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  
•       •       •

2464 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2013 at 10:04 AM (38 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 11:01:23 PM

Fart_Machine: It talks about relaying information through private email.


Again, this is internally where passing tax information within the IRS is not frowned upon.  In fact it is vital to that operation.  A bit different, though when you pass that information on to others in the government as this new allegation alleges.

You know the distinction.  Quit being obtuse.
 
2013-11-02 11:12:42 PM

dookdookdook: Mrbogey: HeadLever: dookdookdook: TFA is an almost-factless outragegasm linking to another outragegasm which in turn links to a 176 page .pdf document that I have no intention spending 3 hours examining in detail to determine just exactly how full of shiat subby et. al. is.

So it is fact-less even though it supplies the supporting documents that you are not going to read.  Are you for real?

Ideally Obama supporters should be more outraged about this since it's their guy's people doing this and it makes him look bad (assuming he's completely uninvolved in this). The reflexive need to defend it just makes it easier to tie it around their necks. If in an alternate world the scandal unfolded where the second it came to light Obama pushed the DoJ to investigate it, he sacked Lerner, pushed for jail time, and suspended staff members who knew about this then this would make him look pretty damn good. Instead we get the stonewalling. The exact same thing that happened with Fast & Furious.

So clearly *you've* examined the 176 page pdf in detail.  Maybe you could post some brief selections that best highlight the crimes against humanity being perpetrated here?  Y'know, for all us Obama-fellating libby lib sycophants who require things like "evidence" before jumping on the outrage train?


Sure got quiet.
 
2013-11-02 11:31:28 PM

ChicagOpinion: When the libs don't like a story, they criticize the source - knowing the source won't be a major source because they're all in bed with Obama.  People responsible for electing this administration into office for another four years typically refuse to believe that the current government is as crooked as any of them have been in the past.  There is something to be said about the great integrety of people who will admit when they've farked up.  Libs just won't do that - and usually because they're uninformed.


Yes, that's right, despite President Obama's every move for the last 5 years (including, but not limited to, hamburger topping, tog breed selection, birth place) by every mainstream media source, they're all secretly "in bed" together...
www.neogeoforlife.com
/"liberal media" truly is the talking point that keeps on giving.
 
2013-11-02 11:34:00 PM

jjorsett: Well, people who THINK they're smarter than you. And better than you.



You're talking about Republicans here, right? Because then you forgot to add "more important", "more ethical", and "more modest"
 
2013-11-02 11:38:10 PM

Empty Matchbook: ChicagOpinion: When the libs don't like a story, they criticize the source - knowing the source won't be a major source because they're all in bed with Obama.  People responsible for electing this administration into office for another four years typically refuse to believe that the current government is as crooked as any of them have been in the past.  There is something to be said about the great integrety of people who will admit when they've farked up.  Libs just won't do that - and usually because they're uninformed.

Yes, that's right, despite President Obama's every move for the last 5 years (including, but not limited to, hamburger topping, tog breed selection, birth place) by every mainstream media source, they're all secretly "in bed" together...
[www.neogeoforlife.com image 63x118]
/"liberal media" truly is the talking point that keeps on giving.


There's a "heavily scrutinized" in there, I just know it! It's right between the closing parentheses and "by."

/never drink and Fark, kids!
//except always do that, cause it's really, REALLY fun!
 
2013-11-02 11:39:19 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: It talks about relaying information through private email.

Again, this is internally where passing tax information within the IRS is not frowned upon.  In fact it is vital to that operation.  A bit different, though when you pass that information on to others in the government as this new allegation alleges.

You know the distinction.  Quit being obtuse.


New allegation? Welcome to the first of August.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/08/01/republica n s-demand-communications-between-irs-and-fec/

Again this is old news. Try again.
 
2013-11-03 01:03:42 AM

grumpyguru: the best article doesn't always get greenlit.


It's part of the fun of FARK; crappy submission gets green light because:
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-11-03 01:05:15 AM

GlenninSac: grumpyguru: the best article doesn't always get greenlit.

It's part of the fun of FARK; crappy submission gets green light because:
[i1.kym-cdn.com image 550x550] Clicks=profit


FTFY
 
2013-11-03 04:12:32 AM

jjorsett: 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.


The most revealing thing about this whole episode is that its another example of how increasingly our Federal government is becoming a collection of people acting to protect themselves instead of as public servants. When I worked for the feds more than 85% of my coworkers were Democrats who were lifetime federal employees. In the private sector at most 50% are. In the post-Watergate era, we don't just have to worry about clumsy conspiracies orchestrated by clueless presidential minions. Those guys are busy hiring donors to build the new website.

Instead we have to worry about the career bureacrat who is a reliable Democrat, who has lunch with her fellow bureaucrats in other departments, all reliable Democrats, who then come up with plans to do the same thing Watergate did without even having to break into a filing cabinet...
 
2013-11-03 04:16:19 AM

Animatronik: Instead we have to worry about the career bureacrat who is a reliable Democrat, who has lunch with her fellow bureaucrats in other departments, all reliable Democrats, who then come up with plans to do the same thing Watergate did without even having to break into a filing cabinet...


You realize we can change every instance of "Democrat" here to "Republican", and many people would still accept it as true?
 
2013-11-03 04:18:20 AM

Animatronik: jjorsett: 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.

The most revealing thing about this whole episode is that its another example of how increasingly our Federal government is becoming a collection of people acting to protect themselves instead of as public servants. When I worked for the feds more than 85% of my coworkers were Democrats who were lifetime federal employees. In the private sector at most 50% are. In the post-Watergate era, we don't just have to worry about clumsy conspiracies orchestrated by clueless presidential minions. Those guys are busy hiring donors to build the new website.

Instead we have to worry about the career bureacrat who is a reliable Democrat, who has lunch with her fellow bureaucrats in other departments, all reliable Democrats, who then come up with plans to do the same thing Watergate did without even having to break into a filing cabinet...


I'm not saying that's what Lerner did her. Nobody's proven she sent out confidential info yet. But with such lopsided politics within our govt., it would no longer be shocking if she did.

I would expect few if any of my coworkers, who were great people for the most part, to do something like that. But it only takes a few.
 
2013-11-03 04:20:40 AM

grumpfuff: Animatronik: Instead we have to worry about the career bureacrat who is a reliable Democrat, who has lunch with her fellow bureaucrats in other departments, all reliable Democrats, who then come up with plans to do the same thing Watergate did without even having to break into a filing cabinet...

You realize we can change every instance of "Democrat" here to "Republican", and many people would still accept it as true?


Whoosh. Went right over your head. If you worked there you'd realize that Republicans are about as common in the office as a southbound African sparrow. In other words, not common at all.
 
2013-11-03 04:27:55 AM

Animatronik: grumpfuff: Animatronik: Instead we have to worry about the career bureacrat who is a reliable Democrat, who has lunch with her fellow bureaucrats in other departments, all reliable Democrats, who then come up with plans to do the same thing Watergate did without even having to break into a filing cabinet...

You realize we can change every instance of "Democrat" here to "Republican", and many people would still accept it as true?

Whoosh. Went right over your head. If you worked there you'd realize that Republicans are about as common in the office as a southbound African sparrow. In other words, not common at all.


You are aware Lerner was appointed by Bush, right?
 
2013-11-03 04:32:11 AM

jjorsett: 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.


I think there are people in the world who actually ARE smarter - than you or me both.
Do you even acknowledge that there are people who are smarter, and know better than you?
 
2013-11-03 04:40:32 AM

grumpfuff: Animatronik: grumpfuff: Animatronik: Instead we have to worry about the career bureacrat who is a reliable Democrat, who has lunch with her fellow bureaucrats in other departments, all reliable Democrats, who then come up with plans to do the same thing Watergate did without even having to break into a filing cabinet...

You realize we can change every instance of "Democrat" here to "Republican", and many people would still accept it as true?

Whoosh. Went right over your head. If you worked there you'd realize that Republicans are about as common in the office as a southbound African sparrow. In other words, not common at all.

You are aware Lerner was appointed by Bush, right?


She's also a career federal employee who used to work for the FEC enforcement division.

You have personal knowledge of how she voted and how her friends voted over the last ten years?

What this is really about, more than D v. R., is the government acting to protect itself by squelching voices that don't want to see govt or its revenue collecting power grow. If, as it happens to be the case, the Ds are the pro-government party, then the Ds become the vehicle for groups of people acting to inhibit political groups that want to rein in govt.
 
2013-11-03 04:45:06 AM

jso2897: jjorsett: 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.

I think there are people in the world who actually ARE smarter - than you or me both.
Do you even acknowledge that there are people who are smarter, and know better than you?


There's no doubt that you would acknowledge that there are people way smarter than you are, who know better than you, and that they are in the W.H. creating a better future for you, working hard for that....

Beginning with that website that they are personally responsible for.
 
2013-11-03 04:54:35 AM
Animatronik:
She's also a career federal employee who used to work for the FEC enforcement division.

And this means..what?

You have personal knowledge of how she voted and how her friends voted over the last ten years?

Fair enough, no I don't. But Bush wasn't exactly known for appointing Democrats.

What this is really about, more than D v. R., is the government acting to protect itself by squelching voices that don't want to see govt or its revenue collecting power grow.

Yes, how dare the government point out that groups with an inherent political interest should not be granted tax exempt status.

If, as it happens to be the case, the Ds are the pro-government party, then the Ds become the vehicle for groups of people acting to inhibit political groups that want to rein in govt.

You mean how the IRS conducted increased scrutiny on both conservative and liberal groups that applied for tax exempt status?
 
2013-11-03 05:42:02 AM

grumpfuff: Animatronik:
She's also a career federal employee who used to work for the FEC enforcement division.

And this means..what?

You have personal knowledge of how she voted and how her friends voted over the last ten years?

Fair enough, no I don't. But Bush wasn't exactly known for appointing Democrats.

What this is really about, more than D v. R., is the government acting to protect itself by squelching voices that don't want to see govt or its revenue collecting power grow.

Yes, how dare the government point out that groups with an inherent political interest should not be granted tax exempt status.

If, as it happens to be the case, the Ds are the pro-government party, then the Ds become the vehicle for groups of people acting to inhibit political groups that want to rein in govt.

You mean how the IRS conducted increased scrutiny on both conservative and liberal groups that applied for tax exempt status?


And, last I checked, none of the conservative groups were denied. But oh noes, they had to do PAPERWORK! While continuing to operate as normal! The horror!

Don't be fooled by any of this. Republicans don't care about the ethics of this. They only fark this particular chicken because they think they can somehow convince people with IQs above room temperature that an IRS official (appointed by Bush) being sloppy with paperwork is somehow part of a massive conspiracy by Obama to oppress Real American Patriots.
 
2013-11-03 05:42:47 AM
Obama is gonna be pissed when he hears about this.
 
2013-11-03 06:15:40 AM

SlothB77: Obama is gonna be pissed when he hears about this.


As pissed as the CEO of Wal-Mart would be if a store manager didn't do their paperwork correctly.
 
2013-11-03 06:22:11 AM

Animatronik: jso2897: jjorsett: 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.

I think there are people in the world who actually ARE smarter - than you or me both.
Do you even acknowledge that there are people who are smarter, and know better than you?

There's no doubt that you would acknowledge that there are people way smarter than you are, who know better than you, and that they are in the W.H. creating a better future for you, working hard for that....

Beginning with that website that they are personally responsible for.


I'm not surprised at your response - it's always the defectives who think they have no intellectual superiors.
It's the inbreeding of white racists - makes 'em get stupider every generation..
 
2013-11-03 07:03:53 AM

d23: bigsteve3OOO: It hurts to admit that the progressive leadership is as dirty as the GOP.  The worst part must be that they never pass any law that actually takes money from the rich and gives to the poor.  Look at Obama care.  The 1% are not impacted to the extent that the middle class person is.  Why is that?  Could it be that they work for the same masters as the GOP?  I think so.

There isn't any "progressive" leaders in the Congress... except maybe Bernie Sanders.  That's why constant cries of "socialism" are so pathetic.  No one wants a socialistic society in the U.S., and that includes Sanders.  Intelegent social programs, yes, Socialism or Socialism by force (Communism), no.


Sooo.....

You want socialist programs......

But that's not socialism.

What because we only half-assed it?

You may not view them as one in the same because its "just one" program (at a time). By the time we go through 60years of just one program we're at socialism. Yeah it wasn't as dramatic as flipping a switch over night but the end results are the same.

So I ask you, if someone just wants to add a socialist program, could they not be considered as contributing to socialism and therefore a socialist?

Works for terrorist....
 
2013-11-03 08:01:38 AM

youmightberight: d23: bigsteve3OOO: It hurts to admit that the progressive leadership is as dirty as the GOP.  The worst part must be that they never pass any law that actually takes money from the rich and gives to the poor.  Look at Obama care.  The 1% are not impacted to the extent that the middle class person is.  Why is that?  Could it be that they work for the same masters as the GOP?  I think so.

There isn't any "progressive" leaders in the Congress... except maybe Bernie Sanders.  That's why constant cries of "socialism" are so pathetic.  No one wants a socialistic society in the U.S., and that includes Sanders.  Intelegent social programs, yes, Socialism or Socialism by force (Communism), no.

Sooo.....

You want socialist programs......

But that's not socialism.

What because we only half-assed it?

You may not view them as one in the same because its "just one" program (at a time). By the time we go through 60years of just one program we're at socialism. Yeah it wasn't as dramatic as flipping a switch over night but the end results are the same.

So I ask you, if someone just wants to add a socialist program, could they not be considered as contributing to socialism and therefore a socialist?

Works for terrorist....


Ignoring the "slippery slope" bullshiat for a moment, can you tell us why, exactly, this particular form of "socialism" is bad? And if sixty years of one "socialist" program will inevitably turn us into Communist Russia, why didn't Medicare or the highway system or any other huge government programs turn America socialist?
 
2013-11-03 08:17:23 AM
Mah name is Lois Lerner.  Ah takes thu  fifth, yer Honer, the MUTHAFARKIN' FIFTH, AH SEZ!!  Yeah, no problem there.

Lois Lerner is dirty,  dirty, DIRTY,  DIRTY!  She needs to be punished with a good spanking. Spankin' the Lerner.....it's the newest thingon the political horizon.  "Say, what are you doing to Nancy Pelosi?"  "Ah, nuthin.  Just enacting a Spankin' the Lerner on her. Punishment, ya know.  For all the bullshiat she's pulled."
 
2013-11-03 08:39:47 AM

youmightberight: d23: bigsteve3OOO: It hurts to admit that the progressive leadership is as dirty as the GOP.  The worst part must be that they never pass any law that actually takes money from the rich and gives to the poor.  Look at Obama care.  The 1% are not impacted to the extent that the middle class person is.  Why is that?  Could it be that they work for the same masters as the GOP?  I think so.

There isn't any "progressive" leaders in the Congress... except maybe Bernie Sanders.  That's why constant cries of "socialism" are so pathetic.  No one wants a socialistic society in the U.S., and that includes Sanders.  Intelegent social programs, yes, Socialism or Socialism by force (Communism), no.

Sooo.....

You want socialist programs......

But that's not socialism.

What because we only half-assed it?

You may not view them as one in the same because its "just one" program (at a time). By the time we go through 60years of just one program we're at socialism. Yeah it wasn't as dramatic as flipping a switch over night but the end results are the same.

So I ask you, if someone just wants to add a socialist program, could they not be considered as contributing to socialism and therefore a socialist?

Works for terrorist....


The fact that you regard "socialist" to be a dirty word is your problem - not the rest of society's.
Your obsession with semantics doesn't concern me - or any intelligent person. The Right is failing in America because they are too dumb to figure that out.
The McCarthy-ites got their asses stomped in the late fifties because they made the same mistake - thinking that yelling "communist" at everything they didn't like would convince normal people - it doesn't.
It only convinces those mental defectives who are prone to radical-right dogma to begin with.
 
2013-11-03 09:17:51 AM

DoctorCal: Sure got quiet.


Other posters covered it. At this point I'm tired of the spinning from the pro-Obama posters.
 
2013-11-03 09:25:08 AM

jso2897: youmightberight: d23: bigsteve3OOO: It hurts to admit that the progressive leadership is as dirty as the GOP.  The worst part must be that they never pass any law that actually takes money from the rich and gives to the poor.  Look at Obama care.  The 1% are not impacted to the extent that the middle class person is.  Why is that?  Could it be that they work for the same masters as the GOP?  I think so.

There isn't any "progressive" leaders in the Congress... except maybe Bernie Sanders.  That's why constant cries of "socialism" are so pathetic.  No one wants a socialistic society in the U.S., and that includes Sanders.  Intelegent social programs, yes, Socialism or Socialism by force (Communism), no.

Sooo.....

You want socialist programs......

But that's not socialism.

What because we only half-assed it?

You may not view them as one in the same because its "just one" program (at a time). By the time we go through 60years of just one program we're at socialism. Yeah it wasn't as dramatic as flipping a switch over night but the end results are the same.

So I ask you, if someone just wants to add a socialist program, could they not be considered as contributing to socialism and therefore a socialist?

Works for terrorist....

The fact that you regard "socialist" to be a dirty word is your problem - not the rest of society's.
Your obsession with semantics doesn't concern me - or any intelligent person. The Right is failing in America because they are too dumb to figure that out.
The McCarthy-ites got their asses stomped in the late fifties because they made the same mistake - thinking that yelling "communist" at everything they didn't like would convince normal people - it doesn't.
It only convinces those mental defectives who are prone to radical-right dogma to begin with.


I would argue because Democrats don't understand the concept of Math they are running this country in to the ground and are going to really disillusion the "rich" that make over 30K a year. The principles of Democrats are admirable but typically they are far removed from reality.
Due to the principles of a free democracy and the fact that we have been at odds war with so many communist countries people rightfully fear a move toward these socialist principles. Semantics or not we were founded on a free democracy and had been one of the most admired countries in the world. Through this administration more people have been dependent on the goverment than ever. Personal Responsibilty is taxed as the lazy find it easier to get benefits.

On a side I am not saying all entitlement programs are bad, they have just become far too extensive and the math does not work for those that do work hard. The votes though for the politicians are great though.
 
2013-11-03 09:43:13 AM
I would argue because Democrats don't understand the concept of Math they are running this country in to the ground and are going to really disillusion the "rich" that make over 30K a year. The principles of Democrats are admirable but typically they are far removed from reality.

Due to the principles of a free democracy and the fact that we have been at odds war with so many communist countries people rightfully fear a move toward these socialist principles. Semantics or not we were founded on a free democracy and had been one of the most admired countries in the world. Through this administration more people have been dependent on the goverment than ever. Personal Responsibilty is taxed as the lazy find it easier to get benefits.

I am not saying all entitlement programs are bad, they have just become far too extensive and the math does not work for those that do work hard. The votes though for the politicians are great though.

Fixed it so the point is not missed.
 
2013-11-03 09:43:52 AM

Mrbogey: DoctorCal: Sure got quiet.

Other posters covered it. At this point I'm tired of the spinning from the pro-Obama posters.


Nowhere near as tired as the rest of us are dealing with the tedious mendacity of the right wing.
 
2013-11-03 10:30:33 AM

mjm323s: I would argue because Democrats don't understand the concept of Math they are running this country in to the ground and are going to really disillusion the "rich" that make over 30K a year. The principles of Democrats are admirable but typically they are far removed from reality.

Due to the principles of a free democracy and the fact that we have been at odds war with so many communist countries people rightfully fear a move toward these socialist principles. Semantics or not we were founded on a free democracy and had been one of the most admired countries in the world. Through this administration more people have been dependent on the goverment than ever. Personal Responsibilty is taxed as the lazy find it easier to get benefits.

I am not saying all entitlement programs are bad, they have just become far too extensive and the math does not work for those that do work hard. The votes though for the politicians are great though.

Fixed it so the point is not missed.


Well I'm glad you moved from BSAB to full-on GOP shill. Have fun with that.
 
2013-11-03 10:33:58 AM

Animatronik: grumpfuff: Animatronik: grumpfuff: Animatronik: Instead we have to worry about the career bureacrat who is a reliable Democrat, who has lunch with her fellow bureaucrats in other departments, all reliable Democrats, who then come up with plans to do the same thing Watergate did without even having to break into a filing cabinet...

You realize we can change every instance of "Democrat" here to "Republican", and many people would still accept it as true?

Whoosh. Went right over your head. If you worked there you'd realize that Republicans are about as common in the office as a southbound African sparrow. In other words, not common at all.

You are aware Lerner was appointed by Bush, right?

She's also a career federal employee who used to work for the FEC enforcement division.

You have personal knowledge of how she voted and how her friends voted over the last ten years?

What this is really about, more than D v. R., is the government acting to protect itself by squelching voices that don't want to see govt or its revenue collecting power grow. If, as it happens to be the case, the Ds are the pro-government party, then the Ds become the vehicle for groups of people acting to inhibit political groups that want to rein in govt.


What voiced are being squelched again? Certainly not the Tea Party folks who had zero applications revoked and even in this case the IRS and FEC decided to not pursue any action. Just because you want to play the victim doesn't mean it's true.
 
2013-11-03 10:35:29 AM

Fart_Machine: mjm323s: I would argue because Democrats don't understand the concept of Math they are running this country in to the ground and are going to really disillusion the "rich" that make over 30K a year. The principles of Democrats are admirable but typically they are far removed from reality.

Due to the principles of a free democracy and the fact that we have been at odds war with so many communist countries people rightfully fear a move toward these socialist principles. Semantics or not we were founded on a free democracy and had been one of the most admired countries in the world. Through this administration more people have been dependent on the goverment than ever. Personal Responsibilty is taxed as the lazy find it easier to get benefits.

I am not saying all entitlement programs are bad, they have just become far too extensive and the math does not work for those that do work hard. The votes though for the politicians are great though.

Fixed it so the point is not missed.

Well I'm glad you moved from BSAB to full-on GOP shill. Have fun with that.


Not sure what BSAB is, just trying to match the intensity of the other side. Am I doing it right?
 
2013-11-03 10:46:50 AM

mjm323s: Fart_Machine: mjm323s: I would argue because Democrats don't understand the concept of Math they are running this country in to the ground and are going to really disillusion the "rich" that make over 30K a year. The principles of Democrats are admirable but typically they are far removed from reality.

Due to the principles of a free democracy and the fact that we have been at odds war with so many communist countries people rightfully fear a move toward these socialist principles. Semantics or not we were founded on a free democracy and had been one of the most admired countries in the world. Through this administration more people have been dependent on the goverment than ever. Personal Responsibilty is taxed as the lazy find it easier to get benefits.

I am not saying all entitlement programs are bad, they have just become far too extensive and the math does not work for those that do work hard. The votes though for the politicians are great though.

Fixed it so the point is not missed.

Well I'm glad you moved from BSAB to full-on GOP shill. Have fun with that.

Not sure what BSAB is, just trying to match the intensity of the other side. Am I doing it right?


So you're trolling. Yeah that sounds about right.

Plonk.
 
2013-11-03 11:05:36 AM

Fart_Machine: mjm323s: Fart_Machine: mjm323s: I would argue because Democrats don't understand the concept of Math they are running this country in to the ground and are going to really disillusion the "rich" that make over 30K a year. The principles of Democrats are admirable but typically they are far removed from reality.

Due to the principles of a free democracy and the fact that we have been at odds war with so many communist countries people rightfully fear a move toward these socialist principles. Semantics or not we were founded on a free democracy and had been one of the most admired countries in the world. Through this administration more people have been dependent on the goverment than ever. Personal Responsibilty is taxed as the lazy find it easier to get benefits.

I am not saying all entitlement programs are bad, they have just become far too extensive and the math does not work for those that do work hard. The votes though for the politicians are great though.

Fixed it so the point is not missed.

Well I'm glad you moved from BSAB to full-on GOP shill. Have fun with that.

Not sure what BSAB is, just trying to match the intensity of the other side. Am I doing it right?

So you're trolling. Yeah that sounds about right.

Plonk.


Really?  Plonk?  So, you're basically going lalalalalalalalala...I can't hear you.... Fear me, because I'm rejecting you!  Yeah....real rational mind that you have there, to ignore what is basically the single most coherent voice in these dialogues that you've been having in this thread.
 
2013-11-03 11:39:31 AM

mjm323s: I would argue because Democrats don't understand the concept of Math they are running this country in to the ground and are going to really disillusion the "rich" that make over 30K a year. The principles of Democrats are admirable but typically they are far removed from reality.

Due to the principles of a free democracy and the fact that we have been at odds war with so many communist countries people rightfully fear a move toward these socialist principles. Semantics or not we were founded on a free democracy and had been one of the most admired countries in the world. Through this administration more people have been dependent on the goverment than ever. Personal Responsibilty is taxed as the lazy find it easier to get benefits.

I am not saying all entitlement programs are bad, they have just become far too extensive and the math does not work for those that do work hard. The votes though for the politicians are great though.

Fixed it so the point is not missed.


www.screeninsults.com

If you're really trying to match the intensity of the other side, you might want to try adding facts. They can really pack a punch.
 
2013-11-03 12:14:40 PM
Sure here are some facts to support my premise, just because your cause is noble, you are not exempt from math:

As of Jan 1 no matter what, everyone is going to be required to have health care whether you want it or not and the people that are sick more often or have preexisting conditions are going to have the same price for insurance as someone that is perfectly healthy and spends less in healthcare. When this large group is being added at the same price as the average person, everyone's insurance is going up, despite what Obama said... The passion to get everyone health insurance is going to cost everyone more because this addition causes the average per person healthcare cost to go up This is math. People that get their own insurance are seeing this now, employer insurance is going to see it next year. The only people whose insurance is not going to go up is those that are already don't pay anything. Requiring a 60 year old single man to get insurance for mammograms does not make sense, but this ACA law knows what is best for us. Subsidies for people making less than $30K hurts the middle class as their premiums go up thousands of dollars.

The problem with the government being everything to everybody, when someone is working and paying taxes they are an income producer by paying taxes, when they are receiving checks they are a debt for the government. As the balance moves more people to being debts rather than providing income, the revenue becomes negative. That is math and is unsustainable, so rather than encouraging these people to be beneficial to the country as income producers, it is easier to just demand more income from those that do work at a higher rate.
 
2013-11-03 12:26:03 PM

grumpfuff: GlenninSac: grumpyguru: the best article doesn't always get greenlit.

It's part of the fun of FARK; crappy submission gets green light because:
[i1.kym-cdn.com image 550x550] Clicks=profit

FTFY


That, too.
 
2013-11-03 12:36:22 PM

mjm323s: Sure here are some facts to support my premise, just because your cause is noble, you are not exempt from math:


Fair enough. Let's play.

mjm323s: whether you want it or not


The people who don't want insurance are the same people that go to the ER when they get injured, and the rest of us have to foot the bill.

mjm323s:  people that are sick more often or have preexisting conditions are going to have the same price for insurance as someone that is perfectly healthy and spends less in healthcare.


This is the first I've heard of any such notion. Got a citation to back that up?


mjm323s: everyone's insurance is going up


[citation needed]

With few exceptions, most of the people for whom insurance is going up, live in states that are not accepting the gov't subsidies. Furthermore, I personally know several people for whom it went down. Your statement is already a gross over generalization.

mjm323s: This is math.


No it isn't. It's you making a claim with no support. I can just as easily say "Having more people paying into the insurance pool will make it cheaper for everyone because there is more money in the pool. This is math."

mjm323s: Requiring a 60 year old single man to get insurance for mammograms does not make sense,


Yea, my insurance covers leprosy, and I never got leprosy! The fark is up with that??? Also, my taxes go to pay for roads I don't drive on, buildings I don't visit, and states I've never been to!

mjm323s: Subsidies for people making less than $30K hurts the middle class as their premiums go up thousands of dollars.


Again, [citation needed].

mjm323s: The problem with the government being everything to everybody, when someone is working and paying taxes they are an income producer by paying taxes, when they are receiving checks they are a debt for the government.


Is this a re-hash of the old "Democrats like making people dependent on the government"? It's a bit played out. And false.

mjm323s: As the balance moves more people to being debts rather than providing income, the revenue becomes negative. That is math and is unsustainable,


What math? I see no numbers or citations or anything in your post, just a bunch of opinions and un-cited claims.


So...

mjm323s: Sure here are some facts my opinions to support my premise, just because your cause is noble, you are not exempt from math unsourced claims and opinions:


FTFY.
 
2013-11-03 12:58:23 PM

grumpfuff: mjm323s: Sure here are some facts to support my premise, just because your cause is noble, you are not exempt from math:

Fair enough. Let's play.

mjm323s: whether you want it or not

The people who don't want insurance are the same people that go to the ER when they get injured, and the rest of us have to foot the bill.


What about all the people that don't go to the ER and made a personal choice to pay out of pocket when these come up. Where is you citation? Personally I assisted my brother in law in getting catastrophic insurance which made sense for him, because he was unlikely to need much medical care being 26 and healthy this product is now gone


mjm323s:  people that are sick more often or have preexisting conditions are going to have the same price for insurance as someone that is perfectly healthy and spends less in healthcare.

This is the first I've heard of any such notion. Got a citation to back that up?-  Ask the people you referenced whose insurance you claim went down.


mjm323s: everyone's insurance is going up

[citation needed]

With few exceptions, most of the people for whom insurance is going up, live in states that are not accepting the gov't subsidies. Furthermore, I personally know several people for whom it went down. Your statement is already a gross over generalization.

mjm323s: This is math.

No it isn't. It's you making a claim with no support. I can just as easily say "Having more people paying into the insurance pool will make it cheaper for everyone because there is more money in the pool. This is math."

Well you are then not taking in to consideration the people that are being added in to the pool, the biggest talking point for Obama is the pre-existing conditions and making sure they are covered, but by adding this large group in to the pool everyones insurance is going down...That is just not logical

mjm323s: Requiring a 60 year old single man to get insurance for mammograms does not make sense,

Yea, my insurance covers leprosy, and I never got leprosy! The fark is up with that??? Also, my taxes go to pay for roads I don't drive on, buildings I don't visit, and states I've never been to!

Leprosy? what the hell are you talking about. Again I am talking about reality and when you add additional coverages that are unnecessary to peoples policy, the premium goes up

mjm323s: Subsidies for people making less than $30K hurts the middle class as their premiums go up thousands of dollars.

Again, [citation needed]. Hull Financial Planning the quote is between 250-300% of the federal poverty level which averages out to about $30K. 30K is not exact but an educated average based on citation, depends on the region.
mjm323s: The problem with the government being everything to everybody, when someone is working and paying taxes they are an income producer by paying taxes, when they are receiving checks they are a debt for the government.

Is this a re-hash of the old "Democrats like making people dependent on the government"? It's a bit played out. And
false.

I don't understand how this refutes my point and the math that makes sense, "I am just using talking points" that you can not defend
mjm323s: As the balance moves more people to b ...

 
2013-11-03 02:08:43 PM

mjm323s: What about all the people that don't go to the ER and made a personal choice to pay out of pocket when these come up. Where is you citation? Personally I assisted my brother in law in getting catastrophic insurance which made sense for him, because he was unlikely to need much medical care being 26 and healthy this product is now gone


Yes, when someone doesn't have insurance and gets hit by a car, has a heart attack, or accidentally cuts off a hand, they're totally not gonna go to the ER and just go home instead.

mjm323s: Ask the people you referenced whose insurance you claim went down.


So..you want me to ask the people who's insurance has gone down, if their lying to me and their insurance went up? I provide a counter-example, and you fall back on "Well they're lying."? My insurance has also gone down. Am I lying to myself too?

mjm323s: Well you are then not taking in to consideration the people that are being added in to the pool, the biggest talking point for Obama is the pre-existing conditions and making sure they are covered, but by adding this large group in to the pool everyones insurance is going down...That is just not logical


Again, more people in the pool=more money in the pool. And prices are set by the insurance companies, not the ACA. Also, I still have my doubts that 60 year old dude with cancer is paying exactly the same amount as 25 year old dude in good health.

mjm323s: Leprosy? what the hell are you talking about. Again I am talking about reality and when you add additional coverages that are unnecessary to peoples policy, the premium goes up


So am I. My point is that ALL insurance policies cover things you will never need. For example, I hope you will never get cancer. But your insurance still covers it. And that's not the way insurance works. If your premium is $10, it's not like that's broken down to $1 for cancer, $1 for doctor visits, $1 for surgery, etc.

mjm323s: Hull Financial Planning the quote is between 250-300% of the federal poverty level which averages out to about $30K. 30K is not exact but an educated average based on citation, depends on the region.


I will assume this was an attempt at a citation and Fark ate your link(happens to the best of us.)

mjm323s: I don't understand how this refutes my point and the math that makes sense, "I am just using talking points" that you can not defend


This refutes your point because there is no math, and you have nothing to support your claim. Your argument basically amounts to "I said so." Something asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. In other words, if all you have is "It will happen like this because I said it will," I can just respond with "No it won't."
 
2013-11-03 02:33:11 PM

grumpfuff: And that's not the way insurance works


I am a State licensed insurance agent, cross-certified in both P & C and Life & Health insurances. You have absolutely ZERO understanding regarding "how insurance works." Thanks for playing, though...
 
2013-11-03 02:45:45 PM

mjm323s: What about all the people that don't go to the ER and made a personal choice to pay out of pocket when these come up.


Medical costs are such that there is a negligible minority even able to do this, let alone want to.

mjm323s: Personally I assisted my brother in law in getting catastrophic insurance which made sense for him, because he was unlikely to need much medical care being 26 and healthy this product is now gone


Citation? That's an anecdote.
A) This sounds suspiciously like every other Fox New Obamacare failure story. Was it one of those catastrophic plans than covered so little you're just as farked with insurance as without, should any major medical expense come up? Is it one of those where the nearest ACA approved plan costs tens of dollars more, while covering a great deal more with no caps on payouts?
B) He will get sick. It's not freedom, but selfishness, to gamble with his health while the odds are in his favor, and saddle everyone else with the bill when they're not.

mjm323s: Ask the people you referenced whose insurance you claim went down.


Fox News talking point detected. The vast majority of people who can't keep their current plan, whose insurance rates are going up, are people who had shiatty cover-nothing plans to begin with or who live in Republican lead states like Florida who are purposefully stymieing the ACA.

mjm323s: Well you are then not taking in to consideration the people that are being added in to the pool, the biggest talking point for Obama is the pre-existing conditions and making sure they are covered, but by adding this large group in to the pool everyones insurance is going down...That is just not logical


That's how pools work. More healthy people will join the system than sick people. It's completely logical. I'll say it again, you will get sick. It's not freedom, but selfishness, to gamble with your health while the odds are in your favor, and saddle everyone else with the bill when they're not.

mjm323s: Leprosy? what the hell are you talking about. Again I am talking about reality and when you add additional coverages that are unnecessary to peoples policy, the premium goes up


Bullshiat talking point. There is nothing to be gained, and certainly a lot of time, effort, and money wasted portioning out treatments to every disease and affliction separately. There is no benefit whatsoever to doing this. All it does is serve to shrink risk pools and drive up costs. Far easier just to cover every common condition and make no special preference for something that ultimately changes nothing. For every mammogram you're paying for, some woman is paying for a prostate exam.
grump had it right. There are roads you've paid for but aren't driving on. It's not a good reason to tear down the interstate system, nor will it accomplish anything to make everything into a toll road.

mjm323s: Hull Financial Planning the quote is between 250-300% of the federal poverty level which averages out to about $30K. 30K is not exact but an educated average based on citation, depends on the region.


No. Where is the citation that subsidies for those making under $30K hurts the middle class and raises their premiums by thousands of dollars?

mjm323s: I don't understand how this refutes my point and the math that makes sense, "I am just using talking points" that you can not defend


"Democrats make people dependent on government" is a farking talking point, and the closest you've come to "math" is correctly using it in a sentence. You're just like every other right-wing BSABSVR shill, and think what you heard on Rush and Hannity is the truth and your opinions are just as good as others' facts. It's exactly the same reason so many people rightly tossed out this article (on-topic!) without reading past the first paragraph. You exaggerate, you beg the question, you make things up, you outright lie, and then you whine, whine, whine that no one can "defend" against you because they don't take your lying as seriously.
You're not looking for problems to solve, you've got your ideology as a solution and are inventing problems to apply it to.
 
2013-11-03 02:46:42 PM

lantawa: grumpfuff: And that's not the way insurance works

I am a State licensed insurance agent, cross-certified in both P & C and Life & Health insurances. You have absolutely ZERO understanding regarding "how insurance works." Thanks for playing, though...


So you're claiming insurance policy prices are determined by a cost break down of everything the insurance policy covers? $1 for doctor visits, $5 for cancer screenings, etc?

Or did you have some other point, walking in here all high-and-mighty with your supposed credentials while ignoring most of my other points?

Do you care to elaborate, or are you another "That's not the why it works because I said so."
 
2013-11-03 02:51:54 PM

lantawa: I am a State licensed insurance agent, cross-certified in both P & C and Life & Health insurances. You have absolutely ZERO understanding regarding "how insurance works." Thanks for playing, though...


Your qualification do little to refute him. An explanation might be in order...? Does insurance work where a portion of your premium goes towards treating specific illnesses? Would removing gender specific ailments from plans produce significant cost savings in premiums and/or would the increase in processing effort/cost produce negligible administrative costs?

Or did you get your GED in Insurance?
 
2013-11-03 02:59:46 PM
I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them as I have told you several times on here Seargent Gumbles they are extremes on both sides and most of us actually fall in the middle. The closest comparable to Hannity or Fox News is you, simply just on the opposite side. I am not going to continue to go back and forth I am just going to try and keep it as simple as possible.

The people that you are saying are going to get in the health insurance exchange to make it affordable, don't currently have health insurance for a reason. Probably because it is too expensive and by limiting insurance products that fit certain people who can't afford the ACA comprehensive policy, you are making a terrible assumption that theses people will happily get in the exchange that they still can not afford or just refuse to purchase, it makes more sense to pay the tax for them, it will definitely be more affordable... Insurance premiums are going up, this is not even taking in to consideration the other aspects of insurance such as deductibles. This is a broad statement but it is a fact. To say someone's premium went down, additional variables need to be known.

If you do not understand income versus debts, your check book is probably a mess
 
2013-11-03 03:16:25 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Your qualification do little to refute him


Ah knows it do little, but it be enuff. He done been refuted.
 
2013-11-03 03:21:00 PM

grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: And that's not the way insurance works

I am a State licensed insurance agent, cross-certified in both P & C and Life & Health insurances. You have absolutely ZERO understanding regarding "how insurance works." Thanks for playing, though...

So you're claiming insurance policy prices are determined by a cost break down of everything the insurance policy covers? $1 for doctor visits, $5 for cancer screenings, etc?

Or did you have some other point, walking in here all high-and-mighty with your supposed credentials while ignoring most of my other points?

Do you care to elaborate, or are you another "That's not the why it works because I said so."


Cutting to the chase, I sincerely HOPE that the ACA works out financially in a way that does not overly burden the taxpayers of this country.  I'm sceptical.  Equally cutting to the chase, you have been making points about insurance risk versus revenue that are nothing short of silly.  There's a Ministry for walking that way, you know. To do it correctly, you should at least take a correspondence course.
 
2013-11-03 03:22:55 PM

mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them as I have told you several times on here Seargent Gumbles they are extremes on both sides and most of us actually fall in the middle. The closest comparable to Hannity or Fox News is you, simply just on the opposite side. I am not going to continue to go back and forth I am just going to try and keep it as simple as possible.

The people that you are saying are going to get in the health insurance exchange to make it affordable, don't currently have health insurance for a reason. Probably because it is too expensive and by limiting insurance products that fit certain people who can't afford the ACA comprehensive policy, you are making a terrible assumption that theses people will happily get in the exchange that they still can not afford or just refuse to purchase, it makes more sense to pay the tax for them, it will definitely be more affordable... Insurance premiums are going up, this is not even taking in to consideration the other aspects of insurance such as deductibles. This is a broad statement but it is a fact. To say someone's premium went down, additional variables need to be known.

If you do not understand income versus debts, your check book is probably a mess


So instead of debating me, you just type up a new post which is made of mostly the exact same points I just spent three posts refuting?
 
2013-11-03 03:23:51 PM

lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: And that's not the way insurance works

I am a State licensed insurance agent, cross-certified in both P & C and Life & Health insurances. You have absolutely ZERO understanding regarding "how insurance works." Thanks for playing, though...

So you're claiming insurance policy prices are determined by a cost break down of everything the insurance policy covers? $1 for doctor visits, $5 for cancer screenings, etc?

Or did you have some other point, walking in here all high-and-mighty with your supposed credentials while ignoring most of my other points?

Do you care to elaborate, or are you another "That's not the why it works because I said so."

Cutting to the chase, I sincerely HOPE that the ACA works out financially in a way that does not overly burden the taxpayers of this country.  I'm sceptical.  Equally cutting to the chase, you have been making points about insurance risk versus revenue that are nothing short of silly.  There's a Ministry for walking that way, you know. To do it correctly, you should at least take a correspondence course.


So, you can't. Got it.
 
2013-11-03 03:40:25 PM

grumpfuff: Got it.


You are ignorant regarding the insurance business and the revenue/actuarial system of rating risk. And no, you don't "got it."
 
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