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  
•       •       •

2467 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2013 at 10:04 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



390 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-02 10:06:45 AM
Pretty dumb to allege that you committed a felony in your own emails.

What a word salad this headline is. Sarah? Is that you?
 
2013-11-02 10:07:38 AM
This shiat again?
 
2013-11-02 10:08:38 AM
B-b-b-but Nixon!
 
2013-11-02 10:14:07 AM
Subby, I think you broke your sentence in the middle
 
2013-11-02 10:15:14 AM
I don't think subby can count all the way to potato...
 
2013-11-02 10:15:21 AM
TheWhoppah:
This shiat again?

No, this shiat still.

No, stalling for a year or three, then saying "that's old news" doesn't work any more, especially when you keep on doing the same things...
 
2013-11-02 10:16:46 AM
One missing comma is all it took to make that very confusing.

Moving on, why is telling the federal election commission things illegal?
 
2013-11-02 10:22:01 AM
What is this I don't even
 
2013-11-02 10:23:23 AM
My last straws.

Grasp at them, Teabaggers.   Grasp at them.
 
2013-11-02 10:29:17 AM

TheWhoppah: This shiat again?


Now the shiat has sprinkles on it.


But the sprinkles contain sodium benzoate.
 
2013-11-02 10:32:40 AM
judicial watch?


stoppedreadingrightthere.jpg
 
2013-11-02 10:38:27 AM

Eddie Barzoom: Pretty dumb to allege that you committed a felony in your own emails.

What a word salad this headline is. Sarah? Is that you?


It's a little better now I guess. Nice work editor-person.

Guys should I read this article now that the headline is English-esque?
 
2013-11-02 10:44:10 AM
But, what Snowden did was completely a-okay because it made Obama look bad.
 
2013-11-02 10:44:11 AM

Eddie Barzoom: Eddie Barzoom: Pretty dumb to allege that you committed a felony in your own emails.

What a word salad this headline is. Sarah? Is that you?

It's a little better now I guess. Nice work editor-person.

Guys should I read this article now that the headline is English-esque?


The article is about as well written as the original headline, leading me to suspect that subby has submitted his own blog entry.
 
2013-11-02 10:46:40 AM
Alinsky:  "Does this particular end, justify this particular means?"

In the case of  keeping Mitt Romney out of the White House,apparently it did.
 
2013-11-02 10:46:43 AM

jso2897: TheWhoppah: This shiat again?

Now the shiat has sprinkles on it.


But the sprinkles contain sodium benzoate.


i595.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-02 10:46:44 AM

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


You've seen people say that?
 
2013-11-02 10:47:56 AM

cirby: TheWhoppah:
This shiat again?

No, this shiat still.

No, stalling for a year or three, then saying "that's old news" doesn't work any more, especially when you keep on doing the same things...


She keeps holding votes to repeal Obamacare?
 
2013-11-02 10:49:08 AM
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
 
2013-11-02 10:49:31 AM
"Lois Lerner - the Obama administration employee ..."

Lolwut? Other than in the sense that every government employee is technically under the president, what is the tie here? Is the meter maid an Obama administration employee too?
 
2013-11-02 10:51:06 AM

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


These dumb comments are so easy to turn around.
 
2013-11-02 10:52:48 AM
My personal favorite sentence FTA: "The information contained income, the employee's pay amounts, and income."
 
2013-11-02 10:54:09 AM
"...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

imageshack.us
 
2013-11-02 10:55:04 AM

spcMike: This guy in the comments needs help


Yikes.  Either that or a liberal plant.
 
2013-11-02 10:56:13 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: My personal favorite sentence FTA: "The information contained income, the employee's pay amounts, and income."


They like income.
 
2013-11-02 10:56:16 AM
The article is about as well written as the original headline, leading me to suspect that subby has submitted his own blog entry.

I read the article and can only say that you can't blame the writer for one's lack of reading comprehension. It's quite understandable.  Anyway, about the content of the story, this is just another Obama administration screwup that libs are trying to say is OK.  Three more years of this crap.
 
2013-11-02 10:59:40 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Alinsky:  "Does this particular end, justify this particular means?"

In the case of  keeping Mitt Romney out of the White House,apparently it did.


It's a conspiracy!
 
2013-11-02 10:59:50 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:00:33 AM

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


Nice.  Obogus.  I haven't seen that one before.  It would be spiffier if it was befarted, though.  Fartbogus!  There we go.
 
2013-11-02 11:01:22 AM
Did she have anything to do with Benghazi, because that would be ideal. Let's get Issa on this right away!
 
2013-11-02 11:03:38 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:03:44 AM

Doctor Funkenstein: 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

Nice.  Obogus.  I haven't seen that one before.  It would be spiffier if it was befarted, though.  Fartbogus!  There we go.


Obogus? Didn't that guy play with GWAR?
 
2013-11-02 11:03:46 AM

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.


It's owned by a guy who outright said he wants to create a global media empire that conforms to his religious world view, which MIGHT be OK if it the guy wasn't running the worlds largest cult.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-02 11:03:56 AM
....and I can't log onto the Obamacare web site, either!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-02 11:05:20 AM

Fart_Machine: Doctor Funkenstein: 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

Nice.  Obogus.  I haven't seen that one before.  It would be spiffier if it was befarted, though.  Fartbogus!  There we go.

Obogus? Didn't that guy play with GWAR?


lefthandhorror.files.wordpress.com
The face of today's GOP.
 
2013-11-02 11:05:40 AM
What did Obama know about this and when did he know it?
 
2013-11-02 11:05:53 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:06:08 AM

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


I once saw a video of a schizophrenic in therapy and he talked just liked that.

/The prof explained the man didn't really understand what he was saying.
 
2013-11-02 11:06:28 AM
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.
 
2013-11-02 11:06:32 AM

Fart_Machine: Doctor Funkenstein: 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

Nice.  Obogus.  I haven't seen that one before.  It would be spiffier if it was befarted, though.  Fartbogus!  There we go.

Obogus? Didn't that guy play with GWAR?


I though Obogus Befart was that surrealist rocker who recorded "The Ballad of Willie the Pimp".
 
2013-11-02 11:07:08 AM

Fart_Machine: Doctor Funkenstein: 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

Nice.  Obogus.  I haven't seen that one before.  It would be spiffier if it was befarted, though.  Fartbogus!  There we go.

Obogus? Didn't that guy play with GWAR?


http://io9.com/let-odorus-ungurus-of-gwar-read-goodnight-moon-to-chi ld -1451741872
 
2013-11-02 11:07:29 AM
Thankfully the USA is spared the costs of an expensive court trial since The Observer has already tried and convicted her.

/dude, don'r they mention that 'use alleged in news stories' thing  in Journalism 101 anymore?
 
2013-11-02 11:08:32 AM

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.


If we took every self referencing story from the echo chamber seriously we'd be stuck in a vortex of derp. There's nothing wrong with ignoring a "story" until it references reputable sources and loses the quotes.
 
2013-11-02 11:08:37 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:09:26 AM
LOL, "snowmen". Stupid iPad.
 
2013-11-02 11:10:05 AM

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.


The problem is that the conservative media empire keeps using itself to independently corroborate stories that turn out to be bogus. And this has been going of for years.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-02 11:10:47 AM

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.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-02 11:11:25 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.


and I mis-spelled Intelligent.  Oi vey.
 
2013-11-02 11:11:28 AM

verbal_jizm: 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.

If we took every self referencing story from the echo chamber seriously we'd be stuck in a vortex of derp. There's nothing wrong with ignoring a "story" until it references reputable sources and loses the quotes.


unless, of course, it is a story you like, then no reputable references required to take at face value
 
2013-11-02 11:13:02 AM

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.



So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.
 
2013-11-02 11:13:07 AM
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.
 
2013-11-02 11:13:29 AM

TheBigJerk: Moving on, why is telling the federal election commission things illegal?


Because they aren't an auditing agency for taxes.   Tax returns are subject to insanely byzantine rules about who is allowed to read them.

They actually had to write in an exception for Obamacare so HHS could read tax returns to verify income.  Otherwise HHS would have been breaking the law.
 
2013-11-02 11:14:28 AM

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


No one says this.
 
2013-11-02 11:14:44 AM
How does this help get Fartbongo?
 
2013-11-02 11:15:38 AM
Didn't they do the same thing to "liberal" groups?
 
2013-11-02 11:15:49 AM

d23: ....and I can't log onto the Obamacare web site, either!


Keep adding all this together and it is not difficult to see why his approval rating is hurtling toward Bush-like levels.

Also much of the reason Democrats seemingly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory after that government shutdown debacle.
 
2013-11-02 11:17:15 AM
<blockquote>The materials that Lerner sent as an IRS employee to the FEC included confidential information about the conservative and/or Tea Party organizations. 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. </blockquote>

So, I read some of 6103 of the IRS Code, and from what I can tell, anybody who thinks there was a crime committed is an idiot. There's no mention of the IRS not giving returns to other governmental agencies. There is mention of governmental agencies not sharing the information received by the IRS to others, without proper authorization. But the IRS has to give that information to any government agency that requests it. Would be kind of hard for tax fraud to get prosecuted otherwise.
 
2013-11-02 11:17:23 AM

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: 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.

If we took every self referencing story from the echo chamber seriously we'd be stuck in a vortex of derp. There's nothing wrong with ignoring a "story" until it references reputable sources and loses the quotes.

unless, of course, it is a story you like, then no reputable references required to take at face value


Nope. I'll wait for reputable sources until I jump all over it. I have to reference everything I say in a grant proposal so I expect at least a modicum of the same discipline for news.
 
2013-11-02 11:18:25 AM

jaytkay: 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.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?
 
2013-11-02 11:20:27 AM

skullkrusher: jaytkay: 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.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?


And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?
 
2013-11-02 11:23:19 AM

Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago


Where?  I remember the discussion about private emails being used, but not for this specific action.
 
2013-11-02 11:23:36 AM

verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: 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.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?


You didn't even click the link, did you? It contains a PDF of the source emails and faxes the article is based on... yeah, your "stopped reading right there" serves you well...
 
2013-11-02 11:24:30 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:24:34 AM
This is Obama's Gettysburg.
 
2013-11-02 11:26:08 AM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: This was reported back awhile ago

Where?  I remember the discussion about private emails being used, but not for this specific action.


Back since early October?  Otherwise why would it be a problem for Federal enforcement agencies to communicate with each other.
 
2013-11-02 11:26:49 AM
Well, I'm sure the Examiner is on it. *snort*
 
2013-11-02 11:27:43 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:28:03 AM

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: 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.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?

You didn't even click the link, did you? It contains a PDF of the source emails and faxes the article is based on... yeah, your "stopped reading right there" serves you well...


I don't doubt that they obtained the emails in question. What I do doubt is there interpretation that this amounts to a felony. Until I see that any reputable source other than a bunch of gadflies are considering this an actual felony I'll place this in the "birther and other nonsense" pile.
 
2013-11-02 11:28:44 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:29:33 AM

verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: 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.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?

You didn't even click the link, did you? It contains a PDF of the source emails and faxes the article is based on... yeah, your "stopped reading right there" serves you well...

I don't doubt that they obtained the emails in question. What I do doubt is there interpretation that this amounts to a felony. Until I see that any reputable source other than a bunch of gadflies are considering this an actual felony I'll place this in the "birther and other nonsense" pile.


despite the fact that I've just handed you the actual emails so you can decide for yourself? OK, like I said. Badge of honor.
 
2013-11-02 11:30:38 AM
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.

/post decent links or don't expect people to take you seriously.
 
2013-11-02 11:31:18 AM
I'll bet she also gave the IRS info about the liberal groups to the FEC also.
but no one is outraged about that.
I for one think that if they were suspect of violating FEC rules that they should have given them the info
but that's just my opinion.
 
2013-11-02 11:32:03 AM

Fart_Machine: Back since early October?


Source please.  I don't see any.  Again, we are looking for one that references this specific illegal activity.
 
2013-11-02 11:32:04 AM

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"
 
2013-11-02 11:33:03 AM

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 agency is or may be a party,
(ii) any investigation which may result in such a proceeding, or
(iii) any Federal grand jury proceeding pertaining to enforcement of such a criminal statute to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,
solely for the use of such officers and employees in such preparation, investigation, or grand jury proceeding.



The tea party is a purely political organization that specifically endorses and opposes people for office (Translation:  It's a GOP group that passes BS along about Democratic candidates and elected officials for the purpose of impacting elections).  The FEC obviously (and most likely correctly) believed they were in violation of law and made a written request for certain information, according to the article.  Section 6103 specifically provides for the disclosure of such information to other federal agencies in the course of investigations.  The article, very boldly and inaccurately, states that the IRS is prohibited from disclosing such information when the Internal Revenue Code that they specifically cite for such a prohibition boldly provides for such disclosure.

The short version:  The teabaggers are, once again, full of shiat and the source of this fantasy (TFA) is painfully wrong.
 
2013-11-02 11:33:18 AM
Lots of peril sensitive glasses being deployed by Farkers.


NOPE NOPE NOPE NOT GONNA LOOK!!!!!!


If you talk bad about the Obama administration I will report you to the mods and to attackwatch.
 
2013-11-02 11:33:30 AM

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: 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.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

And you found another wall of the echo chamber. Yay you. I mean, Judicial Watch? Seriously?

You didn't even click the link, did you? It contains a PDF of the source emails and faxes the article is based on... yeah, your "stopped reading right there" serves you well...

I don't doubt that they obtained the emails in question. What I do doubt is there interpretation that this amounts to a felony. Until I see that any reputable source other than a bunch of gadflies are considering this an actual felony I'll place this in the "birther and other nonsense" pile.

despite the fact that I've just handed you the actual emails so you can decide for yourself? OK, like I said. Badge of honor.


Of course all of us on Fark are experts in law.

You know, actually, I'm having trouble with some microarray data analysis. Mind if I send you the data and my question and you go ahead and give me your thoughts ... cause I'm sure all you need is the data and no actual training to figure any of it out. *Eyeroll*
 
2013-11-02 11:34:43 AM
I am outraged!

/that anybody takes this shiat seriously
 
2013-11-02 11:35:08 AM
See, this is the problem with fark, the best article doesn't always get greenlit. The actual emails from judicial watch might help.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-conte nt/uploads/2013/10/2325_response - 11.pdf

Kind of hard to deny wrongdoing once you look at it. Warning 176 pages.
 
2013-11-02 11:35:44 AM

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?
 
2013-11-02 11:36:47 AM

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?


it's hard to believe that they are sometimes, isn't it? But *we're* the low-information wingnuts...
 
2013-11-02 11:38:33 AM

grumpyguru: See, this is the problem with fark, the best article doesn't always get greenlit. The actual emails from judicial watch might help.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-conte nt/uploads/2013/10/2325_response - 11.pdf

Kind of hard to deny wrongdoing once you look at it. Warning 176 pages.


STUDY IT OUT!

*snert*
 
2013-11-02 11:39:06 AM

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"


not smart enough to see an obvious joke it would seem...
 
2013-11-02 11:39:17 AM

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.


Skull, I got to be honest.  You're not always retarded.  You're not a stupid person.

How many times must a source be full of unqualified bullshiat before you dismiss them entirely?  100 times in a row?  1000?  Do you pick up a copy of the Enquirer in the grocery store every week and say to yourself, "Hey, it might be real this time!"
 
2013-11-02 11:39:56 AM

grumpyguru: See, this is the problem with fark, the best article doesn't always get greenlit. The actual emails from judicial watch might help.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-conte nt/uploads/2013/10/2325_response - 11.pdf

Kind of hard to deny wrongdoing once you look at it. Warning 176 pages.


Eh, it's actually pretty easy. You just need the right joke that combines the right level of memes and dismissiveness. Now disproving it is a lot harder. But denying is as easy as eating pie.
 
2013-11-02 11:40:44 AM

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 ...


hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.
 
2013-11-02 11:41:56 AM

skullkrusher: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2325_respons e- 11.pdf

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?


Done.

In the PDF you linked, we see the IRS shared details of an exemption application with the FEC (not tax returns as claimed by The Examiner).
 

Its public information.

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 11:43:43 AM

skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.


I'm curious. When Alex Jones goes on a bender about FEMA camps and black helicopters, do you ask yourself, "Hmmm. Maybe he's got a point this time."
 
2013-11-02 11:44:48 AM

skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.


Word.  I wasn't trying to be an asshole, so I hope it didn't come off that way.  It's just that right wing information sources are so dreadfully immune to facts (not that other ones aren't as well) that it's tough to take anything they say on face value.  That said, here's a GIF of the butt fumble, because that brightens everyone's day...well, except for Sanchez, I guess.
 
2013-11-02 11:44:52 AM

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


Study it out?

Pointing to a giant, impenetrable wall of raw information with no specific indication about where exactly I'm supposed to find the outrageous, tyrannical violation of human rights and privacy doesn't count as "facts".

Wake me when a lawyer - or at least someone with some journalistic integrity - goes through it and summarizes exactly what the problem is, with quotes from the emails, legal citations, etc. etc.  Preferably in under 3 pages.
 
2013-11-02 11:45:15 AM

skullkrusher: 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?

it's hard to believe that they are sometimes, isn't it? But *we're* the low-information wingnuts...


Is this really the blog post you want to die on? Did you read it? I did, it is FARKING HILARIOUSLY TERRIBLE. I have zero confidence that the person who wrote this... thing... can read the Sunday funnies, let alone 160 pages of emails written by adults and the relevant legislation. I think I will hold off on the outrage until this is tackled by someone with a press pass.
 
2013-11-02 11:45:37 AM

verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.

I'm curious. When Alex Jones goes on a bender about FEMA camps and black helicopters, do you ask yourself, "Hmmm. Maybe he's got a point this time."


if he actually presents source documents for his claims, I'll take a look at the source documents for the insight into his insanity at the very least. I won't see a link to the source docs posted on the alexjones domain and refuse to look at objective information because of where it lives
 
2013-11-02 11:45:42 AM
Booo!  Fark dumped my butt fumble GIF!  Damn your ways!
 
2013-11-02 11:45:46 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:47:02 AM
skullkrusher

Well, I failed hard on that, so you're just going to have to imagine Sanchez going face first into some lineman's ass.
 
2013-11-02 11:47:50 AM

Eddie Barzoom: skullkrusher: 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?

it's hard to believe that they are sometimes, isn't it? But *we're* the low-information wingnuts...

Is this really the blog post you want to die on? Did you read it? I did, it is FARKING HILARIOUSLY TERRIBLE. I have zero confidence that the person who wrote this... thing... can read the Sunday funnies, let alone 160 pages of emails written by adults and the relevant legislation. I think I will hold off on the outrage until this is tackled by someone with a press pass.


missing the point. I don't really give a fark if it's true. Just another example of the "smart" side of the aisle acting very, very Republican
 
2013-11-02 11:49:27 AM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Back since early October?

Source please.  I don't see any.  Again, we are looking for one that references this specific illegal activity.


Well here is the liberal Washington Free Beacon talking about it on October 8th.

It deals with sending confidential information over private e-mail accounts to be the "possible violation" of Federal Law.  Not that you cannot communicate with other Federal Agencies over possible legal violations.
 
2013-11-02 11:50:35 AM

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?
 
2013-11-02 11:51:40 AM

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.


Your basic premise is sound, but doesn't scale in practice. In the real world once a source has proven itself unreliable multiple times it is perfectly reasonable to no longer give them the benefit of the doubt and stop wasting your own time proving it over and over.

TL:DR; I don't bother fact checking the homeless guy that jacks off behind the Chick Filet and yells about McDonald's being owned by vampires. At least not anymore.
 
2013-11-02 11:51:53 AM

Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher

Well, I failed hard on that, so you're just going to have to imagine Sanchez going face first into some lineman's ass.


I live in NY. The Post ran that pic every day for about 6 months. Quite familiar :)
 
2013-11-02 11:52:06 AM
So if the a member of the FEC super PAC violates federal law by filing taxes as a section 501 c 4 and then you are part of the IRS how do you tell the FEC that these individuals are committing fraud there by being pulled from the FEC??

How is this a violation of the law?
 
2013-11-02 11:52:53 AM

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.
 
2013-11-02 11:53:55 AM

cameroncrazy1984: What is this I don't even


Let me clear it up for you:  Apparently, high ranking officials were committing felonies and lying about it.  But hey, no big deal because Bush and racism and stuff, right?

Do try and keep up, kiddo.
 
2013-11-02 11:54:09 AM

WayToBlue: 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.

Your basic premise is sound, but doesn't scale in practice. In the real world once a source has proven itself unreliable multiple times it is perfectly reasonable to no longer give them the benefit of the doubt and stop wasting your own time proving it over and over.

TL:DR; I don't bother fact checking the homeless guy that jacks off behind the Chick Filet and yells about McDonald's being owned by vampires. At least not anymore.


Now what I would do is try to find the citations for the claims they were making and if they were not included, assume it to be false and if so, look to see if they were properly interpreted
 
2013-11-02 11:56:03 AM

Fart_Machine: Well here is the liberal Washington Free Beacon talking about it on October 8th.


You keep using that word...

So the outrage isn't that they sent anything they shouldn't have sent or that anyone's privacy was violated, just that they used private email addresses?

*yawn*
 
2013-11-02 11:59:09 AM

Ontos: cameroncrazy1984: What is this I don't even

Let me clear it up for you:  Apparently, high ranking officials were committing felonies and lying about it.  But hey, no big deal because Bush and racism and stuff, right?

Do try and keep up, kiddo.


Umm... You're the first person to bring up Bush.

Also, no high ranking officials committed felonies.

Other than that, your post is spot on.
 
2013-11-02 12:00:34 PM

skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher

Well, I failed hard on that, so you're just going to have to imagine Sanchez going face first into some lineman's ass.

I live in NY. The Post ran that pic every day for about 6 months. Quite familiar :)


That's OK.  I'm a Steelers fan.  We usually don't have much to whine about but apparently somebody needs to inform our Sexual Harassment Panda Quarterback where the line of scrimmage even is.  At least Sanchez was mildly away of its existence.
 
2013-11-02 12:01:07 PM

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.

I'm curious. When Alex Jones goes on a bender about FEMA camps and black helicopters, do you ask yourself, "Hmmm. Maybe he's got a point this time."

if he actually presents source documents for his claims, I'll take a look at the source documents for the insight into his insanity at the very least. I won't see a link to the source docs posted on the alexjones domain and refuse to look at objective information because of where it lives


There is an enormous flow of information flowing from the right wing echo chamber. I don't have the ability to speed read and process all of that (let alone 180 pages) to glean any grist from the vast amount of bullshiat. I have a difficult enough time keeping up with my discipline alone. That's why we have professional journalists (the few that remain), prosecutors, and unbiased experts to sift through the mess for us. Yes, it makes it easier to be mislead because it depends on the integrity of others but the only other option is to be overwhelmed with bullshiat.
 
2013-11-02 12:01:49 PM

dookdookdook: You keep using that word...


Yes, I was being sarcastic.
 
2013-11-02 12:03:08 PM
Well, we found Scott Paulson's fark handle.
 
2013-11-02 12:03:50 PM
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 12:04:15 PM

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 agency is or may be a party,
(ii) any investigation which may result in such a proceeding, or
(iii) any Federal grand jury proceeding pertaining to enforcement of such a criminal statute to which the United States or such agency is or may be a party,
solely for the use of such officers and employees in such preparation, investigation, or grand jury proceeding.


The tea party is a purely political organization that specifically endorses and opposes people for office (Translation:  It's a GOP group that passes BS along about Democratic candidates and elected officials for the purpose of impacting elections).  The FEC obviously (and most likely correctly) believed they were in violation of law and made a written request for certain information, according to the article.  Section 6103 specifically provides for the disclosure of such information to other federal agencies in the course of investigations.  The article, very boldly and inaccurately, states that the IRS is prohibited from disclosing such information when the Internal Revenue Code that they specifically cite for such a prohibition boldly provides for such disclosure.

The short version:  The teabaggers are, once again, full of shiat and the source of this fantasy (TFA) is painfully wrong.


So what you are saying is, just like they always do, the Tea Party warriors pointed to one sentence in the law that supported their narrative and ignored the rest that showed that their argument was BS. How surprising. This is typical Tea Party propaganda.
 
2013-11-02 12:05:18 PM
There's one in the fartlight, he don't fart right to me, get him up against the potato.

Ah-gainst! The! Potato!
 
2013-11-02 12:07:28 PM

skullkrusher: hey, at least you actually looked at the facts to make this determination.


After this sort of thing happens often enough with Tea Party claims, people start jumping to the conclusion without taking the trouble. Rigorously speaking, that's sloppy; contrariwise, when both error and investigative effort involve finite costs, it's also an efficient rule of thumb.
 
2013-11-02 12:07:34 PM

MFAWG: 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.

The problem is that the conservative media empire keeps using itself to independently corroborate stories that turn out to be bogus. And this has been going of for years.


You can also find this news on "The Hill" website. Is that considered conservative media?... The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats is really embarrassing. Lerner was appointed by Bush in 2006, this does not make this disregard for law anything less than what it is, a felony.

The crap about, Snowden, the source, or the headline to discredit the information really just misses the point and makes you look like petulant whiners that are incapable of thinking objectively.
 
2013-11-02 12:15:27 PM

Mrbogey: bama pushed the DoJ to investigate it, he sacked Lerner, pushed for jail time


For what?

This isn't illegal. Why waste money on prosecuting someone for not breaking the law? Is it because Larry Klayman's fevered brain says it is illegal and he references an inapplicable law so he must know or something?

Retards postulate this must be illegal, conflate all kinds of things from tax records to applications, then they go on about a misinterpretation of some USC and flail at the windmill like there's no tomorrow. Why do you continue to follow, Sancho?
 
2013-11-02 12:15:49 PM

mjm323s: The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats


Or just a knee-jerk (and quite valid, I might add) distrust of anything that smells of Tea Party desperation.
 
2013-11-02 12:17:11 PM

mjm323s: You can also find this news on "The Hill" website.


Can you link that? I'm having trouble finding it.
 
2013-11-02 12:18:37 PM

dr_blasto: Is it because Larry Klayman's fevered brain says it is illegal and he references an inapplicable law so he must know or something?


Klayman isn't with JW any longer.
 
2013-11-02 12:20:58 PM
I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.
 
2013-11-02 12:21:11 PM

DoctorCal: mjm323s: You can also find this news on "The Hill" website.

Can you link that? I'm having trouble finding it.


http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdog-o btains-irs-fec-email-exchange
 
2013-11-02 12:21:25 PM
After Obama is impeached, will Ted Cruz be president? Or will Sarah Palin be President, and Ted Cruz just be vice president?

Also, does gay marriage have to be legal in both Texas and Wisconsin before Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz can consumate their love?
 
2013-11-02 12:21:26 PM

DoctorCal: dr_blasto: Is it because Larry Klayman's fevered brain says it is illegal and he references an inapplicable law so he must know or something?

Klayman isn't with JW any longer.


Is he in a mental institution?
 
2013-11-02 12:23:05 PM

RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.


But we have 180 pages of emails and faxes. That's all we should need, right?
 
2013-11-02 12:23:53 PM

DoctorCal: mjm323s: You can also find this news on "The Hill" website.

Can you link that? I'm having trouble finding it.


I don't know if "The Hill" is a conservative site or not but holy mother of dog, the comments on some of those stories are more insane than youtube.
 
2013-11-02 12:24:46 PM
Republican leadership in charge of oversight committees are being challenged by Tea Party primaries. I am sure they will get right on that "problem".
 
2013-11-02 12:26:50 PM

mjm323s: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdo g-obtains-irs-fec-email-exc hange


So a blog post describing how conservative group X is making claim Y is now the same as reporting Y. Got it.
 
2013-11-02 12:28:45 PM

RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.


As a lawyer I have no doubt you understand the law better than I. But as a taxpayer I would really hope that it is pretty cut and dry that you don't share personal tax information. Seems simple enough.
 
2013-11-02 12:29:42 PM

mjm323s: The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats is really embarrassing.


The right is so anti-everything-Obama-does, right down to condiment choice, that simply disagreeing with them makes you look like an Obama cultist.
It won't matter whether you support Obama on any particular thing or not. The right will have spun it so entirely wrongly and out of proportion to paint Obama in as bad a light as possible, so you have no choice but to refute the derp in any argument you make. This very farking article does it in the first farking sentence. "Obama administration employee" heavily implies as if this were Obama's appointee, instead of the reality that Lerner is a Bush appointee of an independent government agency.

And this has been going on for years. Story after story. Lie after farking lie. If people automatically assume them to be untrustworthy, it's their own fault. If people discount their testimony out of hand, it's their own fault. If Obama gets a free pass on something because of this attitude, it is still their own farking fault.
 
2013-11-02 12:31:31 PM

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 ...


Even shorter version:  You failed to read the part where the disclosure requires an order signed by a Federal judge or magistrate.  The FEC can't just ask for it.
 
2013-11-02 12:31:58 PM
We've already been down this road with you tea party bozos on the fake IRS scandal.  You can't get incredulous because you keep crying "wolf" and nobody takes you at your word.  That's what happens when you throw shiat at the wall constantly.
 
2013-11-02 12:32:45 PM

verbal_jizm: RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.

But we have 180 pages of emails and faxes. That's all we should need, right?


And you need for a law to be broken, which it wasn't in this case because the IRS code that they reference specifically states that it is not a violation if it is requested from a government agency as part of an investigation.
 
2013-11-02 12:33:13 PM

mjm323s: DoctorCal: mjm323s: You can also find this news on "The Hill" website.

Can you link that? I'm having trouble finding it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdog- o btains-irs-fec-email-exchange


Thanks. I swear, when I asked, a search for "Lerner" on the site didn't turn up the link, but it does now.

Anyway, yeah, in answer to your question - this is clearly under the "blog" section, and it only references the claims made by Judicial Watch, so, yes. That would pretty much be within the scope of "conservative media".
 
2013-11-02 12:33:29 PM
Oh I get it.

According to an imaginary newspaper, it depends on which federal government agency you lie to or at least your statements to two agencies are very different.

Strange that the IRS gets more apparently factual information that the Federal Election Commission. And imaginary newspaper believes the IRS information must be truer. Maybe because the IRS penalties are stiffer than the FEC of just having to sit at the back table during the commissioners' roast or no valet parking for a month.

It's like when you tell your imaginary girl friend one thing and your mom something else. You can tell your girlfriend more, because she's a push over. Kinda like the FEC?

Who's to say Ms Lerner wasn't compelled by a secret FISA court, pushed by the NSA to take the fall by pretending to commit a felony.

We've all been there. Why the Examiner thinks it's special is a mystery. It's also a mystery why the Examiner only materializes around election time, kinda like relatives when you win the lottery.
 
2013-11-02 12:33:31 PM

mjm323s: RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.

As a lawyer I have no doubt you understand the law better than I. But as a taxpayer I would really hope that it is pretty cut and dry that you don't share personal tax information. Seems simple enough.


Sharing relevant information between Federal agencies (such as the FEC and the IRS) isn't the problem.  The whole "concern" is that they used the wrong e-mail channels to do it because security "might" have been compromised.  It's a far cry from the whole conspiracy wharrgarbl alleged here.
 
2013-11-02 12:33:44 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: mjm323s: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdo g-obtains-irs-fec-email-exc hange

So a blog post describing how conservative group X is making claim Y is now the same as reporting Y. Got it.


It's part of a congressional investigation, but pleas don't let the facts get in your way.
 
2013-11-02 12:33:48 PM

skullkrusher: 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"

not smart enough to see an obvious joke it would seem...


Not my fault you can't communicate humour in writing. Or rational thoughts. Or tell the truth. Or be factually accurate.
 
2013-11-02 12:35:41 PM
I see the conservatard trolls are back, now that the GOP government shutdown is over.

Keep saying things.
 
2013-11-02 12:42:19 PM

The hullaballoo over this seems to be based (from an examination of the released documents, .pdf warning) the release of various forms which violate laws on the release of tax information. First, we need to look at the definition of what constitutes a document or information that would be a felony under 26 USC § 610

b) Definitions
For purposes of this section-
(1) Return
The term "return" means any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed.
(2) Return information
The term "return information" means-
(A) 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, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,
(B) any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110 (b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110, [and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them]
JW specifically called out forms 990 and 1024. Form 990 is titled "Return of Organization Exempt from Tax" and would appear to be a smoking gun. But Form 990's are required to be publicly available. For example, here (.pdf warning) is Crossroads GPS' 2010 Form 990. It's a document with an exception under (B) - since the document is legally open to public inspection, the government is allowed to release it. Form 1024s are also available to the public on request, but that's irrelevant since they are not directly tax data anyway - they're an Application for Recognition of Exemption under 501(a). They are not a return, no tax is calculated, levied, or paid, and the definition of return information requires that the information be "received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return [or violation of the law]". Which it's not. So neither of the two named on the JW announcement are covered by this felony language.

Looking through the release of documents, there's a pile of additional forms, but those are in the same boat - they're forms that state you paid a fee to submit an exemption application, powers of attorney, private business information, and so on, but none of it is a return or return information. There may be some privacy issues violated, which I've no idea either way on, but 26 USC § 610 pretty clearly doesn't apply.
 
2013-11-02 12:43:19 PM

Ontos: cameroncrazy1984: What is this I don't even

Let me clear it up for you:  Apparently, high ranking officials were committing felonies and lying about it.  But hey, no big deal because Bush and racism and stuff, right?

Do try and keep up, kiddo.


Really? The article said that? No big deal because Bush and racism and stuff? Good thing I didn't read it.
 
2013-11-02 12:43:31 PM

RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.


Local man upset over what he thinks the law says?
 
2013-11-02 12:44:39 PM

sprawl15: and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them


Oh, part of what I snipped was an 'and' between (C) and (D). So something has to meet all four requirements to qualify as return information, which is why being open to public inspection under (B) has bearing on information listed in (A).
 
2013-11-02 12:45:08 PM

sprawl15: The hullaballoo over this seems to be based (from an examination of the released documents, .pdf warning) the release of various forms which violate laws on the release of tax information. First, we need to look at the definition of what constitutes a document or information that would be a felony under 26 USC § 610b) Definitions
For purposes of this section-
(1) Return
The term "return" means any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed.
(2) Return information
The term "return information" means-
(A) 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, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,
(B) any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110 (b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110, [and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them]JW specifically called out forms 990 and 1024. Form 990 is titled "Return of Organization Exempt from Tax" and would appear to be a smoking gun. But Fo ...


Thanks. Fark is so useful once you block the derpsters.
 
2013-11-02 12:47:17 PM

sprawl15: Looking through the release of documents, there's a pile of additional forms, but those are in the same boat - they're forms that state you paid a fee to submit an exemption application, powers of attorney, private business information, and so on, but none of it is a return or return information. There may be some privacy issues violated, which I've no idea either way on, but 26 USC § 610 pretty clearly doesn't apply.


But I was told I was a dumb dumb for disbelieving the claim that a felony was committed! What do I do now!?
 
2013-11-02 12:47:36 PM

jaytkay: 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).


Parts of a nonprofit organization's annual tax return are open for public inspection.  Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part11/irm_11-003-009.html
 
2013-11-02 12:48:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: Looking through the release of documents, there's a pile of additional forms, but those are in the same boat - they're forms that state you paid a fee to submit an exemption application, powers of attorney, private business information, and so on, but none of it is a return or return information. There may be some privacy issues violated, which I've no idea either way on, but 26 USC § 610 pretty clearly doesn't apply.

But I was told I was a dumb dumb for disbelieving the claim that a felony was committed! What do I do now!?


we'll always have benghazi
 
2013-11-02 12:48:12 PM

mjm323s: Monkeyhouse Zendo: mjm323s: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/188940-watchdo g-obtains-irs-fec-email-exc hange

So a blog post describing how conservative group X is making claim Y is now the same as reporting Y. Got it.

It's part of a congressional investigation, but pleas don't let the facts get in your way.


You really need to read more closely. The Hill is reporting that Judicial watch is claiming to have obtained emails which may or may not constitute wrongdoing via a FOIA request.

Clearly the smoking gun of a scandal that could bring down the Obama administration, topple civilization as we know it, and unwind all of space and time.
 
2013-11-02 12:49:18 PM

sprawl15: The hullaballoo over this seems to be based (from an examination of the released documents, .pdf warning) the release of various forms which violate laws on the release of tax information. First, we need to look at the definition of what constitutes a document or information that would be a felony under 26 USC § 610b) Definitions
For purposes of this section-
(1) Return
The term "return" means any tax or information return, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refund required by, or provided for or permitted under, the provisions of this title which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments, or lists which are supplemental to, or part of, the return so filed.
(2) Return information
The term "return information" means-
(A) 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, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,
(B) any part of any written determination or any background file document relating to such written determination (as such terms are defined in section 6110 (b)) which is not open to public inspection under section 6110, [and two other parts that are totally irrelevant, so I snipped them]JW specifically called out forms 990 and 1024. Form 990 is titled "Return of Organization Exempt from Tax" and would appear to be a smoking gun. But Fo ...


Nicely done.  Thread over in 140.
 
2013-11-02 12:49:43 PM

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


Their application for exempt status is not a tax return or information pertaining to a tax return. That's the fundamental definitional hurdle.
 
2013-11-02 12:50:49 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: The majority of Farkers on here with their blind following and defending of the democrats is really embarrassing.

The right is so anti-everything-Obama-does, right down to condiment choice, that simply disagreeing with them makes you look like an Obama cultist.
It won't matter whether you support Obama on any particular thing or not. The right will have spun it so entirely wrongly and out of proportion to paint Obama in as bad a light as possible, so you have no choice but to refute the derp in any argument you make. This very farking article does it in the first farking sentence. "Obama administration employee" heavily implies as if this were Obama's appointee, instead of the reality that Lerner is a Bush appointee of an independent government agency.

And this has been going on for years. Story after story. Lie after farking lie. If people automatically assume them to be untrustworthy, it's their own fault. If people discount their testimony out of hand, it's their own fault. If Obama gets a free pass on something because of this attitude, it is still their own farking fault.


I would consider myself leaning right, but in no way think they are infallible. Politics are very frustrating on both sides. But people choose to get their news from their side. There is liberal media and there is conservative media.

Clearly the comments on Fark are on the liberal side and as someone that thinks it is important to research both sides, I guess I thought I'd add a little perspective to the thread.
 
2013-11-02 12:51:03 PM

sprawl15: definitional


also firefox thinks this is a word so
 
2013-11-02 12:51:24 PM

ghare: skullkrusher: 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"

not smart enough to see an obvious joke it would seem...

Not my fault you can't communicate humour in writing. Or rational thoughts. Or tell the truth. Or be factually accurate.


Nah problem is certainly your stupidity. Always is, ghare
 
2013-11-02 12:52:06 PM

sprawl15: Cataholic: Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.

Their application for exempt status is not a tax return or information pertaining to a tax return. That's the fundamental definitional hurdle.


Also sharing relevant information to another federal agency isn't public disclosure.
 
2013-11-02 12:53:52 PM

mjm323s: RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.

As a lawyer I have no doubt you understand the law better than I. But as a taxpayer I would really hope that it is pretty cut and dry that you don't share personal tax information. Seems simple enough.


There doesn't seem to be any personal tax information involved. This is entirely organizational information.
 
2013-11-02 12:55:39 PM

skullkrusher: Nah problem is certainly your stupidity. Always is, ghare


You realize that the insane people always believe they're the sane ones, right?

Also, interesting that you won't engage  sprawl15 who pretty clearly laid out why this is a non-scandal.
 
2013-11-02 12:59:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Nah problem is certainly your stupidity. Always is, ghare

You realize that the insane people always believe they're the sane ones, right?

Also, interesting that you won't engage  sprawl15 who pretty clearly laid out why this is a non-scandal.


What's there to engage about? I never said there was a scandal. I did, however, mock those who wouldn't even look at the facts before making that determination. Like you. Then you feel vindicated when someone else does the work for you. Imagine that.

Have you read ghare's posts? Either you're as dishonest as you seem or you're as stupid as he is. Quite possibly both.
 
2013-11-02 01:01:04 PM

whatsupchuck: Nicely done. Thread over in 140.


It was over in two.

TheWhoppah: This shiat again?


sprawl's info may decisively prove the article wrong, but at this point, that's more scrutiny than it deserves.
Guess the Obamacare rollout isn't getting enough traction? They're back to Benghazi and the IRS.
 
2013-11-02 01:01:43 PM

skullkrusher: What's there to engage about? I never said there was a scandal. I did, however, mock those who wouldn't even look at the facts before making that determination. Like you.


Why on earth would you mock me for being correct? It's like you have no memory at all. Look, we all know that conservative sources cry wolf about anything and everything. The smart thing to do is assume it's nothing until proven otherwise.
 
2013-11-02 01:04:43 PM
skullkrusher is the guy who, on the third and fourth times crying wolf, is rushing over to see the wolf while everyone else is back at the bar drinking.
 
2013-11-02 01:05:14 PM

Neeek: There doesn't seem to be any personal tax information involved. This is entirely organizational information.


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 01:05:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: What's there to engage about? I never said there was a scandal. I did, however, mock those who wouldn't even look at the facts before making that determination. Like you.

Why on earth would you mock me for being correct? It's like you have no memory at all. Look, we all know that conservative sources cry wolf about anything and everything. The smart thing to do is assume it's nothing until proven otherwise.


Because being correct for the wrong reasons is barely better than being wrong.

That's the thing. The information to be "proven otherwise" was right there but you didn't even bother to inform yourself. Now you want credit for being right. So the examiner makes shiat up. It's like proudly strutting that you guessed 7 or 11 would come up on the next roll
 
2013-11-02 01:06:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher is the guy who, on the third and fourth times crying wolf, is rushing over to see the wolf while everyone else is back at the bar drinking.


That story ends with the villagers in a world of hurt. Not the best metaphor.
 
2013-11-02 01:07:53 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: sprawl's info may decisively prove the article wrong, but at this point, that's more scrutiny than it deserves.


Well not really. It could be a violation of privacy laws or other laws regarding confidentiality of applications, so there could be a crime in the documents. But I just can't see how it's that specific crime. JW's website stated this in their announcement:
Initial news reports, when word of some of these IRS-FEC emails first surfaced in August 2013, raised a variety of legal issues. One was the fact that Lerner was supplying confidential information concerning the tax exempt application status of conservative organizations. Another was the fact that the inquiries regarding AFF made by the FEC attorneys in February 2009 to Lerner occurred before the FEC commissioners had voted on whether to investigate AFF (the FEC later voted not to investigate AFF). A third was the appearance of collusion between government agencies with an apparently anti-conservative bias. The new in-depth emails obtained by Judicial Watch seem to confirm that the possible collusion between the IRS and the FEC may have been far more extensive than first indicated, particularly in view of allegations that, prior to joining the IRS, Lerner's tenure as head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) also was marked by what appeared to be politically motivated harassment of conservative groups.
It's kind of like how the IRS investigation of tea party groups was actually A Problem, just not The Problem that the right wing shiat their huggies over.
 
2013-11-02 01:08:12 PM

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher is the guy who, on the third and fourth times crying wolf, is rushing over to see the wolf while everyone else is back at the bar drinking.

That story ends with the villagers in a world of hurt. Not the best metaphor.


That's why I said the third and fourth times. You know, when the boy cried wolf and there was obviously no wolf. Eventually the GOP will be in a world of hurt, but that's rather inexact for this metaphor.
 
2013-11-02 01:10:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher is the guy who, on the third and fourth times crying wolf, is rushing over to see the wolf while everyone else is back at the bar drinking.

That story ends with the villagers in a world of hurt. Not the best metaphor.

That's why I said the third and fourth times. You know, when the boy cried wolf and there was obviously no wolf. Eventually the GOP will be in a world of hurt, but that's rather inexact for this metaphor.


And on the 5th time there actually was the wolf. You be the proud villager drinking at the bar. I'll keep an eye on the sheep
 
2013-11-02 01:10:39 PM

mjm323s: it is important to research both sides


And in doing so, people learned long ago the right was disingenuous and untrustworthy.

And here they are, bringing up old news, yet again, with another "WE TOLD YOU THIS WAS A SCANDAL". They haven't been correct so far, and the previous information available shows their motivations and methods. If they hadn't already proven themselves to be out for Obama's blood, damn the facts, I might have given this more than a passing glance. But since they stretch in the very first farking sentence to link Lerner to Obama, I think I can name the tune in that many notes. It's something I've heard before.
 
2013-11-02 01:13:00 PM

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Nah problem is certainly your stupidity. Always is, ghare

You realize that the insane people always believe they're the sane ones, right?

Also, interesting that you won't engage  sprawl15 who pretty clearly laid out why this is a non-scandal.

What's there to engage about? I never said there was a scandal. I did, however, mock those who wouldn't even look at the facts before making that determination. Like you. Then you feel vindicated when someone else does the work for you. Imagine that.

Have you read ghare's posts? Either you're as dishonest as you seem or you're as stupid as he is. Quite possibly both.


When every Right Wing claim of scandal ends up turning out to be something like this, it is natural that people stop bothering to look at facts before calling bullshiat on their claims. It is the typical "Boy who cried wolf" situation. They did it to themselves, and they don't seem to want to do anything to change that impression.
 
2013-11-02 01:13:08 PM

sprawl15: Cataholic: Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.

Their application for exempt status is not a tax return or information pertaining to a tax return. That's the fundamental definitional hurdle.


There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103.  The only reason we needed a §6104 was because §6103 applied to this data.
 
2013-11-02 01:13:41 PM
d23:
The face of today's GOP.

I think I see their mandatory vaginal ultrasound probe in that pic.
 
2013-11-02 01:17:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Nah problem is certainly your stupidity. Always is, ghare

You realize that the insane people always believe they're the sane ones, right?

Also, interesting that you won't engage  sprawl15 who pretty clearly laid out why this is a non-scandal.


just because he's a cowardly liar
 
2013-11-02 01:18:44 PM

Cataholic: sprawl15: Cataholic: Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.

Their application for exempt status is not a tax return or information pertaining to a tax return. That's the fundamental definitional hurdle.

There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103.  The only reason we needed a §6104 was because §6103 applied to this data.


So how is cross-information between federal agencies public disclosure.
 
2013-11-02 01:18:48 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: it is important to research both sides

And in doing so, people learned long ago the right was disingenuous and untrustworthy.

And here they are, bringing up old news, yet again, with another "WE TOLD YOU THIS WAS A SCANDAL". They haven't been correct so far, and the previous information available shows their motivations and methods. If they hadn't already proven themselves to be out for Obama's blood, damn the facts, I might have given this more than a passing glance. But since they stretch in the very first farking sentence to link Lerner to Obama, I think I can name the tune in that many notes. It's something I've heard before.


You use a very broad brush, seem incapable of comprehension and fail to realize that there are two fringe sides but the majority of us lie somewhere in the middle, (not you of course). This is not an old story. There is an ongoing Congressional investigation when it last ended more information was requested. Does that make sense?
 
2013-11-02 01:19:43 PM

KeatingFive: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: Nah problem is certainly your stupidity. Always is, ghare

You realize that the insane people always believe they're the sane ones, right?

Also, interesting that you won't engage  sprawl15 who pretty clearly laid out why this is a non-scandal.

just because he's a cowardly liar


Hehe who are you?
 
2013-11-02 01:20:19 PM

sprawl15: It's kind of like how the IRS investigation of tea party groups was actually A Problem, just not The Problem that the right wing shiat their huggies over.


Fair enough.
It's just obvious the criticism isn't so the IRS tightens up their info-transfer procedures, but yet another shocking scandal centered around Fartbongo.

I'm already burned out of this shiat from Obamacare talk at work. And really not looking forward to Thanksgiving with teahadist relatives. Trying to get it out of my system before then!
 
2013-11-02 01:22:26 PM

Cataholic: There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103.


Wrong. I linked the definition upthread. I'll repost it here, since you seemed to have missed it:
The term "return information" means-
(A) 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, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,
The 1024 is not an information return - or a return of any kind, it's an application. The important thing here is reason for collection - it defines a certain set of data as well as the purpose for obtaining that data as the two part definition.
 
2013-11-02 01:24:22 PM

skullkrusher: derpderpderp


So, let's recap: I assumed that a known lying website, referenced by a known liar, was almost assuredly full of lies, and a waste of my time to bother looking at.

And subsequent analysis by someone who has more patience with liars than I, and who is a professional, confirmed that the lying website referenced by a liar was in fact lying, and I am somehow at fault.

Ok sweetie.
 
2013-11-02 01:26:41 PM

ghare: and who is a professional


i have at least four geds in typing some numbers into google and then reading a law
 
2013-11-02 01:26:52 PM

mjm323s: You use a very broad brush, seem incapable of comprehension and fail to realize that there are two fringe sides but the majority of us lie somewhere in the middle, (not you of course). This is not an old story. There is an ongoing Congressional investigation when it last ended more information was requested. Does that make sense?


If you're giving the right the benefit of a doubt, you're the one who lacks comprehension. The right embraced their fringe and are dragging the entire middle rightward with them.
Congressional investigation? You mean the Congress with Darryl Issa, who "oops" conveniently forgot to mention the IRS scrutinized someone besides Tea Party groups.
Like I just said to sprawl, this isn't shrewd criticism about tightening up IRS info-transfer procedure, it's another flavor of Obama witchhunt, Like I said to you, that's obvious from the first farking sentence.
 
2013-11-02 01:27:48 PM

Fart_Machine: Well here is the liberal Washington Free Beacon talking about it on October 8th.


Did you read your link?  The use of private emails in your link was confined to exchanging taxpayer information within the IRS.  This new information shows that it is the sharing of specific income information outside the IRS to the FEC.  Again, your source fails to back up your assertion. Please, try again.
 
2013-11-02 01:30:33 PM

ghare: skullkrusher: derpderpderp

So, let's recap: I assumed that a known lying website, referenced by a known liar, was almost assuredly full of lies, and a waste of my time to bother looking at.

And subsequent analysis by someone who has more patience with liars than I, and who is a professional, confirmed that the lying website referenced by a liar was in fact lying, and I am somehow at fault.

Ok sweetie.


Yep. You are at fault
 
2013-11-02 01:35:34 PM

Fart_Machine: Cataholic: sprawl15: Cataholic: Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.

Their application for exempt status is not a tax return or information pertaining to a tax return. That's the fundamental definitional hurdle.

There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103.  The only reason we needed a §6104 was because §6103 applied to this data.

So how is cross-information between federal agencies public disclosure.


It is not public disclosure, it is plain disclosure and is illegal to share said information with other federal agencies except under certain circumstances listed in §6103 (many of which require a court order).  However, an exempt organization will have its information published once their exemption is approved.
 
2013-11-02 01:35:45 PM

s2s2s2: LOL, "snowmen". Stupid iPad.


Damn you, Frosty!
 
2013-11-02 01:38:14 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Well here is the liberal Washington Free Beacon talking about it on October 8th.

Did you read your link?  The use of private emails in your link was confined to exchanging taxpayer information within the IRS.  This new information shows that it is the sharing of specific income information outside the IRS to the FEC.  Again, your source fails to back up your assertion. Please, try again.


Um yeah. It talks about relaying information through private email. Are you saying its illegal to share relevant information with other federal agencies because what was sent isn't illegal.
 
2013-11-02 01:42:13 PM
Lois Lerner was the Whitehouse's girl appointed to go after the President's opponents.     To suppress the opposition political party.

So I wonder who they have on the hook at the IRS to target anyone who is vocal against Obamacare.
You know there is somebody there in the IRS who is assigned this project.

The IRS would start some punitive audits of opponents while others at the WH are tasked with applying lipstick to the pig.

I mean there are elections coming.
 
2013-11-02 01:44:57 PM

sprawl15: Cataholic: There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103.

Wrong. I linked the definition upthread. I'll repost it here, since you seemed to have missed it:The term "return information" means-
(A) 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, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,The 1024 is not an information return - or a return of any kind, it's an application. The important thing here is reason for collection - it defines a certain set of data as well as the purpose for obtaining that data as the two part definition.


I think that is much too narrow a reading.

"(A) 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, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense]"

Everything before the bolded OR stands on its own as return information  the portion I've bracketed is a stand-alone catch-all provision.  It would be illegal for the IRS to disclose any of those things regardless of whether it was collected by them in connection with an actual return as opposed to it having been gathered by some other means.  Just my legal opinion..not aware of any cases that deal with IRS disclosure of 1024 information as this is probably going to be the first time.
 
2013-11-02 01:47:42 PM

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.
 
2013-11-02 01:49:18 PM

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?
 
2013-11-02 01:50:08 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: You use a very broad brush, seem incapable of comprehension and fail to realize that there are two fringe sides but the majority of us lie somewhere in the middle, (not you of course). This is not an old story. There is an ongoing Congressional investigation when it last ended more information was requested. Does that make sense?

If you're giving the right the benefit of a doubt, you're the one who lacks comprehension. The right embraced their fringe and are dragging the entire middle rightward with them.
Congressional investigation? You mean the Congress with Darryl Issa, who "oops" conveniently forgot to mention the IRS scrutinized someone besides Tea Party groups.
Like I just said to sprawl, this isn't shrewd criticism about tightening up IRS info-transfer procedure, it's another flavor of Obama witchhunt, Like I said to you, that's obvious from the first farking sentence.


Here let me help you be an informed citizen... http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official -tea-party-scandal-retires/?page=all

You are right Darryl Issa is on the committee, but her resignation was also recommended by Mark Levin a democrat. If there was no evidence and this was just something created to make Obama look bad, Iwould have to assume she would still have her job.

You keep proving my point by referencing this linked article and claiming that what happened is not an issue because the article is biased. I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.
 
2013-11-02 01:54:35 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?


Since this stuff was already known by the committee why are they only bringing up the possible private e-mail violations and not this?  Is the conspiracy so big that even Issa is covering it up?
 
2013-11-02 01:54:42 PM

netcentric: Lois Lerner was the Whitehouse's girl appointed to go after the President's opponents.     To suppress the opposition political party.

So I wonder who they have on the hook at the IRS to target anyone who is vocal against Obamacare.
You know there is somebody there in the IRS who is assigned this project.

The IRS would start some punitive audits of opponents while others at the WH are tasked with applying lipstick to the pig.

I mean there are elections coming.


You know, it takes a lot of stupidity or balls or both to post this amidst people completely debunking this claim.
 
2013-11-02 02:00:41 PM

mjm323s: I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.


There is one source, Judicial Watch.

All the other "sources" are pointing to the same Judicial Watch claims.
 
2013-11-02 02:01:21 PM

Fart_Machine: 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?

Since this stuff was already known by the committee why are they only bringing up the possible private e-mail violations and not this?  Is the conspiracy so big that even Issa is covering it up?


The Liberals have gotten to Issa, like they do to all Right Wingers that have something on them. I wonder what they have on Issa?
 
2013-11-02 02:04:24 PM

Fart_Machine: Zeb Hesselgresser: Alinsky:  "Does this particular end, justify this particular means?"

In the case of  keeping Mitt Romney out of the White House, apparently it did.

It's a conspiracy!


nah, that would imply it was a secret
 
2013-11-02 02:06:51 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Fart_Machine: Zeb Hesselgresser: Alinsky:  "Does this particular end, justify this particular means?"

In the case of  keeping Mitt Romney out of the White House, apparently it did.

It's a conspiracy!

nah, that would imply it was a secret


Well of course.  With Obama's time machine he knew Romney would be running back in 2009.
 
2013-11-02 02:07:41 PM

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".
 
2013-11-02 02:08:23 PM

WayToBlue: TL:DR; I don't bother fact checking the homeless guy that jacks off behind the Chick Filet and yells about McDonald's being owned by vampires. At least not anymore.


I moved. Now I'm behind Arbys. That resets the credibility counter. Open your eyes, sheeple.
 
2013-11-02 02:11:12 PM

Cataholic: an exempt organization will have its information published once their exemption is approved.


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 02:14:07 PM

jaytkay: mjm323s: I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.

There is one source, Judicial Watch.

All the other "sources" are pointing to the same Judicial Watch claims.


Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

Apparently Judicial watch has some credibility for the news outlets if they are sourcing them. As I mentioned previously there are liberal and conservative media, if this was only on Fox News and the Blaze I may agree with you, but that is not the case.
 
2013-11-02 02:15:36 PM

jaytkay: 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.


So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.


Funny, I actually did this, just to confirm what I suspected.  The level of derp in the sources reporting this are all there:

Fox News Nation
Washington Examiner
Daily Caller
Washington Free Beacon
American Thinker
New York Post
Washington Times
etc.

The one article that seemed to have a reputable source, Washington Post, has no mention of "breaking the law".

So, yes, there is merit to waiting for a reputable source to report such news.  It's not a "Badge of Honor".  It's a way of filtering out shiatty information.  You know, just like all of the shiatty information that gets hammered into these Tea Party nuts over and over again as they indoctorate themselves with their echo chamber.  Once they are that far gone, there are so many layers of lies that it's almost impossible to convince them that they are wrong on so many fronts.
 
2013-11-02 02:16:26 PM

mjm323s: Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?


Well considering what the "evidence" is, you'd have to specify if the evidence had the same credibility as that put forth by JW.
 
2013-11-02 02:16:58 PM

mjm323s: Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?


The investigative committee already had this evidence.  Judicial Watch is only getting this after a FOIA request back in August for documents dating back to 2009.  You really think Issa overlooked this while JW has broken this case wide open?
 
2013-11-02 02:17:23 PM
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.
 
2013-11-02 02:18:45 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


wut
 
2013-11-02 02:19:07 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.


Issa must also be in bed with Obama then.  Now excuse me while I scrub my brain of that image.
 
2013-11-02 02:19:16 PM
Wow, the RW victim complex never sleeps, does it?

Again, the only "Scandal" involved here is the the way the GOP have tried to gin up one fake scandal after another including the bogus IRS thing, Benghazi, arugula etc.
 
2013-11-02 02:20:19 PM

skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: verbal_jizm: skullkrusher: jaytkay: 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.


...

a couple of clicks is all it took to get to the source of the info. Why don't you go through that and debunk the claims?

another wall of the echo chamber

PDF of the source emails and faxes

place this in the "birther and other nonsense" pile.

like I said. Badge of honor.


i1277.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-02 02:21:23 PM
Man, the trolling is getting thick down here at the dregs of the thread.
 
2013-11-02 02:21:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: mjm323s: Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

Well considering what the "evidence" is, you'd have to specify if the evidence had the same credibility as that put forth by JW.


Let's say it was evidence they were sharing your personal banking information, hypothetically
 
2013-11-02 02:22:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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

wut


What he was saying in his post is that Liberals will only pay attention to sources that are vetted and credible. They refuse to listen to the the urine soaked guy with tin foil on his head and is screaming at clouds. He has a problem with this.
 
2013-11-02 02:24:19 PM

mjm323s: cameroncrazy1984: mjm323s: Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

Well considering what the "evidence" is, you'd have to specify if the evidence had the same credibility as that put forth by JW.

Let's say it was evidence they were sharing your personal banking information, hypothetically


Except that this isn't that.
 
2013-11-02 02:24:58 PM

ongbok: cameroncrazy1984: 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

wut

What he was saying in his post is that Liberals will only pay attention to sources that are vetted and credible. They refuse to listen to the the urine soaked guy with tin foil on his head and is screaming at clouds. He has a problem with this.


Well that make complete and total seeauuuughhh.
 
2013-11-02 02:25:00 PM

mjm323s: Let's say it was evidence they were sharing your personal banking information, hypothetically


I don't think anyone is going to get up in arms about your hypothetical situation unless there's a quote from a prosecutor or actual official of some sort saying they're taking a look into it. Even Issa didn't look at the emails as a possible instance of law breaking.
 
2013-11-02 02:28:32 PM

mjm323s: jaytkay: mjm323s: I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.

There is one source, Judicial Watch.

All the other "sources" are pointing to the same Judicial Watch claims.

Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

Apparently Judicial watch has some credibility for the news outlets blogs if they are sourcing them.

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.


Thanks for chiming in, Scott.
 
2013-11-02 02:29:14 PM

mjm323s: Mark Levin a democrat.


lolwut?

You mean this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin
 
2013-11-02 02:36:06 PM

grumpfuff: mjm323s: Mark Levin a democrat.

lolwut?

You mean this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin


I think he means Sander Levin.
 
2013-11-02 02:38:15 PM

skullkrusher: I've just handed you the actual emails so you can decide for yourself? OK, like I said. Badge of honor.


"Decide for yourself" isn't a concept we apply to whether felonies have been committed.
 
2013-11-02 02:38:16 PM
No dog in this fight, but I guess Lerner would rely on the exception to the disclosure prohibition found at IRS code 6103(h)(4)

(4) Disclosure in judicial and administrative tax proceedings
A return or return information may be disclosed in a Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to tax administration, but only-
(A) if the taxpayer is a party to the proceeding, or ....

Maybe they could argue that the application for exempt status is an administrative tax proceeding to which the taxpayer was a party?  Seems a bit of a stretch.  The law has a 70's era clause that says if the White House or its appointees (federal agencies) want return info, the President has to sign for it personally.  But the FEC is an independent agency, not sure how it fits in.
 
2013-11-02 02:38:39 PM

verbal_jizm: mjm323s: Let's say it was evidence they were sharing your personal banking information, hypothetically

I don't think anyone is going to get up in arms about your hypothetical situation unless there's a quote from a prosecutor or actual official of some sort saying they're taking a look into it. Even Issa didn't look at the emails as a possible instance of law breaking.


Not necessarily, Lerner resigned. in the Washington Times Article I posted earlier, additional information was being requested and a case can still be building.
 
2013-11-02 02:41:52 PM
The only thing these fake-ass "scandals" lying pieces of right-wing filth keep trying to gin up are doing is driving everyone into the arms of the Democrats. Keep it up, assholes.
 
2013-11-02 02:42:16 PM

mjm323s: Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?


No

mjm323s: Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post New York Times found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?


Yes

And they didn't find anything additional, the emails are from a FOIA request so the government already had the information in question. Unless you're asserting that the congressional investigation somehow neglected to request email records.
 
2013-11-02 02:42:30 PM

mjm323s: verbal_jizm: mjm323s: Let's say it was evidence they were sharing your personal banking information, hypothetically

I don't think anyone is going to get up in arms about your hypothetical situation unless there's a quote from a prosecutor or actual official of some sort saying they're taking a look into it. Even Issa didn't look at the emails as a possible instance of law breaking.

Not necessarily, Lerner resigned. in the Washington Times Article I posted earlier, additional information was being requested and a case can still be building.


Washington Times, huh? I don't think I'll be holding my breath.
 
2013-11-02 02:59:04 PM

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.


See?  This is the smart way to get libs disillusioned.  I mean, of course, it helps if you are a little less transparent, but it's a lot better than screaming that Obama lied in trying to get the ACA passed when the entire case against it was a grotesque pastiche of lies.

8/10.  Good work!
 
2013-11-02 03:03:21 PM

HeadLever: Also much of the reason Democrats seemingly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory after that government shutdown debacle.


"POSTSCRIPT: There's also a very weird result (on slide 20) showing that voters in Republican districts are more eager for their representatives to work with President Obama than voters in Democratic districts. I have no idea what to make of this. In fact, it's so strange that it makes me wonder if there's something wrong with this poll. "

Thank you for contributing.
 
2013-11-02 03:04:33 PM
mjm323s: in the Washington Times Article I posted earlier, additional information was being requested and a case can still be building.Sexy chicken. I can't quit you.
 
2013-11-02 03:25:28 PM

Fart_Machine: grumpfuff: mjm323s: Mark Levin a democrat.

lolwut?

You mean this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin

I think he means Sander Levin.


So he's not wrong, he's just stretching the truth.

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/press-release/levin-statemen t- lois-lerner%E2%80%99s-resignation-irs
 
2013-11-02 03:30:05 PM
grumpfuff:

Err, for clarification. Best I can tell, Sander called for Lerner's resignation because these groups(both liberal and conservative) were approved in the first place, NOT because of the Republican witch hunt.
 
2013-11-02 03:31:03 PM
So somebody actually seriously thinks the moral of the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is that if some asshole repeatedly lies to you, and says there's a wolf and it's really a toy poodle or nothing, you are supposed to believe him every time, because someday there really will be a wolf.
Like Cosby said: brain damage.

Just as an aside - the moral of that parable is that you SHOULDN'T BE A LYING ASSHOLE.
 
2013-11-02 03:44:47 PM

jso2897: So somebody actually seriously thinks the moral of the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is that if some asshole repeatedly lies to you, and says there's a wolf and it's really a toy poodle or nothing, you are supposed to believe him every time, because someday there really will be a wolf.
Like Cosby said: brain damage.

Just as an aside - the moral of that parable is that you SHOULDN'T BE A LYING ASSHOLE should never tell the same lie twice.


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-11-02 03:52:37 PM

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.

/post decent links or don't expect people to take you seriously.


Yeah.  it is a tough slog.   But buried in there is

Cash .......... $973,262.64
Total Assets .. $973,262.64
Liabilities ... $0

Nice 'non-profit' Jerb!


/Not sure why The Examiner thinks Non-profit's
IRS filings are private.  Such things are public records and  are cited in the press frequently.  That is part of the tradeoffs in going the non-profit status route.
 
2013-11-02 03:53:09 PM

cirby: TheWhoppah:
This shiat again?

No, this shiat still.

No, stalling for a year or three, then saying "that's old news" doesn't work any more, especially when you keep on doing the same things...


WE'VE GOT HIM

THIS TIME WE'VE REALLY REALLY GOT HIM
 
2013-11-02 03:55:04 PM

mjm323s: Here let me help you be an informed citizen... http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official -tea-party-scandal-retires/?page=all


Let me stop you right there.
Your link doesn't work, but all I need to know is in the address. Tea Party Scandal. The one that was entirely fabricated by Darryl Issa's cherry picking?

mjm323s: You keep proving my point by referencing this linked article and claiming that what happened is not an issue because the article is biased. I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.


No, you keep proving mine. I never said there is no issue. I said that those bringing the issues are not concerned with fixing them, regularly lie about them, and have proven time and time again they aren't worth listening to.
Even if they begin with a legitimate complaint, it quickly, sometimes immediately, changes gears in order to score political points. The first farking sentence of the article makes it sound like Lerner was Obama's direct appointee/employee rather than part of an independent agency and put there by George Bush. If that's the kind of disingenuous bullshiat that's going to be peppered throughout the piece, I'm better off stopping there.

When one side isn't trustworthy, isn't operating in good faith, they deserve all the scorn and ridicule they get, not an equal seat at the big boy table.
 
2013-11-02 03:55:40 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: The only thing these fake-ass "scandals" lying pieces of right-wing filth keep trying to gin up are doing is driving everyone into the arms of the Democrats. Keep it up, assholes.


This.

It's going to be a cold day in hell before the GOP regains any semblance of common sense or the White House. And no amount of fake scandals will give them back their reputation.
 
2013-11-02 04:02:59 PM

draa: A Dark Evil Omen: The only thing these fake-ass "scandals" lying pieces of right-wing filth keep trying to gin up are doing is driving everyone into the arms of the Democrats. Keep it up, assholes.

This.

It's going to be a cold day in hell before the GOP regains any semblance of common sense or the White House. And no amount of fake scandals will give them back their reputation.


You also notice the timing of the release of this story is at the end of the week so that it has a chance to make the rounds and gain some steam over the weekend before the Left gets a chance to publicly tear it apart.
 
2013-11-02 04:04:01 PM
The IRS has become Obama's Stasi at this point.

(I saw an actual comment on Politico saying that a few weeks ago.)
 
2013-11-02 04:06:53 PM

grumpyguru: See, this is the problem with fark, the best article doesn't always get greenlit. The actual emails from judicial watch might help.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-conte nt/uploads/2013/10/2325_response - 11.pdf

Kind of hard to deny wrongdoing once you look at it. Warning 176 pages.


My gosh!  This contains actual printouts of pages from America Future Fund's internet web site!

Shocking that the IRS could just hand THIS out to any Tom Dick and Harry that says please!

This is obviously private and confidential information and they were never intended to be seen by everyone who might be snookered into sending AFF some cash!
 
2013-11-02 04:07:40 PM

ongbok: draa: A Dark Evil Omen: The only thing these fake-ass "scandals" lying pieces of right-wing filth keep trying to gin up are doing is driving everyone into the arms of the Democrats. Keep it up, assholes.

This.

It's going to be a cold day in hell before the GOP regains any semblance of common sense or the White House. And no amount of fake scandals will give them back their reputation.

You also notice the timing of the release of this story is at the end of the week so that it has a chance to make the rounds and gain some steam over the weekend before the Left gets a chance to publicly tear it apart.


While I agree in theory, 99% of the people who are outraged over this aren't gonna let things like "facts" stop their outrage.
 
2013-11-02 04:16:53 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Alinsky:  "Does this particular end, justify this particular means?"

In the case of  keeping Mitt Romney out of the White House,apparently it did.


How so? Did the FEC fine any of these groups during the election? Were any of them prevented from spending the money for their candidate? Were they denied 501c status? How did any of this impact the campaign?
 
2013-11-02 04:23:54 PM
ZOMG! Ameircan Future Fund has be totally doxed and pwned by Guidestar!  Like they think there should be public record of non-profits or something!!1!!


http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-0620554/american-future-fu nd .aspx


/for the humor impaired, Guidestar.org is a site that has information on charities and other 501 organizations, including stuff that is public records

//I bet I could make a 128 page pdf from the stuff on there.  pretty damning, eh?
 
2013-11-02 04:31:29 PM

elchip: The IRS has become Obama's Stasi at this point.

(I saw an actual comment on Politico saying that a few weeks ago.)


For a moment there I thought you'd accidentally logged in as your alter-ego. . .
 
2013-11-02 04:32:49 PM

elchip: The IRS has become Obama's Stasi at this point.

(I saw an actual comment on Politico saying that a few weeks ago.)


Also, what's wrong with being Stasi?

img5.bdbphotos.com
 
2013-11-02 04:36:48 PM
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.
 
2013-11-02 04:39:48 PM

mjm323s: The Majority of Fark commenters believe their liberal side is beyond reproach.


When trying to make an argument, please don't use an easily-debunked talking point as your opener.
 
2013-11-02 04:42:45 PM

mjm323s: To say one side is always right and the other is always wrong in politics is complete ignorance


Good thing nobody here is saying that.
 
2013-11-02 04:42:57 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.



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?
 
2013-11-02 04:45:36 PM
i mean what even you libby libs have to admit is that liberals have butts

and poop comes from those butts

and poop is icky
 
2013-11-02 04:47:06 PM

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.
 
2013-11-02 04:48:19 PM

mjm323s: RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney.  Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties.  You're going to need it.

As a lawyer I have no doubt you understand the law better than I. But as a taxpayer I would really hope that it is pretty cut and dry that you don't share personal tax information. Seems simple enough.


There's where it drops. It wasn't Fred Garvin's tax information, it was a lobbying group applying for tax-sheltered status.
 
2013-11-02 04:48:44 PM

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.

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
 
2013-11-02 04:57:20 PM
If she broke the law, prosecute her. 

...that is all...
 
2013-11-02 04:58:21 PM

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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
2013-11-03 03:53:26 PM

lantawa: 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."


So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.
 
2013-11-03 04:20:26 PM

grumpfuff: lantawa: 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."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.


I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?
 
2013-11-03 04:27:14 PM

lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: 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."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?


Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.
 
2013-11-03 04:35:22 PM

grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: 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."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?

Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.


Okay................................................................. . .............
 
2013-11-03 04:43:57 PM

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


Page not found.  Try again.

Maybe this was the inquiry that led to this story?
 
2013-11-03 05:22:44 PM

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

Page not found.  Try again.

Maybe this was the inquiry that led to this story?


Yes you can't link properly from a phone but it's pretty easy if you remove the spaces or do a simple google search for the story. The point is they already had these emails and the Commission didn't move on any federal charges. So unless you're saying that Issa is covering this up there is no there there.
 
2013-11-03 05:39:02 PM

lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: 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."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?

Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.

Okay................................................................. . .............


You burst into the thread throwing your credentials around saying I have no idea how insurance works. You've yet to actually support that assertion.

Just because we may agree on the ACA, doesn't mean you get a pass for dishonest debate. Unlike some people around here, I'm not gonna blindly support someone just because they agree with me. You're no better than the people who post long screeds about whatever the outrage of the day is without a single fact or citation, then declare themselves right. The only difference is, you get a [yournothelping.jpg] instead of a [ohwaityourseriousletmelaughharder.jpg].
 
2013-11-03 05:43:53 PM

Fart_Machine: The point is they already had these emails and the Commission didn't move on any federal charges.


Nope.  Per your link - the request was made due to 'We have serious concerns that this e-mail exchange demonstrates a continued pattern of the IRS unlawfully sharing confidential taxpayer information with others outside the agency'.  Hence the request.  again, it seems like this request led to this story.
 
2013-11-03 06:01:13 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: The point is they already had these emails and the Commission didn't move on any federal charges.

Nope.  Per your link - the request was made due to 'We have serious concerns that this e-mail exchange demonstrates a continued pattern of the IRS unlawfully sharing confidential taxpayer information with others outside the agency'.  Hence the request.  again, it seems like this request led to this story.


Um no.  They already had these particular e-mails hence they wouldn't have been able to verify and release what was in them.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) released e-mails on Wednesday suggesting that Lois Lerner, the embattled former head of the IRS's exempt-organizations division, revealed to the lawyer that a conservative group had not been approved for tax-exempt status.

This was several months ago.  The only thing that has come out since then from Issa is that the IRS may have been using private e-mails to communicate information.

JW getting a copy of them via the FOIA is simply a rehash of this story.
 
2013-11-03 06:26:04 PM

mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them


Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?
 
2013-11-03 06:50:01 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?


Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.
 
2013-11-03 06:52:34 PM

mjm323s: Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?

Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.


Meanwhile, you ignore or dismiss every counter-argument, don't bother to cite any of your claims, and once someone points out your errors, you just start a new, clean post, saying exactly the same thing as the previous one.
 
2013-11-03 07:02:02 PM

grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: 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."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?

Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.

Okay................................................................. . .............

You burst into the thread throwing your credentials around saying I have no idea how insurance works. You've yet to actually support that assertion.

Just because we may agree on the ACA, doesn't mean you get a pass for dishonest debate. Unlike some people around here, I'm not gonna blindly support someone just because they agree with me. You're no better than the people who post long screeds about whatever the outrage of the day is without a single fact or citation, then declare themselves right. The only difference is, you get a [yournothelping.jpg] instead of a [ohwaityourseriousletmelaughharder.jpg].


Cry harder....
 
2013-11-03 07:02:11 PM

grumpfuff: mjm323s: Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?

Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.

Meanwhile, you ignore or dismiss every counter-argument, don't bother to cite any of your claims, and once someone points out your errors, you just start a new, clean post, saying exactly the same thing as the previous one.


Ok I was hoping you went back to read the post to see that I did answer. Anyway, your argument is that there are going to be a large amount of individuals that are going to enter the exchange that will keep the costs low? If your answer is yes, pleas re-read my previous post of why I think this is wrong.

There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans. Like the other poster I also hope the ACA works out. But I have strong doubts.

I hope this is sufficient to your question. If you have any additional please be specific what you want me to address.
 
2013-11-03 07:08:53 PM

mjm323s: grumpfuff: mjm323s: Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?

Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.

Meanwhile, you ignore or dismiss every counter-argument, don't bother to cite any of your claims, and once someone points out your errors, you just start a new, clean post, saying exactly the same thing as the previous one.

Ok I was hoping you went back to read the post to see that I did answer. Anyway, your argument is that there are going to be a large amount of individuals that are going to enter the exchange that will keep the costs low? If your answer is yes, pleas re-read my previous post of why I think this is wrong.

There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans. Like the other poster I also hope the ACA works out. But I have strong doubts.

I hope this is sufficient to your question. If you have any additional please be specific what you want me to address.


My argument is that you are posting personal opinion and calling it "facts" and "math." Individual points I've made are simply representations of that.
 
2013-11-03 07:09:58 PM

lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: 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."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?

Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.

Okay................................................................. . .............

You burst into the thread throwing your credentials around saying I have no idea how insurance works. You've yet to actually support that assertion.

Just because we may agree on the ACA, doesn't mean you get a pass for dishonest debate. Unlike some people around here, I'm not gonna blindly support someone just because they agree with me. You're no better than the people who post long screeds about whatever the outrage of the day is without a single fact or citation, then declare themselves right. The only difference is, you get a [yournothelping.jpg] instead of a [ohwaityourseriousletmelaughharder.jpg].

Cry harder....


Calling you out for not supporting a claim you made =/= crying.

/itrollyou.jpg?
 
2013-11-03 07:15:56 PM

mjm323s: There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans.


Those plans, by and large, covered nothing. I have yet to see an actual, honest to god great, cheap, catastrophic plan being taken down by the ACA. What I've seen is shiat like they offered at one of my old work places, $120/month with a $10,000 deductible and 50% co-pay for everything over that. It's good that they're gone.

In addition, there are going to be subsidies for those "on a budget".
 
2013-11-03 07:24:30 PM

grumpfuff: mjm323s: grumpfuff: mjm323s: Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?

Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.

Meanwhile, you ignore or dismiss every counter-argument, don't bother to cite any of your claims, and once someone points out your errors, you just start a new, clean post, saying exactly the same thing as the previous one.

Ok I was hoping you went back to read the post to see that I did answer. Anyway, your argument is that there are going to be a large amount of individuals that are going to enter the exchange that will keep the costs low? If your answer is yes, pleas re-read my previous post of why I think this is wrong.

There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans. Like the other poster I also hope the ACA works out. But I have strong doubts.

I hope this is sufficient to your question. If you have any additional please be specific what you want me to address.

My argument is that you are posting personal opinion and calling it "facts" and "math." Individual points I've made are simply representations of that.


The math is all these people with pre-existing conditions are going to enter the health pool the fact is this is going to cause insurance to go up. The flawed premise of the ACA is that people that did not have insurance before are going to enter and be willing and able to pay for the insurance, because of this law. Am I missing anything?

Sorry I did not keep reposting I started to comment but several of your comments were straw man arguments of things I do not believe I said
 
2013-11-03 07:28:16 PM

mjm323s: Am I missing anything?


The subsidy.
 
2013-11-03 07:34:03 PM

grumpfuff: /itrollyou.jpg?


No.

Just grow up. When someone gives you an option to exit gracefully and with some dignity left intact, take it. Otherwise, you're just digging yourself in derper and derper, showing off your outstanding lack of the insurance industry's operations with greater and greater breathtakingness.

Moral risks, morale risks, and preexisting physical disease conditions are all indicators of unacceptable conditions for accepting health insurance clients, and a part of the insurance underwriting processes. You want a "cite?" Here's a cite. Go buy your State's Official Insurance Coursework Book, and then study for and pass your State's Health and Life Insurance State Exam. That's your "cite." Do with it what you want. And while we're at it, you and I do NOT agree on the ACA. I simply said that I hope that it works out reasonably. It probably won't.
 
2013-11-03 07:38:30 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans.

Those plans, by and large, covered nothing. I have yet to see an actual, honest to god great, cheap, catastrophic plan being taken down by the ACA. What I've seen is shiat like they offered at one of my old work places, $120/month with a $10,000 deductible and 50% co-pay for everything over that. It's good that they're gone.

In addition, there are going to be subsidies for those "on a budget".


Whew, thank goodness there are people like you to tell us what is good for us. If that is the cheapest premium and I don't go to the doctor for as long as I have it, it's a great plan.
From the healthcare.gov website on these plans you have to get an exemption to have them and are required to pay the standard price. So no subsidy and while they do seem to be available still(which I may have been wrong about) Im not sure if this is referring to those being grandfathered in and they will be completely eliminated in the near future
 
2013-11-03 07:40:29 PM

lantawa: Study it out.


imageshack.us
 
2013-11-03 07:41:53 PM

mjm323s: If that is the cheapest premium and I don't go to the doctor for as long as I have it, it's a great plan.


Look, if you're just going to hand over your money every month and expect nothing back, why not send it to me?
 
2013-11-03 07:48:02 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: If that is the cheapest premium and I don't go to the doctor for as long as I have it, it's a great plan.

Look, if you're just going to hand over your money every month and expect nothing back, why not send it to me?


Before ACA it was an option not to pay insurance premiums and not expect anything back, that's not the case any more.

What do you mean when you talk about trolling? If I was on here saying absolutely ridiculous hateful things about your side, I can see why that would be considered trolling. Am I doing that?
 
2013-11-03 08:18:20 PM

mjm323s: Before ACA it was an option not to pay insurance premiums and not expect anything back, that's not the case any more.


mjm323s: What do you mean when you talk about trolling? If I was on here saying absolutely ridiculous hateful things about your side, I can see why that would be considered trolling. Am I doing that?


Different flavors of trolling. We suspect you're being disingenuous and not arguing with any other intent than to get us to respond angrily. You can do this by saying hateful things, or you can do as you've done, repeatedly restate the initial argument as if no one has been able to debunk it.
 
2013-11-03 08:24:10 PM
Go ahead. FARK, eat my links.

mjm323s: Before ACA it was an option not to pay insurance premiums and not expect anything back, that's not the case any more.



imageshack.us imageshack.us
 
2013-11-03 08:37:00 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: lantawa: Study it out.

[imageshack.us image 600x109]


i466.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-03 08:59:45 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Go ahead. FARK, eat my links.

mjm323s: Before ACA it was an option not to pay insurance premiums and not expect anything back, that's not the case any more.


 


If you are going to debate a topic you should have a basic knowledge of the topic. I gave you a site and the subject, you can do some work yourself with a simple search. But I guess based on your political leaning you expect me to do the work for you.

I have restated several times what I believe your argument is and why I think it is wrong asking for specifics what I failed to address with your response just being some crap about talking points. I can't fix stupid. I'm out.
 
2013-11-03 09:43:58 PM

mjm323s: I have restated several times what I believe your argument is and why I think it is wrong asking for specifics what I failed to address with your response just being some crap about talking points.


You'd have to respond with something besides talking points and cease trying to reframe my argument on your terms. Don't pitch some moronic bullshiat talking point like "the ACA deprives us of the freedom to go without health insurance", especially bullshiat that's been flung before, and expect to get taken seriously. That kind of "freedom" leads to 60% of all bankruptcies being caused by medical bills and medical costs that are double the first-world average for no good reason. Saying such a thing unironically is proof enough you're the one who needs basic knowledge of the topic.

We've had six years of this bullshiat, we know how to deal with it, we know what it's all about, and it's becoming easier to spot as the right gets increasing pants on the head retarded. Like the very first sentence of the original article, misrepresenting Lerner's position in government and ties to Obama.
 
2013-11-03 10:19:12 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I have restated several times what I believe your argument is and why I think it is wrong asking for specifics what I failed to address with your response just being some crap about talking points.

You'd have to respond with something besides talking points and cease trying to reframe my argument on your terms. Don't pitch some moronic bullshiat talking point like "the ACA deprives us of the freedom to go without health insurance", especially bullshiat that's been flung before, and expect to get taken seriously. That kind of "freedom" leads to 60% of all bankruptcies being caused by medical bills and medical costs that are double the first-world average for no good reason. Saying such a thing unironically is proof enough you're the one who needs basic knowledge of the topic.

We've had six years of this bullshiat, we know how to deal with it, we know what it's all about, and it's becoming easier to spot as the right gets increasing pants on the head retarded. Like the very first sentence of the original article, misrepresenting Lerner's position in government and ties to Obama.


If you want to talk about legislation that reduces medical costs that are double the first world average, I am with you. This legislation does not address that topic at all. This legislation just like most legislation is going to benefit the lobbiest that have the money to spend and politicians that have caved and will receive campaign dollars for it. While my heart bleeds for the questionable 60% you say medical cause bankruptcy for, I do not believe that small percentage that do get a bad lot is reason enough to raise premiums thousands of dollars for the middle class... In life there are winners and losers by trying to save everyone you hurt the majority and when people see others in a similar predicament getting a free ride they try and game the system as well. People can come back from bankruptcy, it's not a death sentence. Whether you see it as a talking point or not, we make choices and we have to live with them. If I chose not to have health insurance and went bankrupt due to an accident, I should have known better, there are consequences. The government can't run anything efficiently so to trust them with this big project, I'm more than a little skeptical.

I appreciate you passion and I hope it works but our governments track record on programs is comparable to your opinion of the conservative media.
 
2013-11-03 11:13:48 PM

lantawa: grumpfuff: /itrollyou.jpg?

No.

Just grow up. When someone gives you an option to exit gracefully and with some dignity left intact, take it. Otherwise, you're just digging yourself in derper and derper, showing off your outstanding lack of the insurance industry's operations with greater and greater breathtakingness.


See, here's the thing. I like learning. If I am, in fact, wrong, please, enlighten me. Educate me. Show me how I'm wrong. I fail to see how continually asking you to point out how and where I'm wrong is digging a hole. In fact, I don't even care - I'm not embarrassed to be wrong, and will fully admit it if shown to be so. But saying "I have credentials, and you're wrong," is not making your point.  


Moral risks, morale risks, and preexisting physical disease conditions are all indicators of unacceptable conditions for accepting health insurance clients, and a part of the insurance underwriting processes. You want a "cite?" Here's a cite. Go buy your State's Official Insurance Coursework Book, and then study for and pass your State's Health and Life Insurance State Exam. That's your "cite." Do with it what you want. And while we're at it, you and I do NOT agree on the ACA. I simply said that I hope that it works out reasonably. It probably won't.

You know, the first sentence gave me hope that you were finally going to point out how I'm wrong. But nope, just more of you saying "You're wrong because I said so." Though now I understand, at least I think. You want to go back to the old way. You think healthcare as a for-profit business is a-ok. That's something I can't accept. If your argument boils down to "It cuts into profit," well, here's my answer. I don't farking care.

As to passing my state exam? Why the hell would I do that? I don't want to be an insurance agent.
 
2013-11-03 11:18:11 PM

mjm323s: The math is all these people with pre-existing conditions are going to enter the health pool the fact is this is going to cause insurance to go up.


Again, this is not "the math," this is you making an assertion with nothing to back it up short of what you think will happen.

mjm323s: The flawed premise of the ACA is that people that did not have insurance before are going to enter and be willing and able to pay for the insurance, because of this law.


So making sure everyone has health insurance and can afford it is a flawed plan? Those are some farked up morals you got there.

mjm323s: Am I missing anything?


As already mentioned, the subsidies. Also, apparently, a conscience.

mjm323s: Sorry I did not keep reposting I started to comment but several of your comments were straw man arguments of things I do not believe I said


Me directly quoting you is something you didn't say? Is your name Ted Cruz or Newt Gingrich? Also, which comments, specifically, were straw men? Because I can sit here and say "All your arguments were straw men" too.
 
2013-11-03 11:55:42 PM

grumpfuff: mjm323s: The math is all these people with pre-existing conditions are going to enter the health pool the fact is this is going to cause insurance to go up.

Again, this is not "the math," this is you making an assertion with nothing to back it up short of what you think will happen.

mjm323s: The flawed premise of the ACA is that people that did not have insurance before are going to enter and be willing and able to pay for the insurance, because of this law.

So making sure everyone has health insurance and can afford it is a flawed plan? Those are some farked up morals you got there.

mjm323s: Am I missing anything?

As already mentioned, the subsidies. Also, apparently, a conscience.

mjm323s: Sorry I did not keep reposting I started to comment but several of your comments were straw man arguments of things I do not believe I said

Me directly quoting you is something you didn't say? Is your name Ted Cruz or Newt Gingrich? Also, which comments, specifically, were straw men? Because I can sit here and say "All your arguments were straw men" too.


1. People with pre existing conditions that have higher medical costs (say $800 a year) are required to be be added to the same insurance exchange of people that have an average amount of medical cost (say $200 a year). So in keeping it simple what is more? 1 person with a pre existing condition and 1 average person ($800 + 200= $1000/2=500) or 2 average people(200+ 200=400/2= 200). This is math and while it is an extremely dumbed down version it is a basic concept of how insurance premiums are figured.

2. While I think it would be great for everyone to have health insurance. The ACA makes some extremely bogus claims on how it was not going to cost anything and everyone could keep their same plans. As noble as your cause is, you are not exempt for the math. If they would have came out and said everyone can have health insurance and everyone premiums are going to go up $3,000 dollars that would not necessarily make it right but it would at least be honest. As far as your claim that everyone can afford health insurance, that too would be great but then we would not need the subsidies, unfortunately everyone can't afford health insurance so those that can, are required to subsidies those that can't.

3. I have mentioned the subsidies If I am on a budget living paycheck to paycheck and currently paying $0 a month on health insurance. We can both agree obtaining health insurance is going to be at least $100 a month, even if I get it subsidized I'm still paying $100 a month, I just get to write it off on my taxes and may get an extra $120 in tax return at the end of the year, it is going to have a very minimal effect on the average persons financial well being on a paycheck to paycheck basis.

4. Specifically the comment a while back when you asked me if people that have a heart attack are not going to go to the hospital as if I said they wouldn't since they did not have health insurance....See my previous post in regards to referring to people like Ted Cruz and Hannity, you use extremes and fail to understand most people are in the center. If you and your boy feel you must put me in a box of Republican politicians I ask that you please use Chrisn Christie with some Ron Paul foreign policy and respect for the Constitution sprinkled in.
 
2013-11-04 12:13:02 AM

mjm323s: If they would have came out and said everyone can have health insurance and everyone premiums are going to go up $3,000 dollars that would not necessarily make it right but it would at least be honest.


Citation needed. It's not math until you show you work.
 
2013-11-04 12:22:50 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: If they would have came out and said everyone can have health insurance and everyone premiums are going to go up $3,000 dollars that would not necessarily make it right but it would at least be honest.

Citation needed. It's not math until you show you work.


It's an estimate, there is no citation. Do you think insurance premiums are going down on a yearly basis?
 
2013-11-04 12:29:40 AM
Look how smart I am, I just gave that estimate and found an article to back up my claim. It is a fact check on a Republican tweet but the source that backs the claim is credible. I'm on an Ipad so if the link is broken please use the information in the link to search the politicfact website. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republi can-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-h ealth-insuranc/
 
2013-11-04 12:42:43 AM

mjm323s: Look how smart I am, I just gave that estimate and found an article to back up my claim. It is a fact check on a Republican tweet but the source that backs the claim is credible. I'm on an Ipad so if the link is broken please use the information in the link to search the politicfact website. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republi can-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-h ealth-insuranc/


Instead just google "benefits cafe UHC estimates premiums" it appears worse than I thought. This is bad guys.
 
2013-11-04 12:43:36 AM

mjm323s: Look how smart I am, I just gave that estimate and found an article to back up my claim. It is a fact check on a Republican tweet but the source that backs the claim is credible. I'm on an Ipad so if the link is broken please use the information in the link to search the politicfact website. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republi can-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-h ealth-insuranc/


You did read that article, right?
Heathcare costs rose 29% during Barack Obama's term. Nowhere does it say this was the fault of the ACA, and indeed it says that the yearly rise in costs is LESS than those of the previous decade.
 
2013-11-04 12:49:24 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: Look how smart I am, I just gave that estimate and found an article to back up my claim. It is a fact check on a Republican tweet but the source that backs the claim is credible. I'm on an Ipad so if the link is broken please use the information in the link to search the politicfact website. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republi can-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-h ealth-insuranc/

You did read that article, right?
Heathcare costs rose 29% during Barack Obama's term. Nowhere does it say this was the fault of the ACA, and indeed it says that the yearly rise in costs is LESS than those of the previous decade.


Yes, that did not take ACA on to consideration that was just the fact premiums are going up. What do you think of my 2nd reading assignment
 
2013-11-04 12:56:44 AM

mjm323s: Instead just google "benefits cafe UHC estimates premiums" it appears worse than I thought. This is bad guys.


It's a mistake to believe a health insurance company as to the reason behind their price increases. They've raised rates well beyond inflation for the last 20 years. Now they actually have an excuse, even though it's what they should be doing anyway, insuring people.

The best solution is single payer. Everyone's in the risk pool.
 
Displayed 390 of 390 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report