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

[PokerGuy]

There we go then, if they are just auditing some of the 100% whats the problem? :sneaky:

Well, the problem would be if they audited based on political bias. If they audited 100% of returns that would be crazy, but it would at least be equitable and fair to all.

The reality is that we don't know enough details yet to know what's really been going on, but IF there are indications that audits are being done based on political motivation, it should make EVERYONE angry and heads should roll. Only complete idiots think of this as their side vs the other side -- abuse of this kind would be a problem for everyone, regardless of affiliation.

 

[nehalem256]

Which has nothing to do with this, but nice try anyway. Eich's net worth is enormous, meaning that his job had more to do with his ego than the necessity of making a living. He doesn't need a job, at all.

Fact is the left has no problem getting people fired for their political contributions.

I'm far from wealthy, but I do make political contributions. My name is on every one of them, too. I'm willing to stand up for my convictions in a very personal way & believe it's only right that others should do the same.

And its easy to stand up for your convictions when there isn't a history of the people who oppose your views trying to get you fired.

I mean lets think about this. Why don't you see lots of gay people coming out in say Iran? Are they ashamed of their homosexuality?:hmm:

 

[thraashman]

There are real world consequences to everything - should there be no privacy?

When you actively work to subvert the equal rights of others, no it should not be private. It's no different than when people like Michael Richards or Paula Deen got a whole lot of public flack for using the n-word. And in their case it was wrong and just speech, but at least they weren't donating to a group who was trying to deny black people civil rights.

I mean lets think about this. Why don't you see lots of gay people coming out in say Iran? Are they ashamed of their homosexuality?:hmm:

Because possibly facing the death sentence for being who you are is the same as actively trying to destroy the civil rights of others...
You seriously become a bigger piece of shit with every post. What the fuck is wrong with you man?

 

[Jhhnn]

Fact is the left has no problem getting people fired for their political contributions.

The fact is that your example, Eich, opposes equal rights for many of the people he was tasked with leading. Those views were not an issue until he was assigned that leadership position. Nor was he fired- he resigned rather than stepping down to his previous & highly lucrative position. I doubt that he needs a job, anyway, at this point in his life, despite your maudlin whining on his behalf.

And its easy to stand up for your convictions when there isn't a history of the people who oppose your views trying to get you fired.

I mean lets think about this. Why don't you see lots of gay people coming out in say Iran? Are they ashamed of their homosexuality?:hmm:

Iran? That's where people like Eich & yourself hold the power, use it to ruthlessly suppress the sexuality of a naturally occurring % of the population. It's quite similar to racism, sexism, and classism expressed through a caste system.

 

[HomerJS]

When you actively work to subvert the equal rights of others, no it should not be private. It's no different than when people like Michael Richards or Paula Deen got a whole lot of public flack for using the n-word. And in their case it was wrong and just speech, but at least they weren't donating to a group who was trying to deny black people civil rights.


Because possibly facing the death sentence for being who you are is the same as actively trying to destroy the civil rights of others...
You seriously become a bigger piece of shit with every post. What the fuck is wrong with you man?

you mean the Republican Party?

 

[nehalem256]

The fact is that your example, Eich, opposes equal rights for many of the people he was tasked with leading. Those views were not an issue until he was assigned that leadership position. Nor was he fired- he resigned rather than stepping down to his previous & highly lucrative position. I doubt that he needs a job, anyway, at this point in his life, despite your maudlin whining on his behalf.

So CTO isn't a leadership position?

Iran? That's where people like Eich & yourself hold the power, use it to ruthlessly suppress the sexuality of a naturally occurring % of the population. It's quite similar to racism, sexism, and classism expressed through a caste system.

I see you avoided the question...

Although in a way you did make my point for me. The reason you want donations to be open is so you can ruthlessly suppress people who you disagree with.

Because possibly facing the death sentence for being who you are is the same as actively trying to destroy the civil rights of others...
You seriously become a bigger piece of shit with every post. What the fuck is wrong with you man?

So in other words its easy to stand by what you believe in when there are no real consequences for doing so.

But when you face death or job loss people are less willing to do so

 

[Jhhnn]

So CTO isn't a leadership position?

So you have to resort to putting words in my mouth? Eich's views are incompatible with the public image of a CEO in a publically held corporation, at least wrt Mozilla.

I see you avoided the question...

Although in a way you did make my point for me. The reason you want donations to be open is so you can ruthlessly suppress people who you disagree with.

I just answered it in a truthful way incompatible with your own fantasy based belief structure. I'm now trying to figure out how right wing billionaires can get shills like you to put forth the notion that they can possibly be oppressed in any way.

 

[shira]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...cans-find-10-of-tea-party-donors-audi/?page=2

First it was that the IRS targeted Tea Party Groups. Now it came out that if you donated to the Tea Party groups you were 10x more likely to be audited.


Obama's admin keeps reaching new lows on government terrorism.

This story is comparing the audit rate for Tea Party donors to the audit rate for random individuals. That's a totally invalid comparison. A valid comparison would be between the audit rate for Tea Party donors to the audit rate for equivalent donors to PACs of all political affiliations.

The IRS has confidential, automatic audit algorithms in place, and returns with specific KINDS and LEVELS of income and deductions (and with threshold ratios of certain kinds of deductions to AGI) attract a lot more audits than returns without those features.

So to have a valid complaint that Tea Party donors are being unfairly targeted purely because of their political affiliation you need to demonstrate that (say) donors to liberal PACS that have the same types, levels, and ratios of donations and deductions are subjected to significantly lower audit rates.

Do you have this type of information? I thought not.

 

[nehalem256]

So you have to resort to putting words in my mouth? Eich's views are incompatible with the public image of a CEO in a publically held corporation, at least wrt Mozilla.

But his views are perfectly fine for CTO...

Not to mention that apparently his views were unknown to even his colleagues within mozilla until liberals decided to engage in a smear campaign.

I just answered it in a truthful way incompatible with your own fantasy based belief structure. I'm now trying to figure out how right wing billionaires can get shills like you to put forth the notion that they can possibly be oppressed in any way.

If they will do it to "billionaires" what makes you think they wont start coming after other people next?

The point is that lefties have made it very clear they think it is fine to fire(or force to resign) people whom they disagree with.

 

[nehalem256]

When you actively work to subvert the equal rights of others, no it should not be private. It's no different than when people like Michael Richards or Paula Deen got a whole lot of public flack for using the n-word. And in their case it was wrong and just speech, but at least they weren't donating to a group who was trying to deny black people civil rights.

Gotta suppress the counter-revolutionaries eh comrade? :awe:

 

[PokerGuy]

This story is comparing the audit rate for Tea Party donors to the audit rate for random individuals. That's a totally invalid comparison. A valid comparison would be between the audit rate for Tea Party donors to the audit rate for equivalent donors to PACs of all political affiliations.

The IRS has confidential, automatic audit algorithms in place, and returns with specific KINDS and LEVELS of income and deductions (and with threshold ratios of certain kinds of deductions to AGI) attract a lot more audits than returns without those features.

So to have a valid complaint that Tea Party donors are being unfairly targeted purely because of their political affiliation you need to demonstrate that (say) donors to liberal PACS that have the same types, levels, and ratios of donations and deductions are subjected to significantly lower audit rates.

Do you have this type of information? I thought not.

I agree 100% with your premise, but there's one problem. When congress repeatedly asks the IRS to provide documentation on the methodology and algorithms etc used, the IRS has simply refused to cooperate and has dragged it's heels. How the heck can we know if there is political bias being applied in audits when the IRS refuses to provide those tasked with it's oversight (congress) with the information needed?

Further, you can have all sorts of triggers and algorithms in place, but if they are set up such that it disproportionately impacts one political group, you have a problem. You can then either justify the methods, or you can change them such that they don't disproportionately impact one political group.

Either way, I suspect this is the result of systemic triggers etc rather than concerted political bias, but without better cooperation from the IRS we don't know, and given their previous activities with regard to tea party groups, it's far from impossible that they are applying bias in auditing individuals with conservative political viewpoints.

 

[PokerGuy]

The point is that lefties have made it very clear they think it is fine to fire(or force to resign) people whom they disagree with.

Indeed, they are perfectly comfortable using whatever means necessary to silence those who might hold views that differ from the politically correct ones mandated by the left. The irony is that they have no idea how that is going to be applied to them just the same and then they'll whine about it. It's modern day McCarthyism.

 

[Jhhnn]

This story is comparing the audit rate for Tea Party donors to the audit rate for random individuals. That's a totally invalid comparison. A valid comparison would be between the audit rate for Tea Party donors to the audit rate for equivalent donors to PACs of all political affiliations.

The IRS has confidential, automatic audit algorithms in place, and returns with specific KINDS and LEVELS of income and deductions (and with threshold ratios of certain kinds of deductions to AGI) attract a lot more audits than returns without those features.

So to have a valid complaint that Tea Party donors are being unfairly targeted purely because of their political affiliation you need to demonstrate that (say) donors to liberal PACS that have the same types, levels, and ratios of donations and deductions are subjected to significantly lower audit rates.

Do you have this type of information? I thought not.

America's wealthiest liked it a lot better when the Bush Admin set the IRS to auditing EITC recipients.

 

[fskimospy]

But his views are perfectly fine for CTO...

Not to mention that apparently his views were unknown to even his colleagues within mozilla until liberals decided to engage in a smear campaign.



If they will do it to "billionaires" what makes you think they wont start coming after other people next?

The point is that lefties have made it very clear they think it is fine to fire(or force to resign) people whom they disagree with.

Or they stand for the freedom to associate and do business with whomever you choose.

Some people just believe in freedom more than others I guess. It's no shock that you don't, considering you believe in having the police arrest women and forcibly abort their children. Compared to that this is nothing.

 

[Jhhnn]

But his views are perfectly fine for CTO...

Not to mention that apparently his views were unknown to even his colleagues within mozilla until liberals decided to engage in a smear campaign.

It's not a smear when it's the truth, is it? Obviously not. I doubt that Eich's views were entirely unknown to his coworkers, either.

If they will do it to "billionaires" what makes you think they wont start coming after other people next?

The point is that lefties have made it very clear they think it is fine to fire(or force to resign) people whom they disagree with.

The point is that you're a desperate shill. Who's coming after who, anyway? Who's been doing it for generations wrt gays, poor people, women & people of color? Lefties?

Dream On, Fool.

 

[nehalem256]

Or they stand for the freedom to associate and do business with whomever you choose.

Except the left very clearly does not stand for that freedom. See them having no issue forcing a photographer to attend and photograph a same-sex wedding.

Gotta keep those counter-revolutionaries suppressed eh comrade? :\

Some people just believe in freedom more than others I guess.

Like the right to own slaves. Read freedom fighters those Confederates! D:

It's no shock that you don't, considering you believe in having the police arrest women and forcibly abort their children. Compared to that this is nothing.

You can't abort a child. As a fetus is not a child. A point you have made on more than one occasion

 

[Jhhnn]

Indeed, they are perfectly comfortable using whatever means necessary to silence those who might hold views that differ from the politically correct ones mandated by the left. The irony is that they have no idea how that is going to be applied to them just the same and then they'll whine about it. It's modern day McCarthyism.

Yes, America's right wing is soooo oppressed, so downtrodden, particularly their leadership at the top of the economic heap. They don't conceal their views, at all, but rather how their money gets to the delusional groups they support. Why, it's exactly the same as Smokin' Joe's blacklists of working people.

If America's Teatards can put their faces up front, fight for what they believe in, why can't their financiers? Maybe it's because those Tards have no idea where the money comes from & their leadership wants to keep it that way. It's a lot easier that way, easier to see oneself as part of a grassroots movement rather than dependent dupes of America's wealthiest.

 

[thraashman]

Indeed, they are perfectly comfortable using whatever means necessary to silence those who might hold views that differ from the politically correct ones mandated by the left. The irony is that they have no idea how that is going to be applied to them just the same and then they'll whine about it. It's modern day McCarthyism.

I love this "they're oppressing my rights by not letting me be anonymous as I oppress others' rights" attitude the right has adopted. It's alright for you to try to subvert the rights of others, but as soon as anyone is made aware of it "help help I'm being oppressed".

 

[werepossum]

When you actively work to subvert the equal rights of others, no it should not be private. It's no different than when people like Michael Richards or Paula Deen got a whole lot of public flack for using the n-word. And in their case it was wrong and just speech, but at least they weren't donating to a group who was trying to deny black people civil rights.
SNIP

So there should be no privacy for people in the IRS who were actively using the force of government to deny conservatives equal rights, no? Yet what we're seeing is that not only is the IRS defending its Democrat operatives like Lerner, it's also protecting people who unarguably committed felonies such as the person who leaked the NOM donor list to the HuffPo.

On an unrelated site note, am I the only one who sees "NOM" and gets a mental picture of Ms. Pacman? (nom nom nom nom . . .)

I agree 100% with your premise, but there's one problem. When congress repeatedly asks the IRS to provide documentation on the methodology and algorithms etc used, the IRS has simply refused to cooperate and has dragged it's heels. How the heck can we know if there is political bias being applied in audits when the IRS refuses to provide those tasked with it's oversight (congress) with the information needed?

Further, you can have all sorts of triggers and algorithms in place, but if they are set up such that it disproportionately impacts one political group, you have a problem. You can then either justify the methods, or you can change them such that they don't disproportionately impact one political group.

Either way, I suspect this is the result of systemic triggers etc rather than concerted political bias, but without better cooperation from the IRS we don't know, and given their previous activities with regard to tea party groups, it's far from impossible that they are applying bias in auditing individuals with conservative political viewpoints.

Well said and I agree completely, although personally I think the numbers may be close enough to the unbiased average audit rate that I'm not getting preliminarily pissed off in anticipation of actually being pissed off.

 

[Cozarkian]

So in other words its easy to stand by what you believe in when there are no real consequences for doing so.

But when you face death or job loss people are less willing to do so

Absolutely, and if the American Revolutionists had published donor lists, our government wouldn't exist.

Imagine if, in the 19th century, some anti-slavery political organizations sprouted up. The pro-slavery people in government would have used their donor lists to identify potential participants in the illegal activities of the underground railroad.

And boy do I feel bad for anyone on a 1930s published donor list for the Communist Party of the United States when McCarthy came around 20 years later.

 

[nehalem256]

I love this "they're oppressing my rights by not letting me be anonymous as I oppress others' rights" attitude the right has adopted. It's alright for you to try to subvert the rights of others, but as soon as anyone is made aware of it "help help I'm being oppressed".

Gotta keep those counter-revolutionaries out in the open so you squash all dissent right comrade?:sneaky:

 

[nehalem256]

And boy do I feel bad for anyone on a 1930s published donor list for the Communist Party of the United States when McCarthy came around 20 years later.

The difference between being a Communist supporter and being a NOM supporter is that the NOM hasn't killed 90 million people in the last 100 years.

But hey I guess in liberal land its better to kill 10s of millions of people than to not redefine marriage to appease butt-hurt gay people. D:

EDIT: "Are you or have you ever donated to the NOM?"

 

[thraashman]

Gotta keep those counter-revolutionaries out in the open so you squash all dissent right comrade?:sneaky:

I'm sure you miss the days where you could drag a gay man behind your car without consequence but we live in a world where you can't do that to a human no matter how much you dislike them. And despite your beliefs, gay people are humans. Perhaps Iran or Pakistan is the right place for you since you so adamantly agree with their treatment of homosexuals and women.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sure you miss the days where you could drag a gay man behind your car without consequence but we live in a world where you can't do that to a human no matter how much you dislike them. And despite your beliefs, gay people are humans. Perhaps Iran or Pakistan is the right place for you since you so adamantly agree with their treatment of homosexuals and women.

Because refusing to give a shit about homosexual relationships(which is what same-sex marriage support is) is the same as killing them. :\

Seems to me like I struck a nerve. Perhaps you would prefer living in the UK where you can actually jail people who have counter-revolutionary beliefs?

 

[thraashman]

Because refusing to give a shit about homosexual relationships(which is what same-sex marriage support is) is the same as killing them. :\

Seems to me like I struck a nerve. Perhaps you would prefer living in the UK where you can actually jail people who have counter-revolutionary beliefs?

You clearly give many shits about homosexual relationships considering how much support you have for people who attack people's right to have them. You make more effort than anyone on this board (even Texashiker) to attack homosexuals at every opportunity. It might even surpass your attacks on women's rights (which are numerous). So if you "refused to give a shit" you certainly wouldn't put more effort into attacking homosexuals than anyone else on this board puts into attacking anything else except for maybe stewox's attacks on sanity.

When do you want to start handing out the pink triangles that homosexuals are forced to wear and then start moving them into the ghettos?