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 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 248
  1. #121
    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
    No not at all. I am making zero claims of any sort in this thread
    Do you mean, "I have no outstanding claims?" Because you have made claims in this thread, several of which have been retracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I have convinced that this is most certainly one not worthy of the media attention
    Do you mean, "I have convinced myself?" Because no one else who has participated in this thread seems to agree with you. Reputation and like comments would further seem to belie your statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    We are now trying to establish what you mean by the link to Obama; beginning with the relationship him and the bureaucrat in question.
    This is an accurate statement. You have ceded the argument I summarized in my table (below) and have fallen back to the idea that "the President isn't a part of it." I have shown that your interpretation there is incorrect, that the President is either negligent or complicit. I am currently defending that position.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    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.
    It is quite simple. In government agencies there are dual chains of accountability (on the civilian side).

    1) Office of the Chief Counsel is directly responsible to the President via his position as a political appointee. The President bears responsibility for the actions taken by his political appointees within his span of control (Executive Branch).

    2) The Office of the Chief Counsel is one level removed from direct reporting to the President through the IRS Commissioner, who reports directly to the President. IE: Office of Chief Counsel ---> Commissioner -----> President.


    To attempt to answer your question even more succinctly, the "levels of bureaucracy" are either 0 or 1. Neither of which alleviates the President's role as Chief Executive.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Not sure how this is relevant - do you know what transpired during this meeting?
    What transpired is irrelevant to the point I'm making. The content of the meeting might reveal complicity in the actions taken or it might not. Either outcome supports my position that the President was either complicit or negligent. The meeting shows that there was a direct, habitual, communication relationship between the roles, adding further (though not necessary) support to the concept of the President's oversight role for that office.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    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?
    No, I'm assuming you are talking about the Deputy Commissioner? That is an assistant role to the Commissioner, not an intermediary between Office of the Chief Counsel and the Commissioner. The Office of the Chief Counsel reports directly to the IRS Commissioner.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    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.
    This is a form of Strawman Fallacy or at least just logically unsound.

    I am not attempting to show that the President was complicit. I'm saying he was either complicit or negligent. Which one is irrelevant to the argument of connection to the scandal. For example, if I said "Dogs, as animals, are either vertebrates or invertebrates." My ability to show that they are, in fact, vertebrates is completely irrelevant to the truth value of that statement.

    We can see this quite easily by saying: "XJFUIRG, as animals, are either vertebrates or invertebrates." I have no idea if XJFUIRG have spines or not. But I do know that all animals are either vertebrates or invertebrates always. The point is that XJFUIRG are animals, that is the relevant claim. Being a vertebrate or not is a characteristic of that 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.


  2. #122
    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
    OK, then. We all make mistakes. Don't claim however that you have made zero claims in this thread as that is untrue.
    True that.



    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?
    I didn't think that was really a claim but the original scandal way back when had Obama's fingerprints all over it. It was also claimed that only Republicans were on the bolos but Progressive groups were also found on them; at the point the argument then shifted to how much worse the Republicans were treated. And blah blah blah later, we have a scandal of non-epic proportions.


    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.
    I am currently exploring the link, and the two options to deeply understand them to see. So I have no counter argument as yet.


    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?
    Just linking to a chart with multiple departments is insufficient to determine the possible path of communication between Obama and the bureaucrat. In order to properly evaluate a sequence of probably cause then we have to know how many physical humans are between the two and how often they talk.


    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.
    Perhaps, but so is using fallacious and dishonest people. Using a lawsuit (which was his response to my question as to the criminality of the act) from such a source makes me suspect everything. I'm sorry but the other two sources for this were about FBI investigations. This was the only lawsuit and it was from a known conspiracy theorist.


    Could you point out where exactly Squatch admitted this (that the link is unsubstantiated)?
    It was very early on and what triggered my interest, I summarize it in #105 as:
    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).
    So several weeks later, we are at the point that the Obama link may be a little more substantial than was originally portrayed. Hinging on mainly on the number of visits to the White House.

    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.
    I don't know if that can be entirely demonstrated - the Republican news bubble is rather large and then there's the fact that people care because Republicans have turned it into an issue. For now I'm OK with it being dismissed as 'mere opinion'. Reality isn't going away - either these scandals will continue to fizzle out or they don't. I certainly don't see people talking about Obama's "you didn't build it comment any more" even though it was a huge campaign issue for weeks.
    Last edited by Squatch347; November 13th, 2013 at 08:39 AM. Reason: Don't use Red, Red is for Mods.

  3. #123
    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
    Just linking to a chart with multiple departments is insufficient to determine the possible path of communication between Obama and the bureaucrat. In order to properly evaluate a sequence of probably cause then we have to know how many physical humans are between the two and how often they talk.
    I don't think you can hold this position in reality. A CEO is responsible for the accuracy of the financial statements regardless of whether they are drafted by a CFO in the office next to his or an assistant to an assistant to a Vice President that he never meets.

    As leader of an organization, you are responsible for that organizations actions. Either directly through oversight or indirectly through organizational set up and control.

    Importantly, none of this matters because, as I pointed out in my last response, the number of human beings is exactly 1. The IRS Commissioner. The reporting chain is quite clear. It is either directly to the President via their role as a political appointee acting in an oversight role as a lawyer for the agency or through the Commissioner to the President in the role as personal staff to the Commissioner of the IRS.

    Neither of those would imply an immensely tangled network that the President could be "forgiven" for not noticing.

    And even if it had (which it doesn't), that still doesn't absolve the President from his role as Chief of the Executive Branch, responsible for oversight and organization to ensure compliance with the law.
    "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.


  4. #124
    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: Just linking to a chart with multiple departments is insufficient to determine the possible path of communication between Obama and the bureaucrat. In order to properly evaluate a sequence of probably cause then we have to know how many physical humans are between the two and how often they talk.


    I don't think you can hold this position in reality. A CEO is responsible for the accuracy of the financial statements regardless of whether they are drafted by a CFO in the office next to his or an assistant to an assistant to a Vice President that he never meets.

    As leader of an organization, you are responsible for that organizations actions. Either directly through oversight or indirectly through organizational set up and control.
    I'm not sure if asking questions is holding any kind of position at this stage.


    Importantly, none of this matters because, as I pointed out in my last response, the number of human beings is exactly 1. The IRS Commissioner. The reporting chain is quite clear. It is either directly to the President via their role as a political appointee acting in an oversight role as a lawyer for the agency or through the Commissioner to the President in the role as personal staff to the Commissioner of the IRS.
    Which IRS Commissioner are you talking about specifically?

    Neither of those would imply an immensely tangled network that the President could be "forgiven" for not noticing.
    Which still remains to be seen and proven in due course.

    And even if it had (which it doesn't), that still doesn't absolve the President from his role as Chief of the Executive Branch, responsible for oversight and organization to ensure compliance with the law.
    Sure, if that's the route you want to take. At the moment, I'm trying to figure out the people involved.

  5. #125
    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 Jim Jones
    I didn't think that was really a claim but the original scandal way back when had Obama's fingerprints all over it. It was also claimed that only Republicans were on the bolos but Progressive groups were also found on them; at the point the argument then shifted to how much worse the Republicans were treated. And blah blah blah later, we have a scandal of non-epic proportions.
    The primary groups targeted were for the most part conservative, not necessarily Republican. I assume this was simply a mistake on your part?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    I am currently exploring the link, and the two options to deeply understand them to see. So I have no counter argument as yet.
    You can explore the link to your heart's content, but at the end of the day the burden is on you to demonstrate how or why Squatch's support is insufficient or invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    Just linking to a chart with multiple departments is insufficient to determine the possible path of communication between Obama and the bureaucrat. In order to properly evaluate a sequence of probably cause then we have to know how many physical humans are between the two and how often they talk.
    This has already been addressed by Squatch.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    Perhaps, but so is using fallacious and dishonest people. Using a lawsuit (which was his response to my question as to the criminality of the act) from such a source makes me suspect everything. I'm sorry but the other two sources for this were about FBI investigations. This was the only lawsuit and it was from a known conspiracy theorist.
    Am I correct in my interpretation of your response in assuming that you believe intellectual dishonesty can be justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones
    I don't know if that can be entirely demonstrated - the Republican news bubble is rather large and then there's the fact that people care because Republicans have turned it into an issue. For now I'm OK with it being dismissed as 'mere opinion'. Reality isn't going away - either these scandals will continue to fizzle out or they don't. I certainly don't see people talking about Obama's "you didn't build it comment any more" even though it was a huge campaign issue for weeks.
    Have you perhaps considered that not everything is as black and white as you portray it to be?

  6. #126
    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
    I'm not sure if asking questions is holding any kind of position at this stage.
    This statement is unrelated to my response or your response to Freund. You said that my linking of an org chart somehow did not show how the organizational relationship was put forward. I was countering that here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Which IRS Commissioner are you talking about specifically?
    Irrelevant. The position is a static one, it is true of all Office of the Chief Counsel and all IRS Commissioners. Your attempt to handle this as an issue of personality or identity is inappropriate. The subject is about the nature of the roles involved and I have supported that there is a direct report relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Which still remains to be seen and proven in due course.
    No it doesn't. The point has been proven here on several occasions. You are only maintaining this claim for your own personal reasons, not for a rational, evidence based reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Sure, if that's the route you want to take. At the moment, I'm trying to figure out the people involved.
    Which is irrelevant. The name of the person is irrelevant to their responsibility arising from their role.

    If you are going to maintain that the identities of the specific individuals is important, you need to offer support and reasoning for that position.







    Finally, you seem to have completely ignored my earlier post in response to you, http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post528065

    Will you be responding to these points or are you ceding the relationships shown?

    ---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Using a lawsuit (which was his response to my question as to the criminality of the act) from such a source makes me suspect everything.
    I would encourage you to review the thread. I cited the lawsuit in response to your statement that "this issue had faded away."
    "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.


  7. #127
    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
    This statement is unrelated to my response or your response to Freund. You said that my linking of an org chart somehow did not show how the organizational relationship was put forward. I was countering that here.
    No, what I said was that it was insufficient in detail. Both times.


    Irrelevant. The position is a static one, it is true of all Office of the Chief Counsel and all IRS Commissioners. Your attempt to handle this as an issue of personality or identity is inappropriate. The subject is about the nature of the roles involved and I have supported that there is a direct report relationship.
    No, it isn't irrelevant. I'm trying to assign people and their hierarchy in relationship to Obama.


    S: Neither of those would imply an immensely tangled network that the President could be "forgiven" for not noticing.
    JJ: Which still remains to be seen and proven in due course.
    No it doesn't. The point has been proven here on several occasions. You are only maintaining this claim for your own personal reasons, not for a rational, evidence based reason.
    Well, you're convinced but all I see are more questions and holes. The big one being who you are claiming to be in this chain of responsibility and oversight.


    JJ:Sure, if that's the route you want to take. At the moment, I'm trying to figure out the people involved.
    Which is irrelevant. The name of the person is irrelevant to their responsibility arising from their role.

    If you are going to maintain that the identities of the specific individuals is important, you need to offer support and reasoning for that position.
    I'm trying to link the people involved to the departments.





    Finally, you seem to have completely ignored my earlier post in response to you, http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post528065

    Will you be responding to these points or are you ceding the relationships shown?
    Nope: I was looking for people's names.
    1) Office of the Chief Counsel is directly responsible to the President via his position as a political appointee. The President bears responsibility for the actions taken by his political appointees within his span of control (Executive Branch).

    2) The Office of the Chief Counsel is one level removed from direct reporting to the President through the IRS Commissioner, who reports directly to the President. IE: Office of Chief Counsel ---> Commissioner -----> President.

    Person Role Action
    Obama President Supposedly complicit or negligent
    ??? IRS Commissioner ???
    ??? IRS Office of Chief Counsel ???


    JJ: Using a lawsuit (which was his response to my question as to the criminality of the act) from such a source makes me suspect everything.

    I would encourage you to review the thread. I cited the lawsuit in response to your statement that "this issue had faded away."
    Really?

    JJ: And neither has there been any criminal prosecutions on the matter.
    S: You do realize the investigation into the criminal nature of this activity is underway right? And that someone was fired for this?


    The first link proving the criminal nature is :
    By Jay Sekulow
    FoxNews.com

    ... I am the lead lawyer in the ACLJ’s lawsuit against the IRS on behalf of 41 conservative groups in 22 states. ...

    I would encourage you to review the thread too!

    ---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    The primary groups targeted were for the most part conservative, not necessarily Republican. I assume this was simply a mistake on your part?
    Sounds like a distinction with no difference. Is there a substantive point you are trying to make?



    You can explore the link to your heart's content, but at the end of the day the burden is on you to demonstrate how or why Squatch's support is insufficient or invalid.
    Sure, but I don't understand the support yet.


    This has already been addressed by Squatch.
    Not completely


    Am I correct my interpretation of your response in assuming that you believe intellectual dishonesty can be justified?
    No you are not correct. Quoting conspiracy theorists lawyers writing for a biased group such as Fox News, who are also known to lie and mislead about Obama and/or his policies, can be respond like for like. Indeed, it seems that Squatch is forgetting why he mentioned it in the first place. Which really doesn't bode well.

    Have you perhaps considered that not everything is as black and white as you portray it to be?
    Always.

  8. #128
    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 Jim Jones
    Sounds like a distinction with no difference. Is there a substantive point you are trying to make?
    It's a matter of being precise. I have followed various discussions here and you seem to attribute any political action you disagree with to Republicans, you frequently mention the "Republican News Bubble" (whatever that is), and assume others who disagree with you here on ODN are Republicans. In other words, you paint with a broad brush and as a result it muddies your arguments.

    Bottom line is, you can hold conservative views and not be Republican. You could hold liberal views and not be Democrat. You could also hold conservative views and vote for Democrats, just as you could hold liberal views and vote for Republicans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    Sure, but I don't understand the support yet.
    You seem to be the only person here who has that issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    No you are not correct. Quoting conspiracy theorists lawyers writing for a biased group such as Fox News, who are also known to lie and mislead about Obama and/or his policies, can be respond like for like. Indeed, it seems that Squatch is forgetting why he mentioned it in the first place. Which really doesn't bode well.
    You say "No", yet go on to confirm my assumption in the very next sentence. What do you think "respond like for like" means?

  9. #129
    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
    It's a matter of being precise. I have followed various discussions here and you seem to attribute any political action you disagree with to Republicans, you frequently mention the "Republican News Bubble" (whatever that is), and assume others who disagree with you here on ODN are Republicans. In other words, you paint with a broad brush and as a result it muddies your arguments.

    Bottom line is, you can hold conservative views and not be Republican. You could hold liberal views and not be Democrat. You could also hold conservative views and vote for Democrats, just as you could hold liberal views and vote for Republicans.
    Sure, but if we're in a debate where the President of the United States is party in some way (negligent/complicit) in using the IRS to scupper one political party then the distinction is largely unimportant.

    The Republican News Bubble, is at least Fox News, Drudge Report & breitbart.com; it's a group that seems to be in sync with the current talking points from the GOP leadership.

    You're largely correct though, I do tend to lump all the right wing together because largely, they vote in a single block. There may well be a range of voices but largely policy-wise they line up on the big issues: health care, social programs, equality programs, women's issues, immigration reform, energy policies, etc.

    You seem to be the only person here who has that issue.
    I understand the insinuations perfectly well but I'm just trying to join the dots clearly.

    You say "No", yet go on to confirm my assumption in the very next sentence. What do you think "respond like for like" means?
    The original charge of intellectual dishonesty was because I said "It is indeed an attempt to diminish the other side but I feel in this case, I am justified". I'm not sure how discrediting a source is dishonest but that's your charge.

  10. #130
    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 Jim Jones
    Sure, but if we're in a debate where the President of the United States is party in some way (negligent/complicit) in using the IRS to scupper one political party then the distinction is largely unimportant.
    It is very important, considering you are forwarding a (new) claim that the IRS scandal targeted only Republicans, which is imprecise and also incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    The Republican News Bubble, is at least Fox News, Drudge Report & breitbart.com; it's a group that seems to be in sync with the current talking points from the GOP leadership.

    You're largely correct though, I do tend to lump all the right wing together because largely, they vote in a single block. There may well be a range of voices but largely policy-wise they line up on the big issues: health care, social programs, equality programs, women's issues, immigration reform, energy policies, etc.
    It's easy and takes little effort to paint with a broad brush, so I can understand why you do it. The problem is that when you paint with a broad brush, the arguments you make lack clarity and focus, are far more prone to logical and factual errors, and for the most part are unconvincing as a result. Take this statement:

    "The Republican News Bubble . . . it's a group that seems to be in sync with the current talking points from the GOP leadership"

    This is incredibly difficult to support because it is imprecise. For example: What kind of "group" are you referring to--news organizations as a whole, bloggers within these news organizations? How do you define "in sync with the current talking points from the GOP leadership"? How are they in sync? Do the reporters/contributors communicate with the GOP leadership in some way? Do they share the same opinions on specific issues?

    You also mention that you lump the "right wing" together--what reason is there to do this? If one falls into the category of "right-wing" but is not Republican, should you call them a Republican anyway? Of course not. This is just lazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    The original charge of intellectual dishonesty was because I said "It is indeed an attempt to diminish the other side but I feel in this case, I am justified". I'm not sure how discrediting a source is dishonest but that's your charge.
    Discrediting a source through dismantling of that source's arguments is appropriate. This is not what you are doing however. You have not addressed the arguments, you simply claim that because this person is someone '"whose job is to manufacture conspiracies until something sticks", that means that their arguments can be dismissed without question. The charge of intellectual dishonesty stems from your approval of dismissing claims prima facie based on a person's reputation (Poisoning the Well).

  11. #131
    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
    No, it isn't irrelevant. I'm trying to assign people and their hierarchy in relationship to Obama.
    Fine, then please support that the identity of the individual is relevant to the reporting relationship.

    How would it change Mr. Obama's role as President if it was Maria Schriver? Bob Dole? Steve Warschawsky? You seem to be inserting a characteristic into the relationship (identity) that is irrelevant to the nature of responsibility. Please support your position that it is relevant.
    "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.


  12. #132
    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
    Fine, then please support that the identity of the individual is relevant to the reporting relationship.

    How would it change Mr. Obama's role as President if it was Maria Schriver? Bob Dole? Steve Warschawsky? You seem to be inserting a characteristic into the relationship (identity) that is irrelevant to the nature of responsibility. Please support your position that it is relevant.
    Ah, but that's why I'm asking you! You've mentioned several people in this thread and they have different levels of involvement and they have different relationships to Obama. It is relevant because I am having a hard time figuring out the chain of culpability that you are purporting.

    Remember, it's not me making the claims that anything has happened and it is my purpose to discover your understanding of the situation and not impose my own.

    ---------- Post added at 07:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    It is very important, considering you are forwarding a (new) claim that the IRS scandal targeted only Republicans, which is imprecise and also incorrect.
    Remember, I'm not forwarding claims (or rather not supposed to be) regarding the scenario. Otherwise, Squatch & I would just be debating what happened. I am trying to understand what happened in order to understand the connections that Squatch is seeing.

    If it's imprecise then consider it withdrawn with apologies for the confusion.


    It's easy and takes little effort to paint with a broad brush, so I can understand why you do it. The problem is that when you paint with a broad brush, the arguments you make lack clarity and focus, are far more prone to logical and factual errors, and for the most part are unconvincing as a result. Take this statement:

    "The Republican News Bubble . . . it's a group that seems to be in sync with the current talking points from the GOP leadership"

    This is incredibly difficult to support because it is imprecise. For example: What kind of "group" are you referring to--news organizations as a whole, bloggers within these news organizations? How do you define "in sync with the current talking points from the GOP leadership"? How are they in sync? Do the reporters/contributors communicate with the GOP leadership in some way? Do they share the same opinions on specific issues?

    You also mention that you lump the "right wing" together--what reason is there to do this? If one falls into the category of "right-wing" but is not Republican, should you call them a Republican anyway? Of course not. This is just lazy.
    This is an awesome topic to discuss in another separate thread. You make some good points but I'd rather not derail this specific topic going down that rabbit hole.

    JJ: The original charge of intellectual dishonesty was because I said "It is indeed an attempt to diminish the other side but I feel in this case, I am justified". I'm not sure how discrediting a source is dishonest but that's your charge.

    Discrediting a source through dismantling of that source's arguments is appropriate. This is not what you are doing however. You have not addressed the arguments, you simply claim that because this person is someone '"whose job is to manufacture conspiracies until something sticks", that means that their arguments can be dismissed without question.
    I agree, though for the purposes of debate but I haven't challenged nor refuted Squatch's evidence that there is indeed a lawsuit going on. It's the question I asked and he answered. So there is no debate on that point - it is factual there is a lawsuit that points to criminal activities (though it does seem to be a civil suit at this stage - am I right and does that matter? Hmmm.).

    Whether the source has merit, or the lawyer involved is self-promoting an anti-Obama case on an anti-Obama site of an anti-Obama organization, or whether said lawyer has other irons in the fire regarding other conspiracies regarding Obama, has any bearing on the merits of the case; or ultimately, whether the lawsuit will continue to have merit in court remains to be seen. Squatch believes that because the suit hasn't been dismissed it does have merit and it provides a bit of support to link it to the 'complicit' scenario (on top of the equally weak 'many visits to the White House'); I don't.

    That is a wholly different topic that may need to be addressed later on. But I have already conceded that there is indeed a scandal to be had, so it is really a moot point.

    The charge of intellectual dishonesty stems from your approval of dismissing claims prima facie based on a person's reputation (Poisoning the Well).
    No, Sekulow's reputation has nothing to do with it. Squatch clearly believes the source reputable within his world view and I have no argument there - that's factually evidenced by the using of Sekulow's self-promoting article to support his position: I can't tell people who to source information from. I don't know if Squatch shares the slightly more outlandish claims of Muslim conspiracies and that "Sharia law is well on its way to inclusion in the Constitution" [source] nor have I insinuated this link. But there is certainly a chain of trust between Squatch & Sekulow (both as a journalist, albeit reporting his own lawsuit, and as a lawyer fighting a case that has merit with the court). Does that make him negligent (in establishing his sources) or complicit (in promoting them)? [see what I did there?] Well, not really if you accept that world view to begin with, and even if you don't not really because Sekulow could get lucky this time around.

    You can only believe the well poisoned if you are predisposed to dismiss people that are like-minded to Sekulow (who some might say conspiracy-minded); otherwise, you are free to see him as an honest source with good intents and clear thinking about the real world. He is certainly a thought-leader in the right and his positions consistent with general right-wing views (Bachmann, Palin, and et al) so clearly, it is not a case of well poisoning but a clarification as to the world views he is supporting. Again, I have no idea to what level Squatch associates himself with the Tea Party leadership of Bachmann/Palin but I believe he supports the Tea Party movement.

    Which brings me all the way back to my PDF regarding right-wing propensity for conspiracies and the difficulty in debating such mindsets to begin with and why this specific point is defensible here: that there's no 'winning' a debate for me here, which is why I'm not making claims or introducing new information into the scenario that is in Squatch's understanding of this -- I'm just trying to understand what these connections actually are and whether they hold up to real scrutiny.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; November 16th, 2013 at 05:35 PM.

  13. #133
    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
    Ah, but that's why I'm asking you! You've mentioned several people in this thread and they have different levels of involvement and they have different relationships to Obama. It is relevant because I am having a hard time figuring out the chain of culpability that you are purporting.
    I have already listed the chain of culpability several times.

    [political appointee role] Office of the Chief Counsel -----> President of the United States

    [position role] Office of the Chief Counsel -----> IRS Commissioner ---------> President of the United States.

    In neither of these cases does the specific identity of the person filling that role affect the chain of culpability.

    You said you are trying to assign people to these specific roles. Why? That is not necessary to support my argument, it is an addition by you. If you think that it is necessary, please elaborate as to why.
    "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.


  14. #134
    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
    I have already listed the chain of culpability several times.

    [political appointee role] Office of the Chief Counsel -----> President of the United States

    [position role] Office of the Chief Counsel -----> IRS Commissioner ---------> President of the United States.

    In neither of these cases does the specific identity of the person filling that role affect the chain of culpability.

    You said you are trying to assign people to these specific roles. Why? That is not necessary to support my argument, it is an addition by you. If you think that it is necessary, please elaborate as to why.
    I have already done so - please quote my answer back and indicate where it is insufficient or unclear why. I need to be assured that you have read my reasons.

  15. #135
    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
    I have already done so - please quote my answer back and indicate where it is insufficient or unclear why. I need to be assured that you have read my reasons.
    You stated earlier:


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It is relevant because I am having a hard time figuring out the chain of culpability that you are purporting.

    But you have offered no explanation as to why culpability is based on personal identity rather than on role (as is done in all other cases).

    If you wish to insist on the identity being relevant, you need to show why personal identity is relevant to the concept of culpability.
    "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.


  16. #136
    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
    You stated earlier:





    But you have offered no explanation as to why culpability is based on personal identity rather than on role (as is done in all other cases).

    If you wish to insist on the identity being relevant, you need to show why personal identity is relevant to the concept of culpability.
    Because some of the roles have several people in them and you have made claims about some of the people having Obama connections. I'm just trying to match things up.

  17. #137
    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
    Because some of the roles have several people in them and you have made claims about some of the people having Obama connections. I'm just trying to match things up.
    Neither of these two issues changes the nature of culpability.

    1) It being an office of appointees (you haven't supported this) or a single appointee does change the nature of the culpability involved. Just as faking a financial report is the same issue if it is just the CFO or a Consulting team.

    2) The connections to the President are irrelevant to the individual. They are based on his having appointed them and the nature of a political appointment.

    Please either offer a distinction as to why the individual personality matters or withdraw this point.
    "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.


  18. #138
    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
    Neither of these two issues changes the nature of culpability.

    1) It being an office of appointees (you haven't supported this) or a single appointee does change the nature of the culpability involved. Just as faking a financial report is the same issue if it is just the CFO or a Consulting team.

    2) The connections to the President are irrelevant to the individual. They are based on his having appointed them and the nature of a political appointment.

    Please either offer a distinction as to why the individual personality matters or withdraw this point.
    Here's the thing - not all the people were appointed by Obama; and not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened. It's why I need to see your list and the chain of people along with timelines. I think you seem to be mixing up a few things but you need to provide that information because it's your understanding of the situation that is bringing you to the conclusions that Obama is somehow at fault via the personal connections (appointments and personal interactions).

  19. #139
    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
    Here's the thing - not all the people were appointed by Obama; and not all the people you have previously mentioned have direct links to what happened.
    1) Even if they were prior appointments, the President must accept their remaining in place in that position upon his inauguration. Nothing about them being hold overs changes his culpability as Chief Executive. If a CFO committed fraud, it wouldn't be a valid excuse for the CEO to point out that he was hired by his predecessor.

    2) Please provide a list of positions that I have suggested that did not have a "direct link" to what happened. Please be specific and provide supporting evidence or retract the claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Obama is somehow at fault via the personal connections (appointments and personal interactions).
    Strawman Fallacy. I have not made the claim that the President is at fault for personal reasons. Please support or retract that I have made this 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.


  20. #140
    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
    1) Even if they were prior appointments, the President must accept their remaining in place in that position upon his inauguration. Nothing about them being hold overs changes his culpability as Chief Executive. If a CFO committed fraud, it wouldn't be a valid excuse for the CEO to point out that he was hired by his predecessor.
    But you are making claims of a political nature and if there are people that were actually from the Bush era involved then that weakens your case. Why are you being so evasive?

    2) Please provide a list of positions that I have suggested that did not have a "direct link" to what happened. Please be specific and provide supporting evidence or retract the claim.
    That's the problem? You've listed too many people and a diagram of links but you haven't put it together. If I were to put it together myself and got it wrong then we'd just be debating my mistakes rather than your perception of what is going on, which my purpose here.

    Strawman Fallacy. I have not made the claim that the President is at fault for personal reasons. Please support or retract that I have made this statement. Challenge to support a claim.
    Not sure what you mean by 'personal reasons'? Please clarify.

 

 
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 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
  •