There are some people that suspect that the IRS revelations are being made public to distract from Benghazi. I don't think that really holds up. I think it is most likely a matter of coincidence since all of these scandals have different time frames as to when they occurred. At least two of them have something in common in that the government agency involved has tried to delay and push things off as long as possible. Unfortunately it has resulted in all of them coming out at about the same time. The question is, does this mean that they build off each other to get to the publics attention, or do they compete for attention and smother each other? Hard to say. Having this much come out at once does make it harder for the administration to control the news cycle I think. The fact that one of them, the AP issue, is likely to turn some parts of the press against them doesn't help the administration. It will be an interesting summer.
Doctors are licensed and have at least minimally enforced professional standards. Journalists are not licensed, and professional standards of late seem to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Journalists have the same 1st Amendment rights that other Americans have. They can publish most anything without prior restraint, but there can be consequences after the fact.
I think you're mistaken on this, at least where it will end up.
The AP issue could easily flip the media to a much more adversarial stand against the Obama administration than they have taken to date. Rather than adversarial, they have actively covered for the administration - ignoring stories that they would have beat President Bush with all year long, minimizing others, asking friendly questions. If reporters come to understand that the administration came after them on a fishing expedition, which is what this was, they will not be happy.
The IRS scandal is one that many Americans will be concerned about. Most Americans understand that the IRS coming after people on a political basis is a very bad thing even if it is about a group that may not be their cup of tea, so to speak. This sort of thing hasn't been in the open like this since the Nixon administration. You may recall that didn't end well for President Nixon, and more than one commentator has referred to President Obamba as Nixonian at best.
But that is what makes the Tea Party aspect of this politically deadly is that there are many Americans that support many aspects of the Tea Party agenda even if they are not members.
You apparently also misunderstand the Tea Party - they oppose higher taxes and increasing spending, not the IRS or the collection of taxes. There is no legitimate reason for what the IRS did there. The IRS has admitted that it was wrong, completely inappropriate. (I admit a certain fascination in the fact that for some reason there are more than a few on Slashdot that try to defend what the IRS itself has condemned as being completely wrong. Why? It is absolute nonsense. I assume many, if not most are not Americans.)
As to Benghazi, we will see. There are important developments coming out. The Obama administration just held a private background briefing for key press members. Why? Americans were killed. The Ambassador was killed - a very rare event. The administration ignored their security needs before the attack, and then abandoned them during the attack when there were resources available to intervene and save them, and then lied multiple times at multiple levels after the fact. There is an old saying in politics that it isn't the crime but rather the cover up that does you in. There are people scurrying to cover their butt all over Washington on this, and it probably won't turn out well for the Administration.
You are entitled to your interests. I don't think most Americans will agree with you in the near future.
It would be more like a company saying they don't believe the DMV has the right to say whether or not people can drive
If you want to go in that direction, you have it wrong. The "company" would be advocating for lower sales tax, not challenging the right of the DMV to license people, or even charge fees, for that matter. Once again, there is no connection between what the targets of abuse were doing, and what was reasonable behavior on the part of the bureaucrats involved.
You keep wanting to paint this as somehow reasonable and more or less benign, which is ridiculous. The IRS has admitted that what went on was completely wrong and inappropriate. I'm curious, what is it about this that makes you want to pick up the gauntlet on behalf of the IRS, to defend what they condemn? Is there an insight you have that you could share with them to make them see the light that what they were doing, although apparently in violation of standards, practices, and perhaps regulation or the law, was actually OK? Something they should fee good about? Would you feel the same way if it was a group from another part of the political spectrum, one closer to your heart? Or is this all just a troll?
Pardon me for pointing out that DSM-5 is the replacement. Currently they're using DSM-IV, which is a lot smaller.
The larger point, exposed by this "update", is that the categories are essentially arbitrary and apparently not based on anything falsifiable, ie not anything resembling science.
Yes, I know. That is why it need to be replaced, preferably with something systematic, as indicated above.
As it stands, brain imaging can identify psychopaths , and is showing useful things about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder . I expect there will be more to come in that regard. Then there is also the fascinating feedback that can occur between behavior and brain function and activity. Good and bad behavior can become self-reinforcing. Then there is the role of nutrition in various aspects of brain function and behavior. Biochemistry is continuing to provide new insights, and new approaches. We are continuing to learn important lessons about something so seemingly common as sleep and its disorders that effect people's memory, attention, and behavior. Even classic psychology and psychiatry have insights that will have to be considered. It all plays a part. On the other hand, in a lot of ways it seems like we are still groping in the dark there is so much to learn. One thing seems likely to me is we are likely to find more conditions that will end up requiring a multidisciplinary approach to treat.
Another interesting question will come when various aberrant behaviors are scientifically identified as such, but they end up being politically protected in either the scientific community, or the political establishment.
If they want a replacement they will need to provide one. Until then, people are being treated, with varying degrees of success, with the current model. Even if the model isn't actually an accurate description of what is going on, it is still a fairly useful guide to approaching the problems. Sort of like classical physics versus relativity. A real breakthrough in understanding would be great - and maybe with all of the brain imaging and various other things going on, that will emerge. But so far it seems to mainly be individual studies that aren't producing a cohesive theory or useful guide to treatment. They will need to find their equivalents of Einstein and Dirac.
Another problem with the recent releases of the DSM is that what is considered a disorder sometimes seems to be a question of politics or political correctness.
You misunderstand the problem. The ultimate goal of Al Qaida is to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1923 (after the fall of the Ottoman empire in World War 1) and extend Muslim rule and religion over the entire earth. Their goal is not connected with the United States and the West. However, the United States and the West will not bow to this plan, so they are an enemy to be attacked. Since you misunderstand the problem, you won't have a useful solution.
Interesting point, but I have to disagree. The V1 was a missile, not a drone. The V1 itself constituted the attacking weapon. I think the distinction with a drone attack would be that the drone itself isn't the attacking weapon, but rather it carries weapons to attack. Example: The Predator drone which carries Hellfire missiles.
Exactly so. I wish more people would remember that when discussing various other technologies. Or maybe it would be better to say I wish that understanding was more broadly shared when discussing various other technologies, activities, and actions.
Decisions have consequences, even if decision makers sometimes go into denial. In the weekend edition of the Herald, Debra Jopson provided case studies of the 21 men who have been convicted of terrorism-related charges following Operation Pendennis in Sydney and Melbourne and Operation Neath in Melbourne. A large number are of Lebanese Muslim descent.
In his address to the Sydney Institute on January 24, the director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, David Irvine, pointed out that ''of the 38 people prosecuted for terrorism-related offences in Australia, 37 were Australian citizens and 34 were either born here or lived here since childhood''. Clearly home-grown terrorism is a threat in Australia.
The breakdown of the jihadist-related terrorism prosecutions is revealing. In a paper titled Explaining Australia-Lebanon Jihadist Connections, Monash University academic Andrew Zammit broke down the statistics as at September last year. He pointed out that 20 out of 33 men prosecuted ''have been of Lebanese descent''. Moreover, ''while Lebanese-Australian Muslims make up 60 per cent of those charged over alleged jihadist activity, they constitute only 20 per cent of all Australian Muslims''
I wouldn't be shocked to hear cartels are also buying abroad, but why bother when you can get most of what you need immediately to the north?
Because they want military grade weapons, like grenades, rocket launchers, and fully automatic weapons and those aren't available from el Norte? (After all, they are often battling the Mexican army, marine corps, and federales, as well as other cartels.) On the other hand, there are plenty of sources from the Central and South America, and other places, that converge in Mexico.
The US is a convenient scapegoat for the weapons problem in Mexico, but not the genuine source of the problem.
Because would be murderers are left impotent without guns? That doesn't really seem to be the case.
you win schmuck, at least I don't live there with your fools statistics.
Considering the rubbish you posted in the discussion about the IRS abuses, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that America's gain is Australia's(?) loss. But to be charitable it can be called a win-win.
In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence
CAUTION: Graphic descriptions of atrocities in the article
You can take that caution seriously if you are of delicate constitution. The SS didn't really have anything on the Syrian army.
Hama makes an interesting counterpoint to the frequent claims of massacre or genocide made against Israel by various Arab groups and their allies. Those claims generally prove to be false, misleading, or exaggerated, once exposed to scrutiny.
Even if there are chemical weapons laying around, they would still need to get them somewhere where they could be used. They would probably need help for that. Is any available?
. ..the book is published in Iran and contains biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died while carrying out their attacks. ..
Europe is competing with the U.S. for first place in the obesity crisis. According to a report issued by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development out of Paris, more than half of European adults are overweight or obese. Obesity rates have doubled in the past 20 years for the 27 member states of the European Union. It is estimated that 1 in 7 children in these states is obese. The disparity among countries is significant, however. The prevalence of obesity is less than 10 percent in Romania and Italy, but greater than 20 percent in the UK, Ireland and Malta
The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . ..
-------
Yea, without huge-sodas and the ability to blow away your neighbours, America would have fallen to those commie-liberal-bastards a long time ago.
This wasn't spying between two different sides of one company. This was someone in the Bloomberg corporation who was able to spy on people in Goldman Sachs corporation - two different companies. It isn't clear that you could firewall this as it seems to be covert functionality built into the software.
It's not Nixonian until you come up with the tape of Obama telling his aides to sic the IRS on the people on his enemies list.
The question of Nixon's tapes didn't come up until investigators came looking for them. The real investigations haven't started on this. . . yet. And it needn't take a tape to be Nixonian. The key is the intent and activity, not the recording medium.
The Obama campaign is now marshaling the power of the office of the presidency against private citizens — using the Obama campaign’s “Truth Team” to target individual Romney donors and supporters in a way that is alarmingly reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s “Enemies List” — as documented in a May 10th piece by the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel.
I find your comments delightfully uninformed. Even though it is still early in this scandal, there are some troubling things already known. You did notice what the IRS itself is saying, didn't you? From the original story, "'That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review . . . '"
You do know that one group was subjected to this treatment for three years, only being approved after the election? Try reading the last paragraph on page 1 of the article, then get back to me.
I see. So you want government large enough to know what every organization (and presumably every private citizen) in the country is spending their money on? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.
That's right. It isn't a good idea. And that isn't what I suggested. I'm not sure how you came up with that silly nonsense. On the other hand, it effectively describes what the IRS was subjecting those organizations to. And it somewhat foreshadows the coming implementation of Obamacare, of which the IRS is the key enforcer.
Targeting organizations that are explicitly linked with anti-tax groups such as the Tea Party is common sense. It's like questioning a guy with an empty gas can that was walking away from a burning building.
There is a little problem with your understanding. Burning down a building - arson - is illegal. Advocating that congress change the tax laws and control spending, which is what the Tea Party does, is completely legal. Your "common sense" idea of targeting the Tea Party for the abuses perpetrated by IRS employees is ridiculous. Even the IRS says it was over the line, wrong. What you call "common sense" is in fact stupid and abusive.
Here is a question for you - is it OK to do the same thing to the causes you support? You do realize that the government will change hands eventually, right?
Slashdot Mirror
There are some people that suspect that the IRS revelations are being made public to distract from Benghazi. I don't think that really holds up. I think it is most likely a matter of coincidence since all of these scandals have different time frames as to when they occurred. At least two of them have something in common in that the government agency involved has tried to delay and push things off as long as possible. Unfortunately it has resulted in all of them coming out at about the same time. The question is, does this mean that they build off each other to get to the publics attention, or do they compete for attention and smother each other? Hard to say. Having this much come out at once does make it harder for the administration to control the news cycle I think. The fact that one of them, the AP issue, is likely to turn some parts of the press against them doesn't help the administration. It will be an interesting summer.
Doctors are licensed and have at least minimally enforced professional standards. Journalists are not licensed, and professional standards of late seem to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Journalists have the same 1st Amendment rights that other Americans have. They can publish most anything without prior restraint, but there can be consequences after the fact.
I think you're mistaken on this, at least where it will end up.
The AP issue could easily flip the media to a much more adversarial stand against the Obama administration than they have taken to date. Rather than adversarial, they have actively covered for the administration - ignoring stories that they would have beat President Bush with all year long, minimizing others, asking friendly questions. If reporters come to understand that the administration came after them on a fishing expedition, which is what this was, they will not be happy.
The IRS scandal is one that many Americans will be concerned about. Most Americans understand that the IRS coming after people on a political basis is a very bad thing even if it is about a group that may not be their cup of tea, so to speak. This sort of thing hasn't been in the open like this since the Nixon administration. You may recall that didn't end well for President Nixon, and more than one commentator has referred to President Obamba as Nixonian at best.
But that is what makes the Tea Party aspect of this politically deadly is that there are many Americans that support many aspects of the Tea Party agenda even if they are not members.
Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe
You apparently also misunderstand the Tea Party - they oppose higher taxes and increasing spending, not the IRS or the collection of taxes. There is no legitimate reason for what the IRS did there. The IRS has admitted that it was wrong, completely inappropriate. (I admit a certain fascination in the fact that for some reason there are more than a few on Slashdot that try to defend what the IRS itself has condemned as being completely wrong. Why? It is absolute nonsense. I assume many, if not most are not Americans.)
As to Benghazi, we will see. There are important developments coming out. The Obama administration just held a private background briefing for key press members. Why? Americans were killed. The Ambassador was killed - a very rare event. The administration ignored their security needs before the attack, and then abandoned them during the attack when there were resources available to intervene and save them, and then lied multiple times at multiple levels after the fact. There is an old saying in politics that it isn't the crime but rather the cover up that does you in. There are people scurrying to cover their butt all over Washington on this, and it probably won't turn out well for the Administration.
You are entitled to your interests. I don't think most Americans will agree with you in the near future.
Actually, there are shorter cycles as well, kind of like harmonics.
Interesting comment you made there about harmonics.
Harmonics can be deadly: Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie"
So, at the moment the Obama administration has the following scandals brewing:
Justice Department: Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe
IRS: The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting
State Department and Office of President: The Benghazi Deception
There are a few other things brewing in the background as well.
It might be a hot summer for the Obama administration regardless of the weather.
It would be more like a company saying they don't believe the DMV has the right to say whether or not people can drive
If you want to go in that direction, you have it wrong. The "company" would be advocating for lower sales tax, not challenging the right of the DMV to license people, or even charge fees, for that matter. Once again, there is no connection between what the targets of abuse were doing, and what was reasonable behavior on the part of the bureaucrats involved.
You keep wanting to paint this as somehow reasonable and more or less benign, which is ridiculous. The IRS has admitted that what went on was completely wrong and inappropriate. I'm curious, what is it about this that makes you want to pick up the gauntlet on behalf of the IRS, to defend what they condemn? Is there an insight you have that you could share with them to make them see the light that what they were doing, although apparently in violation of standards, practices, and perhaps regulation or the law, was actually OK? Something they should fee good about? Would you feel the same way if it was a group from another part of the political spectrum, one closer to your heart? Or is this all just a troll?
Pardon me for pointing out that DSM-5 is the replacement. Currently they're using DSM-IV, which is a lot smaller.
The larger point, exposed by this "update", is that the categories are essentially arbitrary and apparently not based on anything falsifiable, ie not anything resembling science.
Yes, I know. That is why it need to be replaced, preferably with something systematic, as indicated above.
As it stands, brain imaging can identify psychopaths , and is showing useful things about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder . I expect there will be more to come in that regard. Then there is also the fascinating feedback that can occur between behavior and brain function and activity. Good and bad behavior can become self-reinforcing. Then there is the role of nutrition in various aspects of brain function and behavior. Biochemistry is continuing to provide new insights, and new approaches. We are continuing to learn important lessons about something so seemingly common as sleep and its disorders that effect people's memory, attention, and behavior. Even classic psychology and psychiatry have insights that will have to be considered. It all plays a part. On the other hand, in a lot of ways it seems like we are still groping in the dark there is so much to learn. One thing seems likely to me is we are likely to find more conditions that will end up requiring a multidisciplinary approach to treat.
Another interesting question will come when various aberrant behaviors are scientifically identified as such, but they end up being politically protected in either the scientific community, or the political establishment.
Choices, choices.
If they want a replacement they will need to provide one. Until then, people are being treated, with varying degrees of success, with the current model. Even if the model isn't actually an accurate description of what is going on, it is still a fairly useful guide to approaching the problems. Sort of like classical physics versus relativity. A real breakthrough in understanding would be great - and maybe with all of the brain imaging and various other things going on, that will emerge. But so far it seems to mainly be individual studies that aren't producing a cohesive theory or useful guide to treatment. They will need to find their equivalents of Einstein and Dirac.
Another problem with the recent releases of the DSM is that what is considered a disorder sometimes seems to be a question of politics or political correctness.
You misunderstand the problem. The ultimate goal of Al Qaida is to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1923 (after the fall of the Ottoman empire in World War 1) and extend Muslim rule and religion over the entire earth. Their goal is not connected with the United States and the West. However, the United States and the West will not bow to this plan, so they are an enemy to be attacked. Since you misunderstand the problem, you won't have a useful solution.
The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants
If you're mixing them, I prefer my metaphors shaken, not stirred.
Interesting point, but I have to disagree. The V1 was a missile, not a drone. The V1 itself constituted the attacking weapon. I think the distinction with a drone attack would be that the drone itself isn't the attacking weapon, but rather it carries weapons to attack. Example: The Predator drone which carries Hellfire missiles.
Exactly so. I wish more people would remember that when discussing various other technologies. Or maybe it would be better to say I wish that understanding was more broadly shared when discussing various other technologies, activities, and actions.
They are a powerful technology, for good, or evil.
If you think this is about karma, then you fundamentally misunderstand the problem.
The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants
By the way, ever hear of David Hicks, or Bali? Shayden Thorne? Maybe one or two other things?
Threat from enemy within makes anti-terrorism laws indispensable
Australia a target for 'ideological terrorist attacks'
There is more to find if one cares to dig.
c) The US Justice Department estimates 70% of guns recovered from Mexican cartels were legally purchased in the US.
Hmmm... apparently they felt embarrassed about the 90% claim they had been using, but it looks like neither 90% nor 70% are really true.
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
U.S. Gun Laws: Mexico's Favorite Scapegoat for Drug Violence
I wouldn't be shocked to hear cartels are also buying abroad, but why bother when you can get most of what you need immediately to the north?
Because they want military grade weapons, like grenades, rocket launchers, and fully automatic weapons and those aren't available from el Norte? (After all, they are often battling the Mexican army, marine corps, and federales, as well as other cartels.) On the other hand, there are plenty of sources from the Central and South America, and other places, that converge in Mexico.
The US is a convenient scapegoat for the weapons problem in Mexico, but not the genuine source of the problem.
Do nothing and continue to count the dead
Because would be murderers are left impotent without guns? That doesn't really seem to be the case.
you win schmuck, at least I don't live there with your fools statistics.
Considering the rubbish you posted in the discussion about the IRS abuses, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that America's gain is Australia's(?) loss. But to be charitable it can be called a win-win.
An interview with John R. Lott, Jr.
There are all kinds of exisiting issues including poverty, segregation due to social-economic status, and existing problems of gun violence . . .
You left out the problem of collusion between politicians and gangs in Chicago.
Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem.
It is a long standing problem in Syria.
Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about
In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence
CAUTION: Graphic descriptions of atrocities in the article
You can take that caution seriously if you are of delicate constitution. The SS didn't really have anything on the Syrian army.
Hama makes an interesting counterpoint to the frequent claims of massacre or genocide made against Israel by various Arab groups and their allies. Those claims generally prove to be false, misleading, or exaggerated, once exposed to scrutiny.
Have a Rotten Eggroll, Mr. Goldstone
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War - Israel does not "deliberately" target civilians.
Palestinian Myth Machine
One wonders what could possibly go wrong regarding Syria.
Turkey claims evidence of Syrian chemical weapons use
UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use
An Al-Qaeda Alliance in Syria Demands Response From U.S.
Al Qaeda's track record with chemical weapons
Even if there are chemical weapons laying around, they would still need to get them somewhere where they could be used. They would probably need help for that. Is any available?
US teen accused of seeking to join al Qaeda-linked Syrian group
Danish jihadist killed while fighting for Muhajireen Brigade in Syria
Iran recruiting volunteer troops for Syria
Hezbollah Steps Up in Syria as Israel Tries to Ease Tension
US Congressman: Hezbollah agents in US worse than al-Qaida
Peter King warns: Hezbollah agents in U.S.
Border porous for obvious reason
Official: Book of suicide bombers found in Arizona desert
. . .the book is published in Iran and contains biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died while carrying out their attacks. . .
Yes indeed, what could possibly go wrong?
America, land of the obese,
Don't worry, Europe is competitive - especially certain countries.
Obesity in America Compared to Europe
Europe is competing with the U.S. for first place in the obesity crisis. According to a report issued by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development out of Paris, more than half of European adults are overweight or obese. Obesity rates have doubled in the past 20 years for the 27 member states of the European Union. It is estimated that 1 in 7 children in these states is obese. The disparity among countries is significant, however. The prevalence of obesity is less than 10 percent in Romania and Italy, but greater than 20 percent in the UK, Ireland and Malta
-------
home of the gun NUT
Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI
In some countries, the following two people would likely be dead or badly injured. Can you figure out why they aren't?
80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder
A rather different picture than what has happened in the UK.
Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .
-------
Yea, without huge-sodas and the ability to blow away your neighbours, America would have fallen to those commie-liberal-bastards a long time ago.
It might be too soon to tell.
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting
Cheers
This wasn't spying between two different sides of one company. This was someone in the Bloomberg corporation who was able to spy on people in Goldman Sachs corporation - two different companies. It isn't clear that you could firewall this as it seems to be covert functionality built into the software.
Keep in mind that this is the company started by the current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. That is the same Mayor Bloomberg that tried to limit the size of sodas in New York City to 16 oz., and started the scandal ridden "Mayors against Guns."
Although John Stewart said this about the soda ban, I'm thinking it might have wider application.
"combines the draconian government overreach people love with the probable lack of results they expect." -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
It's not Nixonian until you come up with the tape of Obama telling his aides to sic the IRS on the people on his enemies list.
The question of Nixon's tapes didn't come up until investigators came looking for them. The real investigations haven't started on this. . . yet. And it needn't take a tape to be Nixonian. The key is the intent and activity, not the recording medium.
The Obama Campaign's Nixonian "White House Enemies List"
The Obama campaign is now marshaling the power of the office of the presidency against private citizens — using the Obama campaign’s “Truth Team” to target individual Romney donors and supporters in a way that is alarmingly reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s “Enemies List” — as documented in a May 10th piece by the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel.
Obama's Enemies List
Strassel: Obama's Enemies List—Part II
I find your comments delightfully uninformed. Even though it is still early in this scandal, there are some troubling things already known. You did notice what the IRS itself is saying, didn't you? From the original story, "'That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review . . . '"
You do know that one group was subjected to this treatment for three years, only being approved after the election? Try reading the last paragraph on page 1 of the article, then get back to me.
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting
I have no doubt there will be more revelations to come on this. Congress is taking an interest.
I see. So you want government large enough to know what every organization (and presumably every private citizen) in the country is spending their money on? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.
That's right. It isn't a good idea. And that isn't what I suggested. I'm not sure how you came up with that silly nonsense. On the other hand, it effectively describes what the IRS was subjecting those organizations to. And it somewhat foreshadows the coming implementation of Obamacare, of which the IRS is the key enforcer.
Targeting organizations that are explicitly linked with anti-tax groups such as the Tea Party is common sense. It's like questioning a guy with an empty gas can that was walking away from a burning building.
There is a little problem with your understanding. Burning down a building - arson - is illegal. Advocating that congress change the tax laws and control spending, which is what the Tea Party does, is completely legal. Your "common sense" idea of targeting the Tea Party for the abuses perpetrated by IRS employees is ridiculous. Even the IRS says it was over the line, wrong. What you call "common sense" is in fact stupid and abusive.
Here is a question for you - is it OK to do the same thing to the causes you support? You do realize that the government will change hands eventually, right?
The IRS has already admitted what they did was wrong. Your sense of this is faulty.
I think if you read this you'll see that this is way beyond inappropriate.
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting