Slashdot Mirror

If that's true then apparently Google is tolerant of Boycott Divest & Sanction, just like Berkely.

P.S. --> Wanna see a picture of an angry white racist who attempted to stop a Jewish speaker from delivering a peaceful intellectual talk at Berkely?

Just look here: http://www.jammiewf.com/2017/d...

Of course, you're not just using this as a pretext to attack your favorite boogeyman of the moment, the mythical "social justice warrior", are you? Because that would be stupid.

Would that be the mythical SJW's who threatened to shoot black students/people, while claiming to be white but were actually black? Or perhaps we should look at what happened at Yale and Mizzou, you know where people took the "it was a bunch of guys riding around in a pickup /white students harassing blacks/etc" that didn't actually happen.

Well, that was all mythical right?

Of course, you're not just using this as a pretext to attack your favorite boogeyman of the moment, the mythical "social justice warrior", are you? Because that would be stupid.

Would that be the mythical SJW's who threatened to shoot black students/people, while claiming to be white but were actually black? Or perhaps we should look at what happened at Yale and Mizzou, you know where people took the "it was a bunch of guys riding around in a pickup /white students harassing blacks/etc" that didn't actually happen.

Well, that was all mythical right?

You seem to be conflating two categories as being equivalent.

You seem to be bending over backwards to excuse felony abuse of power.

Dozens of conservative groups *were* approved for 501(c) status during that same period

The "BOLO" list was specifically going for groups that had "Tea Party" in the name, or "9/12" or "patriots" in the name.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/308131-ig-liberal-groups-not-targeted-like-tea-party

So yeah, not 100% of all conservative groups were targeted. However, 100% of the targeted groups were successfully blocked from fund raising during the two years before a Presidential election.

The TEA Party groups were politically active groups attempting to obtain a 501(c) tax-exempt status, which (by law) requires that the group is *NOT* politically active.

Then how the hell is it possible that OFA got 501(c) status?

http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/so-how-did-obamas-organizing-for-action-get-irs501c4-approval-so-quickly/

Various liberal, politically active groups *also* got stalled by the *exact same* IRS approval process because *they* hit the *exact same* roadblock.

Actually, no. This is what political experts call a "lie", concocted after this became public knowledge.

Even before the election, Tea Party people were contacting their Congressmen and asking for help with the IRS. Show me even one single liberal who contacted his/her Congressman to get help with the IRS. Show me even one liberal group where the IRS demanded a list of all the people attending meetings, a list of prayers said at the meetings, or any of the other abusive things the IRS demanded of Tea Party groups. You can't because there aren't any.

For 27 months, not one single new group with "Tea Party" in the name (or "patriot" or "9/12") was approved. In that time, one single liberal group was rejected. (And note that it was simply rejected, not stalled and harassed and delayed.)

The idea of having affordable health care as opposed to being told sorry but you must just go die someplace as quietly as possible does tend to make it more than likely it will succeed.

Too bad for you 0bamacare's shaping up to be anything but affordable. Even that is assuming they can crunch the numbers, which isn't a valid assumption either.

On an anecdotal note, my employer switched from a PPO plan to an HMO plan to keep its costs somewhat under control. You have the option to stay in a PPOish plan, but it now costs about 4x what we had previously been paying. I switched to this plan to keep access to its better network in case my wife had to quit working and go onto my plan; her oncologist is available through the PPOish plan, but not the HMO. (She's since passed away. :-( Now that it's just me, I might suck it up and switch to the HMO to save some money. So much for "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.")

Could we get some winger trolls that are a little less willfully ignorant please?

Back at you, Obamabot.

1. Someone walking by and recording a conversation with a handheld device isn't "bugging", it's "eavesdropping". No device left in the room? Then it's not bugged.

Yet Curtis Morrison admitted bugging the McConnell office.

2. Obama is responsible for the actions of every democrat in the country now? In that case, which republican is responsible for James O'Keefe's actual attempt to bug a senator's office?

He's exactly as responsible as Nixon was for G. Gordon Libby's actions.

You do know that democratic groups were not just given equal scrutiny by the IRS, but that the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a democratic group?

That's pretty disingenuous to delay, repeat continually more and more probing questions over the course of up to 3 years in some cases, and then claim "but none were denied. Yea, technically true, I guess. I don't know what denial you're referring to (probably an Occupy group - anything populist is viewed a threat to the statists in charge), site if you have it. But I do know that OFA got their tax-exempt status quickly and without a hitch, in spite of being "politically inclined", which was exactly the excuse stated for targeting the Tea Party / Liberty groups.

And this all happened under a Bush appointee to the IRS?

I don't think W appointees are any more ethical than Obama appointees. At best, maybe some of them were savvy enough to hide it better.

As for the EPA, you mean the agency where the Obama Administration had to be taken to court to actual enforce EPA regulations rather than giving industry a free pass? That EPA?

There are plenty of favored industries under the Obama Administration, probably just as many as there were under Bush, but most were different companies (other than some banks and Wall Streeters). So that's not surprising. But we were talking about using agencies for targeting political enemies, not providing favors. Stuff like this.

You mean Ford ended the war.

As Vice President? You'll have to explain that, or admit you're wrong. The United States officially ended its military involvement in Vietnam on March 29, 1973, and Nixon didn't resign until August 9, 1974.

He made the decision to expand the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia!

Actually, that already happened under Johnson, who authorized surveillance missions into the region. Nixon actually refused to go into Cambodia when the generals first suggested it, but changed his mind after the Mini-Tet offensive when Saigon was attacked. His overall policy, though, was moving toward an exit strategy and withdrawal.

The story is about political groups applying for tax-exempt status, something they are not legally allowed.

You mean like OFA? Oh, no, wait... they got their tax exempt status right away, while other groups still don't have an answer after three years. Yes, I'm sure it's nothing to do with politics.

The outrage isn't fake, it's stirred up (probably intentionally) by fucktards like you spouting the kind of bullshit that you just did.

It's kind of unfortunate that the whole Rush Limbaugh stupidity (almost a tautology there) has skewed the coverage so much. Very few people outside of progressive policy wonks or the backwaters of the right-leaning blogosphere know who Sandra Fluke really is.

Ezra Klein (Mr. Progressive Policy Wonk for the Post) had a brief write up on Sandra Fluke prior to the controversy. It turns out that she knew about Georgetown's contraceptive policy before she even enrolled (over 3 years ago, long before any contraceptive controversy) and enrolled with the idea of changing the policy. Which has pretty much been her full time job ever since - she was the president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice during this time.

So, on one level, she's exactly the sort of activist "expert" that both sides invite to these panels, but she was being sold as "just" a student with a story to tell. It's annoying that this kind of stuff goes on. I'm not opposed to activists being on panels - they have immersed themselves in the issues - but I would want that stuff mentioned fairly prominently so I can properly weigh the testimony.

Ms. Fluke has been politically active for many years - she's a professional activist (not the most unbiased sources, but you can find details here and here). She's not a young law student who got swept up in events (aside from Limbaugh's disgusting comments).

Tell me your background and give me your data - I'll try to be open minded about both. Just don't play these gotcha games.