The IRS "Scandal" Isn't a Scandal, But It Will Get Annoying

[Synthaholic]

The IRS "Scandal" Isn't a Scandal, But It Will Get Annoying


Look, we know how this went down: Post-Citizens United, the Internal Revenue Service was flooded with applications for tax-exempt status for whatever organization a couple of fucksacks with a tricorner hat wanted to start. "Social welfare" groups, they were called, and they could not be involved with specific political candidates or advocacy (although, you know, c'mon). So the IRS told its low-level drones who had to look at all the fucksack applications to flag ones that looked hinky. So the low-level drones, who are overworked to begin with because Congress won't give the IRS the funding it needs to do its fucking job, used some search terms.

It's 2010 and who are the fucksacks who are everywhere? The "Tea Party" groups. So, sure, fine, let's fuckin' search that. Low-level drone 1 tells low-level drone 2 (and for god's sake, they live in the dull, dull, boring, dull city of Cincinnati, so give 'em a little break), "Hey, just use 'Patriot' as a search term and you'll get your job done faster because if there's one thing we know, it's that a whole bunch of these applications are from crazed fucksacks applying for tax-exempt status because they hate them that black guy in office." Low-level drone 2 might have said, "Oh, shit, that'll get us in trouble." But low-level drone 1 had a convincing argument by saying, "You wanna get to the bar sooner?" By the way, chances are that LLD 1 and LLD 2 have been LLDs forever, under at least one GOP president.

Does this narrative need to be completed? Sure, fine: A mid-level IRS drone discovers what's happening and says, "Whoa, whoa, you can't just go after the costumed fucksacks. You gotta look at everyone." At which point at least one LLD contemplated suicide, surely. So MLD went to the higher-ups, like Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations, who said, "Aw, fuck, don't you know that the fucksacks are gonna cause a ruckus over this shit? Change it up." And then the IRS started to look at any group that criticized "how the country was run." Then, because that stunk of Tea Party bullshit (even though it encompassed many groups), the standard was then changed to "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement." And then, a year ago, that was changed to "organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention."

No group was denied anything because of the extra scrutiny. And as soon as someone higher than a low-level drone found out about what the LLDs were doing, it was addressed and changed. To say that Barack Obama had something to do with that is to say that Rupert Murdoch should be arrested every time Sean Hannity lies on the air.

If you want to call the IRS thing a scandal, well, shit, in this dumbed-down post-Clinton blow job era, the definition of "scandal" is meaningless, so why the fuck not? At least it looks like someone did something knowingly wrong, unlike Benghazi, which is a lonely penis looking for a hole to penetrate.

Hell, the Washington Post went all nutzoid on it, proving its street-cred to keep up the subscription rate among Republican readers: "One line of questioning should focus on how the IRS’s procedures failed to catch this 'shortcut' before its employees began using it. Another should center on how this misguided practice came to light, and on what the IRS planned and plans to do about it." Umm, the IRS caught it shortly after it was used. And did something about it. Isn't that the end of the story?

But, no, really, there should be an investigation. Go the fuck ahead, GOP (and, yeah, Democrats who wanna show that they can be all mightily outraged at a black man, too). Call witnesses. Have mighty inquiries where you can preen for the base. It's not like you're gonna do anything better with your time. At this point, you've cried, "Wolf!" so many times that even the wolves are bored.

"The IRS has released its 2010 Databook. Fewer than 60,000 501(c)(3) applications were processed during fiscal year 2010, a drop of more than 15% from 2009"

News & Quotes About 501(c)(3) Applications

There goes THAT lame excuse.

SO what will be the next excuse?

Nice try, but this is about 501(c)(4) applications, you dishonest piece of shit.

 

[Jarhead]

The IRS "Scandal" Isn't a Scandal, But It Will Get Annoying


Look, we know how this went down: Post-Citizens United, the Internal Revenue Service was flooded with applications for tax-exempt status for whatever organization a couple of fucksacks with a tricorner hat wanted to start. "Social welfare" groups, they were called, and they could not be involved with specific political candidates or advocacy (although, you know, c'mon). So the IRS told its low-level drones who had to look at all the fucksack applications to flag ones that looked hinky. So the low-level drones, who are overworked to begin with because Congress won't give the IRS the funding it needs to do its fucking job, used some search terms.

It's 2010 and who are the fucksacks who are everywhere? The "Tea Party" groups. So, sure, fine, let's fuckin' search that. Low-level drone 1 tells low-level drone 2 (and for god's sake, they live in the dull, dull, boring, dull city of Cincinnati, so give 'em a little break), "Hey, just use 'Patriot' as a search term and you'll get your job done faster because if there's one thing we know, it's that a whole bunch of these applications are from crazed fucksacks applying for tax-exempt status because they hate them that black guy in office." Low-level drone 2 might have said, "Oh, shit, that'll get us in trouble." But low-level drone 1 had a convincing argument by saying, "You wanna get to the bar sooner?" By the way, chances are that LLD 1 and LLD 2 have been LLDs forever, under at least one GOP president.

Does this narrative need to be completed? Sure, fine: A mid-level IRS drone discovers what's happening and says, "Whoa, whoa, you can't just go after the costumed fucksacks. You gotta look at everyone." At which point at least one LLD contemplated suicide, surely. So MLD went to the higher-ups, like Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations, who said, "Aw, fuck, don't you know that the fucksacks are gonna cause a ruckus over this shit? Change it up." And then the IRS started to look at any group that criticized "how the country was run." Then, because that stunk of Tea Party bullshit (even though it encompassed many groups), the standard was then changed to "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement." And then, a year ago, that was changed to "organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention."

No group was denied anything because of the extra scrutiny. And as soon as someone higher than a low-level drone found out about what the LLDs were doing, it was addressed and changed. To say that Barack Obama had something to do with that is to say that Rupert Murdoch should be arrested every time Sean Hannity lies on the air.

If you want to call the IRS thing a scandal, well, shit, in this dumbed-down post-Clinton blow job era, the definition of "scandal" is meaningless, so why the fuck not? At least it looks like someone did something knowingly wrong, unlike Benghazi, which is a lonely penis looking for a hole to penetrate.

Hell, the Washington Post went all nutzoid on it, proving its street-cred to keep up the subscription rate among Republican readers: "One line of questioning should focus on how the IRS’s procedures failed to catch this 'shortcut' before its employees began using it. Another should center on how this misguided practice came to light, and on what the IRS planned and plans to do about it." Umm, the IRS caught it shortly after it was used. And did something about it. Isn't that the end of the story?

But, no, really, there should be an investigation. Go the fuck ahead, GOP (and, yeah, Democrats who wanna show that they can be all mightily outraged at a black man, too). Call witnesses. Have mighty inquiries where you can preen for the base. It's not like you're gonna do anything better with your time. At this point, you've cried, "Wolf!" so many times that even the wolves are bored.

"The IRS has released its 2010 Databook. Fewer than 60,000 501(c)(3) applications were processed during fiscal year 2010, a drop of more than 15% from 2009"

News & Quotes About 501(c)(3) Applications

There goes THAT lame excuse.

SO what will be the next excuse?

Nice try, but this is about 501(c)(4) applications, you dishonest piece of shit.

lol.

The insult...the name calling.....

The expected.

You are in the dark. Stay there.

 

[Stephanie]

hope this annoys the rude idiot
tsk tsk

SNIP:
Polls: Public Questions Obama’s Honesty On IRS Targeting

Social facebook Share this story on Facebook

Tweet this story

Social email Email this story to a friend
Tom Kludt - 6:32 AM EDT, Wednesday June 5, 2013

A pair of new polls indicated that Americans are questioning President Barack Obama's honesty in the wake of the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal.

The latest Bloomberg National Poll released Tuesday evening showed that 47 percent of Americans don't believe Obama's claim that he wasn't aware the IRS was targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny, while 40 percent believe he is telling the truth.

Meanwhile, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released early Wednesday showed that 55 percent of Americans believe the agency's improper targeting raises doubts about the Obama administration's honesty and integrity. But the same NBC/WSJ poll found that only 33 percent believe Obama is "totally" or "mainly" responsible for the targeting. It also showed the President's approval rating holding steady since the previous NBC/WSJ poll in April.

all of it at
Polls: Public Questions Obama's Honesty On IRS Targeting | TPM LiveWire

 

[Synthaholic]

"The IRS has released its 2010 Databook. Fewer than 60,000 501(c)(3) applications were processed during fiscal year 2010, a drop of more than 15% from 2009"

News & Quotes About 501(c)(3) Applications

There goes THAT lame excuse.

SO what will be the next excuse?

Nice try, but this is about 501(c)(4) applications, you dishonest piece of shit.

lol.

The insult...the name calling.....

The expected.

You are in the dark. Stay there.

No, you are trying to dishonestly present a list of 501(c)(3) applications, when this isn't about 501(c)(3).

It's about 501(c)(4) applications.


Why are conservatives so dishonest?

 

[Jarhead]

Nice try, but this is about 501(c)(4) applications, you dishonest piece of shit.

lol.

The insult...the name calling.....

The expected.

You are in the dark. Stay there.

No, you are trying to dishonestly present a list of 501(c)(3) applications, when this isn't about 501(c)(3).

It's about 501(c)(4) applications.


Why are conservatives so dishonest?

if you were paying attention you would be well aware of the fact that there were representatives from BOTH filing categories at the hearings yesterday.

And the name calling is not getting you anywhere. It is immature. I ask you stop. I dont do it out of respect for my adversaries...and I frown on those that do it to me. It ruins a good thing.

 

[Synthaholic]

lol.

The insult...the name calling.....

The expected.

You are in the dark. Stay there.

No, you are trying to dishonestly present a list of 501(c)(3) applications, when this isn't about 501(c)(3).

It's about 501(c)(4) applications.


Why are conservatives so dishonest?

if you were paying attention you would be well aware of the fact that there were representatives from BOTH filing categories at the hearings yesterday.

And the name calling is not getting you anywhere. It is immature. I ask you stop. I dont do it out of respect for my adversaries...and I frown on those that do it to me. It ruins a good thing.

You're not only dishonest, you're a hypocrite. Your sigline:


Definition of a left wing partisan hack:

^^^^That's name-calling.

 

[hortysir]

Is there really that stark contrast of a diff between c4 and c3s?

 

[Avatar4321]

No, you are trying to dishonestly present a list of 501(c)(3) applications, when this isn't about 501(c)(3).

It's about 501(c)(4) applications.


Why are conservatives so dishonest?

if you were paying attention you would be well aware of the fact that there were representatives from BOTH filing categories at the hearings yesterday.

And the name calling is not getting you anywhere. It is immature. I ask you stop. I dont do it out of respect for my adversaries...and I frown on those that do it to me. It ruins a good thing.

You're not only dishonest, you're a hypocrite. Your sigline:


Definition of a left wing partisan hack:

^^^^That's name-calling.

Who exactly is he calling a left wing partisan hack? Usually in order to name call, you have to direct it towards someone. At least the last time i checked.

If you take offense out of something not directed towards you, you must think it applies to yourself. you realize you dont have to be a left wing partisan hack? You dont have to be a partisan hack of any kind. You could be a decent human being.

 

[Trajan]

Being outraged that public employees made mistakes, or cut corners on procedure is a hell of a lot different than admitting there is some kind of alleged scandal.

I want to be clear, I am not sure I read your snippet above, correctly, your take on this is, irs employees, made 'mistakes'...is that correct?

I think the OP is most likely a very good explanation for what actually happened.

Look, we know how this went down: Post-Citizens United, the Internal Revenue Service was flooded with applications for tax-exempt status for whatever organization a couple of fucksacks with a tricorner hat wanted to start. "Social welfare" groups, they were called, and they could not be involved with specific political candidates or advocacy (although, you know, c'mon). So the IRS told its low-level drones who had to look at all the fucksack applications to flag ones that looked hinky. So the low-level drones, who are overworked to begin with because Congress won't give the IRS the funding it needs to do its fucking job, used some search terms.

It's 2010 and who are the fucksacks who are everywhere? The "Tea Party" groups. So, sure, fine, let's fuckin' search that. Low-level drone 1 tells low-level drone 2 (and for god's sake, they live in the dull, dull, boring, dull city of Cincinnati, so give 'em a little break), "Hey, just use 'Patriot' as a search term and you'll get your job done faster because if there's one thing we know, it's that a whole bunch of these applications are from crazed fucksacks applying for tax-exempt status because they hate them that black guy in office." Low-level drone 2 might have said, "Oh, shit, that'll get us in trouble." But low-level drone 1 had a convincing argument by saying, "You wanna get to the bar sooner?" By the way, chances are that LLD 1 and LLD 2 have been LLDs forever, under at least one GOP president.

Does this narrative need to be completed? Sure, fine: A mid-level IRS drone discovers what's happening and says, "Whoa, whoa, you can't just go after the costumed fucksacks. You gotta look at everyone." At which point at least one LLD contemplated suicide, surely. So MLD went to the higher-ups, like Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations, who said, "Aw, fuck, don't you know that the fucksacks are gonna cause a ruckus over this shit? Change it up." And then the IRS started to look at any group that criticized "how the country was run." Then, because that stunk of Tea Party bullshit (even though it encompassed many groups), the standard was then changed to "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement." And then, a year ago, that was changed to "organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention."

No group was denied anything because of the extra scrutiny.

thats not what I asked you, please answer the question while explaining in 3-4 sentences, what the OP is tryinig to say...thx in advance.

 

[Trajan]

Funny how they skip over Iran-Contra.

yes it was a scandal, but, what has it to do with the IRS issue?

It's telling and funny how the far Right, when they think of some of America's worst scandals, have amnesia about Iran-Contra, and jump right to Watergate, which is arguably not as bad as Iran-Contra.

what we feel about the iran contra scandal is not germane, I think it was a scandal too, so address me please.

the irs issue, is the issue. scandal, yes I think so, who's responsible? I am not sure yet....it wasn't 5-6 yahoos in Cincinnati that much is certain.

 

[saveliberty]

Synthia can't seem to grasp mistake versus illegal. Have to like his ability to allow discrimination from the government though. (sarcasm)

Taken as a whole, it is clear the left has quietly declared war on opposing views.

 

[saveliberty]

Apparently Rude Pundit is okay with harassment. I'm going to need a real name and address Rude. Asking Verizon for your phone records just takes too long.

 

[Katzndogz]

Iran Contra was a scandal, but it was a procedural scandal. Trying to raise money for a foreign project that Congress had defunded in the middle of execution. Iran Contra for all of its wrongdoing, did not affect the lives of ordinary Americans the way obama's various scandals are doing.

The IRS scandal is unfolding into a veritable onion of scandals. While Americans might be too distracted with their own lives to not pay attention to the machinations in Washington, when they hear that the cost of lavish parties given by the IRS could not be exactly known because the IRS threw away all the receipts, they tend to pay attention to that.

 

[bripat9643]

Nice try, but this is about 501(c)(4) applications, you dishonest piece of shit.

lol.

The insult...the name calling.....

The expected.

You are in the dark. Stay there.

No, you are trying to dishonestly present a list of 501(c)(3) applications, when this isn't about 501(c)(3).

It's about 501(c)(4) applications.


Why are conservatives so dishonest?

You're still wrong, moron:

Despite claims that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was under seige by a flood of new tax-exempt applications from nonprofit political groups in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the number of 501(c)(4) applications to the IRS actually dropped around the time the IRS began targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

The IRS received 1,735 applications from groups seeking 501(c)(4) nonprofit status in fiscal year 2010, 16 less than the 1,751 applications it received in fiscal year 2009, according to a report released by the Treasury Inspector General.

IRS targeting of conservative groups began in February 2010, in the fifth month of fiscal year 2010.

Read more: 501(c)(4) applications lower when IRS began conservatives | The Daily Caller

 

[saveliberty]

With all the power held by the IRS, anything remotely illegal or lacking in integrity needs to be stopped immediately and dealt with harshly.

 

[Stephanie]

With all the power held by the IRS, anything remotely illegal or lacking in integrity needs to be stopped immediately and dealt with harshly.

you would think that would be important to the OP but he's more worried if it affects his Dear Leader and thinks the Irs was just being thorough, as he put it in another thread

 

[Synthaholic]

Apparently Rude Pundit is okay with harassment. I'm going to need a real name and address Rude. Asking Verizon for your phone records just takes too long.

Right there on the home page: Lee Papa.


Why are you wingnuts so surprised when we call you morons?

 

[Synthaholic]

With all the power held by the IRS, anything remotely illegal or lacking in integrity needs to be stopped immediately and dealt with harshly.

Why is Congress asking the IRS to make political determinations?

 

[tooAlive]

This thread is still getting bumped??

 

[saveliberty]

Apparently Rude Pundit is okay with harassment. I'm going to need a real name and address Rude. Asking Verizon for your phone records just takes too long.

Right there on the home page: Lee Papa.


Why are you wingnuts so surprised when we call you morons?

I suppose you think that is real. Not surprised really.