IRS Scandal

[Vyxn]

Just no. You need evidence. Here's a scenario. Someone was found shot in the head in his house. The victim has a neighbor with a gun. Should we assume he's the killer? No. First you question witnesses. If the neighbor's story doesn't follow everyone else's, if there were anyone else, then you have suspicion and grounds for further investigation. But first you investigate the crime scene and the body. You then work from there. If the evidence points to the neighbor, such as same caliber weapon, then you can further investigate him. If it points to someone else, you keep him as a possible suspect, but that is all he is. You can't say "he did it until they prove he didn't!" That is what happens before you go to court. You keep bringing up means, motive and opportunity being used in court but that's not how it is used in an investigation.





Opinion columnist should be shot in the face. Just like how O'Reilly is an opinion piece on Fox News, opinion columnist are just talking heads spewing misinformation as facts.

yes you use evidence to prove means and opportunity. im not disputing that, but you use them to steer you in an investigation why would you investigate some one who doesn't have the means or the opportunity?

[Cthulhu 2020]

and in the same wiki page we have this

"Charles Johnson, the blogger behind Little Green Footballs, teamed up with Roger L. Simon to create PJ Media after his contribution to the Killian documents controversy investigation helped lead to the retraction of a 60 Minutes story critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard from 1972 to 1973 and Dan Rather's resignation from CBS News. Johnson and Simon set out to replace the mainstream media with a network of citizen-journalists.[3]"

so right there imo it gives some legitimacy to PJmedai. Are they 100% reliable im not sure yet don't know enough about them for me to come to that conclusion but the are reliable enough for me to give enough consideration to the Hillary Singer missal claim. now it is a wait and see situation

They're legitimate because they called someone else out on shoddy reporting? I'm not really sure how that makes sense but ok.

By that token everyone else in this thread that has pointed out your egregious mistakes and misrepresentation of information should become professional journalists.

[Vyxn]

What Americans define as "liberal" is decidedly right wing by the standards of the developed word. That aside, what you are citing is a perception of bias and is also not evidence that the bias is actually liberal - far more likely the reason more and more Americans think the media shows liberal bias is because the campaign to slander mainstream media as having a liberal bias is succeeding.

it is all about perception. you can show all the proof you want that your product is the best but if the public thinks otherwise it doesn't matter what proof you have your product wont sell

[PinkTheUnicorn]

"do not have confidence in the mass media
a perception of media bias
Prevalence of the perception
a perception of bias
perception of bias
perception of bias.
Those who view
every year since 2002 more Americans think the media show

What does the popular opinion of media show? People are, by and large, idiots.

[Elegiac]

it is all about perception. you can show all the proof you want that your product is the best but if the public thinks otherwise it doesn't matter what proof you have your product wont sell

And again, perception is not a reliable qualifier for the reasons I stated.

The fact is that the US has a corporate media, and news is tailored for profitability. If you want relatively fair and unbiased news, take a leaf from Europe's book and expand the role of public media.

[Templar 331]

yes you use evidence to prove means and opportunity. im not disputing that, but you use them to steer you in an investigation why would you investigate some one who doesn't have the means or the opportunity?

Glad we're on the same page then. When you kept using means and opportunity it just sounded like you dismissed evidence. In my mind, I don't know about anyone else here, means and opportunity does not equal evidence. Evidence points to means and opportunity.

[Cthulhu 2020]

yes you use evidence to prove means and opportunity. im not disputing that, but you use them to steer you in an investigation why would you investigate some one who doesn't have the means or the opportunity?

None of the evidence has pointed to Obama, so if the only thing present is motive means and opportunity (which A LOT of people in this case have) why is he your primary suspect?

It's probably because conservatives realize that lots of red seats in the house are a toss up in 2014. That's why there's fabricated outrage as well speculation of guilt that goes against just about every principle our American justice system was founded on.

Motive = being liberal
means/opportunity = being in the IRS/in the chain of command above these decisions

I hope you realize just how fucking huge that suspect pool is.

---------- Post added 2013-05-25 at 01:12 PM ----------

it is all about perception. you can show all the proof you want that your product is the best but if the public thinks otherwise it doesn't matter what proof you have your product wont sell

I'm not really sure what that has anything to do with the media being right or left wing, but ok.

Also, it's a good thing that justice isn't something that can be bought and sold, eh?

edit: Fuck it, I take that last part back.

[Vyxn]

it is all about perception. you can show all the proof you want that your product is the best but if the public thinks otherwise it doesn't matter what proof you have your product wont sell

you gain creditability for being right. have they been right enough on other things for them to be fully creditable. I don't know but i will give the Hillary story consideration because they haven't been proven to be unreliable and them exposing Dan Rather gives then some creditability to give it some consideration and like i said it is a wait in see situation at the moment

---------- Post added 2013-05-25 at 01:23 PM ----------

None of the evidence has pointed to Obama, so if the only thing present is motive means and opportunity (which A LOT of people in this case have) why is he your primary suspect?

It's probably because conservatives realize that lots of red seats in the house are a toss up in 2014. That's why there's fabricated outrage as well speculation of guilt that goes against just about every principle our American justice system was founded on.

Motive = being liberal
means/opportunity = being in the IRS/in the chain of command above these decisions

I hope you realize just how fucking huge that suspect pool is.

---------- Post added 2013-05-25 at 01:12 PM ----------



I'm not really sure what that has anything to do with the media being right or left wing, but ok.

Also, it's a good thing that justice isn't something that can be bought and sold, eh?

edit: Fuck it, I take that last part back.

he isn't my prime suspect never claimed he was. but im not dismissing him as a possible one. like you want to do
this is what the argument is, it is about you refusing to conceder the possibility that he could be involved and i want to know why there is no possibility he can be involved

[Cthulhu 2020]

I kind of find it hard to believe that he isn't your prime suspect, given that you've even said that we need to prove that it wasn't him.

I've already said many times that he may have been involved, but what people want first is evidence, of which there is none, and when asked to back up your speculative accusations, you just back it up with other people saying they think he's guilty too.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I kind of find it hard to believe that he isn't your prime suspect, given that you've even said that we need to prove that it wasn't him.

I've already said many times that he may have been involved, but what people want first is evidence, of which there is none, and when asked to back up your speculative accusations, you just back it up with other people saying they think he's guilty too.

Well we need more than people thinking he did it excluding the fact we have little reason to believe that. Now from his POV it seems to be because "liberal"

[Endus]

he isn't my prime suspect never claimed he was. but im not dismissing him as a possible one. like you want to do
this is what the argument is, it is about you refusing to conceder the possibility that he could be involved and i want to know why there is no possibility he can be involved

Presumption of innocence.

Until there's evidence to suggest otherwise, I don't entertain notions that anyone is guilty of anything. There's no "possibility" to consider, because there's no evidence that would suggest such a possibility.

That's not dismissing him as a possible guilty party. It's saying I'm not going to entertain that possibility unless there's a reason to do so. And you don't have any reasons, other than self-identifying as "conservative" and deciding this means Obama is "The Enemy". It's a malicious and partisan assault, and you know it.

[Vyxn]

I kind of find it hard to believe that he isn't your prime suspect, given that you've even said that we need to prove that it wasn't him.

I've already said many times that he may have been involved, but what people want first is evidence, of which there is none, and when asked to back up your speculative accusations, you just back it up with other people saying they think he's guilty too.

so then im not wrong to speculate on him being involved because the possibility of his involvement and now evidence will be gathered to either prove my speculation right or wrong

speculating is not accusing him of being involved. it is pondering the possibility of his involvement. now you can argue the moral implication of the speculation and you have a good point doing so, but that alone doesn't prove my speculation wrong evidence will

[Aeluron Lightsong]

so then im not wrong to speculate on him being involved because the possibility of his involvement and now evidence will be gathered to either prove my speculation right or wrong

speculating is not accusing him of being involved. it is pondering the possibility of his involvement

And there is reasoning behind speculating. Behind that you hate Obama so much you think he was behind this.

[Cthulhu 2020]

so then im not wrong to speculate on him being involved because the possibility of his involvement and now evidence will be gathered to either prove my speculation right or wrong

speculating is not accusing him of being involved. it is pondering the possibility of his involvement. now you can argue the moral implication of the speculation and you have a good point doing so, but that alone doesn't prove my speculation wrong evidence will

You can speculate all you want.

You were going beyond speculation.

When you were discussing reasons for why he would be guilty, your reasons were met with rebuttals backed with proof. When you didn't like those rebuttals you threw a hissy fit because you had no counter to the rebuttals.

[Vyxn]

Presumption of innocence.

Until there's evidence to suggest otherwise, I don't entertain notions that anyone is guilty of anything. There's no "possibility" to consider, because there's no evidence that would suggest such a possibility.

That's not dismissing him as a possible guilty party. It's saying I'm not going to entertain that possibility unless there's a reason to do so. And you don't have any reasons, other than self-identifying as "conservative" and deciding this means Obama is "The Enemy". It's a malicious and partisan assault, and you know it.

am I morally wrong to speculate in his involvement yes it can be concedered that i will concede to that and if you want to call the moral police on me feel free to do so, but it being morally wronging and that alone doesnt prove by speculation wrong evidence will

[Aeluron Lightsong]

am I morally wrong to speculate in his involvement yes it can be concedered that i will concede to that and if you want to call the moral police on me feel free to do so, but it being morally wronging and that alone doesnt prove by speculation wrong evidence will

You're wrong to speculate without any reason to do so other then following a conserative agenda/mindset that Obama is the enemy.

[Endus]

am I morally wrong to speculate in his involvement yes it can be concedered that i will concede to that and if you want to call the moral police on me feel free to do so, but it being morally wronging and that alone doesnt prove by speculation wrong evidence will

So you admit that you're being unethical (I wouldn't go so far as to say immoral), but that doesn't mean you're going to stop.

Seriously, dude. You may want to get some perspective, or something.

[Vyxn]

You can speculate all you want.

You were going beyond speculation.

When you were discussing reasons for why he would be guilty, your reasons were met with rebuttals backed with proof. When you didn't like those rebuttals you threw a hissy fit because you had no counter to the rebuttals.

what proof was given? i must have missed it. all i got was opinion why it wasn't possible of his involvement no evidence has been provided to prove his none involvement there for my speculation stands as a speculation till evidence is provided to either prove it right or wrong

[MoanaLisa]

Even after the IG report was released, the problem is that if the White House is not involved at all, this isn't a scandal. It's little more than a mid-level bureaucratic fuckup at the IRS that requires some disciplinary action. Thus the determined effort to continue to muddy up the waters about it.

I'll return to my original point from a few pages ago: The original insinuation was that the President was somehow involved in all of this and perhaps even directed it to happen. So the original version of the scandal is framed as possible WH interference with the IRS in targeting conservative groups applying for 501c4 status. A notion that some have signed onto here when trotting out the mantra of 'motive, means and opportunity' or trying to bring up the possibility of a future impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate.

Then the IG report makes an appearance, no WH involvement is mentioned, the WH denies any involvement at all and there's exactly zero evidence to suggest that they or anyone else outside the IRS were involved. So, an internal IRS problem. Well, we can't have that so Eric Cantor goes on TV (CNBC) to say this

CANTOR: Well I can speak to my frustrations about the administration’s action or lack of action. If you’ve got an ongoing IG investigation or audit and there comes to you information about this type of behavior where you are discriminating against political opponents. I do not accept the fact that the White House says well we couldn’t interfere with that audit or that investigation. That’s not true. They know that kind of activity was going on. That is clearly a point at which they should have gone in and said don’t do that anymore.

and thereby attempts to shift the goalposts from the narrative that the WH was somehow interfering with the IRS to precisely the opposite: The WH should have been interfering with this.

Why? Like I said. If you can't somehow involve the White House in any part of this--which so far no one has--there's no scandal.

Clearly the White House steered clear of all of this so as not to interfere which--let's be honest about it--if they had, Vyxn and the rest would be attempting to shout every one down about improper interference in an independent investigation instead. For fuck's sake, Darrell Issa knew about the IG investigation last year and didn't bring it up, preferring to let the investigation conclude without interference. So apparently he agrees more with the WH than Cantor.

So: means, motive, opportunity means nothing at all without evidence to support it. So far there's really none and those still pretending that the real issue is deep, dark secrets about the WH directing the IRS to target conservatives need to catch up. The story has moved on; the goalposts have been moved. If you're talking about impeachment or motive and opportunity, you need to catch up.

---------- Post added 2013-05-25 at 11:19 AM ----------

what proof was given? i must have missed it. all i got was opinion why it wasn't possible of his involvement no evidence has been provided to prove his none involvement there for my speculation stands as a speculation till evidence is provided to either prove it right or wrong

You can't seriously expect anyone to take seriously an argument where someone has to prove a negative.

[Wells]

means motive and opportunity the three key blocks in any investigation

You missed evidence.

---------- Post added 2013-05-25 at 06:23 PM ----------

Vyxn by your own definition speculation requires incomplete evidence.

I'm still waiting for what evidence you have.

Means and motive and opportunity aren't evidence. Shit you have motive. Is that evidence you did it?