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.

(National Review)   Obama's Rose Parade of scandals: a crash course on the perils of big government   (nationalreview.com) divider line 111
    More: Obvious, Rose Parade, obama, CARE Act, electronic medical records, Kathleen Sebelius  
•       •       •

722 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2013 at 9:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-17 12:55:26 PM

SlothB77: neither party has decreased the size of government.

clinton and obama have probably increased the size of government at a much slower rate than reagan and bush and bush.  though obama has increased our debt at a much higher rate than bush and that may be just as bad.


In other words, even though government employment and deficits are down under Obama, and also went down under Clinton resulting in the first budget surplus in decades, potato, therefore Republicans are the small government party.
 
2013-05-17 01:08:06 PM

that bosnian sniper: SlothB77: The IRS suppressed and discriminated against Tea Partiers.

And, again, what was the tea party doing that subjected them to increased scrutiny?


Is the Tea Party a protected group?  Because if it's not, discrimination is A-OK.  Ask any GLBT whose partner is in the hospital.

/Sorry, obvious is obvious
 
2013-05-17 02:17:17 PM

Schubert'sCell: Ask any GLBT whose partner is in the hospital.


Because hospital visitation rights are  just like campaign finance.
 
2013-05-17 02:52:43 PM
This is what you get when the winning candidate spends his political capital on snark and victory laps* instead of gutting the opposition.

*repeat from 2009.
 
2013-05-17 02:54:30 PM

TV's Vinnie: What lack of a "big government" looks like:

[img.gawkerassets.com image 850x478]


Big government prevents tornadoes?
 
2013-05-17 03:03:07 PM

Kangaroo_Ralph: TV's Vinnie: What lack of a "big government" looks like:

[img.gawkerassets.com image 850x478]

Big government prevents tornadoes?


www.dembot.net
 
2013-05-17 03:20:49 PM

Kangaroo_Ralph: TV's Vinnie: What lack of a "big government" looks like:

[img.gawkerassets.com image 850x478]

Big government prevents tornadoes?


um... i'm guessing that's the plant at west, texas, that exploded, largely due to lax regulation.
 
2013-05-17 03:26:18 PM

that bosnian sniper: Schubert'sCell: Ask any GLBT whose partner is in the hospital.

Because hospital visitation rights are  just like campaign finance.


and reviewing the application for tax-exemption of an organization is just like discriminating against them.

By the way, if the organizations in question were working on campaign finance, it would be political activity, meaning they couldn't be tax exempt.  Which is exactly what the department in question was supposed to be reviewing.

\but thanks for making the point for me.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-05-17 03:37:56 PM
Political arguments are easy when you can define words to mean whatever you want them to.
 
2013-05-17 05:14:48 PM
I don't know...what's worse I don't care.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-17 05:27:40 PM

Schubert'sCell: and reviewing the application for tax-exemption of an organization is just like discriminating against them.

By the way, if the organizations in question were working on campaign finance, it would be political activity, meaning they couldn't be tax exempt.  Which is exactly what the department in question was supposed to be reviewing.

\but thanks for making the point for me.


Wait, hold on, you think I'm defending the tea party here? Apparently, you've missed the  every post I've ever made about them, Citizens United, and/or campaign finance reform. Let me laugh even harder.

Oh, and by the way, the second pseudo-paragraph you wrote?  That's the problem. 501(c)(4)'s, just in case you don't know, are a loophole that allows a group to engage in unlimited political activity (under the guise of "issue advocacy" of course) while maintaining donor anonymity  and tax exemption. It  is exactly what the IRS is "supposed" to be reviewing, but there's fark-all under the law that can be done about it and no real, consistent way to investigate or enforce it,  as these hearings in addition to the fact multiple conservative groups falsified 501(c)(4) applications and engaged in political activity anyways stand as proof.
 
Displayed 11 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report