Exploding IRS scandal.

[dank69]

Why on Earth would anyone on the left have to tell me their position? It's always the same: We are morally correct no matter what we do.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts now that a Republican has admitted his involvement in the scandal.

 

[monovillage]

I haven't seen any evidence that the IRS did anything wrong.. these groups were and are more likely to push politics against the rules of the tax exempt status.

You are the enemy.

You are pretty typical of the Authoritarian Left that post in this forum that believe any illegal action that's taken by the Democrats is justifiable. We even have a regular poster that tries to portray the Tea Party as some sort of terrorist group and anything the Obama administration does, no matter how illegal, is perfectly OK in his book.

 

[Incorruptible]

Despite your usual state of oblivion, it's already happening. ~ 45,000 people are estimated to die every year because they lack health insurance-

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...hey-lack-insurance----heres-why-hes-wrong.php

Of course, if it's what Mitt believes, it couldn't possibly be wrong, could it?

I don't support mitt you idiot.

 

[monovillage]

Despite your usual state of oblivion, it's already happening. ~ 45,000 people are estimated to die every year because they lack health insurance-

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...hey-lack-insurance----heres-why-hes-wrong.php

Of course, if it's what Mitt believes, it couldn't possibly be wrong, could it?

So if I support lower taxes you consider me complicit in the death of 45,000 people every year ?

 

[Incorruptible]

So if I support lower taxes you consider me complicit in the death of 45,000 people every year ?

You're dealing with an extremist who believes that his side can never be wrong. Don't be surprised if he calls you a "teahadist"

 

[bshole]

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts now that a Republican has admitted his involvement in the scandal.

LOL.

It is very telling that the Democrats are now on record as saying they will release the full transcripts if Issa will not. Why is Issa dragging his feet in releasing the full transcripts? Why are the Democrats anxious to get the full transcripts released? Pretty easy to see whom the transcripts and the evidence favour.

Democratic committee staff say none of the interviews revealed any sort of politically coordinated effort by the White House to target tea party groups. In the absence of the full transcripts, we only have their word to go on, but Cummings says he will release the full transcripts if Issa does not. And based on the partial transcripts released so far, it's pretty clear why Mr. Grand Theft Auto didn't want to release the full story.

 

[werepossum]

Well then, this whole thread is kind of pointless then isn't it?

In other news and this is very juicy....

So it apears that we were both right.... OBAMA not involved. However, it is funny to see a Republican going into scandal gin mode called out on it.

So far there's no evidence that Obama is involved. However, the thread is to discuss the scandal. Given that this is probably the worst purely political scandal since Watergate, it's certainly worth discussing whether or not Obama is involved.

Because you can't be expected to be taken seriously if you make up a position that doesn't exist for a group of people(the left) that doesn't exist.

Quoted for laughs.

There's a saying that the most effective thing Satan ever did was to convince people he did not exist. Satan's a lot brighter than you guys; I don't think you'll ever be able tp pull off the same trick.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts now that a Republican has admitted his involvement in the scandal.

My first thought is that this is a "Conservative Republican" in the same vein as Andrew Sullivan, i.e. only in name because it makes a good perch to attack Conservative Republicans. Given that Tea Party groups have clean noses whereas left wing groups like ACORN have multiple criminal convictions plus many agreements to avoid prosecution, the concept of an IRS official singling out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny whilst green lighting the baby ACORNs seems much more in line with a leftist lying about being a Conservative Republican than an actual Conservative Republican.

 

[fskimospy]

Guys, werepossum is totally rational and reasonable, can't you see?

If you think he's mischaracterizing your position that's because you're engaging in a conspiracy to trick people about your beliefs.

If the guy at the IRS behind this was a self-identified conservative Republican he's actually a secret liberal conspiring to trick people about his beliefs.

It's all suddenly so clear, if things aren't as werepossum thinks, it's all because of the secret liberal conspiracy.

 

[OutHouse]

What was the longest wait these groups has to wait?

3 years?

A Texas group dedicated to combatting voter fraud applied for tax-exempt status in 2010 and has suffered three years of delays, been through four different IRS agents, undergone six FBI inquiries and submitted thousands of pages of documentation — and it still hasn’t been approved.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-fraud-among-those-waiting-on-/#ixzz2VpoTRLXR
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

but if you are liberal group, you get the express line.

the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

 

[werepossum]

Guys, werepossum is totally rational and reasonable, can't you see?

If you think he's mischaracterizing your position that's because you're engaging in a conspiracy to trick people about your beliefs.

If the guy at the IRS behind this was a self-identified conservative Republican he's actually a secret liberal conspiring to trick people about his beliefs.

It's all suddenly so clear, if things aren't as werepossum thinks, it's all because of the secret liberal conspiracy.

Okay, how about this?

I am a progressive Democrat. However, even I can see that Obama is bad for America and everything he does is wrong. And even as a progressive Democrat, I understand that groups like ACORN and its derivatives need to be held out for extra scrutiny before approving their applications for not-for-profit status.

/progressive ethics

Bottom line, calling oneself a conservative Republican is pretty cheap. If one's actions are diametrically opposed to what one would expect from a conservative Republican, then a prudent person is suspicious.

 

[werepossum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane
What was the longest wait these groups has to wait?
3 years?

A Texas group dedicated to combatting voter fraud applied for tax-exempt status in 2010 and has suffered three years of delays, been through four different IRS agents, undergone six FBI inquiries and submitted thousands of pages of documentation — and it still hasn’t been approved.

Here we have a group dedicated to combatting voter fraud not yet approved after three years, while the baby ACORNS, descended from and headed by people from organizations with convictions for voter fraud, had no such delays. But it's okay because one of the IRS guys assures us he's a conservative Republican.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, how about this?

I am a progressive Democrat. However, even I can see that Obama is bad for America and everything he does is wrong. And even as a progressive Democrat, I understand that groups like ACORN and its derivatives need to be held out for extra scrutiny before approving their applications for not-for-profit status.

/progressive ethics

Bottom line, calling oneself a conservative Republican is pretty cheap. If one's actions are diametrically opposed to what one would expect from a conservative Republican, then a prudent person is suspicious.

Yeah because writing something on the internet is the same as lying to a congressional committee.

Ridiculous.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah because writing something on the internet is the same as lying to a congressional committee.

Ridiculous.

Lying to a congressional committee about political affiliation in an attempt to avoid being held responsible for using the IRS as a political tool seems like a wise risk to me. Does anyone really imagine that this man's risk of prison or dismissal for falsely claiming to be a conservative Republican (assuming he is lying - which I do) is in any way comparable to his risk of prison or dismissal for using the IRS as a political tool?

 

[fskimospy]

Lying to a congressional committee about political affiliation in an attempt to avoid being held responsible for using the IRS as a political tool seems like a wise risk to me. Does anyone really imagine that this man's risk of prison or dismissal for falsely claiming to be a conservative Republican (assuming he is lying - which I do) is in any way comparable to his risk of prison or dismissal for using the IRS as a political tool?

Except of course what party you're registered with is public data, so that's an incredibly easily disproven lie. Not only that, but him being a Democrat (as many IRS employees are) wouldn't prove or disprove anything. Let me guess though, if he's registered as a Republican that just means has he been planning this evil plot for years now? Of course you assume he's lying, this is information that threatens your world view of an evil librul conspiracy. Inconvenient information must be dismissed at all costs.

 

[werepossum]

Except of course what party you're registered with is public data, so that's an incredibly easily disproven lie. Not only that, but him being a Democrat (as many IRS employees are) wouldn't prove or disprove anything. Let me guess though, if he's registered as a Republican that just means has he been planning this evil plot for years now? Of course you assume he's lying, this is information that threatens your world view of an evil librul conspiracy. Inconvenient information must be dismissed at all costs.

If he's been registered as a Republican for the past few election cycles then I'll accept him as a Republican. I will not however accept him as a conservative because one of the bedrock principles of conservatism is equality under the law and this man helped make a mockery of that.

 

[Incorruptible]

It turns out that the wife of doug schulman is a FAR LEFT EXTREMIST.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/06/03/doug-shulmans-highly-partisan-wife-n1611860

 

[werepossum]

From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_Tea_Party_investigation

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[34] These words were generally associated with the political right in the US, an ideological screen. In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.
The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in at least Cincinnati, Ohio; El Monte, California; Laguna Niguel, California; and Washington, D.C.[35] applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:[36][37][38]
referenced words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" in the case file;
outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";
had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare;
questioned the integrity of federal elections.
Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[40] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[40][41] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[39])
Media Trackers, a conservative organization, applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status, and received no response after waiting 16 months. When the organization's founder, Drew Ryun, applied for permanent tax-exempt status for an existing tax-exempt organization with what he said was a "liberal-sounding name" ("Greenhouse Solutions"), that application was approved in three weeks. Ryun has stated he believes that Greenhouse Solutions benefited from its name (although the quick approval might also be due to the fact that Greenhouse Solutions was already operating as a nonprofit and was already on-file with the IRS.)[42] Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of conservative group True the Vote, filed a lawsuit claiming that her organization's tax-exempt status was unfairly delayed for three years, and alleging that she and her family's small manufacturing business were targeted for retaliatory investigations by the IRS, OSHA, the ATF, and the FBI.[43][44][45]
The Washington Post reported that an IRS watchdog report found that some IRS employees were, in the words of the Post, “ignorant about tax laws, defiant of their supervisors and blind to the appearance of impropriety.”[46]
An investigation by the New York Times reported that several organizations targeted for scrutiny by the IRS engaged in activities that could be construed as political. The Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application was delayed in excess of two years, sent emails to their members regarding Mitt Romney presidential campaign events and handed out Romney "door hangers" while canvassing neighborhoods. Former IRS officials and tax experts say this type of behavior would provide a "legitimate basis" for additional scrutiny. Ohio State University law professor Donald Tobin said: "While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”[47]
On June 9, 2013, Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) released portions of an interview transcript wherein an anonymous IRS manager who described himself as a "conservative Republican", told Congressional investigators that it was he who had initiated the targeted reviews, without any involvement from the White House, and that the extra scrutiny was not politically motivated. Cummings asserted that the "case was solved", and it was time to move on.[48][49][50] In an appearance on CNN's State of the Union, Cummings said, "Based upon everything I've seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on".[48] Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) responded in a statement, "The testimony excerpts Ranking Member Cummings revealed today did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts. The only thing Ranking Member Cummings left clear in his comments today is that if it were up to him the investigation would be closed."[49]
Examples of questions from the IRS
Some flagged organizations were required to provide further documentation that Rep. Bill Flores called "overreaching and impossible to comply with."[51] Documentation requested varied among different groups but, in some cases, included copies of “any contracts” or “training material” the groups may have exchanged with Koch foundations.[52] Some organizations were asked what books their members were reading, as well as what they had posted on social networking websites, according to Politico.[53] Organizations were informed that if they did not provide the information sought, they would not be certified as tax-exempt.
The Coalition for Life of Iowa, a pro-life group, was asked to "Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3). Organizations exempt under 501(c)(3) may present opinions with scientific or medical facts. Please explain in detail the activities at these prayer meetings. Also, please provide the percentage of time your group spends on prayer groups as compared with other activities of the organization."[54]
Another question asked of some unidentified applicants was:
Provide the following information for the income you received and raised for the years from inception to the present. Also, provide the same information for the income you expect to receive and raise for 2012, 2013, and 2014.
a. Donations, contributions, and grant income for each year, which includes the following information:
1. The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. If the donor, contributor, or grantor has run or will run for a public office, identify the office. If not, please confirm by answering this question “No.”
2. The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.
3. How did you use these donations, contributions, and grants? Provide the details. If you did not receive or do not expect to receive any donation, contribution, and grant income, please confirm by answering “None received” and/or “None expected.”[8]
The Tennessee organization Linchpins of Liberty, which mentored high school and college students, was asked the following:
23. Has any person or organization provided educational services to you? If yes, provide the following:
a) The name of the person or organization.
b) A full description of the services provided.
c) The political affiliation of the person or organization.
24. Provide all details regarding training you have provided or will provide. Indicate who has received or will receive the training and provide copies of the training material.[55]
Another unidentified applicant was asked to "Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your Blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you.”[56]
Allegations of document leaks

The National Organization for Marriage has alleged that the IRS intentionally leaked its 2008 tax return, including donor lists — an act prohibited by federal law.[57][58] In a lawsuit filed on May 15, 2013, NOM alleged that, in the words of chairman John C. Eastman, "This wasn't a low-level error in judgment; it was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent."[59][60] However, former NOM chairwoman Maggie Gallagher stated on May 10, 2013 that an IRS employee had been duped into releasing the documents by someone who fraudulently claimed to work for NOM.[61]
During the period in which the applications were being scrutinized, the Cincinnati office of the IRS violated policy by releasing nine confidential pending applications from conservative groups to ProPublica, an investigative reporting organization.[10] ProPublica had made a records request to the office seeking only completed applications, which are public information.
Gift tax enforcement

In 2011, audit letters were sent to five donors to a now-defunct conservative 501(c)4 group, Freedom's Watch, which were involved in the 2008 election cycle.[citation needed] The goal of the audit was to assess whether or not gift taxes needed to be paid on these donors' donations to Freedom's Watch.[62] The Congressional Research Service said that the audit was legally well-founded, as tax law exempts only 501(c)(3) and 527 groups from gift taxes.[63] However, Ari Fleischer, a board member of the group, alleged that the group was being singled out.[62] According to tax experts, the IRS had not been enforcing that law, but tax lawyers had advised their clients that they might owe the tax, leading to a situation where some paid and some didn't.[63] The audit appeared to indicate a new emphasis on enforcing the law, but political opposition from Republicans in Congress led to the IRS dropping the audit and publicly announcing that it would not levy gift taxes on contributions to 501(c)4 groups.[63][62] Inspector General J. Russell George's report recommended that the IRS create clearer rules and conduct more training for employees on 501(c)4 issues, including gift tax exemptions.[63]

We're being asked to believe that this anonymous IRS manager who is really responsible for all this is a conservative Republican who just coincidentally held up conservative group applications for years while green lighting proggie group applications in a few weeks, and who just coincidentally leaked tax returns, applications & donor lists to a prominent pro-Obama proggie group, and who just coincidentally targeted gift tax audits of donors to the 501(c)(4) groups being held up (although these gift tax levies were quickly dropped when Congressional Republicans learned about them.)

Proggies, we know you think feel that you are incredibly intelligent and everyone who disagrees with you is incredibly stupid, but even you guys can do better than this.

 

[fskimospy]

From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_Tea_Party_investigation

We're being asked to believe that this anonymous IRS manager who is really responsible for all this is a conservative Republican who just coincidentally held up conservative group applications for years while green lighting proggie group applications in a few weeks, and who just coincidentally leaked tax returns, applications & donor lists to a prominent pro-Obama proggie group, and who just coincidentally targeted gift tax audits of donors to the 501(c)(4) groups being held up (although these gift tax levies were quickly dropped when Congressional Republicans learned about them.)

Proggies, we know you think feel that you are incredibly intelligent and everyone who disagrees with you is incredibly stupid, but even you guys can do better than this.

You realize that when you quote something that someone might read it, right?

The manager who said he was responsible for the increased scrutiny claims to be a conservative Republican and the 'liberal' group who was greenlighted quickly was already on file with the IRS. That is the only area of your massive block quote that deals with him.

There is no mention in your quote that he was the person responsible for leaking that information and there is no mention in your quote that he was responsible for NOM's audit, and anyway that audit was found to have good basis by the CRS. If anything that shows political meddling by Republicans to reward allied organizations.

Like I said before, inconvenient information must be avoided at all costs. You're already whipping yourself up into a lather about how it all must be LIES LIES LIES because this threatens your delusional persecution complex. Don't worry, I have limitless faith in your ability to delude yourself. If you weren't being picked on, what would you have?

 

[werepossum]

You realize that when you quote something that someone might read it, right?

The manager who said he was responsible for the increased scrutiny claims to be a conservative Republican and the 'liberal' group who was greenlighted quickly was already on file with the IRS. That is the only area of your massive block quote that deals with him.

There is no mention in your quote that he was the person responsible for leaking that information and there is no mention in your quote that he was responsible for NOM's audit, and anyway that audit was found to have good basis by the CRS. If anything that shows political meddling by Republicans to reward allied organizations.

Like I said before, inconvenient information must be avoided at all costs. You're already whipping yourself up into a lather about how it all must be LIES LIES LIES because this threatens your delusional persecution complex. Don't worry, I have limitless faith in your ability to delude yourself. If you weren't being picked on, what would you have?

So we may be dealing with several anonymous conservative Republican IRS managers here. One anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to make sure conservative groups can't get not-for-profit status, one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to leak applications to proggie groups, one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to order audits and levy gift taxes on conservative Republican donors, and one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to declare they are good audits. Gotcha. Hey, maybe there's another anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager who drops the audits on groups like Freedom's Watch after they've been driven out of operations. And let's not forget the anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager Treasury Inspector General who failed to notify Congress of the investigation as required by law - by pure coincidence, before the election in 2012.

And let us not forget conservative Republican Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, who said, "Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets. With the recent push to grant federal agencies broad new powers to mandate donor disclosure for advocacy groups on both the left and the right, there must be clear checks in place to prevent this from ever happening again."

Or conservative Republican U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) who said, "We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable."

How dare all these conservative Republicans threaten our Constitution by targeting conservative Republican groups and donors!

Dumb ass.

 

[fskimospy]

So we may be dealing with several anonymous conservative Republican IRS managers here. One anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to make sure conservative groups can't get not-for-profit status, one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to leak applications to proggie groups, one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to order audits and levy gift taxes on conservative Republican donors, and one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to declare they are good audits. Gotcha. Hey, maybe there's another anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager who drops the audits on groups like Freedom's Watch after they've been driven out of operations. And let's not forget the anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager Treasury Inspector General who failed to notify Congress of the investigation as required by law - by pure coincidence, before the election in 2012.

And let us not forget conservative Republican Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, who said, "Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets. With the recent push to grant federal agencies broad new powers to mandate donor disclosure for advocacy groups on both the left and the right, there must be clear checks in place to prevent this from ever happening again."

Or conservative Republican U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) who said, "We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable."

How dare all these conservative Republicans threaten our Constitution by targeting conservative Republican groups and donors!

Dumb ass.

This is what I meant when I said 'whipping yourself up into a lather'. Now that one part of your persecution complex looks to have been unfounded you're trying to discredit that portion of it by inexplicably relating it to other issues instead of actually taking that information in and adjusting your understanding.

Like I said, inconvenient information must be dismissed at all costs. The fact that you go on about how you can rationally evaluate the world while freaking out like this is pretty telling.

 

[ivwshane]

So we may be dealing with several anonymous conservative Republican IRS managers here. One anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to make sure conservative groups can't get not-for-profit status, one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to leak applications to proggie groups, one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to order audits and levy gift taxes on conservative Republican donors, and one anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager to declare they are good audits. Gotcha. Hey, maybe there's another anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager who drops the audits on groups like Freedom's Watch after they've been driven out of operations. And let's not forget the anonymous conservative Republican IRS manager Treasury Inspector General who failed to notify Congress of the investigation as required by law - by pure coincidence, before the election in 2012.

And let us not forget conservative Republican Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, who said, "Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets. With the recent push to grant federal agencies broad new powers to mandate donor disclosure for advocacy groups on both the left and the right, there must be clear checks in place to prevent this from ever happening again."

Or conservative Republican U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) who said, "We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable."

How dare all these conservative Republicans threaten our Constitution by targeting conservative Republican groups and donors!

Dumb ass.

Just curious, did those democrats make those statements on the requirement that the truth be found first or did they ask for people to be fired with no investigation?
Basically what was the full context of the quotes?



On a more personal level: When you start seeing the information from your right wing sites be disproven over and over again will you start to question the validity of said sites? When your conspiracies are disproven time and time again, will you start to question your sanity or will you just create a new reality to explain away everything?

Of course you think you are right and can't be fooled so my question is what if you aren't right? How will you address the above?

I'll answer the question as well so you can see that I am being serious. Of course I think I am right and I can't be fooled either but, if I'm wrong and proven wrong over and over again, I will have to do some serious soul searching and I will have to question my views and the data they are based on, I would also have to look for new sources for my information as it would appear my old sources betrayed me.

I await your response.

 

[monovillage]

Except for one thing Eskimo, everyone in this forum knows you're a fucking liar, a partisan Democrat that would do or say anything in an attempt to divert attention away from your party. So keep on spinning because no one believes you.

 

[fskimospy]

Except for one thing Eskimo, everyone in this forum knows you're a fucking liar, a partisan Democrat that would do or say anything in an attempt to divert attention away from your party. So keep on spinning because no one believes you.

lol.

 

[Incorruptible]

Except for one thing Eskimo, everyone in this forum knows you're a fucking liar, a partisan Democrat that would do or say anything in an attempt to divert attention away from your party. So keep on spinning because no one believes you.

Unfortunately there are many more like him on this forum.

 

[ivwshane]

lol.

You gotta love when they counter your points with facts!

No really you gotta love it, it rarely happens and when it does it must be like stepping out into a sunny day moment.

The funny thing is that you could just start talking out of your ass like they do and counter their conspiracies with your own conspiracies and their responses would be exactly the same!


If science could replicate the material their bubble is made out of it would be the greatest invention in history! Think about it, it would be as light as air, transparent, and impenetrable!