If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   While the IRS central scrutinizer was singling out right-wing groups for nitpicking, they were waving through liberal groups' applications. In other news, Tea Party changes its name to Mother Gaia's Nuanced Vegans for Appeasement   (usatoday.com) divider line 321
    More: Followup, Champaign Tea Party, IRS, right-wing, appeasement, Florida Legislature  
•       •       •

904 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 10:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-15 11:44:13 AM  

Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)


You're kinda mixing up groups there and blatantly lying.  Its ok you're having a bad week

OWS liberals actually do try to blow up bridges, Teatards huff and puff and carry badly spelled signs
 
2013-05-15 11:44:19 AM  

BMulligan: Fifi Le Pew: I'm glad the IRS is getting the magnifying glass.  They've needed to be brought down a peg or two for YEARS.  And I'm not talking Obama years, either.  I have seen first hand just how scuzzy the IRS is:  Reneging on contractual payments with taxpayers, contacting and scaring the beejeezus out of taxpayers for additional monies that are not owed (and are KNOWN to not be owed), unilaterally deciding the amount of allowances you may take on your W-4 regardless of actual dependents, etc.

I hope they investigate every aspect of the IRS, not just their approval of tax exempt status for organizations.  This has nothing to do with who is president, and everything to do with the IRS's imperious nature.

That's weird. Somehow all of your citations seem to have disappeared.


You would like for me to cite from my first hand experiences?  I certainly could, but I doubt you're really that interested in hearing about the treatment afforded by the IRS to myself and others in my circle of friends, acquaintances, and co-workers.  I could be wrong on this, but it's probably a TLDR for most here.
 
2013-05-15 11:45:19 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: It's Obama's idea now?

Actually, yeah. The sequester was Obama's idea to avoid the debt ceiling idiocy. Study it out.

Then why did he want to avert it? Why was so strongly critical of ita couple months ago?

Maybe he was just blowing smoke to appease his virulently anti-austerity pro spending supporters, while in reality he recognized the need for spending cuts. If thats the case, good for him. Reduces my regrets in voting for him.


WTF are you on about? You realize that Obama has always supported spending cuts, right? Do you even know what the sequester is? Do you know the difference between "normal" spending cuts and the sequester?
 
2013-05-15 11:45:59 AM  

Fifi Le Pew: BMulligan: Fifi Le Pew: I'm glad the IRS is getting the magnifying glass.  They've needed to be brought down a peg or two for YEARS.  And I'm not talking Obama years, either.  I have seen first hand just how scuzzy the IRS is:  Reneging on contractual payments with taxpayers, contacting and scaring the beejeezus out of taxpayers for additional monies that are not owed (and are KNOWN to not be owed), unilaterally deciding the amount of allowances you may take on your W-4 regardless of actual dependents, etc.

I hope they investigate every aspect of the IRS, not just their approval of tax exempt status for organizations.  This has nothing to do with who is president, and everything to do with the IRS's imperious nature.

That's weird. Somehow all of your citations seem to have disappeared.

You would like for me to cite from my first hand experiences?  I certainly could, but I doubt you're really that interested in hearing about the treatment afforded by the IRS to myself and others in my circle of friends, acquaintances, and co-workers.  I could be wrong on this, but it's probably a TLDR for most here.


Anecdotal evidence is not a citation.
 
2013-05-15 11:46:55 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to. Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.
[i159.photobucket.com image 355x515]


Cute. Your goofiness is noted. Thanks for playing.
 
2013-05-15 11:47:02 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Maybe he was just blowing smoke to appease his virulently anti-austerity pro spending supporters, while in reality he recognized the need for spending cuts. If thats the case, good for him. Reduces my regrets in voting for him.


That was an actual theory being floated. The sequester was the only way to get any sort of real cuts to the military, and since SS and other safety net programs were untouched, let it go.

He got the Republicans to cut the military. Nice play.
 
2013-05-15 11:47:27 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: The CBO projected deficit for the 2013 fiscal year that ends sept. 30? You don't think the spending cuts factored into that?

Oh, now it just "factored in"? Before it was "thanks sequester!" now it's "it factored in"

Keep movin them goalposts!


Do you seriously have no idea how budget projections are made? The sequester has reduced spending, thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link. So, yes, thanks sequester (and Obama, if you want to say sequester was his doing). Other items obviously also factor into the reduced deficit projections. One of which is the gradually improving economy (despite the sequester, for which we agree Obama was primarily responsible)
 
2013-05-15 11:48:27 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: So to recap, here's the "scandals" plaguing Obama:

There was an attack on a consulate that resulted in embassy staff and an ambassador being murdered, but the attack happened so fast and in such a remote location that no reactive measures could be taken, prompting us to have a frank talk about security needs.

AND THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY TERRORIST!  HE DIDN'T SAY IT!  NOT FOR DAYS!  AN ACT OF TERROR IS NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK!

The DOJ issued perfectly legal process to obtain journalistic records to find the identity of a leak that could develop into a threat to national security, promoting the Fourth Estate to piss themselves in fear of tyranny and the rest of the country to shrug and say, "leaks are maybe not always so good?"

And finally, the IRS may have singled out an indeterminate number of groups with "tea party" in the name for increased scrutiny as to their 501(c)(4) applications but hasn't denied any of them, and may have not taken a serious enough look at some applications by progressive groups, an act which in no way could be attributed to the President EVEN IF it is determined to be improper (which no one should concede).

And the last time we had a Democratic president, his big "scandal" was lying about his side piece.

Contrast that with the "scandals" of our past few Republican presidents, such as lying to start a war, deliberately ignoring intelligence about terrorists seeking to attack the US because it detracted from the boogeyman they really wanted to get, selling weapons to a nation holding our embassy staff hostage to finance right-wing death squads in Latin America, delaying the release of hostages to win an election, etc.

Tell me again why we aren't burning down every GOP headquarters and tarring and feathering every last R for treason?


Don't forget the most important part of 'ghazigate....
 
2013-05-15 11:49:19 AM  

SithLord: Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?


Wait, I thought OWS was a joke and should not be taken seriously by anyone.  How did they get to be a threat to the very existence of this country?

Oh wait - this is one of those doublethink things, right?  Like how 0bama is an ineffectual empty suit and a tyrannical dictator?
 
2013-05-15 11:49:53 AM  

Witty_Retort: Tomahawk513: That would sure be nice. I agree with what the IRS did, placing more scrutiny on semi-political groups, but disagree with the way in which they did it, basically a key-word search. We don't tolerate racial profiling, why should we tolerate political profiling?

Due to budget cuts, that's the way the IRS works. They have various flags that can be set off in returns. If you take the home office deduction, that is a big red flag 'cause most people don't know the narrow way that is to be used and counted.

Someone researched and found that 501s with TEA or Patriot were more likely to be fraudulent. Since the story coming out is that it was around a 25% rejection (or retraction) rate, they may have been on to something.

Another thought is that lets say they reviewed 10% of all 501s. Since 2010, there has been exponential growth of conservative 501s. So more conservative ones would have been reviewed.


Why weren't keywords such as "Progressive", etc. used? It's just as easy.

There was a 0% rejection rate for these "conservative" groups per everything I've read, AFTER they implemented the increased scrutiny. Yes, some groups retracted, but that could be due to any number of reasons including not wanting to deal with that BS or maybe some were trying to pass themselves off as something they weren't.
 
2013-05-15 11:50:00 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: The CBO projected deficit for the 2013 fiscal year that ends sept. 30? You don't think the spending cuts factored into that?

Oh, now it just "factored in"? Before it was "thanks sequester!" now it's "it factored in"

Keep movin them goalposts!

Do you seriously have no idea how budget projections are made? The sequester has reduced spending, thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link. So, yes, thanks sequester (and Obama, if you want to say sequester was his doing). Other items obviously also factor into the reduced deficit projections. One of which is the gradually improving economy (despite the sequester, for which we agree Obama was primarily responsible)


No. Read the link again. The whole thing. The reduction in the current deficit estimate from the previous deficit estimate has ZERO to do with the sequester.
 
2013-05-15 11:50:42 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: The CBO projected deficit for the 2013 fiscal year that ends sept. 30? You don't think the spending cuts factored into that?

Oh, now it just "factored in"? Before it was "thanks sequester!" now it's "it factored in"

Keep movin them goalposts!

Do you seriously have no idea how budget projections are made? The sequester has reduced spending, thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link. So, yes, thanks sequester (and Obama, if you want to say sequester was his doing). Other items obviously also factor into the reduced deficit projections. One of which is the gradually improving economy (despite the sequester, for which we agree Obama was primarily responsible)


I have to admit that I find it hilarious that Republicans in Congress fell all over themselves to blame Obama for the sequestration and, now, people are saying the economy is getting stronger because of the sequestration. I guess they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2013-05-15 11:51:06 AM  

Witty_Retort: Debeo Summa Credo: Maybe he was just blowing smoke to appease his virulently anti-austerity pro spending supporters, while in reality he recognized the need for spending cuts. If thats the case, good for him. Reduces my regrets in voting for him.

That was an actual theory being floated. The sequester was the only way to get any sort of real cuts to the military, and since SS and other safety net programs were untouched, let it go.

He got the Republicans to cut the military. Nice play.


Whether or not that was the intention, it has and will work out well for America. Hopefully Obama will make additional pragmatic decisions regarding spending for the remainder of his term.
 
2013-05-15 11:51:41 AM  

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Free economy proponents vs. command economy proponents; that's what this issue boils down to. Unfortunately, an enormous unethical "cheating" culture has enveloped the current "command economy" government regime, and there is now an enormous backlash that is beginning to seek out balance between the two economic polarities. The IRS effectively altered election results through harassment methods. IRS "operatives," so to speak, working directly in tacit agreement with the Obama campaign, worked as thoroughly as possible (while on taxpayers' dimes) to divert resources and money away from conservative efforts to encourage citizens for the conservative causes and candidates. There's really no two ways about it.  that's what was done. End of story.
[i159.photobucket.com image 355x515]

Cute. Your goofiness is noted. Thanks for playing.


You're welcome.  Your paranoid insanity is my pleasure.

Tell me more about about the scary black man!!
 
2013-05-15 11:51:57 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Obama's Reptiloid Master: So to recap, here's the "scandals" plaguing Obama:

There was an attack on a consulate that resulted in embassy staff and an ambassador being murdered, but the attack happened so fast and in such a remote location that no reactive measures could be taken, prompting us to have a frank talk about security needs. AND THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY TERRORIST!  HE DIDN'T SAY IT!  NOT FOR DAYS!  AN ACT OF TERROR IS NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK!

The DOJ issued perfectly legal process to obtain journalistic records to find the identity of a leak that could develop into a threat to national security, promoting the Fourth Estate to piss themselves in fear of tyranny and the rest of the country to shrug and say, "leaks are maybe not always so good?"

And finally, the IRS may have singled out an indeterminate number of groups with "tea party" in the name for increased scrutiny as to their 501(c)(4) applications but hasn't denied any of them, and may have not taken a serious enough look at some applications by progressive groups, an act which in no way could be attributed to the President EVEN IF it is determined to be improper (which no one should concede).

And the last time we had a Democratic president, his big "scandal" was lying about his side piece.

Contrast that with the "scandals" of our past few Republican presidents, such as lying to start a war, deliberately ignoring intelligence about terrorists seeking to attack the US because it detracted from the boogeyman they really wanted to get, selling weapons to a nation holding our embassy staff hostage to finance right-wing death squads in Latin America, delaying the release of hostages to win an election, etc.

Tell me again why we aren't burning down every GOP headquarters and tarring and feathering every last R for treason?

Don't forget the most important part of 'ghazigate....


I never thought of it like that, but man.  GOP you better step up your game!
 
2013-05-15 11:52:10 AM  
As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?
 
2013-05-15 11:52:17 AM  

Muta: Fart_Machine: Scerpes: Muta: The IRS gives churches a free pass. Where is the outrage regarding this?

You mean like when they give unions a free pass?

Citation needed.

He's right.  Unions are tax exempt as 501c5 organizations.


I was asking for a citation on how they were ignored like unions.
 
2013-05-15 11:52:57 AM  

ShadowKamui: Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)

You're kinda mixing up groups there and blatantly lying.  Its ok you're having a bad week

OWS liberals actually do try to blow up bridges, Teatards huff and puff and carry badly spelled signs


What huffing and puffing might look like:
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
graphics8.nytimes.com
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-15 11:54:12 AM  

inner ted: getting my laughs out of the way at what is sure to be an epic liberal ass hurty thread that basically boils down to: when my guy does it, it's fine & i just mock anyone who says otherwise or feign disinterest.

should be a blast


I love it best when biatches like you whine about persecution unprovoked. What a poor suffering conservative you are. Here's some advice for you, cupcake.
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-05-15 11:54:27 AM  

Epoch_Zero: What huffing and puffing might look like:


Lib-U-Lardos, one and all.  Study it out.
 
2013-05-15 11:55:01 AM  

joness0154: Someone researched and found that 501s with TEA or Patriot were more likely to be fraudulent. Since the story coming out is that it was around a 25% rejection (or retraction) rate, they may have been on to something.

Another thought is that lets say they reviewed 10% of all 501s. Since 2010, there has been exponential growth of conservative 501s. So more conservative ones would have been reviewed.

Why weren't keywords such as "Progressive", etc. used? It's just as easy.


Reading is fundamental.

There was a 0% rejection rate for these "conservative" groups per everything I've read, AFTER they implemented the increased scrutiny. Yes, some groups retracted, but that could be due to any number of reasons including not wanting to deal with that BS or maybe some were trying to pass themselves off as something they weren't.

Ehh... I would say about 50/50 chance between giving up and actual malfeasance.

I like the idea that these brave patriots with tea bags on their hats said "OMG filling out forms is tough. Let's give up."
 
2013-05-15 11:55:44 AM  
Bungles:

....the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?

Exactly my sentiment
 
2013-05-15 11:56:13 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: thereby reducing the projected deficit referred to in BMulligan's link.


Uh, yeah maybe in the previous estimate. This current CBO estimate is reduced from that one. I.E the sequester was factored in, and then the deficit was reduced even further due to increased taxes and a growth in the economy, mainly.

Do you get it now?
 
2013-05-15 11:57:14 AM  

Bungles: As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?


American centrist liberals like to immediately roll over and apologize any time a conservative accuses them of anything. All it takes is some fascist douchebag dressed as a fake pimp and a copy of Adobe Premiere to give the entire Democratic party the vapors.
 
2013-05-15 11:57:22 AM  

Mjeck: Bungles:

....the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?

Exactly my sentiment


From the DoJ report that's pretty much what happened. They basically said "You did it in the wrong way"
 
2013-05-15 11:57:57 AM  

Bungles: As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?


They thrive, recruit, and live off of a fake persecution complex. Now someone went and gave them supporting evidence. That, alone, is a giant PITA.
 
2013-05-15 11:58:26 AM  
And yet the only entity that was actually denied tax-free status was "Emerge America," a liberal group supporting women candidates for office.
 
2013-05-15 11:58:52 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: So to recap, here's the "scandals" plaguing Obama:

There was an attack on a consulate that resulted in embassy staff and an ambassador being murdered, but the attack happened so fast and in such a remote location that no reactive measures could be taken, prompting us to have a frank talk about security needs.

The DOJ issued perfectly legal process to obtain journalistic records to find the identity of a leak that could develop into a threat to national security, promoting the Fourth Estate to piss themselves in fear of tyranny and the rest of the country to shrug and say, "leaks are maybe not always so good?"

And finally, the IRS may have singled out an indeterminate number of groups with "tea party" in the name for increased scrutiny as to their 501(c)(4) applications but hasn't denied any of them, and may have not taken a serious enough look at some applications by progressive groups, an act which in no way could be attributed to the President EVEN IF it is determined to be improper (which no one should concede).

And the last time we had a Democratic president, his big "scandal" was lying about his side piece.

Contrast that with the "scandals" of our past few Republican presidents, such as lying to start a war, deliberately ignoring intelligence about terrorists seeking to attack the US because it detracted from the boogeyman they really wanted to get, selling weapons to a nation holding our embassy staff hostage to finance right-wing death squads in Latin America, delaying the release of hostages to win an election, etc.


If we're going to go back as far as Reagan and throw the word treason around, we may as well put Nixon in there too since a lot of the problems we're still having are his fault. He's the one that pioneered the victory at all costs mindset that the modern Republicans wallow in.


SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.


Occupy Wall Street didn't do any of those things either. But then again, "Bill Ayers" is part of the Conservative Buzzword List that means you have no idea what the fark you're talking about, so what you say doesn't matter anyway.
 
2013-05-15 11:59:49 AM  

bikerific: And yet the only entity that was actually denied tax-free status was "Emerge America," a liberal group supporting women candidates for office.


OMG LIBERAL GROUPS WERE ALL WAVED THROUGH!
 
2013-05-15 12:02:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Danger Mouse: skozlaw: Is this actually a thing? I've just been ignoring it on the assumption that it was just another in the seemingly endless right-wing whine fest over nothing. I figured some day they'd actually have a real reason to biatch, though, so is this it?

According to Farbongo it is a thing. So yea, you might want to read a newspaper or something and not get all your news from FARK.

According to "farbongo," if it IS a thing, he'll investigate it. It's not looking like it's a thing yet.


Yea, about that.

Mr Fartbongo:
"I have now had the opportunity to review the Treasury Department watchdog's report on its investigation of IRS personnel who improperly targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. And the report's findings are intolerable and inexcusable,"

 Obama said he's directed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew "to hold those responsible for these failures accountable, and to make sure that each of the Inspector General's recommendations are implemented quickly, so that such conduct never happens again."


/try to keep up.
 
2013-05-15 12:03:21 PM  

Epoch_Zero: ShadowKamui: Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)

You're kinda mixing up groups there and blatantly lying.  Its ok you're having a bad week

OWS liberals actually do try to blow up bridges, Teatards huff and puff and carry badly spelled signs

What huffing and puffing might look like:
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 152x197]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 227x170]
[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x195]
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 181x278]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 201x236]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 124x160]


And how many were actual teatards and not just racists and/or lunatics?
 
2013-05-15 12:04:02 PM  
Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?
 
2013-05-15 12:04:32 PM  

Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?


Define Political.
 
2013-05-15 12:04:35 PM  

ShadowKamui: And how many were actual teatards and not just racists and/or lunatics?


Same difference, though.
 
2013-05-15 12:05:09 PM  

ShadowKamui: Epoch_Zero: ShadowKamui: Epoch_Zero: SithLord: Epoch_Zero: Liberal groups usually aren't a threat to the very existence of the country.

Bill Ayers ring a bell?  Occupy Wall Street ring a bell?  I don't recall any Tea-Party types blowing up buildings, or looting or raping or pillaging the cities they staged marches in.

Protip: OWS weren't viking raiders.

Teahadists like to stick with mass shootings. Or flying planes into buildings. (no, not that building)

You're kinda mixing up groups there and blatantly lying.  Its ok you're having a bad week

OWS liberals actually do try to blow up bridges, Teatards huff and puff and carry badly spelled signs

What huffing and puffing might look like:
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 152x197]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 227x170]
[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x195]
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 181x278]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 201x236]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 124x160]

And how many were actual teatards and not just racists and/or lunatics?


How can you tell the difference?
 
2013-05-15 12:05:19 PM  

Mjeck: Bungles:

....the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?

Exactly my sentiment


Here's the deal.

The left loses nothing by saying "oh it wasn't right to do that." No one cares if some low level workers in Cinncinnati get thrown under the bus in the media. They get to disclaim responsibility and no one gets hurt.

But if they say, "this was for a good reason, but the standards could have been drafted with better language," like they should say, the right wing media will whip itself up into a football-f*cking frenzy again and distract us all from real issues.

So they chose expediency. I get it. I don't blame them. I would too.

But it's like knuckling under and saying "yes dear" when your spouse wants to watch reality TV. Don't sweat the small stuff, basically.
 
2013-05-15 12:05:28 PM  
If the central pillar of your group's movement is taxes, you're a political group, pure and simple.
 
2013-05-15 12:06:40 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Thanks for giving us a heads-up. It saves a lot of time that would be wasted reading pretentious bullshiat.

/to the blimps!


Thanks for advertising your closed-mindedness.  It's always wise to shut out opinions which may differ from your own.
 
2013-05-15 12:08:08 PM  
LasersHurt: inner ted: so the IRS is apologizing for nothing then?

I don't know what you mean. The targeting of conservative groups was bad, and most people (including most liberals)  lolno - seem to admit that.

That does not automatically lend validity to this article, with these new claims.

there is an awful lot of downplaying by lots of folks here when Obama gets a black eye for things like this.

mystery drone strikes
privacy issues
closing gitmo
not being real honest about benghazi
irs targeting his opponents

any of these, if during W's years, would have been a freaking uproar by the other side.  and rightfully so.
 
2013-05-15 12:09:05 PM  

inner ted: mystery drone strikes


Wait wait. MYSTERY drone strikes?
 
2013-05-15 12:10:51 PM  

inner ted: LasersHurt: inner ted: so the IRS is apologizing for nothing then?

I don't know what you mean. The targeting of conservative groups was bad, and most people (including most liberals)  lolno - seem to admit that.

That does not automatically lend validity to this article, with these new claims.

there is an awful lot of downplaying by lots of folks here when Obama gets a black eye for things like this.

mystery drone strikes
privacy issues
closing gitmo
not being real honest about benghazi
irs targeting his opponents

any of these, if during W's years, would have been a freaking uproar by the other side.  and rightfully so.


What a rich fantasy life you lead. The ones that actually would make sane people angry (the first three) DO get complaints from the center and left.
 
2013-05-15 12:11:01 PM  

bigbadideasinaction: If the central pillar of your group's movement is taxes, you're a political group, pure and simple.



What on earth did they claim they did? All tea party groups do is have meeting...discussing politics...attend political rallies....being ummmm, political.... and rant on political internet forums.

Oh, and try to get their candidates elected.

What part of that isn't political?
 
2013-05-15 12:12:06 PM  

inner ted: mystery drone strikes  the fu-
privacy issues  such as?
closing gitmo  republican senators
not being real honest about benghazi  bullshiat
irs targeting his opponents  who are anti-tax applying for tax-exempt status, aka, bullshiat


But you already knew this, so, yeah.
 
2013-05-15 12:12:15 PM  

Bungles: As a foreigner, I don't quite get this. Surely a Tea Party group is, by definition, a political entity? And therefore of course should be scrutinised if it claims it isn't for tax purposes.

Does the Communist Party of America have tax exempt status.

And yet, Obama has said it was wrong. Intellectual reporters on the left say it was wrong, like Rachel Maddow. Yet as far as I can see.... it was totally sensible? What am I missing?


The accusation is that organizations on one side of the political spectrum received disproportionate scrutiny.

Yes, almost everyone agrees that these organizations should not be tax exempt, but it is nonetheless legal.  So the outrage is the (alleged) extra attention given to groups of the "tea party" type, which happen to be on the opposite side of the spectrum as Obama.

And I don't know for certain, but the CPA probably is - and should be - tax exempt.
 
2013-05-15 12:12:50 PM  

LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.


The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..
 
2013-05-15 12:13:02 PM  

Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?


Is it always political or just when a Democrat is in the White House?
 
2013-05-15 12:14:23 PM  

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..


See now here is where you lose me, is the assumed motives and party alignment.
 
2013-05-15 12:14:28 PM  

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party.. they are an anti-taxation group applying for tax-exempt status under false pretenses


FTFY
 
2013-05-15 12:14:33 PM  

Cletus C.: LasersHurt: Cletus C.: Are we pretending the IRS singling out conservative groups was not political?

Define Political.

The IRS singling out a particular group for extra scrutiny and borderline harassment because its members advocate strong political positions in opposition to your favored party..


Filling out some forms is now "borderline harassment"

Do you even know what status they were applying for?
 
2013-05-15 12:14:42 PM  
inner ted:

mystery drone strikes
privacy issues
closing gitmo
not being real honest about benghazi
irs targeting his opponents

any of these, if during W's years, would have been a freaking uproar by the other side. and rightfully so.


So you agree? IDK what "closing gitmo" is supposed to be about. That can be traced to Republican obstructionism.
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report