Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Yahoo)   That IRS manager who targeted certain groups like "tea party" and "patriot"? He's a conservative Republican   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, California Republicans, IRS, White House, Democrats, IRS manager, executive directors, Elijah Cummings, Commissioner of Internal Revenue  
•       •       •

3362 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jun 2013 at 5:49 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-09 01:53:11 PM  
Damn RINO.

Now we'll have to start all over formulating a new pretend scandal.
 
2013-06-09 02:03:33 PM  
Just shows you how evil 0bama really is. Getting that poor guy to attack his own must have taken some real serious leverage. I'm guessing his kids and wife are still in Gitmo, just to make sure he stays in line.
 
2013-06-09 02:08:54 PM  
Oh my God OBAMA HAS GOTTEN TO THEM TOO!
 
2013-06-09 02:13:42 PM  
Meanwhile legitimate complaints about spying will go unheeded and bipartisan pressure from Americans to shut down the spying won't happen. But don't worry, we totally owned over the umbrella brouhaha
 
2013-06-09 02:16:14 PM  
That's what they want you to believe. REAL Patriots know that Obama personally demanded every application be pulled and "scrutinized," which really means denied.

Of our freedom.

To cheat on our taxes.
 
2013-06-09 02:17:09 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile legitimate complaints about spying will go unheeded and bipartisan pressure from Americans to shut down the spying won't happen. But don't worry, we totally owned over the umbrella brouhaha


I know, right? It's almost like Republicans are just as interested in keeping that story off the front page as Democrats!

/...so vote, uh, RON PAUL?
 
2013-06-09 02:18:19 PM  
This gets better and better.
 
2013-06-09 02:19:05 PM  
I'm certain he will fall on his sword.
 
2013-06-09 02:19:19 PM  
Any real Republican would think those guys are nuts anyway.
 
2013-06-09 02:21:44 PM  
Like that's going to make that f*ckwad Issa STFU?

/fat chance
 
2013-06-09 02:22:16 PM  
Yeah... that's not what it says.

Good effort though... good effort.
 
2013-06-09 02:23:56 PM  
Of course he wants the investigation to end now. His ass could be on the line if it doesn't.
 
2013-06-09 02:30:24 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Yeah... that's not what it says.

Good effort though... good effort.


I was wondering if anyone actually reads the RTFA. Apparently not. Confirmation bias wins again!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-09 02:41:27 PM  
From TFA: "A conservative Republican overseeing Internal Revenue Service screeners in Cincinnati told congressional investigators that he does not believe the White House was behind IRS scrutiny of conservative groups, a leading Democratic lawmaker said on Sunday."
 
2013-06-09 02:42:18 PM  
So, what's next?
 
2013-06-09 02:52:10 PM  
Admittedly, I've done very little actual hard reading on this subject, but tell me if I've got it more or less right.

i.i.com.com
WE DON'T WANT NO TAXES NOHOW AND HERE'S OUR NON PROFIT APPLICATION TO KILL OBUMMER!

freelancefolder.com
Um... okay.... we're going to need to ask you some questions regarding your paperwork.

www.usnews.com
Ooh!  We got you!  That counts!  That counts!  Romney is president now!  No takebacks!
 
2013-06-09 03:00:12 PM  
Well this is a bushel full of stupid
 
2013-06-09 03:05:46 PM  
See, Republicans, here's the difference between this and a real scandal like Watergate or Iran-Contra. The more we found out about those scandals, the worse they got.  The more we find out about this one, the more it looks like the IRS was properly scrutinizing groups that they had real reason to believe were engaging in partisan politcal activity that a 501(c)(3) is not allowed to participate in.
 
2013-06-09 03:14:12 PM  

thamike: So, what's next?



Republicans claim this hard working patriotic american was forced to do this by democrat meanies.
And that the President is a doody-head.
 
2013-06-09 03:18:27 PM  
A conservative republican screwed somebody over to further his own career?  That's never happened before.
 
2013-06-09 03:18:40 PM  
FTFA: Cummings said conservative group applications were set aside after a screener identified a case that appeared to be precedent-setting for others. "They wanted to make sure that it was handled in a way whereby when other cases came behind it that were similar, that they would be treated in a consistent way," the lawmaker said.

Regardless of political ideology, its important to be consistent when dealing with others. If this is indeed the case.
 
2013-06-09 03:23:29 PM  

jake_lex: See, Republicans, here's the difference between this and a real scandal like Watergate or Iran-Contra. The more we found out about those scandals, the worse they got.  The more we find out about this one, the more it looks like the IRS was properly scrutinizing groups that they had real reason to believe were engaging in partisan politcal activity that a 501(c)(3) is not allowed to participate in.


They were primarily 501(c)4 non-profits being investigated.
 
2013-06-09 03:23:43 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile legitimate complaints about spying will go unheeded and bipartisan pressure from Americans to shut down the spying won't happen. But don't worry, we totally owned over the umbrella brouhaha

I know, right? It's almost like Republicans are just as interested in keeping that story off the front page as Democrats!

/...so vote, uh, RON PAUL?


Don't kid yourself, he wouldn't do any different as POTUS
 
2013-06-09 03:23:52 PM  

Boojum2k: Pray 4 Mojo: Yeah... that's not what it says.

Good effort though... good effort.

I was wondering if anyone actually reads the RTFA. Apparently not. Confirmation bias wins again!


Of course not...  the actual linked articles just get in the way of a good time

... and a cheap greenlight..
 
2013-06-09 03:30:18 PM  
So now they'll admit it was just a government servant doing exactly what the law requires of him?
 
2013-06-09 03:34:43 PM  
Aren't Republicans the ones that engage in projection and yell "false flag" at every opportunity?  Hmmmmmm....
 
2013-06-09 03:49:59 PM  
haha.gif
 
2013-06-09 04:05:12 PM  
This whole thing is the fault of Citizens United, right? Without that, there are no PACs, Super PACs, or Super Duper Double Secret Probation PACs and there wouldn't be quasi political groups trying to form 501(c)4's to launder money.
 
2013-06-09 04:12:43 PM  
I knew Republicans were behind it all along. Just like 9-11.
 
2013-06-09 04:25:07 PM  

Di Atribe: That's what they want you to believe. REAL Patriots know that Obama personally demanded every application be pulled and "scrutinized," which really means denied.
Of our freedom.
To cheat on our taxes.


SO I havent seen this question asked, nor answered.
Were any of the applicants illegal denied tax-exempt status?
What percentage were properly denied status?

Was it a good strategy targeting tax-cheats?
 
2013-06-09 04:26:04 PM  

jake_lex: See, Republicans, here's the difference between this and a real scandal like Watergate or Iran-Contra. The more we found out about those scandals, the worse they got.  The more we find out about this one, the more it looks like the IRS was properly scrutinizing groups that they had real reason to believe were engaging in partisan politcal activity that a 501(c)(3) is not allowed to participate in.


THIS
 
2013-06-09 04:49:20 PM  

namatad: jake_lex: See, Republicans, here's the difference between this and a real scandal like Watergate or Iran-Contra. The more we found out about those scandals, the worse they got.  The more we find out about this one, the more it looks like the IRS was properly scrutinizing groups that they had real reason to believe were engaging in partisan politcal activity that a 501(c)(3) is not allowed to participate in.

THIS


THAT
 
2013-06-09 05:04:03 PM  

namatad: SO I havent seen this question asked, nor answered.
Were any of the applicants illegal denied tax-exempt status?
What percentage were properly denied status?


I don't think any were denied, which is why they complain that the approval was unnecessarily delayed and supposedly costly.  I think the claim is that the Obama Administration wanted to take away their spending power and delay there influence until after the election.  I could be wrong.
 
2013-06-09 05:04:10 PM  
A conservative Republican working for the IRS? Yeah right, as what? An undercover agent?
 
2013-06-09 05:09:38 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: namatad: SO I havent seen this question asked, nor answered.
Were any of the applicants illegal denied tax-exempt status?
What percentage were properly denied status?

I don't think any were denied, which is why they complain that the approval was unnecessarily delayed and supposedly costly.  I think the claim is that the Obama Administration wanted to take away their spending power and delay there influence until after the election.  I could be wrong.


ROFL
they always could have spent the money. period. and dealt with the tax issues later.
my guess is that what they ACTUALLY wanted was to not have to disclose where the money was coming from.

WAIT A FARKING SECOND.
By definition they could not influence the election. That would have invalidated their status!!!!
DOH
 
2013-06-09 05:20:43 PM  
You take your fact and SHOVE 'EM! USA USA USA!
 
2013-06-09 05:32:51 PM  

JerseyTim: A conservative Republican working for the IRS? Yeah right, as what? An undercover agent?


I believe in this case perhaps "false flag" is the correct term.

/ducks
 
2013-06-09 05:39:45 PM  

namatad: Three Crooked Squirrels: namatad: SO I havent seen this question asked, nor answered.
Were any of the applicants illegal denied tax-exempt status?
What percentage were properly denied status?

I don't think any were denied, which is why they complain that the approval was unnecessarily delayed and supposedly costly.  I think the claim is that the Obama Administration wanted to take away their spending power and delay there influence until after the election.  I could be wrong.

ROFL
they always could have spent the money. period. and dealt with the tax issues later.
my guess is that what they ACTUALLY wanted was to not have to disclose where the money was coming from.

WAIT A FARKING SECOND.
By definition they could not influence the election. That would have invalidated their status!!!!
DOH


As a taxpayer, I find these groups abhorrent. As a political junkie looking at the election results, I find them surprisingly impotent at achieving their stated purpose.

It's easy to get the POWM worked up about abortion or drugs or immigration - right up until the very instant they realize their own daughter might be strapped to the delivery table, or a cop might be arresting them for not checking the gardner's work authorization. They still want to show up and rant about the very non-white president (who really could learn a think or two about using the f*cking dog-whistle to shut them up), but they are just venting safely, not actually wanting to question the legitimacy of the president in any way that might send their 401k plummeting like the very white, very christian, and gob-smackingly incompetent drunk previously holding the office.
 
2013-06-09 05:43:20 PM  

MisterTweak: As a taxpayer, I find these groups abhorrent. As a political junkie looking at the election results, I find them surprisingly impotent at achieving their stated purpose.


THIS
and the best part was all the money which was spent to elect rmoney and how little success it actually had!!
 
2013-06-09 05:48:49 PM  

SilentStrider: thamike: So, what's next?


Republicans claim this hard working patriotic american was forced to do this by democrat meanies.
And that the President is a doody-head.


I mean what's the next "scandal" that will cause the GOP to demand an investigation which leads back directly up their own asses?  We've hardly covered everything.
 
2013-06-09 05:50:43 PM  
This just shows you how deep the conspiracy goes.
 
2013-06-09 05:54:50 PM  

namatad: Di Atribe: That's what they want you to believe. REAL Patriots know that Obama personally demanded every application be pulled and "scrutinized," which really means denied.
Of our freedom.
To cheat on our taxes.

SO I havent seen this question asked, nor answered.
Were any of the applicants illegal denied tax-exempt status?
What percentage were properly denied status?

Was it a good strategy targeting tax-cheats?


Those are good questions. I will be honest & say that after the first week or so, I kind of checked out of this issue because the outrage seemed so manufactured. How DARE the IRS do their jobs! Don't they know that it's ok when WE do it!?
 
2013-06-09 05:57:11 PM  

namatad: SO I havent seen this question asked, nor answered.
Were any of the applicants illegal denied tax-exempt status?
What percentage were properly denied status?

Was it a good strategy targeting tax-cheats?


No, none of the groups targeted for their names was denied.
But at least one other group was.
It was a liberal group who admitted they favored Democrats.
 
2013-06-09 06:00:00 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Yeah... that's not what it says.

Good effort though... good effort.


That's what THIS says:

Cummings, top Democrat on the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducting the probe, told CNN's "State of the Union" program that the manager's comments provided evidence that politics was not behind IRS actions that have fueled a month-long furor in Washington.
"He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS. I think this interview and these statements go a long way toward showing that the White House was not involved in this," Cummings told CNN's "State of the Union" program.



Did you have other information that the article doesn't have that we therefore couldn't have read? Or did you not read beyond the cite to Cumming's own affiliation and position?
 
2013-06-09 06:03:17 PM  
Not *totally* surprising considering that establishment Republicans don't really care much for the teahadists.  Except whenever it benefits them.
 
2013-06-09 06:03:42 PM  
No pink comments in this thread? Quelle surprise!
 
2013-06-09 06:04:20 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: namatad: SO I havent seen this question asked, nor answered.
Were any of the applicants illegal denied tax-exempt status?
What percentage were properly denied status?

I don't think any were denied, which is why they complain that the approval was unnecessarily delayed and supposedly costly.  I think the claim is that the Obama Administration wanted to take away their spending power and delay there influence until after the election.  I could be wrong.


and that claim is wrong because while they waited they were allowed to go about business as usual.
 
2013-06-09 06:04:53 PM  
And once again the right-wing talking points devolve back to "See Obama doesn't know about anything that's going on! He's so incompetent!".
 
2013-06-09 06:05:38 PM  
Are we going to get a green on the latest Guardian article on NSA?
 
2013-06-09 06:07:24 PM  

xanadian: Not *totally* surprising considering that establishment Republicans don't really care much for the teahadists.  Except whenever it benefits them.


that or they did it knowing it would look bad for Obama.
 
Displayed 50 of 267 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report