• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Exploding IRS scandal.

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bshole said:
Doc,

I think you are misunderstanding something. From the Huff article:
Click to expand...

No BullShithole, you're the one that's trying to put words in other posters mouths. The Democrats, including most of the leftist posters here have been insisting that this is an isolated incident caused by low level employees. This testimony under oath blows those lies out of the water. It was directed from IRS offices by high level officials in Washington DC and isn't from the local Cincinnati office.
 
bshole said:
Doc,

I think you are misunderstanding something. From the Huff article:
Click to expand...
I think everyone understands this. Personally I'd be surprised if Obama were personally involved; although he clearly benefits from the practice, directing such an operation would be an impeachable offense second only to Watergate in post-war politics. Even the Democrats would practically have to remove him were he found to be behind this. I seriously doubt that even a discardable White House operative will be found to be behind it. The benefits versus political damage even with plausible deniability are just too great.

Instead we have a White House who set the tone and almost certainly knew it was going on, but who acted promptly and properly when it was officially brought to their attention. Thus, it's certainly a scandal within the IRS, but not a scandal for the White House unless collusion can be shown. Even White House knowledge before officially being informed wouldn't really be a scandal unless one can show that the White House knew the depth of the operation (which I think is unlikely) because "Tea Party groups are being held up in obtaining not-for-profit status" isn't necessarily actionable information. Until the depth of the operation became apparent, such knowledge was easily dismissed as being typical D.C. bitching or an artifact of the proliferation of such groups.
 
ivwshane said:
When an idiot calls me an idiot I don't really take much credence in it.
Click to expand...
Let's get to the root of this...maybe I'm missing something here...on what basis do you call me an idiot and willfully ignorant?

Here's your big chance to showcase the true depth of your intelligence.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Let's get to the root of this...maybe I'm missing something here...on what basis do you call me an idiot and willfully ignorant?

Here's your big chance to showcase the true depth of your intelligence.
Click to expand...

How about you showcase the true depth of your intelligence and answer the question I asked you first; what's the scandal?

Feel free to answer that because apparently you think I misunderstood you, so here is your chance to clarify yourself.
 
ivwshane said:
Lol!

Thanks I was completely unaware of what the issue was, thanks for providing me a link that summarized the issue. /s

Is a scandal still a scandal when nothing is found to be scandalous?


I'll ask you again, what's the scandal?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could ask whomever puts on your helmet for you when you go outside to explain it to you. I doubt anyone else has the patience.
 
werepossum said:
Perhaps you could ask whomever puts on your helmet for you when you go outside to explain it to you. I doubt anyone else has the patience.
Click to expand...

scandal[ skan-dl ]
noun
1.*a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2.*an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
3.*damage to reputation; public disgrace.

Feel free to show me more than just allegations otherwise I will assume you have nothing else.

A scandal without evidence is nothing but allegations.
 
ivwshane said:
scandal[ skan-dl ]
noun
1.*a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
2.*an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
3.*damage to reputation; public disgrace.

Feel free to show me more than just allegations otherwise I will assume you have nothing else.

A scandal without evidence is nothing but allegations.
Click to expand...

Oh, FFS the IG has already ruled the IRS guilty of 3 areas of misdeeds.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Oh, FFS the IG has already ruled the IRS guilty of 3 areas of misdeeds.

Fern
Click to expand...

You mean a few individuals were found to have violated IRS policy. So the scandal is a few employees, acting on their own didn't adhere to company policy?

So then you agree that the OP's original post was total BS?

We’re now hearing from real people (see here and here) who are telling real stories about real harassment. It’s all quite chilling, from efforts to intimidate donors and illegally releasing tax returns, to pressuring pro-life groups not to protest outside of Planned Parenthood organizations, to demanding to know about the prayer activities of citizens.

This kind of abuse of power, used in this manner, is something I can’t recall having seen in my three decades in politics. And the Obama administration’s first line of defense, which is that this was being conducted by rogue elements within the IRS, is collapsing. It’s clear that the intimidation tactics were widespread, coordinated and not confined to a few mid-level bureaucrats.

We’re still in the early stages of this scandal, but it seems obvious to me that it will do substantial and sustained political damage. The fact that the president, his top lieutenants and Senate Democrats set the tone for what has occurred–that they created and encouraged a culture of intimidation–is clear evidence that this scandal reaches far beyond the IRS. That happened to be the agency tasked with executing the acts of intimidation. But the inspiration for the abuse of power came from other, political quarters. We’ll simply need to follow the various leads to see where this all ends up. I’m still not sure if people fully realize just how massive this scandal is. But before it’s over, they will.
Click to expand...



I fully expect you guys to move the goal posts, that's your MO after all.
 
ivwshane said:
You mean a few individuals were found to have violated IRS policy. So the scandal is a few employees, acting on their own didn't adhere to company policy?
-snip-
Click to expand...

No. The 'investigation' concerned the IRS Exempt Organization group(s). The IG did not attempt to lay blame on specific individuals from what I can see. Understand that the IG did an 'audit' of the IRS EO group(s), not an investigation. An audit looks at the organization as a whole and does not include the procedures used in an investigation. I believe only in an investigation would you would have findings against specific individuals within the IRS.

Fern
 
ivwshane said:
-snip-
I fully expect you guys to move the goal posts, that's your MO after all.
Click to expand...

I assume you are referring to the parts you bolded?

And the Obama administration’s first line of defense, which is that this was being conducted by rogue elements within the IRS, is collapsing. It’s clear that the intimidation tactics were widespread, coordinated and not confined to a few mid-level bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with the above. In facts it's not even debatable. My only question would be how someone defines "mid-level bureaucrats". I believe that is subjective.

The fact that the president, his top lieutenants and Senate Democrats set the tone for what has occurred–that they created and encouraged a culture of intimidation–is clear evidence that this scandal reaches far beyond the IRS.
Click to expand...

It is true that Obama personally blasted the TEA Party. Therefor it is reasonable to claim he "set the tone" etc.

Several Democratic Congresspersons sent letters to the IRS about the TEA Party groups and exempt status. Therefor it is reasonable to claim they "set the tone" etc.

As far as what is "clear evidence" that is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective term you may or may not agree with.

Fern
 
Fern said:
I assume you are referring to the parts you bolded?



I generally agree with the above. In facts it's not even debatable. My only question would be how someone defines "mid-level bureaucrats". I believe that is subjective.



It is true that Obama personally blasted the TEA Party. Therefor it is reasonable to claim he "set the tone" etc.

Several Democratic Congresspersons sent letters to the IRS about the TEA Party groups and exempt status. Therefor it is reasonable to claim they "set the tone" etc.

As far as what is "clear evidence" that is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective term you may or may not agree with.

Fern
Click to expand...

Lol, I'll take any evidence at this point, do you have any?
 
ivwshane said:
Oh really? There is evidence the White House was involved? There is evidence the IRS was targeting tea party groups for political purposes?

Lol, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that scumbag liar Issa couldn't keep cherry-picking from interviews for the next few months while refusing to release the full transcripts. He could have fueled irresponsible speculation and allegations for months.

Elijah Cummings completely ruined EVERYTHING. 🙁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top