I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Hemodoc on May 12, 2013, 02:55:32 PM
-
The Tea Party and other conservative groups have complained for a couple of years of abusive over sight by the IRS. Now the IRS has publicly stated that happened and publicly apologized. The long list of using the IRS to target political enemies goes back to Nixon and perhaps beyond, but well documented back to Nixon. However, it is the Obama administration that has taken claim to being the most "transparent" administration. It is nothing more than political games once again with the allegedly "apolitical" current regime.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/12/house-committee-outlines-questions-for-irs-at-planned-hearing-on-targeting-tea/
-
A mighty convenient distraction as more information about the Benghazi mendacity surfaces.
-
Since the IRS is an independent agency, I don't think the President, whoever that might be, has the legal authority to fire anyone over there. Employees of the IRS are civil servants. How can the executive branch discipline/fire an IRS employee? Anyone know?
-
Just curious, Hemodoc: were you writing posts on this board speaking out against the IRS when was targeting liberal groups during the Bush administration?
Benghazi is a non-scandal.
I'm more interested in the AP story, as well as a thousand other big news stories our mainstream news won't cover.
-
Just curious, Hemodoc: were you writing posts on this board speaking out against the IRS when was targeting liberal groups during the Bush administration?
Benghazi is a non-scandal.
I'm more interested in the AP story, as well as a thousand other big news stories our mainstream news won't cover.
I didn't get hooked up with IHD until sometime in 2008 if I remember correctly, but ever stated I was a fan of Bush and his Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense bill of 2007 or the Military Commissions Act signed the same day as the John Warner Defense Bill which seriously expanded government intrusion into our lives.
-
What I believe about the IRS "scandal" is that it's the IRS's job to evaulate whether an organization is eligible for tax-exempt status, and in this instance they were doing their job. Donations to political advocacy groups are not tax-exempt, and a lot of groups are known to get around this by trying to get themselves labeled as social welfare or educational groups. And if more conservative than liberal organizations are being investigated, maybe it's just because conservatives are more likely to attempt this particular tax-avoidance scheme.
No one is entitled to a tax exemption just because they want one!
-
What I believe about the IRS "scandal" is that it's the IRS's job to evaulate whether an organization is eligible for tax-exempt status, and in this instance they were doing their job. Donations to political advocacy groups are not tax-exempt, and a lot of groups are known to get around this by trying to get themselves labeled as social welfare or educational groups. And if more conservative than liberal organizations are being investigated, maybe it's just because conservatives are more likely to attempt this particular tax-avoidance scheme.
No one is entitled to a tax exemption just because they want one!
Sorry, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is using the coercion of the IRS to gain political advantage over your adversaries. The tax exempt status is not the issue, it is taking confidential documents submitted to the IRS in the application process and handing these documents to political opponents.
What you are stating implies some sort of wrong doing on the part of these conservative groups which is completely inaccurate. Instead, the focus is on the IRS and whoever wanted this information and coercion against these groups. This is actually quite a big deal.
-
Sorry, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is using the coercion of the IRS to gain political advantage over your adversaries. The tax exempt status is not the issue, it is taking confidential documents submitted to the IRS in the application process and handing these documents to political opponents.
What you are stating implies some sort of wrong doing on the part of these conservative groups which is completely inaccurate. Instead, the focus is on the IRS and whoever wanted this information and coercion against these groups. This is actually quite a big deal.
No, Hemodoc, sorry, I don't think that's correct. The tax exempt status IS the issue. What kind of "confidential documents" were handed over to political opponents? Which "political opponents" received this information, and what did they do with it? Are you implying that "political opponents" outside of the IRS were engaging in some sort of conspiracy? That's not what the IG report says. If certain GOP congresspeople suspect that the IG report is complicit in a cover-up, then by all means they should investigate further.
Tea party activists had been complaining for some time that their applications for tax exempt status had been delayed or had been overly queried, so they complained to their Congresspeople. It has since been revealed that yes, such applications containing the words "tea party" or "patriot" or some such things WERE overly scrutinized and questioned, so now the question is the legality of those actions. The whole Citizens United debacle changed the rules, making things a lot more complicated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-white-house_n_3275899.html
While I understand that everything that happens under any President's watch will be attributed to and/or blamed on him, I'm not sure it is fair to condemn the entire Obama Administration or the President himself.
Yes, this is a big deal because the IRS has historically targetted all sorts of groups.
People who WANT to see coercion and general evil-doing will certainly see it. If a GOP president was in office and it was discovered that groups applying for tax-exempt status were being targetted if they had the word "progressive" in their names, there would be a great hue and cry among Democrats, I'm sure.
-
And I'm sure you realize that the executive branch cannot legally have a hand in the workings of the DOJ and the IRS for obvious reasons, and quite rightly so. So it makes it doubly difficult for any White House to do much. I've asked before and no one has answered...what can this President or ANY president legally do in situations like this? Seems to me that the only avenue available is to look as outraged as possible.
-
Sorry, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is using the coercion of the IRS to gain political advantage over your adversaries. The tax exempt status is not the issue, it is taking confidential documents submitted to the IRS in the application process and handing these documents to political opponents.
What you are stating implies some sort of wrong doing on the part of these conservative groups which is completely inaccurate. Instead, the focus is on the IRS and whoever wanted this information and coercion against these groups. This is actually quite a big deal.
No, Hemodoc, sorry, I don't think that's correct. The tax exempt status IS the issue. What kind of "confidential documents" were handed over to political opponents? Which "political opponents" received this information, and what did they do with it? Are you implying that "political opponents" outside of the IRS were engaging in some sort of conspiracy? That's not what the IG report says. If certain GOP congresspeople suspect that the IG report is complicit in a cover-up, then by all means they should investigate further.
Tea party activists had been complaining for some time that their applications for tax exempt status had been delayed or had been overly queried, so they complained to their Congresspeople. It has since been revealed that yes, such applications containing the words "tea party" or "patriot" or some such things WERE overly scrutinized and questioned, so now the question is the legality of those actions. The whole Citizens United debacle changed the rules, making things a lot more complicated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-white-house_n_3275899.html
While I understand that everything that happens under any President's watch will be attributed to and/or blamed on him, I'm not sure it is fair to condemn the entire Obama Administration or the President himself.
Yes, this is a big deal because the IRS has historically targetted all sorts of groups.
People who WANT to see coercion and general evil-doing will certainly see it. If a GOP president was in office and it was discovered that groups applying for tax-exempt status were being targetted if they had the word "progressive" in their names, there would be a great hue and cry among Democrats, I'm sure.
Sorry, but you have not accurately described the issue Moosemom. Of course the president and White House will have plausible deniability. That is the way the game is played in D.C. But to believe that a bunch of middle managers did this without anyone up the food chain knowing about this and it just happened by chance to be against the current administrations political enemies does defy logic. Proving that connection, well won't happen unless emails and whistleblowers step forward, a very unlikely event.
Nevertheless, tax exempt status is supposed to be equally applied and it wasn't. In addition, the IRS folks did go beyond in their questioning and further released politically sensitive documents, one example to the Huffington Post, that targeted donors against prop 8.
I believe we are just at the outset of this entire story. We will have to wait and see what links to whom is developed, reported and documented, but to believe that there is no linkage defies logic.
-
And I'm sure you realize that the executive branch cannot legally have a hand in the workings of the DOJ and the IRS for obvious reasons, and quite rightly so. So it makes it doubly difficult for any White House to do much. I've asked before and no one has answered...what can this President or ANY president legally do in situations like this? Seems to me that the only avenue available is to look as outraged as possible.
You mean to hide his illegal activity, or just to keep the administrative branch in line?
The DOJ is under the authority of the White House as we have seen with the Fast and Furious scandal among others. The president could start with firing those who have oversight of these organizations, that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.
-
Hemodoc, I don't see your link to anything by Propublica. All I see is your link to Fox News. Did I miss something?
Maybe it would be easier if you could just explain the issue as you see it.
-
that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.
You mean the ways heads have rolled following the torrent of rape and sexual abuse amongst our military? I see.
-
that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.
You mean the ways heads have rolled following the torrent of rape and sexual abuse amongst our military? I see.
Hmmm, perhaps taking a closer look at one general fired last month:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/05/officials-general-fired-over-alcohol-sex-charges.html
-
that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.
You mean the ways heads have rolled following the torrent of rape and sexual abuse amongst our military? I see.
Here is another general who has hit a brick wall in her promotions because of the sexual abuse cases.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-06/world/39060954_1_sexual-assault-jury-commander
Yes, the military does clean house in the midst of scandals. Obama should take a lesson from them in doing the same starting with Eric Holder.
-
You know that's not nearly enough, Hemodoc. No doubt you've heard of the documentary "Invisible War". If not, watch it and then get back to me.
Getting back on topic, though, let's just wait and see what happens, OK? Maybe the upside in all of this will be a simplification of the tax code like all sides would like to see.
-
that is the way it is done in the military when private snuff messes up and they fire a couple of generals who didn't conduct proper control of their chain of command. In fact, that would be the appropriate step in this case as well.
You mean the ways heads have rolled following the torrent of rape and sexual abuse amongst our military? I see.
Here is another general facing court martial for his own conduct. Yes, the military does take allegations of sexual misconduct seriously as anyone who has spent time in the military knows. Your comment lacks the intimate knowledge of how the military really acts on these issues.
http://news.yahoo.com/sex-major-reason-military-commanders-fired-123720150.html
-
You know that's not nearly enough, Hemodoc. No doubt you've heard of the documentary "Invisible War". If not, watch it and then get back to me.
Getting back on topic, though, let's just wait and see what happens, OK? Maybe the upside in all of this will be a simplification of the tax code like all sides would like to see.
Nope, haven't heard of it at all. I do know from nine years in the military that the consequences of sexual misconduct is very likely to get you a room with a view at Ft. Leavenworth Kansas, but no beach front property.
Since this is such a national scandal, I suspect many more heads will roll. In any case, I have listed two more people fired for the military scandal than Obama has fired for any of his numerous scandals. I suspect that will continue but shouldn't. Yes, I have no doubt that the military will clean up their act. I have seen how a public scandal gets immediate action since careers are on the line. When a general is in the line of fire himself, heads do roll, oh my yes they do and I have seen it during my nine years as a military officer.
-
Yes, but this article only addresses the issue of sexual misconduct of commanders. What about all of those who rape their fellow soldiers and who are NOT commanders?
I know you were in the military for nine years, but you yourself have said that that was a long time ago. Perhaps the values that you fear we are losing are being lost in the military, too, to a more extensive degree than you remember. Perhaps if you were to watch "Invisible War" (available on Netflix and OnDemand, at least it was this time last year), you might have a better idea of what current conditions are in this regard.
But again, getting back to the IRS issue, I think we should wait until all the information is in before anyone is fired (and as of now, I do think a firing is in order, but I may prove to be wrong). I'm sure the Obama Administration is still embarrassed about the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle.
-
Yes, but this article only addresses the issue of sexual misconduct of commanders. What about all of those who rape their fellow soldiers and who are NOT commanders?
I know you were in the military for nine years, but you yourself have said that that was a long time ago. Perhaps the values that you fear we are losing are being lost in the military, too, to a more extensive degree than you remember. Perhaps if you were to watch "Invisible War" (available on Netflix and OnDemand, at least it was this time last year), you might have a better idea of what current conditions are in this regard.
But again, getting back to the IRS issue, I think we should wait until all the information is in before anyone is fired (and as of now, I do think a firing is in order, but I may prove to be wrong). I'm sure the Obama Administration is still embarrassed about the whole Shirley Sherrod debacle.
It is certainly possible that the military is changing as well, however, when it becomes a public scandal, the military has something called the chain of command and they do have something else most organizations lack, AUTHORITY. When a general says jump, that is what you do. When a general is in danger of promotion or other discipline personally, yes, heads do roll and I doubt that aspect of the military has changed one bit. This is a big scandal and generals have already had career altering problems from this scandal. That is a warning shot across the bow of all ships in the fleet so to speak. Yes, I believe that the military will take much greater steps than the IRS will in this whole scandal. Just the way it is.
-
If the IRS didn't do anything "wrong" then why did they apologize.
:waiting;
-
I was watching PBS this evening, and on the broadcast was a reporter for the Washington Post who has covered the issue of sexual assault in the military for several years now. He said that the Pentagon estimates that there were 26,000 sexual assaults in the military in 2012 alone. I couldn't believe it was that many! So this isn't an issue of disciplining a few generals or commanders; this is an issue of the present-day culture in the military.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/sexual-assaults-military_n_3229790.html
Now that we have become aware of this undeniably pervasive problem, I am hoping that there will be more measures in place to prevent this. Maybe the military could lead the way on getting the rest of us back on a track paved by "traditional" American values.
Rerun, I don't think anyone has said that the IRS didn't do anything wrong. The Assistant Director of the IRS has already resigned. What do you think would be the appropriate action to take?
-
I was watching PBS this evening, and on the broadcast was a reporter for the Washington Post who has covered the issue of sexual assault in the military for several years now. He said that the Pentagon estimates that there were 26,000 sexual assaults in the military in 2012 alone. I couldn't believe it was that many! So this isn't an issue of disciplining a few generals or commanders; this is an issue of the present-day culture in the military.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/sexual-assaults-military_n_3229790.html
Now that we have become aware of this undeniably pervasive problem, I am hoping that there will be more measures in place to prevent this. Maybe the military could lead the way on getting the rest of us back on a track paved by "traditional" American values.
Rerun, I don't think anyone has said that the IRS didn't do anything wrong. The Assistant Director of the IRS has already resigned. What do you think would be the appropriate action to take?
Well, we will have to wait and see, but the firing of two generals is big news in the military. That means a whole lot of folks below those generals are also in trouble as well. I wonder what 26,000 is per capita and how that compares to other populations. I don't have anything to compare that to, but you are right, that is huge number of sexual assaults that should not be tolerated.
What should happen, if someone broke the law, they deserve their day in court.
-
Sorry, but you have not accurately described the issue Moosemom. Of course the president and White House will have plausible deniability. That is the way the game is played in D.C. But to believe that a bunch of middle managers did this without anyone up the food chain knowing about this and it just happened by chance to be against the current administrations political enemies does defy logic. Proving that connection, well won't happen unless emails and whistleblowers step forward, a very unlikely event.
So if facts are not in evidence, you will simply make things up until it sounds bad.
Nevertheless, tax exempt status is supposed to be equally applied and it wasn't.
This, at least, is correct. Liberal groups were targetted in the same way. At least one liberal group was denied tax-exempt status.
No conservative groups were.
But this, I'm sure, is ok. If a liberal group was targetted, it was surely for good and logical reasons. If a conservative group was targetted, it's undeniable evidence of a giant conspiracy cooked up by the President.
-
Sorry, but you have not accurately described the issue Moosemom. Of course the president and White House will have plausible deniability. That is the way the game is played in D.C. But to believe that a bunch of middle managers did this without anyone up the food chain knowing about this and it just happened by chance to be against the current administrations political enemies does defy logic. Proving that connection, well won't happen unless emails and whistleblowers step forward, a very unlikely event.
So if facts are not in evidence, you will simply make things up until it sounds bad.
Nevertheless, tax exempt status is supposed to be equally applied and it wasn't.
This, at least, is correct. Liberal groups were targetted in the same way. At least one liberal group was denied tax-exempt status.
No conservative groups were.
But this, I'm sure, is ok. If a liberal group was targetted, it was surely for good and logical reasons. If a conservative group was targetted, it's undeniable evidence of a giant conspiracy cooked up by the President.
Well, Nixon mused about getting the IRS on his political enemies, but to date, no evidence that he actually did such a thing has ever surfaced. If you believe that such an activity came about at lower level IRS folks, that defies logic. Do I have proof? Of course not, but if you really believe the Obama and his Chicago thugs knew nothing of this, then I would say you have your head in the sand. This is just Chicago politics on a national level.
In any case, this is not over and much more shall come out in the coming weeks and perhaps months. I suspect your comment will be proven quite wrong with time, but you are correct, we don't know for sure yet but don't hold your breath. And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.
-
And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.
Can anyone make sense of this?
-
And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.
Can anyone make sense of this?
Yes, it is called speculation, it is also called an educated guess based on prior political scandals outcomes. Yes, when is speculation about anything as a possible outcome of this investigation making anything up???? It is just as I have stated, speculation. Not hard to understand at all my friend. We will simply have to wait and see what develops.
-
And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.
Can anyone make sense of this?
Yes, it is called speculation, it is also called an educated guess based on prior political scandals outcomes. Yes, when is speculation about anything as a possible outcome of this investigation making anything up???? It is just as I have stated, speculation. Not hard to understand at all my friend. We will simply have to wait and see what develops.
Peter, really, are you ok? You don't usually make errors this basic.
First, the sentence I commented on above says that since you never claimed to have proof, you clearly did not make anything up. As I observed, that makes no sense at all.
Then you said it's speculation, which google defines as "guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence." So now you're saying that you didn't make it up, it's a guess. Which is "made up" by definition.
A logical refutation for "you made it up" would be, for example, "No, I didn't make this up. I heard it from a crazy person on Fox News. They are the one who made it up."
-
And in any case, I never ventured having proof of my suspicions thus you are in error that I have made up anything, just venturing a likely scenario of what is going on.
Can anyone make sense of this?
Yes, it is called speculation, it is also called an educated guess based on prior political scandals outcomes. Yes, when is speculation about anything as a possible outcome of this investigation making anything up???? It is just as I have stated, speculation. Not hard to understand at all my friend. We will simply have to wait and see what develops.
Peter, really, are you ok? You don't usually make errors this basic.
First, the sentence I commented on above says that since you never claimed to have proof, you clearly did not make anything up. As I observed, that makes no sense at all.
Then you said it's speculation, which google defines as "guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence." So now you're saying that you didn't make it up, it's a guess. Which is "made up" by definition.
A logical refutation for "you made it up" would be, for example, "No, I didn't make this up. I heard it from a crazy person on Fox News. They are the one who made it up."
Oh my, another nit picker. Here look up the meaning of this my friend: "just venturing a likely scenario"
Venturing definition: To express at the risk of denial, criticism, or censure
So, if parsing my grammar makes you happy, go for it, but I would call that a waste of time. Lastly, did you get your information from NBC news? For your information, you find bias on all of these programs. But as Hillary stated, WHO CARES????
-
Well, I'd like to get back to the issue at hand.
More information has been offered, and more hearings will be held next week.
-
Well, I'd like to get back to the issue at hand.
More information has been offered, and more hearings will be held next week.
Anyone who really thinks that low level IRS folks did this on their own is not looking at the reality of what is before us. Will the evidence of higher level control of this emerge? Not very likely, but indeed, that is the entire discourse and direction that these hearings are exploring and the entire reason for these hearings. That may be speculation on my part, but that is the driving force of those at these hearings asking the questions.
-
This does point to a serious problem in the system, that of political entities operating as "charities". The law was muddied a number of years ago, and the Citizens United ruling kicked the door wide open.
Previously, this particular tax designation was reserved for entities who operated "exclusively" for social welfare, and they could not engage in politics. Then the law was changed to say their purpose had to be "primarily" social welfare. And the politics bit was, ummm, sort of ok, as long as they didn't, you know, primarily do it.
How is an agent supposed to enforce this?
So of course, if what you're policing is whether an organization is "primarily political" - gosh, doesn't it make sense to give extra scrutiny to organizations with political names? Which of these is more likely to be a violation - "The Democratic Party of Franklin County", or the "Stop MS Foundation"?
And despite some people's constant desire to be victims, political groups of all stripes were targetted.
The law needs to be clarified, and we need to stop giving tax-exempt status to political groups. Period.
-
This does point to a serious problem in the system, that of political entities operating as "charities". The law was muddied a number of years ago, and the Citizens United ruling kicked the door wide open.
Previously, this particular tax designation was reserved for entities who operated "exclusively" for social welfare, and they could not engage in politics. Then the law was changed to say their purpose had to be "primarily" social welfare. And the politics bit was, ummm, sort of ok, as long as they didn't, you know, primarily do it.
How is an agent supposed to enforce this?
So of course, if what you're policing is whether an organization is "primarily political" - gosh, doesn't it make sense to give extra scrutiny to organizations with political names? Which of these is more likely to be a violation - "The Democratic Party of Franklin County", or the "Stop MS Foundation"?
And despite some people's constant desire to be victims, political groups of all stripes were targetted.
The law needs to be clarified, and we need to stop giving tax-exempt status to political groups. Period.
Hmmm, Billy Graham was one of those tax exempt organizations targeted by the IRS. Should he be considered a "political group" and excluded as a tax exempt group? How do you define a "political" group in the context of tax exempt status?
-
How do you define a "political" group in the context of tax exempt status?
By Jove, I think you've hit upon the essential problem! :yahoo;
-
Hmmm, Billy Graham was one of those tax exempt organizations targeted by the IRS. Should he be considered a "political group" and excluded as a tax exempt group? How do you define a "political" group in the context of tax exempt status?
Umm, well, no, it was not "Billy Graham" that claims to have been targetted.
Franklin Graham went public claiming to have been "targetted with audits", which has zero to do with what's been in the news. (That dealt with new applications for tax-exempt status.) And he even claimed he was "targetted" after running explicitly political ads. Which, of course, is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to be audited for - using tax-exempt contributions for a non-exempt purpose.
-
Hmmm, Billy Graham was one of those tax exempt organizations targeted by the IRS. Should he be considered a "political group" and excluded as a tax exempt group? How do you define a "political" group in the context of tax exempt status?
Umm, well, no, it was not "Billy Graham" that claims to have been targetted.
Franklin Graham went public claiming to have been "targetted with audits", which has zero to do with what's been in the news. (That dealt with new applications for tax-exempt status.) And he even claimed he was "targetted" after running explicitly political ads. Which, of course, is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to be audited for - using tax-exempt contributions for a non-exempt purpose.
Actually, one of the two targeted Graham organizations targeted was the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association which Franklin Graham now runs. Just sayin. So yes, the Graham ministries is part of this mess. In addition, the ads run did not violate their tax exempt status, so not an issue at all. The issue is not any misadventures by "Tea Party" groups. Instead, it is a very blatant abuse of power that greatly benefited Obama politically. To believe that he and his cronies from Chicago did not oversee this defies logic. Who benefited from this IRS scrutiny???? The answer is Obama. The question is thus, is there evidence obtainable to tie those two facts together? The president always has plausible deniability in any of these sort of actions that they do no doubt engage in and if it gets close to the White House, they will have someone fall on a sword for the commander in chief.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/franklin-graham-irs-targeted-ministries/
-
Hemodoc, I have to give you a lot of credit for trying to fight off the liberals. And you do it time after time. Must admit, I love it when the left and the right start fighting, as they will tear each other down to the underwear to make a point. No matter what Obama does, as commander in chief, the left will stand there and say how wonderful he is. And of course, that is also on the Benghazi joke too. It is so blatantly obvious that he lied and so did Hillary. But, the left doesn't see that. Just wanted to put my :twocents; in and I wont argue any more.
-
No matter what Obama does, as commander in chief, the left will stand there and say how wonderful he is.
Of course, the flip side of that is "No matter what Obama does, as Commander in Chief, the right will obstruct anything he tries to do." Just ask Mitch McConnell, patriot that he is.
And of course, that is also on the Benghazi joke too. It is so blatantly obvious that he lied and so did Hillary. But, the left doesn't see that. Just wanted to put my :twocents; in and I wont argue any more.
How many people have testified about Benghazi? How many documents relating to Bengazi have been released? How many emails have been made available to Congress and to the press, only to have them blatantly ALTERED by some as yet to be identified Republican group/person and then released to ABC (with CBS subsequently reporting on their alteration)? So how can such a blatant lie perpetrated by the President and Hillary Clinton still remain under wraps after such close scrutiny? It's so easy to say, "You don't agree with me, so you are obviously blind and just don't want to SEE."
-
The issue is not any misadventures by "Tea Party" groups. Instead, it is a very blatant abuse of power that greatly benefited Obama politically. To believe that he and his cronies from Chicago did not oversee this defies logic. Who benefited from this IRS scrutiny???? The answer is Obama. The question is thus, is there evidence obtainable to tie those two facts together? The president always has plausible deniability in any of these sort of actions that they do no doubt engage in and if it gets close to the White House, they will have someone fall on a sword for the commander in chief.
I must be missing something because it is my understanding that groups applying for tax-exempt status are not supposed to be political in nature. As you yourself have noted, it is not always easy to separate the political from the social welfare applications. It seems pretty daft to me that if your group wants to apply for tax-exempt status, you'd name it "Tea Party This" or "Patriot That", don't you think? While the IRS should be apolitical, it is still given the task of separating the political from the non-political, so frankly "Tea Party" just screams POLITICAL.
Maybe this scrutiny DID benefit Obama, but I think what really benefitted Obama was Romney. And Paul Ryan. And the 47%. And the idea that our country should be run like a corporation. And the Republican Primaries. And a lot of other things.
-
The issue is not any misadventures by "Tea Party" groups. Instead, it is a very blatant abuse of power that greatly benefited Obama politically. To believe that he and his cronies from Chicago did not oversee this defies logic. Who benefited from this IRS scrutiny???? The answer is Obama. The question is thus, is there evidence obtainable to tie those two facts together? The president always has plausible deniability in any of these sort of actions that they do no doubt engage in and if it gets close to the White House, they will have someone fall on a sword for the commander in chief.
I must be missing something because it is my understanding that groups applying for tax-exempt status are not supposed to be political in nature. As you yourself have noted, it is not always easy to separate the political from the social welfare applications. It seems pretty daft to me that if your group wants to apply for tax-exempt status, you'd name it "Tea Party This" or "Patriot That", don't you think? While the IRS should be apolitical, it is still given the task of separating the political from the non-political, so frankly "Tea Party" just screams POLITICAL.
Maybe this scrutiny DID benefit Obama, but I think what really benefitted Obama was Romney. And Paul Ryan. And the 47%. And the idea that our country should be run like a corporation. And the Republican Primaries. And a lot of other things.
Once again, the groups targeted by wrongful and abuse of power by the IRS underlings, question at whose request???? are the perpetrators in this mess, not those that were targeted by the IRS. The rules are set in regulations and laws that spell out who can and who cannot qualify for this status. The issue is NOT about those who applied, it is instead about those who thwarted by abuse of power the application process in addition to further scrutiny of those who already have a tax exempt status.
It is a truth that the power to tax is the power to destroy. There are several that applied and withdrew because of the difficulty of application. In addition, preparing for a tax audit such as what the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association went through is VERY costly and time consuming thus deferring funds meant for charitable purposes to defending against an abusive IRS inquisition.
No, you are simply quite mistaken to blame the victim. Isn't that the accusation many make against rape victims. Well, understand that the IRS did indeed attempt to "rape" these right leaning organizations. Who benefited, Obama during his reelection. Did he condone, approve, supervise and encourage the IRS abuse of power???? That is the question that the congressional hearings is looking into, but indeed, Obama did benefit greatly from the IRS abuse of power.
-
No matter what Obama does, as commander in chief, the left will stand there and say how wonderful he is.
Of course, the flip side of that is "No matter what Obama does, as Commander in Chief, the right will obstruct anything he tries to do." Just ask Mitch McConnell, patriot that he is.
And of course, that is also on the Benghazi joke too. It is so blatantly obvious that he lied and so did Hillary. But, the left doesn't see that. Just wanted to put my :twocents; in and I wont argue any more.
How many people have testified about Benghazi? How many documents relating to Bengazi have been released? How many emails have been made available to Congress and to the press, only to have them blatantly ALTERED by some as yet to be identified Republican group/person and then released to ABC (with CBS subsequently reporting on their alteration)? So how can such a blatant lie perpetrated by the President and Hillary Clinton still remain under wraps after such close scrutiny? It's so easy to say, "You don't agree with me, so you are obviously blind and just don't want to SEE."
Actually, it is my understanding that they have not submitted any of the emails in the first 48 hours of the Benghazi incident when the major decisions were made. Clearly, no protest occurred and the video for which they still have a man locked away did NOT incite this incident. To date, they have not come clean on that.
In addition, as an ex-military member, although I was not a grunt or even over seas for any duty outside of the US, I do appreciate the prevailing military duty to not leave any man behind. Well, we did. Where was Obama for 7 hours? Where was Hillary?? Then on top of that, they dissed the Libyan president contradicting his take on that which hindered the FBI access according to recent congressional testimony. To date, they have not come clean on any of these established facts and are still trying to push the video excuse for this entire mess.
That is not transparency.
-
The bottom line is that there are only two things that matter is politics - winning and not getting indicted. No matter what is uncovered, there will be no penalty imposed on those who benefited from the chicanery, and Obama will enjoy the remainder of his term.
-
No, you are simply quite mistaken to blame the victim. Isn't that the accusation many make against rape victims. Well, understand that the IRS did indeed attempt to "rape" these right leaning organizations.
This speaks for itself.
-
No, you are simply quite mistaken to blame the victim. Isn't that the accusation many make against rape victims. Well, understand that the IRS did indeed attempt to "rape" these right leaning organizations.
This speaks for itself.
Yes, it does, you are right. Abuse of power is not to be tolerated no matter who it is that perpetrates that abuse. Nixon at least had the honor left to resign. That won't happen with Obama. Rape is a gross abuse of physical and violent power, yes, the analogy is such of another form of abuse of power and tyranny. Rather crude analogy I agree, but it still works nevertheless. If you folks wish to somehow blame the victim, don't complain when you become their target.
-
It is NOTHING like rape. You really need to get a grip on reality. I have lost all respect now.
-
It is NOTHING like rape. You really need to get a grip on reality. I have lost all respect now.
Yeah right, how can you lose respect YL when I can't recall a single instance in the last 5 years where you have ever shown me any respect in the first place. Nothing new my friend. In any case, keep casting your aspersions as much as you wish. I have decided to cease and desist in responding but I do reserve the right to report all outright ad hominem attacks to the moderators.
In any case, don't tell me you have NEVER heard the term rape used in a "slang" manner outside of the definition referring to an actual sexual assault?
Definition of rape
rape
to abuse or damage, usu. to the point of uselessness or maximum damage.
I raped my credit card at the mall.
That car cut in so close it almost raped me.
Last edited on Oct 08 1998. Submitted by Philip T. from Chicago, IL, USA on Oct 08 1998.
verb - transitive
to defeat greatly - figuratively or literally.
I am going to rape you at basketball.
Man, I totally got raped on that math test.
Your team got raped in the football game.
Greg raped me at soccer today.
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/rape
Urban Dictionary:
2. Rape
To utterly defeat another person in any form of competitive activies.
Dude, I totally raped your *** during that last game of Age of Empires.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rape
Further:
1) Rape victims are often blamed for the sexual assault. "She deserved it the way she was dressed."
The left is trying to blame the conservative groups: "They deserved it because of their political activities."
2) Rape victims are overcome by abusive power often associated with violence or threat of violence.
The conservative groups faced abusive power associated with a government agency who can summon men with guns and at the threat of violence lock you up for a very long period of time. That is by definition, tyranny.
Definition: Tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.
3) Rape victims often suffer greatly and have in a very real sense had a part or all of their life altered and destroyed.
Some of the applicants gave up and were unable to continue their mission and quest by the undue and unrestrained power of the IRS. Remember, the power to tax is the power to destroy.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863135,00.html
So, by noted slang or urban usage, the term refers to more than just sexual assault. In addition, the left is now blaming the victim, the IRS utilized abusive power backed up by the threat to be able use the power to fine or confine at the point of a gun if necessary and the IRS has indeed hindered or destroyed some of those that they thwarted. So, on all of those levels, your personal attack once again is unwarranted my friend.
-
OMG! I am amazing! According to you I have not shown any respect for the last five years.
Date Registered: May 30, 2009, 08:11:49 PM
May 30th I will have been a member for a total of four years. Again, your credibility is in question.
year (yîr)
n.
1.
a. The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds of mean solar time. In the Gregorian calendar the year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 and is divided into 12 months, 52 weeks, and 365 or 366 days. Also called calendar year.
b. A period approximately equal to a year in other calendars.
c. A period of approximately the duration of a calendar year: We were married a year ago.
2. A sidereal year.
3. A solar year.
4. A period equal to the calendar year but beginning on a different date: a tax-reckoning year; a farming year.
5. A specific period of time, usually shorter than 12 months, devoted to a special activity: the academic year.
6. years Age, especially old age: I'm feeling my years.
7. years An indefinitely long period of time: it's been years since we saw her.
-
Rape is also a "crop" grown in the Northwest. It's counterpart is Canola. Canola is grown for human consumption and Rape is grown for industrial oils.
So there... la la la
-
OMG! I am amazing! According to you I have not shown any respect for the last five years.
Date Registered: May 30, 2009, 08:11:49 PM
May 30th I will have been a member for a total of four years. Again, your credibility is in question.
year (yîr)
n.
1.
a. The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds of mean solar time. In the Gregorian calendar the year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 and is divided into 12 months, 52 weeks, and 365 or 366 days. Also called calendar year.
b. A period approximately equal to a year in other calendars.
c. A period of approximately the duration of a calendar year: We were married a year ago.
2. A sidereal year.
3. A solar year.
4. A period equal to the calendar year but beginning on a different date: a tax-reckoning year; a farming year.
5. A specific period of time, usually shorter than 12 months, devoted to a special activity: the academic year.
6. years Age, especially old age: I'm feeling my years.
7. years An indefinitely long period of time: it's been years since we saw her.
You know what YL. You don't like me. What else is new. Get back on topic please, my patience with your personal attacks is done.
-
Okay Folks, once again I am tired of reports of personal attacks in these threads. You were warned- Thick skin is needed in the political section.
Play nice and be respectful of each other. No personal attacks, no name calling. Quit taking sarcasm as a personal attack.
kitkatz-Moderator
-
Okay Folks, once again I am tired of reports of personal attacks int hese threads. You were warned- Thick skin is needed in the political section.
Play nice and be respectful of each other. No personal attacks, no name calling. Quit taking sarcasm as a personal attack.
kitkatz-Moderator
I take IHD at their word that personal attacks are not tolerated. In such, on any political thread where a comment has nothing to do with the topic of the thread and turns to questioning MY credibility, MY Reality and MY integrity, I take that as a personal attack. In such, taking IHD at their word, yes, when someone wishes to attack me personally: "Again, your credibility is in question." "You really need to get a grip on reality. I have lost all respect now." and insinuating ignorance of what a year is, I will do as advised, report the comment to the moderator so that a true conversation is not hindered by such inane and inflammatory comments that only venture over into further incendiary posts.
Casting aspersions, a damaging or derogatory remark, is a personal attack.
Lastly, many folks have accused me of many things on IHD, but lacking thick skin I don't believe is one of them.
Thank you,
Peter
-
Back on topic,
Here is an interesting remark attributed to none other than Piers Morgan:
“I’ve had some of the gun, pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them. And I’ve always said ‘don’t be so ridiculous, your own government won’t turn itself on you.’ But, actually, when you look at this–this has nothing to do with guns–but actually this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior, I think what the Department of Justice has done, actually, to the AP, is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lKO8A285Rr0
-
You say you want to get back on topic yet you have to have complain one more time. Someone who says that I have not shown any respect for the last five years. I have not been a member for that long so yes, that is NOT a credible statement. There is no conjecture here at all. It is absolutely a false statement.
As KK pointed out, "Quit taking sarcasm as a personal attack." I know what the definition of rape is. The fact that you felt the need to post the definition is demeaning at best. You remind me so much of the mother character on Everybody Loves Raymond. She says some of the nastiest, demeaning backhanded comments and then does not understand why she gets called out on them. You have posted out and out lies about me. I reported them to the moderators and was told to just prove you wrong. So, if you choose to primarily post in these political threads then please have a thick skin.
Now the big test...Can you leave the this post alone and continue the thread concentrating on the topic at hand OR will the need for you to get the last word in be to uncontrollable for you?
Will you hold true to your word?
I have decided to cease and desist in responding but I do reserve the right to report all outright ad hominem attacks to the moderators.
-
You say you want to get back on topic yet you have to have complain one more time. Someone who says that I have not shown any respect for the last five years. I have not been a member for that long so yes, that is NOT a credible statement. There is no conjecture here at all. It is absolutely a false statement.
As KK pointed out, "Quit taking sarcasm as a personal attack." I know what the definition of rape is. The fact that you felt the need to post the definition is demeaning at best. You remind me so much of the mother character on Everybody Loves Raymond. She says some of the nastiest, demeaning backhanded comments and then does not understand why she gets called out on them. You have posted out and out lies about me. I reported them to the moderators and was told to just prove you wrong. So, if you choose to primarily post in these political threads then please have a thick skin.
Now the big test...Can you leave the this post alone and continue the thread concentrating on the topic at hand OR will the need for you to get the last word in be to uncontrollable for you?
Will you hold true to your word?
I have decided to cease and desist in responding but I do reserve the right to report all outright ad hominem attacks to the moderators.
Get a life YL. Report sent to moderator. I AM NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!!!!
-
Rape is also a "crop" grown in the Northwest. It's counterpart is Canola. Canola is grown for human consumption and Rape is grown for industrial oils.
So there... la la la
When I lived in England, the field across from my back garden was sowed with rape one year, and oh gosh, does that stuff stink when it's harvested! And it is such a bright yellow that sometiimes it was actually painful to look out my kitchen door.
How's that for getting off topic? :rofl;
-
Lastly, many folks have accused me of many things on IHD, but lacking thick skin I don't believe is one of them.
Actually, that's close to being the #1 complaint I see about you.
And it took mere minutes to go from that to
Report sent to moderator.
-
Back on topic,
Here is an interesting remark attributed to none other than Piers Morgan:
“I’ve had some of the gun, pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them. And I’ve always said ‘don’t be so ridiculous, your own government won’t turn itself on you.’ But, actually, when you look at this–this has nothing to do with guns–but actually this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior, I think what the Department of Justice has done, actually, to the AP, is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”
On a superficial level, I don't disagree with this.
However, as I've said, Citizens United really changed the landscape, and as YOU've said, the definition of and the delineation between "political" and "social" is fuzzy at best; it was made intentionally blurry by Congress. Frankly, I think Congress should shoulder some of the blame for not making the tax laws clearer. There will never be campaign finance reform, and there will never be tax code reform, so I think this IRS problem is here to stay.
As for the AP, I thought it was mainly the GOP that was spitting fire when the story about the leak was exposed. That's what I don't understand about all of this. Why were they demanding that the White House find out who supplied the AP with information about an ongoing CIA operation when this story was first published but is now howling about the DOJ? While I do understand and appreciate the Constitution's stand on Freedom of the Press, I'd have more sympathy if I thought we had a press worth protecting. No one has had any privacy since 9/11, so why is the press throwing such a hissy fit NOW?
-
Y'ALL ARE ABSOLUTELY NO FUN AT ALL!
I'M AM ACTUALLY CHOSING TO GO DO LAUNDRY RATHER THAN TRY TO DISCUSS ANYTHING HERE. AND THEN I'M GOING TO WATCH "CALL THE MIDWIFE", FOLLOWED BY GAME OF THRONES WHICH WILL BE MORE THOUGHT PROVOKING THAN THE SOUL-DESTROYING DISCOURSE INTO WHICH THIS THREAD HAD DETERIORATED.
IF I HAD A BALL, I'D TAKE IT AND GO HOME.
:P
-
Lastly, many folks have accused me of many things on IHD, but lacking thick skin I don't believe is one of them.
Actually, that's close to being the #1 complaint I see about you.
And it took mere minutes to go from that to
Report sent to moderator.
Rocker, you are quite mistaken. I will no longer tolerate personal attacks against me which has become a popular pastime for some folks here on IHD. If you wish to talk about the topic, so be it. Otherwise, I will no longer respond to the frequent personal attacks against me just speaking my mind in a political section and I will continue to do as many moderators have advised me in the past, notify the moderator.
As for you, stick to the topic as well my friend. Since when Rocker is this thread about placing complaints against me? If you have an issue, send me a pm, otherwise stay on topic my friend.
-
Back on topic,
Here is an interesting remark attributed to none other than Piers Morgan:
“I’ve had some of the gun, pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them. And I’ve always said ‘don’t be so ridiculous, your own government won’t turn itself on you.’ But, actually, when you look at this–this has nothing to do with guns–but actually this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior, I think what the Department of Justice has done, actually, to the AP, is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”
On a superficial level, I don't disagree with this.
However, as I've said, Citizens United really changed the landscape, and as YOU've said, the definition of and the delineation between "political" and "social" is fuzzy at best; it was made intentionally blurry by Congress. Frankly, I think Congress should shoulder some of the blame for not making the tax laws clearer. There will never be campaign finance reform, and there will never be tax code reform, so I think this IRS problem is here to stay.
As for the AP, I thought it was mainly the GOP that was spitting fire when the story about the leak was exposed. That's what I don't understand about all of this. Why were they demanding that the White House find out who supplied the AP with information about an ongoing CIA operation when this story was first published but is now howling about the DOJ? While I do understand and appreciate the Constitution's stand on Freedom of the Press, I'd have more sympathy if I thought we had a press worth protecting. No one has had any privacy since 9/11, so why is the press throwing such a hissy fit NOW?
Dear Moosemom,
No need to take your ball home.
Frankly, Piers Morgan finally has gained a bit of perspective and correctly identifies the Obama administration tyranny on several fronts. Not news really, the Fast and Furious debacle was a red flag operation designed to blame gun owners and gun dealers in America for violence in Mexico which backfired on team Obama. These are some of the operations we know about to date.
Lastly, it appears you are still seeking to lay blame somewhere else than a tyrannical Obama administration engaged in some very nefarious events. The Tea Party folks targeted are not to blame for unethical and potentially illegal governmental abuse of power.
-
Lastly, many folks have accused me of many things on IHD, but lacking thick skin I don't believe is one of them.
Actually, that's close to being the #1 complaint I see about you.
And it took mere minutes to go from that to
Report sent to moderator.
Rocker, you are quite mistaken. I will no longer tolerate personal attacks against me which has become a popular pastime for some folks here on IHD. If you wish to talk about the topic, so be it. Otherwise, I will no longer respond to the frequent personal attacks against me just speaking my mind in a political section and I will continue to do as many moderators have advised me in the past, notify the moderator.
As for you, stick to the topic as well my friend. Since when Rocker is this thread about placing complaints against me? If you have an issue, send me a pm, otherwise stay on topic my friend.
:rofl; I knew it! :sir ken;
-
Lastly, many folks have accused me of many things on IHD, but lacking thick skin I don't believe is one of them.
Actually, that's close to being the #1 complaint I see about you.
And it took mere minutes to go from that to
Report sent to moderator.
Rocker, you are quite mistaken. I will no longer tolerate personal attacks against me which has become a popular pastime for some folks here on IHD. If you wish to talk about the topic, so be it. Otherwise, I will no longer respond to the frequent personal attacks against me just speaking my mind in a political section and I will continue to do as many moderators have advised me in the past, notify the moderator.
As for you, stick to the topic as well my friend. Since when Rocker is this thread about placing complaints against me? If you have an issue, send me a pm, otherwise stay on topic my friend.
:rofl; I knew it! :sir ken;
Yup, YL, you are right, that is a real Christian response alright. So much for showing me huh??
-
You have stated that you were NOT going to comment any further but you cannot control yourself. If the :sir ken; fits, wear it.
BTW, your actions are FAR, VERY FAR from Christian.
Let us see if you can actually control yourself and not comment anymore. Anyone want to take any bets?
Can he turn the other cheek? Stay tuned. :o
-
“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
― Carl Sagan
-
You have stated that you were NOT going to comment any further but you cannot control yourself. If the :sir ken; fits, wear it.
BTW, your actions are FAR, VERY FAR from Christian.
Let us see if you can actually control yourself and not comment anymore. Anyone want to take any bets?
Can he turn the other cheek? Stay tuned. :o
YL, you seem hell-bent on getting my attention for some reason, so yes, I will talk with you, but no, I will not trade insults with you in response to your unwarranted tirades. Sure, I can and will cease and desist with you if you will stand down as well my friend since I have absolutely no interest in continuing this vendetta you have waged against me for 4 years, which I stand corrected.
You state I am not acting in a Christian manner? Well, I have apologized to you if I have done anything wrong to you yet you won't accept that and go on in a cordial manner. I have indeed stayed on topic which you won't do either but insist on casting aspersions towards me instead of contributing to the discussion at hand in just about every thread that we both comment.
So, say what you wish, but going around with the type of anger you have personally exhibited against me is just quite strange since I harbor none against you whatsoever. YL, go enjoy your kids and let God deal with me which He does quite well thank you, if indeed you are the Christian that you state you are. BTW, how could I tell you are a Christian with the manner in which you ALWAYS attack me my friend? How could I possibly have known that? No, not a lie, I just couldn't tell that you shared my belief's in our God and Saviour and His Holy Word, the Bible.
So, YL, and go and enjoy the kids that God has given you, and enjoy one more day that God has given us both and cherish His love and grace that He has bestowed upon us both. Is that not enough?
-
I went to an event where our congressman, Adam Schiff, talked about a number of topics including the IRS controversy. He explained that contributions to 501c4 organizations are not tax deductible, but that the donors can remain anonymous, and that this is probably the reason so many political organizations apply for 501c4 status although they're not really eligible. Personally, I think big-money donors should not be permitted to remain anonymous, because that information can be very revealing about a particular candidate or a proposed law.
Here's an article that does a good job of explaining the various types of tax-exempt organizations.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/501c4-vs-501c3-vs-527/
-
I went to an event where our congressman, Adam Schiff, talked about a number of topics including the IRS controversy. He explained that contributions to 501c4 organizations are not tax deductible, but that the donors can remain anonymous, and that this is probably the reason so many political organizations apply for 501c4 status although they're not really eligible. Personally, I think big-money donors should not be permitted to remain anonymous, because that information can be very revealing about a particular candidate or a proposed law.
Here's an article that does a good job of explaining the various types of tax-exempt organizations.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/501c4-vs-501c3-vs-527/
Well, petition your congressmen to change the law that allows for these rules. However, what are you likewise going to do with your administration that uses the power of the IRS to hinder their political enemies?
Which is more outrageous? Tea Party donors who wish to remain anonymous in a lawful manner, or IRS abuse of power that is indeed politically motivated?
-
You have stated that you were NOT going to comment any further but you cannot control yourself. If the :sir ken; fits, wear it.
BTW, your actions are FAR, VERY FAR from Christian.
Let us see if you can actually control yourself and not comment anymore. Anyone want to take any bets?
Can he turn the other cheek? Stay tuned. :o
YL, you seem hell-bent on getting my attention for some reason, so yes, I will talk with you, but no, I will not trade insults with you in response to your unwarranted tirades. Sure, I can and will cease and desist with you if you will stand down as well my friend since I have absolutely no interest in continuing this vendetta you have waged against me for 4 years, which I stand corrected.
You state I am not acting in a Christian manner? Well, I have apologized to you if I have done anything wrong to you yet you won't accept that and go on in a cordial manner. I have indeed stayed on topic which you won't do either but insist on casting aspersions towards me instead of contributing to the discussion at hand in just about every thread that we both comment.
So, say what you wish, but going around with the type of anger you have personally exhibited against me is just quite strange since I harbor none against you whatsoever. YL, go enjoy your kids and let God deal with me which He does quite well thank you, if indeed you are the Christian that you state you are. BTW, how could I tell you are a Christian with the manner in which you ALWAYS attack me my friend? How could I possibly have known that? No, not a lie, I just couldn't tell that you shared my belief's in our God and Saviour and His Holy Word, the Bible.
So, YL, and go and enjoy the kids that God has given you, and enjoy one more day that God has given us both and cherish His love and grace that He has bestowed upon us both. Is that not enough?
If you cannot tell the truth then do not bother to post. Let me get my waders on to make it this pile. You quote the bible yet do not act Christian. I sure can tell you that what you do is way more important than being able to throw bible quotes out. If you post something that is untrue then please be ready to deal with someone calling you out on it. You cannot. You said that you would no longer comment on my posts. Yet another lie. You say you want to stop. Everyone here is laughing at the fact that I can get you to post one more time. You have posted a number of lies. I just sit back and point them out. One more time...Can you let this rest and NOT feel the need to address this. I am sure it would absolutely kill you if I got the last word on this subject. ::)
-
You have stated that you were NOT going to comment any further but you cannot control yourself. If the :sir ken; fits, wear it.
BTW, your actions are FAR, VERY FAR from Christian.
Let us see if you can actually control yourself and not comment anymore. Anyone want to take any bets?
Can he turn the other cheek? Stay tuned. :o
YL, you seem hell-bent on getting my attention for some reason, so yes, I will talk with you, but no, I will not trade insults with you in response to your unwarranted tirades. Sure, I can and will cease and desist with you if you will stand down as well my friend since I have absolutely no interest in continuing this vendetta you have waged against me for 4 years, which I stand corrected.
You state I am not acting in a Christian manner? Well, I have apologized to you if I have done anything wrong to you yet you won't accept that and go on in a cordial manner. I have indeed stayed on topic which you won't do either but insist on casting aspersions towards me instead of contributing to the discussion at hand in just about every thread that we both comment.
So, say what you wish, but going around with the type of anger you have personally exhibited against me is just quite strange since I harbor none against you whatsoever. YL, go enjoy your kids and let God deal with me which He does quite well thank you, if indeed you are the Christian that you state you are. BTW, how could I tell you are a Christian with the manner in which you ALWAYS attack me my friend? How could I possibly have known that? No, not a lie, I just couldn't tell that you shared my belief's in our God and Saviour and His Holy Word, the Bible.
So, YL, and go and enjoy the kids that God has given you, and enjoy one more day that God has given us both and cherish His love and grace that He has bestowed upon us both. Is that not enough?
If you cannot tell the truth then do not bother to post. Let me get my waders on to make it this pile. You quote the bible yet do not act Christian. I sure can tell you that what you do is way more important than being able to throw bible quotes out. If you post something that is untrue then please be ready to deal with someone calling you out on it. You cannot. You said that you would no longer comment on my posts. Yet another lie. You say you want to stop. Everyone here is laughing at the fact that I can get you to post one more time. You have posted a number of lies. I just sit back and point them out. One more time...Can you let this rest and NOT feel the need to address this. I am sure it would absolutely kill you if I got the last word on this subject. ::)
Sure, YL, I will send you a pm instead since I am sure folks couldn't care less about this one side feud. I am not your enemy and I harbor no ill will against you.
-
You have stated that you were NOT going to comment any further but you cannot control yourself. If the :sir ken; fits, wear it.
BTW, your actions are FAR, VERY FAR from Christian.
Let us see if you can actually control yourself and not comment anymore. Anyone want to take any bets?
Can he turn the other cheek? Stay tuned. :o
YL, you seem hell-bent on getting my attention for some reason, so yes, I will talk with you, but no, I will not trade insults with you in response to your unwarranted tirades. Sure, I can and will cease and desist with you if you will stand down as well my friend since I have absolutely no interest in continuing this vendetta you have waged against me for 4 years, which I stand corrected.
You state I am not acting in a Christian manner? Well, I have apologized to you if I have done anything wrong to you yet you won't accept that and go on in a cordial manner. I have indeed stayed on topic which you won't do either but insist on casting aspersions towards me instead of contributing to the discussion at hand in just about every thread that we both comment.
So, say what you wish, but going around with the type of anger you have personally exhibited against me is just quite strange since I harbor none against you whatsoever. YL, go enjoy your kids and let God deal with me which He does quite well thank you, if indeed you are the Christian that you state you are. BTW, how could I tell you are a Christian with the manner in which you ALWAYS attack me my friend? How could I possibly have known that? No, not a lie, I just couldn't tell that you shared my belief's in our God and Saviour and His Holy Word, the Bible.
So, YL, and go and enjoy the kids that God has given you, and enjoy one more day that God has given us both and cherish His love and grace that He has bestowed upon us both. Is that not enough?
If you cannot tell the truth then do not bother to post. Let me get my waders on to make it this pile. You quote the bible yet do not act Christian. I sure can tell you that what you do is way more important than being able to throw bible quotes out. If you post something that is untrue then please be ready to deal with someone calling you out on it. You cannot. You said that you would no longer comment on my posts. Yet another lie. You say you want to stop. Everyone here is laughing at the fact that I can get you to post one more time. You have posted a number of lies. I just sit back and point them out. One more time...Can you let this rest and NOT feel the need to address this. I am sure it would absolutely kill you if I got the last word on this subject. ::)
Sure, YL, I will send you a pm instead since I am sure folks couldn't care less about this one side feud. I am not your enemy and I harbor no ill will against you.
You had to make one more post in public didn't you? I am dying over here. :rofl; Please do not PM me. I really do not care that much.
-
You have stated that you were NOT going to comment any further but you cannot control yourself. If the :sir ken; fits, wear it.
BTW, your actions are FAR, VERY FAR from Christian.
Let us see if you can actually control yourself and not comment anymore. Anyone want to take any bets?
Can he turn the other cheek? Stay tuned. :o
YL, you seem hell-bent on getting my attention for some reason, so yes, I will talk with you, but no, I will not trade insults with you in response to your unwarranted tirades. Sure, I can and will cease and desist with you if you will stand down as well my friend since I have absolutely no interest in continuing this vendetta you have waged against me for 4 years, which I stand corrected.
You state I am not acting in a Christian manner? Well, I have apologized to you if I have done anything wrong to you yet you won't accept that and go on in a cordial manner. I have indeed stayed on topic which you won't do either but insist on casting aspersions towards me instead of contributing to the discussion at hand in just about every thread that we both comment.
So, say what you wish, but going around with the type of anger you have personally exhibited against me is just quite strange since I harbor none against you whatsoever. YL, go enjoy your kids and let God deal with me which He does quite well thank you, if indeed you are the Christian that you state you are. BTW, how could I tell you are a Christian with the manner in which you ALWAYS attack me my friend? How could I possibly have known that? No, not a lie, I just couldn't tell that you shared my belief's in our God and Saviour and His Holy Word, the Bible.
So, YL, and go and enjoy the kids that God has given you, and enjoy one more day that God has given us both and cherish His love and grace that He has bestowed upon us both. Is that not enough?
If you cannot tell the truth then do not bother to post. Let me get my waders on to make it this pile. You quote the bible yet do not act Christian. I sure can tell you that what you do is way more important than being able to throw bible quotes out. If you post something that is untrue then please be ready to deal with someone calling you out on it. You cannot. You said that you would no longer comment on my posts. Yet another lie. You say you want to stop. Everyone here is laughing at the fact that I can get you to post one more time. You have posted a number of lies. I just sit back and point them out. One more time...Can you let this rest and NOT feel the need to address this. I am sure it would absolutely kill you if I got the last word on this subject. ::)
Sure, YL, I will send you a pm instead since I am sure folks couldn't care less about this one side feud. I am not your enemy and I harbor no ill will against you.
You had to make one more post in public didn't you? I am dying over here. :rofl; Please do not PM me. I really do not care that much.
Then I have tried my friend, it is on you and you alone.
-
PLEASE stop quoting each other ad infinitum. Those who follow the thread will know what was said already by each person.
Please quote important statements , not entire conversation pieces. You all are making it hard to follow the conversation because you repost so much.
Keep your conversation going and quote only salient points, please
Thank you.
kitkatz-Moderator
-
I think with the new upgrade you can go to your profile and create an "IGNORE" list of members you don't want to hear from. Then you won't see their posts or ridiculous religious bashing remarks.
Try it and let me know if it works...... LOL
-
PLEASE stop quoting each other ad infinitum. Those who follow the thread will know what was said already by each person.
Please quote important statements , not entire conversation pieces. You all are making it hard to follow the conversation because you repost so much.
Keep your conversation going and quote only salient points, please
Thank you.
kitkatz-Moderator
The quote issue with the long chains is actually due to the way IHD has their quote settings in place. Most forums quote ONLY the latest comment, not the entire chain. If this is an issue with the mods and others, then ask the admin to change the setting to ONLY the latest comment and not the entire chain.
Thank you.
-
Stay on topic, please in this thread.
kitkatz, Moderator
-
The quote issue with the long chains is actually due to the way IHD has their quote settings in place. Most forums quote ONLY the latest comment, not the entire chain. If this is an issue with the mods and others, then ask the admin to change the setting to ONLY the latest comment and not the entire chain.
Thank you.
Sorry, we are unable to change the settings.
okarol/admin
-
In order to quote selected parts of a post, simply press the quote button then highlight and delete the parts you don't want to include. Be sure to leave the word "quote" at the top and bottom and what you are commenting on specifically should appear in purple.
-
No, you are simply quite mistaken to blame the victim. Isn't that the accusation many make against rape victims. Well, understand that the IRS did indeed attempt to "rape" these right leaning organizations.
This speaks for itself.
Absolutely. This comparison is so incredibly offensive, and what follows is even worse. Comparing some right-leaning organizations being scrutinized by the IRS to violent sexual assault. Don't even bother trying to argue that that is not what you meant, you define it by saying 'rape victims'. I dare you to walk into a police station and state 'I've been raped' and see if they want to hear some piffle about how it's also a plant. Did no one learn context in school? This is so utterly depressing that people here of all places feel it's appropriate to make light of this when on the very same forum we have people agreeing that using 'retard' as an insult is outside the bounds of decency. (I agree, by the by, but that's not really important to my point.)
You know what a better analogy for this would have been? Profiling at an airport. Minorties, people of Arab descent, and likely a whole host of other foreigners dread coming to the US for the very reason that they are treated like criminals before they are even officially let in to the country. They are paying for the actions of a horrible few. My early memories of the Tea Party are of them arrogantly whining about having to pay taxes, labeling it as somehow un-American. (That's a puzzler. Don't financially support your country. How patriotic.) If you ally yourselves with people who state that taxes are evil tools of a socialist President, perhaps you should not act too surprised that people want a second look at your tax docs.
In closing, I'd like to quote Epoman, because it was words like this that convinced me that I could join this forum, speak my mind, disagree with others, but that there was a clear line that would not be crossed ANYWHERE on this forum. (First quote provided for context)
I really hope Epoman is true to his word and doesn't delete ppl's posts. I've had an awful time with relationships too. Now I just give up and resign myself to the fact it's not going to happen. I use call girls/prostitutes now. They come to my house for an hour and I can do whatever I like to them. Something to think about, friend.
I already told you I will let people rant, vent, yell and scream however If a post is too vulgar or offensive to our female members I will lock it faster than 450 blood flow. ;)
-
Internal Revenue Service
HemoDoc tells us he gets his information from Fox News and that he is a big fan of the Patriot Act and (take a deep breath) George W. Bush. Really!
You didn’t like wiretapping of your favorite Fox News reporter and wiretapping has been approved several times including the Patriot Act. How do you do that? You like it until you don’t like it?
The IRS. Well folks, this will go the way of Benghazi. Due to changes in the rules by the US Supreme court during a time when Congress has been making across the board cuts without concern for consequences, the applications for 501’s increased from several hundred a year to 70,000. Faced with no possibility of adding staff, management made certain decisions.
Management. There isn’t any. The IRS Director position is held vacant by the Republican Party along with a hundred plus other appointments. Someone was asked to hold the position until the Directorship was decided. It is a rule in management that those who “Act” as management try to keep things even. In other words, don’t do anything that stands out.
What does a manager do with 200 people and a caseload of 70,000? The IRS does what it does on personal income taxes, it selects the most likely to make errors. Where did I get that information? From the IRS. It all makes sense unless your ox got gored and you are searching for a conspiracy.
gl
-
Internal Revenue Service
HemoDoc tells us he gets his information from Fox News and that he is a big fan of the Patriot Act and (take a deep breath) George W. Bush. Really!
You didn’t like wiretapping of your favorite Fox News reporter and wiretapping has been approved several times including the Patriot Act. How do you do that? You like it until you don’t like it?
The IRS. Well folks, this will go the way of Benghazi. Due to changes in the rules by the US Supreme court during a time when Congress has been making across the board cuts without concern for consequences, the applications for 501’s increased from several hundred a year to 70,000. Faced with no possibility of adding staff, management made certain decisions.
Management. There isn’t any. The IRS Director position is held vacant by the Republican Party along with a hundred plus other appointments. Someone was asked to hold the position until the Directorship was decided. It is a rule in management that those who “Act” as management try to keep things even. In other words, don’t do anything that stands out.
What does a manager do with 200 people and a caseload of 70,000? The IRS does what it does on personal income taxes, it selects the most likely to make errors. Where did I get that information? From the IRS. It all makes sense unless your ox got gored and you are searching for a conspiracy.
gl
Gerald, what part of my posts speaking AGAINST Bush, the Patriot Act etc have you missed over the years. No, you are wrong again my friend, but I am glad you are still doing well personally.
If you cannot see abuse of power in this issue, then so be it.
God bless,
Peter
-
It could be that the IRS did what it did to meet deadlines. BUT it also depends which side of the door you are on. If the Dem's had been the way fastest to the ends, then all hell would break loose.
So, lighten up on the Republicans. Dems would do the exact same thing or more.
-
Ah yes, the IRS thingy was a disaster waiting to happen. The Senate failed to do its duty in making all of those appointments. leaving them empty. Who would do such an un-American thing? Not someone who wants good government. Were I more cynical I might say this was a set up by the GOP. Then again, it is only a controversy, no one broke the law.
-
They are paying for the actions of a horrible few.
The IRS profiling is not the going after conservative orgs because a few did something wrong, but an attempt to impair the political activities of groups on one side of the political spectrum to advance the other side. Totally different than "profiling" because an individual of one group is statistically more likely to be a terrorist than a native born grandmother from Iowa.
-
Now they are going to show all the abuse the IRS did with meetings, conventions and partying. Maybe SKYPE meetings should be mandatory. Everyone stays in there own office and it is free.
-
They are paying for the actions of a horrible few.
The IRS profiling is not the going after conservative orgs because a few did something wrong, but an attempt to impair the political activities of groups on one side of the political spectrum to advance the other side. Totally different than "profiling" because an individual of one group is statistically more likely to be a terrorist than a native born grandmother from Iowa.
::)
Well, thanks for checking in from what Bill Maher calls 'the Conservative bubble'.
I read a great article on how Israelis profile at their airports. The don't do it by race or gender, they look at behavioural clues. Statistics doesn't really come into it. Shrieking that Obama is a socialist and you don't believe in paying taxes is a pretty clear behavioural clue. My father is a tax attorney, has owned his own business for over 30 years, has been a liberal since birth, and has been audited every single year since he went into business for himself. He knows exactly why and doesn't complain about it. I am proud to say that he has never likened it to sexual assault, for he would find that comparison asinine.
When I have more time I will try to find a clear, short article I read a while ago about why the IRS has profiled these groups seeking charity status. And in my initial search, I found an article with a headline describing it as profiling. I hadn't seen that article before I wrote this, still haven't read it, but obviously I am not the only one who finds that that analogy rings true.
-
The funny thing is that, despite the fairy story that's been pushed by some in the media, the profiling was not limited to right-wing groups.
What they're trying to enforce is a law that says the group must not be political. Some court later interpreted that as being "primarily" nonpolitical - whatever that's supposed to mean. So, yeah, it's crazy, crazy that they targeted political groups - left and right. This was not about being "conservative", it was about being blatantly political. Read any article about this, and way down near the bottom you'll see "liberal groups were also targeted...."
But the right's outrage machine continues to tell you it was "just us - poor, poor victims that we are".
It's not true.
-
Here is a brief video of McDermitt of WA blasting the "Tea Party" groups as being responsible for the extra scrutiny which is then brought into focus by Paul Ryan in his response. Clearly, the IRS scrutiny is politically motivated which is very dangerous abuse of power.
http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24306-ryan-smacks-mcdermott
It now looks like the EPA also engaged in the same sort of political intimidation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/04/epa-accused-singling-out-conservative-groups-amid-irs-scandal/
As one commentator stated, the comparison is not with Obama and Nixon, but Obama and Putin. Failing to understand how fragile liberty and freedom are underscores the support of this IRS inquisition of conservative groups. One party rule is not a pretty phenomenon wherever it has happened. If that is what you folks are looking for, just be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
An administration in power targeting people because of their beliefs is a very dangerous precedent.
-
As one commentator stated, the comparison is not with Obama and Nixon, but Obama and Putin.
And this is why most people have difficulty taking this group seriously.
-
As one commentator stated, the comparison is not with Obama and Nixon, but Obama and Putin.
And this is why most people have difficulty taking this group seriously.
That ultimately will be to your disfavor. You should have listened, but by then it will be too late. And it is not just the Dems that are a problem either. Even the venerable Reagan cost much in religious liberty although few understand what he did in that regard January 1, 1984. So, if you choose to not see the incremental power grab by the Feds, so be it, but yes, you should be dismayed but instead you press on as if political opposition to Obama is based in ignorance and deceit. The freedoms that have defined America are indeed in grave peril. Once again, if that is not obvious, so be it.
-
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
-
Yeah. I was raised in the Armageddon culture. I've been hearing "the sky is falling" for my entire life. I remember being terrified as a child reading "prophecy" that told me that America "would not reach its 200th birthday."
Funny how that sort of talk also ramps way up with Democratic presidents. I heard the exact same things about Clinton. Dictator. Corrupt administration. Worse than <bogeyman-of-the-day>. Police state around the corner. UN takeover, ARM YOURSELF!!!
You'd think they'd get a new tune at some point.
Current gossip is that even Republicans are telling (convicted criminal) Issa to dial it way, way back. When you're making people like Rush Limbaugh look sane, you are so far off the rails you can't even hear the train anymore.
-
Being from California, I may be more familiar with Darrell Issa than most. And I have watched these so-called controversies with great interest noting that nothing has blossomed, no law has even been alleged as broken, and strangely, those on the right are more than willing to buy any story of law breaking or ethical breach attributed to the President if it comes from Mr. Issa.
Look up Darrell Issa on Wikipedia. Be objective.
gl
-
Being from California, I may be more familiar with Darrell Issa than most. And I have watched these so-called controversies with great interest noting that nothing has blossomed, no law has even been alleged as broken, and strangely, those on the right are more than willing to buy any story of law breaking or ethical breach attributed to the President if it comes from Mr. Issa.
Look up Darrell Issa on Wikipedia. Be objective.
gl
Recent testimony by one of the victims recently alleged that the IRS committed felony against him and his organization and that they had proof. We will have to wait and see what the facts are, but you may be a bit premature pronouncing that no crimes were committed Gerald.
Secondly both the Dems and the GOP have their attack dogs. Gerald, since you like history and such, have you looked into the late Sen Byrd's checkered past?
In any case, Issa is not the issue in this scandal. The IRS itself admits the wrong doing. That is the focus.
-
Yeah. I was raised in the Armageddon culture. I've been hearing "the sky is falling" for my entire life. I remember being terrified as a child reading "prophecy" that told me that America "would not reach its 200th birthday."
Funny how that sort of talk also ramps way up with Democratic presidents. I heard the exact same things about Clinton. Dictator. Corrupt administration. Worse than <bogeyman-of-the-day>. Police state around the corner. UN takeover, ARM YOURSELF!!!
You'd think they'd get a new tune at some point.
Current gossip is that even Republicans are telling (convicted criminal) Issa to dial it way, way back. When you're making people like Rush Limbaugh look sane, you are so far off the rails you can't even hear the train anymore.
Sorry to disappoint, but no sky is falling my friend. Even the left leaning NY Times is questioning Obama over his use of the Patriot Act to spy on ordinary citizens. Abuse of power is simply that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?_r=1&
If you are OK with a government clearly exhibiting very dangerous behaviors, so be it. Many are not including the left leaning NY Times.
-
HemoDoc;
I am surprised at your comments on this thread. Think back and recall our postings not too long ago. Consider the world wide scope that some units, military or otherwise, perform. Some activities have been going on for decades.
/////////////////////////
Gerald Lively . . . . . with the U. S. Army Security Agency at the 14th U.S. A.S.A. Field Station, Hakata, Japan (military intelligence) 1958, 59, 60, NSA. Deputy Administrator, Butte County, California. City Manager, Yakutat, Alaska, Powerlifter.
gl
-
Probably longer. One of my patients was an expert on the Japanese military of WWII.
He showed me two declassified documents from WWII that he was bringing to a conference on the Japanese military of WWII. They were a fascinating example of how the public historical accounts were completely at odds with the official classified accounts for events prior to WWII. I assume that today it is still the same.
However, back to the topic of this thread, abuse of power if unchecked is not a pretty event. The power to tax is the power to destroy. When used against political opponents, where is the line between an open democracy and outright fascism?
-
So it turns out the IRS targeted progressive groups as well. No controversy. No scandal. What a shock.
No political group should get tax exempt status. Period.
Republicans better focus on something else, because they've got an impossible task trying to gain sympathy from the public for subsidizing the political activity of groups taking advantage of a wildly unpopular supreme court decision in order to secure big bucks from anonymous sources, buy elections, and buy off officials.
Yeah, um... good luck with that.
-
Dear Hober, is that why the two IRS supervisors plead the 5th during congressional testimony?
The folks applying for tax exempt status are not the people under investigation my friend. If you don't like the laws, lobby your reps to change them.
As far as the GOP gaining ground, no you are probably right, the demographics appear quite in their disfavor especially if the immigration "reform" goes through with 11 million more added to the Dems.
I am not sure I would gloat over those facts though, even friends of mine who are on the left are "not happy" with Obama. The freedoms we have enjoyed are vanishing. Is that something to celebrate my friend?
-
:bandance; :yahoo; :2thumbsup; :clap; :cheer: :beer1; :thumbup; :laugh: :rofl; :lol;