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.

(Examiner)   You can retire, but you can't hide. Newly-released emails of IRS' Lois Lerner reportedly show that she committed a felony by sending private information about those conservative groups to the FEC. That's a no-no, of course   (examiner.com) divider line 390
    More: Followup, Lois Lerner, Fe C, Federal Election Commission, IRS, watchdog journalism, Judicial Watch, confidential information, felony  
•       •       •

2466 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2013 at 10:04 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-02 04:59:13 PM

CheapEngineer: There's where it drops. It wasn't Fred Garvin's tax information, it was a lobbying group applying for tax-sheltered status.


sprawl15: In government lingo, person refers to a lot broader a topic than just a single human being. Take a gander at 26 USC § 7701, the definitions of 'person' and 'taxpayer'.

 
2013-11-02 05:07:03 PM

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago.  The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business.  But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.

It says the information on her emails was received after a public records request from Judicial Watch.

It seems obvious the IRS should not be sharing personal information with anyone unless by court order. Thus, the illegality of that, if it's what she did.

If she was sharing only information from conservative groups then it seems obviously political.

The knee-jerk dismissal of anything that may make the administration look bad is tiring.


The information that was being shared was between Federal agencies did not require a court order and these e-mail correspondence have been known for quite some time by the commission.  That you have some some right wing advocacy group trying to make something out of this and not the actual commission might tell you that this is is a lot of smoke and no fire.

But if you want to look for something political then you have to look no further than the IG's audit.  Keep farking that chicken though.
 
2013-11-02 05:08:30 PM

mjm323s: The Majority of Fark commenters believe their liberal side is beyond reproach. They discredit the source or take the conversation to how republicans are bad rather than researching both sides and determine what is facts and what is editorial from both sides.

To say one side is always right and the other is always wrong in politics is complete ignorance... I'm not going to change your mind on this but if you even consider reading another article from the other side to get perspective, I'll think I have accomplished something today.


Except you missing one small important fact. Republicans (at least those at this time) have been close to 100 percent wrong on just about everything. What makes you think that will change? It's almost as if they make it a point to be wrong. The bad part is then they spin like a top or lie like hell to cover up the fact that they were wrong. Even worse they keep repeating the lies over and over and over. Just because a lie is repeated does not make it the truth. Only rubes fall for that. So let me ask you why we should read a perspective that will eventually be proven wrong. Reading something by some author who wants to spin the truth or part of the truth into something it is not is not perspective it's propaganda.

The only perspective I see coming from those on the political far right is GET OBAMA and OBSTRUCT. Not help the country with it's problems but get the guy in the white house. It's farked up and you know it.
 
2013-11-02 05:10:58 PM

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago.  The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business.  But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.

It says the information on her emails was received after a public records request from Judicial Watch.

It seems obvious the IRS should not be sharing personal information with anyone unless by court order. Thus, the illegality of that, if it's what she did.

If she was sharing only information from conservative groups then it seems obviously political.

The knee-jerk dismissal of anything that may make the administration look bad is tiring.


It could also be a justified knee-jerk dismissal based on six consecutive years of utter bullshiat lies, wild conspiracy theory's, temper tantrum throwing, mouth breathing, hypocritical, self righteous, right wing assholes.
 
2013-11-02 05:15:13 PM

grumpfuff: mjm323s: grumpfuff: mjm323s: The Majority of Fark commenters believe their liberal side is beyond reproach. They discredit the source or take the conversation to how republicans are bad rather than researching both sides and determine what is facts and what is editorial from both sides.

To say one side is always right and the other is always wrong in politics is complete ignorance... I'm not going to change your mind on this but if you even consider reading another article from the other side to get perspective, I'll think I have accomplished something today.


You mean like how you claimed a Democrat called for her resignation, I posted about how you were stretching the truth, and you totally ignored it?

Or like how other people did do that research, did post facts, did point out what was editorial, and you just ignored them?

How's the weather up on that cross? Would you mind coming down and having an actual, honest debate?

I didn't really understand your post. I read it He called for her resignation due to mismanagement. Not sure how calling for resignation can be confused. It seemed like the 2nd paragraph he did try and save political face.

The 2nd paragraph WAS his statement. The very first sentence of his statement blatantly disagrees with you

"Lois Lerner is being held responsible for her gross mismanagement of the IRS tax-exempt division, which led to improper handling of applications for tax-exempt status, whether conservative and progressive. "

Admittedly, I read a bit more on other sites(you know, that "research" thing you talked about), and he's upset with her because these groups were approved in the first place, not because of the increased scrutiny like you were implying.

(as a side not, "whether conservative and progressive?")

I should have prefaced my first sentence by saying based on my readings of the comments in this thread. I don't think I'm better than anyone just adding my opinion. The same thing can be said on any similar conservative news site

Then you obviously haven't been reading the same thread as me, because there are a lot of refutations of your, and other, conservative statements grounded in fact. They are conveniently being ignored or dismissed out of hand, while instead focusing on the "stopped reading right there" comments.


So just to be clear, your opinion is that we should dismiss any of the information in the article because it is a bad source and Levin called for her resignation because he did not like her giving tax exempt status to conservative and progressive groups and this issue is over with even if it may be possible that this person was sharing information with departments that per the law requires specific people to sign off on in order to release said information?
 
2013-11-02 05:15:51 PM
So is it septic tank day here on Fark?

Y'all are posting some rancid crap here today.
 
2013-11-02 05:17:03 PM

sparkeyjames: mjm323s: The Majority of Fark commenters believe their liberal side is beyond reproach. They discredit the source or take the conversation to how republicans are bad rather than researching both sides and determine what is facts and what is editorial from both sides.

To say one side is always right and the other is always wrong in politics is complete ignorance... I'm not going to change your mind on this but if you even consider reading another article from the other side to get perspective, I'll think I have accomplished something today.

Except you missing one small important fact. Republicans (at least those at this time) have been close to 100 percent wrong on just about everything. What makes you think that will change? It's almost as if they make it a point to be wrong. The bad part is then they spin like a top or lie like hell to cover up the fact that they were wrong. Even worse they keep repeating the lies over and over and over. Just because a lie is repeated does not make it the truth. Only rubes fall for that. So let me ask you why we should read a perspective that will eventually be proven wrong. Reading something by some author who wants to spin the truth or part of the truth into something it is not is not perspective it's propaganda.

The only perspective I see coming from those on the political far right is GET OBAMA and OBSTRUCT. Not help the country with it's problems but get the guy in the white house. It's farked up and you know it.


You are dismissed and receive no further consideration when you say 100%
 
2013-11-02 05:18:01 PM

nyseattitude: It could also be a justified knee-jerk dismissal based on six consecutive years of utter bullshiat lies, wild conspiracy theory's, temper tantrum throwing, mouth breathing, hypocritical, self righteous, right wing assholes.

www.beedajuice.com

You sure about that?

And the 8 years right after Clinton?

There's been no shortage of RW bullshiat for decades.

 
2013-11-02 05:20:06 PM

mjm323s: You are dismissed and receive no further consideration when you say 100%


You are dismissed and receive no further consideration when you are calling out the libs for the mote of an echo chamber in their eyes.
 
2013-11-02 05:24:58 PM

mjm323s: So just to be clear, your opinion is that we should dismiss any of the information in the article because it is a bad sourceand Levin called for her resignation because he did not like her giving tax exempt status to conservative and progressive groupsand this issue is over witheven if it may be possible that this person was sharing information with departments that per the law requires specific people to sign off on in order to release said information?


1) I never claimed we should dismiss the article
2) Levin's quote says he called for her resignation for that reason, yes(though I don't know if she personally approved them)
3) The issue is these groups, liberal and conservative, should have never been approved. There's also a minor issue that apparently she used a non-secure email to send the information.
4) The "law requires" part has been shown, in this very thread, to not say what you're claiming it says.


If this was such a big deal, why didn't Issa bring it up in the original hearings about it?
 
2013-11-02 05:28:27 PM

grumpfuff: If this was such a big deal, why didn't Issa bring it up in the original hearings about it?


Ah, yes, the publicly funded portion of the right-wing permanent outrage factory.
 
2013-11-02 05:35:37 PM

grumpfuff: mjm323s: So just to be clear, your opinion is that we should dismiss any of the information in the article because it is a bad sourceand Levin called for her resignation because he did not like her giving tax exempt status to conservative and progressive groupsand this issue is over witheven if it may be possible that this person was sharing information with departments that per the law requires specific people to sign off on in order to release said information?

1) I never claimed we should dismiss the article
2) Levin's quote says he called for her resignation for that reason, yes(though I don't know if she personally approved them)
3) The issue is these groups, liberal and conservative, should have never been approved. There's also a minor issue that apparently she used a non-secure email to send the information.
4) The "law requires" part has been shown, in this very thread, to not say what you're claiming it says.


If this was such a big deal, why didn't Issa bring it up in the original hearings about it?


Like Lerner after this one, I'm pleading the fifth...I don't agree with 4, there are several ways to interpret law so if you think I am going to take some Farkers thread as being absolute, you haven't read my other posts. As far as the Issa comment as I have previously mentioned at the end of the hearing additional information was being requested so in his eyes this issue is not over and they are still gathering information, stay tuned.
 
2013-11-02 05:41:19 PM

Skleenar: nyseattitude: It could also be a justified knee-jerk dismissal based on six consecutive years of utter bullshiat lies, wild conspiracy theory's, temper tantrum throwing, mouth breathing, hypocritical, self righteous, right wing assholes.
[www.beedajuice.com image 340x359]

You sure about that?

And the 8 years right after Clinton?

There's been no shortage of RW bullshiat for decades.


Agreed, but to be fair, he was referencing Obama so I was responding in turn.
 
2013-11-02 05:42:09 PM

mjm323s: grumpfuff: mjm323s: So just to be clear, your opinion is that we should dismiss any of the information in the article because it is a bad sourceand Levin called for her resignation because he did not like her giving tax exempt status to conservative and progressive groupsand this issue is over witheven if it may be possible that this person was sharing information with departments that per the law requires specific people to sign off on in order to release said information?

1) I never claimed we should dismiss the article
2) Levin's quote says he called for her resignation for that reason, yes(though I don't know if she personally approved them)
3) The issue is these groups, liberal and conservative, should have never been approved. There's also a minor issue that apparently she used a non-secure email to send the information.
4) The "law requires" part has been shown, in this very thread, to not say what you're claiming it says.


If this was such a big deal, why didn't Issa bring it up in the original hearings about it?

Like Lerner after this one, I'm pleading the fifth...I don't agree with 4, there are several ways to interpret law so if you think I am going to take some Farkers thread as being absolute, you haven't read my other posts. As far as the Issa comment as I have previously mentioned at the end of the hearing additional information was being requested so in his eyes this issue is not over and they are still gathering information, stay tuned.


So if it's ok for you to dismiss another Farker out of hand, why can't we do the same with you? Not saying he should be taken as absolute, mind you, it's just "Well I disagree" is hardly a convincing argument.

As to your point about Issa, from what I can tell, he had this information already at the hearing.
 
2013-11-02 05:44:56 PM

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago.  The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business.  But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.

It says the information on her emails was received after a public records request from Judicial Watch.

It seems obvious the IRS should not be sharing personal information with anyone unless by court order. Thus, the illegality of that, if it's what she did.

If she was sharing only information from conservative groups then it seems obviously political.

The knee-jerk dismissal of anything that may make the administration look bad is tiring.

The information that was being shared was between Federal agencies did not require a court order and these e-mail correspondence have been known for quite some time by the commission.  That you have some some right wing advocacy group trying to make something out of this and not the actual commission might tell you that this is is a lot of smoke and no fire.

But if you want to look for something political then you have to look no further than the IG's audit.  Keep farking that chicken though.


So, the IRS is allowed to share tax information with any other government agency? Eh, better research that.

And Judicial Watch is a right-wing advocacy group. They describe themselves as a conservative nonpartisan organization, whatever that means. But they did sue the Bush administration and had a lengthy legal battle over Cheney's energy task force.

This, at least, is newly released information to the public after forcing the release of public records.

Reacting dismissively is predictable, though.
 
2013-11-02 05:47:17 PM

Cletus C.: conservative nonpartisan


wat.jpg


/not directed at you, you seem just as confused by that
 
2013-11-02 05:50:30 PM

grumpfuff: Cletus C.: conservative nonpartisan

wat.jpg


/not directed at you, you seem just as confused by that


That's really not hard to suss out.  It is easy to claim a position on the political spectrum but not actively support any one particular party.  In this country, since we have two major conservative parties and no major liberal ones, you can easily by liberal non-partisan, too.

I suppose you could even be a liberal republican, and we've seen lots and lots of Conservative Democrats, Obama for example.
 
2013-11-02 05:51:06 PM
by be
 
2013-11-02 05:52:14 PM

Cletus C.: So, the IRS is allowed to share tax information with any other government agency? Eh, better research that.


They share the information that is publicly disclosed when you want a tax exemption.

US Code 11.3.9.12  (12-28-2007)
Public Inspection of Certain Information Returns
The information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).
 
2013-11-02 05:52:58 PM

sprawl15: Cataholic: I think that is much too narrow a reading.

Your reading is actually quite a bit narrower than mine.

My reading is that there is a set of data, "a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data" which includes pretty much any data within or relating to a tax return. You're asserting that the catchall 'any other data' bit only re-asserts the previous list. Which is kind of self-defeating.

But it's irrelevant, since what exactly constitutes the data relating to a return is not the important part, as I stated over and over again. What is important is that the data within the 1024 is not return related data: "with respect to a return". If it is data not with respect to a return, it is not data that is protected under this subsection. And since applications are not returns, none of the part you're quibbling about matters.

And your whole grammatical argument is nonsense, since there's a comma after 'data' which denotes the end of the list. Contrast to "by the Secretary with respect to a return".


It's your opinion and you are entitled to it.  My reading of the statutes happens to agree with that of the IRS.  You can check out section 11.3..9.3 of the IRM here:

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part11/irm_11-003-009.html
 
2013-11-02 05:55:34 PM

Cletus C.: And Judicial Watch is a right-wing advocacy group. They describe themselves as a conservative nonpartisan organization, whatever that means. But they did sue the Bush administration and had a lengthy legal battle over Cheney's energy task forc


This is a fact.
I don't dismiss what Judicial Watch gets upset about simply because of their bias.  I do, however, apply a healthy skepticism.

In this case, however, I am having a really tough time figuring out what the accusation is, or what the implication is re the Obama Administration.  It seems, at worst, an improper handling of information, but there hardly seems to be any proof of a partisan bias or similar partisan shenanigans on the part of the Administration
 
2013-11-02 05:56:28 PM

jaytkay: Cletus C.: So, the IRS is allowed to share tax information with any other government agency? Eh, better research that.

They share the information that is publicly disclosed when you want a tax exemption.

US Code 11.3.9.12  (12-28-2007)
Public Inspection of Certain Information Returns
The information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).


It says she released confidential tax information, so probably not the stuff that is available publically under that code.

If it is public information, then yep, this would be a non-story and will be easily exposed as that.
 
2013-11-02 05:58:51 PM

ongbok: Fart_Machine: Cataholic: Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.

Cataholic: It is not public disclosure

Well I'm glad we cleared that up.

Don't you love how he is now claiming stuff that the people who originally brought this up don't even claim?


Someone claimed none of this mattered because the information was subject to public disclosure.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8001279/87394926#c87394926


I merely responded that the IRS is not allowed to publish that information until it approves the application for exempt status.
 
2013-11-02 06:04:00 PM

Cataholic: I merely responded that the IRS is not allowed to publish that information until it approves the application for exempt status.

US Code 11.3.9.12  (12-28-2007)
Public Inspection of Certain Information Returns
The information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).

 
2013-11-02 06:06:28 PM

Cletus C.: So, the IRS is allowed to share tax information with any other government agency? Eh, better research that.

And Judicial Watch is a right-wing advocacy group. They describe themselves as a conservative nonpartisan organization, whatever that means. But they did sue the Bush administration and had a lengthy legal battle over Cheney's energy task force.

This, at least, is newly released information to the public after forcing the release of public records.

Reacting dismissively is predictable, though.


So you don't think the IRS and FEC work together?  Really?  Did you really have to go the strawman route?  But yes, Issa and his committee covered this up.  Sounds totally plausible.

Also Judicial Watch totally doesn't sound like they have a right-wing agenda.
 
2013-11-02 06:10:48 PM

mjm323s: sparkeyjames: mjm323s: The Majority of Fark commenters believe their liberal side is beyond reproach. They discredit the source or take the conversation to how republicans are bad rather than researching both sides and determine what is facts and what is editorial from both sides.

To say one side is always right and the other is always wrong in politics is complete ignorance... I'm not going to change your mind on this but if you even consider reading another article from the other side to get perspective, I'll think I have accomplished something today.

Except you missing one small important fact. Republicans (at least those at this time) have been close to 100 percent wrong on just about everything. What makes you think that will change? It's almost as if they make it a point to be wrong. The bad part is then they spin like a top or lie like hell to cover up the fact that they were wrong. Even worse they keep repeating the lies over and over and over. Just because a lie is repeated does not make it the truth. Only rubes fall for that. So let me ask you why we should read a perspective that will eventually be proven wrong. Reading something by some author who wants to spin the truth or part of the truth into something it is not is not perspective it's propaganda.

The only perspective I see coming from those on the political far right is GET OBAMA and OBSTRUCT. Not help the country with it's problems but get the guy in the white house. It's farked up and you know it.

You are dismissed and receive no further consideration when you say 100%


Gee what an intelligent reply. Sorry I wasted my time on your drivel.
 
2013-11-02 06:11:39 PM

Cataholic: I merely responded that the IRS is not allowed to publish that information until it approves the application for exempt status.


So you are just saying that you were wrong in this? Or do you still think you're correct?
 
2013-11-02 06:13:35 PM

Fart_Machine: Also Judicial Watch totally doesn't sound like they have a right-wing agenda.


They're non-partisan independents, who simply want lower taxes.

For example:
'Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman took to Renew America to demand Americans "take matters into our own hands and wage a Second American Revolution" against President Barack Obama, who he calls "our mullah in chief."'
 
2013-11-02 06:19:31 PM

jaytkay: Fart_Machine: Also Judicial Watch totally doesn't sound like they have a right-wing agenda.

They're non-partisan independents, who simply want lower taxes.

For example:
'Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman took to Renew America to demand Americans "take matters into our own hands and wage a Second American Revolution" against President Barack Obama, who he calls "our mullah in chief."'


Well sure.  They'd fit in well with our Fark Independents.
 
2013-11-02 06:33:02 PM
This thread is great:

1). Crazy allegations from a suspicious source.
2) farmers justifiably mock it
3) fark conservatories crank the derp up to 11 calling out everyone for being "intellectually dishonest" for not bothering to directly refute obviously crazy story
4). Several folks take the time to refute the crazy story completely validating  original farkers mocking
5). Fark conservatives run away, retreat into nonsense arguments or sullenly call out folks for being mean to them

Keep it up conservatives!  Winning!
 
2013-11-02 06:35:01 PM

amiable: 2) farmers justifiably mock it


This is a bunch of B...S...E...I...E...I...O


Dagnabit.
 
2013-11-02 06:37:19 PM

jaytkay: Cataholic: I merely responded that the IRS is not allowed to publish that information until it approves the application for exempt status.

US Code 11.3.9.12  (12-28-2007)
Public Inspection of Certain Information Returns
The information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).


The forms 1023 and 1024 are "applications for exempt status," not "annual information returns."  You are citing the Internal Revenue Manual, not the US Code.  Part 2 of what you are citing states, "This disclosure authority pertains to any information required to be filed by these organizations or trusts in accordance with IRC §§ 6033 and 6034."  Section 6033 is the section of the code that requires a nonprofit to file a Form 990.  The section of the IRM that deals with form 1024 is 11.3.9.3.
 
2013-11-02 06:37:49 PM
Meh bad phone autocorrect!
 
2013-11-02 06:38:50 PM

Skleenar: amiable: 2) farmers justifiably mock it

This is a bunch of B...S...E...I...E...I...O


Dagnabit.


I admit, I laughed.
 
2013-11-02 06:40:09 PM

Cataholic: The forms 1023 and 1024 are "applications for exempt status," not "annual information returns."  You are citing the Internal Revenue Manual, not the US Code.  Part 2 of what you are citing states, "This disclosure authority pertains to any information required to be filed by these organizations or trusts in accordance with IRC §§ 6033 and 6034."  Section 6033 is the section of the code that requires a nonprofit to file a Form 990.  The section of the IRM that deals with form 1024 is 11.3.9.3.


That's a lot of words to say "I still got nothin"

Because you seriously did not refute anything.
 
2013-11-02 07:07:42 PM

nyseattitude: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago.  The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business.  But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.

It says the information on her emails was received after a public records request from Judicial Watch.

It seems obvious the IRS should not be sharing personal information with anyone unless by court order. Thus, the illegality of that, if it's what she did.

If she was sharing only information from conservative groups then it seems obviously political.

The knee-jerk dismissal of anything that may make the administration look bad is tiring.

It could also be a justified knee-jerk dismissal based on six consecutive years of utter bullshiat lies, wild conspiracy theory's, temper tantrum throwing, mouth breathing, hypocritical, self righteous, right wing assholes.


THIS. Conservatives expect to be taken seriously and with good faith after their track record for the last 10, hell 20 years? Yeah right. Most times, you can just listen to them and expect the opposite of what they're saying to be more reflective of reality.
 
2013-11-02 07:14:07 PM

Zeno-25: THIS. Conservatives expect to be taken seriously and with good faith after their track record for the last 10, hell 20 years? Yeah right. Most times, you can just listen to them and expect the opposite of what they're saying to be more reflective of reality.


The punchline is that they expect us to be outraged that Obama said everyone could keep there insurance.
 
2013-11-02 07:14:42 PM
there their

dagnabit.
 
2013-11-02 07:19:02 PM

Zeno-25: nyseattitude: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago.  The whole kerfuffle was that it was sent through personal e-mail accounts to do official business.  But this is the Examiner and they have to spin it for persecution factors.

It says the information on her emails was received after a public records request from Judicial Watch.

It seems obvious the IRS should not be sharing personal information with anyone unless by court order. Thus, the illegality of that, if it's what she did.

If she was sharing only information from conservative groups then it seems obviously political.

The knee-jerk dismissal of anything that may make the administration look bad is tiring.

It could also be a justified knee-jerk dismissal based on six consecutive years of utter bullshiat lies, wild conspiracy theory's, temper tantrum throwing, mouth breathing, hypocritical, self righteous, right wing assholes.

THIS. Conservatives expect to be taken seriously and with good faith after their track record for the last 10, hell 20 years? Yeah right. Most times, you can just listen to them and expect the opposite of what they're saying to be more reflective of reality.


The Conservatives turn up the derp to 11 and then cry when no one will take them seriously. All outrage all the time is tiresome.
 
2013-11-02 07:21:46 PM

Cletus C.: If it is public information, then yep, this would be a non-story and will be easily exposed as that.


That certainly explains why only the nutters and right-wing blogodrome is talking about it.
 
2013-11-02 08:06:18 PM
img10.glitterfy.com
 
2013-11-02 08:15:35 PM
Lois Lerner the George W. Bush appointee?  That Lois Lerner?
 
2013-11-02 08:52:05 PM

ghare: skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: spcMike: This guy in the comments needs help

Ihatelibs: Just like her ARROGANT CRIMINAL MASSA OBOGUS. He TOO is a Felon and BEYOND. FRAUD ILLEGAL KENYA TRAITOR

Oh wow, that guy's brain is seriously misfiring. I wonder if he has physical ticks too.

it's not the best commenter handle but unfortunately skullkrusher was already taken there.

Ahhh, Republicans. Without their burning hatred of libs, they would just blow away, like dust on the wind.

/Libs means "people smarter than you"


Well, people who THINK they're smarter than you. And better than you. Which goes a long way toward explaining Obamacare.
 
2013-11-02 08:57:21 PM

inglixthemad: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.
It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

Fair enough.  Let's assume the facts as presented are accurate.  The article claims the following:

This is a felony as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dictates that an IRS official - which Lerner was at the time - may not disclose either income tax return information or taxpayer income tax return information - not even to another governmental agency.

Section 6103 directs thusly:

(i) Disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of Federal laws not relating to tax administration (1) Disclosure of returns and return information for use in criminal investigations (A) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (6), any return or return information with respect to any specified taxable period or periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant of an ex parte order by a Federal district court judge or magistrate judge under subparagraph (B), be open (but only to the extent necessary as provided in such order) to inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of any Federal agency who are personally and directly engaged in-
(i) preparation for any judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to the enforcement of a specifically designated Federal criminal statute (not involving tax administration) to which the United States or such age ...

QUIT RUINING THE OUTRAGE NARRATIVE!

Not like the TEAhaddists will ever read it, and even if they did they would claim the law means what they say it means. You know, just like the Constitution and history.


Did you not notice the court order requirement? Did Lerner receive such an order? If not, she was in violation.
 
2013-11-02 09:27:02 PM
www.coolpl8z.com
 
2013-11-02 09:51:53 PM
An IRS official appointed by Bush farked up her reports. Clearly, this is more proof of a conspiracy orchestrated by Obama to harm the flawless, absolutely stellar Romney campaign.
 
2013-11-02 09:58:13 PM

jjorsett: inglixthemad: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay:

jjorsett: Did you not notice the court order requirement? Did Lerner receive such an order? If not, she was in violation.


Read it (second paragraph that starts with 'In addition') then cry into your bowl of greasy freedom fries.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Public-Disclosure-and-Ava il ability-of-Exempt-Organizations-Returns-and-Applications:-Documents-Su bject-to-Public-Disclosure
 
2013-11-02 10:16:31 PM
Okay....look it guys....this is getting to be unbecoming of even you morans.

Let's do this.  Take the rest of 2013 off.  Congress is doing about the same thing anyway so even if you came up with something they wouldn't be around to do anything about it.

Take some time and pull it together.  Have a con-fab, do some research, get your ducks in a row and we can crank it over in 2014.

You guys are tired of grasping at straws, were tired of half pretending to care and none of this is doing anyone any good.

Have a good holiday and oh, try and let the chicken rest a bit.
 
2013-11-02 10:33:11 PM

Granny_Panties: s2s2s2: Granny_Panties: But, what Snowden did was completely a-okay because it made Obama look bad.

Giving away private info is bad. Also, stealing private info is bad. Snowmen informed us that we were being spied on. Obama looks bad, because he did bad.

Snowden stole private info and released it genius. Also known as classified info. Like I said it made Obama look bad, so it's was okay in your partisan eyes. If McCain/Palin was president, you would be calling for this head for treason right now.

Both parties were wrong. Period. Taking ANYTHING that doesn't legally belong to you is wrong. Then again, Republicans have their own version of law depending how they personally feel on the subject. Republicans are lawless and despise the US Constitution because it doesn't fit into their extreme ideology.


I dont like ti respond to an attempted thredjack, but the thread seems pretty much dead anyway.

So, uh, what about liberals that think Snowden did the right thing?

Are they also too partisan, too far to the left?

This "rules are rules, period" mentality seems awfully right-wing authoritarian to me.
 
2013-11-02 10:36:49 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch.  Yeah, kinda.


Exactly.
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report