Big Brother is Watching You

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wneglia
Midshipman
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:00 pm

Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by Wneglia »

If you live in California

and the taxpayers may be left with a $250 billion bill in compensatory damages if suit is successful.

:mrgreen:

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by O Really »

Speaking of the IRS, and I am certainly not a fan, but I'm sick of the whiney teapartiers bitching about the IRS targeting "conservatives" or "conservative groups." So you've got an organization - not a charitable organization, but a political organization, whose name letters supposedly stand for "Taxed Enough Already" and everybody in the organization spends tons of money and time whining about not wanting to pay taxes, and this group applies for tax-exempt status, should it be surprising they are subject to higher than typical review? The IRS doesn't care about teapartiers or conservatives or liberals. It cares about collecting money.

User avatar
bannination
Captain
Posts: 5502
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:58 am
Location: Hendersonville
Contact:

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by bannination »

O Really wrote:Speaking of the IRS, and I am certainly not a fan, but I'm sick of the whiney teapartiers bitching about the IRS targeting "conservatives" or "conservative groups." So you've got an organization - not a charitable organization, but a political organization, whose name letters supposedly stand for "Taxed Enough Already" and everybody in the organization spends tons of money and time whining about not wanting to pay taxes, and this group applies for tax-exempt status, should it be surprising they are subject to higher than typical review? The IRS doesn't care about teapartiers or conservatives or liberals. It cares about collecting money.
Yeah.... I pretty much agree with that. Those "tea partiers" would have no problem with targeting Muslims even without catchy titles like the tea party counterparts.

If I named my organization something to those effects I would be surprised if they didn't do a double take when it came up.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by O Really »

And if you belong to an organization whose main goal is to avoid taxes, might you be surprised if your individual return gets more than a cursory look?
Same thing happens to people with a home office, who run a "business" for years and never turn a profit, who have 50% of their income in "charitable donations" yada.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by neoplacebo »

Not only that, but it looks like to me that since Citizens United, the volume of applications for tax exempt status has gone up dramatically. The fact that the biggest part of them are wingnut oriented should be no surprise.

User avatar
Crock Hunter
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:40 pm
Location: THIS USER IS BANNED

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by Crock Hunter »

O Really wrote:And if you belong to an organization whose main goal is to avoid taxes, might you be surprised if your individual return gets more than a cursory look?
Same thing happens to people with a home office, who run a "business" for years and never turn a profit, who have 50% of their income in "charitable donations" yada.
Indeed.. they think profiling is great.. as long as they aren't the ones being profiled. .... ...

The IRS was doing exactly what they should be doing in this incidence.. . .
`~~~:< .. Welcome to the Swamp.. .. Swim Fast..

User avatar
Wneglia
Midshipman
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by Wneglia »

Image

:mrgreen:

User avatar
Bungalow Bill
Ensign
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:12 pm
Location: Downtown Mills River

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by Bungalow Bill »

One picture is worth zero words.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by O Really »

Speaking of being watched... The Reader's Digest poll of most trusted people included a list of trusted professions. Doctors were at the top, not surprisingly, since they're the only group most people have to actually trust with their lives. Lawyers and sales people were nowhere to be found. But before the docs start getting to proud of themselves, they were followed closely be teachers and then by "Movie Stars", philanthropists, "Spiritual Leaders" and journalists. Next came filmmakers, talk show hosts, judges, and last of the top 10, "Professional Sports Stars."

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by Stinger »

It's all a damn scam anyway. Even Karl Roves' American Crossroads "earned" the tax exempt status for being non-political, or, "only a little" political.

Only about a third of the groups targeted were TEA dolts, and the only group to get denied was a Democratic group. All the frickin' groups are political.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote:I think the medical records seizure, if true, and the spying on AP both suck. I'm fine with the responsible parties being held accountable.

I'm waiting to see how the IRS-TP thing plays out, but the immediate forced resignations are a decisive first step.
I think the immediate forced resignations are a cop-out. As Stinger pointed out, the IRS office made life miserable on a lot more than than the teapartiers, and ultimately did not reject any teapartiers. Any group that has as its main objective to avoid taxes and then applies for taxexempt status seems to deserve scrutiny. Own it. Defend it. Tell the scurvy-dog Republicans to go fuck themselves. It's not like they're ever going to do anything but bash anyway.

User avatar
Bungalow Bill
Ensign
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:12 pm
Location: Downtown Mills River

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by Bungalow Bill »

Don't worry, Mark Meadows is on this now. He'll get to the bottom of it and
expose the truth, as the wingnuts see it. The AP thing seems somewhat over
the top, but not illegal and since there were so many pee partiers suddenly
applying for this tax exempt status that is meant for organizations that do
some kind of social welfare work, maybe the IRS was right to look into them.
Either way, Holder had very little to do with it and neither did Obama, so
there are two big problems with impeachment: no crimes and no connection to
Obama. Nice try, nutters.

User avatar
k9nanny
General
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:11 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by k9nanny »

O Really wrote:
Vrede wrote:I think the medical records seizure, if true, and the spying on AP both suck. I'm fine with the responsible parties being held accountable.

I'm waiting to see how the IRS-TP thing plays out, but the immediate forced resignations are a decisive first step.
I think the immediate forced resignations are a cop-out. As Stinger pointed out, the IRS office made life miserable on a lot more than than the teapartiers, and ultimately did not reject any teapartiers. Any group that has as its main objective to avoid taxes and then applies for taxexempt status seems to deserve scrutiny. Own it. Defend it. Tell the scurvy-dog Republicans to go fuck themselves. It's not like they're ever going to do anything but bash anyway.
I was seriously put off by Obama's (feigned?) indignation.
On to the churches, says I.
Se Non Ora, Quando?

User avatar
Bungalow Bill
Ensign
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:12 pm
Location: Downtown Mills River

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by Bungalow Bill »

It's one Republicans would be very familiar with--that ole national security thing.
Wonder why they aren't picking up on that? Didn't they want to investigate some
leaks last year that were favorable to Obama re terrorism. Oh, never mind.

User avatar
Stinger
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by Stinger »

Vrede wrote:
Bungalow Bill wrote:...The AP thing seems somewhat over the top, but not illegal...
One pundit, paraphrased: "I don't know if it is, no one has cited the legal basis that supports it."
They had subpoenas based on national security issues, specifically that the AP's story on the thwarted bombing put American lives (the inside man) at risk.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by O Really »

So - leaving political witch-hunts out of it for sake of discussion, what would be an appropriate response/action/strategy for the government to take if a journalist is suspected (let's stipulate with good cause) of intentionally leaking classified information that could be detrimental to national security (let's stipulate that it really could). Does "freedom of the press" let him, for example, tell Osama bin Gomez that the Federales have infiltrated his gang? Can he seek, find, and publish information that anyone with a clearance and who is actually authorized to have the information would get fired, possibly imprisoned, for improperly disclosing?

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by neoplacebo »

O Really wrote:So - leaving political witch-hunts out of it for sake of discussion, what would be an appropriate response/action/strategy for the government to take if a journalist is suspected (let's stipulate with good cause) of intentionally leaking classified information that could be detrimental to national security (let's stipulate that it really could). Does "freedom of the press" let him, for example, tell Osama bin Gomez that the Federales have infiltrated his gang? Can he seek, find, and publish information that anyone with a clearance and who is actually authorized to have the information would get fired, possibly imprisoned, for improperly disclosing?
I would say the appropriate action (with your stipulations) would be to investigate the hell out of the journalist. I'm all for free speech and freedom of the press, but I'm against treason. If the invstigation is fruitless, fine. If the investigation turns up bad medicine, well, the espionage statutes enjoy a long standing precedent. I also think the IRS is heavy handed with everyone; not just Teabaggers. Besides, the teabaggers and wingnuts are the ones sending in a flurry of applications for tax exempt status. If I were to send in an application for such status based on me picking up litter from the road in front of my house several hours a day and spending the rest of my time campaigning and advocating for Nobody for Congress in 2014, I would fully expect to undergo scrutiny, but I'm pretty astute with regard to cause and effect scenarios. Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers case from the 70's is an example of why I champion freedom of the press. Even though Daniel went to jail for a while, he was eventually exonerated......he was right, Nixon was wrong.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by O Really »

I thought Elsberg got a mistrial because of government mischief. Did he really go to jail? Anyway, he was right in the the sense he was on the side of the angels, but willfully disclosing classified information you have access to is still a crime and he surely would have been convicted under any other set of circumstances other than Haldeman, Colson, and Moe. But I think you've got a good point. Sometimes the cause is worth the risk, and if the current reporter wants to say "I know it's illegal, so throw me in jail, but it's the right thing to do because the government is lying to you" I've got no problem with that. To say "Obama's mean old henchmen are picking on me because I'm trying to trash them" maybe my sympathy wanes a bit.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by neoplacebo »

O Really wrote:I thought Elsberg got a mistrial because of government mischief. Did he really go to jail? Anyway, he was right in the the sense he was on the side of the angels, but willfully disclosing classified information you have access to is still a crime and he surely would have been convicted under any other set of circumstances other than Haldeman, Colson, and Moe. But I think you've got a good point. Sometimes the cause is worth the risk, and if the current reporter wants to say "I know it's illegal, so throw me in jail, but it's the right thing to do because the government is lying to you" I've got no problem with that. To say "Obama's mean old henchmen are picking on me because I'm trying to trash them" maybe my sympathy wanes a bit.
I thought he did spend some time in jail but am not sure about it. And I agree with you on principle that it's not good to disclose classified information. I would imagine Dan wrestled with it quite a while before doing it. The pattern of lies and deceit surrounding Vietnam was so big I suppose he finally decided to do it. I sort of think if Ellsberg hadn't done it, someone else would have eventually.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21328
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Big Brother is Watching You

Unread post by O Really »

Vrede wrote: I think AP's biggest beef is that they were not informed until after the fact, thus precluding their opportunity to oppose the subpoena in court and let the chips fall where they may. Justice is not served when only the government's position is heard, democracy is not served when people fear talking to the press.
It will be interesting to see what efforts Justice made to get information before issuing the subpoenas, and if they followed their own rules regarding process and approval.

But the records themselves were phone company records, about - but not owned by AP. I suspect that if Justice had asked AP to voluntarily let them review phone records of the people suspected to have been involved in the alleged disclosure, that request would have been met with a hearty "fuckoff!"

Post Reply