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

[TerryMathews]

It's not about quantity, it's about quality. Let's see a post that's not based on interpretation.

Second twenty pages.

That right there proves progressive groups are inherently cleaner than conservative groups. Perhaps if the conservative groups weren't so dirty, they wouldn't get the close scrutinization. Remember that it is conservative groups that feed their cows on federal land illegally, ride their motorized vehicles on federal lands illegally, brandish arms and threaten law enforcement. They NEED the scrutiny in my opinion.

Well wait a second, you guys have spent this entire thread proving that conservative groups have been under close scrutiny by the IRS. Assuming that the IRS is a non-partisan group simply enforcing our laws, the question has to be, what have these conservative groups done to merit this close scrunity?

You guys are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of looking for malfeasance in the IRS, you should be looking for corruption and crime in the conservative groups.

No! Nooo! Couldn't be! Impossible! Aiiiieeee! No!

Ebil Gubmint! EEEeebil!

And you're assuming OMFG Conspiracy! believing anything to the contrary with the evidence available.

The notion that the IRS wouldn't target groups with a rabid anti-tax bent is absurd, regardless of the group's political leanings.

I mean, Duh!

 

[TerryMathews]

It's not about quantity, it's about quality. Let's see a post that's not based on interpretation.

Third twenty.

Who is this "we"? You have a mouse in your pocket?

"We" know the IRS targetted far right corrupt wingnut groups with possible links to terrorism (not proven). "Our" preference would have been imprisonment for the right wing fiends, but loss of tax-exempt status is satisfactory as well.

Hilfuckinglarious. You are all upset because the IRS investigated:


The fact that a beast as hideous as the 527 is allowed free rein to shred our democracy from the shadows doesn't bother you in the slightest. Anything to aid the oligarchy... right bro?

For sure. Of course the IRS is suspicious that anti-gubmint groups might be doing anti-gubmint things under whatever cover they could find. And it's only natural that the people financing such groups would want to remain anonymous.

Anybody who thinks that Teatards aren't anti-gubmint needs to have their head examined.

That's a no-brainer.

OTOH, it's one of those places where reasonable suspicion & improper action collided, admittedly so. Heads have rolled, action taken, investigations not of the witch hunt variety completed. It is extremely unlikely that the IRS will use such methods again anytime RSN.

I hope they find better ones, much better ones.

Um.... I believe that is right in the Tea Party charter! Did you not notice a bunch of tea partiers with assault weapons menacing federal agents in defense of a free-loading racist? The Tea Party is an extremely dangerous organization that is tip-toeing the line on terrorism. I have no idea why they are not under federal criminal investigation.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yeah, like anyone but a Government agent, would argue that being fucked up the ass is good.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

We're the Police...

You will definitely fuck this chick up the ass.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

I'll ask them (the Government) for 17 trillian dollars.

I mean, the girl is good, but 17 trillian dollars...

-John

 

[ivwshane]

Second twenty pages.

Lol! So in your mind, those that laugh and make fun of those that subscribe to conspiracy theory are by default supportive of the IRS actions?

They must be ok with it, I mean why else would they say such things! /s


You are seriously stretching!

 

[TerryMathews]

Lol! So in your mind, those that laugh and make fun of those that subscribe to conspiracy theory are by default supportive of the IRS actions?

They must be ok with it, I mean why else would they say such things! /s


You are seriously stretching!

So, to be clear: you are claiming that every single one of those posts is tongue in cheek, correct?

Every single one?

ETA: everyone in this thread knew you'd be too intellectually dishonest to admit defeat.

 

[ivwshane]

So, to be clear: you are claiming that every single one of those posts is tongue in cheek, correct?

Every single one?

ETA: everyone in this thread knew you'd be too intellectually dishonest to admit defeat.

Just to give you an example of your stretching, let's take our boy jhnnn here.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36477424&postcount=907

One doesn't typically agree with wrong doing has occurred and simultaneously support such wrong doing. I know you disagree but again, you are using your biased views to judge others and in a thread where your bias has proven to be incorrect, I'll side with my gut instincts over yours every time.

Now if anyone of those posters want to be upfront with their position lets let them chime.

 

[Jhhnn]

n/m

 

[TerryMathews]

Just to give you an example of your stretching, let's take our boy jhnnn here.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36477424&postcount=907

One doesn't typically agree with wrong doing has occurred and simultaneously support such wrong doing. I know you disagree but again, you are using your biased views to judge others and in a thread where your bias has proven to be incorrect, I'll side with my gut instincts over yours every time.

Now if anyone of those posters want to be upfront with their position lets let them chime.

Yes, let's take our boy Jhhnn.

n/m

Hmm, appears I was right after all.

But I also couldn't help but notice you danced around my larger point: you never addressed the other posters.

We both know why you picked Jhhnn's post. You are beaten, sir. Even if Jhhnn's intent isn't what I state it is, there are other posters with much more clear feelings.

It's not about quantity, it's about quality. Let's see a post that's not based on interpretation.

A plain reading of Jhhnn's post indicates my reading is correct - you have to do a fair bit of interpretation to get to your conclusion which violates your provision about not having to interpret posts to make my point. Even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, I still have bshole.

I only needed one post to prove my statement correct. Just one. Now let me hear what we both know is true: you're beaten.

Its OK, there's no shame in it. Well, I guess a little bit in being outfoxed by a "teatard" like me eh?

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, let's take our boy Jhhnn.

Hmm, appears I was right after all.

But I also couldn't help but notice you danced around my larger point: you never addressed the other posters.

We both know why you picked Jhhnn's post. You are beaten, sir. Even if Jhhnn's intent isn't what I state it is, there are other posters with much more clear feelings.



A plain reading of Jhhnn's post indicates my reading is correct - you have to do a fair bit of interpretation to get to your conclusion which violates your provision about not having to interpret posts to make my point. Even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, I still have bshole.

I only needed one post to prove my statement correct. Just one. Now let me hear what we both know is true: you're beaten.

Its OK, there's no shame in it. Well, I guess a little bit in being outfoxed by a "teatard" like me eh?

I didn't know you were a tea tard

Anyway, if jhnnn erased his comment after seeing our posts and can't be bothered to say he does/doesn't support using key terms to validate a C4 application versus checking all C4 apps, then not only do I stand corrected but I'm disappointed.

Groups shouldn't be targeted because of their name, they should be targeted because congress wrote the law requiring the IRS to validate applicants to ensure their sole purpose is not pushing any political agenda.


The tea tard got one

And btw, I've already been wrong before when having a discussion with you, not only did I correct my mistake but I'm the one who recognized my error.

I have no shame in being wrong, it's only if I refuse to acknowledge a fact that I would feel ashamed.

When was the last time you were wrong?

 

[Jhhnn]

Notice the time of my comment. I had typed a reply when we got home from Redrocks, realized I was too tired to say what I wanted, erased it.

I'm having some trouble figuring out what Terry Matthews thinks he's talking about, other than his right wing persecution complex.

The IRS targets people & groups whose efforts attempt to skirt tax law? 501(c)4 groups are obvious suspects, regardless of their political leanings. Structural aspects of such groups lend themselves well to such abuse. It's part of the job of the IRS, regardless of which party occupies the Oval Office.

In that, they need to use fair & legal means. Faced with an explosion of Teatard groups seeking that status, they made mistakes. Lacking the sheltering anonymity of rules surrounding 501(c)4 status, such groups would not attract big money donors & would never exist in the first place. They do not exist for social welfare purposes at all, but rather political purposes, coyly exploiting the definition of what's political & what is not. They exist on the basis of a lie, that they are not primarily political & anybody with half a brain should be able to recognize that.

In the world of astroturfed right-speak, acknowledging that is impossible, of course, just as it is for any sort of kinda if barely legal scam they can perpetrate.

 

[TerryMathews]

Notice the time of my comment. I had typed a reply when we got home from Redrocks, realized I was too tired to say what I wanted, erased it.

I'm having some trouble figuring out what Terry Matthews thinks he's talking about, other than his right wing persecution complex.

The IRS targets people & groups whose efforts attempt to skirt tax law? 501(c)4 groups are obvious suspects, regardless of their political leanings. Structural aspects of such groups lend themselves well to such abuse. It's part of the job of the IRS, regardless of which party occupies the Oval Office.

In that, they need to use fair & legal means. Faced with an explosion of Teatard groups seeking that status, they made mistakes. Lacking the sheltering anonymity of rules surrounding 501(c)4 status, such groups would not attract big money donors & would never exist in the first place. They do not exist for social welfare purposes at all, but rather political purposes, coyly exploiting the definition of what's political & what is not. They exist on the basis of a lie, that they are not primarily political & anybody with half a brain should be able to recognize that.

In the world of astroturfed right-speak, acknowledging that is impossible, of course, just as it is for any sort of kinda if barely legal scam they can perpetrate.

Well, you know I'm a religious quoter so you could've found out "what I was arguing" in 5 clicks. I'll give you the tl;Dr version anyway because I'm a nice guy.

Ivwshane said that "not one person" in this thread supported the IRS targetting tea party groups. That was incorrect as my posts demonstrated.

No persecution complex found. Sometimes, I think you don't bother to read any of the context before you post. Which probably also explains your "post" last night.

ETA: ivwshane-this obviously makes clear that Jhhnn's earlier post was not tongue in cheek.

 

[TerryMathews]

When was the last time you were wrong?

Yesterday, actually.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, you know I'm a religious quoter so you could've found out "what I was arguing" in 5 clicks. I'll give you the tl;Dr version anyway because I'm a nice guy.

Ivwshane said that "not one person" in this thread supported the IRS targetting tea party groups. That was incorrect as my posts demonstrated.

No persecution complex found. Sometimes, I think you don't bother to read any of the context before you post. Which probably also explains your "post" last night.

ETA: ivwshane-this obviously makes clear that Jhhnn's earlier post was not tongue in cheek.

I support the legal targeting of all groups whose purpose is to skirt tax law for political purposes, regardless of their political bent. If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[TerryMathews]

I support the legal targeting of all groups whose purpose is to skirt tax law for political purposes, regardless of their political bent. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue we are discussing, ivwshane claiming that it was a tongue in cheek response is clearly incorrect.

 

[Jhhnn]

Regardless of how you feel about the issue we are discussing, ivwshane claiming that it was a tongue in cheek response is clearly incorrect.

Regardless of your attempts to duh-vert & to deny that the IRS was trying to do their job, the intent & purpose of Teatard 501(c)4 groups is political rather than social welfare. That's quite plain.

 

[TerryMathews]

Regardless of your attempts to duh-vert & to deny that the IRS was trying to do their job, the intent & purpose of Teatard 501(c)4 groups is political rather than social welfare. That's quite plain.

Has nothing to do with the point I was making, that ivwshane's claim was incorrect.

It seems to me, today, that you are the one duh-verting.

 

[MongGrel]

Good lord, this thing is at almost 50 pages now

 

[ivwshane]

Has nothing to do with the point I was making, that ivwshane's claim was incorrect.

It seems to me, today, that you are the one duh-verting.

My point was that no one believes what the IRS did wasn't wrong. However we believe what was wrong was only in how they handle the situation. Ie they executed the law poorly.

 

[Jhhnn]

Has nothing to do with the point I was making, that ivwshane's claim was incorrect.

It seems to me, today, that you are the one duh-verting.

Me checks thread topic... It's not about what ivwshane says at all.

Ultimately, it's about right wing billionaires attempting to subvert the purpose of social welfare organizational structure & tax status to support political ends while funding them in anonymity.

Which is why they're raving quite so loud using their usual mouthpieces, Issa among them.

I say we make the rule 90% social welfare, narrow the definition of that, pull the beard off of the right wing anonymous funding machine.

Free speech isn't free at all when somebody's paying for it, and the public has every right to know who that is when it comes to politics.

 

[Jhhnn]

My point was that no one believes what the IRS did wasn't wrong. However we believe what was wrong was only in how they handle the situation. Ie they executed the law poorly.

Yeh, they "conspired" to do their fucking job. Imagine that.

 

[TerryMathews]

Me checks thread topic... It's not about what ivwshane says at all.

What kind of ignorant nonsense is that? Someone says something I feel is incorrect, what am I supposed to do? Start a new thread?

To the rest of your post: I have no issue getting all of the money out of politics. Its odd how people like you only have an issue with Koch but not Soros, for example.

 

[TerryMathews]

My point was that no one believes what the IRS did wasn't wrong. However we believe what was wrong was only in how they handle the situation. Ie they executed the law poorly.

I showed you a dozen posts which don't mirror your sentiment.

 

[Jhhnn]

What kind of ignorant nonsense is that? Someone says something I feel is incorrect, what am I supposed to do? Start a new thread?

To the rest of your post: I have no issue getting all of the money out of politics. Its odd how people like you only have an issue with Koch but not Soros, for example.

Having done that to the best of your limited ability, you can return to the topic at hand, obviously.

I have no problem forcing all big money donors into putting their name on the policies they promote, nor with them spending money to do so.