Moderator: Community Team
warmonger1981 wrote:Looks like common practice to target conservative organizations. Wonder why??
Woodruff wrote:
Is this like the "Romney is a guaranteed win" and "traditional marriage will win out" arguments? You've got quite a consistent track record with your predictions, but I'm not real sure you should be so proud of that particular consistency.
Phatscotty wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:Looks like common practice to target conservative organizations. Wonder why??
They are the only ones who know how to turn a profit?
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:
Is this like the "Romney is a guaranteed win" and "traditional marriage will win out" arguments? You've got quite a consistent track record with your predictions, but I'm not real sure you should be so proud of that particular consistency.
Who someone votes for is not a "prediction".
Phatscotty wrote:By your BS standard, if someone loses an issue one time, their "consistency" is shot?
Phatscotty wrote:Someone is about as able to "win" every issue as one is able to win every election. It's impossible, but I know you roll like that.
Phatscotty wrote:It's pretty clear you are aware your credibility is shot.
Phatscotty wrote:you are a crazy person
Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock during the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the IRS scandal on Friday made a shocking claim: the IRS once asked an Iowa-based pro-life group to reveal the content of their prayers.
“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’” Rep. Schock said while grilling ousted IRS interim chief Steven Miller, .
“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501(c)3 applicant?” the Republican congressman asked. “The content of one’s prayers?”
“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller answered, adding later that her would be “surprised” if a question of that sort was asked of any conservative group.
Phatscotty wrote:Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock during the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the IRS scandal on Friday made a shocking claim: the IRS once asked an Iowa-based pro-life group to reveal the content of their prayers.
“Their question, specifically asked from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa: ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers,’” Rep. Schock said while grilling ousted IRS interim chief Steven Miller, .
“Would that be an inappropriate question to a 501(c)3 applicant?” the Republican congressman asked. “The content of one’s prayers?”
“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either,” Miller answered, adding later that her would be “surprised” if a question of that sort was asked of any conservative group.
Piers Morgan: Now I see U.S. government tyranny
Now – after learning of the Obama administration’s involvement in the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups and its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records – the CNN host admitted to guest Penn Jillette that perhaps gun advocates were right about creeping tyranny after all:
“I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them,” Morgan said. “I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Your government won’t turn itself on you. …
“But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government.”
He continued, “I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior. I think what the Department of Justice has done to the AP is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”
Jillette agreed with Morgan, stating, “There’s no doubt about that. Once you use the word ‘bordering,’ that’s true.
“I also think that it shows you that how much we can trust the government and just sit back– which is not very much at all. We have to be ever vigilant.”
Phatscotty wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Woodruff wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.
Interestingly, were that to happen in the future under a Republican President, I suspect that you would be the one to actually bring it up.
Hey man, my whole point is that this isn't something that normal people should be fighting about here. We all agree that this is wrong and must stop. I would expect a thread like this to get a few murmurs of agreement, but not a battle. And we've got a battle going on. NS and Phatts are blaming Obama, even though there's 0 evidence at all that Obama did this.
And I didn't bring this up when Bush was in office, as I said. Neither did the hypocrites blaming Obama with 0 evidence to back it up. So that's that.
Seriously, I could post a new Republican's scandal every week, but I get people attacking me for even bringing them up, so I don't bother. Though I did keep them going for a while in the Republican thread.
It's on Obama's watch, it's his administration.
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Woodruff wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't understand why this thread has so much back and forth. This isn't a big deal. As I said, the IRS under Bush II did this exact thing targeting liberal charities, and it wasn't even discussed here on CC.
Interestingly, were that to happen in the future under a Republican President, I suspect that you would be the one to actually bring it up.
Hey man, my whole point is that this isn't something that normal people should be fighting about here. We all agree that this is wrong and must stop. I would expect a thread like this to get a few murmurs of agreement, but not a battle. And we've got a battle going on. NS and Phatts are blaming Obama, even though there's 0 evidence at all that Obama did this.
And I didn't bring this up when Bush was in office, as I said. Neither did the hypocrites blaming Obama with 0 evidence to back it up. So that's that.
Seriously, I could post a new Republican's scandal every week, but I get people attacking me for even bringing them up, so I don't bother. Though I did keep them going for a while in the Republican thread.
It's on Obama's watch, it's his administration.
It doesn't get us very far to start playing the game of whom to assign blame to.
Phatscotty wrote:The victims deserve justice, and we will not rest until we have it.
Orwell wrote:Phatscotty wrote: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.
Orwell wrote:Phatscotty wrote: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.
Juan_Bottom wrote:So this is like, day 5 or something.
There's still no direct proof that the IRS targeted the Tea Party? And there's 0 evidence offered at all that anyone influenced their targeting?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Some useful information about politics and the IRS:
James Bovard: A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting (5-10 min read)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 30836.html
(No, he's not blaming Obama but is looking forward to the investigation. He's presenting a fascinating history of the IRS and instances where politicians used the IRS to target other politicians, political groups, and individuals.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Phatscotty wrote:Orwell wrote:Phatscotty wrote: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?
Juan_Bottom wrote: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.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Orwell wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Orwell wrote:Phatscotty wrote: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.
kentington wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users