IRS: Yeah, It's A Scandal

[PoliticalChic]

The lost hard drives make it look bad, but appearances do not a case make, especially not beyond a reasonable doubt which is in accordance with being a Patriot.

Shall we throw ppl in prison based on assumptions, or really suspicious appearing situations? That makes no sense.

Here's a test. Imagine the George W. Bush were president and the IRS treated liberal groups the way Lois & Co. did. Would you still be so blase about it?

I'm not a liberal, I only play one at USMB to be a devil's advocate to mean spirited people.

That aside, the answer is that your question has a flawed implication.

What's that mean?

It means that your response to my post about needing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - calling it being "blasé" - is an inaccurate description; therefore, comparing my being blasé now (when I'm not) to if this occurred under GWB is a flawed premise in your question.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

 

[G.T.]

Birther running out of steam....Obamacare running out of steam....Benghazi running out of steam....

Where to turn to next??? Oh yeah, IRS, let's fire that one up once again!!

Well, Benghazi, Birtherism were non starters.

Obamacare does quite suck in many ways, I assume it's good in others.


The IRS scandal is laced with partisan witch hunting and partisan dip-duck-dodging, and is not yet a settled issue.

 

[G.T.]

Here's a test. Imagine the George W. Bush were president and the IRS treated liberal groups the way Lois & Co. did. Would you still be so blase about it?

I'm not a liberal, I only play one at USMB to be a devil's advocate to mean spirited people.

That aside, the answer is that your question has a flawed implication.

What's that mean?

It means that your response to my post about needing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - calling it being "blasé" - is an inaccurate description; therefore, comparing my being blasé now (when I'm not) to if this occurred under GWB is a flawed premise in your question.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

^ if it posts like a lame as fuck, boring librarian

 

[Siete]

Got your name-tag right there: "and I'm stupid"




You make this so easy...er, simple.

Brilliant !

If this post is a request to change your name-tag from "and I'm stupid" to "Brilliant," .....

.....sorry to inform you but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

I certainly know how to yank your chain and get some obtuse response ...


observe.

 

[G.T.]

Here's a test. Imagine the George W. Bush were president and the IRS treated liberal groups the way Lois & Co. did. Would you still be so blase about it?

I'm not a liberal, I only play one at USMB to be a devil's advocate to mean spirited people.

That aside, the answer is that your question has a flawed implication.

What's that mean?

It means that your response to my post about needing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - calling it being "blasé" - is an inaccurate description; therefore, comparing my being blasé now (when I'm not) to if this occurred under GWB is a flawed premise in your question.

I'm often called "liberal" on here too. (Not sure if it is my support of the 2nd Amendment, my support of Israel, my anti-abortion stance, my craving for a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, or what) but, IMHO - if you are only interested in enforcing the U.S. Constitution when it protects your buddies - and not when it protects those you disagree with - then you really don't give two shits about the Constitution.

I agree to a degree. But the internet is a funny thing.

There's no obligation, neither morally nor ethically, to accurately portray yourself under your inconsequential anonymous user handle.

I'm here for my own amusement, not as a matter of getting my real views out there. That's for friends and family, real life settings. Not a single "board name" is important enough here to discuss my true convictions with.

I keep my guard up because the internet and its users are incapable of earning my respect, because earning my respect takes a more intimate communication then text to text gargle-spladt.

In all likelihood, those that jab at each other may actually get along quite well. Those that get along on here, might detest each other irl.

 

[NYcarbineer]

because the Republicans haven't found anything after investigation after investigation I'm dishonest, disreputable, and found loathsome?

uh huh ....

Hard to uncover a smoking gun when the chief witness refuses to testify and all her emails have evaporated like some magical faggot dust.

Most people don't mind partisanship; what we loathe is dirty scumbags such as yourself who will take any advantage available, whether righteous or through lies and obfuscation. Your moral compass is frozen at zero. Go fuck yourself.

Kinda like the Leftist boot-lickers who claim that Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape in a court.

Neither was George W. Bush. Does that make you a GOP bootlicker, or don't you claim that about Bush?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread reminds me,

we're about due for another outbreak of Benghazi-bola from the RWnuts.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm not a liberal, I only play one at USMB to be a devil's advocate to mean spirited people.

That aside, the answer is that your question has a flawed implication.

What's that mean?

It means that your response to my post about needing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - calling it being "blasé" - is an inaccurate description; therefore, comparing my being blasé now (when I'm not) to if this occurred under GWB is a flawed premise in your question.

I'm often called "liberal" on here too. (Not sure if it is my support of the 2nd Amendment, my support of Israel, my anti-abortion stance, my craving for a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, or what) but, IMHO - if you are only interested in enforcing the U.S. Constitution when it protects your buddies - and not when it protects those you disagree with - then you really don't give two shits about the Constitution.

I agree to a degree. But the internet is a funny thing.

There's no obligation, neither morally nor ethically, to accurately portray yourself under your inconsequential anonymous user handle.

I'm here for my own amusement, not as a matter of getting my real views out there. That's for friends and family, real life settings. Not a single "board name" is important enough here to discuss my true convictions with.

I keep my guard up because the internet and its users are incapable of earning my respect, because earning my respect takes a more intimate communication then text to text gargle-spladt.

In all likelihood, those that jab at each other may actually get along quite well. Those that get along on here, might detest each other irl.

OK. Fair enough. I'm a "lay-it-on-the-line" kinda guy.

 

[G.T.]

I'm often called "liberal" on here too. (Not sure if it is my support of the 2nd Amendment, my support of Israel, my anti-abortion stance, my craving for a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, or what) but, IMHO - if you are only interested in enforcing the U.S. Constitution when it protects your buddies - and not when it protects those you disagree with - then you really don't give two shits about the Constitution.

I agree to a degree. But the internet is a funny thing.

There's no obligation, neither morally nor ethically, to accurately portray yourself under your inconsequential anonymous user handle.

I'm here for my own amusement, not as a matter of getting my real views out there. That's for friends and family, real life settings. Not a single "board name" is important enough here to discuss my true convictions with.

I keep my guard up because the internet and its users are incapable of earning my respect, because earning my respect takes a more intimate communication then text to text gargle-spladt.

In all likelihood, those that jab at each other may actually get along quite well. Those that get along on here, might detest each other irl.

OK. Fair enough. I'm a "lay-it-on-the-line" kinda guy.

Me too.










In real life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is the sort of post that illustrates the "the heck with honesty, winning is all that counts" tenet that I have come to expect from bottom-feeding low-lifes that support the Alinsky-Ayers-Obama types.


It goes beyond the stupidity that the poster generally provides, to a kind of disreputable character that, at one time, was found in only the most loathsome of creatures.

Sadly, many easily led, find it acceptable today....and explains the 40% approval rating of this President.

because the Republicans haven't found anything after investigation after investigation I'm dishonest, disreputable, and found loathsome?

uh huh ....

"because the Republicans haven't found anything after investigation after investigation I'm dishonest, disreputable, and found loathsome?"


No, you dunce!

No criteria is necessary....you're simply 'dishonest, disreputable, and found loathsome.'

And you left out stupid.

Could you possibly find some child to teach you how to use the quote feature properly?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hard to uncover a smoking gun when the chief witness refuses to testify and all her emails have evaporated like some magical faggot dust.

Most people don't mind partisanship; what we loathe is dirty scumbags such as yourself who will take any advantage available, whether righteous or through lies and obfuscation. Your moral compass is frozen at zero. Go fuck yourself.

Kinda like the Leftist boot-lickers who claim that Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape in a court.

Neither was George W. Bush. Does that make you a GOP bootlicker, or don't you claim that about Bush?

Was either of them ever charged with rape?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think conspiracy theories have their own forum don't they?

Just one more attempt of the a Leftist to marginalize, or hide, opposing views.


Wouldn't have expected anything else from you.

The Conspiracy forum is open to the public.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obviously political Tea Party groups got scrutinized because they were applying for tax breaks available only to non-political groups.

There is no scandal.

Let's concentrate on the usual import of your posts:

There is no honesty there.

How many organizations referring to themselves in one manner or another as 'Tea Party' can you name that are not primarily political in nature?

 

[G.T.]

self sigged

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not a liberal, I only play one at USMB to be a devil's advocate to mean spirited people.

That aside, the answer is that your question has a flawed implication.

What's that mean?

It means that your response to my post about needing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - calling it being "blasé" - is an inaccurate description; therefore, comparing my being blasé now (when I'm not) to if this occurred under GWB is a flawed premise in your question.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

^ if it posts like a lame as fuck, boring librarian

The fact that you are the moth to the flame of these posts, gives the lie to your intent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Brilliant !

If this post is a request to change your name-tag from "and I'm stupid" to "Brilliant," .....

.....sorry to inform you but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

I certainly know how to yank your chain and get some obtuse response ...


observe.

I admit that kicking you in the behind is ....a kick.

 

[G.T.]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

^ if it posts like a lame as fuck, boring librarian

The fact that you are the moth to the flame of these posts, gives the lie to your intent.

You're poetically daft, which is almost impossible.

Fail so hard

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hard to uncover a smoking gun when the chief witness refuses to testify and all her emails have evaporated like some magical faggot dust.

Most people don't mind partisanship; what we loathe is dirty scumbags such as yourself who will take any advantage available, whether righteous or through lies and obfuscation. Your moral compass is frozen at zero. Go fuck yourself.

Kinda like the Leftist boot-lickers who claim that Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape in a court.

Neither was George W. Bush. Does that make you a GOP bootlicker, or don't you claim that about Bush?

Try not to obfuscate.....are you attempting to claim that President Bush was a rapist, as Bill Clinton is?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread reminds me,

we're about due for another outbreak of Benghazi-bola from the RWnuts.

"This thread reminds me,...."

re·mind (r-mnd)
tr.v. re·mind·ed, re·mind·ing, re·minds
To cause to remember; put in mind:



Put in WHAT?????




Don't forget....go to a palmist, not a mind reader.
I know you have a palm.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Kinda like the Leftist boot-lickers who claim that Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape in a court.

Neither was George W. Bush. Does that make you a GOP bootlicker, or don't you claim that about Bush?

Try not to obfuscate.....are you attempting to claim that President Bush was a rapist, as Bill Clinton is?

Was Clinton ever charged with rape?