IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[Jhhnn]

The liberal brain defect in all its splendor.

And now, completing the circle, retreat into smug denial as your conditioning dictates.

It's the only way to alleviate cognitive dissonance while maintaining your belief structure, exactly as the propagandists you believe intended.

 

[Jhhnn]

The real question in my mind is why so many of you are so eager to help a few financial elites, the 0.001%'ers, subvert democracy. Democracy is one man, one vote. One dollar, one vote, on the other hand, is plutocracy.

It's just a different way to buy an election- more subtle & actually more effective, imho.

The payoff isn't in cash, but rather in smug self satisfaction & what appears to be feeding an emotional addiction to judgmental-ism. Adulation of Wealth is obviously part of it.

 

[TerryMathews]

No. You clearly do not know what "right" means. You are merely stating it is not illegal, which is exactly the point of contention.



There is also no explicit right to privacy. It has been inferred by the courts from other, enumerated rights. Further, privacy can be reasonably limited, just like other constitutional rights. Oh, and for the record, your argument would also make direct bribery legal (as opposed to the indirect bribery the corrupt court has enabled today).

Last I checked, in the US we have a right to do anything that isn't prohibited by law. Care to explain you're thinking on why you believe I don't know what rights are.

Its a good thing you guys are so, otherwise you'd just come off as a bunch of sanctimonious asses.

 

[TerryMathews]

And now, completing the circle, retreat into smug denial as your conditioning dictates.

It's the only way to alleviate cognitive dissonance while maintaining your belief structure, exactly as the propagandists you believe intended.

Better hurry, don't you McOwned and Moonie have a circle jerk scheduled for 3:30?

 

[ivwshane]

Better hurry, don't you McOwned and Moonie have a circle jerk scheduled for 3:30?

I don't know what's worse, a circle jerk or a guy who knows what time one is. I'm guessing you prefer to watch and are a hands off type of guy

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't know what's worse, a circle jerk or a guy who knows what time one is. I'm guessing you prefer to watch and are a hands off type of guy

It's like watching a train wreck. You want to stop, you just can't.

 

[Bowfinger]

Last I checked, in the US we have a right to do anything that isn't prohibited by law. Care to explain you're thinking on why you believe I don't know what rights are.

Its a good thing you guys are so, otherwise you'd just come off as a bunch of sanctimonious asses.

My apologies. I thought you were interested in intelligent discussion for a change. I overestimated you.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's just a different way to buy an election- more subtle & actually more effective, imho.

The payoff isn't in cash, but rather in smug self satisfaction & what appears to be feeding an emotional addiction to judgmental-ism. Adulation of Wealth is obviously part of it.

The sad part is that many of these people embracing corruption by the 0.001% are the same ones who wrap themselves in the American flag, beat their chests, and defiantly declare themselves to be great patriots who love America. It's curious that they claim to love America so much, yet loathe American democracy. One dollar, one vote isn't loving America, it's betraying it.

 

[werepossum]

Why do you consistently advocate for zero or little-to-no accountability policies and responses? That is my question. Perhaps you fear the obvious surface conclusions will be validated? In which case, I also ask: why do you fear that officials are found to be corrupt? It's not like these policies are just being invented and applied to Obama and his appointees unjustly or something; they've been in place for years to prevent and/or investigate instances where the obvious surface conclusion needs validation.

What sense does it make for someone to profess their democratic intentions while simultaneously professing that all of these very non-democratic things should be disregarded and ignored?

Well said.

A good rule of thumb: The other side is a pack of lying, dishonest SOBs. So is your side.

You moron, you're conflating two different things. You do understand ProPublica is NOT the IRS, right? ProPublica sent the IRS a list of groups, a "request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits." ProPublica determined the names on that list using whatever criteria ProPublica found noteworthy. That has absolutely zero to do with how the IRS was independently identifying political groups that might be filing false applications.

Has everything to do with the IRS repeatedly leaking confidential non-public information from multiple conservative groups and only conservative groups.

You have to remember that this is the guy who claimed regulating something was the same as nationalizing it, and when confronted with evidence showing otherwise declared that liberals had edited wikipedia to trick people.

Actually I argued that an actual dictionary is a better judge of the meaning of a word than is wikipedia, on which any moron can post something to which other morons can then point as the truth. (Note that in theory, morons do not necessarily have to be liberals.) Hmm, something about straw . . .

 

[werepossum]

The sad part is that many of these people embracing corruption by the 0.001% are the same ones who wrap themselves in the American flag, beat their chests, and defiantly declare themselves to be great patriots who love America. It's curious that they claim to love America so much, yet loathe American democracy. One dollar, one vote isn't loving America, it's betraying it.

Wow, corruption is now defined as not supporting the IRS adopting different rules for different political allegiances. We've come full circle.

 

[PokerGuy]

You continue to try to shift the goal posts into a different argument. The issues are anonymity in general, and anonymity when contributing to IRS-approved "social welfare" organizations specifically.

No goal post shifting at all. Contributing to social welfare organizations should be anonymous, and a lot of things can fall under "social welfare".

You are perfectly free to print flyers, buy megaphones, etc., for political purposes ... but not anonymously.

Really? So if I print flyers I need to disclose that somewhere? If I buy a megaphone somewhere I need to disclose that somewhere? Why? Why should political speech specifically be singled out to not be anonymous, while other speech can be?

And for the record, I'm perfectly fine with handling this pragmatically. It seems reasonable to me to set a limit, e.g., $500 or $1000, before we start tracking contributions.

Why use some arbitrary amount? It should not be tracked at all.

There's a whole lot of straw and goal-post moving in there. And no, not all influence is created equal.

You approve of organizations that use their influence to support causes you agree with, and you don't approve of those who want to use their money to support things you disagree with so you seek to remove anonymity so they can be appropriately punished into towing the politically correct line. Influence is influence.

 

[PokerGuy]

The issue boils down to this: how is the IRS supposed to follow the law? How are they suppose to ensure an entity is only pushing social issues? Now do it on a budget.

For one thing, you could easily randomly select a certain percentage of applications for further review, and you could create procedures around what that review looks like such that "rogue agents" aren't asking for all sorts of crazy things from those who they politically disagree with. Transparency is key, that way you know the IRS isn't being used as a political attack dog.

Applying scrutiny to one group based on political affiliation is an affront to freedom. All those who participated in such activity should be in jail.

 

[werepossum]

Uh, we know exactly what happened and we have known for quite awhile now.

Back in the 50's congress created a tax exempt option for institutions whose only purpose was to push social issues, it also didnt require those organizations to keep a donor list.

The rest can be found here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...eline-of-irs-tax-exempt-organization-scandal/


The issue boils down to this: how is the IRS supposed to follow the law? How are they suppose to ensure an entity is only pushing social issues? Now do it on a budget.

The IRS tracks well over a million not-for-profits and charities. Attempting to make this a budget issue is laughably weak sauce considering there were certainly no more than three hundred 501(c)(4) applications from conservative groups in the almost three years this was going on.

 

[Jhhnn]

Really? So if I print flyers I need to disclose that somewhere? If I buy a megaphone somewhere I need to disclose that somewhere? Why? Why should political speech specifically be singled out to not be anonymous, while other speech can be?

"You" are not an organization. "You" are not claiming tax exempt status. "You" receive no megabuck donations.

 

[Jhhnn]

Applying scrutiny to one group based on political affiliation is an affront to freedom. All those who participated in such activity should be in jail.

I'll agree with the first part. Lerner obviously does too, or she wouldn't have apologized for IRS conduct in this matter. Quit acting like that didn't happen. The chickenshit factor in that is ridiculous. Here's Obama on the subject from a year ago-

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-head-resigns-obama-condemns-inexcusable-actions/story?id=19187388

The second part? Pffft. Cite the statute. Apparently, there's nothing to satisfy the ravers.

 

[cabri]

All those who participated in such activity should be in jail.

I'll agree with the first part. Lerner obviously does too, or she wouldn't have apologized for IRS conduct in this matter. Quit acting like that didn't happen. The chickenshit factor in that is ridiculous. Here's Obama on the subject from a year ago-

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-head-resigns-obama-condemns-inexcusable-actions/story?id=19187388

The second part? Pffft. Cite the statute. Apparently, there's nothing to satisfy the ravers.

It is illegal (at some level - Presidential excepted) to use Federal funds for political activity.

Should a person at the IRS be filtering for political reasons - that is illegal and should be punished accordingly. that does not indicate a slap on the wrist/censure.


1) It should not have happened.
2) Especially at the IRS
3) Response should be swift, no waffling of justification or searching for a grey area to avoid executing the punishment

 

[fskimospy]

Actually I argued that an actual dictionary is a better judge of the meaning of a word than is wikipedia, on which any moron can post something to which other morons can then point as the truth. (Note that in theory, morons do not necessarily have to be liberals.) Hmm, something about straw . . .

Actually, this is what you argued:

LOL
Step 1: Proggies write convenient definitions on wikipedia, an unregulated anonymous website.
Step 2: Proggies insist those definitions are THE authority.
Step 3: Proggies insist that otherwise recognized authorities on what words mean do not mean what they say whenever these otherwise recognized authorities disagree with wikipedia.
Step 4: Proggies insist that anyone not willing to accept that these otherwise recognized authorities mean something other than what they actually say just doesn't understand.

Your serial dishonesty aside, every article on there comes with a detailed history of all edits done to it and that Wikipedia was found to be approximately as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica in an objective study.

You decided that a one sentence description of a word offered better insight into the meaning of a word than an entire article about it because you thought nefarious people were editing the source. That's ridiculous.

 

[werepossum]

Actually, this is what you argued:

Your serial dishonesty aside, every article on there comes with a detailed history of all edits done to it and that Wikipedia was found to be approximately as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica in an objective study.

You decided that a one sentence description of a word offered better insight into the meaning of a word than an entire article about it because you thought nefarious people were editing the source. That's ridiculous.

Mea culpa. I do tend to use 'moron' and 'proggie' interchangeably. And yes, I do maintain that a respected source like the Encyclopedia Britannica is better than wikipedia, the compilation of "common knowledge".

 

[mrjminer]

Mea culpa. I do tend to use 'moron' and 'proggie' interchangeably. And yes, I do maintain that a respected source like the Encyclopedia Britannica is better than wikipedia, the compilation of "common knowledge".

I am guessing the differences you would find in the two would be on controversial topics, just a guess, though.

I doubt that there would be a significant difference in the representation of historical events, or just statement of facts, but I would agree with you that logic would lend itself to Wikipedia having the potential for inaccurate information or slanted wording on controversial matters.

In my experience, Wikipedia does, at least, do a good job at attempting to be impartial. Political topics almost always have some slightly slanted rhetoric, one way or the other, that goes uncaught, though.

I trust "real" encyclopedias more, but Wikipedia is often adequate.

 

[PokerGuy]

The sad part is that many of these people embracing corruption by the 0.001%

That's baloney. Nobody is embracing corruption, that's just your silly notion that anonymity equals corruption. Sorry, but that's nonsense.

One dollar, one vote isn't loving America, it's betraying it.

Last I checked, nobody gets more than one vote, regardless of dollars. If they want to use their money to have their message heard by the people and have those people act on it as they choose, there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[werepossum]

I am guessing the differences you would find in the two would be on controversial topics, just a guess, though.

I doubt that there would be a significant difference in the representation of historical events, or just statement of facts, but I would agree with you that logic would lend itself to Wikipedia having the potential for inaccurate information or slanted wording on controversial matters.

In my experience, Wikipedia does, at least, do a good job at attempting to be impartial. Political topics almost always have some slightly slanted rhetoric, one way or the other, that goes uncaught, though.

I trust "real" encyclopedias more, but Wikipedia is often adequate.

Probably. Our argument was over whether the Dems seizing control of our health insurance qualifies as "nationalizing" it. I offered dictionaries which showed that usage as one valid meaning among several. Eskimospy insisted that one wikipedia article and only that wikipedia article defined the only allowable meaning of the word - which of course meant that Obamacare was no change at all since roughly half of health insurance already fell under the federal government and thus seizing it all meant nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

Probably. Our argument was over whether the Dems seizing control of our health insurance qualifies as "nationalizing" it. I offered dictionaries which showed that usage as one valid meaning among several. Eskimospy insisted that one wikipedia article and only that wikipedia article defined the only allowable meaning of the word - which of course meant that Obamacare was no change at all since roughly half of health insurance already fell under the federal government and thus seizing it all meant nothing.

Actually you argued that regulating something was the equivalent of nationalizing something. This was obviously absurd. And then of course by 'that link and only that link' you mean that link in addition to ones from economics departments too. I have no doubt that economics departments are part of the liberal conspiracy as well?

That usage is not a valid meaning. Period. What you were doing was attempting to string together multiple definitions incorrectly in order to achieve your desired result. Using your method you can reach conclusions like calling someone inexperienced 'green' that a valid use of that term is that they are the color of the Incredible Hulk. It is a basic misuse of a dictionary.

When confronted with contrary information you declared it all a liberal conspiracy, as usual.

 

[werepossum]

Actually you argued that regulating something was the equivalent of nationalizing something. This was obviously absurd. And then of course by 'that link and only that link' you mean that link in addition to ones from economics departments too. I have no doubt that economics departments are part of the liberal conspiracy as well?

That usage is not a valid meaning. Period. What you were doing was attempting to string together multiple definitions incorrectly in order to achieve your desired result. Using your method you can reach conclusions like calling someone inexperienced 'green' that a valid use of that term is that they are the color of the Incredible Hulk. It is a basic misuse of a dictionary.

When confronted with contrary information you declared it all a liberal conspiracy, as usual.

What I did was offer the same definition from multiple dictionaries, period.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalize

na·tion·al·ize
verb \ˈnash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈna-shə-nə-ˌlīz\

: to cause (something) to be under the control of a national government
na·tion·al·izedna·tion·al·iz·ing
Full Definition of NATIONALIZE
transitive verb
1
: to give a national character to
2
: to invest control or ownership of in the national government

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/nationalize

nationalize
verb [T] /ˈnæʃ·ə·nəlˌɑɪz/
› social studies to bring business, industry, or land under the control or ownership of the government: The program’s huge cost makes it unlikely that Congress will try to nationalize health care in the near future. nationalization /ˌnæʃ·ən·əl·əˈzeɪ·ʃən, -ɑɪˈzeɪ·ʃən/ noun

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nationalize

nationalize
Syllabification: na·tion·al·ize
Pronunciation: /ˈnaSHənəˌlīz

/
verb
[with object]

1Transfer (a major branch of industry or commerce) from private to state ownership or control.
More example sentences

2Make distinctively national; give a national character to:

My point was that Obamacare nationalized health insurance by bringing it under the control of the federal government. As is your usual modus operandi, you found one definition that suited your interpretation of the moment, insisted that only that one definition is valid, and claimed that anyone not marching in lockstep is either ignorant or an insane conspiracy nut. Every thread, every time.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It's not nationalization though; all the insurance companies are still private or publicly-traded companies, not entities under government control. Medicaid is nationalized insurance, but Medicaid is not the only insurer that falls under the regulations set forth in the ACA, and it doesn't represent all Obamacare sign-ups. If Obamacare took all the private insurance companies and said, "you are now operated by the Federal Government," yes, that's nationalization.

 

[fskimospy]

What I did was offer the same definition from multiple dictionaries, period.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalize


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/nationalize


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nationalize


My point was that Obamacare nationalized health insurance by bringing it under the control of the federal government. As is your usual modus operandi, you found one definition that suited your interpretation of the moment, insisted that only that one definition is valid, and claimed that anyone not marching in lockstep is either ignorant or an insane conspiracy nut. Every thread, every time.

I know what you did, and you're trying it again. As I have mentioned many times by your attempt to define the word, that means that effectively every single industry in America is nationalized. That is a clearly absurd definition that has no support.

I quoted Wikipedia. I quoted pieces from economics departments. All of these showed that nationalization is either state ownership or the state actually running the business. None of that is the case here.

Your stubborn refusal to accept terms you learn in Econ 101 is simply baffling to me.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nationalization.asp

http://www.economicsimplicities.com/ec0532.htm

http://m.sfgate.com/business/article/What-really-happens-when-banks-are-nationalized-3169639.php

Tell me how many more you need. I can do this all day. You're just looking nuttier and nuttier.