Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Now, it's possible that you may actually be attributing motives to these people, that are more negative than what I'm attributing to them. Granted, it's just a completely unsupported assumption. But I do try to assume that they had some kind of motive, here, other than "to be ****s" (And, is that word allowed, in that usage? Or should it be changed?) It let me post the word. I thought the same thing. I'll change it if a mod tells me to do so. And I think it's more of a stretch to find other motives for this behavior. I'm just basing my theory on the wording and tone of the emails. I would be curious as your theory of alternative motives - that you could gather from the actual documents and not from a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I would be curious as your theory of alternative motives - that you could gather from the actual documents and not from a guess. I simply try to assume that nobody actually thinks they're a villain. Even the people who are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Why do people keep posting about Obama in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Why do people keep posting about Obama in this thread? Are you new to the Internet or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Are you new to the Internet or something?help me figure out one of its greatest mysteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I simply try to assume that nobody actually thinks they're a villain. Even the people who are. I don't think you've ever been to Trenton then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Details details details...yes, there were lists including progressive names. No, they were not referred for extra political scrutiny at anywhere near the same rate. Yes, an Obama appointee resigned over this matter. Here's a letter from the IG to Sandy Levin. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/TIGTAFinalResponseToRepLevin06262013.pdf We reviewed all cases that the IRS identified as potential political cases and did not limit our audit to allegations related to the Tea Party. TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were potential political cases and did not limit our audit to used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny - specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled "Progressives," were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited. The "Progressives" criteria appeared on a section of the "Be On the Look Out" (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled "Historical," and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not include instructions on how to refer cases that met the criteria. While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention. ... In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit. We could also raise when the DOJ spyed on James Rosen and numerous other reporters. We could quibble with the President's selective enforcement of ACA mandates that are in the law, his delaying necessary payment rules until after the election, his frequent lies about keeping your plan which still happen today, his selective defense of laws on the books... And then there are the strongly implied, but well protected issues. We still have no idea what the President was doing during Benghazi and Holder has stonewalled on Fast & Furious very effectively. And it's still unclear how the Democrats knew to focus on Mitt Romney's tax records, or who exactly taped Romney saying his stupid 47% comment, or why that liberal lobbyist got caught bugging Mitch McConnell's office. There's also the little fact that Obama's White House czars cannot be brought before Congress despite their crucial roles to the President's major domestic and foreign policy agenda, so we can't get them to testify on anything from DOJ scandals to IRS visits (massively more frequent than in Bush Administration) or their role in ACA rules development or implementation. The point there being that Obama (smartly) has built in tremendous protections which Christie apparently doesn't have in place in NJ. I don't mean to distract from the Chris Christie story. There apparently WAS an actual traffic study, so he's got that to fall back on, but I hate that any politician is so close to something like this. That's true of the President and the Governor. However, if you are personally so quick to crucify Christie himself without direct evidence that he was involved, you should probably hold the President to a similar standard. The difference is one office has more protections than another, so the chief executive is more likely to have underlings with no direct link to him working on his behalf, if not necessarily on his behest. Now I understand that you could argue that Christie's closer to these folks than it's obvious Obama was on any other issue, so there's stronger circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, if any of these other issues have any truth to them and the President knew or knows, it's clear he's also done nothing that hasn't been forced to actively stop the abuse. And no, I don't just drop the birth control issue. The first time it was raise, by George Stephanopolous in a Republican Primary debate, all candidates were dumbfounded that it was even raised and all asserted that of course they wanted women to have access to birth control. It was the next year that the President came out with this new mandate out of left field. It was deliberately packaged as a political issue pitting religious freedom groups against women. It was brilliant, and divisive, and a totally dirty political trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 However, if you are personally so quick to crucify Christie himself without direct evidence that he was involved, you should probably hold the President to a similar standard. The difference is one office has more protections than another, so the chief executive is more likely to have underlings with no direct link to him working on his behalf, if not necessarily on his behest. Now I understand that you could argue that Christie's closer to these folks than it's obvious Obama was on any other issue, so there's stronger circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, if any of these other issues have any truth to them and the President knew or knows, it's clear he's also done nothing that hasn't been forced to actively stop the abuse. Point out where anyone has crucified Christie. Find a quote on this board. The normal "leftist" voices are actually more or less defending him. I suspect he had more to do with this than he is letting on, but there is no proof yet. (And, yes, I could argue that Christie is closer to his top aide and fundraiser than Obama is to an IRS employee in Cincinatti. I haven't really argued that, but I suppose I could). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wrong D, this is not an Obama thread. I know you want another one, or whatever, but seriously. Stop. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 The people who voted for Obama twice will not vote for Christie should he somehow be the nominee. They may not vote for Hillary but they definitely won't vote for Christie. I personally think 2012 was the turning point. At the Presidential level; the Dems are starting to put a near electorial lock on the Presidency. The only way Dems don't win the Presidency is if the economy is in a severe depression on election day or they nominate a complete idiot. Eventually this will trickle down to the state and local level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wrong D, this is not an Obama thread. I know you want another one, or whatever, but seriously. Stop. Please. First. No. Second. I've made every post in context of the Christie stuff. This is the "Everything Chris Christie" thread. Disproportionate coverage between Christie's scandals and others warrants discussion here. Third: You'll probably get your wish because it's Friday and I likely won't be back on here for a while based on my recent schedule. However, I may put in some extra effort just to see how everyone's doing. Have a good weekend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 First. No. Second. I've made every post in context of the Christie stuff. This is the "Everything Chris Christie" thread. Disproportionate coverage between Christie's scandals and others warrants discussion here. Third: You'll probably get your wish because it's Friday and I likely won't be back on here for a while based on my recent schedule. However, I may put in some extra effort just to see how everyone's doing. Have a good weekend! I'd still like for you to point out where Christie has been crucified here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 The people who voted for Obama twice will not vote for Christie should he somehow be the nominee. They may not vote for Hillary but they definitely won't vote for Christie. I personally think 2012 was the turning point. At the Presidential level; the Dems are starting to put a near electorial lock on the Presidency. The only way Dems don't win the Presidency is if the economy is in a severe depression on election day or they nominate a complete idiot. Eventually this will trickle down to the state and local level. Mitt Romney's platform included a tax plan that as far as I can tell: a) did not exist OR b ) was so far from complete that it's shocking he presented it. He got 47.2% of the popular vote. I presume that 47.2% of Americans aren't making 6 figures, which seems to be the only way you'd benefit from his plan. In this thread all of the 'conservatives,' who should actually just be called Republicans, are still trying to talk about Obama. The effort is so weak that I'm not even sure why they're trying. Anyway, point being, if the R's run anyone who isn't a ****ing awful candidate they stand a chance. Romney got 47.2% for having an R next to his name and for not being Obama. The electoral college is tough for them right now but OH, FL, VA will be up for grabs. A whack job like Cuccinelli didn't lose by much here. Honestly, if not for Romney's "47 percent" comments I think he wins or makes it razor thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeWolf990 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Why do people keep posting about Obama in this thread?its easier than facing that Christie may have been involved in scumbag behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Details details details...yes, there were lists including progressive names. No, they were not referred for extra political scrutiny at anywhere near the same rate. Yes, an Obama appointee resigned over this matter. Here's a letter from the IG to Sandy Levin. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/TIGTAFinalResponseToRepLevin06262013.pdf ... We could also raise when the DOJ spyed on James Rosen and numerous other reporters. We could quibble with the President's selective enforcement of ACA mandates that are in the law, his delaying necessary payment rules until after the election, his frequent lies about keeping your plan which still happen today, his selective defense of laws on the books... And then there are the strongly implied, but well protected issues. We still have no idea what the President was doing during Benghazi and Holder has stonewalled on Fast & Furious very effectively. And it's still unclear how the Democrats knew to focus on Mitt Romney's tax records, or who exactly taped Romney saying his stupid 47% comment, or why that liberal lobbyist got caught bugging Mitch McConnell's office. There's also the little fact that Obama's White House czars cannot be brought before Congress despite their crucial roles to the President's major domestic and foreign policy agenda, so we can't get them to testify on anything from DOJ scandals to IRS visits (massively more frequent than in Bush Administration) or their role in ACA rules development or implementation. The point there being that Obama (smartly) has built in tremendous protections which Christie apparently doesn't have in place in NJ. I don't mean to distract from the Chris Christie story. There apparently WAS an actual traffic study, so he's got that to fall back on, but I hate that any politician is so close to something like this. That's true of the President and the Governor. However, if you are personally so quick to crucify Christie himself without direct evidence that he was involved, you should probably hold the President to a similar standard. The difference is one office has more protections than another, so the chief executive is more likely to have underlings with no direct link to him working on his behalf, if not necessarily on his behest. Now I understand that you could argue that Christie's closer to these folks than it's obvious Obama was on any other issue, so there's stronger circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, if any of these other issues have any truth to them and the President knew or knows, it's clear he's also done nothing that hasn't been forced to actively stop the abuse. And no, I don't just drop the birth control issue. The first time it was raise, by George Stephanopolous in a Republican Primary debate, all candidates were dumbfounded that it was even raised and all asserted that of course they wanted women to have access to birth control. It was the next year that the President came out with this new mandate out of left field. It was deliberately packaged as a political issue pitting religious freedom groups against women. It was brilliant, and divisive, and a totally dirty political trick. What a massive Gish Gallop of a post this is. Good lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 its easier than facing that Christie may have been involved in scumbag behavior. You mean people are actually surprised by it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 You mean people are actually surprised by it? I am. I expect politicians to be hardball and mean and all. It's the nasty little pettiness of this thing that I don't get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Guess I'm callous, but I've been somewhat laughing at the story and still like Christie. When the hell isn't the traffic on that bridge a damn nightmare from hell? In all seriousness, the guy came out, apologized, fired his deputy chief of staff and the Fort Lee mayor has accepted his apology. Unless there are emails that definitively prove Christie ordered this, I'm going to take his apology and move on. Hell, that's much more than Obama has ever given us for his administration's **** up after continual **** up. As far as Christie's standing in the republican party, I hardly think this is going to hurt him in the long run. Furthermore, this DEFINITELY isn't going to be the thing that knocks Christie out of the primaries; it's going to be the fact that he doesn't kiss extreme right wing/evangelical ass. Which makes me want to vote for him even more. Should the republican party shock the hell out of me by nominating a non-radical, I guarantee there will be campaign video clips comparing the multiple apologies given by Christie in his presser to Hilary's screaming "What difference does it make?!?!" during the Benghazi hearings on Capitol Hill. Regardless: Christie for 2016!!! lol Why do people keep posting about Obama in this thread? Translation: your birthday is January 10, 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Translation: your birthday is January 10, 2014. Uh Oh, that explains why my wife is pissed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 New Jersey. Highest poverty rate in the nation. Highest welfare per capita. Highest unemployment. Highest DUI per capita. Highest % in jail for drug offense. The mayor is fat. And he's a clown. And he's gonna bust that lap band. New jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 New Jersey. Highest poverty rate in the nation. Highest welfare per capita. Highest unemployment. Highest DUI per capita. Highest % in jail for drug offense. The mayor is fat. And he's a clown. And he's gonna bust that lap band. New jersey. Just a friendly suggestion to check your facts before you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I am. I expect politicians to be hardball and mean and all. It's the nasty little pettiness of this thing that I don't get. It seems dangerously stupid. That's troublesome. What could his administration have gained from this? I can't think of any rational motivation for the action except that they were just stupid and mean and enamored with their own power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Unless there are emails that definitively prove Christie ordered this, I'm not sure if this photo is genuine, but if it is, it suggests that Christie may have had direct involvement in this traffic snarl-up on the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I tend to agree with Special K here. I just don't really care. Perhaps it's my apathy but I don't care that people had to sit in traffic. I'm not going to bring up Obama like she did but this doesn't detract from my opinion of Christie. How he's handled it certainly hasn't hurt either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 This incident happened on the week of 9/11. Just a couple of tidbits/thoughts to add: Since 9/11/2001, the tunnels have been closed to trucks, so they have to use the GW Bridge. So, extra traffic has been added over the last 12 years, for security purposes. IF there had been a "memorial" attack, like on that shiny new tower, I would assume both spans would turn "outbound" for evac purposes. With the "inbound" span covered with vehicles that can't move, this could've led to an absolutely horrific disaster. Doesn't this merit the same level of criticism as not adding security to foreign embassies on that anniversary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.