Or at least your own reality.Except that isn't what happened, at least here in the real world. Off in GOP-land he instructed a bunch of Marxist Muslins to take over the IRS and send anyone he didn't like to Gitmo.
I'm glad I live in reality....GOP-land sounds terrible.
I was gonna read what he said, but he drones on too long and usually misses the point. Did he answer the question or not?![]()
Did he answer the question or not?![]()
Simple. Because Nixon is from the wrong political party.Yes. Don't trust feds. The ruling was about NYPD, not feds. Not sure how feds even got into the discussion.
Return question for you: when Nixon was criticized for using IRS to silence his political enemies, did you defend him?
If it was wrong for Nixon to use IRS to silence political enemies (one of the articles of impeachment), what would make it right for any other President to do the same, given that precedent?
Given that I'm old than him, like me, Handy wasn't alive during the Nixon presidency. It would be tough to defend those actions at that time. By the time I was born, peanut farming and Billy Beer was all the rage. I think Handy was more of an acting sort of guy.Yes. Don't trust feds. The ruling was about NYPD, not feds. Not sure how feds even got into the discussion.
Return question for you: when Nixon was criticized for using IRS to silence his political enemies, did you defend him?
If it was wrong for Nixon to use IRS to silence political enemies (one of the articles of impeachment), what would make it right for any other President to do the same, given that precedent?
Yes. Don't trust feds.
I imagine the nature of the screw-ups are a whole lot different - I am sure you're much more likely to encounter individual bad actors at the local levels, and more unintended consequences of an unwieldy bureaucracy at the federal level. Which is worse is an interesting question for discussion...What's funny is that it really should be the opposite. The higher the cops, the better they are at following procedures and respecting your rights. My wife wins suppression hearings all the time against city cops and the local university police. She rarely wins when the state patrol is involved. The county sheriffs fall in between but are closer to the state patrol than the city force in their professionalism.
While she doesn't do federal cases, I would only imagine they rarely screw up considering they get to pull the best from around the country to work for them.
There is this thing called freedom. Quant notion I know.I never understood why Fishy, Bob, etc continue to humiliate themselves over this IRS thing. As I've stated before, Cong. Issa is getting paid good money to look stupid every day. I can't say the same for USCHO righty conspiracy theorists.![]()
I never understood why Fishy, Bob, etc continue to humiliate themselves over this IRS thing. As I've stated before, Cong. Issa is getting paid good money to look stupid every day. I can't say the same for USCHO righty conspiracy theorists.![]()
The first time House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) tried to hear testimony from Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS’ tax exempt division, she asserted her Fifth Amendment rights, as expected. Today, Issa brought Lerner back, knowing she wouldn’t testify, but wanting to put on a little election-year show for the cameras anyway. But as the above video makes clear, the interesting development wasn’t Lerner’s decision not to testify, which everyone already knew would happen, but the heated confrontation between Issa and the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). For about 15 minutes, Issa, already well aware of the fact that Lerner wouldn’t answer his questions, strutted for the cameras, pushing his favorite talking points about the discredited scandal. When he was done, Issa decided to abruptly end the hearing. When Cummings sought an opportunity to speak, Issa invited everyone in attendance to leave. When Cummings proceeded anyway, Issa cut off the power to the congressman’s microphone.
You would think they would, but past actions don't back up that assumption. This is the same administration that picks and chooses which laws is supports and enforces. If the polling winds blow a certain way, they'll bend the rules accordingly.NLRB going to look at workers' rights in a Medical Marijuana shop. http://t.co/LlRCXFDL4Y
Not to sound alarmist, but if the Feds can make a labor ruling on an activity they deem illegal, what other activity is next? Can sex workers unionize and then get federal protection for working conditions? Your average street dealer?
Somebody has to think this through before jumping in with both pencils.
I think that ship has already sailed. I would guess you could find any number of cases where people working in this country illegally have still been able to successfully make claims based upon wage and hour laws, workers compensation, etc...NLRB going to look at workers' rights in a Medical Marijuana shop. http://t.co/LlRCXFDL4Y
Not to sound alarmist, but if the Feds can make a labor ruling on an activity they deem illegal, what other activity is next? Can sex workers unionize and then get federal protection for working conditions? Your average street dealer?
Somebody has to think this through before jumping in with both pencils.
NLRB going to look at workers' rights in a Medical Marijuana shop. http://t.co/LlRCXFDL4Y
Not to sound alarmist, but if the Feds can make a labor ruling on an activity they deem illegal, what other activity is next? Can sex workers unionize and then get federal protection for working conditions? Your average street dealer?
Somebody has to think this through before jumping in with both pencils.
Street dealers are technically required to get a tax stamp for their drugs. It's an added charge they often face when brought to federal court.
I believe Nevada's brothels are well regulated already and may even be unionized.
So nope. Not seeing the outrage that you are.