But we only use "tape backups"

[Dwaar]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-used-private-company-back-emails_795469.html

IRS, nothing to see here, move along. If anyone lied directly to your face this badly, you'd be upset. Big government does it, and people defend them. Absurd.

[kutter]

I would wager that the Admin knows that all of this will come out sooner or later, they are simply trying to stall until after the midterms.

[Warriorbird]

I would wager that the Admin knows that all of this will come out sooner or later, they are simply trying to stall until after the midterms.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not a secret plot by evil mastermind Obama but just the IRS covering their ass badly.

[Wrathbringer]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-used-private-company-back-emails_795469.html

IRS, nothing to see here, move along. If anyone lied directly to your face this badly, you'd be upset. Big government does it, and people defend them. Absurd.

What action do you take? Complain?

[Methais]

Maybe their hard drive crashed too!

[Warriorbird]

The somewhat more plausible excuse will be they were responsible for backing up tax payer info.

[Parkbandit]

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not a secret plot by evil mastermind Obama but just the IRS covering their ass badly.

Why would a supposedly unbiased government agency only target right leaning groups applying for tax exempt status? I'm not saying that this is under the direction of President Obama, but it clearly goes up higher than a couple of "rogue" IRS agents.

[Whirlin]

Why would a supposedly unbiased government agency only target right leaning groups applying for tax exempt status?

I thought they debunked that and found that they targeted both extremes?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/22/donna-brazile/donna-brazile-no-conspiracy-here-irs-targeted-libe/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/politics/irs-scandal/

And while I found http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/09/18/new-breakdown-of-groups-targeted-by-irs/

Which supports that both were targeted, but appears of groups selected for scrutiny, a higher percentage of those were right-leaning. However, it doesn't identify what the total population of applicants were... So if 100000 right-leaning applied, while 100 left-leaning applied, it wouldn't be a statistically significant difference.

[Wrathbringer]

I thought they debunked that and found that they targeted both extremes?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/22/donna-brazile/donna-brazile-no-conspiracy-here-irs-targeted-libe/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/politics/irs-scandal/

And while I found http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/09/18/new-breakdown-of-groups-targeted-by-irs/

Which supports that both were targeted, but appears of groups selected for scrutiny, a higher percentage of those were right-leaning. However, it doesn't identify what the total population of applicants were... So if 100000 right-leaning applied, while 100 left-leaning applied, it wouldn't be a statistically significant difference.

Regardless, the organization is obviously not to be trusted.

[Sorcasaurus]

Regardless, the organization is obviously not to be trusted.

Employees at a government agency without substantial oversight pushing an agenda and shady practices? That's just absurd!

At this point, it's mostly just the IRS doing a poor job of damage control. Spew enough BS long enough and the media will move onto another story.

[Back]

Hey, it's the government. I bet there are offices that still use typewriters.

[AnticorRifling]

Tape backup is still very much in use today.

[Taernath]

Tape backup is still very much in use today.

See: Gemstone 4

[Gelston]

Tape backup is still very much in use today.

PC Forum backup!

[AnticorRifling]

See: Gemstone 4

I'm not sure they're big enough to get the real benefit. Pretty sure tape is still the cheapest and fastest for enterprise backing up HUGE amounts of data as opposed to doing a disk to disk.

[Androidpk]

I thought tape drives were slow?

[AnticorRifling]

LTO 6 hold 2.5TB and xfer at around 160MBps (576GB/hour).

[Warriorbird]

Why would a supposedly unbiased government agency only target right leaning groups applying for tax exempt status? I'm not saying that this is under the direction of President Obama, but it clearly goes up higher than a couple of "rogue" IRS agents.

They targeted Tea Party and Occupy groups (including one that I donate to.) They probably just wanted to attack people who they thought abused "their system" and the traditional parties.

[Dwaar]

They targeted Tea Party and Occupy groups (including one that I donate to.) They probably just wanted to attack people who they thought abused "their system" and the traditional parties.

So that makes it all better. Got it.

Again, if nothing occurs, when/if they Republicans get full power (probably never), but if they do... I hope they do all the same stuff to the Democrats. Not because I condone it, but because I would laugh my ass off while they complained.

[poloneus]

I hope they do all the same stuff to the Democrats.

What's the "stuff" you are referring to again?

[Warriorbird]

So that makes it all better. Got it.

Again, if nothing occurs, when/if they Republicans get full power (probably never), but if they do... I hope they do all the same stuff to the Democrats. Not because I condone it, but because I would laugh my ass off while they complained.

I like it when people fill things in that I never said. Of course I'm upset that the group I donate to got targeted. It doesn't mean that I somehow think it was a conspiracy by President Obama. The Republican congressmen who got up in arms about this only looked at whether conservative groups were targeted purposefully, to rustle the jimmies of their party faithful, like you. Party establishments often go after groups that stand against the status quo. Would you laugh so much if the IRS ended up still going after the Tea Party, just Progressive groups more?

[Dwaar]

I like it when people fill things in that I never said. Of course I'm upset that the group I donate to got targeted. It doesn't mean that I somehow think it was a conspiracy by President Obama. The Republican congressmen who got up in arms about this only looked at whether conservative groups were targeted purposefully, to rustle the jimmies of their party faithful, like you. Party establishments often go after groups that stand against the status quo. Would you laugh so much if the IRS ended up still going after the Tea Party, just Progressive groups more?

I would laugh no matter who they went after. It's the fact that it did occur. It's the fact that right now, Democrats say.. oh it didn't happen, this is a farce. It has been proven that targeting occurred, and Lois Lerner even apologized for it! Of course then she clammed up and claimed the fifth.

They said, oh it was just a few people in Cincinnati. Oops, e-mails found.. it was only the Regional IRS officials. Oops, it was IRS officials located in Washington. Oops, there was collaboration between IRS officials, Treasury, DHS, and other agencies. It's a complete cover up, but of course people make excuses for it (oh it was a mistake, oh it was just a coincident, blah blah blah).

I'm not sure what's worse, if they actually did it (which I think they did) or, that they are all so stupid and incompetent that it occurred (which is even more scary). I just can't stand that based upon party lines, Democrats are uniformly trying to spin this abuse of power by one of the most powerful Government agencies, as a "made up scandal". At least have some dignity and don't spin the party line so blatantly, when it affects every US citizen.

[Parkbandit]

I thought they debunked that and found that they targeted both extremes?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/22/donna-brazile/donna-brazile-no-conspiracy-here-irs-targeted-libe/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/politics/irs-scandal/

And while I found http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/09/18/new-breakdown-of-groups-targeted-by-irs/

Which supports that both were targeted, but appears of groups selected for scrutiny, a higher percentage of those were right-leaning. However, it doesn't identify what the total population of applicants were... So if 100000 right-leaning applied, while 100 left-leaning applied, it wouldn't be a statistically significant difference.

I thought that theory was debunked during IRS testimony.. that the only groups that were targeted were right leaning groups?

http://oversight.house.gov/release/new-oversight-report-debunks-myth-liberal-groups-targeted-irs/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/committee-staff-report-no-progressive-groups-were-targeted-by-irs/

I think the "but they also targeted Progressive groups" as an excuse is weak. Granted, the IRS is the ones that said they didn't target Progressive groups.. so who knows.. they could be lying about that as well.

[Parkbandit]

They targeted Tea Party and Occupy groups (including one that I donate to.) They probably just wanted to attack people who they thought abused "their system" and the traditional parties.

Which group was that.. considering the IRS stated that they didn't give the same "scrutiny" to Occupy groups that they did Tea Party groups?

[Parkbandit]

I like it when people fill things in that I never said.

Holy
Fucking
Shit.


Of course I'm upset that the group I donate to got targeted. It doesn't mean that I somehow think it was a conspiracy by President Obama. The Republican congressmen who got up in arms about this only looked at whether conservative groups were targeted purposefully, to rustle the jimmies of their party faithful, like you. Party establishments often go after groups that stand against the status quo. Would you laugh so much if the IRS ended up still going after the Tea Party, just Progressive groups more?

You're "upset"? lol.

And this isn't an issue about right vs. left for me. This is an issue about an Administration using the power of the IRS to target political enemies. I would have a problem with that under any Administration... and it's curious why you don't think it's a big deal.

[Dwaar]

Holy
Fucking
Shit.

You're "upset"? lol.

And this isn't an issue about right vs. left for me. This is an issue about an Administration using the power of the IRS to target political enemies. I would have a problem with that under any Administration... and it's curious why you don't think it's a big deal.

Well said PB. My issues, as stated earlier... 1. The IRS did this... and 2. The Democrats, for political purposes, trying to downplay the IRS's abuse of power.

[Warriorbird]

Holy
Fucking
Shit.



You're "upset"? lol.

And this isn't an issue about right vs. left for me. This is an issue about an Administration(Note the Obama freakout here) using the power of the IRS to target political enemies. I would have a problem with that under any Administration... and it's curious why you don't think it's a big deal.

Of course it is. Because you contextualize this as the evil Obama conspiracy theory.

[Parkbandit]

Of course it is. Because you contextualize this as the evil Obama conspiracy theory.

And you marginalize it because it's the Saint Obama Presidency... there's no way they would do anything bad! EVER!

[Warriorbird]

And you marginalize it because it's the Saint Obama Presidency... there's no way they would do anything bad! EVER!

And that naked partisanship along with the fantasy world "WB NEVER CRITICIZES OBAMA!" comes out. Nice to see you undercut your own fake point.

[Parkbandit]

And that naked partisanship along with the fantasy world "WB NEVER CRITICIZES OBAMA!" comes out. Nice to see you undercut your own fake point.

What's it like to be such a raging hypocrite?

Like I previously stated: I don't believe that the IRS should be used by ANY administration to target political enemies.

Nixon did it and would have been impeached over it had he not quit after Watergate. I didn't approve of it then.. I don't approve of it now.

[Warriorbird]

What's it like to be such a raging hypocrite?

Like I previously stated: I don't believe that the IRS should be used by ANY administration to target political enemies.

Nixon did it and would have been impeached over it had he not quit after Watergate. I didn't approve of it then.. I don't approve of it now.

What's it like to claim to be above it all yet not be? What's it like to constantly whine whenever other people do what you do?

You state that it's "used by an administration" which is both partisan and a dig on Obama. You buy in precisely to the OMG EVIL OBAMA OVERLORD conspiracy bs from conservative media. The only evidence that we have of a party's leadership using this is Republican.

Were there a secret "Deep Throat" you might convince me. Given that there isn't, it's just stuff the Republican leadership is pushing, along with trying to hide that non conservative groups got targeted.


Which group was that.. considering the IRS stated that they didn't give the same "scrutiny" to Occupy groups that they did Tea Party groups?

Every single "Progress" group got targeted. Texas got it the worst.

[Hydra]

Were there a secret "Deep Throat" you might convince me. Given that there isn't, it's just stuff the Republican leadership is pushing, along with trying to hide that non conservative groups got targeted.
Not to get too much involved in this particular discussion, but I recently re-watched All The President's Men and couldn't help thinking about the NSA scandal. It occurred to me that the NSA would probably be all over a leak like that today.

[Whirlin]

I thought that theory was debunked during IRS testimony.. that the only groups that were targeted were right leaning groups?

http://oversight.house.gov/release/new-oversight-report-debunks-myth-liberal-groups-targeted-irs/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/committee-staff-report-no-progressive-groups-were-targeted-by-irs/

I think the "but they also targeted Progressive groups" as an excuse is weak. Granted, the IRS is the ones that said they didn't target Progressive groups.. so who knows.. they could be lying about that as well.

Is Politifact right leaning? This is me asking, because I just went by the first few Google responses. I'd just point to it being a more recent timestamp than the 4/7/14 dates you provided.


That being said, we're still missing some statistically significant values based upon universe sizes.

Furthermore, what if the IRS had a higher rate of return on auditing conservative parties relative to liberal? How do you think that would be viewed if they came forward and said, "We make 15% more money per audit hour by targetting conservatives"? Purely random samples is stupid.

Why wouldn't they tip their hand for that? The IRS is incredibly tight-assed about aspects of their audit selection methodology. If they came forward and said being a republican was 3% more likely to get you audited, I guarantee that we'd have a couple million less on-the-books republicans the subsequent year.

I also see nothing that implies top-down. I thought Obama had his hands full giving handies to the head of the Department of the Interior to shut down all the parks back during the fiscal cliff stuff. But, he was also nitpicking the selection criteria on the IRS filters?

Any administration is going to try to cover up anyone herpaderping. Accountable? Sure, I can agree to that. Responsible? That's a stretch that I seem to be reading in the thread.

[Warriorbird]

Not to get too much involved in this particular discussion, but I recently re-watched All The President's Men and couldn't help thinking about the NSA scandal. It occurred to me that the NSA would probably be all over a leak like that today.

They probably would if they knew/had interagency cooperation. My non political girlfriend's observation on hearing about the lost emails?

"They should ask the NSA for them."

[Latrinsorm]

Employees at a government agency without substantial oversight pushing an agenda and shady practices? That's just absurd!

At this point, it's mostly just the IRS doing a poor job of damage control. Spew enough BS long enough and the media will move onto another story.I've got a solution to that problem. :)
I would laugh no matter who they went after. It's the fact that it did occur. It's the fact that right now, Democrats say.. oh it didn't happen, this is a farce. It has been proven that targeting occurred, and Lois Lerner even apologized for it! Of course then she clammed up and claimed the fifth.

They said, oh it was just a few people in Cincinnati. Oops, e-mails found.. it was only the Regional IRS officials. Oops, it was IRS officials located in Washington. Oops, there was collaboration between IRS officials, Treasury, DHS, and other agencies. It's a complete cover up, but of course people make excuses for it (oh it was a mistake, oh it was just a coincident, blah blah blah).

I'm not sure what's worse, if they actually did it (which I think they did) or, that they are all so stupid and incompetent that it occurred (which is even more scary). I just can't stand that based upon party lines, Democrats are uniformly trying to spin this abuse of power by one of the most powerful Government agencies, as a "made up scandal". At least have some dignity and don't spin the party line so blatantly, when it affects every US citizen.Targeted for what, specifically? Do you even remember what this additional targeting amounted to? Would you care to compare it to the behavior of Sheriff Arpaio, which you apparently have no issue supporting?

[Dwaar]

I've got a solution to that problem. :)Targeted for what, specifically? Do you even remember what this additional targeting amounted to? Would you care to compare it to the behavior of Sheriff Arpaio, which you apparently have no issue supporting?

Latrin,
You are one smart cookie.. but do you ever take a stand on anything? Or just always make up arguments?

If I have to explain what they were targeted for, and why Lois Lerner HERSELF apologized for the actions the IRS took.... then I'm not willing to type that much.

As for Arpaio? Did you even read what I wrote in that thread? The main issue was the fact a Lawyer, for ILLEGAL immigrants, USED the argument that "Arpaio was actually enforcing the law, and because of that, his clients should be let go". That is absurd.

Now how about you use that great, analytical brain you have... and pair it with an opinion/belief/standard and try adding that into the conversation.

All in love <3

[Wrathbringer]

Latrin,
You are one smart cookie.. but do you ever take a stand on anything?

Universal surveillance.

[Methais]

Universal surveillance.

And nothing else.

[Dwaar]

From the horses mouth Latrin... admission of wrong doing.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160

The really serious stuff and why it is a cover-up? The fact that it wasn't simply a few people in Cincinnati as she claimed.

The reason for Congressional oversight to this day? Lois Lerner taking the Fifth, and the evidence that has been found already proving that it went much higher.

[Warriorbird]

The reason for Congressional oversight to this day? Lois Lerner taking the Fifth, and the evidence that has been found already proving that it went much higher.

If this were actually true rather than nebulous "OMG OBAMA ARRGGLBARRGL!" this would be a much bigger deal.

[Vorpos]

People bitched when Bush spent the weekend at camp David. Those same people don't say shit when the working class hero Obama takes multi million dollar vacations every week. How many vacations have you been on this year Warriorbird?

[Warriorbird]

People bitched when Bush spent the weekend at camp David. Those same people don't say shit when the working class hero Obama takes multi million dollar vacations every week. How many vacations have you been on this year Warriorbird?

There's a curious disconnect between the invisible world that Republicans and Clint Eastwood like to address and the real world. Obama doesn't actually take vacations every week. Shocking, no? I only complained about Bush vacationing when he did during a natural disaster. For myself I've been on three vacations. I don't envy Obama his because his jobs are harder. Have you looked at Bush lately? Shadow of his former self.

If you're interested in discussing this all over again rather than this specific IRS issue I'd suggest you make a thread. You've clearly got a lot of political passion that's looking for an outlet. A group of people similarly amped up by conservative media will cheer you on. People might disagree with you but that's America. The category is open.

[Tgo01]

People bitched when Bush spent the weekend at camp David.

It's worse than that; people bitched when Bush went on "vacation" in Crawford, Texas. Now to be fair, I've never been to Crawford, Texas, but I'm willing to bet money no one goes there to "vacation."

[Dwaar]

Holy shit.. not sure if you all are watching the Congressional hearing going on with the IRS commissioner, but Trey Gowdy... if you watch his questions to the commissioner.. WOW.. guy is a beast with regards to line of thought and preparation.

There is a lot of political grandstanding going on with the hearing, so trying to filter it all as I watch it live is more difficult... but if you do anything... see if you can find the Trey Gowdy portion. It is really impressive - no politics from him... just straight up examination of the evidence and legal applications.

[Warriorbird]

Holy shit.. not sure if you all are watching the Congressional hearing going on with the IRS commissioner, but Trey Gowdy... if you watch his questions to the commissioner.. WOW.. guy is a beast with regards to line of thought and preparation.

There is a lot of political grandstanding going on with the hearing, so trying to filter it all as I watch it live is more difficult... but if you do anything... see if you can find the Trey Gowdy portion. It is really impressive - no politics from him... just straight up examination of the evidence and legal applications.

This is so naive its almost adorable. Gowdy is angling for a leadership position with his efforts.

[Dwaar]

If this were actually true rather than nebulous "OMG OBAMA ARRGGLBARRGL!" this would be a much bigger deal.

For the last fucking time.... I did not mention Obama. I am talking about the abuse of power by the IRS, whatever the reasons, and how that is wrong..... and through her own admission the wrongdoing was confirmed.

How you get Obama ARGIOEGEOIWNGOIENGIO from what I wrote, or the article I linked... is a sad counter-point, without really looking at the facts. Get off your political slant and just look at the facts. I didn't insert Obama into this....

THEY (Jay Carney and President Obama) through their OWN statements, put themselves into this conversation by saying 1. This was only done by a few employees in Cincinnati (Carney) and 2. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing (The President)..... when BOTH of those statements are FALSE. That has already been proven.

[Dwaar]

This is so naive its almost adorable. Gowdy is angling for a leadership position with his efforts.

You seriously don't listen do you? You can't get over your political views to just listen to facts. Wow.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

You seriously don't listen do you? You can't get over your political views to just listen to facts. Wow.

You must be new here. Welcome to PC.

[Dwaar]

Sorry for flying off the handle a little bit WB...

Just stop please with the political crap, and try to objectively look at the facts. Try to listen to the actual questions and responses, not look at who has a R or D next to their name. Don't worry about party affiliation.

For example.. Issa tonight.. was a complete douche and wasted his time. A number of other Republicans babbling and incoherent questions were a waste of time. But there are some really good questions being asked, Gowdy especially asked excellent questions if you care about the law or how it applies to this case, try to listen to those.

Some Democrats had excellent points as well, but mainly they were points, not really questions to resolve the issue. There was one really good Democrat asking fact based questions (can't recall his name, from Maine? one of those), but he asked excellent questions also, without a real political stance.

[Thondalar]

You seriously don't listen do you? You can't get over your political views to just listen to facts. Wow.

He's afraid it might change his political views. It's pretty common on both sides.

[Latrinsorm]

From the horses mouth Latrin... admission of wrong doing.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160

The really serious stuff and why it is a cover-up? The fact that it wasn't simply a few people in Cincinnati as she claimed.

The reason for Congressional oversight to this day? Lois Lerner taking the Fifth, and the evidence that has been found already proving that it went much higher.It's pretty scary that you read "They didn’t do this because of any political bias." and get "It has been proven that targeting occurred, and Lois Lerner even apologized for it!"

Here is my opinion on the matter:
1. The additional scrutiny was extremely mild, as evidenced by exactly one group being denied out of hundreds.
2. The additional scrutiny was applied on a non-partisan basis.
3. The additional scrutiny was applied on the basis of the group being partisan, which is exactly what the IRS should be looking for when it comes to these specific types of non-profits.
4. The grandstanding by some (most) [all] of the politicians involved is predictable and comical.
5. The way certain people have guilelessly followed that grandstanding is predictable and sad.

[Latrinsorm]

He's afraid it might change his political views. It's pretty common on both sides.I mean, you remember when you called Mother Jones "just plain false" because it didn't agree with a gun rights site, right? Then it turned out that they were just plain right? I couldn't design a better experiment to demonstrate your bias.

[Tgo01]

1. The additional scrutiny was extremely mild, as evidenced by exactly one group being denied out of hundreds.

People need to stop saying this. If I punched you in the face but then said "Oh come on! I hardly touched you, look! No bruising at all!" would you just brush it off as being "extremely mild"?

If so, let me know when I can punch you in the face.


2. The additional scrutiny was applied on a non-partisan basis.

Didn't Lerner apologize for the IRS targeting Tea Party groups on the basis of their partisan politics? :/


3. The additional scrutiny was applied on the basis of the group being partisan, which is exactly what the IRS should be looking for when it comes to these specific types of non-profits.

Huh?


5. The way certain people have guilelessly followed that grandstanding is predictable and sad.

This is Latrin's way of reminding us all he's really a Republican :D

[Dwaar]

It's pretty scary that you read "They didn’t do this because of any political bias." and get "It has been proven that targeting occurred, and Lois Lerner even apologized for it!"

Here is my opinion on the matter:
1. The additional scrutiny was extremely mild, as evidenced by exactly one group being denied out of hundreds.
2. The additional scrutiny was applied on a non-partisan basis.
3. The additional scrutiny was applied on the basis of the group being partisan, which is exactly what the IRS should be looking for when it comes to these specific types of non-profits.
4. The grandstanding by some (most) [all] of the politicians involved is predictable and comical.
5. The way certain people have guilelessly followed that grandstanding is predictable and sad.

The first part, I'm not sure if you're replying directly to me or not. I never said "they didn't do this because of any political bias", and I don't "get" anything.... Lois Lerner did apologize for the IRS wrongfully targeting a specific group of those applying for tax-exempt status. That's a fact, that's not me extrapolating anything.

1. So the "additional scrutiny" was mild... hence that makes it okay. Is that your point?
2. It was applied on a non-partisan basis? Really? Because doesn't seem so, but happy to listen to your points on this one.
3. So they should apply the "additional scrutiny" to "the group" that is conservative based more than progressive based? So they should be looking for conservative groups, you mean those "specific groups"?
4. I fully agree with you on the grandstanding. It's annoying, but sadly a lot of people just take it there. Sadly common sense, and adherence to the laws that regulate oversight of such a transgression by a Government agency such as the IRS, gets rolled up in this circus.
5. Not sure who you are referring to when you say "certain" people. Agree the grandstanding is a pain in the ass, but again, to get people to look at it objectively (especially our current Congress) without toeing their party line is sad.

Again, I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats that did this.... I care that it did happen. The IRS should never do this, and to ask the question why it occurred... we should all agree that is a reasonable request. Lois Lerner, by pleading the fifth (which is her right), put this whole thing on steroids.

And to use a legal definition: taking the Fifth n. the refusal to testify on the ground that the testimony might tend to incriminate the witness in a crime, based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which provides that "No person....shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," applied to state courts by the 14th Amendment. The term became famous during televised Senate committee hearings on organized crime in 1951, when a series of crime bosses "took the Fifth."

That is what she chose to do. Not me, not you, not us on this forum.... Her. That should make us all want to know the real truth.

[Latrinsorm]

People need to stop saying this. If I punched you in the face but then said "Oh come on! I hardly touched you, look! No bruising at all!" would you just brush it off as being "extremely mild"?

If so, let me know when I can punch you in the face.If you punched me in the face you would go to jail. The rate of such jail-going is much higher than <1%. QED.
Didn't Lerner apologize for the IRS targeting Tea Party groups on the basis of their partisan politics? :/They targeted R groups on the basis of the R groups' politics and D groups on the basis of the D groups' politics.
Huh?These people in these groups aren't supposed to have politics as their primary function. It's not just a good idea, it's the law. If a group puts politics right in their name, it stands to reason that they might be doing that, and additional scrutiny is required. The specific scrutiny in this case apparently violated some bylaws or whatever, but it's really not that flagrant of reasoning.
This is Latrin's way of reminding us all he's really a Republican :DReally and truly!

[Warriorbird]

For the last fucking time.... I did not mention Obama. I am talking about the abuse of power by the IRS, whatever the reasons, and how that is wrong..... and through her own admission the wrongdoing was confirmed.

How you get Obama ARGIOEGEOIWNGOIENGIO from what I wrote, or the article I linked... is a sad counter-point, without really looking at the facts. Get off your political slant and just look at the facts. I didn't insert Obama into this....

THEY (Jay Carney and President Obama) through their OWN statements, put themselves into this conversation by saying 1. This was only done by a few employees in Cincinnati (Carney) and 2. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing (The President)..... when BOTH of those statements are FALSE. That has already been proven.

How exactly is "evidence has been found that it went much higher" not pulling a Parkbandit and immediately likening Obama to Nixon and suggesting he's behind it while "denying it is political." It's exactly that. At the best you're biased and unaware of it.


You seriously don't listen do you? You can't get over your political views to just listen to facts. Wow.


Holy shit.. not sure if you all are watching the Congressional hearing going on with the IRS commissioner, but Trey Gowdy... if you watch his questions to the commissioner.. WOW.. guy is a beast with regards to line of thought and preparation.

There is a lot of political grandstanding going on with the hearing, so trying to filter it all as I watch it live is more difficult... but if you do anything... see if you can find the Trey Gowdy portion. It is really impressive - no politics from him... just straight up examination of the evidence and legal applications.

This is a hearing before Congress as a lead up to the elections, carefully orchestrated by the Republican Party. If you think anybody's going to "find justice" here you are naive. Gowdy is a masterful political showman and has a bright future for your party because he's smart enough not to go the Daryl Issa route (though, in spite of the fact that dude spent time in his life a criminal, I admire Issa's stands for net neutrality.)


For the last fucking time.... I did not mention Obama. I am talking about the abuse of power by the IRS, whatever the reasons, and how that is wrong..... and through her own admission the wrongdoing was confirmed.

How you get Obama ARGIOEGEOIWNGOIENGIO from what I wrote, or the article I linked... is a sad counter-point, without really looking at the facts. Get off your political slant and just look at the facts. I didn't insert Obama into this....

THEY (Jay Carney and President Obama) through their OWN statements, put themselves into this conversation by saying 1. This was only done by a few employees in Cincinnati (Carney) and 2. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing (The President)..... when BOTH of those statements are FALSE. That has already been proven.

So what exactly does "much higher" and this post mean other than Obama? I'm hoping the bias is unconscious.

[Tgo01]

If a group puts politics right in their name, it stands to reason that they might be doing that, and additional scrutiny is required.

No...just no...

Maybe the "Republicans for helping the homeless" just want to show everyone that they are a group of Republicans who want to help the homeless.

Maybe the "Democrats for acting like total jackasses" is just redundant.

[Dwaar]

How exactly is "evidence has been found that it went much higher" not pulling a Parkbandit and immediately likening Obama to Nixon and suggesting he's behind it while "denying it is political." It's exactly that. At the best you're biased and unaware of it.

At best, all I said was it went higher. I didn't say Obama. The facts prove it went higher than what the IRS first said, that it was a couple of random people in Cincinnati. You are the one that is biased and unaware of it.

I'm looking at the facts, how they've been laid out, and the sequence of events. If you can't see that "evidence has been found that it went much higher", then /shrug.....

[Warriorbird]

At best, all I said was it went higher. I didn't say Obama. The facts prove it went higher than what the IRS first said, that it was a couple of random people in Cincinnati. You are the one that is biased and unaware of it.

I'm looking at the facts, how they've been laid out, and the sequence of events. If you can't see that "evidence has been found that it went much higher", then /shrug.....

So far we have a person held in Contempt of Congress. As to "evidence"? There's not much. She apparently managed to delete all her own files.

[Candor]

It is my belief that the IRS was targeting conservative groups at the direction of someone very high in our government. I appreciate a few liberal groups ended up being affected as well, but they were exceptions.

This isn't a first time occurrence in our nation's history (anyone remember the conservative group audits by the IRS during the Clinton administration?), nor has this sort of abuse been limited to one political party.

[Dwaar]

How exactly is "evidence has been found that it went much higher" not pulling a Parkbandit and immediately likening Obama to Nixon and suggesting he's behind it while "denying it is political." It's exactly that. At the best you're biased and unaware of it.





This is a hearing before Congress as a lead up to the elections, carefully orchestrated by the Republican Party. If you think anybody's going to "find justice" here you are naive. Gowdy is a masterful political showman and has a bright future for your party because he's smart enough not to go the Daryl Issa route (though, in spite of the fact that dude spent time in his life a criminal, I admire Issa's stands for net neutrality.)



So what exactly does "much higher" and this post mean other than Obama? I'm hoping the bias is unconscious.

Damn man... I mentioned Obama and Carney because you did. If you ... GAHHAHAHAH... I swear... never mind. You're right... facts don't matter, this is all just political theater. Nothing at all happened, you are right. We should just go on our way.

IRS didn't do a thing wrong... Just a couple of "boneheads" in Cincy, WKRP baby. You and I don't deserve an answer at all, because nothing happened. Just some silly mistake... Did you get those TPS reports done? No... well hmmm... yea... I'll need those by the end of the day.

[Dwaar]

It is my belief that the IRS was targeting conservative groups at the direction of someone very high in our government. I appreciate a few liberal groups ended up being affected as well, but they were exceptions.

This isn't a first time occurrence in our nation's history (anyone remember the conservative group audits by the IRS during the Clinton administration?), nor has this sort of abuse been limited to one political party.

And it should be investigated each and every time it occurs... No matter who is in power. And I wish everyone, no matter your affiliation or leanings, would be outraged at it. Sadly, nope.

[Latrinsorm]

The first part, I'm not sure if you're replying directly to me or not. I never said "they didn't do this because of any political bias", and I don't "get" anything.... Lois Lerner did apologize for the IRS wrongfully targeting a specific group of those applying for tax-exempt status. That's a fact, that's not me extrapolating anything.

1. So the "additional scrutiny" was mild... hence that makes it okay. Is that your point?It makes it mild. <- period.
2. It was applied on a non-partisan basis? Really? Because doesn't seem so, but happy to listen to your points on this one.Conservative- and progressive-named groups were both targeted. Hence, they were either applying the scrutiny on a non-partisan basis or doing a really lousy job of being partisan.
3. So they should apply the "additional scrutiny" to "the group" that is conservative based more than progressive based? So they should be looking for conservative groups, you mean those "specific groups"?The "specific groups" refers to 501(c)(4)s.
Again, I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats that did this.... I care that it did happen. The IRS should never do this, and to ask the question why it occurred... we should all agree that is a reasonable request. Lois Lerner, by pleading the fifth (which is her right), put this whole thing on steroids.

And to use a legal definition: taking the Fifth n. the refusal to testify on the ground that the testimony might tend to incriminate the witness in a crime, based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which provides that "No person....shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," applied to state courts by the 14th Amendment. The term became famous during televised Senate committee hearings on organized crime in 1951, when a series of crime bosses "took the Fifth."

That is what she chose to do. Not me, not you, not us on this forum.... Her. That should make us all want to know the real truth.Taking the Fifth is not an admission of guilt. That's the whole point of it.

[Latrinsorm]

No...just no...

Maybe the "Republicans for helping the homeless" just want to show everyone that they are a group of Republicans who want to help the homeless.

Maybe the "Democrats for acting like total jackasses" is just redundant.Maybe. And additional scrutiny will verify that.
And it should be investigated each and every time it occurs... No matter who is in power. And I wish everyone, no matter your affiliation or leanings, would be outraged at it. Sadly, nope.What if the situation in itself is not outrageous? You are sure it is, but is it possible that your affiliation and leanings are exaggerating a relatively innocuous situation?

[Dwaar]

Maybe. And additional scrutiny will verify that.What if the situation in itself is not outrageous? You are sure it is, but is it possible that your affiliation and leanings are exaggerating a relatively innocuous situation?

So your point is, that when it occurs, it's an "innocuous situation". Holy hell. I make the most simple statement ever. The IRS should be NEUTRAL and not be used by any administration to affect politics. And you somehow turn that all around. Amazing. You're right... I guess me wanting the IRS to not do that, is just a reflection of my affiliations and leanings are "exaggerating" a situation. When that situation was proven to have happened!

Holy hell! I'm a radical! I'm so crazy! I'm a gun toting, cousin fucking, white trash, ford driving, child hating, woman hating, racist, redneck RepubliCAN! Better watch out!

**Edit... I hate poor people too.

There, think I got all the stereotypes out. :)

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

So your point is, that when it occurs, it's an "innocuous situation". Holy hell. I make the most simple statement ever. The IRS should be NEUTRAL and not be used by any administration to affect politics. And you somehow turn that all around. Amazing. You're right... I guess me wanting the IRS to not do that, is just a reflection of my affiliations and leanings are "exaggerating" a situation. When that situation was proven to have happened!

Holy hell! I'm a radical! I'm so crazy! I'm a gun toting, cousin fucking, white trash, ford driving, child hating, woman hating, racist, redneck RepubliCAN! Better watch out!

And a homophobe. And an Islamophobe. I am sure there is more I left out. But since that's not how I operate...I can't think of anymore.

[Latrinsorm]

So your point is, that when it occurs, it's an "innocuous situation". Holy hell. I make the most simple statement ever. The IRS should be NEUTRAL and not be used by any administration to affect politics. And you somehow turn that all around. Amazing. You're right... I guess me wanting the IRS to not do that, is just a reflection of my affiliations and leanings are "exaggerating" a situation. When that situation was proven to have happened!I'm not sure what it is I'm turning around. Do you agree that 501(c)(4) groups are supposed to have a primary purpose that is non-political?

[Dwaar]

I'm not sure what it is I'm turning around. Do you agree that 501(c)(4) groups are supposed to have a primary purpose that is non-political?

I agree that it is the law. Yes.

And when a high ranking official from the IRS apologizes for the improper targeting of groups based upon their political inclination/affiliation.... and ADMITS that it was wrong to do, per their screening criteria.... I would think you would be as mad about it as myself, and as everyone should.

Now WHY it happened, is the whole question. But I mean, it was only "mild"... so who really gives a fuck.

[~Rocktar~]

Let's try this with a simple bit of word substitution and see how agreeable it turns out to be, shall we? Yes let's:

Latrinsorm's opinion as seen through the lens of racism:

1. The additional profiling was extremely mild, as evidenced by exactly one group being denied out of hundreds.
2. The additional profiling was applied on a non-partisan basis.
3. The additional profiling was applied on the basis of the group being African American, which is exactly what the IRS should be looking for when it comes to these specific types of non-profits.
4. The grandstanding by some (most) [all] of the politicians involved is predictable and comical.
5. The way certain people have guilelessly followed that grandstanding is predictable and sad.

Doesn't seem so innocuous in the opinion category does it?

Now let's see it with say a sexual offender slant:

1. The additional rape/molestation was extremely mild, as evidenced by exactly one group being raped/molested out of hundreds.
2. The additional rape/molestation was applied on a non-partisan basis.
3. The additional rape/molestation was applied on the basis of the group being women, which is exactly what the IRS should be looking for when it comes to these specific types of non-profits.
4. The grandstanding by some (most) [all] of the politicians involved is predictable and comical.
5. The way certain people have guilelessly followed that grandstanding is predictable and sad.

Even worse, huh?

The point of this exercise, since I know it will pass over some people's heads, is that attempts to justify the degree of discrimination due to scale AFTER PROVING IT EXISTS in the first place, are ridiculous and unacceptable. Since we know that discrimination happened, or was very likely to have happened to some degree, due to the admission of guilt then all we have left is to determine the level of criminal intent and degree of criminal responsibility. And then work to prevent it from happening again.

[Latrinsorm]

I agree that it is the law. Yes.

And when a high ranking official from the IRS apologizes for the improper targeting of groups based upon their political inclination/affiliation.... and ADMITS that it was wrong to do, per their screening criteria.... I would think you would be as mad about it as myself, and as everyone should.

Now WHY it happened, is the whole question. But I mean, it was only "mild"... so who really gives a fuck.See, it sounds like you're interpreting her words to say that they targeted based on a specific inclination, rather than inclination in general. The groups targeted range all over the political spectrum, certainly the correct interpretation must be the latter, no?

[Tgo01]

Maybe. And additional scrutiny will verify that.

You don't see anything wrong with treating groups differently based on their names?

That's namist.

[Latrinsorm]

The point of this exercise, since I know it will pass over some people's heads, is that attempts to justify the degree of discrimination due to scale AFTER PROVING IT EXISTS in the first place, are ridiculous and unacceptable. Since we know that discrimination happened, or was very likely to have happened to some degree, due to the admission of guilt then all we have left is to determine the level of criminal intent and degree of criminal responsibility. And then work to prevent it from happening again.No one is arguing against the 501(c)(4) code, which discriminates on the basis of political activity. It is morally acceptable to withhold tax-exempt status from such groups. Discriminating on the basis of race is not morally acceptable, rape is not comparable to a voluntary survey.

I'm embarrassed for you.

[tyrant-201]

Holy hell! I'm a radical! I'm so crazy! I'm a (gun toting, cousin fucking, white trash, ford driving, child hating, woman hating, racist, redneck) RepubliCAN! Better watch out!

**Edit... (I hate poor people) too.



The underlined encompasses all within parentheses

[Parkbandit]

Is Politifact right leaning? This is me asking, because I just went by the first few Google responses. I'd just point to it being a more recent timestamp than the 4/7/14 dates you provided.

Politifact is a site managed by the Tampa Times.. a "news"paper I am very familiar with. They are left of the New York Times.. so basically it's an arm of the DNC.

The ability to figure this out is relatively easy... if you want to actually know. If you don't though.. you can claim ignorance "I just used Google".


That being said, we're still missing some statistically significant values based upon universe sizes.

Furthermore, what if the IRS had a higher rate of return on auditing conservative parties relative to liberal? How do you think that would be viewed if they came forward and said, "We make 15% more money per audit hour by targetting conservatives"? Purely random samples is stupid.

Sometimes, it's not about making an extra 15% more per hour... especially when it comes to politics in Washington. The real wealth is in power.



Why wouldn't they tip their hand for that? The IRS is incredibly tight-assed about aspects of their audit selection methodology. If they came forward and said being a republican was 3% more likely to get you audited, I guarantee that we'd have a couple million less on-the-books republicans the subsequent year.

You really should read up on the story before making statements like that. First, these aren't audits.. they are applications for tax exempt status.


I also see nothing that implies top-down. I thought Obama had his hands full giving handies to the head of the Department of the Interior to shut down all the parks back during the fiscal cliff stuff. But, he was also nitpicking the selection criteria on the IRS filters?

Of course you don't see it. No one should be surprised.


Any administration is going to try to cover up anyone herpaderping. Accountable? Sure, I can agree to that. Responsible? That's a stretch that I seem to be reading in the thread.

I heard Obama first heard about this in the news...

[Parkbandit]

So far we have a person held in Contempt of Congress. As to "evidence"? There's not much. She apparently managed to delete all her own files.

That was a computer crash. An accident.

Toe the line like a good boy.

[Parkbandit]

So your point is, that when it occurs, it's an "innocuous situation". Holy hell. I make the most simple statement ever. The IRS should be NEUTRAL and not be used by any administration to affect politics. And you somehow turn that all around. Amazing. You're right... I guess me wanting the IRS to not do that, is just a reflection of my affiliations and leanings are "exaggerating" a situation. When that situation was proven to have happened!

Holy hell! I'm a radical! I'm so crazy! I'm a gun toting, cousin fucking, white trash, ford driving, child hating, woman hating, racist, redneck RepubliCAN! Better watch out!

**Edit... I hate poor people too.

There, think I got all the stereotypes out. :)

I bet you shop at Walmart too.

[Tenlaar]

Toe the line like a good boy.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1499879/thumbs/o-POT-MEET-KETTLE-570.jpg?1

[Warriorbird]

That was a computer crash. An accident.

Toe the line like a good boy.

Obama is the Secret Master! We must call him incompetent constantly yet accuse him of being an EVIL GENIUS constantly! It gets old.

[Parkbandit]

Obama is the Secret Master! We must call him incompetent constantly yet accuse him of being an EVIL GENIUS constantly! It gets old.

I absolutely believe he's completely incompetent... which is why he keeps getting caught. An evil genius? Not even close. Like the exact opposite of genius.

[Warriorbird]

I absolutely believe he's completely incompetent... which is why he keeps getting caught. An evil genius? Not even close. Like the exact opposite of genius.

Then how exactly is it that he wasn't caught for his totally brilliant plan to attack the Tea Party and Occupy? Currently the scintillating evidence is the lady wiped her own hard drive.

[Methais]

Then how exactly is it that he wasn't caught for his totally brilliant plan to attack the Tea Party and Occupy? Currently the scintillating evidence is the lady wiped her own hard drive.

Because the media goes to bat for him on everything maybe?

I'm curious how much coverage this has gotten in the MSM. I'm gonna guess almost none.

[Warriorbird]

Because the media goes to bat for him on everything maybe?

I'm curious how much coverage this has gotten in the MSM. I'm gonna guess almost none.

They have? Funny how they've given the Republican scandal factory all this time and his opinion polls have tanked. Funny how you associate this with all media, yet Republicans certainly devour talk radio and News Corp and how you think that doesn't matter. What channel is more popular again? Fox or CNN and MSNBC put together?

How did they get there? Selling you and others the image of yourselves as downtrodden and abused by those awful liberals and the "media" backing everything they oppose. That and pronouncements of the end times and attempting to sell you gold.

[Methais]

They have? Funny how they've given the Republican scandal factory all this time and his opinion polls have tanked. Funny how you associate this with all media, yet Republicans certainly devour talk radio and News Corp and how you think that doesn't matter. What channel is more popular again? Fox or CNN and MSNBC put together?

How did they get there? Selling you and others the image of yourselves as downtrodden and abused by those awful liberals and the "media" backing everything they oppose. That and pronouncements of the end times and attempting to sell you gold.

Yes, that must be it.

[Laviticas]

Obama is the Secret Master! We must call him incompetent constantly yet accuse him of being an EVIL GENIUS constantly! It gets old.

Kind of like the Evil idiot mastermind bush. It does get old. Ron Paul was the first Republican I voted for since that last big eared goofy guy that was running back in the Clinton era. From where I stand, Obama was the last dem vote I will ever cast, their extremists will have us living in caves for the betterment of desert tortuses.

[Warriorbird]

Yes, that must be it.

Just like you're right there with convincing me that Obama is the secret master of all evil plots. I'm even buying tin foil.

[Dwaar]

Just like you're right there with convincing me that Obama is the secret master of all evil plots. I'm even buying tin foil.

I'll let you guess where the following is from:

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

[Warriorbird]

I'll let you guess where the following is from:

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

The Naked Communist is a 1958 book by an ex FBI agent, conservative United States author and faith-based political theorist Cleon Skousen. Basically, Republican conspiracy masturbation material. About as reasonable as Bush as Nazi or that he was responsible for 9-11. I need more of this faith based political theory in my life!

[Back]

I'll let you guess where the following is from:

Ted Kazinski's manifesto?

[Parkbandit]

Then how exactly is it that he wasn't caught for his totally brilliant plan to attack the Tea Party and Occupy?

You realize "The Administration" and "President Obama" are not one in the same for everything.. right? Besides.. Obama read about this "fake scandal" from watching the news.. so obviously he didn't know anything about it prior to that!

And why do you keep insisting the IRS was also targeting Occupy, since that was proven incorrect during IRS testimony? And even the type of scrutiny that Democrats insist was happening pales in comparison to what the Conservative groups were put through.


Currently the scintillating evidence is the lady wiped her own hard drive.

So, it is your belief that Lois Learner is the top of the chain when it came to this scandal?

[Parkbandit]

They have? Funny how they've given the Republican scandal factory all this time and his opinion polls have tanked. Funny how you associate this with all media, yet Republicans certainly devour talk radio and News Corp and how you think that doesn't matter. What channel is more popular again? Fox or CNN and MSNBC put together?

How did they get there? Selling you and others the image of yourselves as downtrodden and abused by those awful liberals and the "media" backing everything they oppose. That and pronouncements of the end times and attempting to sell you gold.

What?

So, you believe Fox News has a bigger audience than ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN? Because that is the only way your nonsense would even make sense.

[Warriorbird]

You realize "The Administration" and "President Obama" are not one in the same for everything.. right? Besides.. Obama read about this "fake scandal" from watching the news.. so obviously he didn't know anything about it prior to that!

And why do you keep insisting the IRS was also targeting Occupy, since that was proven incorrect during IRS testimony? And even the type of scrutiny that Democrats insist was happening pales in comparison to what the Conservative groups were put through.

So, it is your belief that Lois Learner is the top of the chain when it came to this scandal?

She's the person in charge of the process. You're trying to duck and dodge and weave because you know what this is. If you think Obama's responsible have the balls to say so.


So, you believe Fox News has a bigger audience than ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN? Because that is the only way your nonsense would even make sense.

Fox has a bigger audience than MSNBC, CNN, and one network combined, if not the others. The networks are hardly the bastions of bias you make them out to be in comparison to something like MSNBC. Throw on talk radio in which conservative media doubles liberal ratings and you have an environment that's far different than your boo hoo claims that they used to sell it. Pitch in the sheer number of Republican newspaper takeovers (and lo, even your hated Tampa Bay paper sold off Politifact) and it gets even sillier.


And why do you keep insisting the IRS was also targeting Occupy, since that was proven incorrect during IRS testimony? And even the type of scrutiny that Democrats insist was happening pales in comparison to what the Conservative groups were put through.

If this were actually true it'd be something.

[Parkbandit]

She's the person in charge of the process. You're trying to duck and dodge and weave because you know what this is. If you think Obama's responsible have the balls to say so.

So you do believe it's Lois Learner's war on Conservatives.

I remember when I was that naive... I was 6 and still believed in Santa.


Fox has a bigger audience than MSNBC, CNN, and one network combined, if not the others. The networks are hardly the bastions of bias you make them out to be in comparison to something like MSNBC. Throw on talk radio in which conservative media doubles liberal ratings and you have an environment that's far different than your boo hoo claims that they used to sell it. Pitch in the sheer number of Republican newspaper takeovers (and lo, even your hated Tampa Bay paper sold off Politifact) and it gets even sillier.

What's silly is that you equate Fox News as being equal to the big 3 in terms of audience. Or do you believe that ABC/NBC/CBS has no liberal slant?


If this were actually true it'd be something.

So you don't believe the IRS when they said it during sworn testimony.. but you believe the accidental hard drive crashes?

[Warriorbird]

So you do believe it's Lois Learner's war on Conservatives.

What's silly is that you equate Fox News as being equal to the big 3 in terms of audience. Or do you believe that ABC/NBC/CBS has no liberal slant?

So you don't believe the IRS when they said it during sworn testimony.. but you believe the accidental hard drive crashes?

It's funny how you don't have the balls to say you think Obama is behind it.

It's also funny how you have this debate with this invisible WB who said that Fox News is equal to the big 3 in terms of audience and that ABC/NBC/CBS have no liberal slant rather than a moderate one compared to MSNBC. That guy's so hilarious.

I also like how you have this idea that what you think was said in a Republican dog and pony show is somehow a gotcha related to targeting. You're really convincing me now!

[Whirlin]

Politifact is a site managed by the Tampa Times.. a "news"paper I am very familiar with. They are left of the New York Times.. so basically it's an arm of the DNC.

The ability to figure this out is relatively easy... if you want to actually know. If you don't though.. you can claim ignorance "I just used Google".
Yes, but you tend to have your own views, regardless of what's found. Figured I'd just ask your opinion. Plus, I'd rather engage in the the conversation.



Sometimes, it's not about making an extra 15% more per hour... especially when it comes to politics in Washington. The real wealth is in power.
You really should read up on the story before making statements like that. First, these aren't audits.. they are applications for tax exempt status.
Sometimes it is as simple as maximizing the return on your time though. Especially when we're in an economy where job mobility is limited with increasing demands on efficiency. Especially when dealing with tax people!

Sorry, my point jumped, I'll draw up the correlation. If one party has a higher failure rate with compliance-related activities, why would it be contained to just audit engagements, why would it not also correspond to tax exempt requests? Audit failure and return rates are a great source of information for the IRS to run metrics on to determine trends to assist their sample selection criteria to maximize the return on time investment in operations. If you're aware that one group of individuals is responsible for more fraudulent actions, why wouldn't you assess a larger portion of that party? It'd be like arguing that we should search more western Europeans for terror threats rather than individuals from the middle east. Stratified sampling increases effectiveness of operations, and it's a widely accepted practice in both the audit world and in aspects of the government.

Going back to my point though, if they announced that this was criteria they were using to add a risk weighting to an individual tax return, that would be incredibly detrimental not only to the integrity of their weighting process, but it could cause harm to non-profits.

I'm not saying there's any magical evidence outside of pleading the 5th to support this, however, it's my perspective from my experiences in the auditing world (albeit in the private sector). It's less about whether or not it occurred, because I think it's consensus outside of WB that it did happen, and much more about the why.



I heard Obama first heard about this in the news...
I can agree his actions have sucked, and he should be taking a more pro-active role in ensuring the facts get vetted out, and appropriate actions are taken and communicated to the population. I'm willing to hold him accountable for his role in handling the situation, but not responsibility for the situation itself, which I think we're going to be at an impasse on.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not saying there's any magical evidence outside of pleading the 5th to support this, however, it's my perspective from my experiences in the auditing world (albeit in the private sector). It's less about whether or not it occurred, because I think it's consensus outside of WB that it did happen, and much more about the why.


I certainly think it happened. I just disagree with Parkbandit about whether liberal political groups were targeted too. They were a much smaller percentage of the total, but I find it telling that the Republican House only subpoenaed info about conservative groups being targeted. If it were up to me much of this wouldn't be allowed for either side but thanks again, Citizens United!

[Parkbandit]

It's funny how you don't have the balls to say you think Obama is behind it.

Like I stated earlier, I think Obama is absolutely incompetent. I don't believe he has the political savvy to pull something this off. He's better at just sticking to reading the teleprompter and letting people he surrounds himself with do all the thinking for him.


It's also funny how you have this debate with this invisible WB who said that Fox News is equal to the big 3 in terms of audience and that ABC/NBC/CBS have no liberal slant rather than a moderate one compared to MSNBC. That guy's so hilarious.

I said that the only way your nonsense would work (conservative media is dominating the market) is if they had a bigger audience than all the major networks. Clearly they don't.. so your nonsense remains just that: nonsense.


I also like how you have this idea that what you think was said in a Republican dog and pony show is somehow a gotcha related to targeting. You're really convincing me now!

There is no way I could convince you of anything.. the koolaid is strong in you and will always be that way. You could see Obama kill a guy in front of you.. and you would somehow defend him as the guy was asking for it.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, but you tend to have your own views, regardless of what's found. Figured I'd just ask your opinion. Plus, I'd rather engage in the the conversation.

Politifact is a joke. Has been since it's inception. You only had to look at the "red lies" and the overwhelming number of Republicans that committed them to realize they are cherry picking stuff to put the Republicans in the worst possible light.

Unless you are like WBackasholff and believe that it really is just the Republicans that are committing all the lies.


Sometimes it is as simple as maximizing the return on your time though. Especially when we're in an economy where job mobility is limited with increasing demands on efficiency. Especially when dealing with tax people!

Sorry, my point jumped, I'll draw up the correlation. If one party has a higher failure rate with compliance-related activities, why would it be contained to just audit engagements, why would it not also correspond to tax exempt requests? Audit failure and return rates are a great source of information for the IRS to run metrics on to determine trends to assist their sample selection criteria to maximize the return on time investment in operations. If you're aware that one group of individuals is responsible for more fraudulent actions, why wouldn't you assess a larger portion of that party? It'd be like arguing that we should search more western Europeans for terror threats rather than individuals from the middle east. Stratified sampling increases effectiveness of operations, and it's a widely accepted practice in both the audit world and in aspects of the government.

Going back to my point though, if they announced that this was criteria they were using to add a risk weighting to an individual tax return, that would be incredibly detrimental not only to the integrity of their weighting process, but it could cause harm to non-profits.

I'm not saying there's any magical evidence outside of pleading the 5th to support this, however, it's my perspective from my experiences in the auditing world (albeit in the private sector). It's less about whether or not it occurred, because I think it's consensus outside of WB that it did happen, and much more about the why.

Since Lerner has pled the 5th on all of her testimony.. and according to WB, she's the head of the snake.. we'll never know.


I can agree his actions have sucked, and he should be taking a more pro-active role in ensuring the facts get vetted out, and appropriate actions are taken and communicated to the population. I'm willing to hold him accountable for his role in handling the situation, but not responsibility for the situation itself, which I think we're going to be at an impasse on.

He's a politician.. albeit a terrible one. He has surrounded himself with incompetence and arrogance and is responsible for creating the team and the environment of his administration.

If my company fails an inspection.. do you not think I'm responsible for it? I don't do the actual work, my employees do. Yet, I am the one that gets the call from the auditor if a job fails.

[Warriorbird]

Like I stated earlier, I think Obama is absolutely incompetent. I don't believe he has the political savvy to pull something this off. He's better at just sticking to reading the teleprompter and letting people he surrounds himself with do all the thinking for him.



I said that the only way your nonsense would work (conservative media is dominating the market) is if they had a bigger audience than all the major networks. Clearly they don't.. so your nonsense remains just that: nonsense.



There is no way I could convince you of anything.. the koolaid is strong in you and will always be that way. You could see Obama kill a guy in front of you.. and you would somehow defend him as the guy was asking for it.

So who is the evil mastermind?

I never claimed that "conservative media was dominating the market" so you're still trying to engage with somebody else's debate. I merely said that it's hardly the EVERYWHERE IS LIBERAL BIAS ZOMG! world that you claim it is. Doubling the liberal talk radio share is not to be underestimated and neither is the numbers they're putting up over the most biased liberal networks.

And again, you're talking to this other guy who doesn't have a list of complaints against Obama. Tell me another one.

[Parkbandit]

So who is the evil mastermind?

I never claimed that "conservative media was dominating the market" so you're still trying to engage with somebody else's debate. I merely said that it's hardly the EVERYWHERE IS LIBERAL BIAS ZOMG! world that you claim it is. Doubling the liberal talk radio share is not to be underestimated and neither is the numbers they're putting up over the most biased liberal networks.

And again, you're talking to this other guy who doesn't have a list of complaints against Obama. Tell me another one.

Do us a favor and look up the numbers for ABC/NBC/CBS and then Fox News and whatever evil conservative station you are referring to... show us how the big 3 aren't really the big 3 and we'll talk. It's still a business dominated by liberal views... even if you stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

[Warriorbird]

Do us a favor and look up the numbers for ABC/NBC/CBS and then Fox News and whatever evil conservative station you are referring to... show us how the big 3 aren't really the big 3 and we'll talk. It's still a business dominated by liberal views... even if you stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

You're again having this alternate debate. If you want to actually talk about what I've said we can. But if you want to just have a self congratulatory Republican rhetoric fest you can do that in the corner.

[Whirlin]

Politifact is a joke. Has been since it's inception. You only had to look at the "red lies" and the overwhelming number of Republicans that committed them to realize they are cherry picking stuff to put the Republicans in the worst possible light.

Unless you are like WBackasholff and believe that it really is just the Republicans that are committing all the lies.

Since Lerner has pled the 5th on all of her testimony.. and according to WB, she's the head of the snake.. we'll never know.

He's a politician.. albeit a terrible one. He has surrounded himself with incompetence and arrogance and is responsible for creating the team and the environment of his administration.

If my company fails an inspection.. do you not think I'm responsible for it? I don't do the actual work, my employees do. Yet, I am the one that gets the call from the auditor if a job fails.
Thank you for the info on Politifacts, I will refrain from using them as a source from here on out.

My only point of delineation in your last comment would be responsibility versus accountability (think of a RACI chart). Ultimately, you may have not been the one responsible for the failure, but you're accountable for the failure. It's a very subtle nuance that I don't really think would impact your views on the matter. I just wanted to clarify my previous statements and the implications of them.

But I think we have a better understanding of where the other is coming from, I really don't have any followup for this sub-thread. Thank you for the back and forth.

[Jarvan]

How exactly is "evidence has been found that it went much higher" not pulling a Parkbandit and immediately likening Obama to Nixon and suggesting he's behind it while "denying it is political." It's exactly that. At the best you're biased and unaware of it.





This is a hearing before Congress as a lead up to the elections, carefully orchestrated by the Republican Party. If you think anybody's going to "find justice" here you are naive. Gowdy is a masterful political showman and has a bright future for your party because he's smart enough not to go the Daryl Issa route (though, in spite of the fact that dude spent time in his life a criminal, I admire Issa's stands for net neutrality.)



So what exactly does "much higher" and this post mean other than Obama? I'm hoping the bias is unconscious.

The fact that there are confirmed emails from a number of Democratic politicians asking Lerner to "look into" the Tea Party groups pretty much confirms it "goes much Higher" then just the IRS. The fact that Lerner corresponded with SOMEONE at the Whitehouse means SOMEONE at the Whitehouse knew about it. Frankly, we KNOW Obama didn't know about it, because he never knows anything. Obama never had to give an order to have tea party groups targeted... all he had to do is say that they were bad in his stump speeches.. and his faithful did the rest.

If Obama were to say that coal plants were bad and they need to be turned off... I wouldn't be surprised to hear of coal plants bombed.

[Parkbandit]

You're again having this alternate debate. If you want to actually talk about what I've said we can. But if you want to just have a self congratulatory Republican rhetoric fest you can do that in the corner.

I'm not pulling a WB.. but I understand how you might be confused. Let's go back to your initial nonsense post regarding conservative media:


They have? Funny how they've given the Republican scandal factory all this time and his opinion polls have tanked. Funny how you associate this with all media, yet Republicans certainly devour talk radio and News Corp and how you think that doesn't matter. What channel is more popular again? Fox or CNN and MSNBC put together?

How did they get there? Selling you and others the image of yourselves as downtrodden and abused by those awful liberals and the "media" backing everything they oppose. That and pronouncements of the end times and attempting to sell you gold.

What are you attempting to communicate with this post? Let's do a multiple choice:

1) There really isn't a "liberal media bias" since Fox News and Conservative radio are dominating their liberal counterparts.
2) Fox News is bigger than CNN and MSNBC together, so I'm not buying into any "liberal media" you might be selling.
3) The big 3 covered each of these manufactured scandals just as much as Fox News and Conservative radio, so obviously there is no liberal bias.
4) I like cake and counting to D.

[Parkbandit]

Thank you for the info on Politifacts, I will refrain from using them as a source from here on out.

Don't just take my word for it (though you always should).. do your own research and make up your own opinion. It's inception was in 2007 for the 2008 Presidential election and it was PAINFULLY obvious which side they were slanted for. It wasn't even a real slant.. it was like a 90° turn. My favorite were some people here honestly believing it was an unbiased source.


My only point of delineation in your last comment would be responsibility versus accountability (think of a RACI chart). Ultimately, you may have not been the one responsible for the failure, but you're accountable for the failure. It's a very subtle nuance that I don't really think would impact your views on the matter. I just wanted to clarify my previous statements and the implications of them.

But I think we have a better understanding of where the other is coming from, I really don't have any followup for this sub-thread. Thank you for the back and forth.

When talking about leadership.. it's all about responsibility. We will hold the person/party accountable for what they actually did, but the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the leader.

Good conversation though. :)

[Warriorbird]

The fact that there are confirmed emails from a number of Democratic politicians asking Lerner to "look into" the Tea Party groups pretty much confirms it "goes much Higher" then just the IRS. The fact that Lerner corresponded with SOMEONE at the Whitehouse means SOMEONE at the Whitehouse knew about it. Frankly, we KNOW Obama didn't know about it, because he never knows anything. Obama never had to give an order to have tea party groups targeted... all he had to do is say that they were bad in his stump speeches.. and his faithful did the rest.

If Obama were to say that coal plants were bad and they need to be turned off... I wouldn't be surprised to hear of coal plants bombed.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, it's Jarvan to call Democrats terrorists while maintaining his "independence!"


What are you attempting to communicate with this post? Let's do a multiple choice:

1) There really isn't a "liberal media bias" since Fox News and Conservative radio are dominating their liberal counterparts.
2) Fox News is bigger than CNN and MSNBC together, so I'm not buying into any "liberal media" you might be selling.
3) The big 3 covered each of these manufactured scandals just as much as Fox News and Conservative radio, so obviously there is no liberal bias.
4) I like cake and counting to D.

This whole post is a hoot. "I'm not making up alternate arguments!" "Let me make up more!" Keep it up. I'm sure you could to this for days.

[Parkbandit]

Suddenly, out of nowhere, it's Jarvan to call Democrats terrorists while maintaining his "independence!"

This whole post is a hoot. "I'm not making up alternate arguments!" "Let me make up more!" Keep it up. I'm sure you could to this for days.

Feel free to come up with a 5) on your own.. but I'm betting 4) is far more accurate, given your nonsense so far today.

[Dwaar]

Suddenly, out of nowhere, it's Jarvan to call Democrats terrorists while maintaining his "independence!"

This whole post is a hoot. "I'm not making up alternate arguments!" "Let me make up more!" Keep it up. I'm sure you could to this for days.

That is really what you got from Jarvan's post? He stated facts, to back up the proof already there, that it "went higher" than a couple of "bone-headed" (Presidents words not mine) IRS employees in Cincinnati.

Again, none of us said it. The Administration and high level IRS officials said it. Those statements were then proven false with more investigation. Not sure how you just simply overlook the simple fact that the IRS and President just flat out lied (sorry they were "mistaken") to you.

[Johnny Five]

WBackasholff

For some reason this made me think of turducken haha.

[Jeril]

For some reason this made me think of turducken haha.

What doesn't make you think of food?

[Ashliana]

Politifact is a joke. Has been since it's inception. You only had to look at the "red lies" and the overwhelming number of Republicans that committed them to realize they are cherry picking stuff to put the Republicans in the worst possible light.

Unless you are like WBackasholff and believe that it really is just the Republicans that are committing all the lies.


1) There are any number of explanations for why Politifact (or any other fact-checker) might show that Republicans lie more.

Possibility A: Republicans do lie more and the site (and other fact checkers) is accurate.
Possibility B: Republicans and Democrats lie equally, and the fact checkers are lying.
Possibility C: Democrats lie more than Republicans and the fact checkers are just themselves lying.

Politifact won the Pulitzer prize in 2009 for their fact-checking efforts, and they've called out politicians across the spectrum. Apparently the only way, in your mind, to resolve your arbitrary belief--that "Republicans just CAN'T lie more than Democrats"--when faced with examples, is to invent an arbitrary reason to dismiss Politifact--not on the merits of their arguments--but baseless accusations of bias. Otherwise known as cognitive dissonance. What's your rational basis for your arbitrary selection of B or C?

2) Please quote where I've ever claimed that "only Republicans lie." Politicians lie. Republicans are the purveyors of an especially cynical type of deliberate misinformation, especially on climate science. You're a prime example of an idiot who's bought into their anti-scientific, conspiracy theory arguments.

[Warriorbird]

That is really what you got from Jarvan's post? He stated facts, to back up the proof already there, that it "went higher" than a couple of "bone-headed" (Presidents words not mine) IRS employees in Cincinnati.

Again, none of us said it. The Administration and high level IRS officials said it. Those statements were then proven false with more investigation. Not sure how you just simply overlook the simple fact that the IRS and President just flat out lied (sorry they were "mistaken") to you.

Except it just isn't. It's not there. There are no smoking guns or this'd be bringing down a President. It can't even be taken to the level of the Director.

Then he called Democrats terrorists, which just made the whole thing hilarious.

[Johnny Five]

What doesn't make you think of food?

Fat people.

[Methais]

Politifact won the Pulitzer prize in 2009 for their fact-checking efforts,

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for uh....

Have we figured out why yet?

[Wrathbringer]

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for uh....

Have we figured out why yet?

for presidenting while black.

[Latrinsorm]

Obama never had to give an order to have tea party groups targeted... all he had to do is say that they were bad in his stump speeches.. and his faithful did the rest.

If Obama were to say that coal plants were bad and they need to be turned off... I wouldn't be surprised to hear of coal plants bombed.That doesn't strike you as even a little paranoid?
That is really what you got from Jarvan's post? He stated facts, to back up the proof already there, that it "went higher" than a couple of "bone-headed" (Presidents words not mine) IRS employees in Cincinnati.

Again, none of us said it. The Administration and high level IRS officials said it. Those statements were then proven false with more investigation. Not sure how you just simply overlook the simple fact that the IRS and President just flat out lied (sorry they were "mistaken") to you.I don't believe that President Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, he was simply mistaken. Am I therefore allowed to extend that understanding to this President?

[Jeril]

Fat people.

I bet you think of all the tasty food they've shoved down their pie holes to get that way.

[Jarvan]

Except it just isn't. It's not there. There are no smoking guns or this'd be bringing down a President. It can't even be taken to the level of the Director.

Then he called Democrats terrorists, which just made the whole thing hilarious.

I called Dems terrorists? Where?

Oh.. the coal plant thing.

Of course some Dems ARE terroists.. Look at William Ayers.

But I didn't CALL dems terrorists. I just said I wouldn't be surprised if people blew up coal plants because Obama said they were bad and needed to go away. I am just pointing out how fucking stupid leftists are. 99.9% of the shit that comes out of Obama's mouth is taken is holy doctrine to those people.

I really really do not think Obama himself had anything to do with it. People in his Admin? Yes I do. But Obama himself never said to do it, or give an order. Because while he is incompetent, he is not stupid. It wouldn't pull him down if some tiny admin official did it, it would just look bad. But it wouldn't matter.. because it wouldn't even get out till after his term is up.

[Warriorbird]

I called Dems terrorists? Where?

In a half assed passive voice too. It was ridiculous. You know where.

[Dwaar]

That doesn't strike you as even a little paranoid?I don't believe that President Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, he was simply mistaken. Am I therefore allowed to extend that understanding to this President?

As far as Bush and WMDs... these facts annoy people... our Intelligence Community, the Clinton administration, the British, the French, the Germans, and pretty much every other intelligence gathering agency in the world thought Iraq had WMD. Most Democrats on Congressional Intelligence committees looking at the raw intelligence, thought the same thing, and voted for the invasion. The Baathists that fled prior to our invasion, smuggled the majority of them into Syria, which acted as a refuge for them. Ironically, a few influential Baathist Generals have left exile in Syria and are now commanding the ISIS group that is overrunning Iraq. Have to love the full circle.

Whether or not going into Iraq was the right call, WMDs or not, is the real question. To this day I'm not sure if it was the right thing, but I believe it was for the most part. My opinion is jaded though through my personal experiences and having seen firsthand the violence Saddam and his sons inflicted on people.

As for the IRS issue, I've never said it was the President who directed the targeting. I've simply stated the facts as they are so far to be known.

1. The targeting did occur.
2. Lois Lerner admitted it was the wrong thing to do per the IRS guidelines. Lois Lerner said it was only the work of a few employees in Cincinnati.
3. Initially it was claimed that it was only the work of a few "bone-headed" (President's word) workers in Cincinnati.
4. Jay Carney said it was the work only a few people in Cincinnati.
5. After investigation, it was found that people "higher up" in the IRS did know about the targeting and directing it to occur.
6. The IRS said there was no communication between itself and other Government agencies with regards to the targeting.
7. After investigation, it was found out that there was communication between the IRS, Treasury, and other Government agencies.
8. 6 months after all of this information is discovered, the President goes on national television, and repeats that there was no wrong doing with regards to the IRS targetting.
9. Lois Lerner pleads the Fifth when questioned about the wrongful targeting of people; even though she had already admitted it occurred, apologized for it, and tried to explain it away.
------This is where it stalls------
10. E-mails are requested by a Congressman who is looking into the allegations. A letter is sent to the IRS requesting them.
11. 10 days later, Lois Lerner's hard-drive crashes.
12. Somewhere around this same time period, 6 to 8 other IRS officials involved in the e-mail distribution chain of Lois Lerner, hard-drives all crash.

I could go on, but you get my drift. I don't know who directed this to occur. Due to the lost e-mails (ironically they have some of her e-mails from that time period, just not "all" of them due to this "crash"), and Lois Lerner taking the Fifth Amendment when asked to testify, it is hard to determine what exactly happened.

I'm not sure what you would infer when examining the information, but I know that something isn't right at all.

[Dwaar]

If I had the $, I would offer Lois Lerner 5 million to testify, and use of my lawyers if any retribution occurred. Verifiable proof (e-mails, letters, recordings) would need to be submitted to verify whatever she testified to.

If nothing occurred, okay. If something did, okay. But as it stands, they're giving you... me... and everyone else in the US the silent treatment. And just saying, well you can't prove it, and we're not talking, so nothing happened. Would you think the same thing if your kid did that to you?

[Parkbandit]

1) There are any number of explanations for why Politifact (or any other fact-checker) might show that Republicans lie more.

Possibility A: Republicans do lie more and the site (and other fact checkers) is accurate.
Possibility B: Republicans and Democrats lie equally, and the fact checkers are lying.
Possibility C: Democrats lie more than Republicans and the fact checkers are just themselves lying.

Politifact won the Pulitzer prize in 2009 for their fact-checking efforts, and they've called out politicians across the spectrum. Apparently the only way, in your mind, to resolve your arbitrary belief--that "Republicans just CAN'T lie more than Democrats"--when faced with examples, is to invent an arbitrary reason to dismiss Politifact--not on the merits of their arguments--but baseless accusations of bias. Otherwise known as cognitive dissonance. What's your rational basis for your arbitrary selection of B or C?

Using your logic.. there is no biased news reporting because they wouldn't want to sway public opinion.. they only report the news!

Let's make it easier for you to understand how this could work. I'm going to be using fake numbers.. and simple numbers.. to aid in this illustration.

In 2008, all Republicans told 100 lies and all Democrats told 100 lies.

Politifact decided to write about 80 Republican lies and 10 Democrat lies.

Do you believe that this could happen.. or do you honestly believe that Republicans tell many more lies than Democrats?


2) Please quote where I've ever claimed that "only Republicans lie." Politicians lie. Republicans are the purveyors of an especially cynical type of deliberate misinformation, especially on climate science. You're a prime example of an idiot who's bought into their anti-scientific, conspiracy theory arguments.

You are right.. you never said that "only" Republicans lie.. just that they lie far more frequently.. and you back this up because a website told you so. And you can trust that website because it won an award that is overwhelmingly won by liberal newspapers!

[Tgo01]

IRS broke the law by not reporting the lost emails back in 2011, when it supposedly lost the emails. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/24/archivist-irs-didnt-follow-law-with-lost-emails/20919269/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D492901)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service did not follow the law when it failed to report the loss of records belonging to a senior IRS executive, the nation's top archivist told Congress on Tuesday, in the latest development in the congressional probe of the agency's targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

In June 2011, IRS executive Lois Lerner's computer crashed, resulting in the loss of records that are sought in investigations into the agency's actions. At the time, the agency tried to recover Lerner's records, but with no success.

When it was determined later in the summer of 2011 that the records on the hard drive were gone forever, the IRS should have notified the National Archives and Records Administration, U.S. Archivist David Ferriero told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. But Ferriero learned of the lost records on June 13 when the IRS notified Congress.

"Any agency is required to notify us when they realize they have a problem," Ferriero said.

Lerner is at the center of the controversy and has refused to answer questions from Congress, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself. In May, the House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress. She retired from the IRS last fall after having been placed on paid leave.

In an effort to determine whether the Obama administration had any knowledge or involvement in the activities of the IRS division that reviews applications for tax-exempt status, lawmakers have sought and received thousands of IRS records - none of which has implicated the White House in the controversy. But when it was revealed that some of the emails sought were unrecoverable, Republicans questioned the timing of the hard drive crash, suggesting key records related to the investigation have conveniently gone missing.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has said that he has seen no evidence anyone committed a crime when the agency lost emails.

Pressed by a congressman Tuesday, Ferriero would not state that the IRS broke the law. He would only say that the agency didn't "follow" the law, referring to the Federal Records Act.

In a rare evening hearing before the same committee on Monday, Koskinen said there was no evidence that Lerner intentionally destroyed the missing emails. To the contrary, he said, the IRS went to great lengths trying to retrieve lost documents on Lerner's computer, even sending it to the agency's forensic lab.

Republicans have said the Obama administration has not been cooperative with Congress' investigation.

"They've not only not fully cooperated, they haven't done a damn thing to help us get to the truth of what really happened," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Lois Lerner refuses to tell us the truth, and then all of sudden, `Oh my goodness, we lose two years' worth emails.' Listen, I grew up in a bar. This doesn't pass the straight-face test."

Monday night, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., subpoenaed White House counsel Jennifer O'Connor to testify about her time at the IRS from May to November 2013. While at the IRS, O'Connor helped the agency gather documents related to the congressional investigation.

On Tuesday, when he questioned O'Connor, Issa called her a "hostile witness."

O'Connor disagreed. "I'm definitely not hostile," she said.

Later in the hearing, Issa said he consulted with another member who is a former prosecutor and the proper term to describe O'Connor was a "non-cooperative witness."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House has been cooperating throughout the investigation.

"Our commitment to cooperating with legitimate congressional oversight and in some cases illegitimate congressional oversight is pretty well documented," Earnest said. Asked if the House Oversight and Government Reform committee's investigation was "illegitimate," Earnest said, "I'm saying that there are legitimate questions that can be raised about the partisan motivation of some of those who are conducting oversight in this circumstance."

The IRS was able to generate 24,000 Lerner emails from the 2009 to 2011 period because she had copied in other IRS employees. Overall, the IRS said it is producing a total of 67,000 emails to and from Lerner, covering the period from 2009 to 2013.

The IRS inspector general is investigating the lost emails, Koskinen said.

Where is Obama in all of this? Why isn't he giving the IRS shit for A) Targeting conservative groups and B) For breaking the law?

I guess he doesn't want to give them shit for fear they might stop keeping his secret :O

[Latrinsorm]

I am sick and tired of the National Archives and Records Administration bullying the rest of the government. What ever happened to checks and balances? But I guess the sheeple today are perfectly happy with a NARAtocracy. Why, most of them won't even admit they know what it is.

[Tenlaar]

I am just pointing out how fucking stupid leftists are. 99.9% of the shit that comes out of Obama's mouth is taken is holy doctrine to those people.

Come on now. Really. Even you have to realize how ridiculous statements like this are and how brain-damagedly biased it makes you seem.

[Wrathbringer]

IRS broke the law by not reporting the lost emails back in 2011, when it supposedly lost the emails. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/24/archivist-irs-didnt-follow-law-with-lost-emails/20919269/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D492901)

Where is Obama in all of this? Why isn't he giving the IRS shit for A) Targeting conservative groups and B) For breaking the law?

I guess he doesn't want to give them shit for fear they might stop keeping his secret :O

Obama just issued a statement about this.

"Uhhhh let uh me uh be uh clear uh: aaaaand uh, this uh is uh someone uh else uh 's uh fault uhhh aaand." -Obama

[Dwaar]

Obama just issued a statement about this.

"Uhhhh let uh me uh be uh clear uh: aaaaand uh, this uh is uh someone uh else uh 's uh fault uhhh aaand." -Obama

You mean... what you talking about? Oh that? Hmm, well I haven't watched the 6 o'clock news yet, so I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Just joking. Sort of :)

[Ashliana]

Using your logic.. there is no biased news reporting because they wouldn't want to sway public opinion.. they only report the news!

Let's make it easier for you to understand how this could work. I'm going to be using fake numbers.. and simple numbers.. to aid in this illustration.

In 2008, all Republicans told 100 lies and all Democrats told 100 lies.

Politifact decided to write about 80 Republican lies and 10 Democrat lies.

Do you believe that this could happen.. or do you honestly believe that Republicans tell many more lies than Democrats?

Again, you were challenged to provide evidence for your selection of option B or C. You've jumped straight to them, not based on any evidence, but on your arbitrary and predetermined conclusion that Republicans can't possibly lie more than Democrats. It's certainly possible that Politifact, and the numerous other fact-checkers, could just determine to selectively report more Republican statements. What, however, is your basis for concluding that they've done so?

You claim bias. You claim they're a "tool of the left." Except they've received acclaim throughout the world of journalism, including its top prize. Your response? Oh, it must be a systematic conspiracy of colluding liberalism--a further, expanded charge you again have not provided a rational basis for. Your explanation of Politifact, for example, picking one of Obama's statement as the "Lie of the Year"? Oh, no particular reason. It must just be cover, to trick those teetering at the edge of believing in your conspiracy theory.

What's another explanation?

Could it be the frenzied political impact of the hyper-right Tea Party, combined with insular, conservative-friendly media platforms that don't call out its own allies on bullshit, and a general media increasingly paranoid of calling out politicians when they're demonstrably, factually incorrect out of fear of being branded--like you're simultaneously doing--as "biased"? No, of course not.


You are right.. you never said that "only" Republicans lie.. just that they lie far more frequently.. and you back this up because a website told you so. And you can trust that website because it won an award that is overwhelmingly won by liberal newspapers!

One of us has a rational basis for their claims. The person referring to an industry-acclaimed website that's called out people across the spectrum. Versus what? Oh, yes. Your ambiguous charges of bias, and your known, repeated belief in conspiracy theories. Ooh! How compelling! Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

[Elantari]

Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

I'm old-school. And yes, PB has always exhibited massive levels of stupidity and cognitive dissonance. Take it from an an old-timer like me. It's the truth. He has always been a fucking retard.

[Methais]

Intermission!


http://youtu.be/-YIdAFYAsWE

[Back]

Intermission!


http://youtu.be/-YIdAFYAsWE

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/yawn+.+Do+what+your+mind+tells+you+to+do_a7aa07_48 67579.gif

[Tgo01]

Mr. Boddy isn't black!

[Jarvan]

Again, you were challenged to provide evidence for your selection of option B or C. You've jumped straight to them, not based on any evidence, but on your arbitrary and predetermined conclusion that Republicans can't possibly lie more than Democrats. It's certainly possible that Politifact, and the numerous other fact-checkers, could just determine to selectively report more Republican statements. What, however, is your basis for concluding that they've done so?

You claim bias. You claim they're a "tool of the left." Except they've received acclaim throughout the world of journalism, including its top prize. Your response? Oh, it must be a systematic conspiracy of colluding liberalism--a further, expanded charge you again have not provided a rational basis for. Your explanation of Politifact, for example, picking one of Obama's statement as the "Lie of the Year"? Oh, no particular reason. It must just be cover, to trick those teetering at the edge of believing in your conspiracy theory.

What's another explanation?

Could it be the frenzied political impact of the hyper-right Tea Party, combined with insular, conservative-friendly media platforms that don't call out its own allies on bullshit, and a general media increasingly paranoid of calling out politicians when they're demonstrably, factually incorrect out of fear of being branded--like you're simultaneously doing--as "biased"? No, of course not.



One of us has a rational basis for their claims. The person referring to an industry-acclaimed website that's called out people across the spectrum. Versus what? Oh, yes. Your ambiguous charges of bias, and your known, repeated belief in conspiracy theories. Ooh! How compelling! Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

You have 100% unbiased proof that Republicans lie more often then Dems? What Proof exactly is this btw? A news paper?

Basically it's just your biased belief that Repubs lie more because.. OMG who would have thought... you hate Republicans.

Also.. yes.. most papers report more on the lies of the "right" then the left because.. surprised... they are biased, EVERYONE is biased.

Then again.. no real reason to even acknowledge your posts.. you are so far left and biased it isn't even funny.

[Thondalar]

If you ... GAHHAHAHAH... I swear... never mind. You're right... facts don't matter, this is all just political theater. Nothing at all happened, you are right. We should just go on our way.

You people created this.

I get it, Dwaar. I really do. You're relatively new here, but...you've committed the cardinal sin...

You've attempted to bring logic into the politics thread.

We've all done it at times, in different measures...myself, Methais, Ninjas, WB, PB, Back (I think, maybe once...ok I'm just throwing him a bone here, trying to be a good citizen), hell, even Latrin, in his eternally Contrarian (even to himself, sometimes!) way...

At some point, during the course of this here forums...we've all been right. Some, more than others. At other times, we may have been wrong...(notice Ashliana is not in the aforementioned group above, because that chick/dude is just batshit crazy) but we've come to the beliefs we have because we're intelligent individuals who do independent research...we don't just sit back and listen to talking heads tell us what we should believe. Well, except for Back....aaand possibly PB.

But one thing you CANNOT...absolutely CANNOT do on this here politiks thread of this here forums....is try to unpoliticize things. There must be a right and a wrong, and in order for there to be a right and a wrong there must be an R or a D attached so that we can pontificate on the ramifications of the R and D right or wrong. It's simple, really...one side is right and one is wrong. In every scenario. Going back to AT LEAST Watergate, and possibly the Wigs...you cannot say a person (or persons) did or said something wrong in federal government without an R or a D attached so that one side or the other can either cover up/apologize/make excuses/accuse/lambast/roast.

We have progressed well beyond the age of simple black and white...where things were either right or wrong. We've advanced into an age where nobody is really sure what is right or wrong...calling someone out because they fucked up is no longer an option. It has to be qualified through the vetting process of public opinion, filtered through lenses where Harry Reid can talk about Obama's "negro dialect" and it's not racist, but an old white guy telling his black girlfriend not to bring her black friends to his press box is...where there has not been a single year Obama's been in office that we haven't been at war, but the campers on Bush's lawn have somehow disappeared...where conservatives want to protect every right except the right to be free...

We've lost sight of the principles. We've lost sight of right and wrong. It's such a mishmash now...and this is a perfect example. We can't say anyone in government fucked up without it being an R or D thing.

This is the bed we've made.

Sleep, bitches.

[Androidpk]

I continue to maintain that both sides are wrong. Fuck party politics.

[Parkbandit]

Again, you were challenged to provide evidence for your selection of option B or C. You've jumped straight to them, not based on any evidence, but on your arbitrary and predetermined conclusion that Republicans can't possibly lie more than Democrats. It's certainly possible that Politifact, and the numerous other fact-checkers, could just determine to selectively report more Republican statements. What, however, is your basis for concluding that they've done so?

So, you are sticking by your claim that Republicans lie far more than Democrats?

Hilarious.


You claim bias. You claim they're a "tool of the left." Except they've received acclaim throughout the world of journalism, including its top prize. Your response? Oh, it must be a systematic conspiracy of colluding liberalism--a further, expanded charge you again have not provided a rational basis for. Your explanation of Politifact, for example, picking one of Obama's statement as the "Lie of the Year"? Oh, no particular reason. It must just be cover, to trick those teetering at the edge of believing in your conspiracy theory.

So, because Politifact stated that Obama "You can keep your insurance" is the lie of the year, that is your proof that they are indeed unbiased?

Hilarious x2


What's another explanation?

I've already given you another explanation... like most news organizations, there is an inherent political slant to their reporting. Left or right, they craft the news that fits their narrative. Here, let me give you an example that you can relate to: When a positive jobs report comes out, Fox News will look for any bad news and dwell on that, and barely cover the x number of jobs created. It happens all the time.. in every news organization.

Well, except at Politifact.. because it has the word "fact" in it, so obviously it's true and honest. And they have a liberal award to prove it.


Could it be the frenzied political impact of the hyper-right Tea Party, combined with insular, conservative-friendly media platforms that don't call out its own allies on bullshit, and a general media increasingly paranoid of calling out politicians when they're demonstrably, factually incorrect out of fear of being branded--like you're simultaneously doing--as "biased"? No, of course not.

Italics, bolding... the only thing we're missing is underlines to show you are REALLY seriously upset.


One of us has a rational basis for their claims.

Thank you for admitting this. It takes a big "man" to finally realize "he's" been "outted".


The person referring to an industry-acclaimed website that's called out people across the spectrum. Versus what? Oh, yes. Your ambiguous charges of bias, and your known, repeated belief in conspiracy theories. Ooh! How compelling! Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.

But remember.. Republicans lie more than Democrats. It says so on this website so it has to be true.

[Ashliana]

Nice job, PB. You once again wrote a bunch of words, and provided, yet again, zero rational basis for your argument other than "Uhhh, uhhh, while you have an industry-leading source, I have an unsupported conspiracy theory! That means you lose!"

About what I expected--your brain can't wrap itself around the fact that one party (the one you support) lies and relies on deliberate misinformation more than another. Surely, they must lie equally, or probably those evil Democrats more--regardless of what the reality actually is.

[Dwaar]

Thondalar,
Appreciate you taking the time to write what you did. I fully appreciate peoples political beliefs and who they wish to vote for; but we should all be able to just accept facts for facts, and want the truth from all of our Politicians, whatever their party.

Guess it will be what it will be though. In the meantime the Politicians can keep us divided with political rhetoric, while they continue to live a nice, comfortable lifestyle at all of our expense.

[Parkbandit]

Nice job, PB. You once again wrote a bunch of words, and provided, yet again, zero rational basis for your argument other than "Uhhh, uhhh, while you have an industry-leading source, I have an unsupported conspiracy theory! That means you lose!"

About what I expected--your brain can't wrap itself around the fact that one party (the one you support) lies and relies on deliberate misinformation more than another. Surely, they must lie equally, or probably those evil Democrats more--regardless of what the reality actually is.

You are the one that honestly believes that Republicans lie more than Democrats... and as "proof" you have Politifact... a website run by a left wing newspaper.

What's it like to be naive as a rainbow?

[Ashliana]

You are the one that honestly believes that Republicans lie more than Democrats... and as "proof" you have Politifact... a website run by a left wing newspaper.

What's it like to be naive as a rainbow?

Congratulations. You can post the same thing repeatedly, so I'll do the same: One of us has a rational basis for their position (Spoiler Alert: It isn't you). The other has a completely unsupported conspiracy theory (I'll have to spell it out for you: That'd be you).

Ultimately, it's pointless to "argue" with you, as evidence itself is irrelevant to you--a prime example being your gleeful embrace of the hard anti-intellectual right's rejection of climate science. You've proved yourself uninterested in reality, time and time again.

[Parkbandit]

Congratulations. You can post the same thing repeatedly, so I'll do the same: One of us has a rational basis for their position (Spoiler Alert: It isn't you). The other has a completely unsupported conspiracy theory (I'll have to spell it out for you: That'd be you).

Ultimately, it's pointless to "argue" with you, as evidence itself is irrelevant to you--a prime example being your gleeful embrace of the hard anti-intellectual right's rejection of climate science. You've proved yourself uninterested in reality, time and time again.

Irony... especially given your propensity to pretend to be someone else on the Internet because your reality is a cold hearted, mean bitch.

[Tgo01]

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/Democrats-liars-Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Party-of-asses.html

That website says Democrats lie more.

I'm so confused now, which site do I believe? :(

[Ashliana]

Irony... especially given your propensity to pretend to be someone else on the Internet because your reality is a cold hearted, mean bitch.

And we return, once again, to your well-known love of substance-free conspiracy theories. How many people on the forum have you accused me of being at this point? I know it hurts, PB, but alas, this is my one and only account since I gave you that Christmas present six years ago. You, on the other hand, continue to reject reality as it is, regardless of what science, regardless of what journalists tell you. They're all biased. They're all out to get poor little conservative you.

[Parkbandit]

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/Democrats-liars-Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Party-of-asses.html

That website says Democrats lie more.

I'm so confused now, which site do I believe? :(

Who has the most liberal awards? Obviously that one.

[Parkbandit]

And we return, once again, to your well-known love of substance-free conspiracy theories. How many people on the forum have you accused me of being at this point? I know it hurts, PB, but alas, this is my one and only account since I gave you that Christmas present six years ago. You, on the other hand, continue to reject reality as it is, regardless of what science, regardless of what journalists tell you. They're all biased. They're all out to get poor little conservative you.

Being biased is a trait of being a human... and until the news is written by robots, I'll continue to believe that most journalists are writing from a perspective of their personal feelings on the matter.

How is it you believe that Fox News is obviously biased.. but can't come to the realization that an 'award-winning' newspaper (that has not endorsed a single Republican for office by the way) would ever be politically biased. You should really look up Nelson Poynter, who made the Times what it is today. It pretty much blows your notion of it being an unbiased newspaper out of the water.

[Methais]

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/Democrats-liars-Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Party-of-asses.html

That website says Democrats lie more.

I'm so confused now, which site do I believe? :(

Believe what's posted on the PC and only on the PC.

If there are conflicting sides being posted, believe whichever side has more posts.

[Methais]

Congratulations. You can post the same thing repeatedly, so I'll do the same: One of us has a rational basis for their position (Spoiler Alert: It isn't you). The other has a completely unsupported conspiracy theory (I'll have to spell it out for you: That'd be you).

Ultimately, it's pointless to "argue" with you, as evidence itself is irrelevant to you--a prime example being your gleeful embrace of the hard anti-intellectual right's rejection of climate science. You've proved yourself uninterested in reality, time and time again.

Are you a brony in your spare time? Just curious.

[Parkbandit]

Are you a brony in your spare time? Just curious.

Is that another word for being a packer?

If so, that's hurtful.

[Warriorbird]

Being biased is a trait of being a human... and until the news is written by robots, I'll continue to believe that most journalists are writing from a perspective of their personal feelings on the matter.

How is it you believe that Fox News is obviously biased.. but can't come to the realization that an 'award-winning' newspaper (that has not endorsed a single Republican for office by the way) would ever be politically biased. You should really look up Nelson Poynter, who made the Times what it is today. It pretty much blows your notion of it being an unbiased newspaper out of the water.

More Republican statements were checked than Democrat, but there's only a 3% difference total.

[Parkbandit]

More Republican statements were checked than Democrat, but there's only a 3% difference total.

Go back to 2007/2008 when the election was going on. I'm sure there is a link on here when we were discussing it back then. To be honest, I haven't been on that site since then and the only reason I went there was to illustrate how gullible and naive some people here are.

Some people will swallow anything that's put in front of them.. as long as they believe or want to believe it.

And no, that wasn't a reference to a packer, so get your mind out of the gutter.

[Warriorbird]

Go back to 2007/2008 when the election was going on. I'm sure there is a link on here when we were discussing it back then. To be honest, I haven't been on that site since then and the only reason I went there was to illustrate how gullible and naive some people here are.

Some people will swallow anything that's put in front of them.. as long as they believe or want to believe it.

And no, that wasn't a reference to a packer, so get your mind out of the gutter.

In your defense 2007 is their worst year for balance. They checked 10% more Republican statements than Democrat which is a solid indicator of bias even if the totals were only 2% wider apart.

[Parkbandit]

In your defense 2007 is their worst year for balance. They checked 10% more Republican statements than Democrat which is a solid indicator of bias even if the totals were only 2% wider apart.

Where are you getting this information from? I'm at work right now, but does the site go back to 2007 still? Because it certainly didn't appear at the time that there was a 2% difference at the time.

[Warriorbird]

Where are you getting this information from? I'm at work right now, but does the site go back to 2007 still? Because it certainly didn't appear at the time that there was a 2% difference at the time.

What I just read said that they checked 10% more Republican statements and there was a 5% difference in Democrat v Republicans in correct versus incorrect. What it doesn't include is the level politicians were checked at. It may have seemed much worse because they graded more Republican candidates than Democratic candidates at the Presidential level. I can't find that data. Either way 2007 at least shows some signs of bias. It seems like post 2007/2008 they've been more even about things. I like doing my own fact checking for serious stuff, personally.

EDIT:

Ha, wow. They actually got worse between 2009-2011. There was between 30% and 90% left leaning bias. The straightening out has only come between late 2012 and 2013. It's probably what you perceived.

Not exactly a bastion of truthiness. It's funny that Maddow went after them when they were presumably getting better, but that's the sort of thing you expect out of MSNBC/Fox.

[AnticorRifling]

Are we still talking about tapes as a viable backup solution?

[Warriorbird]

Are we still talking about tapes as a viable backup solution?

I think you cut that off pretty effectively.

[Jarvan]

Are we still talking about tapes as a viable backup solution?

We stopped talking about backing up emails when some people on here basically denied that anything happened at all, and that it is perfectly possible for 7 unconnected hard drives to all crash 10 days after an investigation starts that involves them.

Oh.. and that only the emails to each other, and outside sources disappear off the hard drives... which is not the only place emails are kept.. but whatever, nothing to see here.. move on.

[Methais]

I just think you should all know.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10386749_10152190605874013_2544991822758019389_n.j pg

[Tgo01]

Some sick bastard out there actually wants their pork rectums to not be inverted?

What has this world come to?

[Androidpk]

Some sick bastard out there actually wants their pork rectums to not be inverted?

What has this world come to?

Are you saying you like pink socks?

[Parkbandit]

Ha, wow. They actually got worse between 2009-2011. There was between 30% and 90% left leaning bias. The straightening out has only come between late 2012 and 2013. It's probably what you perceived.

Not exactly a bastion of truthiness. It's funny that Maddow went after them when they were presumably getting better, but that's the sort of thing you expect out of MSNBC/Fox.

But they won an award! I bet you got this info from Faux Newz.

[Sorcasaurus]

This is all I can think of whenever I see this thread on the activity stream.

http://images.colourbox.com/thumb_COLOURBOX4750649.jpg


EDIT: I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but I don't want to go back and read all 15+ pages. I can feel the political argument building just mousing over the page links.

[Warriorbird]

But they won an award! I bet you got this info from Faux Newz.

No, though the second part is from an evil conservative newspaper called the Wall Street Journal.

[Parkbandit]

No, though the second part is from an evil conservative newspaper called the Wall Street Journal.

Then there is your answer. Conservative rags like that are obviously biased.. but NOT the Tampa Times! They are above such pettiness.

Did I mention the Tampa Times won a Pulitzer Prize?

[Warriorbird]

Then there is your answer. Conservative rags like that are obviously biased.. but NOT the Tampa Times! They are above such pettiness.

Did I mention the Tampa Times won a Pulitzer Prize?

11 of them, which is kind of insane.

[Gelston]

Then there is your answer. Conservative rags like that are obviously biased.. but NOT the Tampa Times! They are above such pettiness.

Did I mention the Tampa Times won a Pulitzer Prize?

Obama won a Nobel.

[Tgo01]

I didn't want to make a new thread for this so I'll post it here.

Obama suffers from a foot condition known as "pedem in ore" disease. (http://www.lifescript.com/health/centers/pain/articles/whats_causing_the_presidents_foot_pain.aspx?utm_so urce=aol&utm_medium=syn&utm_campaign=health&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl18|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D493049)

[Gelston]

I didn't want to make a new thread for this so I'll post it here.

Obama suffers from a foot condition known as "pedem in ore" disease. (http://www.lifescript.com/health/centers/pain/articles/whats_causing_the_presidents_foot_pain.aspx?utm_so urce=aol&utm_medium=syn&utm_campaign=health&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl18|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D493049)

Oh my, all the pain this man must endure to lead our country into greater horizons. He is a living martyr, truly.

[Tgo01]

Oh my, all the pain this man must endure to lead our country into greater horizons. He is a living martyr, truly.

The economy has already shrank by almost 3%, imagine if Obama's stops playing golf; it could contract another 3%!

[Methais]

Oh my, all the pain this man must endure to lead our country into greater horizons. He is a living martyr, truly.

It must be from all those high impact step-whatever exercises he does with those 5 pound dumbbells.

Wait...are those things even 5 pounds?

[Gelston]

It must be from all those high impact step-whatever exercises he does with those 5 pound dumbbells.

Wait...are those things even 5 pounds?

Hey pal, you forget about the weight of the entire world that he carries on his shoulders.

[Parkbandit]

11 of them, which is kind of insane.

One thing liberals love.. is to award liberals for spreading the word.

[Wrathbringer]

It must be from all those high impact step-whatever exercises he does with those 5 pound dumbbells.

Wait...are those things even 5 pounds?

I doubt it. Nobody steps holding their entire body weight in dumbbells.

[Dwaar]

I doubt it. Nobody steps holding their entire body weight in dumbbells.

? Easy... two 85lb dumbbells. Get to moving.

[Tgo01]

Lerner wanted to audit a US Republican Senator. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/25/emails-reveal-irs-official-lois-lerner-audit-gop-senator-Charles-Grassley/20920180/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D493534)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional investigators say they uncovered emails Wednesday showing that a former Internal Revenue Service official at the heart of the tea party investigation sought an audit involving a Republican senator in 2012.

The emails show former IRS official Lois Lerner mistakenly received an invitation to an event that was meant to go to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The event organizer apparently offered to pay for Grassley's wife to attend the event. In an email to another IRS official, Lerner suggests referring the matter for an audit, saying it might be inappropriate for the group to pay for his wife.

"Perhaps we should refer to exam?" Lerner wrote.

It was unclear from the emails whether Lerner was suggesting that Grassley or the group be audited - or both.

The other IRS official, Matthew Giuliano, waved her off, saying an audit would be premature because Grassley hadn't even accepted the invitation.

"It would be Grassley who would need to report the income," Giuliano said.

The name of the event organizer was blacked out on copies of the emails released by the House Ways and Means Committee because they were considered confidential taxpayer information. Grassley and his wife signed waivers allowing their names to be released.

In a statement, Grassley's office said the senator did not attend the event, and did not receive any invitation intended for Lerner.

"This kind of thing fuels the deep concerns many people have about political targeting by the IRS and by officials at the highest levels," Grassley said. "It's very troubling that a simple clerical mix-up could get a taxpayer immediately referred for an IRS exam without any due diligence from agency officials."

The IRS says it has lost an untold numbers of Lerner's emails because her computer crashed in 2011, sparking outrage among Republican lawmakers who have accused the tax agency of a cover-up. The emails released Wednesday were among the thousands that have been turned over to congressional investigators.

"We have seen a lot of unbelievable things in this investigation, but the fact that Lois Lerner attempted to initiate an apparently baseless IRS examination against a sitting Republican United States senator is shocking," Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said. "At every turn, Lerner was using the IRS as a tool for political purposes in defiance of taxpayer rights."

Lerner headed the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. The IRS has acknowledged that agents improperly scrutinized applications by tea party and other conservative groups before the 2010 and 2012 elections. Documents show that some liberal groups were singled out, too.

Grassley had been an outspoken critic of the way the IRS policed tax-exempt groups even before the tea party controversy erupted last year.

In one email, Lerner indicates that she won't attend the event.

"Don't think I want to be on the stage with Grassley on this issue," she wrote.

Ways and Means is one of three congressional committees investigating the way the IRS processed applications for tax-exempt status. The Justice Department is also investigating.

Also Wednesday, a group of Republican senators - including Grassley - said they want to expand a Senate investigation to look more closely at how the agency lost the emails.

Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee said they want know why the Treasury Department and the White House were told about the lost emails more than a month before Congress was told. They have asked committee chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to schedule a hearing with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

Wyden's office was noncommittal Wednesday, saying he hadn't seen the request.

The Republicans, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, are also asking the Treasury and Justice departments, and the Federal Election Commission, to turn over any emails they might have from Lerner.

"The IRS' failure to inform the committee months or even weeks ago about the missing emails raises serious questions about its commitment to cooperate with this investigation," the letter said.

In testimony before a House panel this week, Koskinen said the IRS waited to tell Congress until officials knew the full extent of the email loss.

Koskinen said the Treasury Department has agreed to turn over emails it has from Lerner. The White House said last week it has found no emails between anyone in the executive office of the president and Lerner.

At the time of Lerner's computer crash in June 2011 the IRS had a policy of backing up emails on computer tapes, but the tapes were recycled every six months, Koskinen said. He said Lerner's hard drive was recycled and presumably destroyed.

The IRS was able to generate 24,000 Lerner emails from the 2009 to 2011 period because she had copied in other IRS employees. Overall, the IRS said it was producing a total of 67,000 emails to and from Lerner, covering the period from 2009 to 2013.

Nope. No cover up going on here.

[Methais]

Lerner wanted to audit a US Republican Senator. (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/06/25/emails-reveal-irs-official-lois-lerner-audit-gop-senator-Charles-Grassley/20920180/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D493534)



Nope. No cover up going on here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

[Wrathbringer]

? Easy... two 85lb dumbbells. Get to moving.

I was making a 10 lb weakling joke. I failed.

[Dwaar]

I was making a 10 lb weakling joke. I failed.

You're calling our President weak?? You must be a racist!

I'm catching on how these threads are supposed to work.

[Wrathbringer]

You're calling our President weak?? You must be a racist!

I'm catching on how these threads are supposed to work.

I think methais said it best: "If you're not trolling these forums, you're doing it wrong."

[Jarvan]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/lois-lerner-irs-lawyer-email-108722.html


"“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails — so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails,” she wrote to Maria Hooke, the director of business systems planning for the tax-exempt division. “Someone asked if OCS conversations were also searchable — I don’t know. … Do you know?”

And people think this fugly bitch was not trying to conceal stuff.

I mean seriously.. why the fuck should the IRS allow congress of all people to look at things they say?