07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 5556575859 ...
tools
  1. msndrstood's Avatar
    Why can't she just tell the truth?
    You obviously have never dealt with an attorney.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri likes this.
    03-12-2014 05:08 PM
  2. A895's Avatar
    Why can't she just tell the truth?
    Do you know how a criminal trial works? You don`t get an attorney, go to trial and then just confess. You let it all play put first, if there is a chance you can get off by not just confessing, you plead the fifth and keep your mouth shut.
    03-12-2014 07:51 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Do you know how a criminal trial works? You don`t get an attorney, go to trial and then just confess. You let it all play put first, if there is a chance you can get off by not just confessing, you plead the fifth and keep your mouth shut.
    Even if (especially if) not guilty, it's a bad idea to give a witch hunting prosecutor anything they can spin. Saying nothing is very often a better move than having your story twisted by cross.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    A895 likes this.
    03-12-2014 07:54 PM
  4. pappy53's Avatar
    Do you know how a criminal trial works? You don`t get an attorney, go to trial and then just confess. You let it all play put first, if there is a chance you can get off by not just confessing, you plead the fifth and keep your mouth shut.
    So you're saying that if she testified, that it would be a confession? Sounds like covering up guilt to me. She is saying "if I speak the truth, then the federal authorities are going to prosecute me because I have done something illegal". If she wasn't hiding something, then she wouldn't have to ask for immunity.
    03-12-2014 09:05 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    So you're saying that if she testified, that it would be a confession? Sounds like covering up guilt to me. She is saying "if I speak the truth, then the federal authorities are going to prosecute me because I have done something illegal". If she wasn't hiding something, then she wouldn't have to ask for immunity.
    If that were the case, we wouldn't have a 5th amendment... We'd just assume guilt and imprison people who declined to testify. Taking the 5th isn't an admission of guilt in any court and she's not on trial. What she is doing is protecting her statements from being used as the basis for or evidence in future criminal proceedings. Its refusing to give ammunition to the government, not hiding behind a shield. There's a huge philosophical distinction between those two approaches and that distinction is the reason we have a Bill of Rights.

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    A895 likes this.
    03-12-2014 09:21 PM
  6. A895's Avatar
    So you're saying that if she testified, that it would be a confession? Sounds like covering up guilt to me. She is saying "if I speak the truth, then the federal authorities are going to prosecute me because I have done something illegal". If she wasn't hiding something, then she wouldn't have to ask for immunity.
    That 5th amendment is so that whatever she says can't be used or twisted against her. If you say something remotely a prosecuter can use against you, you can for sure lose the case. That's why that 5th amendment is there it protects those who are charged from themselves and it protects the charged person from those who would use the accused persons words against them.

    Posted via VZW Moto X or Droid RAZR M on the Android Central App
    03-12-2014 10:16 PM
  7. Timelessblur's Avatar
    So you're saying that if she testified, that it would be a confession? Sounds like covering up guilt to me. She is saying "if I speak the truth, then the federal authorities are going to prosecute me because I have done something illegal". If she wasn't hiding something, then she wouldn't have to ask for immunity.
    As I said you seem to be in full support of NSA wire typing and warrentless searches.
    This is the argument you are using is full support of those above. Guilty until proven innocent.
    03-13-2014 12:10 AM
  8. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    I didn't understand it under Bush and I don't understand it now as to why people agree with government overreach as long as their political party tells them it's acceptable. Me personally, even if not true, I still want every Avenue exhausted until the end. I would honestly be saying the same thing if it was about targeting the Democrats also.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Aquila likes this.
    03-13-2014 01:28 AM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    I didn't understand it under Bush and I don't understand it now as to why people agree with government overreach as long as their political party tells them it's acceptable. Me personally, even if not true, I still want every Avenue exhausted until the end. I would honestly be saying the same thing if it was about targeting the Democrats also.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    A big part of getting to the bottom of things could be accomplished by changing the tone from witch hunt on something that the nation now knows is mostly a made up issue into a fact finding mission for future policy updates. If they said, "look, we don't like how this appears and we want to know what the actual procedures are so we can make everything fall in line with the goals of the program... ", acknowledged that they're aware of no deliberate malice or criminal activity and offered immunity to everyone who helps them identify the gaps to create a set of procedures that mitigate future recurrence and/or replace the policy breakdown with a more robust, transparent and fair set of criteria for evaluation... then of course, who wouldn't want to help get things fixed so that even the hint of scandal is easy to disprove with confidence? As Pappy53 pointed out, several people jumped the gun and apologized for something that barely even happened and didn't happen at all as described. Instead of trying to find a scapegoat, if we instead sought a solution, then the entire conversation changes.

    This really isn't a matter of choosing "sides", at least not for me. I have absolutely no love for democrats or republicans, they're both 100% guilty of the exact same nonsense and nothing that I can think of could entice me to support or defend either one. To me the issue is that we know this is a relatively non-issue that has been politicized needlessly and it's a waste of time to stamp our feet and whine about it, especially since the allegations are simply not true. The disgusting thing here is that we're wasting money, time, energy and public attention on this while not discussing any options for changing the process and at the expense of much more important issues. Unless there is a bombshell that everyone has kept quiet for nearly two years now, there's clearly no reason for anyone to hang for this, especially in light of the fact that, as hinted at in your closing statement: it was a conservative running the program and the only ones actually denied were democrats.

    It's funny, prior to this thread and the one before it talking about the same thing, I was under the impression that both "sides" agreed that almost all of the applications SHOULD have been flagged and should have been DENIED. The fact that only 2 or 3 applications were denied is disheartening. Almost all of them clearly crossed the lines outlined in the application, and the real "scandal" should have been how lenient the IRS was in permitting the exemptions, given that the country is in the middle of a massive revenue shortage and the difference is obviously going to be made up in future tax hikes to you and me. When the amount being requested for exemption in this program when up by 25,000% in 6 years and more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, it's offensive that more red flags were NOT thrown. This is over $350 million in revenue that we just declined to collect for fear of ... who knows what? But a 25,000% increase indicates coordination and it's clear that someone is spreading the knowledge of this loophole and we should be screaming at the administration to close the loophole and collect that $350 million. That covers more than half of our 2013 deficit.
    03-13-2014 01:52 AM
  10. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    A big part of getting to the bottom of things could be accomplished by changing the tone from witch hunt on something that the nation now knows is mostly a made up issue into a fact finding mission for future policy updates. If they said, "look, we don't like how this appears and we want to know what the actual procedures are so we can make everything fall in line with the goals of the program... ", acknowledged that they're aware of no deliberate malice or criminal activity and offered immunity to everyone who helps them identify the gaps to create a set of procedures that mitigate future recurrence and/or replace the policy breakdown with a more robust, transparent and fair set of criteria for evaluation... then of course, who wouldn't want to help get things fixed so that even the hint of scandal is easy to disprove with confidence? As Pappy53 pointed out, several people jumped the gun and apologized for something that barely even happened and didn't happen at all as described. Instead of trying to find a scapegoat, if we instead sought a solution, then the entire conversation changes.

    This really isn't a matter of choosing "sides", at least not for me. I have absolutely no love for democrats or republicans, they're both 100% guilty of the exact same nonsense and nothing that I can think of could entice me to support or defend either one. To me the issue is that we know this is a relatively non-issue that has been politicized needlessly and it's a waste of time to stamp our feet and whine about it, especially since the allegations are simply not true. The disgusting thing here is that we're wasting money, time, energy and public attention on this while not discussing any options for changing the process and at the expense of much more important issues. Unless there is a bombshell that everyone has kept quiet for nearly two years now, there's clearly no reason for anyone to hang for this, especially in light of the fact that, as hinted at in your closing statement: it was a conservative running the program and the only ones actually denied were democrats.

    It's funny, prior to this thread and the one before it talking about the same thing, I was under the impression that both "sides" agreed that almost all of the applications SHOULD have been flagged and should have been DENIED. The fact that only 2 or 3 applications were denied is disheartening. Almost all of them clearly crossed the lines outlined in the application, and the real "scandal" should have been how lenient the IRS was in permitting the exemptions, given that the country is in the middle of a massive revenue shortage and the difference is obviously going to be made up in future tax hikes to you and me. When the amount being requested for exemption in this program when up by 25,000% in 6 years and more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, it's offensive that more red flags were NOT thrown. This is over $350 million in revenue that we just declined to collect for fear of ... who knows what? But a 25,000% increase indicates coordination and it's clear that someone is spreading the knowledge of this loophole and we should be screaming at the administration to close the loophole and collect that $350 million. That covers more than half of our 2013 deficit.
    One thing that irritates the living hell out of me is the media. Most of the media gives Democrats a pass at everything like fox gave a pass to Bush. Their job is to keep all sides in check. This is getting ridiculous.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    03-13-2014 02:38 AM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    One thing that irritates the living hell out of me is the media. Most of the media gives Democrats a pass at everything like fox gave a pass to Bush. Their job is to keep all sides in check. This is getting ridiculous.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Agree 100%, but I think they give both sides a pass on just about everything that won't push ratings. Our primary media sources are all dependent on money via contracts (through their parent companies) and on access to officials, so they function as a mouthpiece for government rather than a watchdog guarding against. That's why everything is, "this scandal or that scandal", rather than any meaningful education about the issues, players and what citizens can do to help steer the ship. The problem becomes doubly troubling when media tries to maintain the illusion of objectivity by granting false equivalency to competing ideas, or worse yet... to two restatements of the same idea with slightly different spin for polarity. By playing thesis and antithesis where the results and any synthesis all share the same objective, we rarely get to peek at the underlying issues, root causes and are never presented with any solutions that do benefit the establishment status quo for which the media functions as a propaganda engine, distraction mechanism and commercial sales force - "all-in-one solution".
    03-13-2014 02:50 AM
  12. GadgetGator's Avatar
    How did you deduce that from what I said? I think that you are just wanting to argue now, as you're not making any sense.
    He's making perfect sense actually. You seem to think people are guilty until proven innocent and want to toss constitutional protections I guess. If the New Jersey bridgegate people can take the 5th, then so can this lady. It is a right afforded her.

    Didn't the IRS, and Obama apologize for the targeting of conservatives? Yes, they did, so how can it be said that it wasn't targeted?
    How can they be targeting conservatives when the real scandal is that the IRS gives TOO MANY tax except statuses as I have made mention to you numerous times and which you keep blissfully ignoring. What part of EXCLUSIVELY vs. the unlawful change to PRIMARILY are you not understanding here? I and others have made numerous mentions of this issue. It shouldn't be a question at this point where the real scandal is.

    So you're saying that if she testified, that it would be a confession? Sounds like covering up guilt to me. She is saying "if I speak the truth, then the federal authorities are going to prosecute me because I have done something illegal". If she wasn't hiding something, then she wouldn't have to ask for immunity.
    Exactly what do you think she or the IRS has done? Again, conservatives were not targeted. The IRS by law, is supposed to be rejecting both conservative and liberal or anyone else for that matter that does not meet the EXCLUSIVE social welfare clause. Therefore it wasn't that they were targeting conservatives too much, it is a case of they are targeting everyone (conservatives and liberals alike) TOO LITTLE. So knowing that...what do you think she has done?

    One thing that irritates the living hell out of me is the media. Most of the media gives Democrats a pass at everything like fox gave a pass to Bush. Their job is to keep all sides in check. This is getting ridiculous.
    I don't see that at all. I see a media that criticizes Obama (rightfully so) for targeting their sources or for the NSA leaks, and who routinely state how bad Obama's polling numbers are at any given moment. For the Republican party's part, the media makes them look like an equal reasonable party/choice at times as if saying.......

    • crazy things about women's bodies
    • denying people access to abortion even though this issue was decided at the SCOTUS long ago already
    • cutting voting hours and voting roles so their party can win elections
    • requiring rape insurance in Michigan
    • and discriminating against gay people in general

    .....was just another valid choice to make in life. They treat the two parties as two equally matched football teams, when they simply just aren't.

    Do you want to give some examples where the media has given a pass to Dems? Cause I just don't see it.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    03-13-2014 04:24 AM
  13. pappy53's Avatar
    Do you want to give some examples where the media has given a pass to Dems? Cause I just don't see it.
    How about Benghazi coverage? Fast and Furious coverage? Just this week, the Florida election? A CBS investigative reporter even left this week, citing liberal bias.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ws-184836.html
    03-13-2014 05:50 AM
  14. Serial Fordicator's Avatar

    I don't see that at all. I see a media that criticizes Obama (rightfully so) for targeting their sources or for the NSA leaks, and who routinely state how bad Obama's polling numbers are at any given moment. For the Republican party's part, the media makes them look like an equal reasonable party/choice at times as if saying.......

    • crazy things about women's bodies
    • denying people access to abortion even though this issue was decided at the SCOTUS long ago already
    • cutting voting hours and voting roles so their party can win elections
    • requiring rape insurance in Michigan
    • and discriminating against gay people in general

    .....was just another valid choice to make in life. They treat the two parties as two equally matched football teams, when they simply just aren't.

    Do you want to give some examples where the media has given a pass to Dems? Cause I just don't see it.
    Are you serious? Nbc refused the data their own polls showing obama's approval rating was falling.

    Nbc, cnn, msnbc praising Obamacare and not mentioning the problems.

    Bengazi

    Fast and the furious

    Blasting Bush for bailouts but praising obama for it. Fox praised Bush and blasts obama for it now.

    These are a few but im at work and busy


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    03-13-2014 05:55 AM
  15. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    First off, any whiff of politics at the agency is unacceptable.

    Here's my take on the whole tax exempt status of any organization, get rid of it. It's constantly abused. So tomorrow I start the church of abortion, have a few people stop over on Sunday and suddenly with a quick 527 filing, I am legally tax exempt? How many time have we seen reporters running after the head of a tax exempt charity, which is just a front for a get rich quick scheme?

    Secondly, tax exempt organizations earnings are supposed to be used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. They may participate in political activities but their primary purpose must not be campaigning.

    The whole tax exempt law is a joke, get rid of it.
    Agree...tax exempt is a joke.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    palandri likes this.
    03-13-2014 08:39 AM
  16. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    All any of this is is talking points from both sides. The only thing I know is when people plead the 5th, they're hiding something

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    03-13-2014 08:45 AM
  17. A895's Avatar
    All any of this is is talking points from both sides. The only thing I know is when people plead the 5th, they're hiding something

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    When people plead the 5th they are exercising their rights. You do understand that right?

    Posted via Android Central App
    GadgetGator and nolittdroid like this.
    03-13-2014 01:53 PM
  18. pappy53's Avatar
    When people plead the 5th they are exercising their rights.
    We have the right to the truth. You do understand that right? Especially when we pay their salary.
    03-13-2014 02:01 PM
  19. GadgetGator's Avatar
    How about Benghazi coverage? Fast and Furious coverage? Just this week, the Florida election? A CBS investigative reporter even left this week, citing liberal bias.

    Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS News - POLITICO.com
    Benghazi? CNN has covered this up and down, finding things that no one else did there. Yet they are accused by those on the right as being "liberal". Fast & Furious? That's old news...why do people on the right still obsess over it? Of course no one is talking about it now. But they did at the time. Florida election? Not even sure what you are talking about here. Yes, there was an election in Florida. It got covered. Including the part where the GOP tried to throw their candidate under the bus just in case he lost.

    Are you serious? Nbc refused the data their own polls showing obama's approval rating was falling.

    Nbc, cnn, msnbc praising Obamacare and not mentioning the problems.

    Bengazi

    Fast and the furious

    Blasting Bush for bailouts but praising obama for it. Fox praised Bush and blasts obama for it now.
    Praising Obamacare and not mentioning the problems? Such as? MSNBC and CNN covered the "If you like your doctor you can keep them" EXTENSIVELY. They do not sugarcoat it. MSNBC takes it a step farther and points out how all the ads against it don't quite add up mathematically (in other words they are lies). Is Fox doing that? No. Bengazi and F&F already covered above. Bailouts....I don't remember anyone blasting Bush for bailouts. Blasting him for standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner when in fact the mission was not accomplished, yes. But I don't remember any of the news stations I watch upset with a bailout. I've seen the criticism of the President covered though. And I've seen people discuss what would have happened if things had NOT been bailed out. I think that is a very balanced approach.

    We have the right to the truth. You do understand that right? Especially when we pay their salary.
    You right to the truth doesn't trump Constitutional rights, do you understand that? When someone clams up, other investigative tools have to be employed, same as they are in ANY legal case.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    03-13-2014 02:55 PM
  20. palandri's Avatar
    We have the right to the truth. You do understand that right? Especially when we pay their salary.
    Well what do you propose doing?
    03-13-2014 03:57 PM
  21. A895's Avatar
    We have the right to the truth. You do understand that right? Especially when we pay their salary.
    Right to the truth not explicitly stated in Constitution. Right to plead the 5th is.

    Posted via Android Central App
    03-13-2014 08:00 PM
  22. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Benghazi? CNN has covered this up and down, finding things that no one else did there. Yet they are accused by those on the right as being "liberal". Fast & Furious? That's old news...why do people on the right still obsess over it? Of course no one is talking about it now. But they did at the time. Florida election? Not even sure what you are talking about here. Yes, there was an election in Florida. It got covered. Including the part where the GOP tried to throw their candidate under the bus just in case he lost.



    Praising Obamacare and not mentioning the problems? Such as? MSNBC and CNN covered the "If you like your doctor you can keep them" EXTENSIVELY. They do not sugarcoat it. MSNBC takes it a step farther and points out how all the ads against it don't quite add up mathematically (in other words they are lies). Is Fox doing that? No. Bengazi and F&F already covered above. Bailouts....I don't remember anyone blasting Bush for bailouts. Blasting him for standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner when in fact the mission was not accomplished, yes. But I don't remember any of the news stations I watch upset with a bailout. I've seen the criticism of the President covered though. And I've seen people discuss what would have happened if things had NOT been bailed out. I think that is a very balanced approach.



    You right to the truth doesn't trump Constitutional rights, do you understand that? When someone clams up, other investigative tools have to be employed, same as they are in ANY legal case.
    I'm done. I can't take it anymore

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    03-13-2014 10:16 PM
  23. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I'm done. I can't take it anymore
    I never cease to be amazed by some people's reactions when confronted by anything outside of their talking points. Still would like to know what the whole Florida election comment was about. Hard to respond to something that is that vague. But oh well...
    03-14-2014 03:23 AM
  24. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    I never cease to be amazed by some people's reactions when confronted by anything outside of their talking points. Still would like to know what the whole Florida election comment was about. Hard to respond to something that is that vague. But oh well...
    Talking Points? Excuse me for not getting my news from one outlet, especially msnbc or cnn. Think outside of what they tell you and get information from different sources. By sources I mean more than one or two.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    03-14-2014 03:34 AM
  25. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Talking Points? Excuse me for not getting my news from one outlet, especially msnbc or cnn. Think outside of what they tell you and get information from different sources. By sources I mean more than one or two.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I do get my sources from more then one or two. And when things that aren't scandals are blown into one, when incompetence in some cases is made to be some secret plan, or when things just aren't true and yet are turned into "scandals" as well, those are't facts...those are talking points. And certainly nothing you get when visiting a variety of news sources.

    Although I am still waiting to see what I am missing on the Florida election. Is there a scandal there too? Inquiring minds (namely mine) want to know.
    03-15-2014 03:42 PM
1,900 ... 5556575859 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD