Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 248
  1. #101
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    First of all thanks for your post. This is valid input and I accept all your criticisms. I have to answer quickly because I don't want this or your post to be deleted as 'non-germane' like Sigfried's did. So sorry if I miss some points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Perhaps it would help if a third party jumped in here and noted that the tone of your posts throughout your exchange with Squatch has been dismissive and condescending.
    This is true but conspiracy theories have to be dismissed strongly. The way to evaluate Obama is not on insinuation or unsubstantive paranoia theories of his evil reach. The condescension is deliberate to put the matter in perspective and to add shame. The purpose of the shame is to ensure that people think twice before making tenuous connections between facts and their internal hatred.

    It doesn't make it less true it is still an unsubstantiated claim based on paranoia.

    As such, the way you have worded your posts in this thread can be seen as an appeal to the audience of the discussion that Squatch does indeed "sound like a conspiracy theorist trying to squeeze something out of nothing" (i.e. ridiculing and mocking Squatch's position as a means to show it is false) , even though you have done absolutely nothing to show that this is the case, nor have you substantiated your own points well enough to warrant such condescension. Squatch is correct when he asserts that you have committed an appeal to ridicule.
    My primary approach had been to not offer any new evidence but to explore Squatch's. I believe that many of these Republican scandals rest on a specific opinion on a very narrow reading of the facts and this theme is played throughout all Republican scandals (which is why they have all fizzled away). I sought to find out why and it pretty much boils down to how facts are interpreted and subtly linked. On the one hand Squatch sees a real conspiracy to be angered about (with an added bonus of possibly being linked to Obama) and I see largely nothing of national attention.

    If the insinuation that there is an Obama connection, which was the only reason why this was such a big deal in the first place, continues to persist then that needs to be teased out from the actual facts and explored separately. You'll notice that Squatch says he's not making the claim but there are oblique references to it throughout and it's that subtle insinuation that Obama is involved that I believe I've succeeded in exposing (albeit taking a really long time doing so): hence my hyperbole, my way of calling it out.

    We actually ended the substantive part of the debate a while ago, when Squatch proclaimed:

    1. He is not forwarding the Obama-level conspiracy (which is what I was looking to explore).
    2. He isn't interested in higher motivations of the bereaucratic-level conspiracy (which is why I believe this to be phony too, but I concede that some people can see it as a conspiracy).

    At that point there is largely nothing to discuss. I got what I needed that there is zero proof of a real conspiracy worthy of national attention and delving deeper into the bereaucratic-level one isn't of interest of Squatch.

    I have no idea what is happening for the last two weeks but I'm continuing to see where this ends.

    That said, I apologize to the audience and Squatch for any insults; none is intended. I truly believe that all the Republican scandals are largely due to paranoia about Obama not anything factual, only insinuation. Once we have settled that (and Vandaler is doing an amazing job in debunking Benghazi) this will be a good pillar to rest future arguments upon. Republicans have been crying wolf and it's time to confront it.


    Perhaps it would help to proofread your posts to avoid appeals (to the audience) to ridicule your opponent ("tinfoil-bias") via mockery.
    OK - I have seen how Vandaler is doing things. I will do better. And thanks again for your input - I realize I was speaking within a JJ/Squatch bubble rather than the entire internet! This isn't debate.org so appealing to an audience doesn't matter to me: this is between me and who I'm debating with at the time.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 22nd, 2013 at 05:28 AM.

  2. #102
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That's already conceded history. It's largely the only victory you have though since the primary difference is that it has no connection to Obama. And since you have have zero proof of any link to Obama nor was this the scandal you were pushing then we have nothing to discuss. Hence, you can win your 'scandal' and I remain convinced this is not a Scandal.
    Given that this activity happened with the person that was directly appointed by the President, was known for about a year prior to it hitting the headlines and that this appointee visited the White House more times than any other appointee there are two choices:

    1) The President was complicit in this action (bad).

    2) The President was negligent in his duty to ensure proper following of the law (bad).

    Given the principle of charity, lets assume two. That is the position you are standing on?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'm not using it to say that you are wrong - so there's no fallacy.
    And yet you admit as much in your discussion below. You have offered no evidence beyond to call this a conspiracy theory. Calling an opponent's position "tin foil territory" is, by definition and appeal to ridicule, regardless of whether are are willing to see it as such or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    And I showed you alternative motivations: laziness, incompetence, or forgetting the rules or any number of circumstances. Just because the IG didn't report them it didn't mean they didn't happen. Again, your summary of the IG doesn't mention these 'motivations' so you case here is still unsupported.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please provide support that it is impossible for any motivation for the act. Please also show that the primary intent is to cause harm and not just bureaucrats doing their job?
    And you are incorrect here. I showed you that this decision was an intentional one coming from the Office of the Chief Counsel taken to slow down the rate of approval of conservative oriented organizations. When the IRS report noted that this action lacked legal justification and was a violation of equal protection under the law, the OCC rescinded the official rule, but not the operating guidelines. The Treasury IG report notes that the processing of cases followed BOLO rules unimpeded during this period and that the OCC re-instituted the previous rule (over-ruling the IG findings) two months later.

    Those facts (all supported in previous posts and previously challenged) have already been tied, in this thread, to a malicious intent (intentionally delaying the exercise of civil rights). This isn't a process of elimination JJ, it is the process of reading the report for what it says.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You haven't shown that this is the sole reason; all you have shown is that you haven't come up with any or that the IG didn't report any. Both are unsupported.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support that it is impossible for any other reason for engaging in the act. That a more pedestrian explanation isn't possible.
    Incorrect, I have already shown you in this thread that the Treasury IG report and the IRS report found that the stated intent of this program was to slow down the processing of these cases. What you are probably confusing here is that no explicit intent was given for the fact that the IRS refused to actually process the cases in accordance with the law for extended periods of time. That intent may not have been malicious, but it was illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    When someone is indicted then come back.
    And, as I stated, by your logic, the Jack the Ripper crimes weren't illegal then right?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Challenge to support a claim. Please prove that the White House has broken laws. All the laws you have shown have been committed on the IRS side.
    I already provided it in post 84, where emails containing confidential information were discussed by parties both in the IRS and in the White House. Both are illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So why hasn't someone been indicted? Granted that a law has been broken but is it systematically, historically been broken or is this a one-off?
    You realize that investigations take time right? That the FBI has to comb through thousands of email to find the full extent of who was involved and that the IRS has delayed handing over of documents.

    Let me turn this question around. If nothing criminal has happened, why is the FBI still investigating? Wouldn't they have concluded a lack of evidence and closed it by now?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yet you easily demonstrated that the same scenario could have happened to a progressive group.
    You are confusing a hypothetical I offered (where I showed it would also be a violation of the equal protection clause) to me actually pointing out that it could, in actuality, have happened at some point.

    I've been very patient with this point, but please do not misstate my position in this manner again without showing that I actually did show that it was feasible for this to have been targeted at progressive groups. Challenge to support a claim..

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Nope - you can claim whatever you want in this but until you have a person that is going to have to stand in court then you have no case.
    There you have it, from your own mouth. A murder is not a crime until someone has been indicted. Wow.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  4. #103
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    JJ: That's already conceded history. It's largely the only victory you have though since the primary difference is that it has no connection to Obama. And since you have have zero proof of any link to Obama nor was this the scandal you were pushing then we have nothing to discuss. Hence, you can win your 'scandal' and I remain convinced this is not a Scandal.

    Given that this activity happened with the person that was directly appointed by the President, was known for about a year prior to it hitting the headlines and that this appointee visited the White House more times than any other appointee there are two choices:

    1) The President was complicit in this action (bad).

    2) The President was negligent in his duty to ensure proper following of the law (bad).

    Given the principle of charity, lets assume two. That is the position you are standing on?
    If you can come up with other scenarios that don't make the President complicit then I will join you in a serious dialog regarding which are more likely than the other. Until then, I can't do your homework for you. This is your position to defend, and it is so one sided that I don't believe that you have done a thorough enough analysis.

    But to answer your question, simply, no, it isn't the position I am standing on - I have already stated the position I am standing on.


    JJ: edit: Perhaps you should also read this PDF of PPP poll and bear this in mind before continuing.
    S: Appeal to popularity fallacy. Please review a fallacy list in the future to avoid these basic mistakes.

    JJ: I am merely pointing out that you sound like a conspiracy theorist trying to squeeze something out of nothing.
    S: Appeal to ridicule fallacy. I would really recommend reading a list of fallacies.
    JJ: I'm not using it to say that you are wrong - so there's no fallacy.
    And yet you admit as much in your discussion below. You have offered no evidence beyond to call this a conspiracy theory. Calling an opponent's position "tin foil territory" is, by definition and appeal to ridicule, regardless of whether are are willing to see it as such or not.
    I don't have to debunk your theory, you have to support it! My opinion that your lack of facts linking to Obama as a conspiracy theory is just that - an opinion on the same set of facts that you see. Both of us agree that it is unsubstantiated and unproven so what else is there to discuss?

    I have nothing to discuss on this point because you have no facts to back up your position well enough to debunk. It's why it has the conspiracy theory 'smell' about it. It's only plausible if you believe the conclusion to begin with; since I don't, I have no idea how you are making these connections or how you can only come up with two possibilities for Obama's involvement, both of whom are fully in support of your own position. It's as if you cannot see any other possibility and that is what gives this a tinge of tin-foil-hat thinking: you are so invested in this being true that there is no possibility it cannot.

    edit: On the point of calling this a 'conspiracy theory' this is factually true because it firstly not fact (i.e. you have no direct evidence of a link between Obama & the IRS's actions) and secondly, it is a conspiracy that you are theorizing over: between Obama & some IRS officials.

    I don't know if you've ever debated 9/11 or alien or moon-landing conspiracies or the birther theory (though perhaps you were a Birther too?) or even religion. But generally those people are so convinced of their position that no amount of debate will get through it. Facts don't help because they can be twisted to support the original theory. The best thing to do is to leave those debates unresolved.

    I'm sorry given Freund's email this morning (which mysteriously didn't get deleted even though it was a similar point to Sigfried's - why is that?), we have to discuss conspiracy theories but Jay Sekulow, the guy whose lawsuit you originally brought up as 'evidence' posted this today:

    Obama’s fingerprints all over IRS Tea Party scandal

    Consider President Obama’s aggressive public statements – made just as we now know senior IRS officials were intentionally and aggressively scrutinizing conservative groups’ applications for tax exemption.


    On August 9, 2010 the president warned of “attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names” during his weekly radio address. The President said: We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them . . . you don’t know if it’s a foreign controlled corporation. ... The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

    ... lots of quotes with the president warning about shadow groups ...

    Next, consider the IRS’s actions following those statements. Not only did the IRS continue its targeting, it issued broad questionnaires that made unconstitutionally-intrusive inquiries designed to get answers to exactly the questions President Obama posed.

    ...

    When the president of the United States declares these groups a “threat to our democracy” is it any surprise that his enthusiastic supporters (and donors) within the IRS responded with an unprecedented campaign of selective targeting, intimidation, and governmental intrusion?
    So there we have it, the most direct link yet doesn't even need the excess visits, you can now claim that the President's hidden supporters within the IRS didn't need direct instruction, only to follow the not-so-well-coded messages of the President. This is pretty much tin-foiled hat territory, I'm sure you'll agree

    If not, then his record on rightwingwatch also makes an interesting read:


    • Jay Sekulow says the presence of international election monitors "can only be described as a troubling attempt to intimidate voters and poll works on Election Day." - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/catego....9v4Q76Ai.dpuf
    • Yesterday we noted that Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice is pushing a bogus charge, initially leveled by Mitt Romney’s campaign, that President Obama is trying to suppress the military vote in Ohio. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/catego....9v4Q76Ai.dpuf
    • Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ sent an email alert to members claiming that if Huelskamp’s Military Religious Freedom Protection Act fails to pass Congress, then “military chaplains could be required to perform same-sex marriages”: - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/catego....3QW91K4k.dpuf
    • Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice, which was founded by Pat Robertson, has become a leading anti-Muslim legal outfit despite its supposed commitment to religious liberty. The group, for instance, tried to block the construction of the Park 51 Islamic Center and promotes paranoia over “creeping Sharia.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/catego....3QW91K4k.dpuf


    We have everything here: anti-UN, Obama being anti-military, anti-gay, and anti-muslim with links to the lovable Pat Robertson as a bonus. He's every Republican conspiracy about Obama and the world all rolled into one. It's certainly possible that this IRS thing might lead somewhere but given the guy's track record it is entirely unlikely and I'd rather spend time discussing productive things than explore the ravings of someone clearly a paranoid and delusional on about just about everything.

    I'm sorry, even given Freund's post, this morning, I am having a very difficult time taking you seriously on this point. You're hanging on this guys coat-tails to support your case for Obama's link to all this?

    I'll answer below the blue line stuff later. I'd also like you to drop the line of argument that Obama is linked to this first or at least show that you can see both sides.

    edit: What happened to this guy who started the President Obama's Birth Certificate thread, who began it with:

    Ok, so as many of you know I'm not really a conspiracy junkie at all. I've known far too many privates and government employees to believe that virtually any conspiracy would last very long.

    Now that being said, I do find the growing body of work around the document pretty interesting and I would like post some of it here for discussion.
    I'm glad that you're not really a birther but is this Obama link also 'pretty interesting' despite the disclaimer that you're 'not really a conspiracy junkie at all'. What's changed? What's the difference between the birther conspiracy and this IRS conspiracy?


    ------------------------------------------------THE BLUE LINE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And you are incorrect here. I showed you that this decision was an intentional one coming from the Office of the Chief Counsel taken to slow down the rate of approval of conservative oriented organizations. When the IRS report noted that this action lacked legal justification and was a violation of equal protection under the law, the OCC rescinded the official rule, but not the operating guidelines. The Treasury IG report notes that the processing of cases followed BOLO rules unimpeded during this period and that the OCC re-instituted the previous rule (over-ruling the IG findings) two months later.

    Those facts (all supported in previous posts and previously challenged) have already been tied, in this thread, to a malicious intent (intentionally delaying the exercise of civil rights). This isn't a process of elimination JJ, it is the process of reading the report for what it says.



    Incorrect, I have already shown you in this thread that the Treasury IG report and the IRS report found that the stated intent of this program was to slow down the processing of these cases. What you are probably confusing here is that no explicit intent was given for the fact that the IRS refused to actually process the cases in accordance with the law for extended periods of time. That intent may not have been malicious, but it was illegal.



    And, as I stated, by your logic, the Jack the Ripper crimes weren't illegal then right?



    I already provided it in post 84, where emails containing confidential information were discussed by parties both in the IRS and in the White House. Both are illegal.

    You realize that investigations take time right? That the FBI has to comb through thousands of email to find the full extent of who was involved and that the IRS has delayed handing over of documents.

    Let me turn this question around. If nothing criminal has happened, why is the FBI still investigating? Wouldn't they have concluded a lack of evidence and closed it by now?

    You are confusing a hypothetical I offered (where I showed it would also be a violation of the equal protection clause) to me actually pointing out that it could, in actuality, have happened at some point.

    I've been very patient with this point, but please do not misstate my position in this manner again without showing that I actually did show that it was feasible for this to have been targeted at progressive groups. Challenge to support a claim..



    There you have it, from your own mouth. A murder is not a crime until someone has been indicted. Wow.[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 22nd, 2013 at 08:30 PM.

  5. #104
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    If you can come up with other scenarios that don't make the President complicit then I will join you in a serious dialog regarding which are more likely than the other.
    Shifting the goal posts fallacy. I don't need to generate scenarios where the President isn't complicit. I've shown that there are only two scenarios, gross negligence or his being complicit. You are dismissing the logical necessity of that position without any support. Until you offer some this is nothing more than a "nu-uh" response.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I don't have to debunk your theory, you have to support it!
    Apparently you seem to have forgotten the last 8 pages of writing?

    I have already supported it to you on several occasions via several different avenues. That you refuse to see the obvious does not mean it is unsupported. If you really believe that I haven't supported it, as opposed to this just being blatant posturing, report the post. But you won't, because you know it has already been supported several times.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Jay Sekulow, the guy whose lawsuit you originally brought up as 'evidence' posted this today
    Red Herring Fallacy. I didn't bring up the lawsuit as evidence that the President was involved. I brought it up to rebut your position that the investigation had ended. You were shown to be wrong and that is as far as that link goes.

    [quote=JJ]

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'm sorry, even given Freund's post, this morning, I am having a very difficult time taking you seriously on this point. You're hanging on this guys coat-tails to support your case for Obama's link to all this?
    Two things. One, you realize Freund was calling you out right? That he is pointing out that you have yet to offer any actual evidence for any of the claims you have made?

    Two, please support or retract that I used Mr. Sekulow's lawsuit as evidence of President Obama's link to this scandal. Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'd also like you to drop the line of argument that Obama is linked to this first or at least show that you can see both sides.
    I haven't made any connection between the two beyond what I stated above, that the President must either be complicit or negligent. Any further connection is something invented in your memory, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'm glad that you're not really a birther but is this Obama link also 'pretty interesting' despite the disclaimer that you're 'not really a conspiracy junkie at all'. What's changed? What's the difference between the birther conspiracy and this IRS conspiracy?
    Ad Hom Fallacy. You are attempting to discredit the debater rather than the subject. Please stick to the subject at hand.





    You are free to respond or ignore the post below the "blue line," but please be aware that you have not supported that I actually did show that it was feasible for this to have been targeted at progressive groups. Challenge to support a claim..


    And I would like to end this post with the same chart of this debate's progress. For all your bluster, condescension and fallacies, you have yet to concretely object to any of these points:

    Activity Legality Probability of Occurrence Current Status
    1) Intentional targeting of political opposition Violates Treasury regulation, IRS regulation, and IG recommendations, possibly illegal Confirmed as having happened Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, Secret Service and House Audit Committee
    2) Intentional delaying of processing to prevent exercise of speech rights Violates civil rights, IRS regulation and Congressional authorization acts, certainly illegal Likely occurred either through gross negligence (illegal, civil) or intentional harm (illegal, criminal) Under investigation by FBI, Treasury, DOJ and via several civil lawsuits.
    3) Intentional sharing of privileged documentation to outside political groups Definitely illegal, violates IRS statute, Privacy Laws and US Code Confirmed as having happened, parties involved being investigated Currently under investigation by FBI and DOJ
    4) Sharing of confidential information with the White House for political benefit. Definitely illegal, violates section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and is punishable by up to five years in jail. Confirmed as having happened. Released yesterday as part of the House investigation into this scandal, criminal investigations underway.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. Likes Talthas liked this post
  7. #105
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Shifting the goal posts fallacy. I don't need to generate scenarios where the President isn't complicit. I've shown that there are only two scenarios, gross negligence or his being complicit. You are dismissing the logical necessity of that position without any support. Until you offer some this is nothing more than a "nu-uh" response.
    Not at all. I can't debunk scenarios that aren't proven - those are yours to support first. You also haven't supported that these are the only two scenarios either. So I don't accept your reading of your position:

    Challenge to support a claim. Please show that there are no other scenarios possible.



    JJ:I don't have to debunk your theory, you have to support it!
    Apparently you seem to have forgotten the last 8 pages of writing?
    None of that supports that Obama is connected to the conspiracy. In fact, you said that this wasn't what you were claiming. Apparently, you have forgotten this particular exchange:
    S: Hence why it is being investigated. The fact that the IRS head had more white house visits than any other major official is a warning sign. No one is arguing it is 100% proven the President ordered anything. They are saying that at a minimum he was negligent in his oversight and that a further investigation should be undertaken to see how much knowledge he had.

    JJ: Sounds like unsubstantiated invented scandal to me then. Good luck with the investigation!


    S: All investigations are, by definition, unsubstantiated until they are proven. This is a meaningless objection. If you have an actual rebuttal to that piece of evidence or will you stick with "nu-uh?"

    JJ: Then I'm actually good with the agreement that your claims are currently unsubstantiated. That's all I need - it's just a manufactured scandal with no proof, just as people have been saying all along.

    S: You seem to have been confused about the path of this discussion. I would recommend re-reading the posts for clarity.

    S: I never made a claim that this is from the Presidential level, if you are going to continue to imply that I have, either support or retract that claim.

    S: Rather, I argued that the IRS acted inappropriately. That is not unsubstantiated. It has been verified by two separate investigations and admitted by an IRS spokeswoman. Thus, that claim, is a scandal and is substantiated.

    JJ: In context then you are saying that the White House involvement is unsubstantiated. Yes?
    S: Yes, that is still under investigation. An appropriate response would be to be agnostic, perhaps slightly leaning towards it (given the number of times the relevant staff visited the White House).

    Are you now saying that you are more than slightly leaning?



    I have already supported it to you on several occasions via several different avenues. That you refuse to see the obvious does not mean it is unsupported. If you really believe that I haven't supported it, as opposed to this just being blatant posturing, report the post. But you won't, because you know it has already been supported several times.
    You haven't supported the Obama link. Remember, that we're above the blue line; discussing the real scandal of Obama being linked to it; not below the blue line, of discussing a dull one about bureaucrats.


    JJ: ay Sekulow, the guy whose lawsuit you originally brought up as 'evidence' posted this today
    Red Herring Fallacy. I didn't bring up the lawsuit as evidence that the President was involved. I brought it up to rebut your position that the investigation had ended. You were shown to be wrong and that is as far as that link goes.
    It isn't a red herring at all - it is entirely relevant that your source, the one behind the lawsuit, the Fox News Contributor, whose posting you used to support the idea that there is a criminal investigation, seems to be a little unhinged. You can rebut from whatever sources you wish but it has to be noted that being in conspiracy theory territory is hard to debate against; see the previous PDF.


    Two things. One, you realize Freund was calling you out right? That he is pointing out that you have yet to offer any actual evidence for any of the claims you have made?
    Of course, I do - it's why i corrected the actual position, which is to accept that there is a bureaucratic wrong-doing that some people may find scandalous. And at the same time withdraw because the scandal I thought was in play, the Obama-linked one, isn't one that you were claiming. So there's no need for me to provide evidence and I've deliberately not done so because it's not my job to support your position.

    There are very few claims for me to support because I have tried not to make any - this thread is about me understanding what the fuss is all about. And I know the answer: nothing of any worth.

    Two, please support or retract that I used Mr. Sekulow's lawsuit as evidence of President Obama's link to this scandal. Challenge to support a claim.
    I never said that - you are bringing up challenges to things i have not said. You brought Sekulow's lawsuit to support that there was a criminal investigation going on. I am saying you are linking Obama to this (unsubstantiated) crime. Please don't get that confused again.

    I was pointing out Sekulow's latest post to show that this is where his lawsuit is likely leading; whether you support him or not in this line of reasoning is up to you - he's your source and the lawsuit is your source to support that there is a criminal investigation going on (by a conspiracy-theory-minded Fox News contributor).

    JJ:I'd also like you to drop the line of argument that Obama is linked to this first or at least show that you can see both sides.
    I haven't made any connection between the two beyond what I stated above, that the President must either be complicit or negligent. Any further connection is something invented in your memory, not mine.
    If that's all you see then there is no discussion. I accept that those are the only two choices available to you. It's not my conspiracy to support - it's entirely yours.


    Ad Hom Fallacy. You are attempting to discredit the debater rather than the subject. Please stick to the subject at hand.
    Well, since we're in conspiracy theory territory, I think you should answer the question.




    You are free to respond or ignore the post below the "blue line," but please be aware that you have not supported that I actually did show that it was feasible for this to have been targeted at progressive groups. Challenge to support a claim..
    Please show explicitly where I am saying that you showed it was 'feasible'; I am saying that you showed it was plausible.

    And I would like to end this post with the same chart of this debate's progress. For all your bluster, condescension and fallacies, you have yet to concretely object to any of these points:
    None of these points are under dispute so I don't know why you feel they need rebutting. Again, you have your bureaucratic wrong-doing and you are free to see it as scandalous. I have no real disagreement as to what happened - I just don't understand why it is such a big deal. There is nothing else to discuss below the line as far as I'm concerned.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 26th, 2013 at 09:11 AM.

  8. #106
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. Please show that there are no other scenarios possible.
    Categorical error, this is not about me having established a series of scenarios then proven/debunked any particular one. I have given the deductive reasoning that connects the facts observed with the deductions I have claimed. I have already given that deduction here. And then again, here. And here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    None of that supports that Obama is connected to the conspiracy.
    Whoa there. I just put forward that there are only two possibilities in this regard. That he was either a) negligent or b) complicit. I have never suggested that we know which one, you are inappropriately misstating my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It isn't a red herring at all - it is entirely relevant that your source,
    Actually, it is a Red Herring fallacy.

    A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

    You attempted to insert the reporter's political leaning into the discussion. His political views and motivations are irrelevant to the fact that his lawsuit is underway and has not been dismissed for lack of merit. Hence, you are attempting a red herring fallacy. If you wish to attempt to argue the federal judge was incorrect and that his lawsuit lacks merit, go ahead, but him being conservative, progressive, socialist or anarcho-capitalist is 100% irrelevant to the merit of his case, which was the reason it was introduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I never said that - you are bringing up challenges to things i have not said.
    You said: "You're hanging on this guys coat-tails to support your case for Obama's link to all this?" Either you are implying that I am using him as evidence or you still completely misunderstand the position. The position with the President relates to his position. It is a tautologically true statement to say that concerning malfeasance by the Executive branch that the President must either be complicit or negligent. The investigation was simply, and only to rebut your claim that this had "fizzled out." I have pointed that out to you on several occasions. Lets review.

    1) The President must, by definition, be negligent or complicit.

    2) There are still ongoing investigations into the scope of illegal activities (not the presence), not only via a court action, but by the FBI.

    3) It is undeniable that at least two illegal actions occurred, one of which involves the White House. The exact participants is still under investigation, but the fact that crimes were committed is indubitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    If that's all you see then there is no discussion. I accept that those are the only two choices available to you. It's not my conspiracy to support - it's entirely yours.
    Fine, one is a crime for sure (complicit) the other is more likely than not a crime (negligent). Take your pick.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, since we're in conspiracy theory territory, I think you should answer the question.
    The question is moot to the thread at hand. Please refrain from using it in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Please show explicitly where I am saying that you showed it was 'feasible'; I am saying that you showed it was plausible.
    You stated: "Yet you easily demonstrated that the same scenario could have happened to a progressive group."

    Feasible is simply defined as "possible to do". IE that it could have happened. Please support or retract that statement. Challenge to support a claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #107
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Categorical error, this is not about me having established a series of scenarios then proven/debunked any particular one.
    Challenge to support a claim. You still haven't proven that there are only two possibilities - please prove this or withdraw the statement. You also mention it below but you have only listed (not proven) two conclusions, not that they are the only ones possible.

    JJ: None of that supports that Obama is connected to the conspiracy.

    Whoa there. I just put forward that there are only two possibilities in this regard. That he was either a) negligent or b) complicit. I have never suggested that we know which one, you are inappropriately misstating my position.
    So I have to pause here because I don't understand your position that there are only two possibilities. We can continue after the this has been resolved.

  10. #108
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. You still haven't proven that there are only two possibilities - please prove this or withdraw the statement. You also mention it below but you have only listed (not proven) two conclusions, not that they are the only ones possible.
    This still represents a fallacious challenge, no matter how many times you offer it. I don't need to prove that there are two categories (mortal and immortal) when I argue that because all men are mortal and Socrates is a man that he is therefore mortal.

    Likewise, I don't need to examine the other scenarios of relationships to action given that Mr. Obama is the President and the President is the head of the executive branch.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #109
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This still represents a fallacious challenge, no matter how many times you offer it. I don't need to prove that there are two categories (mortal and immortal) when I argue that because all men are mortal and Socrates is a man that he is therefore mortal.

    Likewise, I don't need to examine the other scenarios of relationships to action given that Mr. Obama is the President and the President is the head of the executive branch.
    It is not fallacious because your scenarios are not mutually exclusive completely exhaustive. You are not saying that he is complicit or not complicit OR that he is negligent or not negligent.

    You have combined two non-mutually-exclusive categories into one. There is also the possibility that he's complicit and negligent or non-complicit and not negligent or even complicit and not negligent.

    Do you'll have to either:

    1. Stick to one category: complicit or not, or negligent or not.

    Or

    2. Show that being non-complicit necessarily means negligence on Obama's part. And if you do please present it clearly and not as a link to another post.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 30th, 2013 at 11:23 AM.

  12. #110
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It is not fallacious because your scenarios are not mutually exclusive completely exhaustive.
    They are in the context of his role, which is my argument and has been my argument for a while now. He cannot, by definition, have a different relationship to the action given his position as President.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    There is also the possibility that he's complicit and negligent or non-complicit and not negligent or even complicit and not negligent.
    I'm not sure you understand the full meaning of those terms. He cannot be both complicit and negligent. He cannot have both been neglectful in oversight and chosen to participate in the action. Negligence is the position of having failed to give proper care and consideration. Complicity is the position of having chosen to participate in the action.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #111
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    They are in the context of his role, which is my argument and has been my argument for a while now. He cannot, by definition, have a different relationship to the action given his position as President.
    How, by definition? What relationship? You are skirting direct questions regarding this link.

    I'm not sure you understand the full meaning of those terms. He cannot be both complicit and negligent. He cannot have both been neglectful in oversight and chosen to participate in the action. Negligence is the position of having failed to give proper care and consideration. Complicity is the position of having chosen to participate in the action.
    Then he could also be non-complicit and/or not-negligent. You are still conflating the two categories of possibilities and rejecting other possibilities without explaining why.

  14. #112
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    How, by definition? What relationship? You are skirting direct questions regarding this link.
    It might appear that way from your point of view, from mine it appears you are using your hand to shield yourself from the spectacularly obvious.

    The definition of President. His role as Chief of the Executive branch. The fundamental nature of leadership. I'm not sure how much more basic that explanation can go. Perhaps you can help me understand your confusion. Are you uncertain of the responsibility a leader has bears his organization?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Then he could also be non-complicit and/or not-negligent. You are still conflating the two categories of possibilities and rejecting other possibilities without explaining why.
    I'm surprised a bit by your inability to understand these definitions.

    How could someone who is a leader of an organization be both not complicit and not negligent? What third category of state could they have?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #113
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It might appear that way from your point of view, from mine it appears you are using your hand to shield yourself from the spectacularly obvious.

    The definition of President. His role as Chief of the Executive branch. The fundamental nature of leadership. I'm not sure how much more basic that explanation can go. Perhaps you can help me understand your confusion. Are you uncertain of the responsibility a leader has bears his organization?
    So your primary connection between Obama and this 'scandal' is that he happens to be President whilst this was going on?

    I'm surprised a bit by your inability to understand these definitions.

    How could someone who is a leader of an organization be both not complicit and not negligent? What third category of state could they have?
    I'm not sure how you are equating someone's responsibility with their also being complicit to their acts. Again, you introduce new terms into your ever shifting argument.

    Are you saying that Obama didn't have a direct hand in this or are you saying he did?


    Please define complicit.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 31st, 2013 at 06:13 PM.

  16. #114
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    So your primary connection between Obama and this 'scandal' is that he happens to be President whilst this was going on?
    "Happens" to be President? You make it sound as if the Chief Executive's relationship with the Executive branch is merely incidental. My argument has been that sine he is leader of the Executive branch, the actions taken by a nominated appointee of his who met with him very frequently and which were protested by those affected rise to the level of due diligence.

    Just as if you were the CEO of a company and your CFO was changing the books to make your company look more profitable outside of GAAP provisions. Would you argue that the connection was that they just "happened" to be CEO at the time?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I'm not sure how you are equating someone's responsibility with their also being complicit to their acts. Again, you introduce new terms into your ever shifting argument.

    Are you saying that Obama didn't have a direct hand in this or are you saying he did?


    Please define complicit.
    Perhaps they are new terms to you and as such you are unfamiliar with them. They are quite common in normal language.

    I argued that the President, by virtue of his role, is either negligent or complicit. One or the other. He had a responsibility as Chief executive that a reasonable person (legal standard) should have understood and acted upon and did not. As such his actions either "departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances" or he "help[ed] to commit a crime or do wrong in some way."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #115
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    "Happens" to be President? You make it sound as if the Chief Executive's relationship with the Executive branch is merely incidental. My argument has been that sine he is leader of the Executive branch, the actions taken by a nominated appointee of his who met with him very frequently and which were protested by those affected rise to the level of due diligence.

    Just as if you were the CEO of a company and your CFO was changing the books to make your company look more profitable outside of GAAP provisions. Would you argue that the connection was that they just "happened" to be CEO at the time?
    OK. Then please produce the chain of command between the President and the bureaucrat in question.

    Perhaps they are new terms to you and as such you are unfamiliar with them. They are quite common in normal language.

    I argued that the President, by virtue of his role, is either negligent or complicit. One or the other. He had a responsibility as Chief executive that a reasonable person (legal standard) should have understood and acted upon and did not. As such his actions either "departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances" or he "help[ed] to commit a crime or do wrong in some way."
    So what evidence do you have that Obama "helped to commit a crime or do wrong in some way"?

  18. #116
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    OK. Then please produce the chain of command between the President and the bureaucrat in question.
    Wow.

    So are you doubting whether the President is the Chief Executive? That he is in charge of the Executive branch?

    To answer your question. The office of the Chief Counsel is run by a political appointee of the President, so directly responsible to him for his actions. Further, that office (as opposed to the person) reports to the IRS Commissioner who reports directly to the President. Finally, the individual appointed Mr. William J. Wilkins has extensive background with Mr. Obama personally, including defending his old church (prior to the election) and having visited Mr. Obama just days before issuing the guidance in question.

    Doubting that the President had oversight responsibility on the Executive Branch is hardly a defensible position.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So what evidence do you have that Obama "helped to commit a crime or do wrong in some way"?
    What evidence do you have that I said he did?

    I said that Mr. Obama was either negligent or complicit. That those were the only two choices available given his role.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #117
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Wow.

    So are you doubting whether the President is the Chief Executive? That he is in charge of the Executive branch?
    No not at all. I am making zero claims of any sort in this thread - this is to explore why you think this is such a scandal. I have convinced that this is most certainly one not worthy of the media attention it got but Issa is looking like Mr. Conspiracy Theory the way he leaps from 'scandal' to 'scandal' (much like the Fox News contributer whose lawsuit you used to support your other point).

    We are now trying to establish what you mean by the link to Obama; beginning with the relationship him and the bureaucrat in question.


    To answer your question. The office of the Chief Counsel is run by a political appointee of the President, so directly responsible to him for his actions. Further, that office (as opposed to the person) reports to the IRS Commissioner who reports directly to the President.
    I don't entirely follow the chain of people here: I can see at least three offices/departments but I don't see a management structure. I was asking about the number of management layers between Obama and the decision makers here.

    Finally, the individual appointed Mr. William J. Wilkins has extensive background with Mr. Obama personally, including defending his old church (prior to the election) and having visited Mr. Obama just days before issuing the guidance in question.
    Not sure how this is relevant - do you know what transpired during this meeting?

    Doubting that the President had oversight responsibility on the Executive Branch is hardly a defensible position.
    Which is why I didn't doubt it but was asking questions regarding the number of steps between Obama & the person in question. And I'm counting at least 3 layers of management or at least three offices - correct?

    JJ: So what evidence do you have that Obama "helped to commit a crime or do wrong in some way"?
    What evidence do you have that I said he did?

    I said that Mr. Obama was either negligent or complicit. That those were the only two choices available given his role.
    I am addressing the complicit choice first. Do you have any evidence that would make Obama complicit (i.e. helped commit a crime or do wrong in some way)? If you have none then that's not a choice and we can drop it and you can explain why you raised it in the first place.

  20. #118
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    No not at all. I am making zero claims of any sort in this thread - this is to explore why you think this is such a scandal. I have convinced that this is most certainly one not worthy of the media attention it got but Issa is looking like Mr. Conspiracy Theory the way he leaps from 'scandal' to 'scandal' (much like the Fox News contributer whose lawsuit you used to support your other point).
    You have made numerous claims in this thread, none more integral to your argumentation than your assertion that this entire discussion can be dismissed because it is "an unsubstantiated claim based on paranoia." The problem with this assertion is that it has been falsified--Squatch et. al. have effectively substantiated the claim that Obama is indeed connected to the IRS debacle by his position as head of the Executive Branch. The burden is on you to show that this is somehow not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    We are now trying to establish what you mean by the link to Obama; beginning with the relationship him and the bureaucrat in question.
    Who is this "we" you are writing about? Squatch has clearly and effectively explained the link to Obama several times over. The breakdown in communication is not Squatch's fault, as I (and I presume most other observers) have had no issue understanding his points. That means the only problem here is with your comprehension of Squatch's argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    This is true but conspiracy theories have to be dismissed strongly. The way to evaluate Obama is not on insinuation or unsubstantive paranoia theories of his evil reach. The condescension is deliberate to put the matter in perspective and to add shame. The purpose of the shame is to ensure that people think twice before making tenuous connections between facts and their internal hatred.
    The problem with this thinking is that it is a perfect example of confirmation bias that leads to clouded judgement. If a conspiracy theory (which does not necessarily have to be based in paranoia or even wrong on its face--see Watergate) is substantiated well with strong evidence and rational explanation, then it should not be dismissed whatsoever, but rather evaluated as a possible explanation of the events that occurred. Take for example the Moon Landing theories: the Mythbusters did a special on these conspiracy theories, and were able to demonstrate the weaknesses of the claims made. This is exactly how we go about evaluating truth claims and it does not matter if the claim is that the moon landing was staged, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government, or that the Nixon administration was involved in the break-in at the Watergate complex. We should not assume something to be false prima facie based on our political leanings/personal beliefs/etc.--which is what you have done throughout this thread and others. It is a clear demonstration of confirmation bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    I believe that many of these Republican scandals rest on a specific opinion on a very narrow reading of the facts and this theme is played throughout all Republican scandals (which is why they have all fizzled away).
    You are more than welcome to demonstrate this. Why should I (or anyone else) believe that what you have claimed ("many of these Republican scandals rest on a specific opinion on a very narrow reading of the facts") is true?
    Last edited by Freund; November 8th, 2013 at 06:39 AM.

  21. #119
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    You have made numerous claims in this thread, none more integral to your argumentation than your assertion that this entire discussion can be dismissed because it is "an unsubstantiated claim based on paranoia."
    If I have made claims then those are tactical mistakes on my part.

    As far as saying the discussion can be dismissed, that is untrue. I am saying firstly that the 'scandal' can be dismissed since it doesn't live up to its original billing - I'm not denying other people see it as a scandal, I just don't.

    Secondly, we (Squatch & I) are seeing the chain between the President and the bureaucrat. That is not being dismissed either.

    The problem with this assertion is that it has been falsified--Squatch et. al. have effectively substantiated the claim that Obama is indeed connected to the IRS debacle by his position as head of the Executive Branch. The burden is on you to show that this is somehow not the case.
    Sure, but that's largely a non statement. Of course everyone is connected to the president - there's probably a million people directly linked to his chain of command. I am not disputing the overall link. I am trying to establish how many people are between the President and the bureaucrat in question.

    Who is this "we" you are writing about? Squatch has clearly and effectively explained the link to Obama several times over. The breakdown in communication is not Squatch's fault, as I (and I presume most other observers) have had no issue understanding his points. That means the only problem here is with your comprehension of Squatch's argument.
    He had indeed provided some evidence but no detail. I am delving into the details not criticizing his communication skills, which are otherwise clear. Don't mistake my questioning with disagreement.


    The problem with this thinking is that it a perfect example of confirmation bias that leads to clouded judgement. If a conspiracy theory (which does not necessarily have to be based in paranoia or even wrong on its face--see Watergate) is substantiated well with strong evidence and rational explanation, then it should not be dismissed whatsoever, but rather evaluated as a possible explanation of the events that occurred. Take for example the Moon Landing theories: the Mythbusters did a special on these conspiracy theories, and were able to demonstrate the weaknesses of the claims made. This is exactly how we go about evaluating truth claims and it does not matter if the claim is that the moon landing was staged, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government, or that the Nixon administration was involved in the break-in at the Watergate complex. We should not assume something to be false prima facie based on our political leanings/personal beliefs/etc.--which is what you have done throughout this thread and others. It is a clear demonstration of confirmation bias.
    I agree. However, when quoting sources of people whose job is to manufacture conspiracies until something sticks then I have every right to be initially skeptical (crying wolf principle). Here, I am not just taking about Fox News but in particular the Fox News contributor whose lawsuit Squatch used earlier to support a different point. This guy has documented conspiracies from Muslims to Obama throughout his career.

    Unfortunately, it does taint the case and I know it is unfair. And I am fighting the urge so I appreciate being called out when I fail to do so. Squatch has done the same thing with side references to Saul Alinksy in other debates we've had. It is indeed an attempt to diminish the other side but I feel in this case, I am justified.

    Squatch has already admitted that this link is unsubstantiated and currently under investigation. What I am doing is to understand this link between Obama and the scandal and why it is still credible.


    You are more than welcome to demonstrate this. Why should I (or anyone else) believe that what you have claimed ("many of these Republican scandals rest on a specific opinion on a very narrow reading of the facts") is true?
    I will in a different thread in due course. That's what some my recent debates have been about. E4M's 'bait and switch', ObamaCare's 'lie', Benghazi , this case and other odd phrasing like Isbeld's 'lost coverage'. From the last election we had Benghazi's 'act of terrorism' vs 'terrorist act' and 'you did not build that'. There's a ton of these scandals littering the landscape that nobody really cares about any more. But there are always fresh ones coming up!

    These are terms and scandals that are largely manufactured that even when found true are largely non substantive anyway. They are strong, emotional terms loaded with meaning and repeated in the press but when examined largely fail to live up to their original billing. And they generally have truth value when all else is ignored except for that specific phrase. But I'm in research mode at the moment so I have no real conclusions.

    In this debate is the original scandal, by Issa, that was billed as Obama's office, if not himself, is reduced to one about bureaucrat error. Yes, it has all the same qualities as a serious scandal with internal rules ignored, laws broken, firings and resignations and apologies and all that. And yes, the guy is one of a million direct links to the president via an as yet undetermined number of managers.

    But is this something to continue pursuing? Even Squatch's source from Fox has had to resort to saying that there are people in the IRS operating from instructions from Obama's own speeches and that is sufficient enough of a link to Obama's culpability in this. But I'm getting ahead of myself - it is up to Squatch to support the evidence for the two cases he presents.

    Thanks for the note. I do seriously intend to pursue this further at a later date but at this rate it will be months.
    Last edited by Squatch347; November 8th, 2013 at 08:31 AM. Reason: Formatting fix.

  22. #120
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "A 'nail in the coffin' of the IRS 'scandal'"

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    If I have made claims then those are tactical mistakes on my part.
    OK, then. We all make mistakes. Don't claim however that you have made zero claims in this thread as that is untrue.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    As far as saying the discussion can be dismissed, that is untrue. I am saying firstly that the 'scandal' can be dismissed since it doesn't live up to its original billing - I'm not denying other people see it as a scandal, I just don't.
    You seem to make a lot of tactical mistakes (i.e. "claims").

    Claim: The "scandal" can be dismissed.
    Support: The "scandal" doesn't live up to its original billing.

    Question: What was the scandal originally billed as?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    Sure, but that's largely a non statement. Of course everyone is connected to the president - there's probably a million people directly linked to his chain of command. I am not disputing the overall link. I am trying to establish how many people are between the President and the bureaucrat in question.
    If you agree that there is a link, but dispute that the link does not implicate the President, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that. Squatch has already supported his claim that the President is linked to the scandal by his role as head of the Executive Branch, and has further demonstrated that there are only two options: negligence or complicity. You agree there is a link, therefore you must counter Squatch's claim that there are only two options.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    He had indeed provided some evidence but no detail.
    What exactly do you mean by detail? In my view, what you describe is linkwarz, which Squatch has not engaged in. So what exactly do you mean by this?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    I agree. However, when quoting sources of people whose job is to manufacture conspiracies until something sticks then I have every right to be initially skeptical (crying wolf principle). Here, I am not just taking about Fox News but in particular the Fox News contributor whose lawsuit Squatch used earlier to support a different point. This guy has documented conspiracies from Muslims to Obama throughout his career.

    Unfortunately, it does taint the case and I know it is unfair. And I am fighting the urge so I appreciate being called out when I fail to do so. Squatch has done the same thing with side references to Saul Alinksy in other debates we've had. It is indeed an attempt to diminish the other side but I feel in this case, I am justified.
    I could understand your point if this was the only item used to support his claims, but the fact is that this wasn't the only source used. Furthermore, willfully employing fallacious reasoning and argumentation ("It is indeed an attempt to diminish the other side but I feel in this case, I am justified") has no place in debate. It simply demonstrates that you are being intellectually dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    Squatch has already admitted that this link is unsubstantiated and currently under investigation.
    Could you point out where exactly Squatch admitted this (that the link is unsubstantiated)?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    I will in a different thread in due course. That's what some my recent debates have been about. E4M's 'bait and switch', ObamaCare's 'lie', Benghazi , this case and other odd phrasing like Isbeld's 'lost coverage'. From the last election we had Benghazi's 'act of terrorism' vs 'terrorist act' and 'you did not build that'. There's a ton of these scandals littering the landscape that nobody really cares about any more. But there are always fresh ones coming up!
    Unless you can demonstrate that there is a majority of people who do not really care about these issues any more, then this is little more than a statement of your opinion.

 

 
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •