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

[TerryMathews]

What ivwshane claimed is immaterial. your analogy is non-apropos.

What ivwshane claimed is wholly relevant if I'm refuting his claim.

And you call me deliberately obtuse? Ridiculous.

 

[ivwshane]

OK, let's break this down because you must've had an IEP as a child.

-ivwshane claims no one in this thread defended IRS's targeting actions
-I provided 12 posts to the contrary
-you argued the meaning of your post within that context
-I stated we are disagreeing on what constitutes defense in this context and provided an analogy illustrating that "right target, wrong method" is still a defense.
-you state I'm obtuse
-I lay out bullet points to the contrary.

Got it?

This is where you are stretching. I created a long post with an analogy about how people can support the goal and not the method. You even agreed with the post. Jhnnn says the IRS method was a mistake but he supports their goal. You saying that he supports the improper methods that he says were improper, makes no sense!


All this doesn't matter anyway, the IRS has decided not to do their job...awesome!/s

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5582995

 

[TerryMathews]

This is where you are stretching. I created a long post with an analogy about how people can support the goal and not the method. You even agreed with the post. Jhnnn says the IRS method was a mistake but he supports their goal. You saying that he supports the improper methods that he says were improper, makes no sense!


All this doesn't matter anyway, the IRS has decided not to do their job...awesome!/s

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5582995

Yes, you clarified your position after I called you out on it.

Does not change what you originally posted.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, you clarified your position after I called you out on it.

Does not change what you originally posted.

Oh it doesn't? I'll remember that next time you clarify your position.

 

[TerryMathews]

Oh it doesn't? I'll remember that next time you clarify your position.

When ive got you and Jhhnn arguing as though I'm the one who misspoke? Yeah, context makes a fair bit of difference friend.
You've not once plainly said "you're right. I misspoke. There are people who believe the IRS did nothing wrong, or at least that's what they posted."

Both in jhhnns case specifically and for the other posters as well your attitude has been that we need for them all to clarify their position, to know if what they posted is what they actually posted.

You are doing the exact thing that you complain about others doing: clinging to a flawed argument and refusing to admit when you're wrong.

You want to drop this whole line of argument? Fine with me. I'm satisfied that my original point was correct. Feel free for you and Jhhnn to let it drop.

 

[bshole]

You want to drop this whole line of argument? Fine with me. I'm satisfied that my original point was correct. Feel free for you and Jhhnn to let it drop.

No your original point was NOT correct!! Jeez... you are certifiable!

 

[TerryMathews]

No your original point was NOT correct!! Jeez... you are certifiable!

What an excellent and well-thought rebuttal since you're one of the posters I cited as my proof.

How about elaborating instead of raving like some sort of loonie?

 

[Jhhnn]

What ivwshane claimed is wholly relevant if I'm refuting his claim.

And you call me deliberately obtuse? Ridiculous.

When you address me about what I said, what anybody else said is immaterial.

Are there no ancient low bid crashed hard drives to rave & speculate about? No inferior IT practices in place long before this imbroglio? No right wing persecution complex to talk around? Have we reached the end of the conspiracy theory?

OH, God! Anything but that! The Horror!

 

[TerryMathews]

When you address me about what I said, what anybody else said is immaterial.

Sure. Except that's not what happened.

You addressed me, within the context of my discussion with ivwshane, about your post. In effect, you jumped into our argument. So the context of that argument is imminently relevant.

So, again, I disagree with you that context is irrelevant.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure. Except that's not what happened.

You addressed me, within the context of my discussion with ivwshane, about your post. In effect, you jumped into our argument. So the context of that argument is imminently relevant.

So, again, I disagree with you that context is irrelevant.

You started in on this diversionary foray into the usual persecution complex way back at post 1168. You misrepresented what I said in posts 1201 & 1202. Ivwshane asked me to chime in, post 1208, and I did so, post 1212. That was not before you went so far as to infer meaning in a post I cancelled, your post 1210.

Since then, you have insisted on diverting this thread into triviality about whether ivwshane was right or wrong about your original persecution spiel rather than addressing the topic at hand, despite several attempts to bring you back on topic.

That must mean that the "scandal" is stalled for lack of fresh red meat for you to bark & growl over, so you just keep claiming victimhood any way you can muster.

 

[brycejones]

1261 posts in OP's assertion in the thread title still not proven...

 

[TerryMathews]

You started in on this diversionary foray into the usual persecution complex way back at post 1168. You misrepresented what I said in posts 1201 & 1202. Ivwshane asked me to chime in, post 1208, and I did so, post 1212. That was not before you went so far as to infer meaning in a post I cancelled, your post 1210.

Since then, you have insisted on diverting this thread into triviality about whether ivwshane was right or wrong about your original persecution spiel rather than addressing the topic at hand, despite several attempts to bring you back on topic.

That must mean that the "scandal" is stalled for lack of fresh red meat for you to bark & growl over, so you just keep claiming victimhood any way you can muster.

You must have forgotten your meds. There was no persecution complex in my posts. Just correcting an incorrect statement. Thanks for playing though.

You guys are free to drop this any time. Of course, that will require realizing that ivwshane was incorrect, something it seems you are as yet unwilling to do.

Words have meanings. This is not complex. Make peace with it and move on.

 

[PokerGuy]

The April Sands case is yet another glaring example of out of control lefties getting away with criminal behavior at the IRS when the evidence is destroyed. She was Lois Lerner's deputy at the IRS -- anyone shocked??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-Democrats-job-FEC-destroyed-evidence.html

April Sands is another one of those crazy dear leader zealots. She pretty much got away with her criminal behavior because the evidence was destroyed when the IRS hard drive was recycled (hey, sounds vaguely familiar ). This is the kind of scum running many government agencies, and yet people don't understand why conservatives would be weary of the always-increasing scope and size of government.

 

[Bowfinger]

As I said back in May (post #213):

The text of the law says "exclusively", but even if you go with the lower standard of "primarily" most of these groups would still fail, and should therefore not be granted tax exempt status.

This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, almost all of these groups should be rejected regardless of their political ideology.

This. In fact, some have speculated that this is much of the reason the right continues to hammer this "scandal", to keep the IRS under fire so it does not attempt to enforce that law. The wing-nuts want their anonymous, dirty money groups.

And now we learn that in the majority of cases, the IRS will no longer attempt to enforce the laws restricting political activities. This was posted a couple of days ago, but has been buried in the pages of childish ego-stroking that is now drowning this thread. Corruption wins again:

From Huff Post

The Internal Revenue Service has decided to award most nonprofit groups tax exemption status without being screened, Time reported Sunday.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Time that about 80 percent of charitable groups seeking tax exemption will go through a simplified application process. Groups that report total assets lower than $250,000 and an income of less than $50,000 can pay a $400 fee and fill out a three-page form to automatically be eligible to receive tax-deductible donations.

Prior to the change, the application process involved a 26-page form, and required groups to provide supporting documentation and outline their intended activities to be considered for tax-exempt status.

The new process, which Koskinen said will result in “efficiencies [that] will translate into a faster and better review,” is expected to significantly reduce the screening process designed to prevent fraudulent activity on the part of political groups.

... Link

Do you suppose the usual players will express their outrage at another example of the Obama administration ignoring laws? After all, they claim it's about the principle, not naked partisanship. Perhaps Boehner will add this to his lawsuit? /s

 

[PokerGuy]

As I said back in May (post #213):


And now we learn that in the majority of cases, the IRS will no longer attempt to enforce the laws restricting political activities. This was posted a couple of days ago, but has been buried in the pages of childish ego-stroking that is now drowning this thread. Corruption wins again:

Indeed, corruption wins again, thanks to the criminal activities of Lerner, Sands and her ilk. Now that we've seen how the screening process was abused to target political conservatives and that we can't hold people accountable because the evidence in each case was conveniently destroyed, the logical result is the neutering of the screening process. Everyone loses. Thanks Lerner, her minions and those who support using the IRS to target political foes or pretend that it didn't happen. :thumbsdown:

 

[Bowfinger]

The April Sands case is yet another glaring example of out of control lefties getting away with criminal behavior at the IRS when the evidence is destroyed. She was Lois Lerner's deputy at the IRS -- anyone shocked??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-Democrats-job-FEC-destroyed-evidence.html

April Sands is another one of those crazy dear leader zealots. She pretty much got away with her criminal behavior because the evidence was destroyed when the IRS hard drive was recycled (hey, sounds vaguely familiar ). This is the kind of scum running many government agencies, and yet people don't understand why conservatives would be weary of the always-increasing scope and size of government.

I see the nutters' desperation is growing. What a slimy article, all innuendo. Some secretary who worked in Lerner's department some 13 years ago is somehow important now? Please. I also note that while this hit piece had room to post a huge variety of tweets and pictures from Sands, they somehow neglected to post any detail whatsoever about how and why her hard drive was recycled. No links to support their claims, no quotes, nothing but allegation and innuendo. Typical tabloid tactic, all sensationalism and no substance. Typical Daily Mail.

By the way, I know you guys need to ignore this, but as has been pointed out several times before, Lerner's drive crash was almost a year BEFORE the various investigations and lawsuits began. I guess Lerner has amazing prescience?

 

[TerryMathews]

Do you suppose the usual players will express their outrage at another example of the Obama administration ignoring laws? After all, they claim it's about the principle, not naked partisanship. Perhaps Boehner will add this to his lawsuit? /s

I will. Obama should enforce the laws as written. If they no longer fit the situation, update them or remove them. Old, unused laws kept on the books are often used to punish unpopular people and dissidents.

I have no issue with making the IRS standards more strict, or bringing them back to the law as written, as long as it is done evenly which also includes disparate impact.

You cannot have a situation where some 501c4 applications are running in a few days and others are months, whether that happens overtly or though disparate impact like by setting up a special review area for applications that match a BOLO list.

Equal protection should apply to government services as well as laws.

 

[Bowfinger]

Indeed, corruption wins again, thanks to the criminal activities of Lerner, Sands and her ilk. Now that we've seen how the screening process was abused to target political conservatives and that we can't hold people accountable because the evidence in each case was conveniently destroyed, the logical result is the neutering of the screening process. Everyone loses. Thanks Lerner, her minions and those who support using the IRS to target political foes or pretend that it didn't happen. :thumbsdown:

That's certainly the Fox way to spin it. Never mind that with five different investigations (at least), all of the evidence produced -- and there is a ton of it -- shows that this spin is a big lie, a baseless attack by the usual RNC actors. While I'm still interested in seeing what the FBI finds, it looks more and more like this "scandal" was nothing more than a minor screw-up that Issa, et al, perverted for purely partisan purposes. It seems a textbook example of making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[PokerGuy]

Some secretary who worked in Lerner's department some 13 years ago is somehow important now?

A secretary? Really? You mean one of the department lawyers who was the deputy to Lerner?

Please. I also note that while this hit piece had room to post a huge variety of tweets and pictures from Sands, they somehow neglected to post any detail whatsoever about how and why her hard drive was recycled.

Yeah, 'cause I'm sure the IRS would be so open and forthcoming with that information

Bottom line is that the tweets and posts in support of the dear leader during work time show criminal behavior, regardless of the contents of her hard drive disappearing. The fact that her drive crashes and all the evidence disappears exactly the same way as with her boss and fellow dear leader supporter is of course complete coincidence. Amazing coincidences all around.

 

[Jhhnn]

By the way, I know you guys need to ignore this, but as has been pointed out several times before, Lerner's drive crash was almost a year BEFORE the various investigations and lawsuits began. I guess Lerner has amazing prescience?

It's Kenyan voodoo time travel mind control, I'm tellin' ya! They even faked Obama's birth record in the Honolulu papers!

 

[PokerGuy]

this "scandal" was nothing more than a minor screw-up that Issa, et al, perverted for purely partisan purposes. It seems a textbook example of making a mountain out of a molehill.

You are pretty much "exhibit A" of what I was talking about, those who cause these kinds of problems by pretending they don't exist as long as the targets are those on the "other side". Then, when the abuse is exposed, blame the exposers. Brilliant!

Apparently Lerner was ousted for doing absolutely nothing wrong? And she had to plead the 5th to not incriminate herself even though she did nothing wrong? Seems like if there wasn't any criminal activity going on she could easily testify to everything and explain how it was all just one "rogue" employee in the Cincinnati office who was at fault as we were told

The truth is that now we all lose because the rules can't be enforced anymore because those who were in charge of enforcing them abused the process.

 

[PokerGuy]

By the way, I know you guys need to ignore this, but as has been pointed out several times before, Lerner's drive crash was almost a year BEFORE the various investigations and lawsuits began. I guess Lerner has amazing prescience?

How do you know she wasn't simply covering her tracks, even before "official" investigations began? How do you know she wasn't already aware that some of the groups being abused could file suit? Now we see the same thing happened with Sands, her deputy. Surely a wonderful coincidence.

 

[Bowfinger]

A secretary? Really? You mean one of the department lawyers who was the deputy to Lerner?

Sorry, my mistake. She was an attorney there. I missed that.

Yeah, 'cause I'm sure the IRS would be so open and forthcoming with that information

Bottom line is that the tweets and posts in support of the dear leader during work time show criminal behavior, regardless of the contents of her hard drive disappearing. The fact that her drive crashes and all the evidence disappears exactly the same way as with her boss and fellow dear leader supporter is of course complete coincidence. Amazing coincidences all around.

First, I agree, if she broke the law she should be prosecuted. Second, your claim that "all evidence" disappears is sheer nonsense. Good grief, that tabloid trash story was full of evidence. While losing the hard drive may have destroyed additional evidence, it clearly wasn't all of it. Finally, you ignore my primary point, that the Daily Mail offers zero evidence to support their allegation. They don't even show that there was a drive crash, merely alleging it was "recycled" sometime before the IG started to come after her. Why, when, how? Basic questions that tabloid ignores in favor of sucking in the rubes with its sensationalistic innuendo.

To offer just one alternative, my company routinely "recycles" all hard drives ... every time we replace old PCs with new ones, on a predictable three-year cycle. The Daily Mail could scream about the Bowfinger scandal, "We want to investigate him, but he recycled his hard drive. Scandal!!!!" It would be true ... truly meaningless, but they know full well such nonsense draws eyeballs, especially those that need to keep their outrage stoked.

 

[PokerGuy]

I will. Obama should enforce the laws as written. If they no longer fit the situation, update them or remove them. Old, unused laws kept on the books are often used to punish unpopular people and dissidents.

I agree completely, laws should be either enforced or not be on the books. Selective enforcement is a bad thing for all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Indeed, corruption wins again, thanks to the criminal activities of Lerner, Sands and her ilk. Now that we've seen how the screening process was abused to target political conservatives and that we can't hold people accountable because the evidence in each case was conveniently destroyed, the logical result is the neutering of the screening process. Everyone loses. Thanks Lerner, her minions and those who support using the IRS to target political foes or pretend that it didn't happen. :thumbsdown:

Puh-leeze. It's what the big money backers of your team wanted all along, this trumped up scandal being their vehicle to obtain it. Well, along with ongoing underfunding designed to cripple the IRS & the govt in general.

Orchestrate a campaign of 501(c)4 applications from obviously political groups designed to swamp the IRS, wait for them to make a mistake. Jump all over it, make it much bigger than life, then paint them as the perps when you get what you wanted in the first place.

The faithful chumps go down on it like a holland tunnel hooker goes down for a Benjamin.

That's you, big boy.