Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Inner Party strikes back (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 28 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  26  27  28   
Author Topic: The Inner Party strikes back
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
G3, again, NAACP audit in 2004. Was that horrible evil oppression as well?

Were they selected for audit because they were black? Do you see why what you're doing is misleading?
Nope. I am not suggesting they were selected for audit because they were black. I am saying that they were selected for audit because some Republicans in congress demanded they be audited for political activity when they were critical of President Bush.

So, no, I don't see how what I am doing is misleading. Explain it to me, please.

I see, and you have the proof of this being done for political reasons as we have the confession of targeting conservatives?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How desperate is the media to diffuse this? About this desperate:
quote:
Is it possible that the right-leaning Tea Party was being forced to reconcile onerous information requests from the Internal Revenue Service because former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, thought the nascent conservative movement reflected poorly on the Republican Party? This is the theory that was posited on MSNBC on Monday in an effort to explain the IRS’ admission that they had singled out conservative groups for undue scrutiny.
Ah, it was a Republican false flag mission, years in the making. [DOH] "As theories go, I’d say it’s 51-percent-assed. "

For those of you so utterly convinced that nothing wrong occurred, there sure are a lot of people trying to explain it away. [LOL]

[ May 20, 2013, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
In other words, you got nothing so fire up the logical fallacy. You'd have been better served by ignoring it rather than this panicked response.

What fallacy exactly is there in pointing out that your example here was a group that is, in fact being targeted for bad behavior and not related to the issue with IRS workers using profiling to quickly isolate large sections of organizations that needed to be reviewed because of active political entanglements?
I love the unintentional irony in that.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

There’s been a lot of debate swirling amongst the pundits lately. Is the Watergate cover-up worse than the Benghazi cover-up or vice versa? Is the only scandal that matters the Justice Department’s decision to tap Associated Press phones, because that’s the only one that the media will care about? What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Ignore all that. The absolute worst scandal that’s emerged lately, and the worst administration scandal in American history is the IRS scandal. Why? Because you, the People, became the targets of a comprehensive federal government effort to stifle dissent, one made using the government’s overwhelming and disproportionate policing and taxing powers.

All of the other scandals, going back to Andrew Johnson’s post-Civil War scandals, Warren G. Harding’s 1920s Teapot Dome scandal, Nixon’s Watergate, Reagan’s Iran-Contra, and Clinton’s Oval Office sexcapades have actually been narrowly focused acts of cronyism, garden-variety political chicanery, or personal failings. It’s been insider stuff.

The IRS scandal, by contrast, is a direct attack on the American people. Right now, Progressives throughout America are pretending that this scandal doesn’t matter: “Obama wasn’t involved.” “Tea Partiers had it coming because they’re all corrupt.” “Obama would have won the election anyway.” “It was just a coincidence that the only groups that had their applications scrutinized, sometimes for years, were politically conservative. It means nothing that, when one group changed its name to sound Progressive, its application was approved in only three weeks.” “This is just a bureaucratic snafu.” “It’s a few rogue agents in Ohio.”

Those who offer these excuses are either morally flawed themselves or delusional idiots.


Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you expressing your own opinion or using Ornery to re-tweet what you read in the anti-Obama echo chamber? I ask for two reasons, one because Ornery is supposed to be for people to express themselves, not repeat what other people tell them to think. The other is that there are one or two lies and hard stretches of reality in there, so you should read your source material more carefully so that it doesn't reflect badly on your own credibility.

[ May 21, 2013, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, that last quote is ridiculous, G3. "Comprehensive"? "Only groups"? Blatant falsehoods.

Why can't the response and outrage be measured and stick to the facts?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What liberal groups received similar treatment?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Breaking:
quote:

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lois is gonna plead the 5th?!? Why? You guys keep trying to act like nothing wrong really happened... [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.

Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.

Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.

The fifth iteration of events. I assume many of you think each iteration is the full factual account; after all, why change now?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You guys keep trying to act like nothing wrong really happened... [Roll Eyes]
It's not that we act like nothing wrong really happened; it's that you act like this is the biggest, hugest, most horrible and reprehensible scandal to ever happen before all the facts come out. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3, "Progress Texas" is one such liberal organization that received similar scrutiny, and only about 1/3 of the groups selected for extra scrutiny were found due to their relation to the key words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or whatever.

As a side note, you should read Al Wessex's posts, because he's providing information you clearly need to balance out what you're gleaning from right wing blogs.

Edit: Although it's certainly amusing to realize that you've admitted to screening out opposing viewpoints on this site, with your greasemonkey script, so one suspects you might be somewhat reluctant to hear the other side of any particular story.

[ May 21, 2013, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Breaking:
quote:

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lois is gonna plead the 5th?!? Why? You guys keep trying to act like nothing wrong really happened... [Roll Eyes]
Who are "you guys"? If you mean people posting on this site, that is not an accurate summation of how people are responding to this story. I think what you mean is "you guys keep acting like this isn't worse than anything else that ever happened, and are totally failing to exaggerate, distort, and selectively ignore evidence about how bad it really is to my satisfaction."
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, my bad.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
G3, "Progress Texas" is one such liberal organization that received similar scrutiny, and only about 1/3 of the groups selected for extra scrutiny were found due to their relation to the key words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or whatever.

The IRS built a BOLO list to target conservative groups. No such list exists for liberal groups. Implying that a liberal group was denied an application, while in three years only 3 Tea Party groups were approved, and 80 "progressive" groups were approved, so therefore the IRS was not prejudicial is ludicrous.

What if they had targeted black groups with a BOLO and Fox News ran a story stating, "but they also denied , or audited Glen Beck, so it shows they are impartial." Would you be saying it's all good then? I suspect not.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
As a side note, you should read Al Wessex's posts, because he's providing information you clearly need to balance out what you're gleaning from right wing blogs.

I never read his posts, I have his posts blocked by a GreaseMonkey script. They almost always say nothing more than name calling and personal attacks so I ignore them since they are tolerated (he's a liberal, forum rules don't really apply to liberals here so I had to take matters in my own hands). If you think there's something of any substance I should see, you will have to quote it.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Edit: Although it's certainly amusing to realize that you've admitted to screening out opposing viewpoints on this site, with your greasemonkey script, so one suspects you might be somewhat reluctant to hear the other side of any particular story.

Obviously not true as AI is the *only* one I screen.

[ May 21, 2013, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Breaking:
quote:

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lois is gonna plead the 5th?!? Why? You guys keep trying to act like nothing wrong really happened... [Roll Eyes]
Who are "you guys"? If you mean people posting on this site, that is not an accurate summation of how people are responding to this story. I think what you mean is "you guys keep acting like this isn't worse than anything else that ever happened, and are totally failing to exaggerate, distort, and selectively ignore evidence about how bad it really is to my satisfaction."
By "you guys" I'm being broader and more generic. It ain't all about you and a couple others here.

And this is the worst scandal we've had. The deliberate targeting of individuals for nothing other than exercising free speech rights. People go to jail for this, this was a core part of the Nixon impeachment. This is a huge deal. Trying to act like it's not a big deal is dishonest or delusional - why I posted the quote up-thread about it.

If you don't think it's a big deal, keep playing it down (along with most every other liberal) and when the worm turns and the shoe is on the other foot (heh) because so many have given their tacit approval of this so the next administration is going to do it too, then let's see what you think. Somehow, I think you'll change your mind.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You guys keep trying to act like nothing wrong really happened... [Roll Eyes]
It's not that we act like nothing wrong really happened; it's that you act like this is the biggest, hugest, most horrible and reprehensible scandal to ever happen before all the facts come out. [Roll Eyes]
You need to see all the facts before you can judge a story that has changed 5 times? Are you waiting for a version that makes it OK or what? They did it, we know they did. The IG report confirms it, the IRS confirms it.

I am curious, under what scenario do you see the IRS targeting political opponents of the current administration acceptable? You want more facts to come out; which ones would make you say "Oh, hey, the IRS targeting and harassing people for political motives is OK!"?

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except there wasn't any targeting going on, just profiling to make sieving out organizations that needed deeper review go more quickly. The if the process of identifying politically oriented groups was done completely neutrally, the same groups, by and large, would have been scrutinized, because they were still political groups with an obviously partisan affiliation. The procedural misstep was to realize that a first pass could quickly be done by using terms common to the wave of conservative applications that came in in the wake of the CU decision, quickly reducing the number of applications that then had to be looked at individually to determine whether additional scrutiny was needed to verify that there weren't a direct political affiliates or otherwise too obviously simply shell groups for dark money. (And, in the process, it was some liberal groups actually lost their 503c4 status, not any conservative groups)

You keep making accusations of targeting, without any evidence of actual intent to target. They were profiled to speed up the sorting process because they used similar enough language in their names to be bundled out quickly, but they, in total actually made up a minority of total groups identified for scrutiny and almost all of them would have been flagged anyway if all applications were considered on a case by case basis, it just would have taken a lot longer to get to them.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"By "you guys" I'm being broader and more generic. It ain't all about you and a couple others here."

Ha, that means he isn't whining about me, since he edits out my posts (allegedly). That means he's complaining about *you*, *you*, and of course, *you*! [Big Grin] Or, he's committing a semantic fallacy where he says something that is at variance with the meaning of his words.

But, if he's being honest about his creative use of the pronoun "you", I do the same thing when I speak directly to him and say "You...". In those situations I am not talking to him, but am being broader and more generic.

[ May 21, 2013, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
I am curious, under what scenario do you see the IRS targeting political opponents of the current administration acceptable? You want more facts to come out; which ones would make you say "Oh, hey, the IRS targeting and harassing people for political motives is OK!"?

When the law says that the IRS isn't supposed to grant the status to any group that is primarily a political organization, then it is completely expected that they're going to "harass" applicants for that status that seem to be overtly political, regardless of whether they're friendly or antagonistic to the current administration.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Except there wasn't any targeting going on, just profiling to make sieving out organizations that needed deeper review go more quickly.

It is incredible that you keep repeating this. Just incredible. I hope you keep doing it.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3, I think the profiling was wrong, and the evident bias against approving right wing groups for tax exempt status looks worse. Investigation and corrective action seems warranted. If it was justified or whitewashed then it'd be even worse.

So far the director of the IRS has been fired and as far as I can tell every official who has anything to say about it is saying it was wrong.

Remember how most people everywhere including almost everyone who has commented on this site agree that there's a problem?

It seems like the "liberals are denying there's a problem" meme is being used to justify the hysterical inaccuracies like the ones you've been quoting here, which blow the depth and breadth of the problem way out of proportion. This was in no way a "comprehensive" effort to suppress right wing speech or activism. It is also grossly inaccurate to say that only right wing groups got any extra scrutiny. In criticizing leftists' supposed problem coping with the facts, false facts like those are a little ironic.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Except there wasn't any targeting going on, just profiling to make sieving out organizations that needed deeper review go more quickly.

It is incredible that you keep repeating this. Just incredible. I hope you keep doing it.
Since it was what the IG Report said happen, I plan to every time you try to repeat the baseless accusation that anything else happened and mislead people as to the nature of what happened without presenting some non-speculative evidence to actually support your claim.

So far you've just tossed out a handful of anecdotes about groups dealing with clumsy attempts to figure out whether they were really social welfare organizations or PACs trying to sneak into the CU loophole and some over-the-top spin that's based in outright lies. Nothing yet that actually contradicts the findings of the IG report, never mind that actually provides any real evidence to support your position.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't doubt that you think that's what the IG report says.
quote:

On May 17, 2010, according to the IG report, Determinations Unit specialists in Cincinnati handling tea-party applications were instructed to “send additional information request letters to the Technical Unit for review prior to issuance.” Ten days later, the Technical Unit “began reviewing additional information request letters prepared by the Determinations Unit.”

The IG report indicates this became a source of frustration, and specialists in Cincinnati pressed for a streamlined approach. “Why does the Technical Unit need to review every additional information request letter when a template letter could be approved and used on all the cases?” they asked via e-mail. The Washington unit rejected this approach and, in February 2011, was developing individualized letters itself. According to the IG report, an update from the Technical Unit acting manager to the Determinations Unit manager indicated, “Letters were being developed and would be reviewed shortly.”

But keep saying it, it's instructive.

[ May 22, 2013, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a comment on process, not intent.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't doubt that you think that's what the IG report says
I posted a link to it earlier in the thread and have actually read through it. Please to cite where it says anything different from that.

About the only thing that the quote you posted shows is that the DU was looking for ways to further expedite the process instead of having to deal with case-by-case examinations that increased their workload.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You need to see all the facts before you can judge a story that has changed 5 times? Are you waiting for a version that makes it OK or what? They did it, we know they did. The IG report confirms it, the IRS confirms it.

I am curious, under what scenario do you see the IRS targeting political opponents of the current administration acceptable? You want more facts to come out; which ones would make you say "Oh, hey, the IRS targeting and harassing people for political motives is OK!"?

WHO THE HELL SAID I THOUGHT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE??

AND WHY THE HELL DO YOU KEEP SAYING AND IMPLYING THAT I DO??

Just because I don't immediately assume that Obama is behind it all in order to suppress conservatives DOES NOT mean I find it acceptable. I don't. I have posted at least two links critical of this scandal. It is wrong, it is bad for our country, it should never have happened. But I want to see all the facts before jumping to conclusions and hanging the President of the United States out to dry.

You treat everyone who disagrees with your conclusions as disagreeing with everything you say--as being the polar opposite. If I don't agree that Obama is behind this, obviously I believe that nothing wrong happened at all. THAT IS NOT TRUE, SO STOP SAYING IT. I am sick and tired of having to respond to your mischaracterizations and mocking me for them. It's annoying as all hell and it brings down the tenor of this board.

I am angered by this scandal, and ashamed that it occurred in Obama's administration. I am hoping that it was merely motivated by an over-worked IRS that simply didn't believe Tea Party groups were purely "social welfare" organizations and so wanted to make sure they did not cross the line into politics. But they did target them and that was wrong. It should never have happened. And I want the all the facts to come out to show who was or wasn't responsible for this mess.

But before I can determine exactly what happened I need to see all the facts. And if you don't, just that shows that you are more interested in your conclusions than you are in reality. But don't you DARE say that I think nothing wrong happened here. A lot did, and should never happen again. But whatever you do, don't mock me for something I never said. Because I'm not tolerating THAT anymore.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You need to see all the facts before you can judge a story that has changed 5 times? Are you waiting for a version that makes it OK or what? They did it, we know they did. The IG report confirms it, the IRS confirms it.

I am curious, under what scenario do you see the IRS targeting political opponents of the current administration acceptable? You want more facts to come out; which ones would make you say "Oh, hey, the IRS targeting and harassing people for political motives is OK!"?

WHO THE HELL SAID I THOUGHT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE??

AND WHY THE HELL DO YOU KEEP SAYING AND IMPLYING THAT I DO??

[Roll Eyes] You keep saying things like "yeah, it's bad but we need to wait for everything to come out before we can judge anything". So what I'm asking is, what could possibly come out that makes you think there is some context that could change this into something less than what it is.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As soon as White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler heard about an upcoming inspector general’s report on the Internal Revenue Service, she knew she had a problem.

The notice Ruemmler saw on April 24 gave her a thumbnail sketch of a disturbing finding: that the IRS had improperly targeted tea party and other conservative groups. She shared the news with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other senior White House aides, who all recognized the danger of the findings.

But they agreed that it would be best not to share it with President Obama until the independent audit was completed and made public, in part to protect him from even the appearance of trying to influence an investigation. …

But Ruemmler and McDonough’s careful plan for the IRS was upended on May 10, when Lois Lerner, a senior official at the agency, broke the news by admitting that the IRS had given extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Senior White House officials were stunned to see the IRS trying to get ahead of its own story — and in doing so, creating a monstrous communications disaster for an administration that appeared not to know what its agencies were up to.

So is Ruemmler the new fall gal? We're a long way from 2 rogue staffers ain't we?

Analysis via Ed Morrisey:
quote:
Does anyone else see the glaring contradictions in this narrative? First, according to the strategy as explained here, the decision was to share this conclusion among a wide variety of senior White House staffers — but keep the President in the dark so it didn’t appear he was interfering with a report that was already complete . Why wouldn’t that also apply to the senior staffers involved? After all, if the report was to be somehow quashed or skewed, Obama wouldn’t be the one to pick up the phone to do it — and risk getting impeached for obstruction of justice. It would be one of Obama’s senior aides making that call, up to and including McDonough, if it was to happen at all.

Second, according to this article, the strategy was to let the IRS publicize the report and then react to it. Then, suddenly, they’re shocked, shocked when the IRS publicizes it ahead of the release. It “upended” their “careful plan,” which apparently was to tell a bunch of people in the White House except the man in charge, and then stay quiet. How, then, did the release “upend” a “careful plan”?

But just how complete was the report when Ruemmler first learned of it? We already know that the investigation was completed almost a year ago, a few months before the election.



[ May 23, 2013, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh no, the WP isn't being entirely consistent in its editorial position.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
You keep saying things like "yeah, it's bad but we need to wait for everything to come out before we can judge anything". So what I'm asking is, what could possibly come out that makes you think there is some context that could change this into something less than what it is.

NOthing- just the opposite, what we're still waiting for is any scrap of evidence that suggests that it is as vastly beyond what it has been presented as so fa, as you keep trying to insist it is.

So far all we have evidence of is using phrases like "Tea Party" as a shortcut to identify possible organizations that might exceed 503c4 limits on direct political action. That's unacceptable profiling in no small part because of exactly this kind of fallout from the impression of bias that it lends.

What has yet to be revealed is any shred of evidence that there was any intent of political or electoral interference (particularly in relation to a tax status that directly requires that those who have it restrict electoral participation to a minor part of their operation), never mind any top down instruction to do so.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
You keep saying things like "yeah, it's bad but we need to wait for everything to come out before we can judge anything". So what I'm asking is, what could possibly come out that makes you think there is some context that could change this into something less than what it is.

NOthing- just the opposite, what we're still waiting for is any scrap of evidence that suggests that it is as vastly beyond what it has been presented as so fa, as you keep trying to insist it is.
So let's be clear about what has been presented so far ... do you still think it was 2 rogue agents in one office?

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
So far all we have evidence of is using phrases like "Tea Party" as a shortcut to identify possible organizations that might exceed 503c4 limits on direct political action. That's unacceptable profiling in no small part because of exactly this kind of fallout from the impression of bias that it lends.

What has yet to be revealed is any shred of evidence that there was any intent of political or electoral interference (particularly in relation to a tax status that directly requires that those who have it restrict electoral participation to a minor part of their operation), never mind any top down instruction to do so.

It's beyond bizarre you keep insisting this with all that's come out, story changes, obvious deceptions and now 5th amendment pleadings. I strongly suspect there is nothing, not even direct confessions of those involved, that could come out at this point that would convince you of the political intent here. This should be very instructive to the casual forum readers.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So let's be clear about what has been presented so far ... do you still think it was 2 rogue agents in one office?
It was overworked agents looking for a way to more quickly sort through a sharp increase in their workload through search terms the quickly identified large batches to flag at once rather than going through each one on a case by case basis. That is all that the IG Report says it was, that is all that any report or evidence so far presented says it was.

Given that, ultimately, only about 1/3 of the total cases flagged for review resulted from those searches, there isn't even room to accuse them of using such searches to the exclusion of direct inspection, only to shave a handful off the top before processing the rest more directly or by using less sensitive search terms.

quote:
It's beyond bizarre you keep insisting this with all that's come out,
Which is pretty much just the IG Report and some anecdotes about clumsy questioning to determine degree of political affiliation and laundering of dark money.

quote:
story changes,
Clarifications about process, and reporting that's all over the place, but again nothing that contradicts the IG's findings

quote:
obvious deceptions
Evidence free assertions of deception on the part of your sources, perhaps, but entirely speculative unless you can actually provide evidence of deception.

quote:
and now 5th amendment pleadings.
Which are not any indication of wrongdoing, especially in the fact of expectations of loaded and misleading lines of questioning that are intended to create false impressions. (Like with your question about "rogue" agents above, whether or not you intended it, where a simple answer would have amounted to implicitly agreeing to that false characterization.)

quote:
I strongly suspect there is nothing, not even direct confessions of those involved, that could come out at this point that would convince you of the political intent here.
You have nothing, and now are turning to motive speculation and personal attacks.

The IG found no evidence of political motivation. You have yet to present anything beyond speculation to contradict that, nevermind evidence from any source that's even remotely as credible (you have show some suggestion, on the other hand, that there may have been active decisions to take precautions to not lend any impression of bias to the IG's process were taken)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3, serious question:

Why is it easier for you to believe that this is some high-level plot to inconvenience conservatives than believe -- as all evidence suggests -- that it happened because a flood of applications for shady new non-profits (both liberal and conservative) hit a bunch of overworked bureaucrats, and those bureaucrats realized that they could easily identify some of the more obviously political ones -- i.e. the ones that they were specifically supposed to screen more carefully -- based on naming?

It seems obvious to me that the latter is the case. I'm curious why you're willing to read malice into it.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In March 2011, an IRS employee in El Monte, Calif., asked in a grammatically challenged letter whether the group protested in front of medical facilities.

“In your educational program, do you education on both sides of the issues in your program?” IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Tyrone Thomas asked in the letter, a copy of which was provided by the Thomas More Society.

Thomas also asked, “do you try to block people to enter a building, e. medical clinic, or any other facility?”

The IRS hasn’t said who originally authored or authorized any of the questions that it now says were part of inappropriate criteria applied to conservative groups.

“My first thought was that this particular agent was incompetent and didn’t know the law,” said McCoy, who described Thomas as polite but resolute. McClatchy tried to reach Thomas via the number on his correspondence, but no one answered the calls.

Bow down before your master... [DOH]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In other news, bureaucrats are often not the best and brightest.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
G3, serious question:

Why is it easier for you to believe that this is some high-level plot to inconvenience conservatives than believe -- as all evidence suggests -- that it happened because a flood of applications for shady new non-profits (both liberal and conservative) hit a bunch of overworked bureaucrats, and those bureaucrats realized that they could easily identify some of the more obviously political ones -- i.e. the ones that they were specifically supposed to screen more carefully -- based on naming?

It seems obvious to me that the latter is the case. I'm curious why you're willing to read malice into it.

Maybe this is the question you got so worked up over ... I'll take a shot!

Let me ask you this, why is it easier for you to believe it was only a couple of rogue agents? Why is it easier for you to believe each iteration of the story floated out by the administration without wondering why the story keeps changing? Why does the obvious coordination between the IRS, OSHA and ATF make you think there was not some "high level plot" as you put it? If this was nothing more than bureaucratic efficiency, why take the fifth? If this is no big deal, why was the story squashed until after the election? If this was a minor as you make it out to be, why does the senior administrative staff in the Obama regime insist they withheld all information about it from the president? Why did the IRS Commissioner visit the white house 157 times (more than any other cabinet member and 157 times more than the previous commissioner)?

It seems obvious to anyone with a brain that there has been a significant deception and cover up. I'm curious why you're willing to excuse all of it.

[ May 31, 2013, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
WHO THE HELL SAID I THOUGHT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE??

AND WHY THE HELL DO YOU KEEP SAYING AND IMPLYING THAT I DO??

Let's revisit your outrage a moment (keep in mind, "you" is not necessarily you personally, just a generic reference). Check out Tom's post above. Do you know see why I keep implying that liberals will find it acceptable? I do it because most of you will eventually find it acceptable.

Every single one of you is looking for the excuse, the justification, to say this is OK. You're just waiting to find a way to accept it (as Tom does). You'll throw this outrage out as long as it's a story - which with a media that cover for the regime may not be that long - or until you have the rationale provided that allows you to accept this. You can see that Tom has found the the rationale he's willing to accept so he can excuse this; the rest of you will follow with it or find your own.

It was overworked agents, only a couple of people, etc, etc, etc. The story changes so often because the left has yet to find the one that, no matter how flimsy, provides sufficient cover to accept the IRS targeting of the right. Sooner or later, you and most liberals will join Tom in excusing or accepting it. And when you do, I'll remind you of this post and you'll be all angry and tell me how terrible I am or dishonest or something like that; whatever insult is your flavor of the day here.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
In other news, bureaucrats are often not the best and brightest.

You just described nearly every government drone (i.e. employee) I've ever met.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“My first thought was that this particular agent was incompetent and didn’t know the law,”
Or the language! Does the IRS now outsource to some foreign country for its customer (dis)service?

[ May 31, 2013, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 28 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  26  27  28   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1