The Value of Free Speech

[Quantum Windbag]

Thats pretty much a lie. I know I don't do that. You may not agree with what I say but I dont call people out of their names just because I dont agree. You will get called a name if I'm in the mood and you called me one first. You are part of the problem and you also say some racist things. Stop thinking you have all the answers and do no wrong.

You just did.

Responded to you calling me a racist asshole?

Whinged about people calling you names.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is their right, what's your point?

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

Correct.

‘Taking the 5th’ does not constitute ‘evidence,’ nor does it in any way implicate ‘higher ups.’

It is evidence, however, of a desperate rightwing fishing expedition.

Maybe you should tell the government that.

READ: The Supreme Court rules prosecutors can use a suspect?s silence as evidence of guilt

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

Correct.

‘Taking the 5th’ does not constitute ‘evidence,’ nor does it in any way implicate ‘higher ups.’

It is evidence, however, of a desperate rightwing fishing expedition.

Let us not lose sight of what QW originally claimed was clear evidence.

It was the pablum spewed on Stockman's website. It was not some testimony or plea in a court of law or a Congressional hearing.

It was a nutter Congressman's ******* website.

Off to celebrate my 49th with the family.......see you all later.

In my honor....please speak truth at least until I return.

Thanks!

Maybe you should stop lying, I said the IG report clearly said that higher ups knew about, and approved, of the targeting.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If I am wrong, prove it, and I will apologize. If, on the other hand, you just want to act insulted and demand an apology, **** off. How is that not fair? Is the real problem here that I called you out, and then short circuited your tactics before you could employ them?

It doesn't matter if you would support Palin, what matters is if you will state that you do not support Obama when he is wrong.

By the way, as I have said countless times, I am not a Republican, which explains why your support of a theoretical President Palin doesn't impress me. I would be just as hard on her as I am Obama.

OK....try this.

I have, on many occasions here, expressed my displeasure with things that president Obama has done and said. On more than a few occasions I have clearly stated opposition to a policy or action that the Obama administration has carried out.

Don't believe it? Go to the archives and prove me wrong. Or **** off!

That was cute, wasn't it?

You called me out for defending a speech of Obama's that I have no idea if I even heard....and you think I am offended? Idiot...I was just commenting on your assinine challenge. It was odd. The odd part was when you said you WOULD NOT APOLOGIZE if you were wrong. Was that a mistake?

You support Palin. Your party affiliation is meaningless. I am not a registered Democrat, you know.

Supporting Palin for filling any important post is a sign of intellectual weakness. Yiu cannot escape that fact. Sorry.

I don't give a **** about that right now, I am talking about a single instance when he claimed that free speech was the exact opposite of what America stands for. My recollection is that you supported him in that. You can deflect all day long, but right now the issue is free speech. I must be right about it because, instead of saying he is wrong, you are attacking me for supporting Palin.

I am not deflecting. I do not know what the **** you are talking about. You are in a fantasy of some kind.

 

[TemplarKormac]

OK....try this.

I have, on many occasions here, expressed my displeasure with things that president Obama has done and said. On more than a few occasions I have clearly stated opposition to a policy or action that the Obama administration has carried out.

Don't believe it? Go to the archives and prove me wrong. Or **** off!

That was cute, wasn't it?

You called me out for defending a speech of Obama's that I have no idea if I even heard....and you think I am offended? Idiot...I was just commenting on your assinine challenge. It was odd. The odd part was when you said you WOULD NOT APOLOGIZE if you were wrong. Was that a mistake?

You support Palin. Your party affiliation is meaningless. I am not a registered Democrat, you know.

Supporting Palin for filling any important post is a sign of intellectual weakness. Yiu cannot escape that fact. Sorry.

I don't give a **** about that right now, I am talking about a single instance when he claimed that free speech was the exact opposite of what America stands for. My recollection is that you supported him in that. You can deflect all day long, but right now the issue is free speech. I must be right about it because, instead of saying he is wrong, you are attacking me for supporting Palin.

I am not deflecting. I do not know what the **** you are talking about. You are in a fantasy of some kind.

And that isn't an answer. That's deflecting.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Correct.

‘Taking the 5th’ does not constitute ‘evidence,’ nor does it in any way implicate ‘higher ups.’

It is evidence, however, of a desperate rightwing fishing expedition.

Let us not lose sight of what QW originally claimed was clear evidence.

It was the pablum spewed on Stockman's website. It was not some testimony or plea in a court of law or a Congressional hearing.

It was a nutter Congressman's ******* website.

Off to celebrate my 49th with the family.......see you all later.

In my honor....please speak truth at least until I return.

Thanks!

Maybe you should stop lying, I said the IG report clearly said that higher ups knew about, and approved, of the targeting.

You said that the link to the website was clear evidence. Do I need to go back and find it for you?

 

[LoneLaugher]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7872489-post291.html

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let us not lose sight of what QW originally claimed was clear evidence.

It was the pablum spewed on Stockman's website. It was not some testimony or plea in a court of law or a Congressional hearing.

It was a nutter Congressman's ******* website.

Off to celebrate my 49th with the family.......see you all later.

In my honor....please speak truth at least until I return.

Thanks!

Maybe you should stop lying, I said the IG report clearly said that higher ups knew about, and approved, of the targeting.

You said that the link to the website was clear evidence. Do I need to go back and find it for you?

Perhaps you should learn to be more observant.

She knew there was evidence, otherwise she wouldn't have pleaded the 5th, Asclepias. Nor would the IRS have issued a public apology for targeting conservative 501 (c)(3) organizations.

Nonsense.

Invoking the right to not self-incriminate pertains to that individual, where one cannot be compelled to disclose evidence that might be used against him in a criminal proceeding.

It is not evidence that the individual is involved in, or attempting to conceal, a ‘conspiracy.’

So what are you trying to prove exactly? If you're pleading the 5th, its basically confession of guilt. Anywho, if you want to continue making a futile case:

Emails show IRS official Lerner involved in Tea Party screening | Fox News

Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner appeared to be deeply involved in scrutinizing the applications of Tea Party groups for tax-exempt status, according to newly released emails that further challenge the claim the targeting was the work of rogue Ohio-based employees.

One curious February 2011 email from Lerner said, "Tea Party Matter very dangerous" -- before going on to warn that the "matter" could be used to go to court to test campaign spending limits.

Much of the email, released along with others by the House Ways and Means Committee, is redacted, so the full context is not clear.

Lois Lerner emails: Is the IRS scandal back?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Maybe you should stop lying, I said the IG report clearly said that higher ups knew about, and approved, of the targeting.

You said that the link to the website was clear evidence. Do I need to go back and find it for you?

Perhaps you should learn to be more observant.

So what are you trying to prove exactly? If you're pleading the 5th, its basically confession of guilt. Anywho, if you want to continue making a futile case:

Emails show IRS official Lerner involved in Tea Party screening | Fox News

Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner appeared to be deeply involved in scrutinizing the applications of Tea Party groups for tax-exempt status, according to newly released emails that further challenge the claim the targeting was the work of rogue Ohio-based employees.

One curious February 2011 email from Lerner said, "Tea Party Matter very dangerous" -- before going on to warn that the "matter" could be used to go to court to test campaign spending limits.

Much of the email, released along with others by the House Ways and Means Committee, is redacted, so the full context is not clear.

Lois Lerner emails: Is the IRS scandal back?

You think I am having a discussion with you, don't you? Idiot. I'm talking to QW.

You are not relevant. You need to be out interviewing for jobs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let us not lose sight of what QW originally claimed was clear evidence.

It was the pablum spewed on Stockman's website. It was not some testimony or plea in a court of law or a Congressional hearing.

It was a nutter Congressman's ******* website.

Off to celebrate my 49th with the family.......see you all later.

In my honor....please speak truth at least until I return.

Thanks!

Maybe you should stop lying, I said the IG report clearly said that higher ups knew about, and approved, of the targeting.

You said that the link to the website was clear evidence. Do I need to go back and find it for you?

Go back and look, I didn't post a link to a website.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7872489-post291.html

Really?

By the way...that was in May. What happened to the probe? That is 5 months ago, bro. And you are still citing the original announcement on that grahdstander's website. There must have been some activity since.

It is showing clear evidence that there was an organized, top down, conspiracy at the IRS to target groups based on the political beliefs. Funny thing, Obama doesn't seem to care any more than you do. I expected that though, he already proved he is willing to use the government to attack speech.

I must be blind, there is nothing about a website in my post.

Come to think of it, there isn't one in yours either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You said that the link to the website was clear evidence. Do I need to go back and find it for you?

Perhaps you should learn to be more observant.

So what are you trying to prove exactly? If you're pleading the 5th, its basically confession of guilt. Anywho, if you want to continue making a futile case:

Emails show IRS official Lerner involved in Tea Party screening | Fox News

Lois Lerner emails: Is the IRS scandal back?

You think I am having a discussion with you, don't you? Idiot. I'm talking to QW.

You are not relevant. You need to be out interviewing for jobs.

It doesn't matter who you are talking to, you are not talking about me when you say something about a website.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Maybe you should stop lying, I said the IG report clearly said that higher ups knew about, and approved, of the targeting.

You said that the link to the website was clear evidence. Do I need to go back and find it for you?

Go back and look, I didn't post a link to a website.

Sigh.....

You responded to my comment to someone else....in reference to the web site. Go back and look yourself. You piped in and if you look at the conversation from where I sit...you called the website link EVIDENCE.

And....if you are going to continue to claim that I defended something awful that Obama did.....you need to post the thing I defended, at least. I have no idea what speech you are talking about and as I don't spend a lot of time defending anyone or anything....I think you might be mistaking me for someone else.

Do I really care? No. But it is making for a very tedious discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You said that the link to the website was clear evidence. Do I need to go back and find it for you?

Go back and look, I didn't post a link to a website.

Sigh.....

You responded to my comment to someone else....in reference to the web site. Go back and look yourself. You piped in and if you look at the conversation from where I sit...you called the website link EVIDENCE.

And....if you are going to continue to claim that I defended something awful that Obama did.....you need to post the thing I defended, at least. I have no idea what speech you are talking about and as I don't spend a lot of time defending anyone or anything....I think you might be mistaking me for someone else.

Do I really care? No. But it is making for a very tedious discussion.

I responded to a standalone comment asking what happened to the investigation.

If you didn't care, why are you upset?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Go back and look, I didn't post a link to a website.

Sigh.....

You responded to my comment to someone else....in reference to the web site. Go back and look yourself. You piped in and if you look at the conversation from where I sit...you called the website link EVIDENCE.

And....if you are going to continue to claim that I defended something awful that Obama did.....you need to post the thing I defended, at least. I have no idea what speech you are talking about and as I don't spend a lot of time defending anyone or anything....I think you might be mistaking me for someone else.

Do I really care? No. But it is making for a very tedious discussion.

I responded to a standalone comment asking what happened to the investigation.

If you didn't care, why are you upset?

I am not upset....I am frustrated by this idiotic communication failure that you have prompted. Go back....starting on page 18 and my discussion with Daveman...which you jumped in on.. We were discussing a website link that he posted. Your reply to my comment was....whether you know it or not.....a comment about the website that we were discussing. We were not discussing the investigation that you think we were discussing. You fucked up and misunderstood what you were replying to.

Damn....this is tedious shit.

 

[Asclepias]

It seems t me that most people do that, and then whinge about it. If you weren't part of the problem, and a racist asshole, maybe everyone wouldn't be calling you names.

Thats pretty much a lie. I know I don't do that. You may not agree with what I say but I dont call people out of their names just because I dont agree. You will get called a name if I'm in the mood and you called me one first. You are part of the problem and you also say some racist things. Stop thinking you have all the answers and do no wrong.

So you believe it is within your purview to lash out at people when you're 'in the mood"?
You think you get to choose when civility is appropriate all by yourself? As though no one else has a choice?
Typical lib arrogance.

Read the rest of the sentence. You do know what a conjunction is don't you?

 

[Asclepias]

Quite simple. When you have Lois Lerner claiming the 5th in her congressional hearing, you know it was organized from the top down. Now if it were Rachel Maddow or some other Liberal personality touting this evidence you reject so soundly, would you accept it or acknowledge it?

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

Lerner had no right to plead the 5th. She was not on trial.
She deliberately withheld testimony from Congress. She knew what she was doing was in direct violation of IRS rules, yet she hid behind a right that did not apply.
She could have been charged with a crime.

Thats not the point and she wasnt charged. The point is that pleading the 5th is not clear evidence.

 

[Asclepias]

It is their right, what's your point?

My point is that its not "clear evidence". You have to actually have some evidence for it to be clear correct?

I never said that was the evidence, did I?

Yes but you did. However, I wasnt even talking to you. You said it was "clear evidence" . Are you really that confused you dont remember what you said? Temple of Doom said it was evidence.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sigh.....

You responded to my comment to someone else....in reference to the web site. Go back and look yourself. You piped in and if you look at the conversation from where I sit...you called the website link EVIDENCE.

And....if you are going to continue to claim that I defended something awful that Obama did.....you need to post the thing I defended, at least. I have no idea what speech you are talking about and as I don't spend a lot of time defending anyone or anything....I think you might be mistaking me for someone else.

Do I really care? No. But it is making for a very tedious discussion.

I responded to a standalone comment asking what happened to the investigation.

If you didn't care, why are you upset?

I am not upset....I am frustrated by this idiotic communication failure that you have prompted. Go back....starting on page 18 and my discussion with Daveman...which you jumped in on.. We were discussing a website link that he posted. Your reply to my comment was....whether you know it or not.....a comment about the website that we were discussing. We were not discussing the investigation that you think we were discussing. You fucked up and misunderstood what you were replying to.

Damn....this is tedious shit.

Yes you are upset. You're so spun up you don't know whether to shit or wind your wrist watch.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I thought the taking the 5th was a persons right to not self incriminate? Did they change it to say "and not incriminate your superiors"?

Lerner had no right to plead the 5th. She was not on trial.
She deliberately withheld testimony from Congress. She knew what she was doing was in direct violation of IRS rules, yet she hid behind a right that did not apply.
She could have been charged with a crime.

Thats not the point and she wasnt charged. The point is that pleading the 5th is not clear evidence.

Do you require music when you tap dance around a discussion?