Thread: IRS Scandal

Page 24 of 44 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
26
34
... LastLast
  1. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right this is exactly what you're doing.
    there we go again trying to argue against a argument i never even attempted to make read it again "Obama should shoulder some responsibility for what went on caused by his Chicago style tactics" is the speculation i made. how in the hell do you twist that around to make it that i accused Obama of a crime. look that thread was locked and im not going to continue to discuss a locked thread, i do believe that is against forum rules so if you have nothing new to add on this thread topic im done with you

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-24 at 11:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mvallas View Post
    Speaking as a resident in the Western Burbs of Chicago - I have to say I'm getting REALLY sick of hearing you constantly say something so monumentally stupid and ignorant like "Chicago tactics" as if it was some given insult.

    If you disagree with his stances and how he does things - that's understandable. But don't sit here and try to belittle the name of our city as if we're somehow taken that we're sort of crime syndicate. It's really a jackass thing to do and is completely untrue...

    We understand you hate Obama and are fearful that he's doing a great job. We get it... but don't convert everything he's related to into some sort of vile conspiracy.
    Chicago-style politics is a byword used to designate a set of characteristics associated to the less commendable aspects of the recent political history of the American city of Chicago, Illinois, (i.e., corruption, patronage, nepotism, authoritarianism) which is often cited as an example of blatant corruption.[1]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics i guess you need to write a letter to wikipedia and voice your outrage

  2. #462
    Why are we arguing 'if' they targeted conservatives when the IRS has specifically stated that they did indeed wrongfully target them?

    As for Chicago tactics, or "The Chicago Way", it's term used to describe a method of dealing with political opponents, oppositions, or those that fail in their duties. To put it in one sentence: "You get rid of them."

  3. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban View Post
    Why are we arguing 'if' they targeted conservatives when the IRS has specifically stated that they did indeed wrongfully target them?

    As for Chicago tactics, or "The Chicago Way", it's term used to describe a method of dealing with political opponents, oppositions, or those that fail in their duties. To put it in one sentence: "You get rid of them."
    because believe it or not we still have these scandal deniers that believe nothing was done was wrong im not going to name names but it is pretty obvious who they are, they are the new birthers

  4. #464
    The Lightbringer Payday's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    [Red State], USA
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    Its not my opinion but proven with facts and case study you cant make an opening statement and then plead the 5th.
    Where was this proven? I thought we already established that speculation isn't proof. Did you see what FoxNews had to say yesterday about your "proven" 5th amendment waiving? Read the whole article for context, it's short.

    Did Lois Lerner, embattled head of the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations office, waive her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination in her brief appearance before the House Oversight Committee? I hate to say it, but… it’s just not clear.

    ...But would a court enforce the waiver rules as strictly in a congressional hearing as in a criminal case? Probably not. There seems to be no case law directly bearing on this type of congressional hearing. Keep in mind that Lerner was not testifying in a criminal trial where the government has the greatest interest in obtaining evidence about wrongdoing. Rather, she was in front of a congressional body conducting a legislative inquiry as part of its oversight authority.
    This seems contrary to what you posted. Since it's not your opinion but proven fact, with case study, surely you could provide it?

  5. #465
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    because believe it or not we still have these scandal deniers that believe nothing was done was wrong im not going to name names but it is pretty obvious who they are, they are the new birthers
    Yeah, we're "birthers" because we don't subscribe to your speculation, whereas the birthers were founded in speculation.

    Keep up with false equivalencies.

  6. #466
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    because believe it or not we still have these scandal deniers that believe nothing was done was wrong im not going to name names but it is pretty obvious who they are, they are the new birthers
    and we also have people making a bigger deal out of things just because Obama is president. Benghazi was not the first embassy that was attacked either, should we bring President Bush back in for questioning on the TWELVE embassies attacked during his administration? and yes, you are the new birthers.
    Last edited by zhero; 2013-05-24 at 04:18 PM.

  7. #467
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Yeah, we're "birthers" because we don't subscribe to your speculation, whereas the birthers were founded in speculation.

    Keep up with false equivalencies.
    In all fairness, in this particular instance, he was referring to you as a Birther, for denying the fact that the IRS did indeed target conservatives.

    and we also have people making a bigger deal out of things just because Obama is president. Benghazi was not the first embassy that was attacked either, should we bring President Bush back in for questioning on the TWELVE embassies attacked during his administration.
    This is not that. They're questioning those in the state department due to their lack of response. They have not questioned Obama.

  8. #468
    The Lightbringer Payday's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    [Red State], USA
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by zhero View Post
    and we also have people making a bigger deal out of things just because Obama is president. Benghazi was not the first embassy that was attacked either, should we bring President Bush back in for questioning on the TWELVE embassies attacked during his administration.
    It also wasn't even an embassy, it was a consulate.

  9. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban View Post
    In all fairness, in this particular instance, he was referring to you as a Birther, for denying the fact that the IRS did indeed target conservatives.
    The term "target" is misleading, considering 25% were such. This is why I don't subscribe to the term "target", because if they were truly targeted, they would have at least been in the majority.

  10. #470
    Quote Originally Posted by Payday View Post
    It also wasn't even an embassy, it was a consulate.
    I think that's really a non factor, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    The term "target" is misleading, considering 25% were such. This is why I don't subscribe to the term "target", because if they were truly targeted, they would have at least been in the majority.
    I'm not sure what to say here, other then repeating "this is their self admitted guilt". They said they targeted conservative groups. They apologized for it. Now it's being investigated.

  11. #471
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    The term "target" is misleading, considering 25% were such
    This is a liberal meme desperately being peddled in the standard places such as KOS, DU, HuffPo, and MSNBC. Conservative groups were specifically targeted. This is not being denied by the IRS, the Justice Department, or even by Barak Obama himself. And yet there are still people trying to come up with some form of excuse for it. That's why it comes across as Birther-ism tinfoil hat conspiracy style Bhagdad-Bob speak.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...inion_newsreel

    The targeting began in 2008, and kept going. It isn't misleading. The IRS targeted conservative groups. Period.

  12. #472
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,987
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban View Post
    I think that's really a non factor, isn't it?
    No. One is considered sovereign US soil, the other is not. Sending the military into one would be an act of war, the other would not.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  13. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    This is a liberal meme desperately being peddled in the standard places such as KOS, DU, HuffPo, and MSNBC. Conservative groups were specifically targeted.
    Is that why they were 25%? Because they were so oppressively targeted?

    Fucking please.

    ---------- Post added 2013-05-24 at 11:27 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban View Post
    They said they targeted conservative groups. They apologized for it. Now it's being investigated.
    Yeah, but why are we dwelling on the 25%? That's why this is a "scandal".

  14. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    No. One is considered sovereign US soil, the other is not. Sending the military into one would be an act of war, the other would not.
    Well, not my place to decide one way or the other. Yet another investigation, that hopefully at the minimum will put together better security and response measures.

    Edit to respond to Ruken:
    Yeah, but why are we dwelling on the 25%? That's why this is a "scandal".
    I think your wrong here. It's not the # that makes it a scandal. I hate making comparative scenarios, because usually it just ends up flipping on its head. Regardless I'll give it a shot now by providing several examples. (and I'll probably regret it later.)

    Lets say the IRS target 1 democrat, just because he was a democrat? That would be wrong, would it not?
    Lets break it out into other territory.
    The IRS targeting 1 person, because of their religion?
    The IRS targeting 1 person, because of their skin tone or ethnic origins?

    All these scenario's are deeply wrong, because the IRS should be agnostic to any of these criteria.
    Last edited by GreatSageCorban; 2013-05-24 at 04:35 PM.

  15. #475
    The Lightbringer Payday's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    [Red State], USA
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban View Post
    Well, not my place to decide one way or the other. Yet another investigation, that hopefully at the minimum will put together better security and response measures.
    You do see the difference though, right? No investigation needed there.
    Last edited by Payday; 2013-05-24 at 04:35 PM.

  16. #476
    Quote Originally Posted by Payday View Post
    You do see the difference though, right? No investigation needed there.
    There should be an investigation. What went wrong, where did we fail, who's responsible, why did they make these decisions, how can we improve. All of these start from investigation. If their really is any criminal or morally wrong actions conducted by officials during the attack, that may also come out as well.

    Regardless if you think if their was something wrong was done or not, an investigation could still lead to preventing future events such as what happened at Benghazi.

  17. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban View Post
    All these scenario's are deeply wrong, because the IRS should be agnostic to any of these criteria.
    inb4 claims of false equivalency followed by more hand waiving.

    You're wasting your breath. People who don't have a problem with the IRS doing this will never be convinced otherwise.

  18. #478
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,987
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban View Post
    There should be an investigation. What went wrong, where did we fail, who's responsible, why did they make these decisions, how can we improve. All of these start from investigation. If their really is any criminal or morally wrong actions conducted by officials during the attack, that may also come out as well.

    Regardless if you think if their was something wrong was done or not, an investigation could still lead to preventing future events such as what happened at Benghazi.
    I 100% agree. However the longer we spend chanting "Hillary is at fault" and beating the war drums the less likely it is that such an investigation will get any attention.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  19. #479
    The Lightbringer Payday's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    [Red State], USA
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban View Post
    There should be an investigation. What went wrong, where did we fail, who's responsible, why did they make these decisions, how can we improve. All of these start from investigation. If their really is any criminal or morally wrong actions conducted by officials during the attack, that may also come out as well.

    Regardless if you think if their was something wrong was done or not, an investigation could still lead to preventing future events such as what happened at Benghazi.
    All of that has been done. Multiple investigations, 12 congressional hearings on it. They came up with zip. zilch. This is why we are talking about something else now. I bet all the loonies that said "The O Administration released the IRS story to take the heat off Benghazi" are feeling like real winners right now.

    Anyways..

  20. #480
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    very little liberal groups receive extra scrutiny, they received their status as early as 9 months while conservative group none was approved in 27 months. there was no liberal buzz words used in that so called BOLO list only conservative buzz words were used

    I'm getting tired of repeating the same facts over and over again and im getting tired of scandal deniers ignoring the facts because they crush their false narative
    No they have not, that is not what it says in the IG report. All organizations that had certain keywords in their names were scrutinized, including liberal groups. The IRS was investigating as many organizations as it could with the manpower they had.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •