How is it that Obama can make an unequivocal first-day apology about the IRS

[BlueStreak]

and we don't hear a peep out of him on the Verizon thing?

Just wondering.

[geek tragedy]

1. Verizon thing has been going on for 7 years interrupted and sadly

is 100% in compliance with federal law, including a warrant signed by a federal judge.

[BlueStreak]

3. The IRS has done diligence on 501(C)(4) for 50 years

In both cases, Obama was presented by the public exposure of a set of circumstances. In the case of the IRS, my view is that they were basically doing their job and any "over reach" was minor and not terribly consequential compared to the abuses the IRS was trying to protect against (it is their job after all). Yet Obama's very first instinct was to trash the IRS and to unequivocally declare that they were bad apples doing misconduct.

But we see nothing like that reaction when this Verizon thing is exposed. Why is that?

[geek tragedy]

5. the allegation is that the IRS was discriminating against groups based on viewpoint.

Which is a big 1st amendment no-no.

[BlueStreak]

7. But are there any FACTS that support that?

The only "facts" I have heard is that it took a long time for the IRS to process the unprecedented flood of applications coming from teabagging groups. All that proves is that the IRS is a bureaucracy and that the Republicans have forced austerity upon us. So don't complain if government services are slow. It took me 18 months to get a 501(c)3) determination with virtually no issues -- an obvious charitable/education mission.

Are there any facts that show liberal groups got their 501(c)(4) determinations any faster? I haven't seen that anywhere, and I notice that Issa and company are always careful not to ask that question -- for obvious reasons.

[geek tragedy]

8. a few, but the investigation is not complete.

there isn't even a whiff of illegality here, thanks to the illustrious work of previous Congresses.

[BlueStreak]

9. I have not heard charges of ANY law being violated in the IRS case

All I hear is politicians saying groups were "targeted". That is not illegal. That is the IRS's job. Obviously a political organization applying for 501(c)(4) should be targeted for more scrutiny than a blood bank.

Again, I an pointing out that in one case, Obama came right out and condemned his own administration. In the other case, he is completely silent.

[geek tragedy]

10. The allegation is that groups of one viewpoint were targeted

and that others of an opposing viewpoint were not.

That is illegal.

[BlueStreak]

12. But there is no evidence of that

that has emerged from any of the hearings. In fact, I would challenge you to find any case in any of the transcripts of any of the Congressional hearings so far where any of the accusers has asked any question that called for any comparison of how the tea party applications were handled compared to a similarly politicized organization from the left. What I have seen is questions that are all carefully worded to AVOID such a comparison.

Everything I have seen says that there was no substantial difference in how the applications were processed, what questionnaires were used, how quickly a determination was reached, or the percentage that were rejected.

Do you have any FACTS to the contrary. I'm, frankly, not interested in anybody's opinion about this. I am interested in facts. If you want to make a charge, please support it with facts. If I see any facts that show a clear case of wrong-doing by the IRS I will be happy to join the mob.

[clarice]

2. Not sure of the facts but.....

This Verizon thing might be much more serious. I am sure they are looking into it and developing some sort of strategy.

[BlueCheese]

4. Well, he supports the NSA snooping.

[Buzz Clik]

6. I'll apologize for him: "I am sorry this upsets you."

That's as good as it gets.

[NCTraveler]

11. If he apologized, people would look for some kind of corrective action.....

coming from the white house. As President, it would be very difficult for him to apologize, and not act like he is doing something about it. I think it goes something like this.... Why would he apologize about something he isn't willing to spend political capital on? Why would he apologize for something he supports?

Who knows, if it gets too hot maybe he will state that he sees it as problematic. If he is willing to put his John Hancock on the Patriot Act, I doubt this even enters on his radar.

[BlueStreak]

13. That's my reading on the situation as well.

He is either completely bought in to the authoritarian state or else he just doesn't want to use any political capital to change anything in that area.

Please notice that he expanded the CIA drone assassination program way beyond the Bush/Cheney scope and only spoke against it when, as a practical matter, there were diminishing returns and organized push-back worldwide. Americans don't seem to count for much in these discussions.

But this notion of "political capital" is an interesting one. He surely has some, but he doesn't use it on ANYTHING. Look how easily he gave up on the gun issue.

[QC]

14. Republicans are not offended by the FBI spying on Verizon customers. n/t

[BlueStreak]

15. This is an issue we should have in common with the Tea Party and other libertarian thinkers

[Skidmore]

19. This "we" will not traffic with Teabaggers or libertarians on anything.

One swallow does not a summer make.

[BlueStreak]

21. Divide and Conquer politics is how *WE* got to this point, my friend

You think the powers that be give a shit about abortion, immigration, pr any other wedge issue? They do not. All they care about is money and power. But they know how to keep the public divided so they are never seriously threatened.

[Skidmore]

23. The powers that be may not, but

Teabaggers do.

[BlueStreak]

25. So we work with different coalitions on those other issues

Judging from the teabaggers who are in my circle of friends, they are starting to realize some of the stuff we have been saying, particularly about the 0.1%, is true. While they still have a knee-jerk racist sentiment against Obama, some of them are starting to realize liberalism is not the real enemy here.

I'm just saying this is a time when we can pick up some of the people from that camp.

[BlueStreak]

16. Regarding the claim that "this was all legal"

it appears to be the case that the Obama administration was able to go Judge-shopping and found one who wrote the warrant. That's does not prove it is legal. Now that we know what part of the Patriot Act this was based on, there is a very strong argument that this warrant is well beyond the law. There is a very good discussion at:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/millions_of_verizon_phone_records_collected_daily_20130606/

[kentuck]

17. I think the voters should hold accountable..

all those Congressmen and Senators, this includes you, Lindsey Graham, that support this invasive piece of crap.

[BlueStreak]

18. That's a tough one because

the things they are doing are classified. A person can read the Patriot Act and decide, "well, it may be of concern, but it appears there are sufficient safeguards." But then the administration makes secret requests to anonymous judges that go way beyond the letter of the law, and it is all classified. I don't know how you can hold the voters accountable on that level.

Yes, you can say that the voters shouldn't elect people who would do this. But really, how do we know? On that basis, we have to condemn every person who voted for Obama, because he has allowed these activities to grow unabated. In your estimation, how many Obama voters thought that was what they were voting for?

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Because he supports what happened with Verizon

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Because if he did, he might be pressured to shut it down...like he should have earlier.

[JoePhilly]

24. I'm pretty sure Michelle Obama is listening in on my phone calls.

[BlueStreak]

26. Maybe Barack is doing this to check up on MICHELLE's phone calls. :)