . . . . Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Common fallacies

 

[TemplarKormac]

You keep saying there is no evidence, as much as I would like to call you on your bluff, I will give you a chance to prove that there is "no evidence of wrongdoing."

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. . . . Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist . . . . Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Common fallacies

Lack of an argument, another fallacy. Red herrings/Non sequiturs. Doing anything but making a factual point. Carbine says there's no evidence, yet he can provide none of his own exonerating him.

Butt out Jake, you're being unproductive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You keep saying there is no evidence, as much as I would like to call you on your bluff, I will give you a chance to prove that there is "no evidence of wrongdoing."

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. . . . Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist . . . . Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Common fallacies

Lack of an argument, another fallacy. Red herrings/Non sequiturs. Doing anything but making a factual point.

Do pay attention: not "Lack of an argument" but rather lack of evidence. Carbine cannot prove a negative, but he certainly can posit it the concept.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Notice how Carbine didn't attempt to rebut this properly ^^^^^^

There's nothing to rebut. There's no evidence of wrongdoing there.

What are you even claiming that the President did wrong? Speak out against his enemies? When did that become a crime?

It's like saying that if somebody kills an abortion doctor because they heard some guy on tv calling the doctor a killer of innocent babies,

then the guy on tv is supposed to go to jail.

There is nothing to rebut, huh? Or are you afraid to rebut it? Don't disguise it as "speaking out against his enemies" he is literally pursuing them. The pattern is there, Carbine. Don't sit there and sugar coat it. Obama is a vicious man, and he has the most powerful government in the world at his disposal, to direct as he pleases; even if that means he brings its wrath to bear on the innocent.

You keep saying there is no evidence, as much as I would like to call you on your bluff, I will give you a chance to prove that there is "no evidence of wrongdoing." Or will you? You have quite the reputation of being all mouth an no balls, Carbine, just like someone else I know here.

I have to prove there is no evidence? Or what? Is this is what you people have been reduced to...guilty until proven innocent?

Explain to me why there is any burden of proof that falls on anyone accused of crimes to prove their innocence,

in the face of exactly ZERO evidence of their guilt,

by proving, somehow, that there is in fact ZERO evidence.

How would that even work?

 

[NYcarbineer]

They don't seem to understand that a baseless accusation, totally unsupported by fact, does not require rebuttal to be dismissed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You keep saying there is no evidence, as much as I would like to call you on your bluff, I will give you a chance to prove that there is "no evidence of wrongdoing."

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. . . . Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist . . . . Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Common fallacies

Lack of an argument, another fallacy. Red herrings/Non sequiturs. Doing anything but making a factual point. Carbine says there's no evidence, yet he can provide none of his own exonerating him.

Butt out Jake, you're being unproductive.

Oh my! YOU are a fucking genius!

 

[TemplarKormac]

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. . . . Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist . . . . Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Common fallacies

Lack of an argument, another fallacy. Red herrings/Non sequiturs. Doing anything but making a factual point. Carbine says there's no evidence, yet he can provide none of his own exonerating him.

Butt out Jake, you're being unproductive.

Oh my! YOU are a fucking genius!

Thank you! And you're a fucking idiot. Good day!

 

[LoneLaugher]

From the article:

It is unknown whether anyone in the White House was told of the federal investigation.

Republican Congressman Aaron Schock serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the IRS.

"We don't have any reason to believe at this point that it was anybody outside the IRS directing them to do this," said Schock. "Obviously there's been claims that the White House might have been involved and other groups. I don't have any reason to believe that."

Try harder, dummy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The proof is, there is no evidence against the President. He has the same amount of evidence against him as you do.

Why aren't you countering that with proof of your innocence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Notice that Templar Kormac eliminates the nominative in order to separate "baseless accusation, totally unsupported by fact," from "does not require rebuttal to be dismissed" in order to make a statement that has no basis in fact.

My statement is correct and TK's simply makes no sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No evidence exists, one can't prove a negative, and you have been handed your brains in this discussion.

Move along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the point, LL. TK wants to live in a society where the accused is Guilty until Proven Not Guilty.

TK believes in Rule of Man not Rule of Law.

 

[Antares]

There is no evidence implicating Obama. Tell that boedicca and the rest of the demented rightwingers on this board.

We don't know this yet, no investigation has been conducted yet.

Integrity is a double edged sword Carb.

No investigation has been conducted yet on whether or not Obama is a space alien.

Which has nothing to do with anything, please don't be absurd.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....an absurd 'guilty until proven innocent' stance...."

Hardly.


1. This is not a law court, with jail as the penalty.

2. This is the court of public opinion.
And the based on:

Means, Motive, Opportunity.

a. "Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity)."
Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's got all three.
But you pretend to be oblivious.

3. Of course, you know that based on the above, Obama is guilty as sin.

4. Your obfuscation is based on the fact that you are joined at the hip to this thug....and his guilt taints you.



As if you needed any further taint......

 

[OODA_Loop]

The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.

Obama said he was going to punish his political enemies and his political enemies were specifically targeted by his agency(s).

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.

Obama said he was going to punish his political enemies and his political enemies were specifically targeted by his agency(s).

What a strange coincidence.......hmmmmmmm........


Please don't expect the dolt you've responded to to be able to read those tea leaves....
He won't eat eggs because he believes the "This is your brain" ads.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ouch! Not funny. Stick to the outlines.

 

[PoliticalChic]

the silly screaming reactionaries don't make sense ever

that is the sense of listening to them

be sensible to the fact the they are not

Jake, truly, the more choice you surrender to the powers that be, the less, the voice of the victims of those policies should either effect you or offend you. No? Is it that there is an unconscious reflex that stirs up doubt? What is it Jake? What troubles you about people speaking their minds??? Why do we all have to be labeled? Does it make you feel safe? is that it? I'm just curious. Oh, what I would have given to be an eye witness on the USS forester the day McCain was transferred off.

Anyone can speak their mind in the USA, and anyone has the right to correct the dumb comments.

Not true:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/297885-fascism-what-america-has-become.html