Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll look back but, when I used the term "sycophant," I'm not sure I was referring to anyone in this thread. Although, I'm sure they exist here, as they do out in the real world.If you're not a sycophant, I didn't mean you so, why so defensive. Are you denying there are Obama sycophants?
As for having evidence, I'm not in a position to collect evidence in this case but, I'm in a position to demand evidence be developed and that's what I'm doing.
Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?
Just the least bit suspicious?
To deal with the other subject seperately, if you did not mean me then exactly who on this thread did you mean when you said "sycophants"?
Do you deny this?
And, why is it even important to the conversation? Either there is a scandal or there isn't.
I believe evidence continues to mount there is. You may not. That doesn't necessarily make you an Obama sycophant...but, that's not my call. I was merely using the term generically to suggest that such people would deny the scandal and defend Obama no matter what surfaces.
Okay, so I looked back because I'm really confused about why you want to make this thread about me. I'm new to the forum, I've not established a relationship with any of you; I barely have an opinion on any of you or what I think are your various ideologies.You weren't taliking to just anyone out there. You were talking to people on this thread. What you were doing was automatically discounting any response you might get by slapping a lable on the poster. That is a sign of weakness in your argument. It doesn't matter which side of an issue you might be on (right or left) once you start tossing out generic insults it becomes evident you have nothing substantial to say.
Okay, I'll repeat the paragraph that preceded my question.If you're not a sycophant, I didn't mean you so, why so defensive. Are you denying there are Obama sycophants?
As for having evidence, I'm not in a position to collect evidence in this case but, I'm in a position to demand evidence be developed and that's what I'm doing.
Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?
Just the least bit suspicious?
Suspicious of what?
Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?
That's of what I'm asking if you're suspicious. If you like the term curious better, I'll ask it that way.
Just the least bit curious?
I haven't drawn any conclusions. I'm merely suggesting it's suspicious or curious, you pick.Okay, I'll repeat the paragraph that preceded my question.Suspicious of what?
Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?
That's of what I'm asking if you're suspicious. If you like the term curious better, I'll ask it that way.
Just the least bit curious?
Curious of what? What is it exactly you are suggesting?
Let me put it back to you. The president is undergoing a rough patch right now because of this. I don't know if he was involved or the extent of that involvement, but there is no question it is a thorn in his side. Now, do you really think he is so stupid as to appoint a person he knows is at the heart of the very scandal he is trying to deal with? Knowing there is a full congressional investigation going on and the press is in a feeding frenzy? Aren't you the least bit curious about that?
I am curious about a lot of things. However, until such time as there is actual information to go on, any conclusions drawn can only be biased assumption. IOW, garbage.
Looks like Jake got silenced again. Libra, you may wish to ignore him.
Okay, so I looked back because I'm really confused about why you want to make this thread about me. I'm new to the forum, I've not established a relationship with any of you; I barely have an opinion on any of you or what I think are your various ideologies.You weren't taliking to just anyone out there. You were talking to people on this thread. What you were doing was automatically discounting any response you might get by slapping a lable on the poster. That is a sign of weakness in your argument. It doesn't matter which side of an issue you might be on (right or left) once you start tossing out generic insults it becomes evident you have nothing substantial to say.
Here's what I said:
"Will any of the Obama sycophants at least admit this is enough smoke to warrant a closer look at the IRS scandal and how high it may reach?"
Any of the Obama sycophants could be directed at anyone, inside or outside the forum; and, it was. I can't help if you take it personally or misunderstand my intent.
I'd really like to know what is the threshold at which an Obama sycophant (and they exist whether you'll admit it or not) would admit their just may be a scandal afoot.
The administration has gone from calling this inappropriate actions by a couple of functionaries in a local branch of the IRS, somewhere in Ohio, to having to explain the actions of their IRS Commissioner, Acting Commissioner, and head of the division responsible for the inappropriate activity.
And, that's all taken place since last Friday when the IRS released their apology.
I haven't drawn any conclusions. I'm merely suggesting it's suspicious or curious, you pick.Okay, I'll repeat the paragraph that preceded my question.
Do you not find it the least bit suspicious that our "outraged" President who promised to "get to the bottom of it" and "hold accountable" those responsible would allow Ms. Ingram to be promoted to such an important position at the IRS while allowing those with little or not connection to the scandal to be thrown under the bus?
That's of what I'm asking if you're suspicious. If you like the term curious better, I'll ask it that way.
Just the least bit curious?
Curious of what? What is it exactly you are suggesting?
Let me put it back to you. The president is undergoing a rough patch right now because of this. I don't know if he was involved or the extent of that involvement, but there is no question it is a thorn in his side. Now, do you really think he is so stupid as to appoint a person he knows is at the heart of the very scandal he is trying to deal with? Knowing there is a full congressional investigation going on and the press is in a feeding frenzy? Aren't you the least bit curious about that?
I am curious about a lot of things. However, until such time as there is actual information to go on, any conclusions drawn can only be biased assumption. IOW, garbage.
When was Ingram promoted to her current position?
From where did she come when she was promoted to oversee the tax exempt office?
Has she ever had a personal relationship with President Obama or a professional position in any his campaigns or enterprises?
The answers to those two questions would go along way to either satisfying my curiosity or assuaging my suspicion.
They seem pretty benign questions.
Who did I insult? Obama sycophants?I am not taking this personally because I think you called me a sycophant. I have been called many worse things than that. It just irritates me when people start using insults in lieu of an argument. It especially irritates me when it comes from people who are ostensibly on the right, because I am on the right (believe it or not).
You have a pretty high expectation that Google will know that much about Ms. Ingram.Then google it. It's not secret information.
At this point, yes. Well, general suspicion, not generic.And I ask again, assuaging your suspicion of what? Just generic suspicion?
Who did I insult? Obama sycophants?I am not taking this personally because I think you called me a sycophant. I have been called many worse things than that. It just irritates me when people start using insults in lieu of an argument. It especially irritates me when it comes from people who are ostensibly on the right, because I am on the right (believe it or not).
To the extent they exist and they consider being identified as such, I can live with that.
It's obvious we disagree over the existence of a scandal; that's okay. Neither of us is going to be the impetus behind any resolution. We're merely participants in a political forum established to discuss such events. That's what I'm trying to do. Discuss.
I have a position that I believe something is untoward about the activities of the IRS and that it may lead to the White House. I think that is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Knowing more about Ms. Ingram will probably drive my opinion one way or the other but, I don't think asking the questions constitute some attack on Obama.
Absolutely.Who did I insult? Obama sycophants?I am not taking this personally because I think you called me a sycophant. I have been called many worse things than that. It just irritates me when people start using insults in lieu of an argument. It especially irritates me when it comes from people who are ostensibly on the right, because I am on the right (believe it or not).
To the extent they exist and they consider being identified as such, I can live with that.
It's obvious we disagree over the existence of a scandal; that's okay. Neither of us is going to be the impetus behind any resolution. We're merely participants in a political forum established to discuss such events. That's what I'm trying to do. Discuss.
I have a position that I believe something is untoward about the activities of the IRS and that it may lead to the White House. I think that is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Knowing more about Ms. Ingram will probably drive my opinion one way or the other but, I don't think asking the questions constitute some attack on Obama.
What we disagree on is our understanding of the scandal. That there is a scandal is obvious. I have already suggested you can find out information on Ms. Ingram. But now I am curious. The two primary people at the heart of this scandal are Douglas Shulman and Lois Lerner. Both of them were brought in under the Bush administration. Both of these people, knowing that this stuff had already happened, told congress it hadn't. Does that generate any suspicion for you?
On what charge?
What is it gonna take for the liberals to give up on this guy? How much more can one person do to get thrown in jail? I don't think I'll ever be able to understand this blind devotion. He's not even American but you guys think he is George Washington or something. Instead of a wanted poster where it belongs, you guys won't rest until his picture is on our money.
