Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Bridge"gate"


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bridge"gate" Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/16/2014 2:48:07 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

A tale of two scandals...

A pretty good article here. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368598/tale-two-scandals-john-fund/page/0/1

Despite a lack of direct tie to Christie, (liberal) media coverage 43x greater on the bridge incident vs the IRS
the fallout to Christie has been relatively minor.

a 10 pt change in preference between Clinton and Christie two years out is about as meaningless as they come.


IRS faux scandal:
No one was injured
No laws were broken (arguably the IRS interpretation of the law allowing these groups to vlaim 501(c)4 status is wrong)
A few organizations were inconvenienced and had to fill out some more paperwork
Despite monumental efforts, and not a few lies being spread, nothing has connected this to anyone outside the IRs professional staff

Closure of the entry lanes to the GWB:
People were injured
Laws were broken
Tens of thousands of people were inconvenienced and the economic impact was in the millions
Direct uncontested evidence connects this scandal and cover up to senior appointees in the Christie administration as well as appointees at the Port authority and Christies campaign staff.

So no matter how much whining the right wing hate media does the IRS faux scandal is nothing and the GWB bridge scandal and cover up is a real thing that will not just go away by wishing.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/16/2014 2:53:43 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		Sadly, it doesn't even need to go away when the neocon media conspiracy have got their sheeple bitching about the other like it was something that actually mattered.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/16/2014 7:58:52 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Not surprisingly I view it differently than you.

Laws were broken. Releasing private tax information to your political rivals is *illegal*.
If no laws were broken, lerner wouldn't have had to plead the fifth, now would she?

More importantly you had the fascist Obama administration directly interfering with the electoral process.
And yes. I know you libs will slobber about me using the word 'fascist'. Bring it on.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/17/2014 3:02:32 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Not surprisingly I view it differently than you.

Laws were broken. Releasing private tax information to your political rivals is *illegal*.
If no laws were broken, lerner wouldn't have had to plead the fifth, now would she?

No. If laws had been broken then you could name the law. The fact is she took the fifth because she was in front of a House committee whose chair had already said he intended to get someone prosecuted. Her lawyer very rightly kept her from testifying without a grant of immunity.

quote:

More importantly you had the fascist Obama administration directly interfering with the electoral process.
And yes. I know you libs will slobber about me using the word 'fascist'. Bring it on.

You have no idea what fascism was and the idea that you think you can defend that claim is both hilarious and disgusting.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/17/2014 5:30:50 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Not surprisingly I view it differently than you.

Laws were broken. Releasing private tax information to your political rivals is *illegal*.
If no laws were broken, lerner wouldn't have had to plead the fifth, now would she?

More importantly you had the fascist Obama administration directly interfering with the electoral process.
And yes. I know you libs will slobber about me using the word 'fascist'. Bring it on.


I would guess that Lerner as a Bush appointee would take the 5th, perhaps if the nutsackers were not so intent on keeping their cronies in the gears of government to destroy it, and allowed the president the ability to appoint his own administration. . .

It is unclear how the Obama administration has interfered with the election process, a inept and unsustainable charge leveled by the facist regime of the nutsackers, but unproven and ignorant of fact.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/17/2014 9:11:00 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		Good summary.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/17/2014 10:42:26 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Snicker: Of course I can "name the law".
How about
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter B › § 6103
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

There were more than 30 violations under this law alone.

Try again.



quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Not surprisingly I view it differently than you.

Laws were broken. Releasing private tax information to your political rivals is *illegal*.
If no laws were broken, lerner wouldn't have had to plead the fifth, now would she?

No. If laws had been broken then you could name the law. The fact is she took the fifth because she was in front of a House committee whose chair had already said he intended to get someone prosecuted. Her lawyer very rightly kept her from testifying without a grant of immunity.

quote:

More importantly you had the fascist Obama administration directly interfering with the electoral process.
And yes. I know you libs will slobber about me using the word 'fascist'. Bring it on.

You have no idea what fascism was and the idea that you think you can defend that claim is both hilarious and disgusting.



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/17/2014 11:11:24 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		*snicker* there is nothing in that statute that provides civil or criminal liability.
*snicker* there are a whole bunch of exceptions in there who can obtain and use returns (for fundamentally 'no' reason.
*snicker*  And the thirty lawsuits have been settled?  The violations are in fact, in a court case?

*snicker*
*snicker*
*snicker*

I also see you revised your age downward making you 9 years old when you were drafted.

You are a prodigy. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/17/2014 3:15:13 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Snicker: Of course I can "name the law".
How about
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter B › § 6103
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

There were more than 30 violations under this law alone.

Try again.

Just making shit up. No returns were disclosed.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/17/2014 7:26:59 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		You really ought to get out more.

USA today a good enough source, quoting pro-publica?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/15/irs-commits-political-sabotage-column/2163089/

This one source quotes 10. Look around, you'll find others.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Snicker: Of course I can "name the law".
How about
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter B › § 6103
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

There were more than 30 violations under this law alone.

Try again.

Just making shit up. No returns were disclosed.



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/17/2014 9:06:00 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You really ought to get out more.

USA today a good enough source, quoting pro-publica?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/15/irs-commits-political-sabotage-column/2163089/

This one source quotes 10. Look around, you'll find others.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Snicker: Of course I can "name the law".
How about
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter B › § 6103
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

There were more than 30 violations under this law alone.

Try again.

Just making shit up. No returns were disclosed.




You must really think I don't actually read the links you post to support your lies.

In short the columnist lied and either you knew that or you fell for it. If you follow the links the document the columnist claimed was leaked is this one:
http://arc-sos.state.al.us/PEL/SOSELPDF.001/E0090860.PDF

Note that this is an Alabama Fair Campaign Practices Act disclosure filed with the Alabama state government and freely available on a part of the Alabama Secretary of state website.


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 6:12:51 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		LOLOLOLOL O FUCKIN L.  So, Romney outs himself in his election filing (didnt he give out on his own some little bit of his taxes history while running for Prez and then claim that nobody was interested and that they meant something else?  (one of the things besides being a fucking scum that cost him the election?))  Thats your first link, and then your second link showing that the group opposed put it in a spreadsheet.

I believe it was splashed across the media at the time. Now, with some hallucinogenic fervor, it is being recast and rewritten as an Obama and the IRS collusion and violation.   Fucking transparently moronic that is.  Reason why nutsackers cannot run this country, just having them around is devastation enough.

This does not involve the IRS in anything, nor were there 10 or 30 cases of it in the articles that are citeable or credible or meaningful.

So, more asswipe and foolishness.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 7:28:13 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Not at all the bit that was interesting.

As I said, it is easy enough to find sources. IRS RELEASED TAX INFO ILLEGALLY turns up a few hundred hits.

http://watchdog.org/100366/nonprofit-sues-irs-for-releasing-tax-exempt-application/

For example:http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info-on-conservatives-to-liberal-nonprofit-propublica/

http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs



As for the rest of your absolute drivel:

More than 2 dozen organizaitions sue; note that illegal activity is the basis of the suit:
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/29/18590104-tea-party-groups-sue-irs-obama-administration?lite


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You really ought to get out more.

USA today a good enough source, quoting pro-publica?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/15/irs-commits-political-sabotage-column/2163089/

This one source quotes 10. Look around, you'll find others.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Snicker: Of course I can "name the law".
How about
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter B › § 6103
26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

There were more than 30 violations under this law alone.

Try again.

Just making shit up. No returns were disclosed.




You must really think I don't actually read the links you post to support your lies.

In short the columnist lied and either you knew that or you fell for it. If you follow the links the document the columnist claimed was leaked is this one:
http://arc-sos.state.al.us/PEL/SOSELPDF.001/E0090860.PDF

Note that this is an Alabama Fair Campaign Practices Act disclosure filed with the Alabama state government and freely available on a part of the Alabama Secretary of state website.




(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 7:32:09 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

*snicker*  And the thirty lawsuits have been settled?  The violations are in fact, in a court case?

I also see you revised your age downward making you 9 years old when you were drafted.

You are a prodigy. 


Yes, actually, the violation are, in fact, in a court case.
As for the rest of the allegations that I am luckydawg sock: it makes me wonder what he did to provoke you to delusions so strongly.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/18/2014 7:33:05 AM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 7:42:45 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		exactly, your first two references are circular, by nutsackers, CONTENDING that release of application for tax exempt status is illegal, and there is no law that I see that finds that illegal, and it is not a tax return.  So, nothing of interest there.

The third link contends that time to investigate whether tax exempt status is illegal which is pretty nutsackerish, and doubtfully a winnable case. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 9:27:30 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Not at all the bit that was interesting.

As I said, it is easy enough to find sources. IRS RELEASED TAX INFO ILLEGALLY turns up a few hundred hits.

http://watchdog.org/100366/nonprofit-sues-irs-for-releasing-tax-exempt-application/

For example:http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info-on-conservatives-to-liberal-nonprofit-propublica/

http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

The IRS screwed up and gave applications not the returns to pro publica. so still nothing to back up your lie. The IRS then tried to stop the release of the documents by your own source. so clearly this had nothing to do with all your dumbass whining about the IRS making a few con groups fill out some more paperwork.



quote:

As for the rest of your absolute drivel:

More than 2 dozen organizaitions sue; note that illegal activity is the basis of the suit:
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/29/18590104-tea-party-groups-sue-irs-obama-administration?lite

Nothing there about releasing returns either. And as is obvious to anyone who can read English the con groups had no right to 501(c)4 status so those lawsuits will fail.

So still nothing but lies from you.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 9:31:44 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Back on the subject of the thread
Sandy relief money to Hoboken was held up in an attempt to force the mayor of Hoboken to do business with a politically connected law firm
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mayor-christie-camp-held-sandy-money-hostage

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 9:33:25 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		Moving the goal posts, how original.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Not surprisingly I view it differently than you.

Laws were broken. Releasing private tax information to your political rivals is *illegal*.
If no laws were broken, lerner wouldn't have had to plead the fifth, now would she?

More importantly you had the fascist Obama administration directly interfering with the electoral process.
And yes. I know you libs will slobber about me using the word 'fascist'. Bring it on.



_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 10:10:07 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

FR

One thing I wonder about while reading this story (and thinking on previous visits to that area of the country), for a city which is built mostly on islands, they obviously have to depend on bridges and tunnels for their commerce and very survival. Yet this story seems to point up the fact that they need more bridges. Maybe they should make that a higher priority.

I heard that one reason the George Washington Bridge has such heavy traffic is because a lot of people are afraid to cross the Tappen Zee Bridge further north, as it's in pretty bad shape, from what I've read. Ever since that bridge collapse in Minnesota several years ago, I've always been a bit leery about the safety of bridges.


The Tappan Zee gets heavy traffic, but you have to keep in mind it is roughly 25 miles north of NYC, so if you cross there you have to travel south on very heavy roads to get to the level where the bridge is, then go south. All the NY/NJ crossings have heavy traffic on a good day, and closing off lanes like that is like damming the hudson river and wondering why there is flooding...


One of the arguments that has been made for years isn't building more bridges or car tunnels, but improving mass transit. Despite all the hoo hah about businesses moving to the burbs, NYC is a central hub for jobs, where you can tap into the resources of 3 states.....right now, from NJ, the rail gets into the city via two tubes that were built over 100 years ago, that Amtrak and NJ transit share, and it is overloaded. They wanted to build a new rail tunnel, feds allocated money for it, they were starting to build it and Fatso killed it, claiming it was 'too expensive' (then, like a typical republican with their fetish for cars and roadbuilding, tried to use 500 million the feds had already made available for the tunnel to widen roads and such in the state...). There are already too many cars going into the city, and building new bridges and tunnels won't help, it will just make it worse.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Bridge"gate" - 1/18/2014 10:14:25 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		You and Mnotter, as usual, have it back-asswards.

Once an application has been approved, then certain information becomes disclosable in a charitable entity. However, until that point the applications are confidential and it is illegal to disclose them.


Regarding the "fake" investigation, by the Obama donor:

"To be clear, the FBI made this decision without interviewing even a single one of the American Center for Law and Justics’s 41 targeted clients. And we’re not alone. Other Tea Party attorneys report their clients weren’t interviewed either.

Put simply, the FBI leaked its conclusions in a criminal investigation without even interviewing the victims of the potential crime."

Funny how you can investigate a crime without even interviewing the victims. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/17/it-time-to-investigate-bogus-irs-investigation/

As for whether or not the Tea-Party groups had a basis for the status they sought, you are again factually incorrect. More than a dozen of those groups have subsequently had their applications approved. So your (ridiculous, uniformed) partisan bloviating is clearly incorrect.

Lets recap, shall we?

You said there were no laws broken.

I quote the law.

You said there were no victims.

I proved documentation on more than 41 victims.

You said they weren't qualified for charitable status. But the've been granted it.

So, more or less you have batted .000. As usual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Not at all the bit that was interesting.

As I said, it is easy enough to find sources. IRS RELEASED TAX INFO ILLEGALLY turns up a few hundred hits.

http://watchdog.org/100366/nonprofit-sues-irs-for-releasing-tax-exempt-application/

For example:http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info-on-conservatives-to-liberal-nonprofit-propublica/

http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

The IRS screwed up and gave applications not the returns to pro publica. so still nothing to back up your lie. The IRS then tried to stop the release of the documents by your own source. so clearly this had nothing to do with all your dumbass whining about the IRS making a few con groups fill out some more paperwork.



quote:

As for the rest of your absolute drivel:

More than 2 dozen organizaitions sue; note that illegal activity is the basis of the suit:
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/29/18590104-tea-party-groups-sue-irs-obama-administration?lite

Nothing there about releasing returns either. And as is obvious to anyone who can read English the con groups had no right to 501(c)4 status so those lawsuits will fail.

So still nothing but lies from you.



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bridge"gate" Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094