IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#576
#576
lawgator1 said:
Actually, I read it as her sarcastically pointing out the absurdity of the GOP position.

And fairly effectively, at that.
Click to expand...
These bullshiz responses are the ones that make very clear something is rotten in Denmark. It's akin to Hillary's shouting fit about Benghazi and the media shouting down anyone daring to imply that Benghazi was anything more than bad luck.
 
#577
#577
utvolpj said:
you really think Boehner should know what goes on in the local IRS office?

even if he was appointed by Bush he was carried over by Obama and he now owns it. Pawning it off on a guy who left office almost 5 years ago is weak but typical
Click to expand...

The point was that Boehner shouldn't know. The same is true with the POTUS if he wasn't informed.

It is amazing that when there is a POTUS of an opposite party, he is suppose to know everything that is going on in the federal government, their personal lives, etc. It is ridiculous.

That said, I tend to think (speculate) that it was directed from the WH. However, he gets the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty.
 
#578
#578
lawgator1 said:
fyp
Click to expand...

he can plead ignorance if it was only a couple of low-level staffers that did it. Instead of taking action he promoted the head of the dept. Who has been fired over this?

do I think he knew about the investigation happening just prior to the election? An investigation into the agency in charge of enforcing his crown jewel? Yes I do
 
#579
#579
BigPapaVol said:
the buck passing in calling a leftist IRS head a Bush appointee in an effort to absolve everyone who could be held responsible is OK.

I don't give a crap which group of DC asshats is responsible. I want the larger issue addressed, period.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with her quote. I agree though.
 
#580
#580
tnmarktx said:
Yes, he should. The CEO of a company is usually let go, if the company does something unethical or illegal. You want to be the man, then man up and take the responsibility.
Click to expand...

if a CEO or Military Commander had the grasp on facts that administrations do, they would all be fired. You can try to deflect blame, but the expectation is that you put systems or people in place to keep you abreast of material goings on in the organization. Ignorance is never sufficient where the real world is concerned.
 
#584
#584
VOLinthaNATI said:
Where does President Obama being the leader/CEO/topdog/boss of this country start and where does it end? Curious to hear your answer to this question.
Click to expand...


That's actually a very good question.

In the general sense -- and forget the controversy of the moment -- of course every president bears some responsibility for everything that the executive branch does while he is in office. And I mean that primarily politically. That is, if a series of terrible events occur, or there is a lot of mismanagement, the president tends to take the blame if for no other reason than that he is the figurehead.

But the IRS story is a significantly different animal because of the supposition -- and that is what it is at this point -- that there was a political motivation behind the screening process used for the 501(c)(4) applications.

It doesn't help that the flood of applications came on the heels of Citizen's United, hailed by the right as an opportunity by big business or the wealthy to anonymously donate huge sums of cash to candidates who would protect their interests.

Marry that to the already-existing message of the TP that the government can't be trusted, and you can see the formula for outrage at Obama, justified or not.

Funny side story. I was driving in this morning and listening to the new Comedy Central satellite radio station and they had on Louis Black. He doles out criticism of both the Dems and the GOP, but then he started talking about the Tea Party. To paraphrase:

These new groups have people out there dressed in Uncle Sam outfits holding up signs that say "Don't tax the rich." Hey, if you can get a guy that doesn't have a pot to piss in to hold up a sign that says "Don't tax the rich," that's leadership!

Anywhosal, what is going on right now is an attempt to personalize the screening process to Obama. Why?

Because there is evidence he ordered it? No.

Because there is evidence he knew of it while it went on and tolerated it? No.

Because he's the head of the executive? Yes.

Because the GOP wants it to? Also, yes.

There are many people who genuinely react to this, not as a political problem, but as a government-is-too-big-for-its-britches problem. I think they have a point.

There are some who view it as an opportunity to portray Obama as mean and vindictive. I think those people are reaching here, and they are drowning out the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#585
#585
BigPapaVol said:
can you read? The last sentence is the same idiotic buck pass that LG has been shilling since the beginning. What the hell else is it?
Click to expand...

I hope I can read.

Let's make sure it doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...

Don't have a problem with it.

That is very different than what I think her action (or rather lack of action) will be to get to the bottom of it and help prevent it from happening again.
 
#586
#586
lawgator1 said:
But the IRS story is a significantly different animal because of the supposition -- and that is what it is at this point -- that there was a political motivation behind the screening process used for the 501(c)(4) applications.

It doesn't help that the flood of applications came on the heels of Citizen's United, hailed by the right as an opportunity by big business or the wealthy to anonymously donate huge sums of cash to candidates who would protect their interests.

Marry that to the already-existing message of the TP that the government can't be trusted, and you can see the formula for outrage at Obama, justified or not.

Funny side story. I was driving in this morning and listening to the new Comedy Central satellite radio station and they had on Louis Black. He doles out criticism of both the Dems and the GOP, but then he started talking about the Tea Party. To paraphrase:

These new groups have people out there dressed in Uncle Sam outfits holding up signs that say "Don't tax the rich." Hey, if you can get a guy that doesn't have a pot to piss in to hold up a sign that says "Don't tax the rich," that's leadership!
Click to expand...

Strassel: Obama's Enemies List—Part II - WSJ.com

Read that article and then come back and tell us how there wasn't any political motivation.

It will be fun.
 
#590
#590
given what's going on right now the article title is hilarious. Even better that it was posted by our resident undecided lib
 
#591
#591
VOLinthaNATI said:
Lol so you're refusing to answer my question?

And come stronger than an asinine Salin.com article that attacks his character throughout and NOTHING more.
Click to expand...


Mmmmm ... you must have missed the part about his business and financial dealings, the trouble he got in with some state governments, the FDA, the pyramid schemes, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#593
#593
You'd have a lot better argument if there weren't, already well prior to the time frame at issue, documented concerns about him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#594
#594
lawgator1 said:
Mmmmm ... you must have missed the part about his business and financial dealings, the trouble he got in with some state governments, the FDA, the pyramid schemes, etc.
Click to expand...

Still dodging my question. No problem. I know it kinda blows your theory.
 
#596
#596
I did answer. The article itself says there is no evidence of politically motivated targeting, just a "you have to wonder" supposition. Contrast that to the well documented, multiple concerns that had long been expressed concerning his financial dealings, and there is certainly a reasonable alternative to your completely speculative conspiracy theory.

If you have some evidence that Obama ordered the IRS to investigate the guy, let's see it. Otherwise, all you have is the fact that the IRS audited a guy that had a number of controversial business issues and run ins with state and federal government agencies due to that.

I mean, if there are those issues swirling around someone with those questions looming, isn't that who should be audited?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#597
#597
lawgator1 said:
Actually, I read it as her sarcastically pointing out the absurdity of the GOP position.

And fairly effectively, at that.
Click to expand...

When the White House Council and Chief of staff knows the POTUS should know. Why hasn't he canned them for not telling him so he could get it stopped?
 
#598
#598
hog88 said:
When the White House Council and Chief of staff knows the POTUS should know. Why hasn't he canned them for not telling him so he could get it stopped?
Click to expand...


As I understand it they knew the results of the IG report, which came out after it had been stopped, not what occurred as it occurred. Big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#599
#599
lawgator1 said:
I did answer. The article itself says there is no evidence of politically motivated targeting, just a "you have to wonder" supposition. Contrast that to the well documented, multiple concerns that had long been expressed concerning his financial dealings, and there is certainly a reasonable alternative to your completely speculative conspiracy theory.

If you have some evidence that Obama ordered the IRS to investigate the guy, let's see it. Otherwise, all you have is the fact that the IRS audited a guy that had a number of controversial business issues and run ins with state and federal government agencies due to that.

I mean, if there are those issues swirling around someone with those questions looming, isn't that who should be audited?
Click to expand...

OK so the fact that he had been audited 1 time in the 30 years and then amazingly right after the OFA "enemines list" he was targeted by numerous government orgs. and audited by the IRS is just a big coincidence? Is that your answer?

And the crap about Obama knowing is an obvious deflection because that has nothing to do with my question on whether this person was selectively and specifically targeted due to his political affiliation.
 
#600
#600
lawgator1 said:
As I understand it they knew the results of the IG report, which came out after it had been stopped, not what occurred as it occurred. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Horseshat! There are tea party groups right at this minute whose status' are still in limbo...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top