A very different opinion on these 'scandals'

[BanginJimmy]

I think the Obama admin is leaking all of this now on purpose. A quick recap:

1. After several months of stone walling on Benghazi, the Admin is now being fairly open even though their rhetoric would suggest otherwise.
2. EPA verifies that is hasnt targeted windmills for penalties from bird strikes like they have with almost any other industry, even though windmills kill more than 10x as many per year.
3. HHS confirms Sebelius is taking money from organizations to fund Obamacare prep.
4. AP phone records released to Justice despite DOJ not complying with its own procedures to do so.
5. IRS targeting conservatives.

I think the IRS is what triggered this and what will eventually carry the most weight. I think the Admin decided to let all of this leak now because of the timing in the election cycle. Why not let it all out now instead of the possibility of it becoming public this time next year. By the time the mid terms are in full swing, all of these issues will be gone and will not have a negative effect on the dems up for re-election.

The admin is clearing out its dirty laundry now in hopes of heading off any possible controversy coming into the midterms. I wouldnt be surprised to see a couple more low level issues come to light.

[eraser4g63]

Sounds about right. The major news networks would struggle with reporting the fact that they were taking a shit if someone wasn't hold their hand.

[Echonova]

The admin is clearing out its dirty laundry now in hopes of heading off any possible controversy coming into the midterms. I wouldnt be surprised to see a couple more low level issues come to light.Possibly that and... It also could be to over-whelm the public with multiple scandals so it appears to be a republican "witch-hunt". The uninformed public doesn't understand it, gets tired of hearing about it and dismisses it all.

I mean, Obama fired the IRS guy today, so that's over... Right?

Bengazi was a long time ago, and was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

DOJ had to do the wire taps because of a very, very serious leak. They had to investigate.

Windmills and birds... Pshhh Who cares?

Sahbeeliss? Never heard of her, who cares?

I'm going home to watch TMZ. I heard Beyoncé is pregnant again!!!

[Browning151]

I think the Obama admin is leaking all of this now on purpose. A quick recap:

1. After several months of stone walling on Benghazi, the Admin is now being fairly open even though their rhetoric would suggest otherwise.
2. EPA verifies that is hasnt targeted windmills for penalties from bird strikes like they have with almost any other industry, even though windmills kill more than 10x as many per year.
3. HHS confirms Sebelius is taking money from organizations to fund Obamacare prep.
4. AP phone records released to Justice despite DOJ not complying with its own procedures to do so.
5. IRS targeting conservatives.

I think the IRS is what triggered this and what will eventually carry the most weight. I think the Admin decided to let all of this leak now because of the timing in the election cycle. Why not let it all out now instead of the possibility of it becoming public this time next year. By the time the mid terms are in full swing, all of these issues will be gone and will not have a negative effect on the dems up for re-election.

The admin is clearing out its dirty laundry now in hopes of heading off any possible controversy coming into the midterms. I wouldnt be surprised to see a couple more low level issues come to light.


Possibly that and... It also could be to over-whelm the public with multiple scandals so it appears to be a republican "witch-hunt". The uninformed public doesn't understand it, gets tired of hearing about it and dismisses it all.

I mean, Obama fired the IRS guy today, so that's over... Right?

Bengazi was a long time ago, and was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

DOJ had to do the wire taps because of a very, very serious leak. They had to investigate.

Windmills and birds... Pshhh Who cares?

Sahbeeliss? Never heard of her, who cares?

I'm going home to watch TMZ. I heard Beyoncé is pregnant again!!!

Both well said, only thing I would add is that it does, in a way, "desensitize" the public to these sort of things happening. Making it seem like "the norm" so to speak. I mean, we all pretty much just accept that politicians lie right? Why not try to make things like this just as acceptable.

[BanginJimmy]

Possibly that and... It also could be to over-whelm the public with multiple scandals so it appears to be a republican "witch-hunt". The uninformed public doesn't understand it, gets tired of hearing about it and dismisses it all.

I mean, Obama fired the IRS guy today, so that's over... Right?

Bengazi was a long time ago, and was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

DOJ had to do the wire taps because of a very, very serious leak. They had to investigate.

Windmills and birds... Pshhh Who cares?

Sahbeeliss? Never heard of her, who cares?

I'm going home to watch TMZ. I heard Beyoncé is pregnant again!!!


Exactly. I have to admit, its good politics. Its a very smart move to take the wind out of the sails of the GOP. I can see some grand bargain with the GOP soon also. I dont think it will be immigration though. I think it will be with the budgets and the debt ceiling.


Both well said, only thing I would add is that it does, in a way, "desensitize" the public to these sort of things happening. Making it seem like "the norm" so to speak. I mean, we all pretty much just accept that politicians lie right? Why not try to make things like this just as acceptable.

The public already distrusts politicians and govt. Thats why they constantly have to tout the benefits of certain programs. It is also why they go to great lengths to hide the down side of those benefits. If the word about the negatives of all these govt programs was as highly publicized as the benefits, there is absolutely no way politicians would be able to survive the next election after voting for them.

[-EnVus-]

Obama will be our generations Nixon

[BanginJimmy]

Obama will be our generations Nixon

I dont think so. I think his handlers are too smart. They have spent a lot of time and political capital to insulate Obama from these issues. I can certainly see Obama coming out the other end of this acting(key word) much more humble and appearing to pay a lot more attention to what is going on. I can also see him opening the doors MUCH further than he has already to get these issues quashed. Let the GOP do their investigations and fry the underlings that the admin throws into the fire. Obama and Clinton come out looking clean. Obama touts his open and transparent admin and uses that good will to try to help dems get elected across the country.

[-EnVus-]

I dont think so. I think his handlers are too smart. They have spent a lot of time and political capital to insulate Obama from these issues. I can certainly see Obama coming out the other end of this acting(key word) much more humble and appearing to pay a lot more attention to what is going on. I can also see him opening the doors MUCH further than he has already to get these issues quashed. Let the GOP do their investigations and fry the underlings that the admin throws into the fire. Obama and Clinton come out looking clean. Obama touts his open and transparent admin and uses that good will to try to help dems get elected across the country.

I had a dream last night and no joke it kinda made to much sense and could happen.
Obama was caught up in many debates and scandals he made a public announcement and said "I and handing in my resignation"
He just didn't like the image he was getting and the drama. It was almost like when he sighed at the "Pack up and just go home" speech.

[BanginJimmy]

I had a dream last night and no joke it kinda made to much sense and could happen.
Obama was caught up in many debates and scandals he made a public announcement and said "I and handing in my resignation"
He just didn't like the image he was getting and the drama. It was almost like when he sighed at the "Pack up and just go home" speech.

Certainly possible. If my scenario were to play out, it is entirely possible one of those underlings that is put out to pasture decides to fight back and has the ammo to do it. These would have to be senior enough people, such as the acting director of the IRS, to put the blame for shortcomings in oversite, but still below the appointee level. An appointee that is implicated in this would cast a shadow onto Obama personally.

[Sinfix_15]

With the way Obama rained down justice on the IRS, you've really got to give him credit. Forcing that interim head of the IRS to resign 1 month before he already planned to resign will really teach them a lesson. Cant say i'm surprised by this swift justice though, of course Obama would show no mercy for the people who illegally assisted him in his bid for re-election, the same way him and Eric Holder showed no mercy to the black panther thugs for voter intimidation.

[Sinfix_15]

In case you guys were interested in Al Sharpton and Chris Mathew's opinion on these scandals......

he says white people cant stand not having a white president and theyre only bringing up these things because theyre racist towards obama.

I view that statement kinda like a guy coming home from a whore house to beat his wife because he thinks she's cheating. But... that's the democratic party... accuse everyone of being what they are..... it's quite an insult to be honest.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D2_CyUkjQn4

[.blank cd]

In case you guys were interested in Al Sharpton and Chris Mathew's opinion on these scandals......

he says white people cant stand not having a white president and theyre only bringing up these things because theyre racist towards obama.

If its not racism, why lie about the presidents birthplace, career, education, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, etc. etc.?

[Sinfix_15]

If its not racism, why lie about the presidents birthplace, career, education, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, etc. etc.?

You dont know that it's a lie. You confuse your beliefs with facts.

[.blank cd]

Which one hasn't been lied about? I'm supposed to believe a black Kenyan Muslim socialist communist who's never had a job and never been to college became president of the United States? LMAO. Sorry. All of that is false. People lied about all of that.

I do however have some oceanfront property in Utah for sale if you're interested. Half off.

[Sinfix_15]

Which one hasn't been lied about? I'm supposed to believe a black Kenyan Muslim socialist communist who's never had a job and never been to college became president of the United States? LMAO. Sorry. All of that is false. People lied about all of that.

I do however have some oceanfront property in Utah for sale if you're interested. Half off.

We know you're a sheep, quit wasting so much time confirming it.

You dont know anything about Obama. His records are sealed. You chose to have faith in him because you trust father government. The current scandals show how much we should trust government...... which is very little.

Everything you've been calling a conspiracy theory is true. You liberals believe that if you repeat yourself enough times that it becomes true..... it doesnt.

[.blank cd]

We know you're a sheep, quit wasting so much time confirming it.

You dont know anything about Obama. His records are sealed.
If his records are really sealed like you say they are, how do you know anything about Obama?

[Sinfix_15]

If his records are really sealed like you say they are, how do you know anything about Obama?

Neither of us know the truth about Obama........ but we're both entitled to form an opinion based on the clues we have before us.

Communist parents.
Admits racism in self biography.
Spent half his life attending a radical black nationalist church.
Feels the constitution prevents him from doing his job, even though his job is to uphold the constitution.
Has no respect for traditional american values and either ignorantly or arrogantly mocks them.
Habitual liar and aggressive advocate for tax increases.
No accountability for any of the numerous government deficiencies currently on display. IRS, DOJ, EPA, DHS, Benghazi.
Supported by communist party.
Supports open communist leaders.
Supports and is supported by Eric Holder who has openly said he wants to "brain wash" america.... his words, not mine.
Constitutional lawyer with probably the worst record on civil liberties in the history of our country,..... ironic.
License to practice law revoked.... who knows why? records sealed.
He says "chicago is the blueprint for american gun laws"... in chicago theyre confiscating firearms that are on display in museums even......
Ignores voter fraud while relentlessly attacking the press even though he claims to be "the most transparent gov in history"
The only people who have ever came forth from his past have negative things to say about him, that is.... the ones who havnt been murdered or mysteriously disappeared.
Ted Cruz is also a constitutional lawyer from Harvard..... he has a dozen colleagues who boast about how great of a student he was. Where is Obama's support?


So... tell me again why i should trust or have high expectations for this guy? This is going to go down as the biggest fraud in world history. The only person who had anything to gain from these scandals is Obama..................... the IRS assisting this champion for tax increases in his bid for re-election.... nothing strange about that......... same people involved in the IRS scandal now running healthcare system..... nothing strange about that..... healthcare system linked to gun control with same people who targeted conserves being able to oversee mental health evaluations..... nothing strange about that.......


You want a black president more than you want a good president. It's as simple as that.

[Sinfix_15]

Chief IRS Counsel Got Jeremiah Wright's Church out of IRS Probe Before Joining Agency (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/19/Chief-IRS-counsel-bailed-Jeremiah-Wright-s-church-out-of-IRS-probe-in-2008?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[.blank cd]

Thank fuck this IRS thing is about to die a slow death.

http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/taxes/2013/06/24/new-irs-chief-inappropriate-screening-was-broader/EouWCeb1D4IhdADJyJr5yO/story.html

So they targeted liberals too. Kinda puts a wrench in conservatives entire argument.

[David88vert]

So, the IRS is saying that a few liberal organizations were also targeted and screened, but no one knows the name of any of those? No one intentionally sent any applications from liberal group applications to conservative advocacy groups either? We just have to believe the IRS is now being truthful with us, with no proof that they are? I thought that you wanted people to use critical thinking, but evidently, you have exempted yourself from using it.

[.blank cd]

So, the IRS is saying that a few liberal organizations were also targeted and screened, but no one knows the name of any of those? No one intentionally sent any applications from liberal group applications to conservative advocacy groups either? We just have to believe the IRS is now being truthful with us, with no proof that they are? I thought that you wanted people to use critical thinking, but evidently, you have exempted yourself from using it.

Cognitive dissonance. It's hard. I know. But it's time for you to face reality. These scandals are turning out to be nothing more than ratings grabs. I called it from the get go. You should probably read more. It will help with that feeling you get when facts clash with your preconceived notions. Cognitive dissonance.

Your hopes of being right fissile and die with every post you make.

Next up, Benghazi....

[Echonova]

This is why I don't bother with this section anymore. It's like talking to a wall constructed out of stupid.

[.blank cd]

This is why I don't bother with this section anymore. It's like talking to a wall constructed out of stupid.

It would be more interesting if they learned, but I don't bank on that happening. Lol

[Echonova]

It would be more interesting if they learned, but I don't bank on that happening. LolI see what you did there...


















































































Kudos.

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/thepowerisyours.jpg

[David88vert]

Cognitive dissonance. It's hard. I know. But it's time for you to face reality. These scandals are turning out to be nothing more than ratings grabs. I called it from the get go. You should probably read more. It will help with that feeling you get when facts clash with your preconceived notions. Cognitive dissonance.

Your hopes of being right fissile and die with every post you make.

Next up, Benghazi....

So, where exactly are these facts that support your conclusion that was made solely on your own initial uninformed opinion?

You are deluded if you think that your beliefs are based upon displayed facts. You are accepting the statement of the IRS official with no questions but tell everyone else to use critical thinking any other time.

LOL

[.blank cd]

So, where exactly are these facts that support your conclusion that was made solely on your own initial uninformed opinion?

You are deluded if you think that your beliefs are based upon displayed facts. You are accepting the statement of the IRS official with no questions but tell everyone else to use critical thinking any other time.

LOL

Sorry, but critical thinking doesn't mean coming to your own personal conclusion. If they were targeting just conservatives, I guess I'd be right there with you, but based on the facts, and all the information given up to this point, they were targeting everyone, as they should have been. It seems that your opinion doesn't match mine, and that mine closely follows the facts, whereas yours follows emotional reasoning. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

[David88vert]

Sorry, but critical thinking doesn't mean coming to your own personal conclusion. If they were targeting just conservatives, I guess I'd be right there with you, but based on the facts, and all the information given up to this point, they were targeting everyone, as they should have been. It seems that your opinion doesn't match mine, and that mine closely follows the facts, whereas yours follows emotional reasoning. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.



Name 5 liberal organizations that were targeted. Just 5 will do. Include factual sources for them.

Also, give one example of a liberal organization's application being given to a conservative organization. Just one, with factual sources.

Critical thinking does not mean that you believe a statement from an organization that has not been open and transparent with no questions.

[.blank cd]

Name 5 liberal organizations that were targeted. Just 5 will do. Include factual sources for them.

Also, give one example of a liberal organization's application being given to a conservative organization. Just one, with factual sources.

Critical thinking does not mean that you believe a statement from an organization that has not been open and transparent with no questions.

Lol. So now your response becomes "Lets not give this new guy the benefit of the doubt because his report doesn't create more scandal, instead, lets only give the initial report the benefit of the doubt, because that's where my political isle is, not exactly where the facts are."

Amusing. Lol.

Working on that list for ya. Not that it really matters or anything.

[.blank cd]

I'm so tired of being right all the time

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/November%202010%20BOLO%20IRS0000001349-IRS0000001364.pdf

[David88vert]

Lol. So now your response becomes "Lets not give this new guy the benefit of the doubt because his report doesn't create more scandal, instead, lets only give the initial report the benefit of the doubt, because that's where my political isle is, not exactly where the facts are."

Amusing. Lol.

Working on that list for ya. Not that it really matters or anything.

So, you can't support your conclusion/opinion with any facts, yet you claim that you are basing your opinion/conclusion on facts. I don't think that you even know what "fact" means.

I have facts that support my current position on this issue. The facts are that only name of conservative organizations have been given to the public up to our current point in time, and that only the application of a conservative party applicant was given to a liberal organization specifically for political gain. These are publically available documented facts, not opinion or conjecture. You are unable to present any documentation to support your position. You have made it very clear that you blindly support anything that the current administration does, which is exactly what a non-rational and emotional person does.

Let me be clear - If supporting documentation is released that shows that the IRS treated liberal organizations the same way that they treated conservative ones, then that only addressed part of the issue. That would simply mean that they were not politically targeting conservative groups, but not that they were being mismanaged. They should have been looking at any organization that applied for non-profit status with the same amount of scrutiny, and that is what they need to be able to show and document. So far, that is not what the facts show, as your PDF is almost completely blacked out - see below.




I'm so tired of being right all the time

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/November%202010%20BOLO%20IRS0000001349-IRS0000001364.pdf

Almost the whole list is blacked out, so what is that supposed to show? I could just as easily black out a spreadsheet. Why don't they release the whole list? Of the watch words, none were similar in political affiliation to liberal organizations like tea party is to conservative ones.

And you aren't right on many subjects, but don't worry, I will let you know when you are right.

[.blank cd]

How typical of you. Seeing only what you want to see. Lol

The fact is this whole scandal is hinged on the IRS targeting conservatives exclusively. According to new documents, such as the one I've provided, this isn't the case. There really isn't much more to it. Everyone up to the associated press seems to agree with me, so I guess all that remains are the last few people who are still hanging on to their need for a scandal.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, you are one delusional SOB.

[David88vert]

How typical of you. Seeing only what you want to see. Lol

The fact is this whole scandal is hinged on the IRS targeting conservatives exclusively. According to new documents, such as the one I've provided, this isn't the case. There really isn't much more to it. Everyone up to the associated press seems to agree with me, so I guess all that remains are the last few people who are still hanging on to their need for a scandal.

It's typical of me to look for facts and sources. Unfortunately, it is typical of you to blindly lash out at anything that does not agree with the current administration.

I am not certain what news reports you looked at, but none of the major news outlets ever reported that conservative groups were exclusively targeted, only that conservative groups were targeted a year after the IRS claimed that they didn't. There is a huge difference in what that means, but again, your reading comprehension has shown to need work many times over.

As I have stated, show me where they are targeting liberal political groups equally, and where they have treated them in the same way by sending their applications to a conservative organization. Its a simple request for facts and sources - what's so difficult about that?
Find an instance where the IRS did this to someone else: IRS released confidential info on conservative groups to ProPublica (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/14/irs-released-confidential-info-on-conservative-groups-to-propublica/)

If the IRS did nothing wrong, why did Lerner get removed from his position? ProPublica reported that the Lerner’s division released “nine pending confidential applications of conservatives groups” in response to a request from the investigative-reporting organization for the applications of 67 nonprofits in November 2012. not just one - but 9 of 67. That's a fairly high percentage, is it not? How many liberal groups applications have they released? None, not nine.

In case you haven't figured it out yet - I don't have a problem with them investigating any organization that is applying as a non-profit - just do it correctly, without political bias towards EITHER party.

The Republicans are attempting to over-emphasize the issue, and the Democrats are attempting over-zealously to squash it, but that does not mean that we should ignore it. Look at the documented facts, and use some analytic reasoning.

You seem to have a belief that I want there to be a scandal, but in reality, that couldn't be farther from the truth. I would greatly prefer that this IRS situation never existed.

[.blank cd]

Blank, you are one delusional SOB.

Sorry Sinfix. "Delusional" doesn't mean "doesn't agree with my viewpoint" in this case. You'd be wrong once again.

[.blank cd]

It's typical of me to look for facts and sources. Unfortunately, it is typical of you to blindly lash out at anything that does not agree with the current administration.

I am not certain what news reports you looked at, but none of the major news outlets ever reported that conservative groups were exclusively targetedWhat about this major news outlet that said precisely that?

http://uneditedpolitics.com/report-reveals-irs-targeted-conservative-groups-exclusively-this-was-one-sided-51513/



As I have stated, show me where they are targeting liberal political groups equally, and where they have treated them in the same way by sending their applications to a conservative organization. Its a simple request for facts and sources - what's so difficult about that?
Find an instance where the IRS did this to someone else: IRS released confidential info on conservative groups to ProPublica (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/14/irs-released-confidential-info-on-conservative-groups-to-propublica/)

If the IRS did nothing wrong, why did Lerner get removed from his position? ProPublica reported that the Lerner’s division released “nine pending confidential applications of conservatives groups” in response to a request from the investigative-reporting organization for the applications of 67 nonprofits in November 2012. not just one - but 9 of 67. That's a fairly high percentage, is it not? How many liberal groups applications have they released? None, not nine.Sorry. I don't change the story to suit the narrative. That's not how reasoning works. Lol.

[Sinfix_15]

Sorry Sinfix. "Delusional" doesn't mean "doesn't agree with my viewpoint" in this case. You'd be wrong once again.

You seem to be at odds with reality.

[David88vert]

What about this major news outlet that said precisely that?

Report Reveals IRS Targeted Conservative Groups Exclusively: “This was One-Sided” – 5/15/13 | Unedited Politics (http://uneditedpolitics.com/report-reveals-irs-targeted-conservative-groups-exclusively-this-was-one-sided-51513/)


Sorry. I don't change the story to suit the narrative. That's not how reasoning works. Lol.

"Freedom's Lighthouse" is not a major media outlet. LOL. Freedom's Lighthouse (http://freedomslighthouse.net/)
Major media outlets are Reuters, AP, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc - I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

I point out facts, and the facts that I have pointed out have been the narrative since the very start of the story. You don't have an inkling about what the story is even about.
Funny how you always delete and avoid anything that you can't answer or understand - I get a good laugh out of it all the time though.

[.blank cd]

"Freedom's Lighthouse" is not a major media outlet. LOL. Freedom's Lighthouse (http://freedomslighthouse.net/)
Major media outlets are Reuters, AP, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc - I shouldn't have to explain this to you.So you didn't open the link at all did you?

[David88vert]

So you didn't open the link at all did you?

I not only opened the link, I also went to YouTube, watched the video, and went to the original site that posted the video. Evidently, you did not.

[.blank cd]

I not only opened the link, I also went to YouTube, watched the video, and went to the original site that posted the video. Evidently, you did not.

So what about NBC isn't a major news outlet?

I forgot. The story changes when it doesn't suit your narrative. Lol.

[Browning151]

I'm so tired of being right all the time

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/November%202010%20BOLO%20IRS0000001349-IRS0000001364.pdf

'Lookout List' Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/351930)

[David88vert]

So what about NBC isn't a major news outlet?

I forgot. The story changes when it doesn't suit your narrative. Lol.

I looked again - a popup from that page hid the top part. MSNBC is definitely a major news outlet.
I don't watch MSNBC usually. So, Willie Geist is your quotation source? I usually go with more well-known sources that people recognize.

The narrative never has changed on the IRS issue. Lerner repeatedly lied and said that the BOLO list didn't exist, or was already pulled and not being used, yet we now know it was used up until last month. ProPublica has publically stated numerous times that they were sent 9 conservative group applications - that hasn't changed either. Lerner specifically lied about this, and that has been consistent as well. We have not heard of any liberal groups applications being sent to a conservative news group, unless you have some special privileged information not available to any news outlets.

[Manny Naber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D2_CyUkjQn4

That was awesome

[l0l]

Arguing with a liberal is like a child running around the back yard chasing chickens with a badminton racket, and every time they take a swipe at one and miss they wave their hands in the air and shout "I WON!"...lol

[.blank cd]

Arguing with a liberal is like a child running around the back yard chasing chickens with a badminton racket, and every time they take a swipe at one and miss they wave their hands in the air and shout "I WON!"...lol

Do you often chase chickens around with a badminton racket?

[David88vert]

'Lookout List' Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/351930)

"...it is inaccurate to say that progressive and liberal groups were subjected to the same or similar scrutiny as tea-party groups, or even that a surprisingly broad array of criteria was applied to screen applications for tax exemption."

Exactly what has been stated all along.

[Sinfix_15]

Do you often chase chickens around with a badminton racket?

We all do.... you "chickens" are everywhere and you wont STFU or get out of our yard.

[Sinfix_15]

so tired of being right all the time.

Treasury IG: Liberal groups weren't targeted by IRS like Tea Party - The Hill's On The Money (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/308131-ig-liberal-groups-not-targeted-like-tea-party)

[Sinfix_15]

BlankCD - " what's that you say? the organization in question investigated itself and found no wrong doing? seems legit "

http://theweirdlywiredworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/seems-legit-7.jpg
http://cl.jroo.me/z3/o/S/d/e/a.baa-This-store-seems-legit.jpg
http://narwhaler.com/original/tn/j/seems-legit-axe-murderer-TNJSBn.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

IRS auditor reaffirms that conservatives, not liberals, were targeted - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/#.UcxNbxtHQYs.twitter)

[Sinfix_15]

17,560 documents posted regarding the IRS targeting conservatives*************

BlankCD - "need more evidence, not conclusive... dont believe it"

2 people at a bus station say liberal groups were targeted***************

BlankCD - " see, i told you so! i'm always right! <insert misplaced big word here> look how smart i am <insert misplaced psychological term here> "

[.blank cd]

Cat in the hat was harder to read than you.

Your cognitive bias is showing, BTW.

[Sinfix_15]

Cat in the hat was harder to read than you.

Your cognitive bias is showing, BTW.

on cue and as delusional as advertised.....

Blankcd ladies and gentlemen.....

[David88vert]

"I respectfully decline to answer any questions and invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent," - Gregory Roseman, Deputy IRS Director involved in awarding IRS contracts


IRS official refuses to testify before Congress - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-irs-contractsbre95p0rr-20130626,0,6707732.story)
Senior IRS manager invokes Fifth Amendment right before House committee | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/27/senior-irs-manager-invokes-fifth-amendment-right/?test=latestnews)

[David88vert]

Cat in the hat was harder to read than you.

Your cognitive bias is showing, BTW.

You believe that you know more than the IRS auditor who has been working this case? LOL

[.blank cd]

You believe that you know more than the IRS auditor who has been working this case? LOL

You must've not read the articles he posted did you? LOL. Typical.

Either that or you only read what you wanted to hear from it.

[David88vert]

You must've not read the articles he posted did you? LOL. Typical.

Either that or you only read what you wanted to hear from it.

"The IRS‘ auditor told Congress this week that it stands by its determination that conservative groups were uniquely singled out for special scrutiny by the tax agency, rebutting Democrats’ contention that liberal groups also were targeted."

What part of that statement do you not understand?

In case the IRS auditor isn't enough for you, how about the new acting head of the IRS also saying the same thing - that you are wrong.

"The acting head of the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday that no evidence has emerged that liberal groups came under the same kind of extra scrutiny as some conservative groups when the agency assessed their applications for tax-exempt status."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/politics/irs-targeting/index.html?hpt=po_c2

Just admit it - you thought that you were right, and now you know that you were wrong.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm starting to believe that Blank's posts are a cry for help. His use of psychological terms are far too self descriptive to be coincidence. I think he's reaching out for our support.

Maybe this is how mental illness begins..... we should try to help blank before it's too late.



Blank, do you have any guns in your home?

[.blank cd]

"The IRS&lsquo; auditor told Congress this week that it stands by its determination that conservative groups were uniquely singled out for special scrutiny by the tax agency, rebutting Democrats&rsquo; contention that liberal groups also were targeted."

What part of that statement do you not understand?

In case the IRS auditor isn't enough for you, how about the new acting head of the IRS also saying the same thing - that you are wrong.

"The acting head of the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday that no evidence has emerged that liberal groups came under the same kind of extra scrutiny as some conservative groups when the agency assessed their applications for tax-exempt status."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/politics/irs-targeting/index.html?hpt=po_c2

Just admit it - you thought that you were right, and now you know that you were wrong.

God damn. Right after I call you out on cherry picking, you go right in the very next post and do it again.

[David88vert]

God damn. Right after I call you out on cherry picking, you go right in the very next post and do it again.

You cherry-picked Daniel Werfel's original report, and claimed that you were always right. Now, Werfel admits that your conclusion (and his) was not correct, and that it was only an initial investigation (he stated this before Congress today), yet when I point that out, you cry foul.

I am laughing at your hypocrisy and idiocy.

Just so you don't claim cherry-picking, here is the whole start of the article, verbatim:

"The acting head of the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday that no evidence has emerged that liberal groups came under the same kind of extra scrutiny as some conservative groups when the agency assessed their applications for tax-exempt status.

An initial report on the IRS targeting scandal made public this week by Daniel Werfel, the IRS principal deputy commissioner, led to the disclosure that IRS workers flagged liberal groups as well as conservative groups in trying to determine if applicants were eligible for the tax-exempt status available to social welfare organizations.

Under tough questioning Thursday at a congressional hearing, Werfel acknowledged that no evidence so far showed liberal groups faced the same kind of delays and questioning that some conservative groups faced.

Werfel repeatedly noted that his internal investigation was incomplete and that groups that have waited more than 120 days for an answer to their requests for a tax break included a diverse range of political leanings.

His report released Monday said five managers had been replaced and other steps taken in response to an inspector general's audit that found the agency targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

Werfel's report also said no evidence has emerged so far that the targeting was politically motivated or that anyone outside the tax agency had a role in it."

The backpedaling commences....

[Sinfix_15]

You cherry-picked Daniel Werfel's original report, and claimed that you were always right. Now, Werfel admits that your conclusion (and his) was not correct, and that it was only an initial investigation (he stated this before Congress today), yet when I point that out, you cry foul.

I am laughing at your hypocrisy and idiocy.

It really is comical at this point.....

Either Blank is intentionally trolling or is just one dumb SOB.

[Browning151]

I am laughing at your hypocrisy and idiocy.

Everyone is.

[ISAtlanta300]

It really is comical at this point.....

Either Blank is intentionally trolling or is just one dumb SOB.

Or both?

[.blank cd]

Facepalm.

[David88vert]

Facepalm.

Actually, the Democrats and you got the backhand from TIGTA.

"The IRS‘ auditor told Congress this week that it stands by its determination that conservative groups were uniquely singled out for special scrutiny by the tax agency, rebutting Democrats’ contention that liberal groups also were targeted.

The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) sent a letter Wednesday to congressional Democrats telling them that while several liberal groups may have gotten extra scrutiny, the IRS didn’t necessarily target those — but it did do so for conservative groups."

[.blank cd]

Did you read why it targeted conservative groups? It said why in the article

[Sinfix_15]

Did you read why it targeted conservative groups? It said why in the article

They're operating with the same intentions of this cow.
http://moneysavingmom.com/images/2008-small/07/05/sidebar_cow_eatmore.jpg

[David88vert]

Did you read why it targeted conservative groups? It said why in the article


So, now you agree that the IRS targeted conservative groups. That's a start.

From the article: "targeting of applications that contained conservative-themed words such as "tea party."

"At the heart of the matter is what kind of organization can qualify for tax-exempt status. Regulations limit such status to groups primarily involved in social welfare activities, while political groups are considered ineligible.

Confusion over defining what constitutes political activity versus social welfare activity contributed to the targeting by the IRS, Werfel said.

An IRS statement Monday said the "safe-harbor" option for self-certification would apply to groups that "certify they devote 60% or more of both their spending and time on activities that promote social welfare."

"At the same time, they must certify that political campaign intervention involves 40% or less of both their spending and time," the statement said. Applicants meeting those thresholds would get approval within two weeks of seeking self-certification, it said."

And don't forget:

“TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited,” Inspector General J. Russell George said.

He said that while 30 percent of groups that had the word “progressive” in their name were given extra scrutiny, 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names were pulled out for strict scrutiny, which involved what the IRS since has said were invasive and inappropriate questions.

“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” Mr. George wrote.

[Sinfix_15]

The IRS targets those who seek to diminish the power of the IRS. Their agenda is self preservation.


http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/to-learn-who-rules-over-you-simply-find-out-who-you-are-not-allowed-to-criticize.-voltaire-e1339118283228.jpg

[.blank cd]

What about what it said happened right after campaign finance reform...?

[David88vert]

What about what it said happened right after campaign finance reform...?

I'll have to assume that you meant the following from the article - note that it is the Democrats that made the claim, and it has been refuted by the IRS auditor, and was clarified this morning by the person on whom the Democrats based that statement. The entire article is specifically addressing these claims, which means that you could not comprehend what you read, and completely missed the point of the entire article.

Democrats have argued that the IRS‘ scrutiny of applications for tax-exempt status hit both ideological sides equally, which would cut at the GOP’s argument that it was politically motivated. Instead, Democrats have said the scrutiny is the natural result of a jump in applications after campaign finance rules changed following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.

But Mr. George’s letter suggests that’s not the case.

“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” Mr. George wrote.

[.blank cd]

I'll have to assume that you meant the following from the article - note that it is the Democrats that made the claim, and it has been refuted by the IRS auditor, and was clarified this morning by the person on whom the Democrats based that statement. The entire article is specifically addressing these claims, which means that you could not comprehend what you read, and completely missed the point of the entire article.

Democrats have argued that the IRS‘ scrutiny of applications for tax-exempt status hit both ideological sides equally, which would cut at the GOP’s argument that it was politically motivated. Instead, Democrats have said the scrutiny is the natural result of a jump in applications after campaign finance rules changed following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.

But Mr. George’s letter suggests that’s not the case.

“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” Mr. George wrote.

I think it's you that has the problem with reading comprehension. And you keep thinking how the article tells you to think. Stop that.

The article only mentioned "progressives" out of all the key words that described liberal groups, then mentioned 3 or 4 to refer to conservative groups. What about the rest of the key words that apply to liberal groups? 30% of progressives, what percent of other key words like occupy and liberty. What percent of those organizations with the conservative key words "patriots" and "freedom" were in fact liberal organizations?

Are you suggesting that the change of campaign finance laws had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of 501 applications by conservatives groups during the same exact period of time, and that this rise in applications of groups with conservative keywords had nothing to do with increased scrutiny thereof? That it was indeed politically motivated and thus the campaign finance reform was simply a consequence of timing, despite hard evidence to the contrary?

This is what I'm talking about. You only think how you're told to think by the article. And you're notorious for it. Look at what the article isn't telling you.

[David88vert]

I think it's you that has the problem with reading comprehension. And you keep thinking how the article tells you to think. Stop that.

The article only mentioned "progressives" out of all the key words that described liberal groups, then mentioned 3 or 4 to refer to conservative groups. What about the rest of the key words that apply to liberal groups? 30% of progressives, what percent of other key words like occupy and liberty. What percent of those organizations with the conservative key words "patriots" and "freedom" were in fact liberal organizations?

Are you suggesting that the change of campaign finance laws had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of 501 applications by conservatives groups during the same exact period of time, and that this rise in applications of groups with conservative keywords had nothing to do with increased scrutiny thereof? That it was indeed politically motivated and thus the campaign finance reform was simply a consequence of timing, despite hard evidence to the contrary?

This is what I'm talking about. You only think how you're told to think by the article. And you're notorious for it. Look at what the article isn't telling you.

I'm simply looking at the facts being presented to Congress by those actually involved in the investigation. I am not speculating like you are using party platform supporting rhetoric. That is the difference between you and I. I'm about facts, and you're about excuses. I read multiple articles from major media outlets, but you only can manage to read one or two lines from one - and then you don't understand what you just read.

To show that you really don't comprehend what you read, see your own statement that I have underlined above, and then compare it to what was really stated:
He said that while 30 percent of groups that had the word “progressive” in their name were given extra scrutiny, 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names were pulled out for strict scrutiny, which involved what the IRS since has said were invasive and inappropriate questions.

The reality is that the evidence being presented to Congress by your original source, Daniel Werfel, shows that the conservative organizations were targeted while the liberal ones were not:
"Under tough questioning Thursday at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Werfel acknowledged that the different BOLO categories meant liberal groups avoided the extra scrutiny cited by the inspector general that included processing delays and extensive questions perceived by conservatives as political intimidation."

I'm still waiting for your excuses as to why 9 conservative group applications were sent to ProPublica.

[.blank cd]

It's like Im talking to a brick wall that doesn't understand English here.

[David88vert]

It's like Im talking to a brick wall that doesn't understand English here.

Do you realize that you are the only one here that doesn't understand what the articles clearly state?

The letter from George stated:
"In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were processed as potential political cases," George wrote. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases" during the audit's time frame.

[Echonova]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/1013910_398389310271286_633627445_n_zpsaedd818f.pn g

[Sinfix_15]

Obama to americans - "reject the voices that tyranny is always around the corner" "if americans cant trust their government, we're gonna have some problems"
Obama to africans - "be wary of foreign powers, even the united states"

Obama to Africa: Be wary of foreign powers, even United States - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/obama-africa-be-wary-foreign-powers-even-us/)


Would be nice if Obama would just stay in Africa and be wary of the US.