Orwellian USA

[kentington]

Yeah, Jack Lew came forward and said that he uncovered some misconduct. Then he resigned, sighting the need for new leadership.
Now his resignation doesn't make sense, because he wasn't even the commissioner when this all allegedly went down. So why did he leave?

Obama said that his Inspector General found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify who deserves tax exempt status.

That's all that happened. I've learned nothing of what groups were actually targeted, why, or what the evidence is.

I think you agreed with me that this is a ridiculous thing to happen, regardless of which political party it harms or benefits.

What would be a good idea for a check/balance against the IRS without a complete new organization that will cost tons of money?

Abolish it

Just sales tax? Fed and State Sales tax?

[Orwell]

How are these scandals fake and just perpetrations? When was the last time a US ambassador was attacked and killed? Why do you downplay the issue and want to sweep it under the rug?

There is no scandal.

Unless you want to count Republicans falsifying email exchanges to make a partisan claim about Benghazi, or over-hyping an IRS field office's activities to try to implicate the White House. Gee, I must be missing one....

A number of embassy attacks took place in Yemen and no one tried to make it a scandal for the Bush Administration. In fact, there were 12 attacks on US embassies resulting in 60 deaths between 2000-2008 and somehow those did not generate the rage on the Right that Benghazi has - makes ya wonder, eh.

[Orwell]

The victims deserve justice, and we will not rest until we have it.

Victims? "Justice" is one thing, but the partisan grudge you have already admitted to holding is a whole different matter.

And "we" who exactly? Because if you think you are speaking on behalf of the American people, think again. This issue is not as clear cut as you attempt to make it. Of course, that could be said of all of the Obama "scandals" being perpetrated by Republicans right now.

Oh and one last thing: hyperbole does not make a scandal.

Just curious Orwell, if the government targeted people by race, would those people be victims?

Again, you are presuming malice. You assume a crime.

There was no IRS directive, nor was there a Presidential directive, to target conservative groups. The Cincinnati field office was overwhelmed with 501(c)4 applications and they flagged political groups. Some were liberal groups as well.

I know this will not gel with your over-hyped partisan agenda - but there is no grand conspiracy. And what happened in that field office, is nowhere close to the government targeting people because of race. It's historically and politically naive to even try and make such a comparison.

I didn't make a comparison, I asked for your opinion on it.

Of course, you are making a comparison to the IRS flagging the Tea Party to institutional racism.

And you weren't asking my opinion, you were making a straw man argument.

[Phatscotty]

Yeah, Jack Lew came forward and said that he uncovered some misconduct. Then he resigned, sighting the need for new leadership.
Now his resignation doesn't make sense, because he wasn't even the commissioner when this all allegedly went down. So why did he leave?

Obama said that his Inspector General found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify who deserves tax exempt status.

That's all that happened. I've learned nothing of what groups were actually targeted, why, or what the evidence is.

I think you agreed with me that this is a ridiculous thing to happen, regardless of which political party it harms or benefits.

What would be a good idea for a check/balance against the IRS without a complete new organization that will cost tons of money?

Abolish it

Just sales tax? Fed and State Sales tax?

A truly free people will easily find a way that works much better. I would ideally hope to see a 10% Federal sales tax, 5% state tax.

[Phatscotty]

The victims deserve justice, and we will not rest until we have it.

Victims? "Justice" is one thing, but the partisan grudge you have already admitted to holding is a whole different matter.

And "we" who exactly? Because if you think you are speaking on behalf of the American people, think again. This issue is not as clear cut as you attempt to make it. Of course, that could be said of all of the Obama "scandals" being perpetrated by Republicans right now.

Oh and one last thing: hyperbole does not make a scandal.

Just curious Orwell, if the government targeted people by race, would those people be victims?

Again, you are presuming malice. You assume a crime.

There was no IRS directive, nor was there a Presidential directive, to target conservative groups. The Cincinnati field office was overwhelmed with 501(c)4 applications and they flagged political groups. Some were liberal groups as well.

I know this will not gel with your over-hyped partisan agenda - but there is no grand conspiracy. And what happened in that field office, is nowhere close to the government targeting people because of race. It's historically and politically naive to even try and make such a comparison.

I didn't make a comparison, I asked for your opinion on it.

Of course, you are making a comparison to the IRS flagging the Tea Party to institutional racism.

And you weren't asking my opinion, you were making a straw man argument.

I'm well aware of what I was asking you, and you still don't understand, so I will try another way.

if the government targeted people by race, then would those people be victims? It's a yes or no, and it doesn't have anything to do with anything other than what it says it has to do with

[Orwell]

I didn't make a comparison, I asked for your opinion on it.

Of course, you are making a comparison to the IRS flagging the Tea Party to institutional racism.

And you weren't asking my opinion, you were making a straw man argument.

I'm well aware of what I was asking you, and you still don't understand, so I will try another way.

if the government targeted people by race, then would those people be victims? It's a yes or no, and it doesn't have anything to do with anything other than what it says it has to do with

Phatty, I fully understand the straw man argument you are making. There is no yes and no question to answer.

[Phatscotty]

it was just a curiosity, like I said it was. Not an argument

Sometimes, I think you are a robot

[kentington]

There was no IRS directive, nor was there a Presidential directive, to target conservative groups. The Cincinnati field office was overwhelmed with 501(c)4 applications and they flagged political groups. Some were liberal groups as well.

Don't you think that is a problem? Just because they were busy they flagged them? Or are you just directly responding to the partisan portion and not the fact that the IRS isn't doing it's job correctly?

[Woodruff]

The victims deserve justice, and we will not rest until we have it.

Victims? "Justice" is one thing, but the partisan grudge you have already admitted to holding is a whole different matter.

And "we" who exactly? Because if you think you are speaking on behalf of the American people, think again. This issue is not as clear cut as you attempt to make it. Of course, that could be said of all of the Obama "scandals" being perpetrated by Republicans right now.

Oh and one last thing: hyperbole does not make a scandal.

Just curious Orwell, if the government targeted people by race, would those people be victims?

Again, you are presuming malice. You assume a crime.

There was no IRS directive, nor was there a Presidential directive, to target conservative groups. The Cincinnati field office was overwhelmed with 501(c)4 applications and they flagged political groups. Some were liberal groups as well.

I know this will not gel with your over-hyped partisan agenda - but there is no grand conspiracy. And what happened in that field office, is nowhere close to the government targeting people because of race. It's historically and politically naive to even try and make such a comparison.

I didn't make a comparison, I asked for your opinion on it.

You asked for his opinion on the comparison you were making.

[Phatscotty]

The victims deserve justice, and we will not rest until we have it.

Victims? "Justice" is one thing, but the partisan grudge you have already admitted to holding is a whole different matter.

And "we" who exactly? Because if you think you are speaking on behalf of the American people, think again. This issue is not as clear cut as you attempt to make it. Of course, that could be said of all of the Obama "scandals" being perpetrated by Republicans right now.

Oh and one last thing: hyperbole does not make a scandal.

Just curious Orwell, if the government targeted people by race, would those people be victims?

Again, you are presuming malice. You assume a crime.

There was no IRS directive, nor was there a Presidential directive, to target conservative groups. The Cincinnati field office was overwhelmed with 501(c)4 applications and they flagged political groups. Some were liberal groups as well.

I know this will not gel with your over-hyped partisan agenda - but there is no grand conspiracy. And what happened in that field office, is nowhere close to the government targeting people because of race. It's historically and politically naive to even try and make such a comparison.

I didn't make a comparison, I asked for your opinion on it.

You asked for his opinion on the comparison you were making.

nu-uh. I was trying to gauge what he thinks is a victim. bot WOW okay FORGET IT holy crap LOL!

[Night Strike]

There was no IRS directive, nor was there a Presidential directive, to target conservative groups. The Cincinnati field office was overwhelmed with 501(c)4 applications and they flagged political groups. Some were liberal groups as well.

Why did it also happen out of offices in Las Vegas and Washington D.C.? Why were there nearly 500 Tea Party groups flagged and held up? Which liberal groups were actually targeted and held up in the same way? Why did the Obama administration know about it before the 2012 election yet not reveal it?

A number of embassy attacks took place in Yemen and no one tried to make it a scandal for the Bush Administration. In fact, there were 12 attacks on US embassies resulting in 60 deaths between 2000-2008 and somehow those did not generate the rage on the Right that Benghazi has - makes ya wonder, eh.

How many of those times were reinforcements ordered to stand down? How many of those were covered up by the administration and blamed on something completely unrelated?

[Woodruff]

Victims? "Justice" is one thing, but the partisan grudge you have already admitted to holding is a whole different matter.

And "we" who exactly? Because if you think you are speaking on behalf of the American people, think again. This issue is not as clear cut as you attempt to make it. Of course, that could be said of all of the Obama "scandals" being perpetrated by Republicans right now.

Oh and one last thing: hyperbole does not make a scandal.

Just curious Orwell, if the government targeted people by race, would those people be victims?

Again, you are presuming malice. You assume a crime.

There was no IRS directive, nor was there a Presidential directive, to target conservative groups. The Cincinnati field office was overwhelmed with 501(c)4 applications and they flagged political groups. Some were liberal groups as well.

I know this will not gel with your over-hyped partisan agenda - but there is no grand conspiracy. And what happened in that field office, is nowhere close to the government targeting people because of race. It's historically and politically naive to even try and make such a comparison.

I didn't make a comparison, I asked for your opinion on it.

You asked for his opinion on the comparison you were making.

nu-uh. I was trying to gauge what he thinks is a victim. bot WOW okay FORGET IT holy crap LOL!

Is it actually possible that you don't even understand the term "comparison"? I mean, it's used on the ACTs and everything...

[Phatscotty]

Is it actually possible that you don't even understand the term "comparison"? I mean, it's used on the ACTs and everything...

weak. you must be out of trullets. Mind your own business, troll. You aren't even a part of this conversation. Don't make me bust out the foe stick, because you are sinking a little lower and more pathetic than usual, which is saying a lot actually. For example: I do know what a comparison is...

You've been troll warned

[Woodruff]

Is it actually possible that you don't even understand the term "comparison"? I mean, it's used on the ACTs and everything...

weak.

It's weak to point out that you're making a comparison when you're attempting to claim that you're not?

you must be out of trullets. Mind your own business, troll. You aren't even a part of this conversation.

Oh, but thanks to the magic of a public forum, I very much am.

Don't make me bust out the foe stick, because you are sinking a little lower and more pathetic than usual, which is saying a lot actually.

When was I unfoed from #12, wasn't that just a week or so ago you claimed you were foeing me? Wanting to go for the Baker's Dozen, I guess? Who cares, you won't actually follow through with it for long anyway. You love what I have to say far too much for that.

For example: I do know what a comparison is...

Apparently not.

You've been troll warned

I've been warned by a troll in that post...yes, I suppose that is an accurate statement.

[Phatscotty]

Is it actually possible that you don't even understand the term "comparison"? I mean, it's used on the ACTs and everything...

weak.

It's weak to point out that you're making a comparison when you're attempting to claim that you're not?

you must be out of trullets. Mind your own business, troll. You aren't even a part of this conversation.

Oh, but thanks to the magic of a public forum, I very much am.

Don't make me bust out the foe stick, because you are sinking a little lower and more pathetic than usual, which is saying a lot actually.

When was I unfoed from #12, wasn't that just a week or so ago you claimed you were foeing me? Wanting to go for the Baker's Dozen, I guess? Who cares, you won't actually follow through with it for long anyway. You love what I have to say far too much for that.

For example: I do know what a comparison is...

Apparently not.

You've been troll warned

I've been warned by a troll in that post...yes, I suppose that is an accurate statement.

but you ruin an entire thread and any conversation anyone else was having, in order to what, try to make a point, seriously, that I don't know what a comparison is?

That is why you are troll

[Woodruff]

Is it actually possible that you don't even understand the term "comparison"? I mean, it's used on the ACTs and everything...

weak.

It's weak to point out that you're making a comparison when you're attempting to claim that you're not?

you must be out of trullets. Mind your own business, troll. You aren't even a part of this conversation.

Oh, but thanks to the magic of a public forum, I very much am.

Don't make me bust out the foe stick, because you are sinking a little lower and more pathetic than usual, which is saying a lot actually.

When was I unfoed from #12, wasn't that just a week or so ago you claimed you were foeing me? Wanting to go for the Baker's Dozen, I guess? Who cares, you won't actually follow through with it for long anyway. You love what I have to say far too much for that.

For example: I do know what a comparison is...

Apparently not.

You've been troll warned

I've been warned by a troll in that post...yes, I suppose that is an accurate statement.

but you ruin an entire thread and any conversation anyone else was having, in order to what, try to make a point, seriously, that I don't know what a comparison is?

Funny thing about words. They have actual meanings. It's helpful when you use words within their proper contextual meaning. That's how communication actually works.

That is why you are troll

This is a one-sided conversation? Actually, most of the time when I'm trying to discuss something with you, it is.

I'm also pretty sure that anyone who wants to avoid my posts can easily do so. They could even foe me thirteen times if they'd like to do so.

[Woodruff]

if you were actually as cute as you are trying to be right now, then why do you respond to every post I make when I have you foed?

I can say with certainty that I do not respond to every post you make. I only respond to the ones that I feel have information in them that is counter-factual or intentionally misleading. It's not my fault that seems to be a vast majority of your posts.

I can further say that I have no idea when I'm foed or not foed by you, since you don't even seem to bother to stick with it for more than a week.

THAT IS THE ONE SIDED CONVERSATION! hahaha DUHHHH

If only that were the truth...

EDIT: So Phatscotty...why'd you delete that post?

[Phatscotty]

I'm also pretty sure that anyone who wants to avoid my posts can easily do so.

Easily huh? Okay, we'll see how easy you make it for anyone to avoid your posts.

Challenge accepted

[Phatscotty]

EDIT: So Phatscotty...why'd you delete that post?

because, look what you turned the conversation into. You are like a scorched earth barbarian with no value, and I am treating you as such.

deal with it

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah, Jack Lew came forward and said that he uncovered some misconduct. Then he resigned, sighting the need for new leadership.
Now his resignation doesn't make sense, because he wasn't even the commissioner when this all allegedly went down. So why did he leave?

Obama said that his Inspector General found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify who deserves tax exempt status.

That's all that happened. I've learned nothing of what groups were actually targeted, why, or what the evidence is.

I think you agreed with me that this is a ridiculous thing to happen, regardless of which political party it harms or benefits.

What would be a good idea for a check/balance against the IRS without a complete new organization that will cost tons of money?

We were in solid agreement, yo.

But...Oh... absolutely not! It was the IRS itself that caught the scrutiny!
The way I understand it, the IRS was swamped, so they tagged certain words in the names of tax reports that they wanted to scrutinize. Words like "Tea Party." Following PP, they let their bosses know what words they were using as flags. Upper management knew that the project was unfair, so they let the lower level IRS employees know. So they used new flag words, which again upper management told them was inappropriate.

Essentially, the lower management that had the oversight approved the plan, but that was all. There's absolutely no evidence put forward that there was any political motivation behind this.
To me, I think this shows that the system works fine, but we need better training for some IRS workers, and we need to improve the IRS' internal communication. Right America?

[Woodruff]

I'm also pretty sure that anyone who wants to avoid my posts can easily do so.

you say that like you know you are so sneaky with your trolling, that even though you know the person has you foed, you continue to talk to them anyways to try to agitate a response out of them. It's called trolling woodruff

My responses to your posts have nothing to do with you reading them or not, though I do respond directly to you. I do that because it is the context of a conversation, which is what these fora are. The primary reasons why I respond is, as I stated previously, to point out the misinformation that you so routinely include in your posts and/or to point out your hypocricy.

I only know 1 troll, and it's you, and you are foed. Congratulations

Lucky #13!!!! I wonder if I can take bets on how long this one won't last...

[Woodruff]

I'm also pretty sure that anyone who wants to avoid my posts can easily do so.

Easily huh? Okay, we'll see how easy you make it for anyone to avoid your posts.

Challenge accepted

Couldn't stand saying you foe'd me for even a couple of minutes, Phatscotty, and had to go back and change that post too? <laughing>

[Woodruff]

Yeah, Jack Lew came forward and said that he uncovered some misconduct. Then he resigned, sighting the need for new leadership.
Now his resignation doesn't make sense, because he wasn't even the commissioner when this all allegedly went down. So why did he leave?

Obama said that his Inspector General found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify who deserves tax exempt status.

That's all that happened. I've learned nothing of what groups were actually targeted, why, or what the evidence is.

I think you agreed with me that this is a ridiculous thing to happen, regardless of which political party it harms or benefits.

What would be a good idea for a check/balance against the IRS without a complete new organization that will cost tons of money?

We were in solid agreement, yo.

But...Oh... absolutely not! It was the IRS itself that caught the scrutiny!
The way I understand it, the IRS was swamped, so they tagged certain words in the names of tax reports that they wanted to scrutinize. Words like "Tea Party." Following PP, they let their bosses know what words they were using as flags. Upper management knew that the project was unfair, so they let the lower level IRS employees know. So they used new flag words, which again upper management told them was inappropriate.

Essentially, the lower management that had the oversight approved the plan, but that was all. There's absolutely no evidence put forward that there was any political motivation behind this.
To me, I think this shows that the system works fine, but we need better training for some IRS workers, and we need to improve the IRS' internal communication. Right America?

IF that is what actually happened (and I'm not saying it's not, but I haven't actually seen that stated), then I agree. But at this point, that's still an "if".

[kentington]

Yeah, Jack Lew came forward and said that he uncovered some misconduct. Then he resigned, sighting the need for new leadership.
Now his resignation doesn't make sense, because he wasn't even the commissioner when this all allegedly went down. So why did he leave?

Obama said that his Inspector General found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify who deserves tax exempt status.

That's all that happened. I've learned nothing of what groups were actually targeted, why, or what the evidence is.

I think you agreed with me that this is a ridiculous thing to happen, regardless of which political party it harms or benefits.

What would be a good idea for a check/balance against the IRS without a complete new organization that will cost tons of money?

We were in solid agreement, yo.

But...Oh... absolutely not! It was the IRS itself that caught the scrutiny!

Why are we not in agreement now?
Regardless of intent, one political party will benefit more or less based on what criteria is used.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't see the need for a new government institution with IRS oversight, not if the IRS shows itself capable of policing itself, which it has. It needs some polishing is all.
If we get a new institution, who'll appoint it's leader?
Under Bush II, the Supreme Court upheld the separation of the branches. What I mean is, the IRS falls under the Executive's jurisdiction. So the President would be appointing the overseer, and he wouldn't need Congressional approval. Right now, the IRS is non-partisan, and operates the old way. But if the President is able to appoint a special officer to review the IRS' decisions, I think that's a much worse situation than we're in now. To me, it makes more sense to improve internal communication, cut out middlemen, and improve training of lower-level management. The IRS already has non-partisan rules for how this is supposed to work, it just seems like lower management wasn't trained on it.

IF that is what actually happened (and I'm not saying it's not, but I haven't actually seen that stated), then I agree. But at this point, that's still an "if".

I'm working backwards. It's been a few days, and we've gotten no evidence that anything political is happening at the IRS, all we know is all I've said. I feel like, based on the Benghazi forgery, Fast & Furious, Birthers, and Umbrellagate, if the Republican Party had something here they would be blasting it in our faces. But they haven't. All they've said is what I listed.