StrangeSox

QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 20, 2013 -> 12:36 PM) This guy could s*** on live tv and you would say he is just fertilizing the rose garden. Gimme a break. 1) What have they done that's not 100% legal here? The media's freaking out because they were targeted, but it'd have been nice for them to be so vocal over the past 5-7 years. 2) That what they did is 100% legal sucks and shouldn't be. Not because I'm buying into the media's pity story at this point, but because any actions like this should be reviewed by a judge and not done solely at the discretion of the executive branch. Obama has been s***ty in this area, and his administration has really gone after whistleblowers and leakers. But Congress gave the executive these powers, and they can take them away.

True the Vote has gotten in trouble for years for knowingly spreading false and misleading information to poll watchers.

Sorta odd to see Republicans complaining about invasions of privacy from various government investigative institutions. These laws suck, but it doesn't appear that they've done anything remotely illegal. Congress could change these laws they implemented at any time, but they don't.

Here's an animation of one-half-second of High-Frequency Trading of a single stock (Johnson & Johnson) slowed down to five minutes. Time ran a piece last year about the systemic risks this type of trading is introducing.

5 years? He's got two more books at least, right? We'll be lucky if the story is finished by 2020 or if he doesn't die first.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 20, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) Theres way too much information in the books to put it ALL in the show. Its got to be thought of as an interpretation at this point though I would like a little more continuity. If the books were translated into the show or movies directly we would be looking at like 20 seasons. Plus it's not like the books are perfect.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 18, 2013 -> 10:21 AM) A curve argument refers to the rise and fall of BAC levels. Tracked on a graph, it's sort of a bell curve. The argument is that at the time of operation a person had just finished drinking and had unabsorbed alcohol in their system. Driver is stopped, does the field tests, goes to the station, blows. In all that time, the BAC has risen as the alcohol is absorbed. So if someone blows a .15 in WI they will have an ignition interlock on their car. The defense will argue that BAC was rising so at the time of the stop, he was at a .14. This seems like an easy argument but it isn't. The stop would really have to occur within 30 mins or so (dependent in part on food consumption) of consuming the last drink. Eliminating alcohol takes longer than absorbing. It's far more likely that a person is on the way down rather than rising. Most defendants won't have a good memory of what they drank anyway. This?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 20, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) let's hope they fix that

QUOTE (fathom @ May 17, 2013 -> 12:01 AM) The Office finale was pretty much perfect Agreed. Bringing back Michael but only giving him two lines, including a perfect "that's what she said" was a great way to do it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 19, 2013 -> 10:29 PM) If you can say with a straight face that politics played NO part in the extra scrutiny that conservative groups got, you are simply beyond hope. Short staffed or not (and I call bulls*** on the IRS being short staffed), decisions were made that had political ramifications all the way thru. BEYOND whatever 'one' person did as you keep claiming. Did that same one person cover it up until well after the election? No, there were a lot more people that helped with that. All should be gone. All. I think I misread your original question: QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 17, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) So why can't is scare them into enforcing BOTH sides equally? If it is a cultural thing inside the agency, then fire them all and start over. You have rules, enforce the rules. For everyone. Otherwise you are as bad as NBA refs. I read that as "why don't they do a better job of enforcing these tax-exempt rules in the first place," to which I answered because there was literally one guy doing it and it was seriously understaffed. That doesn't mean that this one guy should be enforcing the rules unevenly.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 18, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) Then she should be fired for gross incompetence. it really doesn't matter, she should not in any way, shape or form be employed by the IRS anymore. And you keep bringing up that it was a 'single individual' that did this, while ignoring the many many individuals, like her, that ignored the wrong doing and/or tried to cover it up. I brought up the under-staffing point when you asked why the rules for tax-exempt organizations aren't better enforced. It wasn't in relation to who is or isn't responsible.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 17, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) Actually I think it was one woman, Sarah hall, who just got PROMOTED to head the Obamacare dept at the IRS instead of being fired. Actually that is wrong. That woman ran the department, but there was a different single individual that reviewed flagged applications through December 2011.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 17, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) So why can't is scare them into enforcing BOTH sides equally? If it is a cultural thing inside the agency, then fire them all and start over. You have rules, enforce the rules. For everyone. Otherwise you are as bad as NBA refs. Because there's literally 1 guy that was ultimately responsible for reviewing files flagged by others. And anyone who gets investigated complains of unfair discrimination.

No they're straight-up underenforced.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 17, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) You have brought up Crossroads and Priorities USA more than once, as if these were the only groups around doing what you claim is wrong under these rules. Do you forget about Media Matters for America and its demon spawn Media Matters Action Network? MMAN is a (4) so they can engage in SOME political activity. MMFA is a (3) and is supposed to stay away completely from political activity. I don't see that happening, so you? In fact, the Form 990 for MMFA says: Part I, Question 1. Briefly describe the organization's mission or most significant activities: MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA IS A WEB-BASED NOT-FOR-PROFIT PROGRESSIVE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTER Part III, Question 1. Briefly describe the organization's mission: DEDICATED TO COMPREHENSIVELY MONITORING, ANALYZING, AND CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION IN THE U.S. MEDIA. Yup. Not political at all. No, I think that's exactly Balta's point, these rules are seriously under-enforced.

Ok, that sounds like a semantic quibble though. The IG report still found that they could sue after 270 days of non-approval and nobody did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) Just so I keep saying this...for a 501©4 group, it's not an application. what?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) 501 c 4 applications: 2010 1735 2011 2265 2012 3357 Looks like they doubled to me. The rule started in March 2010. The IRS would probably go by the federal fiscal year, so FY10 would be October 09-September 10. That would place March half way through the year. What we don't see is 2008's numbers. The IRS may have implemented this rule in 2010 after being crushed by a wave in 2009. I'll note that the chart explicitly says that the information wasn't verified.

It was an ongoing investigation, though.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 17, 2013 -> 03:15 PM) So basically a guy who runs a political organization that has no business getting 501c4 status in the first place. My heart aches. One thing the IG's reported noted is that you're allowed to sue the IRS after 270 days if your application isn't processed, but nobody did.

Yo, good news! It's being looked into! In fact, there was an IG investigation and a DoJ investigation has already been started! FBI too! Wow! Even Congress is getting in on the act!

weak troll, shows minimal effort, little creativity. D+.

HEre's the IG's report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/141606149/Inspec...pt-Applications

As you indicated earlier, the fall-out is probably going to be some people fired or reassigned and even less enforcement of the 501©4 rules. Boo.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) Meh, that's a GOP tactic. No way Obama was behind this. In fact, I think Bush did it. The IRS was run by a Bush appointee at the time! I think you're on to something!