Confirmed Again: IRS Targeting of Conservatives Came From the Top in Washington

[Cuyo]

Waiting for the smoking gun. 98% of America does not care without that.

98% of America does not care if the IRS was used by an Administration in power to hamstring it's opposition? You keep right on telling yourself that, Jake.

No, Jake's correct. People in real life don't give a shit about this, if they're aware of it at all.

 

[Oldstyle]

Don't know (see also, "care"). The story lacks an underlying offense. "Targeting" terms that have shown a trend of abuse is no more a scandal then a speed trap "Targeting" an area that have had a lot of accidents.

It's about abridging the 1st Amendment right to free speech...Something you lolberals shit your pants about, when anyone with an (R) next to their name is so much as obliquely accused of.

Whether or not these (ahem) 'entities' ought to qualify for tax exempt status is a broader issue and not what's being debated here.

Fact is, as of now they don't. I see nothing wrong with a metric that has helped identify them faster.

buuuut as I've freely admitted, if I was a teatard I would probably be annoyed, too. That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

The IRS certainly DID do something wrong, Cuyo! You can't have two sets of rules for people in this country based on their political viewpoint. That's wrong no matter WHO does it...liberal or conservative! If you can't understand that...then I don't know what to say to you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Waiting for the smoking gun. 98% of America does not care without that.

98% of America does not care if the IRS was used by an Administration in power to hamstring it's opposition? You keep right on telling yourself that, Jake.

No, Jake's correct. People in real life don't give a shit about this, if they're aware of it at all.

You're both totally wrong, Cuyo. Anyone with half a brain understands how dangerous this kind of behavior is. It goes to the very foundations of our political system.

 

[Oldstyle]

Both of you shouldn't want this sort of thing going on not because it happened to conservative groups...but because it could happen to liberal groups as well. It's wrong. Really...really...wrong!

 

[Defiant1]

Is the top where the buck stops?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oldstyle's concern is correct, but 98% of America does not care without the smoking gun.

 

[Oddball]

Don't know (see also, "care"). The story lacks an underlying offense. "Targeting" terms that have shown a trend of abuse is no more a scandal then a speed trap "Targeting" an area that have had a lot of accidents.

It's about abridging the 1st Amendment right to free speech...Something you lolberals shit your pants about, when anyone with an (R) next to their name is so much as obliquely accused of.

Whether or not these (ahem) 'entities' ought to qualify for tax exempt status is a broader issue and not what's being debated here.

Fact is, as of now they don't. I see nothing wrong with a metric that has helped identify them faster.

buuuut as I've freely admitted, if I was a teatard I would probably be annoyed, too. That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

They abridged free speech, by placing undue bureaucratic burdens on the "teatard" organizations.

Were this done under GEORGE BOOOOOSH! libtards like you would still be screeching about this and we all know it.

 

[Oddball]

Oldstyle's concern is correct, but 98% of America does not care without the smoking gun.

You can't even speak well enough for yourself, let alone try to do so for (allegedly) 98% of Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

It's hard to believe anyone is stupid enough to make such a claim.

 

[bripat9643]

Waiting for the smoking gun. 98% of America does not care without that.

98% of America does not care if the IRS was used by an Administration in power to hamstring it's opposition? You keep right on telling yourself that, Jake.

No, Jake's correct. People in real life don't give a shit about this, if they're aware of it at all.

That must be why 70% of them have said a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the matter.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle's concern is correct, but 98% of America does not care without the smoking gun.

You don't get the "smoking gun" until you have a REAL investigation, Jake! That's the case with ALL scandals.

 

[Mr. H.]

98% of America does not care if the IRS was used by an Administration in power to hamstring it's opposition? You keep right on telling yourself that, Jake.

No, Jake's correct. People in real life don't give a shit about this, if they're aware of it at all.

That must be why 70% of them have said a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the matter.

Well we know one thing for certain, 47% of the voting public don't give a fuck about nuttin'.

 

[Plasmaball]

That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

It's hard to believe anyone is stupid enough to make such a claim.

Again What was done that was illegal?

 

[Plasmaball]

98% of America does not care if the IRS was used by an Administration in power to hamstring it's opposition? You keep right on telling yourself that, Jake.

No, Jake's correct. People in real life don't give a shit about this, if they're aware of it at all.

That must be why 70% of them have said a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the matter.

but thats why they followed up with saying that fixing the economy was more important than this issue.

You are leaving out facts. When asked directly, sure people want something done, but overall its not important to them.

 

[Cuyo]

It's about abridging the 1st Amendment right to free speech...Something you lolberals shit your pants about, when anyone with an (R) next to their name is so much as obliquely accused of.

Whether or not these (ahem) 'entities' ought to qualify for tax exempt status is a broader issue and not what's being debated here.

Fact is, as of now they don't. I see nothing wrong with a metric that has helped identify them faster.

buuuut as I've freely admitted, if I was a teatard I would probably be annoyed, too. That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

The IRS certainly DID do something wrong, Cuyo! You can't have two sets of rules for people in this country based on their political viewpoint. That's wrong no matter WHO does it...liberal or conservative! If you can't understand that...then I don't knoT what to say to you.

There aren't two sets of rules. There's one, and the IRS correctly identified an axiom between groups with certain words in their titles, and disobedience with that one set of rules.

Unless you have evidence that there actually were two sets of rules, present it please.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Don't know (see also, "care"). The story lacks an underlying offense. "Targeting" terms that have shown a trend of abuse is no more a scandal then a speed trap "Targeting" an area that have had a lot of accidents.

It's about abridging the 1st Amendment right to free speech...Something you lolberals shit your pants about, when anyone with an (R) next to their name is so much as obliquely accused of.

Whether or not these (ahem) 'entities' ought to qualify for tax exempt status is a broader issue and not what's being debated here.

Fact is, as of now they don't. I see nothing wrong with a metric that has helped identify them faster.

buuuut as I've freely admitted, if I was a teatard I would probably be annoyed, too. That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

Had they given the same treatment to all groups, the IRS would still be wrong in what they did.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Don't know (see also, "care"). The story lacks an underlying offense. "Targeting" terms that have shown a trend of abuse is no more a scandal then a speed trap "Targeting" an area that have had a lot of accidents.

It's about abridging the 1st Amendment right to free speech...Something you lolberals shit your pants about, when anyone with an (R) next to their name is so much as obliquely accused of.

Whether or not these (ahem) 'entities' ought to qualify for tax exempt status is a broader issue and not what's being debated here.

Fact is, as of now they don't. I see nothing wrong with a metric that has helped identify them faster.

buuuut as I've freely admitted, if I was a teatard I would probably be annoyed, too. That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

The loyalty to the administration wont even allow for supporters to condemnwhat dear leader condemned. To them, there is nothing that is wrong with deliberately targeting opposition groups. in fact, they advocate it.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0rVJw7tR0c]Obama Condemns IRS Scandal: 'I Have Got No Patience' For It - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

It's hard to believe anyone is stupid enough to make such a claim.

Again What was done that was illegal?

Targetting any group for differential treatment because of their political views is against the law. How many times do you turds have to be told that?

 

[bripat9643]

Whether or not these (ahem) 'entities' ought to qualify for tax exempt status is a broader issue and not what's being debated here.

Fact is, as of now they don't. I see nothing wrong with a metric that has helped identify them faster.

buuuut as I've freely admitted, if I was a teatard I would probably be annoyed, too. That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

The IRS certainly DID do something wrong, Cuyo! You can't have two sets of rules for people in this country based on their political viewpoint. That's wrong no matter WHO does it...liberal or conservative! If you can't understand that...then I don't knoT what to say to you.

There aren't two sets of rules. There's one, and the IRS correctly identified an axiom between groups with certain words in their titles, and disobedience with that one set of rules.

It did no such thing. You have to be an utter moron to believe that. The "axiom" they "identified" is illegal. It's based purely on political beliefs.

Unless you have evidence that there actually were two sets of rules, present it please.

The IRS has already admitted there are two sets of rules.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Whether or not these (ahem) 'entities' ought to qualify for tax exempt status is a broader issue and not what's being debated here.

Fact is, as of now they don't. I see nothing wrong with a metric that has helped identify them faster.

buuuut as I've freely admitted, if I was a teatard I would probably be annoyed, too. That notwithstanding, the IRS did NOTHING wrong here.

The IRS certainly DID do something wrong, Cuyo! You can't have two sets of rules for people in this country based on their political viewpoint. That's wrong no matter WHO does it...liberal or conservative! If you can't understand that...then I don't knoT what to say to you.

There aren't two sets of rules. There's one, and the IRS correctly identified an axiom between groups with certain words in their titles, and disobedience with that one set of rules.

Unless you have evidence that there actually were two sets of rules, present it please.

If they didn't target thesegroups, why are they apologizing for it? Fo rfun? The cognition failure associated with this group of administration supporters is far,. FAR worse than those who blindly and obediently supported Bush.

IRS apologizes for targeting tea party groups

IRS apologizes for targeting tea party groups


By: STEPHEN OHLEMACHER (AP)
WASHINGTONCopyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
38.8951-77.0364

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.