Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:15 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups Back to Topics
mudtoe

Champion Author
Cincinnati

Posts:13,431
Points:1,779,015
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 1:47:04 PM

IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups

From the article:

"The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.

Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups."

...

Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.

The forms, which the groups made available at the time, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members.


==============================================================================


The IRS claimed that this was done by "low level" employees, and that there was no political motivation, or involvement by higher ups. Yea, right! Just by random chance some low level hourly employees got to work one morning and on a whim decided to randomly target certain non-profits, all of which just happened to be conservative, without any input or direction from their boss. But hey, there was no political motivation here and no higher ups knew about it. And just by chance their ultimate boss, Obama, was running for re-election, and just by even more random chance the groups they targeted were opposed to their boss. It's all just a series of wonderful coincidences here, that weren't orchestrated by anybody, no sir. Nothing to see here folks, it's just business at usual. Maybe these same people were the ones who on a whim changed the Benghazi talking points.


mudtoe


P.S. These same people will now have access to all your health information, and I'm sure that no health secrets about their bosses' political opponents will ever be leaked; nah, can't happen.





[Edited by: mudtoe at 5/10/2013 1:49:21 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,895
Points:1,136,865
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 11:01:04 PM

>>>>>>>You can't eliminate human nature. That is a fool's errand.<<<<<<

No you can't eliminate human nature, but if you make succumbing to it painful enough people may think about giving into it. By painful I mean a public trial and if guilty a nice long stay at club fed. Because it also includes abuse of power while acting in her job as a government official it should also include forfeiture of all accumulated benefits, pension, healthcare, even a parking space. Anyone convicted of abusing the public trust should not be allowed get any benefits from it.

I believe we should reward those who work faithfully and we should destroy those I catch violating the trust we give them. I'm not talking about political ideology I'm talking about abusing power and criminal activity. Destroying that Blackberry was after the investigation was started was a criminal act, so was the loss of the E-mail data.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,431
Points:1,779,015
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 1:16:24 PM

nstr: "So if Lerner had that info destroyed, she lied under oath when she said she did nothing wrong and nothing illegal. "


No doubt. Of course when someone says: "I did nothing wrong. I did nothing illegal. I take the fifth." all in the same breath it does tend to make them look like a really big liar.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 11:27:42 AM

"Oh she is hiding something. There is just way too much smoke to not believe there is fire. Even the hardcore lefties are avoiding this conversation these days because I think they even believe that if they can recover any data from here it is going to incriminate a lot of people in this administration."

I do think she is hiding something, but in the absence of fact I think it is more CYA for herself rather than the Administration - but you never know. I wouldn't state blindly that it isn't a possibility...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 11:26:22 AM

"No, the way to stop repeating this corruption is to punish those that are corrupt. By that I mean do NOT let them retire with their pension. Jail would be a more appropriate punishment."

You can't eliminate human nature. That is a fool's errand.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2014 8:06:39 AM

So if Lerner had that info destroyed, she lied under oath when she said she did nothing wrong and nothing illegal.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,118
Points:1,733,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 6:32:56 PM

Oh she is hiding something. There is just way too much smoke to not believe there is fire. Even the hardcore lefties are avoiding this conversation these days because I think they even believe that if they can recover any data from here it is going to incriminate a lot of people in this administration.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,895
Points:1,136,865
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 5:26:39 PM

I work for a company that is required to follow the records retention laws, the same ones that apply to the government. I am a low level management employee and every year I have to go through records retention policy training. All of my E-mails from my office PC are subject to records retention. All communication from my company issued Nextel are subject to records retention. If I carry out company business on my personal phone it is subject to record retention. If I carry out company business with my personal E-mail account it is subject to records retention.

If there is even the possibility of any kind of lawsuit or investigation we are not allowed to destroy any records until the legal department clears the records for destruction. It is clearly stated that it is illegal to destroy any records that "may" be requested for any instigation once there is any "possibility of lawsuit or investigation". If congress even asked about the possibility of wrongdoing by the IRS involving the IRS targeting of any groups the record should have been preserved by law.

The loss of the backups and the hard drives is a clear violation of the law. If Lerner was conducting any official business on her Blackberry and the phone was destroyed it is also a violation of the law.

As a person who held a position as high as she did she had to know this.
Little wonder she took the 5th.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 4:37:34 PM

Weaslespit, ""Weaslespit, court decisions do not cause corruption."

Which, of course, is not what I said..."""By not seeing the influence the SCOTUS ruling had, you are only attempting to fix a symptom, rather than the illness.""

""The corruption at the IRS is the illness, not the symptom."

Then you are doomed to repeat the failure, if that be the case."

No, the way to stop repeating this corruption is to punish those that are corrupt. By that I mean do NOT let them retire with their pension. Jail would be a more appropriate punishment.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,118
Points:1,733,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2014 12:04:36 PM

So what exactly did Lerner have to hide?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 10:26:04 AM

"Agreed. Starting with the White House."

More tin foil hat nonsense - unless you have something besides rhetoric and conjecture to substantiate your claim? Live, I dunno - evidence?

You show me some concrete evidence and I will support your initiative 100%.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,431
Points:1,779,015
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 3:54:41 PM

tru: "Time to clean house! "


Agreed. Starting with the White House. As the source of the corruption has spread from clerk cubicles in Cincinnati to senior IRS managers in D.C., and the coverup has spread to the DOJ, it's not unreasonable to suspect that it goes one step further to the one place that can give orders to both organizations.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 3:47:25 PM

"Even before the dreaded and feared "Citizens United", the IRS could, and has targeted people inappropriately."

The subject of this thread is about the IRS 'targeting' conservative groups... If you would like to discuss the IRS as a whole, feel free to start a thread regarding said subject and we can trade ideas how to improve those conditions as well.

"I'm still stuck as to how a court ruling allows politically targeted harassment."

Clearly.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 3:21:36 PM

"Weaslespit, court decisions do not cause corruption."

Which, of course, is not what I said...

"The corruption at the IRS is the illness, not the symptom."

Then you are doomed to repeat the failure, if that be the case.

"No, the root cause were people from the left deciding to target conservative groups in order to sway an election. The SCOTUS ruling did not say it was OK to target anybody. and did not give the IRS permission to target anyone. The cause was the unethical people that pushed for and carried out the targeting. The targeting was against the law. The SCOTUS ruling did not change that."

How many times are you going to respond to the same comment?
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,366
Points:2,022,015
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 6:57:59 AM

Time to clean house!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2014 5:59:59 AM

Weaslespit, court decisions do not cause corruption.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2014 5:19:50 PM

Weslespit, "By not seeing the influence the SCOTUS ruling had, you are only attempting to fix a symptom, rather than the illness."

The corruption at the IRS is the illness, not the symptom.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,418
Points:1,819,650
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Aug 16, 2014 5:13:05 PM

~
>>The only way to repair this is to uphold ethics in the IRS, or neuter the IRS powers, no matter what tax law is in place.<<

There's an even BETTER way, eliminate the IRS and replace the 70,000 + pages of tax code with slightly over 100 pages of the Fair Tax!

~
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,490
Points:2,209,655
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2014 10:44:38 PM

I'm still stuck as to how a court ruling allows politically targeted harassment. Even before the dreaded and feared "Citizens United", the IRS could, and has targeted people inappropriately. The only way to repair this is to uphold ethics in the IRS, or neuter the IRS powers, no matter what tax law is in place. I take this as a sign that our government is too big, and out of control, to a point where impropriety is now a way of life.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2014 6:31:54 PM

Weaslespit, " The SCOTUS ruling allowed IRS corruption to affect the system - it is the root cause."

No, the root cause were people from the left deciding to target conservative groups in order to sway an election. The SCOTUS ruling did not say it was OK to target anybody. and did not give the IRS permission to target anyone. The cause was the unethical people that pushed for and carried out the targeting. The targeting was against the law. The SCOTUS ruling did not change that.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2014 9:06:14 AM

"weaslespit, the SCOTUS ruling in no way directed the IRS to target conservative groups."

Correct.

"The corruption comes from those at the IRS, the fault lays squarely on their shoulders and no one else's."

Correct - and those whom acted inappropriately will/should face consequences.

"Lerner knows she is guilty. Why else would she testify that she did nothing wrong and then immediately take the 5th?"

Agreed.

"Stop trying to divert blame to a court ruling."

By not seeing the influence the SCOTUS ruling had, you are only attempting to fix a symptom, rather than the illness. You are not ensuring future corruption will not occur within the IRS by holding today's individuals accountable. The SCOTUS ruling allowed IRS corruption to affect the system - it is the root cause.

To ignore that is to ignore half of the picture and doom the failure to repeat. Next time, it could be Liberals who are 'overly' targeted...
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 11:10:56 PM

weaslespit, the SCOTUS ruling in no way directed the IRS to target conservative groups. The corruption comes from those at the IRS, the fault lays squarely on their shoulders and no one else's. Stop trying to divert blame to a court ruling. Lerner knows she is guilty. Why else would she testify that she did nothing wrong and then immediately take the 5th?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 4:41:22 PM

"Now, mud, you know that if Issa were to subpoena even more people for this case he would be further tarred and feathered for going on a witch hunt against anyone in the 0bama Administration that he could find. The truth would be that he is trying to reach the truth......."

Let the facts lead the investigation where it may - just not supposition and the Right's agenda...
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,025
Points:2,934,095
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 4:28:33 PM

Now, mud, you know that if Issa were to subpoena even more people for this case he would be further tarred and feathered for going on a witch hunt against anyone in the 0bama Administration that he could find. The truth would be that he is trying to reach the truth.......
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,431
Points:1,779,015
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 3:38:56 PM

Too bad the actual statements by the technicians weren't included in the article. As an I/T person I'd like to read through the exact steps they took. I thought I also saw someplace else that the names of the technicians were published, which means Issa has some new names of people to subpoena and ask questions of. The biggest question I'd ask these technicians is if they suggested getting the data off of the Microsoft Exchange server backup tapes, and if they did, why didn't that happen. I'd also ask them for the names of the people responsible for the Exchange Server at that time as I bet they know, so that those people could be subpoenaed and asked if they knew about Lerner's hard drive failure, and if anybody ever asked them if the data was still available on the backup tapes.

That whole line of questioning to these technical people would provide some very important information about what happened IMHO.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
nraacct
Champion Author North Carolina

Posts:8,887
Points:1,729,180
Joined:Jul 2004
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 12:30:46 PM

IRS Tells Judge It Couldn’t Save Data on Lois Lerner’s Computer
Profile Pic
nraacct
Champion Author North Carolina

Posts:8,887
Points:1,729,180
Joined:Jul 2004
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 12:29:41 PM

Speaking of this fiasco, Bloomberg reported that the Internal Revenue Service told a judge its technicians made repeated futile efforts to save data on a malfunctioning computer hard drive used by Lois Lerner, the former official at the center of a dispute between Congress and the Obama administration over scrutiny of Tea Party groups.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,431
Points:1,779,015
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 10:24:32 AM

EZ: "Corruption comes from a lack of ethics, not from court decisions."


The left will engage in any sophistry necessary to justify using the apparatus of government to target their enemies. They are without moral or scruple. Hopefully Lerner and her ilk end up in prison. I know that won't happen as long as this lawless administration is still in office, but I think eventually it will.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 9:48:58 AM

"--You can't be serious. Corruption comes from a lack of ethics, not from court decisions."

You can't be serious - Court decisions allows for corruption from a lack of ethics to become relevant.

"I realize that you carry a torch against certain court rulings, but again the court did not rule that the IRS can treat one set of Americans differently than another is lawful."

Which is why those at the IRS who behaved unethically should be punished, as I have maintained. The SCOTUS ruling is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, I don't know where you got that idea from.

"That is akin to blaming legislators for entitlement fraud, because they created welfare and assigned DHS to oversee the qualification and distribution of entitlement benefits."

Not at all, actually...
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,490
Points:2,209,655
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2014 12:32:01 AM

Weasel: <<<"That was the effect, that was not the cause.">>>

--You can't be serious. Corruption comes from a lack of ethics, not from court decisions. I realize that you carry a torch against certain court rulings, but again the court did not rule that the IRS can treat one set of Americans differently than another is lawful.

That is akin to blaming legislators for entitlement fraud, because they created welfare and assigned DHS to oversee the qualification and distribution of entitlement benefits.

Now, if the IRS applied the law equally across the board, and the law had been crafted to target conservatives, SCOTUS ruled it constitutional, and the IRS was simply following that ruling and targeting conservatives, than your point would be well taken. But it's not.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 4:16:57 PM

"Wouldn't the ultimate "covering their rear ends" excuse ne that SCOTUS made us do it?"

Who said that the SCOTUS made the IRS act corruptly? Nay, the IRS opened Pandora's box which allowed said actions be made possible.

"It came to be because Lerner and her cohorts wanted to silence conservative groups during an election cycle. They were even willing to knowingly break the law to do so (otherwise she would not be pleading the 5th)."

That was the effect, that was not the cause.

"The ruling never said that the IRS has to audit more groups of one party or another (or both), let alone ask for information they did not need, let alone leak private tax information to other people."

You have proved my point - you understand not the implications of the ruling, despite my having posted links to explain it in plain English.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 3:46:37 PM

Weaslespit, ""And why did the IRS deny the targeting then and not blame the Supreme Court instead?"

The IRS denied the targeting because people within the IRS are covering their rear ends. Isn't' that much clear?"

Wouldn't the ultimate "covering their rear ends" excuse ne that SCOTUS made us do it?

Not buying it, Weaslespit.

"If you don't understand the implications of the Citizens United ruling, you don't understand how this entire IRS debacle came to be."

It came to be because Lerner and her cohorts wanted to silence conservative groups during an election cycle. They were even willing to knowingly break the law to do so (otherwise she would not be pleading the 5th).

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 8/12/2014 3:48:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 3:44:41 PM

Weaslespit, "Like I said, and have said - the IRS made their mistake when they audited more groups form the Right than they did on the Left - but to 'only' hold the IRS accountable is to not understand how it happened in the first place. This could just have easily (and still can) go the other way as well against the Left based on the Citizen's United ruling."

That is not true at all. The ruling never said that the IRS has to audit more groups of one party or another (or both), let alone ask for information they did not need, let alone leak private tax information to other people.

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 8/12/2014 3:45:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 3:42:07 PM

Weaslespit, "Again, for the hundredth time - I don't condone what the IRS did (ie how they enforced the new ruling).

I hope this is clear as I really am at a loss for how I can be any more clear."

Show where the ruling said that the IRS must target conservative groups.

Were liberal groups asked for their donor lists and all their printed material? Were they asked about their prayers? Were they scrutinized like the conservative groups were? And why all the lies about the scrutiny if SCOTUS "made them do it"? Why didn't they just come out and sat that "SCOTUS made us do it"?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 1:52:57 PM

"All of our argument still applies. I am simply flabbergasted as to how a self-proclaimed independent thinker can see how it's OK for a branch of our government to treat people differently based solely on their beliefs. You're missing the forest for the trees..."

Again, for the hundredth time - I don't condone what the IRS did (ie how they enforced the new ruling).

I hope this is clear as I really am at a loss for how I can be any more clear.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 1:51:43 PM

"Of course this is the same person who swore up and down that this was just a few cubicle clerks in Cincinnati who had wandered off the reservation and were doing things unbeknownst to their superiors."

I have never, ever said that. Ever. Much-less up-and-down with swearing. Of course, he wouldn't know since he felt compelled to put me on ignore simply because I don't laud him with praise regarding his conspiracy theories...

"He has to obfuscate because he can't come out and say that because he disagrees with the Citizen United decision, it's acceptable, proper, and understandable for the liberals who run the IRS to use their power to try to level the playing field in their eyes by illegally targeting the side whom they think will benefit from Citizens United."

Except that is pretty much what I just said in my previous post (and older posts) regarding separate criticisms that should indeed be leveled at the IRS and those who knowingly allowed such a culture, so...
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,490
Points:2,209,655
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 1:31:20 PM

OK... even if we change this topic to:

"IRS admits only applying the Citizen's United ruling to conservative groups"

All of our argument still applies. I am simply flabbergasted as to how a self-proclaimed independent thinker can see how it's OK for a branch of our government to treat people differently based solely on their beliefs. You're missing the forest for the trees...

Mudtoe: <<<"Of course this is the same person who swore up and down that this was just a few cubicle clerks in Cincinnati who had wandered off the reservation and were doing things unbeknownst to their superiors.">>>

--As the evidence starts to see daylight, the arguments also change to defend the indefensible.

[Edited by: EZExit at 8/12/2014 1:32:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,431
Points:1,779,015
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 1:16:42 PM

EZ: "I'm getting dizzy from this circular argument, it's almost like a 'Who's on first" bit! Either state exactly how the "Citizen's United ruling permitted the IRS to target conservatives, or stop using it as cause "de jour" giving the IRS immunity from targeting Americans for political purposes."


He has to obfuscate because he can't come out and say that because he disagrees with the Citizen United decision, it's acceptable, proper, and understandable for the liberals who run the IRS to use their power to try to level the playing field in their eyes by illegally targeting the side whom they think will benefit from Citizens United.

Of course this is the same person who swore up and down that this was just a few cubicle clerks in Cincinnati who had wandered off the reservation and were doing things unbeknownst to their superiors.

mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 8/12/2014 1:19:49 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 12:52:34 PM

"--I'm getting dizzy from this circular argument, it's almost like a 'Who's on first" bit! Either state exactly how the "Citizen's United ruling permitted the IRS to target conservatives, or stop using it as cause "de jour" giving the IRS immunity from targeting Americans for political purposes."

Another strawman - nice trap. It required the IRS to target 'all' groups when previously the law was black-and-white where no auditing was required.

Like I said, and have said - the IRS made their mistake when they audited more groups form the Right than they did on the Left - but to 'only' hold the IRS accountable is to not understand how it happened in the first place. This could just have easily (and still can) go the other way as well against the Left based on the Citizen's United ruling.

This has all been posted ad nauseam - do you have trouble with short-term memory loss?
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,490
Points:2,209,655
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 12:09:57 PM

Topic: IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups

Weasel: <<<"Google 'Citizen's United'.">>>

EZ: <<<"Hmmmm, did that and unable to find any results indicating that the ruling mandates the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.">>>

Nstrd: <<<"OK Weaslespit, show us exactly where it says in the Citizens United ruling that it directs the IRS to break the law. Show us where it says that the IRS must target conservative groups.">>>

Weasel: <<<"That would be a strawman.">>>

--I'm getting dizzy from this circular argument, it's almost like a 'Who's on first" bit! Either state exactly how the "Citizen's United ruling permitted the IRS to target conservatives, or stop using it as cause "de jour" giving the IRS immunity from targeting Americans for political purposes.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 8:50:03 AM

"--Hmmmm, did that and unable to find any results indicating that the ruling mandates the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS."

See the below response to nstr...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 8:49:26 AM

"OK Weaslespit, show us exactly where it says in the Citizens United ruling that it directs the IRS to break the law."

That would be a strawman.

"And why did the IRS deny the targeting then and not blame the Supreme Court instead?"

The IRS denied the targeting because people within the IRS are covering their rear ends. Isn't' that much clear?

If you don't understand the implications of the Citizens United ruling, you don't understand how this entire IRS debacle came to be.
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:24,357
Points:650,370
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 7:41:08 AM



This topic is an illustration that Obama has overwhelmed all of us with SO many scandals that we cannot keep up with all of them.

The MOST CORRUPT administration in the history of the United States of America!

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 6:09:45 AM

OK Weaslespit, show us exactly where it says in the Citizens United ruling that it directs the IRS to break the law. Show us where it says that the IRS must target conservative groups.

And why did the IRS deny the targeting then and not blame the Supreme Court instead?

Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,490
Points:2,209,655
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 2:45:36 AM

Weasel: <<<"Google 'Citizen's United'.">>>

--Hmmmm, did that and unable to find any results indicating that the ruling mandates the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.
Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,355
Points:132,315
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 1:48:31 AM






An Emperor and his winged-monkeys can do anything they want
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 1:21:55 PM

"Did you not?"

Correct,I did not.

Google 'Citizen's United'.
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 10, 2014 7:18:19 AM

Weaslespit, the quote was from you. Are you a member of the Tea Party?

You said SCOTUS heard a case about the IRS targeting conservative groups, and there is not mush candidates can do about a SCOTUS ruling.

Did you not?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,293
Points:515,765
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 11:06:08 AM

"SCOTUS heard a case about the IRS targeting conservative groups and then covering it up? When was that?"

Every night in Tea Partiers dreams...
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,376
Points:4,481,755
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 5:27:14 AM

Weaslespit, ""Elections are coming up, candidates need to be asked what they are going to do about this."

Not much candidates can do about a SCOTUS ruling..."

SCOTUS heard a case about the IRS targeting conservative groups and then covering it up? When was that?
Profile Pic
Lucchese
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,355
Points:132,315
Joined:Mar 2007
Message Posted: Aug 7, 2014 10:53:44 PM




An Emperor and his winged-monkeys can do anything they want
Post a reply Back to Topics