|
Replies: 34
| visibility 1
|
All-In [34823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41036
Joined: 2/6/01
|
"Morning Joe" panel agrees that the IRS scandal is
Jun 23, 2014, 6:52 AM
|
|
not phony. In fact, they painfully admit that if this was Bush's administration, and *any* Democrat organizations had been targeted, that it would be on the front pages of all newspapers.
The timeline really looks bad, and the fact that no one is the least bit contrite about it at the IRS.
No matter which side of the aisle you are on, this is what is driving the public crazy about Washington.
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [119813]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54529
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Yet, Jay Carney says
Jun 23, 2014, 7:42 AM
|
|
Obama and the admin KNOW that nothing was done wrong and that Lerner's emails were truly just lost.
Must have read that in the newspaper....
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56183]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31674
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Well case closed on that one then.
Jun 23, 2014, 9:25 AM
|
|
Let's just say for the sake of argument that there's a cache of e-mails directly from the president to Lois Lerner ordering her to deny non-profit status to conservative political groups and this motherload suddenly surfaces. Then what happens? I honestly can't figure out the end game here. Yada yada yada impeachment? Does someone go to jail? Was there a law broken?
I think this whole thing boils down to the phrase "targeted conservatives." Nothing else matters. All you gotta hear are those two words and you got yourself a scandal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41036
Joined: 2/6/01
|
If Bush had "targeted liberals," I doubt you'd say the same.
Jun 23, 2014, 9:28 AM
|
|
That's the real problem here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Ha ha. If that happened, you're okay with it?
Jun 23, 2014, 9:37 AM
[ in reply to Well case closed on that one then. ] |
|
Impeachment would be an absolute if there were e-mails from the President to the IRS directing them to turn the IRS into a political weapon (although come on...even the President isn't crazy enough to directly e-mail the IRS with something like this). Absolutely people should go to jail.
I'm not sure why anyone, Democrat or Republican, would be playing down this scandal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56183]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31674
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Who should go to jail for what?
Jun 23, 2014, 10:10 AM
|
|
What law was broken?
When people wonder why more people aren't worked up about the missing e-mails, maybe it's because we already know from basic common sense that if any trail even existed it would never lead to anyone who matters, so thank you for making that clear.
And regarding mumbo's argument, the point of this story isn't about how I react to it. The point of the story should be the implications and ramifications of IRS discretion. The end result is some political groups didn't qualify for a tax exemption. That is not oppression! That is not scary! That is not illegal! And it sure as #### isn't a scandal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41036
Joined: 2/6/01
|
The evidence indicates that favoritism was shown to
Jun 23, 2014, 10:24 AM
|
|
Obama-friendly groups, including at least one of his PACs.
At the same time, delay after delay was visited on conservative or libertarian leaning groups.
You can't just wave your hand and say that didn't happen, because the facts show otherwise.
I agree that the whole concept of PACs is pretty much crap, but Congress wrote the effing law, and these PACs are the result. It's more than a little disingenuous to talk about getting the money out of politics, and then legislate more arcane ways to make it legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Wow.
Jun 23, 2014, 10:26 AM
[ in reply to Who should go to jail for what? ] |
|
"The end result is some political groups didn't qualify for a tax exemption. That is not oppression! That is not scary! That is not illegal! And it sure as #### isn't a scandal."
What's to say to someone who writes this? I suppose we'll have to wait for the next Republican president to use the IRS to cripple organizations that will advocate for policies counter to his agenda in order for you to understand how bad this is. If you can't understand the issue inherently, I don't think I can explain it to you.
"What law was broken?" I don't know. I'm making the assumption that there is a law on the book that says that the Executive Branch cannot direct the IRS to discriminate in its approach to non-profit status (or additional audits, or whatnot). But then again, I think this is wrong, and you inexplicably think it's cool.
The logic that "IF there isn't an e-mail directly from the President to Lois Lerner, then there's no point in even looking into this" has me dumbfounded. I am not sure where to even begin. Why would it have to be so blatant? I'm okay with some higher-level White House officials being thrown in jail. I'm okay with some congressmen stepping down. I'm okay with it being all immediately around the President but without an e-mail from the man. Please. Just one more round of "I had no idea this was going on." It's become fun for the country when the President condescends while simultaneously defending his administration's numerous missteps by claiming to be clueless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56183]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31674
Joined: 8/27/02
|
You want someone thrown in jail, but aren't sure a law was
Jun 23, 2014, 10:48 AM
|
|
broken?
Can you explain which organizations were "crippled" by the IRS? The entire issue comes down to whether or not they qualify to be a non-profit, which is especially funny because they don't.
Liberal groups absolutely should have been targeted as well and my understanding is that they were, but apparently there's some disagreement over this. In any case, if there were any scandal here it would be that liberals weren't targeted, not that conservatives were targeted.
I never said there's no point in looking into this. I'm saying even if those e-mails were available, there would be nothing to find. And even if there were some smoking gun it would make no difference because there has been zero impropriety.
And one last thing, it's possible that conservative groups received more attention than liberal groups on account of the fact that they outspent them 34 to 1. Reminds me of the old curse, "May you come to the attention of those in authority."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Mindboggling
Jun 23, 2014, 11:05 AM
|
|
I find it funny that a more liberally minded person chooses now to take a strict interpretation of IRS code. None the less, YOU are interpreting the code very strictly. The IRS has not done so over the past decades. Precedent is set and precedent is clear. YOU consider the Tea Party groups to be partisan. The IRS does not.
But someone in the Democratic party...White House officials probably and also certainly at least one Senator...directed the IRS to cripple Tea Party groups through the non-profit designation and through additional audits. That is all you need to know. Your argument that it's okay to apply the law more strictly to Tea Party groups than to other groups because that's how you think the law should apply to everyone anyway is ridiculous. And again, if you can't see that on the surface (and I imagine you can't, since it's your argument), then I don't think I'll be able to change your mind.
How much the organization's spent is not material to the IRS and not a criteria for non-profit status.
The fact that I can't name the exact law that was broken doesn't mean that no law was broken. Again, I'm operating on the assumption that somewhere in the volumes and volumes of federal law books, there's a couple sentences that say that using the IRS to attack/intimidate/cripple organizations you consider counter to your goals is a "no-no" for the government.
I am glad at least that we agree that the investigation needs to continue until all facts are available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33634
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Mindboggling
Jun 23, 2014, 11:51 AM
|
|
I find it funny that a more liberally minded person chooses now to take a strict interpretation of IRS code.
Are conservatives more strict than liberals about the IRC?
The IRS has not done so over the past decades. Precedent is set and precedent is clear. YOU consider the Tea Party groups to be partisan. The IRS does not.
Legal precedent about how to construe the IRC? This would seem to be one of your stronger points, if what you're saying is that the Tea Party groups satisfy the rules under prevailing interpretations of the law. Is that the case and, if so, where can we learn about that?
But someone in the Democratic party...White House officials probably and also certainly at least one Senator...directed the IRS to cripple Tea Party groups through the non-profit designation and through additional audits. That is all you need to know.
Were the groups crippled because they had to pay taxes? What happened? Did the Tea Party groups close shop, or what?
How much the organization's spent is not material to the IRS and not a criteria for non-profit status.
Well that's certainly not true. The IRS often concerns itself more with wealthier targets.
The fact that I can't name the exact law that was broken doesn't mean that no law was broken. Again, I'm operating on the assumption that somewhere in the volumes and volumes of federal law books, there's a couple sentences that say that using the IRS to attack/intimidate/cripple organizations you consider counter to your goals is a "no-no" for the government.
The only thing I can think of is the First Amendment, which you could say was violated if the IRS discriminated based on the content of the groups' speech. But no one would go to jail if that's the law that was broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Fundamentally, you have no issue with the IRS
Jun 23, 2014, 12:08 PM
|
|
applying their interpretation of their rules along political ideological lines at the direction of one party?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33634
Joined: 9/13/99
|
It could constitute a First Amendment violation
Jun 23, 2014, 12:13 PM
|
|
But I have questions about whether that actually happened. The questions are in my previous post. Can you answer any of them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Was that a yes?***
Jun 23, 2014, 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33634
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Well you're certainly answering "no"
Jun 23, 2014, 12:19 PM
|
|
as to whether you can answer a single one of my questions.
Nonetheless, I'll try to clarify my answer to yours:
Fundamentally, you have no issue with the IRS applying their interpretation of their rules along political ideological lines at the direction of one party?
I don't know what you mean by "have no issue," but to the extent that you're asking whether I want the IRS treating different people differently based on political orientation, I would say no, I do not want that.
Was that clearer? Can you answer my questions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Can't but won't. Or at least not now. We'll see how bored
Jun 23, 2014, 12:26 PM
|
|
I am some other time.
In the meantime, your client seems to think that there's nothing wrong with the IRS applying their rules in what he considers the "proper" interpretation when looking at conservative groups but then being more..."liberal"...when looking at liberal groups, all at the direction of the more liberal party. If you don't feel the same way then we don't have an argument right now. I'm not trying this case and I get pretty bored with this tactic where if I...a layman in North Carolina...cannot prove to you on a message board beyond a reasonable doubt, then obviously nothing happened.
There's enough smoke that everyone in America SHOULD be yelling fire. Just my opinion. Obviously this administration has proven to you all something that they haven't proven to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
*Sigh*..."Can but won't". ******
Jun 23, 2014, 12:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33634
Joined: 9/13/99
|
"My client," lol.
Jun 23, 2014, 12:48 PM
[ in reply to Can't but won't. Or at least not now. We'll see how bored ] |
|
You know, it's funny how often people shoot themselves in the foot with situations like this. You are doing so now.
You seem to assume that I have a dog in this fight, which I don't. And if you make that false assumption with people, you will hurt your own position with those who could otherwise find themselves in agreement with you.
I asked questions to learn about the issue, or at least your take on them, since you seem strongly opinionated about it, for which reason I expect you to know the topic better than I do. It was not to argue against your position.
From this last post of yours, it sounds like you "smell smoke" but don't "see fire" when it comes to the IRS scandal. So you're not exactly sure what happened, but you think there's reason to suspect that Barry (or whoever you meant with the phrase "your client") directed the IRS to target Tea Party groups. You apparently want other people to "feel the same way," which apparently includes the feeling that certain unnamed individuals deserve jail time, but you aren't sure what laws would permit that.
You have a right to your feelings, but if questions about the basis of your feelings make you hostile, then maybe a political discussion board isn't for you. At the same time, you seem interested in debating topics, and your posts are often thoughtful and critically astute. So I guess you're just a conundrum.
Let me know if you ever get bored enough to answer my questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
My goodness, Spoon. I'll attribute your discussion style to
Jun 23, 2014, 1:00 PM
|
|
an "occupational hazard." When you take exception to my "where there's smoke, there's fire" reference by detailing that I have indicated that I have smelled smoke but as of yet have not confirmed the existence of fire, I think you are the one that needs to take a step away from the message board. When you take my throw-away poke about a liberal taking a strict interpretation of a governing document seriously, I think YOU are the one going overboard.
"Your client" was a reference to Murcielago, because this is the second time you've stepped into one of our back-and-forths to ask ME questions. You STRENUOUSLY object? Is that how this works!?! And just to avoid the follow-up, yes, of course that is fine and welcome. It was just a little joke. As was the above "Strenuously" line. You see why I get tired discussing things with you?
I don't want to engage in this debate with you because I was after the fundamental issue - is there a problem with a Democrat in the White House or a Democratic Senator instructing the IRS to apply more attention to conservative parties and for the IRS to do so? I say yes. You apparently say yes. Murcielago says "Hey, no problem." Now, I believe there is enough smoke (my God...an IRS official taking the 5th...claims that it was based in Cincy that were proven a lie...proof that a Senator actually did direct them to look at certain groups...conveniently lost e-mails...a 10-1 audit rate on those on the member list...it goes on and on) to warrant a full, independent and thorough investigation. I BET you would find key White House officials and other Democrats involved. I THINK this is a violation of the law. But the investigation would tell us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
And as for shooting myself in the foot...ah well...
Jun 23, 2014, 1:00 PM
|
|
...I didn't need a new set of steak knives anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33634
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I take it by this response that you are sufficiently bored.
Jun 23, 2014, 1:08 PM
[ in reply to My goodness, Spoon. I'll attribute your discussion style to ] |
|
You answered at least a couple of my questions.
Ohh, Murc is the client you were referring to! Got it. Sorry, I totally missed that. But I did catch your Few Good Men reference.
Thanks for the answers. I think I understand. I don't think there's a law broken here that will result in jail time for anyone. Maybe just a First Amendment suit to be brought by the Tea Party groups (which they should bring if the facts warrant it). But hey, you never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
I responded because you made it about me.
Jun 23, 2014, 3:16 PM
|
|
If I answered any of your questions, it was purely by accident. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Sorry..."Yes," you fundamentally have a problem with it or
Jun 23, 2014, 12:20 PM
[ in reply to Was that a yes?*** ] |
|
"No," fundamentally you see nothing wrong with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33634
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Sorry..."Yes," you fundamentally have a problem with it or
Jun 23, 2014, 12:32 PM
|
|
Was my answer unclear? Yes, I "fundamentally" believe that discriminating on the basis of political view could be a First Amendment violation, which is about as "fundamental" as a violation can get. So, I am pretty sure that counts as a "Yes" to your question.
Meanwhile, I had questions for you, which you refused to answer. I leave the implications of your choice to the reader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17373
Joined: 2/1/99
|
See above, by all means, leave it to "the reader". Heck,
Jun 23, 2014, 12:39 PM
|
|
declare "Victory" if it does something for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111922]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73868
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Who should go to jail for what?
Jun 23, 2014, 1:17 PM
[ in reply to Who should go to jail for what? ] |
|
actually, it is against the Law for the President to contact anyone at the IRS.
Nixon Inspired congress to pass this law after his crime spree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13972
Joined: 7/31/04
|
Re: Who should go to jail for what?
Jun 23, 2014, 6:19 PM
[ in reply to Who should go to jail for what? ] |
|
The IRS was not created to side with either party, yet it appears to be a direct correlation within the WH and IRS officials.
The low man on the totem poll should not be the fall guy. There was a directive to target groups, and we all know that. The persons responsible, as the bosses, should face a minimum of ten years in a federal pen.
If they want to play the game my computer crashed so I'll fire they computer company. Total cover up. That's all this admin has been. One #### up after another and yet some still want to deny the criminal depth of this involvement. 10 years minimum!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119813]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54529
Joined: 6/24/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56183]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31674
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Re: You are a pathetic
Jun 23, 2014, 10:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7033]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15695
Joined: 10/10/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [673]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 980
Joined: 4/22/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33634
Joined: 9/13/99
|
You probably did it right.
Jun 23, 2014, 12:00 PM
|
|
The only thumbs-up on his post is from me.
There's probably something wrong with the thumbs-down button. I just tested it on your post, and it still says 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56183]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31674
Joined: 8/27/02
|
I think only donors can thumb posts down, but
Jun 23, 2014, 12:18 PM
|
|
moodshelby's opinion of my post has been duly noted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33634
Joined: 9/13/99
|
That's hilarious. I didn't realize they changed the rules.***
Jun 23, 2014, 12:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1073]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1902
Joined: 12/9/98
|
Re: Well case closed on that one then.
Jun 23, 2014, 4:47 PM
[ in reply to Well case closed on that one then. ] |
|
As a CPA I will tell you that the IRS is a very powerful organization and this is a very major issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
