Seeking Integrity

[PoliticalChic]

There have been a number of comments from those on the Right bemoaning that opponents refuse to hold this administration to the same standards as the previous.

Some of those comments center on phrases such as "thugs" or "Chicago tactics" etc.,..
and of course, the lock-step apparatchiks will never admit wrong doing.


But, I'll bet that a number of those on the Left are beginning to tone down as more evidence of corruption is revealed....




Like this:

1. "NOTES ON THE IRS 88

2. ... a faithful reader who spent a long career at the Criminal Investigation (CI) Division of the IRS.... knows whereof he speaks and he has been supplying us with a steady stream of commentary on the IRS scandal,...:

3. '... It’s already been reported that employees who signed off on letters or made inquiries reported to four or five different managers. The Service does things by “group,” with employees – Revenue Agents, Revenue Officers, and Special Agents assigned to groups under a Group Manager.

4. Groups are usually 10 – 15, with 11 or 12 agents being pretty common. So, having five different managers would imply that at least 50 and as many as 75 agents were involved at some point. Over time, with people coming and going, 88’s not unreasonable.




5. ... policy was spread over five groups. This isn’t just something that happened with one or two people in one group, or even a “rogue” GM. Somebody set a policy for an entire office, and made sure at least five Groups got the word.

6. That could only have happened in writing, and must have come from at least two levels above the GM. The level above is a Branch Chief, and Branch Chiefs don’t make policy either.

7. Neither does the level above that. Again, I don’t know exactly how Exempt Organizations is structured, but in CI, a Branch Manager (the Assistant Special Agent in Charge) wouldn’t have more than four groups. Policy comes from DC.

8. Plus, IRS tries very hard to make policy uniform, ....That’s practically the whole justification for the otherwise completely useless Department of Justice Tax Division.







9. Somebody in DC made this particular policy, passed it down, made sure that every EO Group in Cincinnati was treating every Tea Party/Patriot/etc. applicant the same way, and every employee got the word.' "
Notes on the IRS 88 | Power Line



So....this was not a few...this was not done by rouge agents in Cincinnati...this was from the top.
It remains to see what the 'top' is....but don't mistake the aim:
After the beating the Tea Party gave the administration in 2010, they made sure it wouldn't happen again.
From the top.



This is the republic of the United States....
....and all of us have to make sure it doesn't become a banana republic.

 

[LoneLaugher]

When a person makes claims without providing evidence......is that a sign of integrity?

 

[jwoodie]

When a person makes claims without providing evidence......is that a sign of integrity?

When a person refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing by his "teammates," is that integrity? Sadly, the OP is not going to find it in this forum.

P.S. It is entirely rational to not work if it has little or no impact on your standard of living.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wrongdoing has been acknowledged. Why are you lying?

 

[jwoodie]

Wrongdoing has been acknowledged. Why are you lying?

So you don't dispute the OP's claim, just the evidence cited? How clever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.

When the sales guy at the automobile dealer makes an argument that you should spring for the extra and costly rustproofing,

it isn't evidence that you need it.

 

[jwoodie]

The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.

When the sales guy at the automobile dealer makes an argument that you should spring for the extra and costly rustproofing,

it isn't evidence that you need it.

Ooh, another good one! In case you missed it, we aren't talking about a single individual. The more appropriate analogy would be if the dealer refused to provide warranty work for customers he didn't like.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wrongdoing has been acknowledged. Why are you lying?

So you don't dispute the OP's claim, just the evidence cited? How clever.

No. The OP's claim is without evidence.

There has been wrongdoing on my "team". Quite a bit of it, in fact. I acknowledge this.

Want some examples?

Bankster's not prosecuted.
Drone strikes sans trial.
Private Manning's detainment.

But............IRS mistakes in judgement being 'from the top"? Nope. There is no evidence.

 

[jwoodie]

Wrongdoing has been acknowledged. Why are you lying?

So you don't dispute the OP's claim, just the evidence cited? How clever.

No. The OP's claim is without evidence.

There has been wrongdoing on my "team". Quite a bit of it, in fact. I acknowledge this.

Want some examples?

Bankster's not prosecuted.
Drone strikes sans trial.
Private Manning's detainment.

But............IRS mistakes in judgement being 'from the top"? Nope. There is no evidence.

Lotsa "rogue" employees in this administration, eh? Harry Truman is rolling over...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.

When the sales guy at the automobile dealer makes an argument that you should spring for the extra and costly rustproofing,

it isn't evidence that you need it.

Ooh, another good one! In case you missed it, we aren't talking about a single individual. The more appropriate analogy would be if the dealer refused to provide warranty work for customers he didn't like.

No, fool. The car salesman analogy was to the pitch made in the OP of this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Consider this.

The author of this thread believes that the book of Genesis is the correct description for how the Earth, and life on it, came about. You can find her making that argument in several places elsewhere on the board.

She would not, in those arguments, accept any scientific evidence to the contrary. None. Simply rejected it all.

So, to be fair, and since this is her thread, how about we all apply her own standards of evidence to the case?

Would that be fair?

Or, from a more general perspective, given the prevalence of so many conservatives who deny global warming, quite often the same conservatives who want us to believe that President Obama is somehow culpable in the IRS affair,

how about we apply their standard for accepting or rejecting scientific evidence presented that makes the case for global warming...

...IOW, how about we simply set a standard of proof so high, as they do, that the evidence simply cannot ever achieve that standard to their satisfaction.

Would that be fair?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Consider this.

The author of this thread believes that the book of Genesis is the correct description for how the Earth, and life on it, came about. You can find her making that argument in several places elsewhere on the board.

She would not, in those arguments, accept any scientific evidence to the contrary. None. Simply rejected it all.

So, to be fair, and since this is her thread, how about we all apply her own standards of evidence to the case?

Would that be fair?

Or, from a more general perspective, given the prevalence of so many conservatives who deny global warming, quite often the same conservatives who want us to believe that President Obama is somehow culpable in the IRS affair,

how about we apply their standard for accepting or rejecting scientific evidence presented that makes the case for global warming...

...IOW, how about we simply set a standard of proof so high, as they do, that the evidence simply cannot ever achieve that standard to their satisfaction.

Would that be fair?

This post is filled with lies....you're usual mode.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrongdoing has been acknowledged. Why are you lying?

So you don't dispute the OP's claim, just the evidence cited? How clever.

No. The OP's claim is without evidence.

There has been wrongdoing on my "team". Quite a bit of it, in fact. I acknowledge this.

Want some examples?

Bankster's not prosecuted.
Drone strikes sans trial.
Private Manning's detainment.

But............IRS mistakes in judgement being 'from the top"? Nope. There is no evidence.

Now, now....

Actually, what is known at this point establishes my argument to a far greater degree than you allow.

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.

Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.." Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't expect you to leap to my side of the argument....but I know you recognize the approach of the avalanche.


This issue is both more important to the nation, and the crime proven to a far greater degree than Ira Libby's conviction.

 

[jwoodie]

Consider this.

The author of this thread believes that the book of Genesis is the correct description for how the Earth, and life on it, came about. You can find her making that argument in several places elsewhere on the board.

She would not, in those arguments, accept any scientific evidence to the contrary. None. Simply rejected it all.

So, to be fair, and since this is her thread, how about we all apply her own standards of evidence to the case?

Would that be fair?

Or, from a more general perspective, given the prevalence of so many conservatives who deny global warming, quite often the same conservatives who want us to believe that President Obama is somehow culpable in the IRS affair,

how about we apply their standard for accepting or rejecting scientific evidence presented that makes the case for global warming...

...IOW, how about we simply set a standard of proof so high, as they do, that the evidence simply cannot ever achieve that standard to their satisfaction.

Would that be fair?

As usual, the feeble minded resort to "fairness" when logic eludes them. As with the otherwise irrelevant "creation" reference, it is incumbent on intellectually honest persons to offer an alternative hypothesis rather than simply attack those with whom they disagree. In the case of the Benghazi, IRS and AG situations, it is a plausible, if not likely, hypothesis that these politically sensitive decisions were made by political appointees of the President, with or without his personal knowledge. Instead of justifying a plausible alternative hypothesis, the President's apologists tacitly defend his withholding of explanatory information by criticizing what is known as insufficient. How noble of them.

 

[Saigon]

This post is filled with lies....you're usual mode.

It's "your usual mode" and maybe the problem with demanding integrity from others is that you have thus far not demonstrated much yourself.

Why not go through the OP and take out anything which is hearsay, gossip or opinion, and thus give us something more balanced to start with.

Posting "17. Obama is Satan - fact!" and then accusing everyone who does not agree with you of lacking integrity is not smart.

 

[Toro]

Consider this.

The author of this thread believes that the book of Genesis is the correct description for how the Earth, and life on it, came about. You can find her making that argument in several places elsewhere on the board.

She would not, in those arguments, accept any scientific evidence to the contrary. None. Simply rejected it all.

So, to be fair, and since this is her thread, how about we all apply her own standards of evidence to the case?

Would that be fair?

Or, from a more general perspective, given the prevalence of so many conservatives who deny global warming, quite often the same conservatives who want us to believe that President Obama is somehow culpable in the IRS affair,

how about we apply their standard for accepting or rejecting scientific evidence presented that makes the case for global warming...

...IOW, how about we simply set a standard of proof so high, as they do, that the evidence simply cannot ever achieve that standard to their satisfaction.

Would that be fair?

This post is filled with lies....you're usual mode.

Do you believe Genesis is an accurate description of the origins of life, earth and the Universe?

 

[LoneLaugher]

So you don't dispute the OP's claim, just the evidence cited? How clever.

No. The OP's claim is without evidence.

There has been wrongdoing on my "team". Quite a bit of it, in fact. I acknowledge this.

Want some examples?

Bankster's not prosecuted.
Drone strikes sans trial.
Private Manning's detainment.

But............IRS mistakes in judgement being 'from the top"? Nope. There is no evidence.

Now, now....

Actually, what is known at this point establishes my argument to a far greater degree than you allow.

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.

Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.." Means, motive, and opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't expect you to leap to my side of the argument....but I know you recognize the approach of the avalanche.


This issue is both more important to the nation, and the crime proven to a far greater degree than Ira Libby's conviction.

Bullshit. But at least it was bullshit without the grade school outline form. For that, we must all be grateful.

Nothing illegal was done by the IRS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This post is filled with lies....you're usual mode.

It's "your usual mode" and maybe the problem with demanding integrity from others is that you have thus far not demonstrated much yourself.

Why not go through the OP and take out anything which is hearsay, gossip or opinion, and thus give us something more balanced to start with.

Posting "17. Obama is Satan - fact!" and then accusing everyone who does not agree with you of lacking integrity is not smart.

Doesn't the word 'integrity' stick in your throat?

Let's see how easy it is to prove you to be offal.

1. Any lies that I have posted? Present 'em.

2. Are you claiming that I posted "17. Obama is Satan - fact!"

Where????
Prove it or apologize.

Or...are you a lying sack of offal?
I'm gonna go with the latter.

 

[Antares]

The OP doesn't provide evidence that the 'policy' came from the top. It offers an argument designed to sell the idea that the policy came from the top.

When the sales guy at the automobile dealer makes an argument that you should spring for the extra and costly rustproofing,

it isn't evidence that you need it.

Nor is it evidence that you don't, but you wouldn't understand that.

Carb we both know if Obama was on tape ordering it you'd say so what and support him in it.

 

[Saigon]

P.Chic -

1. Any lies that I have posted? Present 'em.

I didn't say you had posted any lies - I suggested that your thread is fullof hearsay, gossip and your opinions, which we both know it is.

Again, this does not show much integrity on your part.

2. Are you claiming that I posted "17. Obama is Satan - fact!"

Where????
Prove it or apologize.

No, I'm not - I was satirising your posting style.