Started By
Message
Chris Christie all but done?
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:18 am
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:18 am
Doesn't look like he'll be able to get back into the race.
4
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:20 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
BENGHAZI!!!
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:21 am to The Spleen
quote:
BENGHAZI!!!
I actually posted that on another forum.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:22 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I just wanted to get it out of the way before someone lamented that Obama got away with Benghazi and the media is crucifying Christie.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:25 am to The Spleen
quote:
BENGHAZI
I think IRS is a more close example, but crucify the dude on it. I'm all for it.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:33 am to 3nOut
quote:
I think IRS is a more close example, but crucify the dude on it. I'm all for it.
I personally think that the IRS incident isn't a scandal.
"Reuters) - The FBI is not planning to file criminal charges involving the Internal Revenue Service's extra scrutiny of the Tea Party and other conservative groups, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing law enforcement officials.
The newspaper quoted officials as saying that investigators probing the IRS actions, which unleashed a political furor in Washington, did not uncover the type of political bias or "enemy hunting" that would constitute a criminal violation. The evidence showed a mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand on applications for tax exemptions, the Journal reported."
I think having "party" in the name of your organization is an automatic flag, especially since there are "Tea Party Candidates", so if you are filing for tax exempt status, that seems like a fairly precarious title.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:35 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
I personally think that the IRS incident isn't a scandal.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:40 am to RTR America
It's not.
referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," "Israel," "progressive," "occupy," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;[43]
outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";
had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare;
questioned the integrity of federal elections.
-- All of those deserve scrutiny including "progressive" and "Occupy", as both are fairly deeply involved with politics. I actually don't think if any of those terms are in your title or mission statement that you ought not get tax exemption status. Those are clearly political in nature and deserve extra scrutiny.
referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," "Israel," "progressive," "occupy," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;[43]
outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";
had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare;
questioned the integrity of federal elections.
-- All of those deserve scrutiny including "progressive" and "Occupy", as both are fairly deeply involved with politics. I actually don't think if any of those terms are in your title or mission statement that you ought not get tax exemption status. Those are clearly political in nature and deserve extra scrutiny.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:40 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
I personally think that the IRS incident isn't a scandal.
if they can prove that
quote:was done to both political parties on an equal scale, I agree.
The evidence showed a mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand on applications for tax exemptions
quote:
-- All of those deserve scrutiny including "progressive" and "Occupy", as both are fairly deeply involved with politics. I actually don't think if any of those terms are in your title or mission statement that you ought not get tax exemption status. Those are clearly political in nature and deserve extra scrutiny.
I agree with that statement.
The facts show that the scrutiny was not equal.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/4/14 at 11:44 am
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:50 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Back to Christie, yes I think he is done. I haven't been following it that closely since it first broke as it immediately turned into a media witch hunt. But I do think he lied in his press conference on when he knew, and what exactly he knew. He may not have ordered the lane closures, but he the order came from his office long before he said he found out.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:56 am to 3nOut
quote:
I agree with that statement.
The facts show that the scrutiny was not equal.
I think this is a difficult sell because we don't know how many companies or organizations with the title "Progressive" literally in their name or mission actually applied.
104 vs. 7 could be a direct result of progressive groups knowing not to put that word anywhere near their title which is why so few groups were reported. I think, what happened, is that they put down a list under specific criteria and were flooded by people who really didn't understand what Tax Exemption was for.
Those words were valid, even in the cases of progressive and occupy movements. A strong dislike of government (while simultaneously trying to use it) could have easily influenced some misunderstandings.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:56 am to The Spleen
quote:
Back to Christie, yes I think he is done. I haven't been following it that closely since it first broke as it immediately turned into a media witch hunt. But I do think he lied in his press conference on when he knew, and what exactly he knew. He may not have ordered the lane closures, but he the order came from his office long before he said he found out.
I agree. Whether or not he ordered it, too many people close to him were involved for him to be completely clean.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:58 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
104 vs. 7 could be a direct result of progressive groups knowing not to put that word anywhere near their title which is why so few groups were reported. I think, what happened, is that they put down a list under specific criteria and were flooded by people who really didn't understand what Tax Exemption was for.
Those words were valid, even in the cases of progressive and occupy movements. A strong dislike of government (while simultaneously trying to use it) could have easily influenced some misunderstandings.
even if that were true ( which i doubt, but is possible) it doesn't justify a 100% pass rate to the <50% for the other groups and the smaller questionnaire.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:58 am to The Spleen
quote:
Back to Christie, yes I think he is done. I haven't been following it that closely since it first broke as it immediately turned into a media witch hunt. But I do think he lied in his press conference on when he knew, and what exactly he knew. He may not have ordered the lane closures, but he the order came from his office long before he said he found out.
Generally speaking, the President can get away with a lot more because he's not directly involved with "boots on the ground" personnel. It would be an amazing feat for Christie to have been -completely- ignorant of what was going on with one of the (if not the) most important causeways on the planet. Then, it'd be equally fantastical if his staff did this completely autonomously.
There's really no way those options are available unless Christie is taking something like 340 days of leave every year.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:59 am to 3nOut
This is NJ!!! Not only did he know beforehand but he ordered through his Consigliere. Let's hope he's done.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:04 pm to 3nOut
As for the IRS thing, it's important to keep in mind the events leading up to the added scrutiny. The Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case opened the door for it. The IRS saw a huge increase in 501c4 applications as a result, and hastily threw together guidelines for vetting them out. Obviously those guidelines disproportinately singled out conservative groups, and they actually worked to correct them before the issue was even made public.
Did the IRS screw up? Absolutely. Did Obama have a hand in it? Highly doubtful.
Did the IRS screw up? Absolutely. Did Obama have a hand in it? Highly doubtful.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:06 pm to 3nOut
quote:
even if that were true ( which i doubt, but is possible) it doesn't justify a 100% pass rate to the <50% for the other groups and the smaller questionnaire.
There's just such a small sample group (and I have heard that a few of those organizations are actually from a larger group) that it's impossible to tell anything from it.
I think the IRS is abysmal (and I do mean abysmal) at explaining themselves, but I just don't think that there are so few Conservatives within the IRS that no one thought to raise this option until two or three years later.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:25 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
good, we don't need that fat frick anywhere near the whitehouse
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:27 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
good, we don't need that fat frick anywhere near the whitehouse
You don't want a wiseguy hangin' around? Probably for the best.
On a separate note: Who is going to be the likely Republican Candidate?
I'm going with a Santorum Palin card.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:28 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
I'm going with a Santorum Palin card.
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News