Printable View
[QUOTE=Jackson;437732]Rev,
You're makng this too easy.
1. President Bush didn't go to bed after learning that the country had been attacked, and...
2. President Bush didn't lie to the country by trying to tell us that it was an air traffic control accident.
Thanks,
Jax.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I know, he should have forsaken food & water for a week, and covered himself with ashes.
[QUOTE=RevBS;437734]Yeah, I know, he should have forsaken food & water for a week, and covered himself with ashes.[/QUOTE]I didn't suggest anything like that, but I do believe that the country's Commander-in-Chief, given that the country was under attack (yes, diplomatic outposts are legally American soil), should have canceled his fund-raising trip to California, stayed on station in DC, consulted with his military commanders, ordered an immediate rescue effort with whatever assets had even the slightest possibility of reaching the scene within 24 hours, coordinated activities by the State Department, and whatever else he might have been able to accomplish.
In other words, I think that we should have seen a repeat of the same scene captured in the now famous photo of the Obama gang gathered together watching as the Navy Seals took out Bin Laden.
In addition, I believe, given that it has been established with absolute certainty that Obama knew within minutes that al Qaeda was attacking our consulate in Benghazi, that he should have addressed the nation and told us the truth in a similar fashion as President Bush did after 9/11.
At the very least, he should not have permitted Susan Rice to go on public TV and repeatedly perpetrate a direct lie on the American people.
BTW, nothing I've suggested in any way resembles the self-immolation reaction you suggested.
Thanks,
Jax.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;437660]Someone takes a quote from YOUR link and you indicate he's basing his beliefs primarily on that particular quote. That's what's absurd.[/QUOTE]Actually, my link was to a story titled "Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting". The story focused on this finding, which is why I linked it. But the article had some other stuff, part of which you quoted to support your bias thesis. I countered that it did not support a bias thesis, and then Jackson chimed in to defend it as evidence of bias.
Anyways, time to wrap this up.
I am going to wrap up my exposé of the phony IRS 'scandal' with an excellent quote.
There is certainly evidence that Tea Party applications to the IRS for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status received additional scrutiny and encountered delays. They weren't the only groups affected, but conservatives claim Tea Party applications got the worst treatment.
What hasn't been proven is that the handling of Tea Party applications was [u]improper[/u]. The basis of the 'scandal' was that the IRS was politically motivated, but there is no evidence of this. There is no evidence that IRS staffers were doing anything other than trying to do their jobs. It is a fact that the Tea Party was a new political movement that emerged in 2009-10. Being a political movement, it is logical that a surge of Tea Party applications would raise flags, when the requirement for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status was that the group [i]not[/i] be mainly political. Was there a new left-leaning political movement at the same time, and a surge of 501(c)(4) applications with the same name? Nope. The circumstances around the Tea Party were unique, and the IRS had to figure out how to handle these cases. One can argue the IRS was slow and inefficient in this process, but charges of political motivation must be proven. They haven't been. Tiny's charge of political motivation "Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats." is not only baseless and unproven, but also frankly repulsive. The IRS is an independent enforcement agency, with employees from across the political spectrum who have worked under Republican and Democrat administrations. I'd like to see him sit down with some IRS staffers, and tell them that to their faces.
Check the following quote. A former IRS employee, now a Tea Party member, actually defends the IRS. Having worked for the agency, she knows better than to buy into this phony scandal.
[QUOTE]"Before the IRS started separating out Tea Party applications, getting tax-exempt status was routine -- even for conservative groups. The Champaign Tea Party's treasurer, Karen Olsen, said the process was smooth, with no follow-up questions from the IRS.
Olsen, a retired IRS revenue agent, defended the agency.
"If you suddenly see a great increase in some kind of activity, and you don't understand why, then it might be reasonable to look more closely at what's happening with those applications," she said. "I'm not certain that there was an error on the part of the IRS at all. I know that's not a popular opinion."[/QUOTE]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/
According to Esten, the IRS Inspector General 's scathing report, which the planted question by Lerner at a news conference was intended to defuse, is all total bunk because the IG is a Republican who was cherry picking data. Not only that it was only one guy in a broom closet office at the IRS, also a Republican, who came up with and carried out all on his own the interference with conservative groups being granted 504 status.
Now suddenly a "former IRS official" joins a "Tea Party" group and comes to the defense of her former agency. Just one mind you.
Amazing, simply amazing.
[QUOTE=Esten;437738]Tiny's charge of political motivation "Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats." is not only baseless and unproven, but also frankly repulsive. The IRS is an independent enforcement agency, with employees from across the political spectrum who have worked under Republican and Democrat administrations. I'd like to see him sit down with some IRS staffers, and tell them that to their faces.[/QUOTE]No kidding. I'd have to be a complete idiot. Even though I spend over 200 hours a year putting together info to prepare my taxes, and even though I do my absolute best to properly pay my taxes and comply with tax regulations, I'm sure there are some IRS employees that can and would figure out a way to fuck me over if I told that to their faces. It's interesting you say that BTW. Do you know something the rest of us don't about the ability of the IRS to persecute people it doesn't like? If so, please share.
That said, I will admit the couple of times that I've been audited, the IRS employees I've communicated with were extremely competent, professional and fair. And made no adjustments to my taxable income BTW. I don't think that applies to certain individuals in Cincinnati that went on a witch hunt though.
The National Treasury Employees Union, the PAC that represents employees from the IRS and other Treasury agencies, allocates about 95% of its campaign contributions to Democrats. People who identified their employer as the IRS donated 30X more to Barack Obama's campaign than John McCain's. There are other examples where contributions by IRS employees to Democrats were as low as 2X contributions to Republicans. Anyway you slice or dice it, IRS employees are predominantly Democrats.
[QUOTE=Esten;437738]It is a fact that the Tea Party was a new political movement that emerged in 2009-10. Being a political movement, it is logical that a surge of Tea Party applications would raise flags, when the requirement for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status was that the group [i]not[/i] be mainly political. Was there a new left-leaning political movement at the same time, and a surge of 501(c)(4) applications with the same name? Nope. The circumstances around the Tea Party were unique, and the IRS had to figure out how to handle these cases. [/QUOTE]
The number of applications from "progressive" groups during 2010 to 2012 wasn't that much different than the number of applications from "Tea Party" groups, based on the NYT link I've repeatedly posted here. Your argument that "Tea Party" groups are some kind of a new political movement and that justifies putting their applications off to the side for two years is baseless. It's an excuse to give your side a leg up with its "anti-Tea Party" agenda -- higher taxes, bigger government, more corporate welfare for your favorites, more unemployment and government dependency (i.e. more people who will vote for Democrats), a complicated and irrational system of taxation, and a system of entitlements that will eventually bankrupt the country.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;437739]According to Esten, the IRS Inspector General 's scathing report, which the planted question by Lerner at a news conference was intended to defuse, is all total bunk because the IG is a Republican who was cherry picking data. Not only that it was only one guy in a broom closet office at the IRS, also a Republican, who came up with and carried out all on his own the interference with conservative groups being granted 504 status.
Now suddenly a "former IRS official" joins a "Tea Party" group and comes to the defense of her former agency. Just one mind you.
Amazing, simply amazing.[/QUOTE]Not much of a defense when the person has no knowledge of the situation and is only guessing.
Esten, Do you read your links? Or is it just that if you're pulling something from the mainstream press instead of the DailyKos you can't find unambiguous support for your case? Your USA Today article says that after the IRS ex-employee's 501 (c) 4 was approved, there wasn't another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. It notes that groups with liberal sounding names had their applications approved in as little as 9 months. It quotes Lois Lerner, the IRS employee who took the 5th amendment instead of testifying to Congress. It quotes Jeff Cohen, a member of a Progressive (pro-Obama) group, who says "if the IRS can hold up legitimate Tea Party applications today and get away with it, then who knows if progressive groups will be held up and specially scrutinized in a few years. It's utterly unacceptable, if that's what happened.".
I certainly do read my links, Tiny. None of them support your thesis. Jeff Cohen only said "if that's what happened", meaning he doesn't know what happened. The IG report found no political motivation. BTW, the article also states Cohen's IRS application for the group "Action for a Progressive Future" took 18 months, and also involved intrusive questions. I thought that only happened to Tea Party groups.
Let me know when you find some evidence of political motivation, Tiny. Most IRS staffers being Democrats (if true) isn't evidence, certainly not with this story. Concerning the use of "Tea Party" as a screening criteria for 501(c)(4) applications, it is documented fact that it was a Republican who started it, and a Democrat who stopped it.
Got to love Doppel's reaction. Though not surprising from a conservative who has bought into his party's hype hook, line and sinker.
[QUOTE=Esten;437746]I certainly do read my links, Tiny. None of them support your thesis. Jeff Cohen only said "if that's what happened", meaning he doesn't know what happened. The IG report found no political motivation. BTW, the article also states Cohen's IRS application for the group "Action for a Progressive Future" took 18 months, and also involved intrusive questions. I thought that only happened to Tea Party groups.
Let me know when you find some evidence of political motivation, Tiny. Most IRS staffers being Democrats (if true) isn't evidence, certainly not with this story. Concerning the use of "Tea Party" as a screening criteria for 501(c)(4) applications, it is documented fact that it was a Republican who started it, and a Democrat who stopped it.
Got to love Doppel's reaction. Though not surprising from a conservative who has bought into his party's hype hook, line and sinker.[/QUOTE]Goodness, I know you're very smart, so all I can figure is that you've either brainwashed yourself or you're so partisan that you don't care what the truth is. In the past, several times you've made me admit to myself that I didn't know as much as I thought I did about an issue, or it wasn't as clear as I thought. This is not one of those times. This is like the time you said George Bush was responsible for the tax increases that occurred January 1, 2013 and Obama had nothing to do with that.
Cohen undoubtedly knows the IRS delayed the applications. It's the irrefutable truth -- approvals for tea party groups were preferentially held up and some of them and some of their donors were harassed. Apparently you want Lois Lerner and a mysterious anonymous Republican IRS employee and others to come forth and explicitly say there was political bias (or have it explicitly stated in their emails) before you'll admit what's already clear based on the historical record. Jackson's analogies are better, and this one is highly exaggerated. But if several million Jews died in concentration camps, would you demand that Nazis provide documentary evidence or come forth and confess they intended to exterminate Jews before you labeled it as genocide? After all, for every 10 Jews that were killed, a Christian was gassed as well. It was just an innocent bureaucratic mistake. The fact that prominent Nazis considered Jews to be subhuman and spoke about their annihilation is irrelevant, you must show direct communication between the top brass and the staff rounding up and killing political prisoners. Besides, there's no way this could have been race or religion based, the original instructions came from an Austrian with partial Jewish ancestry.
Btw, some Republicans are more hostile to Tea Party ideals than some Democrats.
You Right Wingers are right.
The government should remove all regulations.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437762]You Right Wingers are right.
The government should remove all regulations.[/QUOTE]WT,
Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[I]The government should remove all regulations.[/I]".
Otherwise, STFU.
Thanks,
Jax.
[QUOTE=Jackson;437763]WT,
Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[I]The government should remove all regulations.[/I]".
Otherwise, STFU.
Thanks,
Jax.[/QUOTE]What sort of regulation for business do you favor?
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;437762]You Right Wingers are right.
The government should remove all regulations.[/QUOTE]If there was a regulation in place, why was there a spill?
Don.
Time after time you White Wingers keep saying there are too many Regulations.
It must be tough getting old and can't remember things.
[QUOTE=Jackson;437763]WT,
Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "[I]The government should remove all regulations.[/I]".
Otherwise, STFU.
Thanks,
Jax.[/QUOTE]