I challenge you to lay off the meme’s. They don’t add to your argument, and only detract from it. It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
Mark Lloyd The second quote is from a book named Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America. The quote in context is basically how the author (Mark Lloyd) believes how through the judicial system corporations have used the 1st Amendment to erode at the Democracy we have. But it’s based on his slanted view that (as quoted above) the 1st Amendment must be limited in the furthering of “appropriateness.” So we’re back to the argument of how do we come to the appropriate balance between individual freedoms and liberties, and social benefit. The problem we see with this current administration, is they appear to be wielding their powers as a cudgel against those who wish to speak out against him, and his warped sense of “speaking out against him” is against the best interests of society. Again, we are seeing shadows of what’s going on, but those shadows don’t bode well.
It is amusing that he actually would have used a phrase similar to this and have it come to fruition. Can anyone say for certainty that those at the top were not told to overlook these practices (look into the Tea Party) in order to protect the 2 party system and was later given the opportunity to widen the spectrum under the new administration? It would not be new for the 2 party system to try and keep control of things. Also, corruption knows no boundaries. So it would not matter who appointed who, as some would suggest. To keep your job you might want to do as you are told. (Lest ye be audited too)
Which would you rather go through: an Internal Revenue audit, or a trip to Guantanamo? If you’re going to fear the government, be reasonable about it. The PATRIOT act and NDAA are far more heinous than anything Internal Revenue has done or can do.
“… the head of the IRS when this started was a Bush appointee…” you seem to be implying that the right hand knew what the left hand was doing. When we get a list of those going to jail- lets ask them who they voted for in the last two elections.I expect them to say ’Heil, Obama".
They weren’t being audited. They were being required to fill out forms and meet requirements that were unreasonable and unrealistic. “Detail every mention of your organization’s reference in the media.” In the internet age, that’s impossible to do. But that’s a requirement here. I don’t disagree that they are likely acting as political committees, but singling out a group for deeper review because of their name (anything with Tea Party, or 9/12 in it), or their mission charter (To enhance awareness and understanding of the US Constitution) smacks of inappropriate targeting and an attempt to bully the opposition into silence. While it may not have been at Obama’s direction, it certainly smacks of Chicago-style politics.
I actually believe it can and does happen. A lot. I’m not saying just liberals are guilty of it, but I am saying the most recent iteration of this behavior is being expertly wielded by the administration and/or their operatives. Night: Obama is not a conservative, no matter how many ways you slice it. The fact that he wishes to expand government, increase handouts, won’t reform gimme programs, and wants to raise taxes to pay for more social programs… that’s a liberal approach to government.
Do you have evidence of this? I wouldn’t go throwing around accusations like that without concrete proof. I’m not defending the guy, but you need to certify your statements.
I read a really interesting article that basically summed it up nicely: Obama doesn’t have to come out and give direct orders. Lemme find the passage…“Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action. "Here’s the link. While it’s the WSJ, a confirmed conservative outlet, the op-ed does bring up an interesting case for Mr. VanderSloot. And it makes sense. So I don’t think he directly ordered them to do it, but I think the IRS got the hint. For your record, here is an example of the requirements the IRS requested of the Tea Party in Richmond: “The letter asks for a list of all events and programs conducted by the Richmond Tea Party during the 14 month period, along with copies of handouts, names and credentials of organizers, and the contents of any speeches or forums delivered.”That’s… exceptional. So… yeah. That’s why I’m taking issue with it. And enjoy your spring up there, eh? Just keep it down to a dull roar. ;)
Chillbilly almost 11 years ago
I don’t think the class of 2013 is going to earn enough money to pay taxes.
cwsprague almost 11 years ago
I KNEW IT!!!! IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!!!!
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
I challenge you to lay off the meme’s. They don’t add to your argument, and only detract from it. It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
Mark Lloyd The second quote is from a book named Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America. The quote in context is basically how the author (Mark Lloyd) believes how through the judicial system corporations have used the 1st Amendment to erode at the Democracy we have. But it’s based on his slanted view that (as quoted above) the 1st Amendment must be limited in the furthering of “appropriateness.” So we’re back to the argument of how do we come to the appropriate balance between individual freedoms and liberties, and social benefit. The problem we see with this current administration, is they appear to be wielding their powers as a cudgel against those who wish to speak out against him, and his warped sense of “speaking out against him” is against the best interests of society. Again, we are seeing shadows of what’s going on, but those shadows don’t bode well.
dpbriley almost 11 years ago
LOL, Google is your friend, if you truly want to confirm what is presented.But I doubt you do, it would force you to confront your slanted POV.
neuturn almost 11 years ago
It is amusing that he actually would have used a phrase similar to this and have it come to fruition. Can anyone say for certainty that those at the top were not told to overlook these practices (look into the Tea Party) in order to protect the 2 party system and was later given the opportunity to widen the spectrum under the new administration? It would not be new for the 2 party system to try and keep control of things. Also, corruption knows no boundaries. So it would not matter who appointed who, as some would suggest. To keep your job you might want to do as you are told. (Lest ye be audited too)
I Play One On TV almost 11 years ago
Which would you rather go through: an Internal Revenue audit, or a trip to Guantanamo? If you’re going to fear the government, be reasonable about it. The PATRIOT act and NDAA are far more heinous than anything Internal Revenue has done or can do.
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member almost 11 years ago
“… the head of the IRS when this started was a Bush appointee…” you seem to be implying that the right hand knew what the left hand was doing. When we get a list of those going to jail- lets ask them who they voted for in the last two elections.I expect them to say ’Heil, Obama".
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
They weren’t being audited. They were being required to fill out forms and meet requirements that were unreasonable and unrealistic. “Detail every mention of your organization’s reference in the media.” In the internet age, that’s impossible to do. But that’s a requirement here. I don’t disagree that they are likely acting as political committees, but singling out a group for deeper review because of their name (anything with Tea Party, or 9/12 in it), or their mission charter (To enhance awareness and understanding of the US Constitution) smacks of inappropriate targeting and an attempt to bully the opposition into silence. While it may not have been at Obama’s direction, it certainly smacks of Chicago-style politics.
trm almost 11 years ago
You’re right. There were the multiple occasions back in the 90’s when Clintoon used IRS audits to harass his political enemies.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
I actually believe it can and does happen. A lot. I’m not saying just liberals are guilty of it, but I am saying the most recent iteration of this behavior is being expertly wielded by the administration and/or their operatives. Night: Obama is not a conservative, no matter how many ways you slice it. The fact that he wishes to expand government, increase handouts, won’t reform gimme programs, and wants to raise taxes to pay for more social programs… that’s a liberal approach to government.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
Do you have evidence of this? I wouldn’t go throwing around accusations like that without concrete proof. I’m not defending the guy, but you need to certify your statements.
Wraithkin almost 11 years ago
I read a really interesting article that basically summed it up nicely: Obama doesn’t have to come out and give direct orders. Lemme find the passage…“Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action. "Here’s the link. While it’s the WSJ, a confirmed conservative outlet, the op-ed does bring up an interesting case for Mr. VanderSloot. And it makes sense. So I don’t think he directly ordered them to do it, but I think the IRS got the hint. For your record, here is an example of the requirements the IRS requested of the Tea Party in Richmond: “The letter asks for a list of all events and programs conducted by the Richmond Tea Party during the 14 month period, along with copies of handouts, names and credentials of organizers, and the contents of any speeches or forums delivered.”That’s… exceptional. So… yeah. That’s why I’m taking issue with it. And enjoy your spring up there, eh? Just keep it down to a dull roar. ;)