Lois Lerner Criticized GOP As 'Crazies,' 'Assholes' In Emails

[JoeB131]

[

Guy, you fools scream "tyranny" whenever the Democrats suggest you eat your vegetables.

And then sit around with your thumbs up your asses when the Republicans start wars based on lies, torture prisoners of war, spy on average Americans, let their rich cronies loot the country, and so on.

So liberals use positions of authority in government to attack political opponents and they are "suggesting we eat our vegetables"?

No, I was just referring to how you wingnuts lose your shit over the First Lady's support of healthy eating.

Reality is...Lois Lerner and her little cronies broke the law. They used the power of the IRS to target people who's political views they didn't approve of. They leaked confidential tax payer information in an attempt to hurt people who's political views they didn't approve of.

And why should I care again?

Laws were put in place following Nixon's ATTEMPT to use the IRS against his political enemies so that would never take place again. Lois Lerner and her pals broke those laws. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Even die hard liberals should understand the danger involved when a party in power can use agencies like the IRS against the opposition.

Or you guys can just take the breathtakingly rational step of not trying to defraud the IRS to start wiht and actually file under the correct code. The one where you admit you are really doing politics and disclose who your vendors are- reforms that the post-watergate laws were also supposed to put into place.

This has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq...it has nothing to do with water boarding of terrorists...it has nothing to do with spying on Americans...and it has nothing to do with how much money the rich are making! This is about people in power using that power in ways that break the law. It's what makes America different from Banana Republics. We have laws that protect citizens from abuses by government. When an administration in power can treat those laws with contempt we put our entire political structure in jeopardy.

A lot of good men and women came back in body bags because of Bush's lies. A lot more came back without arms and legs and with PTSD. I think that's a lot more serious than whether Granny Teabag got her fraudulent tax exemption so they could launder Charles Koch's money.

Incidentally, if something makes us a "Banana Republic", it's that guys like the Koch brothers and Soros CAN buy our elections so easily.

You're so happy that some conservatives were abused by Lerner and Friends that you're willing to overlook how dangerous what they did is for the country.

Yeah, because what Bush and Company did was was a lot more dangerous for the country.

I'm reminded of that every time I write out a check for my underwater mortgage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Popular demand?

Can you provide actual examples of said demand that didn't come from incumbent politicians?

Support High For Strong Campaign Finance Legislation: Poll

"A majority of voters strongly favor both requiring corporations to get shareholder approval for political spending (56 percent strongly favor, 80 percent total favor) and a ban on political spending by foreign corporations (51 percent strongly favor, 60 percent total favor)."


The Fair Elections Now Act, which would set up a publicly-financed campaign system, is favored by a two-to-one margin (62 to 31 percent), according to the survey. Fifty percent of Republicans support the proposal compared to 40 percent who oppose it.

Try again, that was after Obama lied about Citizens United. I want you to back up your statement that popular demand was responsible for McCain-Feingold.

 

[JoeB131]

Popular demand?

Can you provide actual examples of said demand that didn't come from incumbent politicians?

Support High For Strong Campaign Finance Legislation: Poll

"A majority of voters strongly favor both requiring corporations to get shareholder approval for political spending (56 percent strongly favor, 80 percent total favor) and a ban on political spending by foreign corporations (51 percent strongly favor, 60 percent total favor)."


The Fair Elections Now Act, which would set up a publicly-financed campaign system, is favored by a two-to-one margin (62 to 31 percent), according to the survey. Fifty percent of Republicans support the proposal compared to 40 percent who oppose it.

Try again, that was after Obama lied about Citizens United. I want you to back up your statement that popular demand was responsible for McCain-Feingold.

Guy, I'm not going to go down one of your unmedicated rabbit holes.

Americans don't want the rich buying their politics. Obviously.

Not sure why you want them to.

Your anti-crazy pills will be the first thing they cut, and then you'll be out screaming at the lampposts again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Support High For Strong Campaign Finance Legislation: Poll

"A majority of voters strongly favor both requiring corporations to get shareholder approval for political spending (56 percent strongly favor, 80 percent total favor) and a ban on political spending by foreign corporations (51 percent strongly favor, 60 percent total favor)."


The Fair Elections Now Act, which would set up a publicly-financed campaign system, is favored by a two-to-one margin (62 to 31 percent), according to the survey. Fifty percent of Republicans support the proposal compared to 40 percent who oppose it.

Try again, that was after Obama lied about Citizens United. I want you to back up your statement that popular demand was responsible for McCain-Feingold.

Guy, I'm not going to go down one of your unmedicated rabbit holes.

Americans don't want the rich buying their politics. Obviously.

Not sure why you want them to.

Your anti-crazy pills will be the first thing they cut, and then you'll be out screaming at the lampposts again.

Yet they keep electing rich people into offices.

As I said, want to try again?

 

[JoeB131]

Try again, that was after Obama lied about Citizens United. I want you to back up your statement that popular demand was responsible for McCain-Feingold.

Guy, I'm not going to go down one of your unmedicated rabbit holes.

Americans don't want the rich buying their politics. Obviously.

Not sure why you want them to.

Your anti-crazy pills will be the first thing they cut, and then you'll be out screaming at the lampposts again.

Yet they keep electing rich people into offices.

As I said, want to try again?

No, I don't want to keep trying to deal with your batshit crazy.

You do realize you are an irrational, crazy person, right?

You also see there's a big difference between voting for a rich person and having rich people behind the scenes manipulating shit, right? I didn't vote for the Koch Brothers, but they've infected our process.

 

[Darkwind]

Okay, so lets frame this in terms that the progressives here at the USMB will surely understand.

Lets say that the replacement for Lois Lerner is the USMB's one and only [MENTION=18755]mal[/MENTION] .

He is now in charge of scrutinizing all liberal 501(c)4 entities.

We all know how he feels about liberals.

I guess its okay with you guys, eh?

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, so lets frame this in terms that the progressives here at the USMB will surely understand.

Lets say that the replacement for Lois Lerner is the USMB's one and only [MENTION=18755]mal[/MENTION] .

He is now in charge of scrutinizing all liberal 501(c)4 entities.

We all know how he feels about liberals.

I guess its okay with you guys, eh?

Not really.

501(c)4's shouldn't be used to hide political activity on either side.

I'd have no problem if liberal ones were scrutinized.

And frankly, - one more time- if the GOP ever got back into power, 501's would be the least of my problems.

I'd be more worried about the wars and recessions that always seem to follow these assholes into office.

 

[Meathead]

Okay, so lets frame this in terms that the progressives here at the USMB will surely understand.

Lets say that the replacement for Lois Lerner is the USMB's one and only [MENTION=18755]mal[/MENTION] .

He is now in charge of scrutinizing all liberal 501(c)4 entities.

We all know how he feels about liberals.

I guess its okay with you guys, eh?

Not really.

501(c)4's shouldn't be used to hide political activity on either side.

I'd have no problem if liberal ones were scrutinized.

And frankly, - one more time- if the GOP ever got back into power, 501's would be the least of my problems.

I'd be more worried about the wars and recessions that always seem to follow these assholes into office.

Relax Joe, welfare and food stamps will not be totally eliminated.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, so lets frame this in terms that the progressives here at the USMB will surely understand.

Lets say that the replacement for Lois Lerner is the USMB's one and only [MENTION=18755]mal[/MENTION] .

He is now in charge of scrutinizing all liberal 501(c)4 entities.

We all know how he feels about liberals.

I guess its okay with you guys, eh?

Not really.

501(c)4's shouldn't be used to hide political activity on either side.

I'd have no problem if liberal ones were scrutinized.

And frankly, - one more time- if the GOP ever got back into power, 501's would be the least of my problems.

I'd be more worried about the wars and recessions that always seem to follow these assholes into office.

Relax Joe, welfare and food stamps will not be totally eliminated.

No, but a lot more people will be on them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

 

[Meathead]

Not really.

501(c)4's shouldn't be used to hide political activity on either side.

I'd have no problem if liberal ones were scrutinized.

And frankly, - one more time- if the GOP ever got back into power, 501's would be the least of my problems.

I'd be more worried about the wars and recessions that always seem to follow these assholes into office.

Relax Joe, welfare and food stamps will not be totally eliminated.

No, but a lot more people will be on them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

They'll go to work instead. That frightens you, eh? Do you think you can live on the public teat forever?

 

[JoeB131]

Relax Joe, welfare and food stamps will not be totally eliminated.

No, but a lot more people will be on them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

They'll go to work instead. That frightens you, eh? Do you think you can live on the public teat forever?

Uh, guy, when Bush took power, we had 4% unemployment.

When he left, it was springing up to 10%.

Bush didn't get people off welfare, he put a lot more people on it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not all of them were.

and frankly, all of them should have been.

Here's the ugly little secret. The Republican Party wants you Teabaggers to go away even worse than the Democrats do. That's why they sabotaged every Teabagger who ran for Senate this year.

You hate the Republican Party, yet you think they are right when they try to eliminate a group that wants to change them.

Interesting, and typically incoherent.

The Teabaggers want to take the GOP further in the wrong direction, which is what you don't get.

I'd love to have the GOP of Ike and Nixon back. The one that was for sensible government and didn't carry a copy of Ayn Rand under one arm and the Bible under the other.

The bane of the social right has indeed destroyed the GOP.

 

[Meathead]

No, but a lot more people will be on them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

They'll go to work instead. That frightens you, eh? Do you think you can live on the public teat forever?

Uh, guy, when Bush took power, we had 4% unemployment.

When he left, it was springing up to 10%.

Bush didn't get people off welfare, he put a lot more people on it.

When someone makes the economy viable again you might have to start supporting yourself. I know you'll do your utmost to avoid it, but the electorate will surely tire of parasites.

 

[JoeB131]

They'll go to work instead. That frightens you, eh? Do you think you can live on the public teat forever?

Uh, guy, when Bush took power, we had 4% unemployment.

When he left, it was springing up to 10%.

Bush didn't get people off welfare, he put a lot more people on it.

When someone makes the economy viable again you might have to start supporting yourself. I know you'll do your utmost to avoid it, but the electorate will surely tire of parasites.

I wouldn't know, guy. I work a full time job, a part time job and a side business.

That's how "viable" your boy Bush made the economy.

The Republicans never make the economy "viable". They just fuck it up.

 

[Meathead]

Uh, guy, when Bush took power, we had 4% unemployment.

When he left, it was springing up to 10%.

Bush didn't get people off welfare, he put a lot more people on it.

When someone makes the economy viable again you might have to start supporting yourself. I know you'll do your utmost to avoid it, but the electorate will surely tire of parasites.

I wouldn't know, guy. I work a full time job, a part time job and a side business.

That's how "viable" your boy Bush made the economy.

The Republicans never make the economy "viable". They just fuck it up.

Give us a break Joe. Everyone knows you sit at home at your computer and whine about your lack of entitlements.

 

[JoeB131]

]Give us a break Joe. Everyone knows you sit at home at your computer and whine about your lack of entitlements.

Really, when have I done that.

Pointing out that employer provided health care doesn't work isn't whining for entitlements guys.

It's stating the obvious. Employers know it doesn't work, insurance companies know it doesn't work.

Just no one wants to bite the bullet and go to single payer like the rest of the world has.

 

[Meathead]

]Give us a break Joe. Everyone knows you sit at home at your computer and whine about your lack of entitlements.

Really, when have I done that.

Pointing out that employer provided health care doesn't work isn't whining for entitlements guys.

It's stating the obvious. Employers know it doesn't work, insurance companies know it doesn't work.

Just no one wants to bite the bullet and go to single payer like the rest of the world has.

You're a slacker Joe. It couldn't be more obvious.

 

[JoeB131]

The only obvious thing is that you are trolling because you have nothing to add to a conversation.

 

[Slyhunter]

Not really.

501(c)4's shouldn't be used to hide political activity on either side.

I'd have no problem if liberal ones were scrutinized.

And frankly, - one more time- if the GOP ever got back into power, 501's would be the least of my problems.

I'd be more worried about the wars and recessions that always seem to follow these assholes into office.

Relax Joe, welfare and food stamps will not be totally eliminated.

No, but a lot more people will be on them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

A lot more people are on them since Obama has come into power.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, but a lot more people will be on them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

They'll go to work instead. That frightens you, eh? Do you think you can live on the public teat forever?

Uh, guy, when Bush took power, we had 4% unemployment.

When he left, it was springing up to 10%.

Bush didn't get people off welfare, he put a lot more people on it.

Uh, guy? When Bush left office unemployment was at 8%. Under Obama it "sprung" up to over 10% and that was with Nancy and Harry spending nearly a trillion dollars on their badly conceived stimulus plan. It's taken Barry six years to lower the unemployment rate a point and a half and most of that number is bullshit because so many people either are working part time jobs or have simply given up looking for work. Barack Obama has led the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. I know that's an "inconvenient" truth for you progressives...but it remains the truth no matter how hard you try and spin it!

The number of Americans collecting entitlements from the government is at record levels! That's what six years of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's "leadership" have given us!