|07-21-2012 03:53 AM
Oh i remember.
Oh dude, you should know by now that I am not a partisan demagogue. I have been very open with my contempt for both and you know it. I also agree about the difference between "true Conservative" and wingnuts. We had that discussion about Barry Goldwater awhile back and I think you will remember me stating my respect for him. Just wanted to remind you.
Not the list. I meant actually persecuting or digging through actual records illegally.
I posted examples of Bush and Karl Rove doing this yet you say I am not providing this data; what gives?
Joe the plumber? A few days after he poses a question to Obama? I don't think anyone needs to dig further than that. The police contractor worked for an opposition research firm.
So just curious, is there any information about the motif and political affiliation of these individuals who did these illegal searches? In addition, what evidence do you have that there was pressure from the Obama people to do this?
Nope. this is the court of public opinion.
I know you are in legal work and I think you are an attorney correct? So, these actions are criminal so it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt not a preponderance of evidence as in a civil case. Your are trying the case here, what evidence do you have to put before the court of the Obama campaign `s guilt?
A lot of people think Democrats adn Obama are saintly, can't do no wrong. I'm just throwing some cold water on that shit. When Republicans do wrong I call them out too.
Like Bachmann questioning that muslim Clinton Aid a coupe days ago. She's married to Weiner (lol!). That shit is despicable too.
I can admit, the Republican party can be ugly. Very ugly. But when someone argues with me that the Republican party is uglier than the Democrat party I call bullshit. We can go toe to toe about aggrievances all day. I believe in conservative ideals, but not necessarily the GOP party.
But all I hear is, Oh the GOP is so bad, the Democrat Party is good. I'm just saying bullshit. Me and you are on opposite sides of ideology spectrum, but we can agree the parties are bullshit. But when all I hear is big bad wolf republicans, little red riding hood Democrats I'm just calling bullshit.
Never thought you were. I'll say it right now. Nothing in this forum will ever offend me. It's politics. We can go 30 rounds here and it won't mean anything in real life I'll still buy you 5 beers.
Not being an ass, truly.
Don't listen to AM talk radio anymore bro.
I am honestly curious what your evidence is an where it comes from because so far, this looks like rhetoric from the dispensers of propaganda on AM talk radio and Karl Rove.
That usually happens when a story hits.
The timing of you bringing it up is also suspiciously coincidental since it has been blasting the airwaves this week on every one of these talk shows.
I bring it up to explore the coincidence of it all. I'm not saying impeach Obama. But if you don't think Dem operatives looked at that list and said, let's see what we can dig up ... never mind I don't even want to speculate that because I know you're perfectly smart enough to realize that it is perfectly reasonable for that to happen.
As I said, I don`t see a single problem with the Obama website that lists these doners. I maintain that the American people have a right to know how much and from whom both candidates are getting contributions from. I posted that information about Adelson because this is exactly why that Citizens United case is disastrous for our democracy. To me this is the far greater problem and whether Obama has a list or not is trivial in comparison....
And I put Joe the Plumber up to prove that. He never donated anything and just asked a question that Obama answered in the most inconvenient way. That's all he did. Asked a question.
And they invaded his privacy 4 different ways. It's not out of the ordinary to wonder whether this list provided the impetus for other operatives to do the same.
They all stink.
|07-21-2012 03:04 AM
In regards to the earlier discussion of Joe the Plumber.
1 - Law enforcement computers (because the guy was a cop contractor).
The State Highway Patrol says that Gerke used a law-enforcement computer network on Oct. 16, 2008 to access personal information about Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.
2- Two searches from the Ohio BMV (wtf is the BMV? I've only heard of DMV lol)
3 - Multiple searches of his Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) records.
4 - Searches from the Ohio Attorney General's Office.
Government computers used to find information on Joe the Plumber | The Columbus Dispatch
Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.
Because of all of this Ohio passed a new law, HB 648 Laws, Acts, and Legislation.
That's at least FOUR different govt. agencies who did illegal searches for a guy who didn't donate to anyone, all he did was ask a question over which Obama tripped himself.
So if you have examples of Republicans doing the same thing, link them right here! We'll discuss them and all agree on how bad Republicans acted.
Because I point out specific bad behavior by Democrats doesn't automatically mean I'm arguing republican's don't engage in bad behavior as well. They do.
But what we have here are Democrats doing it. I'm spreading the news because some liberals think Democrats can't do no wrong.
If you think I'm standing here saying Republicans can't do no wrong you have the wrong idea buddy! Do you know I voted for Kerry (even though I think he was a shit candidte) because I opposed the Iraq War, and so did most true conservatives? Not RINO's or NEOCONS, but True Conservatives.
Conservatives boo'd Bush at CPAC because of his deficit spending and foreign policy. Conservatives does not equal Republican. They are not the same thing. And Republicans can behave just as badly as Democrats.
So you can argue till your blue that Republicans do it too. But you just reinforce my point. For Republicans to do it too, you have to tacitly admit Democrats do it as well. And that's all I said above.
|07-21-2012 02:48 AM
See, on the Inception Scale. Mine is just the level 2 or max level 3 dream. Your theory is the one where Leonardo DiCaprio and his wife goes into Limbo.
So, you like conspiracy theories? Well here is one I just came up with:
The fallout from this and the way that the radical right is running with it and propagandizing it on AM talk radio and Fox News is obviously damaging to the Obama campaign in some demographics like undecided voters.
I submit to you that it is not out of the real of possibility or even probability that some tea bagger freak within government (the IRS and Dept of Labor) is behind this to create the very blowback that has gotten your nickers in knot.
It is genius; pick the "middle America hero", a hard working rancher from the American loving state of Idaho and sick the mean nasty IRS on them to make it look like an Obama Democratic reprisal!
I am being totally facetious here, but you have to admit it has scumbag Karl Rove written all over it......
Mine is perfectly realistic. Yours is just plain crazy.
|07-21-2012 02:46 AM
I wasn't a member of this forum yet
Not to play tit for tat, but do you really think only Democrats keep lists or play dirty politics? Are you aware that Bush also kept lists of political "enemies" and went so far as to use the USA Patriot Act against people hostile to his administration? Where was your outcry then??????
I've voiced my opposition to the Patriot Act. I've never supported it.
But see what you're pulling here? "Bush did it too."
And? I never said it was right when Republican's did it. But I'm pointing out Obama is doing it.
Did Bush publish that list by the way?
Citizens United increases transparency, it does NOT hide it. Why do you think otherwise?
The bottom line is that the American people have an absolute right to know who is contributing to whom and how much. If the courts won`t demand this then good on the Obama campaign for posting the "list" and I would say good on the Romney camp for doing the same to keep Obama honest. The sad fact is that there are always going to be ideologues on both sides who will take it upon themselves to act on the information outside of the law.
It was never a secret who donated to who.That's a canard floated by the Democrats don't believe that shit. Citizens United Increased transparency. If anyone reads the opinion it does so. Please Snowolf I know you hate Democrat Politicians ALMOSt as much as Republican ones
Don't believe their talking points. Go read the decision for yourself. Here is what it says:
Justice Scalia just last year said:
transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages
Here is a New York Times article, not a friend of conservatives, discussing how Citizens United addressed donor transparency
“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”
Again, don't believe the bullshit that is Democrat talking points. Read the opinion. It says that free speech mandates that we cannot block it, even by those with a lot of money. But we need to let people know who spent that money, so the citizenry and voting population can form valid opinions. Disclosure is essential.
^^^ That is Citizens United. Even the liberal as all hell New York Times agrees. Everything else you heard was spin.
New York Times. Not a right wing rag by any measure.
WASHINGTON — People who hate Citizens United, last year’s blockbuster campaign finance decision by the Supreme Court, tend to blame it for allowing secret money from corporations and unions to flood the political landscape. But the critique is wrong on at least one point — the bit about secrecy.
|07-21-2012 02:30 AM
Still an enemy list.
First, it is not an "enemies list". As stated, because of Citizens United, we are treading in new waters with regard to campaign contributions. The courts have said that a campaign has an absolute right to post this information about their opponents. People do have a right to know who is sponsoring candidates. Romney is going to do the same thing to show where Obama is getting his contributions from like the unions and other progressive movements. There is nothing preventing some tea bag supporter who works at the IRS from doing the exact same thing to a Democratic doner.
They may. Doesn't make this one right though, right?
Okay, if what you say is true, that leaves me with a couple of questions.
1) Do you really think that no right leaning person would not take it upon themselves to do this to a Democratic doner?
They put up the list knowing full well what they wanted. The president didn't put this up, but his operatives did.
2) If people take it upon themselves to do this without orders or even permission, how is this the fault of the President? ( I would defend Romney in the same way if someone in his campaign did something behind the scene)
Not single out Americans who are exercising their constitutional right.
3) How would you propose to prevent this sort of thing? and don't give me some anti left rhetoric; provide real solutions.
This is not an isolated thing with the Obama campaign. Find me one example of Bush singling out American citizens that support his opponents for ridicule. Just one.
They single out Paul Schorr of Blackstone. He's #1 on the website, that you conveniently provided us.
Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors — Barack Obama
They say while at Blackstone he did a deal in 2007 that outsourced 7 companies' jobs. Ok ...
Did they mention that the President and CEO of that very same private equity company, Blackstone, is a humongous Obama contributor? Nooooo .... When asked to comment about the apparent hypocrisy, the re-election campaign declined to comment.
May be true. You are entitled to your opinion and I half agree with it. I'm torn. It protects free speech but I also get that it may corrupt elections.
In my opinion, this is just a part of the fallout that is a result of that horrible Citizens United decision. I don't give a rat`s ass about the abstract points behind the decision as we have had this discussion before. The concept that money is a form of "free speech" is absolutely antithetical to the idea of the First Amendment. By its very nature, it means that some people therefore have more "free speech" than others by means of their wealth. That is Plutocracy, not Democracy.
But like social security is unconstitutional except for shenanigans that got it passed by the SCOTUS, it is law now. what can we do. I know in my heart Social Security is unconstitutional. But the SCOTUS has ruled, so it be what it be.
Keep in mind this very same administration who admonishes the corruption of money in the electoral process, also promised he woudl take public financing in the previous election of John McCain took public money. John McCain did accept the pledge, and then Barack Obama reneged and spend 3-4x what McCain had in the last election.
So forgive me when I say "fuck that" when Democrats (not you) complain about money in the election. Where were they when Barack Obama pledged and then unpledged public money. The first president to do so in a generation?
Pardon me when I say "Fuck You" to liberals NOW complaining about money in elections. They didn't complain in 2008 when Obama pulled that shit. No sympathy here.
Where was this in 2008 when Barack raised and spent almost 1 billion, and McCain spent like 300 million? where were the complaints then? Pardon me if I don't show any sympathy.
Direct ties to Rove and Cantor! It is obvious Adelson has a hell of a lot more free speech than you and I. This shit is sickening and you are there trying to defend the indefensible. With shit like this fucking up our democracy, please excuse me when I tell you that I really don`t give a flying fuck about Frank Vandersloot`s woes....
And don't forget the Democrats don't lack funding. The richest people are democrats despite what you hear. Nobody complains when George Soros sends hundreds of millions but when the Koch Brothers do it's armageddon. It's hypocrisy at its finest and its sickening.
Nobody complained about money until the Republicans started to get some and that's the truth.
I'm just saying, it's a damn coincidence is it not? IRS audit 12 days after? That's not suspicious?
This whole thing is a result of this unlimited spending and a lack of disclosure requirements. I am not into the conspiracy as much as you are. It is not that hard of a stretch of the imagination if someone suddenly shows a million dollar tax exempt donation like this. Any huge change is going to send a red flag to the IRS. As for the Department of Labor, his neighboring ranches have also been audited and he himself had previously. You are jumping to far more conclusions then even Frank here who admits that this may be unrelated.
No that's BS. It wasn't just one guy in the DMV. It was multiple people, in his DMV, his OJDFS. They passed a new law because of it. It wasn't just one guy.
As for "Joe the plumber", It was one guy snooping into his DMV record, not dozens.
Again, where is the evidence that the Obama campaign ordered anything? Some snoop working as a project manager for the Ohio Local Law Enforcement Information Sharing Network decided to access his DMV records. No action was taken and your term "ransacking" is deliberately melodramatic. This shit happens all of the time to anyone with any celebrity status or anyone controversial. The fact that in this case, the guy was held accountable shows that the system worked and to claim that the Obama administration or even the Democratic party as an entity are orchestrating this in the real of tin foil hat Alex Jones lunacy. This is nothing more than campaign rhetoric whipped up by Karl Rove and the right wing spin machine.
This is nothing more that another Karl Rove tactic and is nothing new. This rumor has been going on since at least 2010 when Rove statred it:
|07-20-2012 08:27 PM
howabout audit romney.
|07-20-2012 05:53 PM
Of course it can not be proven if it's driven by the White House. But 3 things are clear.
After reading this WSJ EDITORIAL as well as several others, all from extremely right leaning blogs and think tanks, one thing is abundantly clear. All of this is speculation, Even Frank Vanderslooth admits he does not know if his audit is a coincident or if it was politically motivated. So if the alleged victim has questions, why do those on the right jump from A to Z without first checking B through Y? Seems there is certainly political motivation, but it is coming from from the right. Limbaugh has been all over this of late and his hordes of ditto head zombies have been given their talking points and are on the march.....
1 - The campaign put him up on an enemies list. I don't give a darn if they came up with a euphemism or not. I don't care if they wrap it in a pretty pink bow and pour sprinkles and pixie dust all over it. It's a bullseye list. That's the only reason to put it up there.
2 - He was audited by the IRS.
3 - Labor Department is now investigating him.
If #2 and #3 can be corroborated (i.e. it's really true) you're going to tell me that this is just a HUGE coincidence? That's the way the stars aligned?
Remember Joe the Plumber? As soon as he made that quip there were a dozen people illegally going through his public files. This is what the left does.
Former police association contractor charged with snooping on 'Joe the Plumber' | The Columbus Dispatch
Former police association contractor charged with snooping on 'Joe the Plumber'
Since The Columbus Dispatch reported on October 25, 2008, that “information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sports utility vehicle was pulled [accessed] from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times,” multiple state databases have been used to get information on Wurzelbacher.
On November 20, 2008, Inspector General Charles reported that the reasons that Helen Jones-Kelley provided for the checks on Wurzelbacher "were not credible and they included contradictions, ambiguity, and inconsistencies."[17
All Joe the Plumber did was ask Obama question in which Obama answered in a way that was controversial. And they ransacked his records
Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.
Niekamp didn't know she just had checked on "Joe the Plumber," who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain's example in a debate of an average American.
The senior manager would not learn about "Joe" for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.
The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.
Did Obama order a Code Red? Did he order a Code Red?
No, I don't think so. But that list was put up for a reason. So his troops would mobilize without even being asked to. He doesn't have to order the Code Red. These guys will do it automatically, that's the point. All it takes is one fan in the IRS, one fan in the DOL. Just like in Joe the Plumber's case, just some pissed off activists in the state records departments (a bunch of them actually).
|07-20-2012 02:51 PM
IRS, Labor Department persecute Idaho man who was named to Obama’s enemies list
No President since Nixon has had an enemies list. Obama made on in April, naming 8 people who donated to Romney.
The IRS and Labor Department, both under control of the White House, both launch investigations shortly after being named on the list.
Maybe you guys are right, US rights are being infringed. We need to get these Democrats out of here!
Just 12 days after the attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This bloodhound—a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm.
Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government. In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been "selected for examination" by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot's wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).
Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.