5 ms·

IRS scandal wasn't a scandal. The only evidence the WH was involved are partial transcript (cherry-picked) vague quotes from junior staffers (literally: "told

IRS scandal wasn't a scandal. The only evidence the WH was involved are partial transcript (cherry-picked) vague quotes from junior staffers (literally: "told by a supervisor that "Washington, D.C., wanted some cases."), while the true source of the audits has been identified as decidedly not-Obama: http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-republican-irs-staffer-takes-credit-tea-party-150337890.html http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-republican-irs-staffer-ta.... All of this is completely ignoring the completely legitimate reasons for auditing these clearly political groups in the wake of Citizens United. Just like how Fast & Furious was in no way a scandal, but a symptom of Arizona's lack of gun laws. Law enforcement was unable to arrest or even restrict people linked to cartels as they purchased weapons- the best they could do was keep track of serial numbers. There was no gun running, but that didn't stop Republicans from fabricating another 'scandal:' http://www.thenation.com/blog/168673/facts-get-way-gops-fast-and-furious-investigation#axzz2W8TQ9U44 http://www.thenation.com/blog/168673/facts-get-way-gops-fast... Even this article should clue you in to Issa's obvious political theater for his base. Obama sucks at fighting misinformation, but he is certainly not a dictator.

stfu 13y ago
But don't you see that this "oh, it was some low level employee - how could he know" strategy is getting abused over and over again. Sure, it gives those who want to see innocence the ability to believe in some hypothetical "plausible deniability". If you go down this line of argument with Obama you need to do it equally with Bush: than there was nothing wrong of invading Iraq, because some low level CIA employee foreign intelligence services/some nutty informants were confirming the WMDs. If your intention is to let somebody at the top look good and they are smart enough to have others keep them out of the loop of controversial issues, you can always attach the wrongdoings to some low level figure. But it is in the end like saying the Walmart CEO has absolutely no responsibility of having bad numbers this year, because well, he is not the guy is selling the milk bottles in all the stores.
- AmericanOP 13y ago
  No, it's not the same. If the old narrative is that the administration itself was involved in the bad actions, but facts emerge that the administration wasn't involved at all- then yes, the executive should look better. It has been one of the conservative talking points that if obama didn't know, then he is an incompetent leader. This is also false and bad faith argument- the low level employee didn't think he was breaking the rules with his queries, and his direct manager stopped the activity when she found out. This is so far removed from the white house they don't deserve to be in the same sentence. Plausible deniability still connotes a connection when there isn't one- the IRS's involvement in campaign financing has always been awkward and needs reform. Hopefully, these facts should inspire you to question the anti-obama narrative rather than come up with your own. In changing the subject and making an argument like above without addressing the new information, it looks like you're figuring out how you can protect your beliefs from criticism without actually having to address those criticisms. Please understand this is meta and isn't a criticism of you personally- but it's important for a working democracy that conservatives learn to "understand a complex topic, weigh competing values and considerations against one another, and eventually get behind" the facts. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/06/in-which-i-feel-sorry-for-ramesh-ponnuru.html http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/06/in-which-i-feel-sorry-... I sometimes get accused by my Fox news addicted family of being "arrogant" when I go meta. But it's frustrating when "obviously fraudulent arguments get made; get knocked down; and soon pop up again, as if the original discussion never happened. This makes a gentlemanly issue-centered discussion essentially impossible. If someone says the sky is green, you prove that it’s actually blue, and the next day he comes back once again insisting that the sky is green, and this happens repeatedly, you eventually have to acknowledge that mannerly debate about the color of the sky just isn’t enough; you have to go meta, and talk about the fact that this guy and his friends just aren’t in the business of honest discussion. Inevitably, there are some people trying to turn the conversation meta in a different direction, and make it all about civility. But bad-faith arguments don’t deserve a civil response, and if the attempt to be civil gets in the way of exposing the bad faith, civility itself becomes part of the problem." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/bad-faith-and-civility-health-care-edition/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/bad-faith-and-ci...
  - stfu 13y ago
woah 13y ago
Hopefully we'll find out for sure now.
crusso 13y ago
The only evidence the WH was involved High level officials stonewalling and taking the fifth don't give me a lot of confidence that we've discovered from where the effort was directed. A Special Prosecutor is really needed. Obama sucks at fighting misinformation, but he is certainly not a dictator Yes, the countless times that he told us that "if Congress doesn't act, I will." The number of issues like immigration where DHS is extra-counting at-the-border stops as deportations and then explicitly not enforcing the immigration laws. The NSA and AP issues stepping all over basic rights. Good thing he doesn't have the complete power of a dictator.
- AmericanOP 13y ago
  Lois Lerner taking the 5th is another conservative bad-faith argument. She submitted written responses to inquiry prior to her taking the 5th, proclaimed her innocence in no uncertain terms, and then even after invoking the privilege against self-incrimination nonetheless gave testimony as to her previous answers that were part of the hearing record and which covered the very issues the committee was considering. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live-streaming-lois-lerner-to-plead-5th/ http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live... Her innocence has never been questioned. But conservative media play the clip on loop, acting like she didn't testify to presumably hide information (and she still testified!) "If Congress doesn't act, I will" is another bad faith argument. I implore you to watch the clip from where that quote originated: http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-the-union-2013-act-on-climate-or-i-will.html http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-th... Just read the quote and tell me how it can be construed as executive overreach: "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy." -- Please understand why rational people don't respond to conservative talking points: http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/ http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/
clarky07 13y ago
The IRS scandal is a scandal. The only question is whether or not the White House is involved or just the IRS.

stfu 13y ago

But don't you see that this "oh, it was some low level employee - how could he know" strategy is getting abused over and over again. Sure, it gives those who want to see innocence the ability to believe in some hypothetical "plausible deniability". If you go down this line of argument with Obama you need to do it equally with Bush: than there was nothing wrong of invading Iraq, because some low level CIA employee foreign intelligence services/some nutty informants were confirming the WMDs. If your intention is to let somebody at the top look good and they are smart enough to have others keep them out of the loop of controversial issues, you can always attach the wrongdoings to some low level figure. But it is in the end like saying the Walmart CEO has absolutely no responsibility of having bad numbers this year, because well, he is not the guy is selling the milk bottles in all the stores.

AmericanOP 13y ago
No, it's not the same. If the old narrative is that the administration itself was involved in the bad actions, but facts emerge that the administration wasn't involved at all- then yes, the executive should look better. It has been one of the conservative talking points that if obama didn't know, then he is an incompetent leader. This is also false and bad faith argument- the low level employee didn't think he was breaking the rules with his queries, and his direct manager stopped the activity when she found out. This is so far removed from the white house they don't deserve to be in the same sentence. Plausible deniability still connotes a connection when there isn't one- the IRS's involvement in campaign financing has always been awkward and needs reform. Hopefully, these facts should inspire you to question the anti-obama narrative rather than come up with your own. In changing the subject and making an argument like above without addressing the new information, it looks like you're figuring out how you can protect your beliefs from criticism without actually having to address those criticisms. Please understand this is meta and isn't a criticism of you personally- but it's important for a working democracy that conservatives learn to "understand a complex topic, weigh competing values and considerations against one another, and eventually get behind" the facts. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/06/in-which-i-feel-sorry-for-ramesh-ponnuru.html http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/06/in-which-i-feel-sorry-... I sometimes get accused by my Fox news addicted family of being "arrogant" when I go meta. But it's frustrating when "obviously fraudulent arguments get made; get knocked down; and soon pop up again, as if the original discussion never happened. This makes a gentlemanly issue-centered discussion essentially impossible. If someone says the sky is green, you prove that it’s actually blue, and the next day he comes back once again insisting that the sky is green, and this happens repeatedly, you eventually have to acknowledge that mannerly debate about the color of the sky just isn’t enough; you have to go meta, and talk about the fact that this guy and his friends just aren’t in the business of honest discussion. Inevitably, there are some people trying to turn the conversation meta in a different direction, and make it all about civility. But bad-faith arguments don’t deserve a civil response, and if the attempt to be civil gets in the way of exposing the bad faith, civility itself becomes part of the problem." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/bad-faith-and-civility-health-care-edition/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/bad-faith-and-ci...
- stfu 13y ago

woah 13y ago

Hopefully we'll find out for sure now.

crusso 13y ago

The only evidence the WH was involved High level officials stonewalling and taking the fifth don't give me a lot of confidence that we've discovered from where the effort was directed. A Special Prosecutor is really needed. Obama sucks at fighting misinformation, but he is certainly not a dictator Yes, the countless times that he told us that "if Congress doesn't act, I will." The number of issues like immigration where DHS is extra-counting at-the-border stops as deportations and then explicitly not enforcing the immigration laws. The NSA and AP issues stepping all over basic rights. Good thing he doesn't have the complete power of a dictator.

AmericanOP 13y ago
Lois Lerner taking the 5th is another conservative bad-faith argument. She submitted written responses to inquiry prior to her taking the 5th, proclaimed her innocence in no uncertain terms, and then even after invoking the privilege against self-incrimination nonetheless gave testimony as to her previous answers that were part of the hearing record and which covered the very issues the committee was considering. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live-streaming-lois-lerner-to-plead-5th/ http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/house-irs-hearings-live... Her innocence has never been questioned. But conservative media play the clip on loop, acting like she didn't testify to presumably hide information (and she still testified!) "If Congress doesn't act, I will" is another bad faith argument. I implore you to watch the clip from where that quote originated: http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-the-union-2013-act-on-climate-or-i-will.html http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/02/state-of-th... Just read the quote and tell me how it can be construed as executive overreach: "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy." -- Please understand why rational people don't respond to conservative talking points: http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/ http://cboye.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/bad-faith-arguments/

clarky07 13y ago

The IRS scandal is a scandal. The only question is whether or not the White House is involved or just the IRS.