Exploding IRS scandal.

[bshole]

Anonymity is critical to freedom,

I kind of disagree with that. If people are buying elections, we the people need to know who they are. For example, if a group calling itself Freedom Fighters United made a 10 billion dollar donation to a particular candidate, would it make a difference to you if you knew that the money actually came from the Chinese government, an athiest organization, etc.... When voters know where the money actually comes from, it allows them to make a more informed decision on the validity of the message being presented to them.

 

[werepossum]

I kind of disagree with that. If people are buying elections, we the people need to know who they are. For example, if a group calling itself Freedom Fighters United made a 10 billion dollar donation to a particular candidate, would it make a difference to you if you knew that the money actually came from the Chinese government, an athiest organization, etc.... When voters know where the money actually comes from, it allows them to make a more informed decision on the validity of the message being presented to them.

I'd argue the opposite, that I can make a more reasoned analysis of a message if I bring no preconceptions about its framers.

 

[zinfamous]

Most of us do at one point or another, it's all part of the fun.

the point was to show that his comment was equally valid from either point of view. --this post, like all of his, being nothing more than a vacuous accumulation of words with which he never provides a base of meaning.

Just about anyone here is tired of his meaningless copy-pasted flubbery. Believe me--we've all said and done far worse in responding to his nincompoopery.

 

[ivwshane]

I'd argue the opposite, that I can make a more reasoned analysis of a message if I bring no preconceptions about its framers.

Of course you would say that. Anything you don't have to question that you agree with you blissfully follow along.

Other people on the other hand like to be critical and see the whole picture and what's behind it, even if the message is something they would otherwise agree with.

 

[Fern]

Their "latest nonresponse response," said Mr. Eastman, claimed that the law prohibiting the disclosure of confidential tax returns also prevents disclosure of information about who disclosed them.

As stupid as the above sounds, it's quite likely true. That's how poorly that law was written.

If you read it literally, those of us who are tax professionals are breaking the law when we give tax advice to a client based upon his/her specific info. Disclosing info about a client to that client seems illegal under the law.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

I kind of disagree with that. If people are buying elections, we the people need to know who they are. For example, if a group calling itself Freedom Fighters United made a 10 billion dollar donation to a particular candidate, would it make a difference to you if you knew that the money actually came from the Chinese government, an athiest organization, etc.... When voters know where the money actually comes from, it allows them to make a more informed decision on the validity of the message being presented to them.

No, who paid for the message is not necessarily relevant. Evaluate the message itself and make a determination of it's merits. Sometimes you can use the funding behind the message to quickly dismiss the message or take it with a grain of salt, but in reality you should evaluate the message and react accordingly. Even if the message is paid for by the Chinese government, that doesn't mean it's not true, it just means it's very likely a lie.

 

[ivwshane]

No, who paid for the message is not necessarily relevant. Evaluate the message itself and make a determination of it's merits. Sometimes you can use the funding behind the message to quickly dismiss the message or take it with a grain of salt, but in reality you should evaluate the message and react accordingly. Even if the message is paid for by the Chinese government, that doesn't mean it's not true, it just means it's very likely a lie.

I'll remember that when I post an article from a known left wing source. I'm sure you will only evaluate the facts and opinions on its merits and not judge the source itself.


God you righties are so fucking transparent!

 

[Bowfinger]

No, who paid for the message is not necessarily relevant. Evaluate the message itself and make a determination of it's merits. Sometimes you can use the funding behind the message to quickly dismiss the message or take it with a grain of salt, but in reality you should evaluate the message and react accordingly. Even if the message is paid for by the Chinese government, that doesn't mean it's not true, it just means it's very likely a lie.

Not really. Rarely is the message so simple and unambiguous that an average voter can make reasonable, off-the-cuff evaluations. In general, understanding the bias of the messenger is invaluable in quickly evaluating where and how the message is likely to be distorted. It provides focus for evaluation. It tells you who else you should look at to find the most relevant counterarguments and identify factual inaccuracies.

I believe the court ruling that money is protected political speech was one of the most anti-democracy decisions ever. It opened the floodgates for corrupting government, legalizing bribery. Nonetheless, those are the rules we must live with, at least for now. In my opinion, however, that does NOT mean we have to let deep pockets corrupt anonymously. If they have freedom to bribe, so be it, but every dollar should be publicly disclosed. It is our only hope of preserving at least a little democracy.

 

[cubby1223]

If you can guarantee that the extreme-left will not harass those who get involved politically, then I, and I suspect others, am more likely to agree to more open political process. But that is not the case. Supporting political causes, regardless of the cause, results in harassment to many individuals.

When I see a political ad on television, I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that it is the Chinese government funding the ad, if you ever wanted to see an example of a straw man argument, there it is. Is there a history of the Chinese government funding ads?

ivwshane: post your real name and your real address in your signature to go along with every post of yours. Why do you hide behind a username? I've already had one user of this forum unsuccessfully attempt, but attempt he did, to harass me outside of this forum for posts I make. It was one of the users who joined the forum solely to be a loud voice over in the Martin/Zimmerman thread. And I know he was targeting a range of other people to, occasionally slipping up and commenting about finding info out about users from their facebook pages.

It happens. There is a reason why we all try to be anonymous here. There is a reason why legitimate political donors want to be anonymous.

 

[Fern]

If you can guarantee that the extreme-left will not harass those who get involved politically, then I, and I suspect others, am more likely to agree to more open political process. But that is not the case. Supporting political causes, regardless of the cause, results in harassment to many individuals.
-snip-

Exactly.

And, IMO, that whole argument about knowing who funded the ad is BS.

Political PACs run ads all the time, 99% of the population won't know, or even give a damn who ran the ad. The PACs only puts its name on the ad, not the donor's. Only a few hard core political dorks will bother researching who the PAC's donors are, and they're the type that like to attack the messenger which is why those few are interested.

H3ll, I follow politics pretty closely and I don't give a damn who funded what ad.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

If you can guarantee that the extreme-left will not harass those who get involved politically, then I, and I suspect others, am more likely to agree to more open political process. But that is not the case. Supporting political causes, regardless of the cause, results in harassment to many individuals.

When I see a political ad on television, I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that it is the Chinese government funding the ad, if you ever wanted to see an example of a straw man argument, there it is. Is there a history of the Chinese government funding ads?

ivwshane: post your real name and your real address in your signature to go along with every post of yours. Why do you hide behind a username? I've already had one user of this forum unsuccessfully attempt, but attempt he did, to harass me outside of this forum for posts I make. It was one of the users who joined the forum solely to be a loud voice over in the Martin/Zimmerman thread. And I know he was targeting a range of other people to, occasionally slipping up and commenting about finding info out about users from their facebook pages.

It happens. There is a reason why we all try to be anonymous here. There is a reason why legitimate political donors want to be anonymous.

Sorry, employers have a habit of using your social posting against you. What was the point of your post? You seem to have gone off on a tangent with no relation to the topic.

 

[Fern]

(Reuters) - A misfired email from a U.S. Internal Revenue Service employee in Cincinnati in July 2010 alerted a broad group of Washington IRS officials to the heightened scrutiny being given conservative groups, according to an interview the IRS worker gave congressional investigators.

"Everybody in D.C. got it by mistake," Hofacre said in the transcripts. She later clarified that she did not mean all officials but those in the IRS Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements unit.

Lois Lerner, the IRS official who set off the controversy, said she first learned of the "be on the lookout list" (BOLO) of partisan terms in June 2011, and ordered the criteria be removed immediately. The Treasury inspector general backed that up.

Neither Hofacre, nor a second IRS worker in Cincinnati, Gary Muthert, knew who asked for the partisan names to be added to the BOLO list in the first place, the transcripts showed.

Still, Muthert said that when his supervisor in Cincinnati initially asked him to look for "Tea Party" applications, "he told me Washington, D.C., wanted some cases," according to his interview with congressional investigators.

The interviews were among the first conducted by lawyers at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives since the scandal broke on May 10. Two more interviews with other IRS employees were set for this week.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-irs-scrutiny-idUSBRE95605X20130607

Seems to me that it would be in the IRS's best interest to get out in front of this thing instead of letting this info come out over an extended period of time.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Of course you would say that. Anything you don't have to question that you agree with you blissfully follow along.

Other people on the other hand like to be critical and see the whole picture and what's behind it, even if the message is something they would otherwise agree with.

In other words, you want to know who is saying it before you know whether you agree with it - and you find this somehow not only reasonable but actually laudable. Hey, at least your brain will be nice and fresh, not ever having had to actually use it.

Those of us who operate with principles are able to evaluate a policy without knowing who is putting it forth.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-usa-irs-scrutiny-idUSBRE95605X20130607

Seems to me that it would be in the IRS's best interest to get out in front of this thing instead of letting this info come out over an extended period of time.

Fern

Nah. One big dump would likely rise to a demand for firings if not prosecutions. The D.C. way is to drag things out as long as possibly, so each new revelation is not THAT much worse than the last and the last is "old news". Pretty soon fatigue sets in and people become numb. This is how Clinton managed to turn nailing an intern and then committing perjury from everyone "knowing" that if the allegations were true he was gone by Monday to everybody knowing it was no big deal. I guarantee there is no one in Washington on either (or no) side who failed to learn that lesson.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you can guarantee that the extreme-left will not harass those who get involved politically, then I, and I suspect others, am more likely to agree to more open political process. But that is not the case. Supporting political causes, regardless of the cause, results in harassment to many individuals.

When I see a political ad on television, I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that it is the Chinese government funding the ad, if you ever wanted to see an example of a straw man argument, there it is. Is there a history of the Chinese government funding ads?

ivwshane: post your real name and your real address in your signature to go along with every post of yours. Why do you hide behind a username? I've already had one user of this forum unsuccessfully attempt, but attempt he did, to harass me outside of this forum for posts I make. It was one of the users who joined the forum solely to be a loud voice over in the Martin/Zimmerman thread. And I know he was targeting a range of other people to, occasionally slipping up and commenting about finding info out about users from their facebook pages.

It happens. There is a reason why we all try to be anonymous here. There is a reason why legitimate political donors want to be anonymous.

What extreme left? The one in your imagination?

It's one thing to post anonymously on the internet, entirely another to pay other people to do it for you, or pay political groups to disseminate your message as if you had nothing to do with it. When it comes to paid political speech, it's entirely reasonable to know who's really paying. It's not like Teahadist funders have been shy about their own views, at all, so claims of anonymity don't really apply, other than as a means to create a smokescreen for astroturfing.

How the Hell do you harass a billionaire, anyway?

 

[monovillage]

What extreme left? The one in your imagination?

It's one thing to post anonymously on the internet, entirely another to pay other people to do it for you, or pay political groups to disseminate your message as if you had nothing to do with it. When it comes to paid political speech, it's entirely reasonable to know who's really paying. It's not like Teahadist funders have been shy about their own views, at all, so claims of anonymity don't really apply, other than as a means to create a smokescreen for astroturfing.

How the Hell do you harass a billionaire, anyway?

He's talking about the extreme left that are using the IRS to politically punish, damage and persecute their political enemies. As always though a lying piece of garbage like yourself tries to deny the illegal and immoral use of the Federal government for overt political gains.

 

[ivwshane]

He's talking about the extreme left that are using the IRS to politically punish, damage and persecute their political enemies. As always though a lying piece of garbage like yourself tries to deny the illegal and immoral use of the Federal government for overt political gains.

You mean some employees who weren't doing their job properly? I also challenge you to prove any of the guilty offenders to be extreme left.

We will wait for your response.

Lol

 

[ivwshane]

In other words, you want to know who is saying it before you know whether you agree with it - and you find this somehow not only reasonable but actually laudable. Hey, at least your brain will be nice and fresh, not ever having had to actually use it.

Those of us who operate with principles are able to evaluate a policy without knowing who is putting it forth.

Lol nice use of a false choice fallacy. You see, I'm capable of listening to a message AND evaluating the source. People make true statements all the time, the problem is when the truth is taken out of context or misconstrued, knowing the source allows me to easily see or search for that info.

But, by all means, continue believing messages you see and agree with as 100% truth because it agrees with your thinking.


I don't know what's happened to you in the last month but your level of nuttery has reached new heights.

 

[monovillage]

You mean some employees who weren't doing their job properly? I also challenge you to prove any of the guilty offenders to be extreme left.

We will wait for your response.

Lol

Why don't you wait instead for a Special Prosecutor? That's what i'm waiting for.

 

[ivwshane]

Why don't you wait instead for a Special Prosecutor? That's what i'm waiting for.

Oh my bad, I didn't realize you were waiting when you wrote this;

Quote:
Originally Posted by monovillage
He's talking about the extreme left that are using the IRS to politically punish, damage and persecute their political enemies. As always though a lying piece of garbage like yourself tries to deny the illegal and immoral use of the Federal government for overt political gains.

 

[monovillage]

Oh my bad, I didn't realize you were waiting when you wrote this;

The IRS has already confessed to some of that and it's mentioned or linked in this thread, the IG has also commented on some of this and it's also linked in this thread and finally there is some Congressional testimony, under oath, also linked in this thread that supports and confirms it. How about you read the thread and try to stop lying and spinning what is a nasty situation in Washington.

 

[ivwshane]

The IRS has already confessed to some of that and it's mentioned or linked in this thread, the IG has also commented on some of this and it's also linked in this thread and finally there is some Congressional testimony, under oath, also linked in this thread that supports and confirms it. How about you read the thread and try to stop lying and spinning what is a nasty situation in Washington.

Oh my bad again, I didn't realize that the investigation already determined that the people who did this were members of the extreme left wing like you said.


Lol, I should stop making statements I've never made/s

 

[Jhhnn]

He's talking about the extreme left that are using the IRS to politically punish, damage and persecute their political enemies. As always though a lying piece of garbage like yourself tries to deny the illegal and immoral use of the Federal government for overt political gains.

Heh. The extreme left? Has the IRS called for the dictatorship of the proletariat? Collectivization?

You have no idea what the terms you use actually mean- you just want to vilify anybody not of the right-wing fringe-whack faithful, the adherents of Teahad.

Repeated challenges have been issued to provide evidence (not innuendo) that this goes any higher than the Cincinnati office. None has been forthcoming, which means there probably isn't any.

It's the same story as all of Issa's past pandering to the paranoid fringe- he's the modern equivalent of Smokin' Joe McCarthy.

 

[Incorruptible]

Heh. The extreme left? Has the IRS called for the dictatorship of the proletariat? Collectivization?

You have no idea what the terms you use actually mean- you just want to vilify anybody not of the right-wing fringe-whack faithful, the adherents of Teahad.

Repeated challenges have been issued to provide evidence (not innuendo) that this goes any higher than the Cincinnati office. None has been forthcoming, which means there probably isn't any.

It's the same story as all of Issa's past pandering to the paranoid fringe- he's the modern equivalent of Smokin' Joe McCarthy.

It's the resident jihadist defending the irs.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's the resident jihadist defending the irs.

Heh. Quote me where I defended the Cincinnati office of the IRS.

I thought you were going to put up or shut up. So far, you've done neither, and likely never will.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yet this will not have any impact in the way the IRS treats taxpayers.