like clock work anytime Fox News breaks a story they get all fired up, parrot the sound bites, wave the team flag... Only to find out 2 months later that Fox News intentionally blew the story completely out of proportion and that what they initially reported was completely inaccurate.
Wait, so if it's on "FOX NEWS" it's not a legit issue? So what then, it has to be on CNN? What makes one organization more credible than another?
I don't get to watch much news... But I subscribe to a lot of printed news. Yes, FOX is one of them. As well as CNN, NY Times, LA Time, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, AP, and several others.
Now, I will say that yes ALL news agencies have a bias (some are actually willing to admit it, most will not). When GW Bush was president, I didn't think that FOX reported or stuck to enough of the CRAP that Bush was signing into law. For example, they (FOX) did cover a lot of the "Patriot Act" and criticized him for it, but IMO they didn't cover it enough. I found myself watching a LOT of CNN back then. They were HIGHLY critical of Bush (as they are biased in favor of liberal beliefs). Does that mean what they are reporting wasn't valid? Does FOX being favorable to conservative beliefs not mean that what they are reporting isn't valid?
IMO you should be watching those agencies whom ARE critical of those in charge. Not those who are favorable to those in charge.
And IMO you couldn't blow these recent stories out of proportion enough! Benghazi, which left 4 US diplomat employees dead! You can't expose enough of that! Fast and Furious, where we were allowing the trafficing of weapons to drug cartels in Mexico with NO MEANS of tracking them, you can't expose that enough! The IRS specifically targeting conservative groups for audits and holding up review of applications for no reason other than being a conservative group! Again, expose it until they are all FIRED! The taping of phones and reading emails of news agencies (AP and FOX) which is a violation of the law! EXPOSE IT UNTIL THEY ARE FIRED! And I don't care WHO they are!
The IRS guy (Schumal SP?) was appointed by Bush, guess what, I DON'T CARE! Make sure he NEVER collects a government paycheck again and if possible, bring him up on criminal charges!
In the past, prior to the sub-prime/credit crises stuff, there were always loan standards... That were mainly market driven because if you f^cked up, you (the bank/lending agency) were going to be on the hook for screwing up. If you ended up making more bad decisions than good ones you'd eventually be out of business.
What changed, is that greed took over, the risk was diversified away from the people/companies making the loans. The system of checks and balances fell apart and went on unchecked for so long that it created a huge bubble that put the entire financial system at risk.
So basically, a handful of people got rich off it, but most normal people (mostly responsible people) got screwed because the loose credit inflated prices and forced people to pay more money than they normally should have for homes... Which unfortunately caused many people to over extend themselves with the rationale that they were "investing" in the future, that their house was only going to increase in value so there was no point in worrying.
Absolutely! Couldn't be more correct!
This was the Clinton "everyone should own a home" dream. It was a effort paved in good intentions, but unfortunately such a thing is simply not feasible.
They should have known this was going to happen (the financial collapse) as that was the entire reason the banking regulations were put in place to begin with. What did they think would happen when they repealed such legislation? IDIOTS! Hell just look at when and why these regulations were put in place... Don't have to look very far. And I place every single person after that as well for not changing it back! ALL IDIOTS!
And the sadest thing is that it's even WORSE TODAY!!!!!!! We are setting ourselves up for an even bigger collapse in the future. :(
One of the critical results was the number of banks that held a high % of the debt in the US. Well as a result of the Dodd-Frank bill, there are an even SMALLER number of banks holding an even HIGHER amount of our debt that prior to the 2008 collapse.
Is it really? I'll agree that it's a convenient distraction/deflection, but I disagree that it's "completely different"... If profiling is such a useful tactic for terrorists why is the idea of applying it elsewhere so taboo? In my mind there's not much difference between profiling for terrorists by the color of their skin/clothes/religion, and a tax collecting organization profiling people based on how they might ideologically feel about government taxation. Not that I support either.
I'm not saying I agree with profiling for ANY reason, but to play devils advocate I will play along. And there is a HUGE difference.
You wouldn't profile a religious or ethnic group because there were a lot of them, you would profile them because they are prone to doing things that violated the law. Those are DRASTICALLY different cases.
Why do you think the additional scrutiny came about? Because there was an increasingly large number of companies abusing the tax exempt status for political ends, which is something that wasn't allowed. The additional scrutiny (and political profiling) was a response to that trend of abuse...
WRONG sir... You mention in another of your posts to a person that they "should do more research," might I say that you should take some of your own advice. These cases weren't investigations into abuse. These were cases being held up because of beliefs. And not just held up, but they were asked questions that had NOTHING to do with their business, taxes or tax exemptions.
To be perfectly honest, I haven't bothered to look into this scandal all that much. I've only had a chance to take a cursory look into it, and from what I've seen, 1/3 of the companies investigated were conservative sounding organizations. From my recollection, the other 2/3s did include liberal/progressive organizations, so I'm not convinced that your characterization is all that accurate.
I again suggest you do look into it more. But not from FOX, CNN, MSNBC or any other news agencies. I would suggest that you go back and actually watch the testimony that was given before the House Oversight Committee. You can get it on www.c-span.org
. I watch them all.
At this point, I don't care all that much about this manufactured Fox outrage. In 6 months it will come to light that someone screwed up and that yes there were some issues but that surprise things got blown out of proportion.
That does not mean I agree, or condone the IRS scrutinizing anyone for political motivations. I just think it's a dumbass taking some shortcuts, not some grand scheme to suppress conservative influence.
Being covered by FOX, doesn't make it manufactured, it was "manufactured" by the IRS. Not the agency reporting it.
So you don't think they were trying to suppress the conservative movement huh? So forcing groups to wait 3.5 years and asking question such as "turn over your groups meeting topics and meeting minutes" and "provide a list of members" from these conservative groups, all while approving groups such as the "Bus for Progress, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, Progress Florida" and MANY others were approved in mere months.
One group founded by a MAJOR Obama doner was approved in something like 6 weeks!
But yea, nothing to see here, just made up news from Fox... (it's a shame I didn't get any of this info from Fox...)