|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> opps... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1368494823 Message started by WebsterMark on 05/13/13 at 18:27:03 |
|
Title: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/13 at 18:27:03 Opps….. Turns out Hopey’s been a really bad boy. Bengazi coverup; targeted IRS audits and now phone taps of reporters…. Hmm……. I guess the ghost of Nixon is roaming around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave…. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/13/13 at 19:45:02 Oh how like you I long for the pure sweet honesty and integrity of Bush and Cheney. ;D |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/14/13 at 05:36:53 Yes, I do. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/14/13 at 07:03:05 IRS are blood sucking leeches. They have a loooooooooong history of going for the "easy $" In my audit they only cared to see 1 thing ... they thought they had got me for not paying taxes on 5g or so while I deducted its related expenses. I went in with reams and reams of paperwork ... when they found out I didn't receive that $ till the next year - Odd they had that as well but in the next year - they audited me in 99 I think for a 97 return ... anyway they tossed me out in seconds. So I present this thought - Why rob a bank ? Cos that's where the $$$ is. D-uh. The IRS operates the same way. However inspite of all this - Obama is coated with teflon. Nothing seems to be sticking, and the republicommunists are spinning their wheels like maniacs. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/14/13 at 11:40:35 BTW Webster opps is spelled oops. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/14/13 at 12:40:37 06213427393C33213027550 wrote:
UNless people STOP leaning on the bad behavior of "The Other Guy" & Hold THEIR GUys feet to the fire for Their bAD BEHAVIOR, nothing WILL EVER SLOW THE CORRUPTION WE ARE all BEING RUINED BY, Admit the faults of Your Guy. Demand they be held accountable. Only then can we hope to get control over our government. Character & principled behavior on both sides will repair our country. Continued bickering, justifying bad behavior of one side by the bad behavior of the other side yields WHAT?> What we Have! Grow up, everyone,, |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/14/13 at 14:46:41 I admit the faults of my guy. I wasn't on here when Bush was President. He made about 3 or 4 huge blunders. But, I believe my guy is better than their guy and I know they believe the same. I believe a conservative / capitalism is a better path for the country than a liberal / socialistic path. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/14/13 at 14:47:17 BTW Webster opps is spelled oops. Thank you Star. See Midnight; I was nice. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/14/13 at 15:46:55 Question: will Hopey's administration go down because of this? The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group ProPublica says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending. The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices. ProPublica says the documents the IRS gave them were “not supposed to be made public”: The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year... In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.) The group says that "no unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica.” |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Trippah on 05/14/13 at 16:37:53 Why should any political group be tax exempt..hell, that's like complaining the IRS investigated the business deductions for machine guns by Bonnie and Clyde. Only church groups, and only the houses of prayer should be tax exempt. :D |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/14/13 at 16:47:52 1C3A2138382920480 wrote:
Ha ha ha ... that is so perfect ... But seriously ... the IRS is a blood sucking leech that will jump onto the first unsuspecting animal. Sprinkle a tiny bit of salt on it, and it will freaking curl up and die. They will never investigate the millionaire paying 13% in taxes on 50 mill income ... cos they will stick tax lawyers on the case and the IRS will be cowering in the corner in fear ... but you make 75K and you look like you may have made 5g in a accident pay out, man you're in big freaking trouble. Easy $$$ is what they feed on. Leeches. However in their defence (man I hate defending those dirtbags ... but) the fact is they got hit with 3200 organisations claiming they were tax exempt almost over night. 90% republicommunist leaning. So if they asked for documentation from say 50% of applicants, it will be republicommunist 9 to 1. Just the odds ... Anyway - LEECHES. Watch out for them. Carry kerosene or salt or vinegar or a little pocket knife or sharp stick or something. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/14/13 at 17:03:20 the fact is they got hit with 3200 organisations claiming they were tax exempt almost over night. 90% republicommunist leaning. So if they asked for documentation from say 50% of applicants, it will be republicommunist 9 to 1. Just the odds ... no, no, no, no, no. You are not going to get by with covering for Hopey by making this into less than it is. That's not what happened. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/14/13 at 17:25:26 EVERY Single ONE of the Libertarian, Tea Party type organizations that filed got "Extra Attention".. How more pointed must it be? That is exactly what I call Official Oppression. Using the power of an office to chill activism. That type of action, reversed, taken against a governmental organization BY citizens is called terrorism. Once again, my eyes see the situation thru clear lenses, |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/14/13 at 18:01:14 Extra scrutiny does not necessarily mean "going after". The IRS may have been trying to sort out these new Tea Party groups and new tax-exempt classifications and who was entitled to what tax breaks. If the "Tea Party" was just one monolithic group then it wouldn't be necessary to sort it all out, but there seem to be a lot of different Tea Party groups and heaven knows what differences may exist between them. I can easily understand how sorting them all out may require some extra domestic right-wing extremist groups brandishing hate, insurrection, sedition and even assault weapons 501 (c)3 exemptions are limited to religious, educational, charitable, scientific and literary organizations and are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. Tea Party groups have been openly flaunting those rules and it require a huge amount of willful disregard to recognize that they are anything but hyper-partisan political attack organizations. The GOP has a Tea Party Caucus in Congress for crying out loud! So here's the deal, the Republicans are charging that these groups are politically targeted while at the same time claiming that they are exempt because they are not political organizations. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/14/13 at 21:07:09 BENGHAZI BOMBSHELL: Leaked Emails Were EDITED To Make Obama LOOK BAD <snip> Turns out the press got played again by Republicans. Jake Tapper has the smoking gun of the original email from the Obama administration which differs significantly from the “leaked emails” ABC ran with. In an exclusive for CNN, Tapper reveals that CNN has the original email sent by a top Obama aide, regarding the administration’s reaction to the Benghazi attacks. Tapper reported, “The actual email differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.” “The actual email from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever (sic) leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department,” Tapper concludes (my bold). http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/ The email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. and was obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source. Ironically, the email points out that there is a “ton of wrong information” coming from Congress and people who are not particularly informed (waving hello to Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney): “Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation. “There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression. “We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.” http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/ READ THE FULL EMAIL: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-email/index.html cont' http://www.politicususa.com/jake-tapper-destroys-republican-benghazi-conspiracy-turns-emails-paraphrased.html ********************************************************************** Is anyone here surprised by this? The Republicans used to be a political party, now they're just a racket, an interstate organized crime syndicate intent on either taking the government by fraud or by toppling it completely. If more people recognized this, we might be on the way to rebuilding this country. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/13 at 05:37:17 Extra scrutiny does not necessarily mean "going after". Star; not even you can get behind this. What occurred was not 'extra scrutiny'. they released personal financial records to liberal organizations. That is not extra scrutiny; that is intended to quiet citizen's voices. secondly; read up on the difference between 501 and 503. If somehow it's proven Hopey was behind this; and i'm not saying he was; but if he was, he's toast. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/13 at 06:07:43 is this 'extra scrutiny' ? One of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign co-chairmen used a leaked document from the IRS to attack GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, according to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman. Both the Huffington Post's Sam Stein and HRC described the leak as coming from a “whistleblower.” The Huffington Post used the document to write a story questioning former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM. HRC went a step further than the Huffington Post in its criticism of Romney and accused him of using “racially divisive tactics” in a press release. Solmonese, then still the HRC’s president, said in the release he felt Romney’s “funding of a hate-filled campaign designed to drive a wedge between Americans is beyond despicable.” “Not only has Romney signed NOM’s radical marriage pledge, now we know he’s one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret all these years,” Solmonese added. Solmonese resigned his position at HRC the next day and took up a position as an Obama campaign co-chair. He had announced the then-pending resignation from HRC the previous autumn. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/15/13 at 07:29:17 6E5C5B4A4D5C4B74584B52390 wrote:
Deny deny deny ... There were also democrat groups scrutinized. Look it up. But the republican groups out number them by 9-1 - the same percentage of the applications. Look it up. And lets see - Tax collectors target anti tax groups (TEA part). And this beauty - Anti govt group applies for govt exemption. Sounds like an onion headline. And they scrutinized "patriot" and when did patriot become republican ? Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/15/13 at 08:16:35 Oooo and before the republicommunists take the high ground on this - http://www.publicinterestwatch.org/3_25_06.htm And the NAACP - While the media cries foul over IRS Tea-Party action; NAACP 2004 tax audit was met w/ near silence Look it up. Its been proved that Bush did that too. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/13 at 08:23:06 There is a difference in what we are talking about. We are not talking about delays and scrutiny. We are talking about confidential information from conservative groups being handed over to their political enemies. We are not talking about delays. Find me evidence where dozens and dozens of liberal organizations applying for tax exempt status had their private information handed over to conservative organizations. All this talking about delays and scrutiny is an attempt to cloud the issue. Was the private information of NAACP leaders handed over to Matt Drudge? Were the petitioners of the NAACP asked who their donors are? Were they asked for their personal facebook pages? were they asked what books they were reading/ See the difference? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/15/13 at 08:36:56 There was no citizens united in 2003-2006. So it was never anonymous ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/13 at 08:39:16 what does the citizens united case have to do with the IRS giving confidential information to a organizations political enemy? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/15/13 at 08:48:16 083A3D2C2B3A2D123E2D345F0 wrote:
Citizens united is what made it secret. The information about donors was public before it. So it was not needed from the organization. So your case is invalid there. They didn't ask for the list of donors, cos it was already disclosed in 03-06. However NAACP and greenpeace are decades old. Their continued operation was not subject to any scrutiny. The new organizations are subject to eligibility reviews before assigned a valid status. So whatever be the case the IRS over reach under Bush was far more egregious. The ones now are in start-up cases. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/13 at 09:10:13 I do not believe that is anywhere near the truth. Confidential information was not available for the asking to an organizations political enemies. this is what I mean by trying to cloud the issue to protect Obama. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/15/13 at 14:57:38 192B2C3D3A2B3C032F3C254E0 wrote:
Hey, you dont have to believe anything ... Its just what is proved. Its in any case a lot cleaner in Obama's WH than it was ever in any WH for 20 years ... 30 years. That is what the people see. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/15/13 at 15:45:22 oh good God that is just simply wrong. you might as well be saying 2+2=5. The IRS, since Nixon maybe, has NEVER given confidential information to an organizations personal enemies. Never. You have to admit that. If you can't admit that, what possible credibility could you ever have? Citizen's United has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/15/13 at 18:21:50 OK I finally read and heard more news about this. You're missing some key parts of this puzzle. IRS asked for information because they are supposed to. 501c4 is a non political organisation. Its a social welfare organisation. So a group named with "TEA" in the name is blatantly polictical much like a group would be if it had say "Obama" in the name. Then 300 or so groups were scrutinized. Of that 100 had TEA or Patriot in their name. TEA is obviously republican but its not supposed to be political, cos they are social welfare org that's what 501c4 is. "Patriot" is neither. You cant complain about that as a flag. The other 200 were random - scrutinized for being rather political looking when they should not be political. However all of this really pales in comparison to Bush getting the IRS to go after NAACP and Green peace, especially after appointing the only 2 political appointees to the IRS. If anyone got their political agenda pushed by the IRS, it was the Bushies my friend. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/15/13 at 19:25:06 The Real I.R.S. Scandal Posted by Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker "SNIP.......................... So the scandal—the real scandal—is that 501(c)(4) groups have been engaged in political activity in such a sustained and open way. As Fred Wertheimer, the President of Democracy 21, a government-ethics watchdog group, put it, “it is clear that a number of groups have improperly claimed tax-exempt status as section 501(c)(4) ‘social welfare’ organizations in order to hide the donors who financed their campaign activities in the 2010 and 2012 federal elections.” Some people in the I.R.S. field office in Cincinnati took the names of certain groups—names that included the terms “Tea Party” and “patriot,” among others, which tend to signal conservatism—as signals that they might not be engaged in “social welfare” operations. Rather, the I.R.S. employees thought that these groups might be doing explicit politics—which would disqualify them for 501(c)(4) status, and set them aside for closer examination. This appears to have been a pretty reasonable assumption on the part of the I.R.S. employees: having “Tea Party” in your name is at least a slight clue about partisanship. When the inspector-general report becomes public, we’ll surely learn the identity of these organizations. How many will look like “social welfare” organizations—and how many will look like political activists looking for anonymity and tax breaks? My guess is a lot more of the latter than the former. It is certainly true that the I.R.S., and every other part of the government, should be evenhanded in how it applies the law, regarding liberal and conservative groups alike. If left-leaning organizations were disguising their true purposes to obtain 501(c)(4) status, the I.R.S. should have turned them down, too. And there will also be questions about how the Service, which is an independent agency, answered questions from Congress. But let’s be clear on the real scandal here. The columnist Michael Kinsley has often observed that the scandal isn’t what’s illegal—it’s what’s legal. It’s what society chooses not to punish that tells us most about the prevailing ethical standards of the time. Campaign finance operates by shaky, or even nonexistent, rules, and powerful players game the system with impunity. A handful of I.R.S. employees saw this and tried, in a small way, to impose some small sense of order. For that, they’ll likely be ushered into bureaucratic oblivion. ...........................END SNIP" Most 501(C)(4) organizations are crooked shams preforming illegal acts. If they don't want to pay taxes and want donation privacy they shouldn't be allowed to deal in ANY political activities without losing their status. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/15/13 at 20:17:02 It seems to me that the IRS was merely doing their job. Teabaggers claiming tax exemption because they're a non political social welfare group?? Really? ...Besides, 25% of the groups "targeted" were bagger groups. Who were the rest and why aren't they bitching about it? Nothing I have seen ur read shows that the Tea Party was treated worse than other political groups seeking tax exempt status, instead I am seeing what appears to be a clear example of the Tea Party actually being shown favoritism over other political groups. The Inspector General's report revealed that 2/3 of the groups that were scrutinized by the IRS were in no way affiliated with the Tea Party yet they were all targeted. Why is it that the IRS has only apologized to the Tea Party and not to any other groups who were targeted for scrutiny? Emerge America was one of the Democratic leaning groups that was targeted and they actually lost their tax exempt status while every Tea Party group was allowed to keep theirs. If the Tea Party deserves an apology why don't the non-Tea Party majority deserve an apology as well? To be honest I don't personally think any of the groups deserve an apology, but if the IRS is going to apologize to one side of the political aisle they sure as hell better be able to give an explanation as to why they did not believe the other side of the aisle was worthy of an apology. If they can not do that they seem to me to be biased and it is a bias that actually favors the Tea Party. To me the problem is with the whole system. Too many groups get tax-exempt status when they should not. This is a way of hiding donors. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/13 at 05:21:26 I think you gentlemen are purposely avoiding the main topic and trying to bring other issues into this in order to protect the administration. This is about 501, 503 or 504. This is not about Bush. Answer two questions: was the personal, financial and confidential application of dozens of liberal organizations given to their political enemies? Yes or No Were liberal organizations asked to answer additional questions which included list of donors, did they associate with a particular individual, did they have facebook pages and if so, to list them? Yes or No |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/13 at 05:23:50 besides fellas; Hopey has fired the IRS head saying the actions of the agency were completely inexcusable, said the American people were right to be angry and he himself is furious about it. if the guy was just doing his job as Star referenced, why'd he get fired? What is the president pissed off about it? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/16/13 at 06:00:47 774542535445526D41524B200 wrote:
You'd like this to be not about Bush, because Bush did a lot worse to decades old organizations that were supporting his rivals. So - If Obama did this, its 1/10th of what Bush did. The next point is - new 501c4 was all that was scrutinized. The 501c4 organizations were supposed to be non political. The fact that they had TEA in their name = they were political. Their scrutiny was well deserved. They also had scrutinized "patriot" and 200 others. 200 out of 300 were not TEA or patriot. They searched for political terms in a non political application in their article of incorporation. What part of that isn't clear to you. You're going to have to show they scrutinized TEA but not Obama. Else this is a republican lead witch hunt. 714344555243546B47544D260 wrote:
Aaaaa more incomplete reading of the news I see. The IRS head guy (Steve Miller) that got fired was installed as an appointee in dec 2012. These 501c4 scrutiny happened in 2009, 2012, 2011. The guy that was there from 2008-2013 was a Bush appointee that finished his 5 yr term and left. So the guy that got fired - much like You blaming Obama for the war against Iraq - was just in the wrong place when the sheite hit the fan. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/13 at 08:18:53 okay if you're just going to ignore reality and constantly try to bring every bad thing on the planet back to Bush, then its no use talking to you about this topic. To say that Obama's administration has done 1/10th of what the bush administration did with using the IRS against it's enemies shows you are completely blind about this. Nothing you say is correct about this or makes any sense so I might as well beat my head against the wall so I'm done with this topic. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/16/13 at 10:09:53 Well,, THis is deeper than just some appointee & a coulpa schmucks. This was widely co-ordinated AND the bubs are ass deep in it, too. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/16/13 at 10:45:20 "bubs" are not ass deep in this at all. this is all hopey's mess.... |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/16/13 at 11:13:15 The Bubs appointed the IRS head before Obama appointed Steven Miller. Look it up. Here is a Hint - His name is Douglas Shulman. There are 2 appointees in the IRS that are nominated by the president. Both were installed by Bush and were in charge when the TEA and others got scrutinized. The IRS with Bush's direction investigated NAACP and greenpeace for no reason in 2003 and 2006. I think a republican run organization like IRS was confused and that's why they investigated the TEA baggers. Man I am looking at my garbage man collecting the trash ... and see he looks really really dirty ... that's why You think its Obama's mess. Bush made a royal mess. The person that's cleaning it has to get some on him. They only investigated 100 TEA and patriot and 300 total. I'm hearing 3200 new applications were filed, and over 1000 had TEA in the name. If that's the case - these numbers look positively like too few were pulled even as a random sample. I think its a case of the republicans letting their fellow fund raisers off the hook too easily, and the ones that were inconvenienced even a little are squealing like pigs when there is a democrat in the WH trying to pin it on someone from the other side. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/16/13 at 12:06:07 The Bubs have known about this & done nothing, They hate everything tea party as much as dems, tea party threatens the power structure |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/16/13 at 14:18:34 172522333425320D21322B400 wrote:
That is what they do because reality is very unkind to their dream world view. Liberals, you are gonna wanna look away... http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2158831 OH SNAP!!! Liberals groups got SPECIAL treatment while conservative goups got the shaft!!! How are you libs gonna lie your way outa this one??? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/16/13 at 14:53:04 I know some people equate USA Today as a mouthpiece of the Right, I don't choose who reports the news. Here is more on the topic of how liberal groups sailed thought the oversight process... http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/15/left-wing-groups-sailed-past-the-politicized-irs/ Even more links within the Human Events report. Dream World, meet Reality ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/16/13 at 15:49:33 584741465B5C6D5D6D55474B00320 wrote:
You probably have a point here. But I also think you're talking about the old TEA party. 06-08 when Ron Paul was that group's ideological center. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/16/13 at 15:55:01 11343B30143939303B550 wrote:
Humanevents.com dane ... wowee, well was Rush Limbaugh.com taking that day off ? Oww OK. I should agree though, this 1/2 that is presented by the 2 links you have posted looks so bad. Especially when it has been done by a Bush appointee. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/16/13 at 18:45:12 7372696E617468000 wrote:
Humanevents.com dane ... wowee, well was Rush Limbaugh.com taking that day off ? Oww OK. I should agree though, this 1/2 that is presented by the 2 links you have posted looks so bad. Especially when it has been done by a Bush appointee. Cool. Srinath. [/quote] Shooting the messenger again, I guess we have to interpret this as your agreement with the content since you have nothing to say other that the usual about the source. Your weaksauce diversion with the Bush Appointee nonsense is disheartening, you usually have a very creative and illogical manifesto. "Bush Appointee" is all you got to use against the mountain of evidence??? I see your "Bush Appointee" and raise you one NTEU. Here's some more interesting info about the Liberal union the runs the IRS - http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/16/the-liberal-union-behind-the-i/ |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/16/13 at 18:48:44 7372696E617468000 wrote:
Humanevents.com dane ... wowee, well was Rush Limbaugh.com taking that day off ? Oww OK. I should agree though, this 1/2 that is presented by the 2 links you have posted looks so bad. Especially when it has been done by a Bush appointee. Cool. Srinath. [/quote] This is on the house - a report from the rock-ribbed Republican broadcaster - ABC News /sarcasm The official in charge of targeting Conservatives now in Obamacare, I guess your political affiliation will be asked of you upon entry into the ER -- just for statistical reasons, I am sure... ;D ;D ;D http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-in-charge-during-tea-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/ |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/16/13 at 19:41:59 Daney daney daney, you're late to this game. I have presented the points well before you thought you had a trump card. Looks like you had the worm that looks like donald trump that has just been discovered in the amazon. In no specific order these are the points. The IRS with Bush's direction investigated NAACP and greenpeace for no reason in 2003 and 2006. They only investigated 100 TEA and patriot and 300 total. I'm hearing 3200 new applications were filed, and over 1000 had TEA in the name. If that's the case - these numbers look positively like too few were pulled even as a random sample. I think its a case of the republicans letting their fellow fund raisers off the hook too easily, and the ones that were inconvenienced even a little are squealing like pigs when there is a democrat in the WH trying to pin it on someone from the other side. The next point is - new 501c4 was all that was scrutinized. The 501c4 organizations were supposed to be non political. The fact that they had TEA in their name = they were political. Their scrutiny was well deserved. They also had scrutinized "patriot" and 200 others. 200 out of 300 were not TEA or patriot. They searched for political terms in a non political application in their article of incorporation. What part of that isn't clear to you. You're going to have to show they scrutinized TEA but not Obama. Else this is a republican lead witch hunt. It seems to me that the IRS was merely doing their job. Teabaggers claiming tax exemption because they're a non political social welfare group?? Really? ...Besides, 25% of the groups "targeted" were bagger groups. Who were the rest and why aren't they bitching about it? Nothing I have seen ur read shows that the Tea Party was treated worse than other political groups seeking tax exempt status, instead I am seeing what appears to be a clear example of the Tea Party actually being shown favoritism over other political groups. There is plenty more - its in this thread. Your points are a regurgitated version of what webby has been posting. TEA baggers are complaining. They were 40%+ of applicantions and less than 30% of scrutiny - and less than 10% total was even pulled for scrutiny. The bigger point is, 501c4 is non political. The fact they have TEA = political. They should not just have been scrutinized, they should have been outright rejected. I'd say they got off very very lightly due to Bush appointees running the place. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/16/13 at 20:34:24 66797F7865625363536B79753E0C0 wrote:
Yea I know what is afoot here. I think this point by JOG is spot on. Republican appointees in the IRS tried to squelch TEA. The scandal has broke now, cos now the IRS gets to work on Obamacare. It is republicans ace up their sleeve, and they knew it was there all along cos they put it in few years ago. Much like what they did to Elliot Spitzer. They knew the whole hookers thing for months before they broke it. They broke it just a few days before the bank bail out cos he was opposed to it and he had the brains and clout to stop it. He had to be removed. This is the end game. Some windbag politician will bluster "An agency so corrupt like the IRS is now going to be handed the power to collect penalties and enforce Obamacare on the american people. What next, will they be asking party affiliation when you go see the doctor. We cannot allow this to happen" Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/16/13 at 21:31:33 3C3D26212E3B274F0 wrote:
When did this "Daney" thing happen? This is Star's lame attempt, can't you come up with your own material? Quote:
Back to the fool-speak I see, I get the feeling demolishing your following spew is not going to make a difference for you but maybe the rest of us can learn something. Quote:
And with no specific logic or supporting data I expect. Quote:
Yep, just as I thought. Just for kicks, though, so what? How did this affect the elections in 04 and 08? Oh, that's because you are doing apples and oranges again. Quote:
No evidence so it didn't happen. Just for giggles, 10% is a pretty big sample, especially since similar groups with the name Obama and such breezed through. Evidence, which you obviously didn't read, is above. See, the trick is to back up what you say with real world information and you have failed to do that. Quote:
Any proof or just more spew? I think a group whose purpose is to protect the population from government tyranny is the epitome of a social welfare group. Quote:
Says the guy whose self-identified but greatly more dubious groups breezed through the system is record time. Quote:
I think you need to break out that dictionary again because you just proved my point without meaning to. Yes they searched for political terms for only those on the conservative side. I could say there is no such thing as a liberal social welfare group and that they are all political. Quote:
Done!! As an added bonus, Obama publicly "fired" the IRS guy, who only had a month left anyway, so I agree with Obama, it isn't a Republican led witch hunt. Don't even think of disagreeing with Obama!! Quote:
Wow, you know we all can read, right? And you know that we know that a group with the word Tea and a group with the word Patriot both might be Conservative? I find your abuse of percentages hilarious!!! Quote:
That is because you are soo blindly partisan that if Obama himself came to your home and confessed to this scandal while giving you a run-n-tug, you would still deny it ever happened. Quote:
Went though from start to finish looking for your backup and there is none. Again, you have provided no substance, just wild theories and accusations. It's like De Ja Vu. Quote:
Thank you!!! I am honored to be in such esteemed company!! Quote:
This is going to end up with you hating Mormons again, isn't it?? I love how TEA = political. Let me try Liberal = fascist. Funny thing is, I can find more proof to my claim than you can for yours. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/16/13 at 22:00:43 There is a 12000 character limit, I cant be posting all the proof. There is some I heard on the radio. I'll give you an example - Liberal group closed down due to IRS dragging their feet. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/theswamp/2013/05/the-irs-scandal-were-the-left-wing-media-also-targeted For two and a half years, I was part of a small media nonprofit, the Chicago News Cooperative CNC), that produced Chicago content for the Midwest edition of the New York Times. We produced two pages each Friday and Sunday and I also served as columnist on those days in the Times, an iconic object of conservatives’ derision. We ran out of money and closed shop last March but not before our own frustrating dealings of more than two years with the same IRS office in Cincinnati that looked into groups with “Tea Party,” “patriot” or other possibly ideological-driven words in their names. Just like those conservative groups, we were seeking tax-exempt status, in our case so-called 501(c)(3) status. And we waited and waited and waited for resolution of a request that, we were told by our lawyer, should have taken perhaps six months. But for more than two years we cooled our heels seeking adjudication. We heard zilch. The IRS foot-dragging prompted foundations to look at us skeptically and wonder what the heck was taking us so long to get our IRS tax-exempt status. One very famous foundation’s grant we expected was delayed precisely because of that ambiguity. Not getting that grant was a reason we closed shop. There is proof for all of it. You can call it spew all you like. Its all proveable. NAACP and Greenpeace were agencies that were pursuing agenda's counter to the Bushies. Its not all about elections always. IRS was Bushies and republicommunists hand puppet even through the 2012 elections. They were still run by the 2 Bush appointees. Shulman notably. How many applications - I said 2010 was 3200 - I hard on the radio. I however was able to find 2012 - All told in 2012, some 2,774 groups of all types applied for 501(c)(4) status. Of those, 2,324 were approved, eight were denied, and 442 were held in limbo, neither approved nor denied. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lets-back-up-how-is-the-irs-supposed-to-scrutinize-501c4s-anyway/ Your listening too much to the republicommunists echo chamber. 442 with TEA, patriot etc etc - really its a non political organization, social welfare. TEA = Political. And 10% is a big sample - this seemes to be over 15% ... duh ... 10% is a small sample, when they are supposed to look @ everything. Everything I posted is proveable. You just need to be outside the echo chamber a few times. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/16/13 at 23:11:49 2C2D36313E2B375F0 wrote:
ABC News and USA Today are the Republican echo Chamber? How do you keep coming up with this stuff time and again after proven wrong soo much??? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/17/13 at 04:50:52 17323D36123F3F363D530 wrote:
Daney - when you use words like this I know you have no point. The head of the IRS was an internal promotion. After the Bush appointee left @ the end of term in dec. He was promoted cos that was the obvious course of action. He was fired cos he was the one that had a hand in the scam. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/17/13 at 04:55:46 0A2F202B0F22222B204E0 wrote:
ABC News and USA Today are the Republican echo Chamber? How do you keep coming up with this stuff time and again after proven wrong soo much??? [/quote] You haven't proved nothing. You just call people names. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/17/13 at 06:29:43 Nothing I have seen ur read shows that the Tea Party was treated worse than other political groups seeking tax exempt status, instead I am seeing what appears to be a clear example of the Tea Party actually being shown favoritism over other political groups. Then you cannot read English. Sorry Midnight; but this guy is an idiot. the word fits. The press will gradually close ranks around themselves now that he's been spying on them and Obama's "offensive linemen" that have been protecting him since he was a senator will not be around anymore. Without them running protection for him, he'll be reduced to something like Jimmy Carter. The really good thing to come out of this is the woman who was in charge of the irs division that targeted political enemies is now in charge of the irs division handling obamacare. that might make Obamacare go away!!! |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/17/13 at 06:36:23 YOu make some interesting points Sri. Personal experience counts for a lot more than words on a page or out of some talking heads mouth. Now, IF the numbers you posted are even close to accurate, then Id have to re-evaluate. But, in the past days Ive heard so many conflicting stories that it would require my own investigation in order to feel like Id gotten to a point where I could make an honest evaluation. What DO I feel comfortable with? I Do believe they were unfair. Why? Heads have rolled. Were they also incompetent? Sounds like it, according to SRi's complaint, |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/17/13 at 07:02:07 no JOG; this is not the same thing. Sri is changing the topic as are some in favorable news media. No liberal organization had their personal and financial information given to their political enemies. It's one thing to delay, delay and delay even further. it's another to send info to one's enemies. The whole BS nonsense about NAACP and Greenpeace is designed to take the spotlight off Hopey and turn it to someone else. Don't fall for it. Someone high up in Hopey's administration had the IRS release private info on his perceived enemies. On a 1-10, that's a big no-no. Don't get dragged off the main road here. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/17/13 at 08:38:31 5C5D46414E5B472F0 wrote:
Quote:
That is because you don't know what logic or sarcasm is. The points have been made, they have been backed up with real data and they dismantle all the distraction and verbal acrobatics you have been displaying this whole post. And you don't have the integrity to admit when you are wrong. Quote:
Oh, so now you admit that there was a scam and that the IRS singled out conservative groups while allowing ilberal groups a free pass. You probably will now say this one, lone-wolf acted solely on his own and no one else wven know what he was doing because he was a Bush appointee but hated Conservatives. Well, it's a start. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/17/13 at 08:40:21 60617A7D72677B130 wrote:
ABC News and USA Today are the Republican echo Chamber? How do you keep coming up with this stuff time and again after proven wrong soo much??? [/quote] You haven't proved nothing. You just call people names. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] You are ABSOLUTELY not the one to be throwing the "you just call people names" bit around. You are one of the worst at this!!! And I have proved everything becuase you are unable to disprove it nor even come up with a reasonable counter. Just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/17/13 at 10:38:38 77766D6A65706C040 wrote:
Did everyone see one of the slights-of-hand Srinath just tried to pull off? 2,774 is the total of the applications, not the total conservative applications. He then goes on the show how small a percentage the 442 is of the total 2,774. Apples to Oranges AGAIN!!! By this claim 100% of the withheld - the 442 - were conservative leaning groups and 0% from liberal groups. The real test is the total number of conservative applications, the total number of liberal applications and the numbers of delays for each. His argument is that of a con man. Don't be fooled!!! |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/17/13 at 10:52:01 46595F5845427343734B59551E2C0 wrote:
The numbers are presented in a way to deceive you into thinking the it isn't a big deal but if the total number of groups help up was 442 and the total number conservative groups held up was also 442 then only conservative groups were help up. He is using percentages of unrelated numbers to trick people into uncertainty. It is a classic deception!! |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/17/13 at 14:00:07 If I am proved wrong I admit it - case in point - 51504B4C43564A220 wrote:
Oh well that was rather premature of me. They were hispanic, but not illegal cos they were PR. So well now that we have our own hispanics lets boot the other hispanics out. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] OK Daney - you have proved nothing except your ability to hurl obscenities. That 2744 and 442 was not what you interpreted it to be ... In numbers. 2744 applications in 2012. The year it started was 2009 BTW but 2012 numbers were available via google a lot easier. So here it is Total applications - 2744. Total held up 442 - Not just TEA and patriot is 442. Everything held up is 442. I made that comparison to dane's allegation that 300 out of 3200 which is under 10% is very very high. The applications dont have a party affiliation in it. Its a social welfare org that is the intent. Political = 527c I think. 501c4 = non political. If it got held up it was due to something in the application telling reviewers it was political. How were they even to know what was republican. Its non political application. You dont apply with a political SOP (statement of purpose) in a social welfare organisation application. I dont see how it was singling out republicans, cos "republicans" were not even supposed to be mentioned in the application. D-uh. Non political. Only way they have a leg to stand on is if the number held up is WAY out of whack with the total applications cross section. As in if 75% of held ups were republican, but only 50% applications were republican that is going to need further looking into and likely an intentional targeting. If its 50 of the held up and 50% in the application pool, its just random sampling. In any case - non political = the application should have been indistinguishable as to what party it is. People that got fired were bush appointees, who got promoted, and they were at the helm when it happened. In fact bush appointee @ the head finished his term and walked away. The guy who took the job (steven miller) was second in command and also carry over from bush. The way I see it, Bush appointees squelched the TEA baggers. Obviously TEA baggers were likely to take votes from republicans. Now that IRS is set to get far more powers via Obamacare, the republicans and TEA baggers have used the last bullet in their arsenal to kill Obamacare. Much like the famous hookers of Elliot Spitzer. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/17/13 at 17:10:22 26273C3B34213D550 wrote:
And then this in the same post; Quote:
Once... Quote:
Twice... Quote:
Third times the charm Quote:
Bonus stealth insult. Nice crocodile tears, though. ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/17/13 at 17:37:55 17323D36123F3F363D530 wrote:
45445F5857425E360 wrote:
I must be a prophet!!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/17/13 at 18:22:05 64657E7976637F170 wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/there-was-no-surge-in-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/ An exerpt: Quote:
And another: Quote:
A number of people...I think I know someone who fits that description ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/17/13 at 18:41:57 76535C57735E5E575C320 wrote:
And then this in the same post; Quote:
Once... Quote:
Twice... Quote:
Third times the charm Quote:
Bonus stealth insult. Nice crocodile tears, though. ;D ;D ;D[/quote] No one is calling you a TEA bagger dane. What part of that do you not understand. Really I dont care all the obscenities you like, all yours dane. It's just a reflection of how you were raised. I know I also did that, I should be and am ashamed to have done so. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/17/13 at 18:51:26 76535C57735E5E575C320 wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/there-was-no-surge-in-irs-tax-exempt-applications-in-2010/275985/ An exerpt: Quote:
And another: Quote:
A number of people...I think I know someone who fits that description ;D ;D ;D[/quote] I never said anything about 2010. I did say post citizens united though. You assumed it was 2010. I also said this was started in 2009. One more of those republican appointees lying. Was that your point ... you could have knocked me over with a feather ... what a shock. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/17/13 at 19:01:57 And here is more twists on citizens united. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC on Jan. 21, 2010, is having a profound effect on the laws governing corporate political activity in nearly half the states. The court ruled that the federal government may not prohibit direct corporate and union spending on advertising for candidates' elections. While the ruling does not directly affect state laws, there are 24 states that currently prohibit or restrict corporate and/or union spending on candidate elections. Many of these states are looking at repealing or re-writing these laws to avoid legal challenges under the new standard set by Citizens United. Furthermore, it is likely that states will choose not to enforce these laws, which has the potential to radically change the political landscape as we head into the 2010 elections. It is important to note that the Citizens United decision does not strike down bans on corporate contributions to candidates, which currently exist in 23 states. Only the ban on direct corporate and union spending on campaign advertising is addressed by this decision. There is 10 pages of it on the 23 states that individually had to change their laws to not contradict CU. I dont want to post it here its a big table of sorts. Its sorta like this. Alabama Corporations cannot fund ads directly under their own name, but must pay for them thru a PAC; corporations cannot contribute to a PAC (NOTE: this opinion applied specifically to spending on ads for/against referenda; not entirely clear that it applies to ads for/against candidates too) (AG Opinion 82-088; conversation with SOS staff on 1/25/10) (§10-2A-70 and 10-2A-70.1) None. So CU went into effect at an un even dates across the country. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/18/13 at 06:04:21 The Internal Revenue Service's watchdog told top Treasury officials around June 2012 he was investigating allegations the tax agency had targeted conservative groups, for the first time indicating that Obama administration officials were aware of the explosive matter in the midst of the president's re-election campaign. uh-oh...... this is getting closer and closer to Hopey...... |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/18/13 at 12:34:00 ...it's their job to targer fraud. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/18/13 at 20:22:22 it's their job to targer fraud. answer this question: is it part of fraud investigation to release personal and confidential information to that group's political enemy? yes or no |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/19/13 at 08:40:41 566463727564734C60736A010 wrote:
501c4 is a social welfare organization. Its not supposed to have enemies. I am the enemy of my neighborhood soup kitchen and all their donors. I want the list of restaurants and stores that give their food to the soup kitchen so I can go an picket them or throw rocks @ them. D-uh ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/19/13 at 09:26:15 Obamas brother got His approved AND they made it retroactive so he wouldnt go to jail, cuz he had been collecting $$$ for 2 years as a non profit, even tho he wasnt.. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/19/13 at 15:26:48 716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote:
Whaaaat ? I thought he was kenya's crackhead ... or Obama has a another brother ? Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/13 at 05:50:08 answer this question: is it part of fraud investigation to release personal and confidential information to that group's political enemy? yes or no why won't any of you liberals answer this question? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/20/13 at 16:58:27 4B797E6F68796E517D6E771C0 wrote:
What garbage question - when was it proved that the donor list to that 501c4 was released to any "enemy" ... You do know that a 501c4 - a social welfare organisation wont have any enemies right ? Ergo - your question is lassoed upon its own feet. 501c4 has no enemies. Donor list released to enemies = its not 501c4. If it has enemies - its a 527, not a 501c4. Dude you are shooting @ a soup kitchen's donor store and restaurant. I'll put it in terms of the savage. Why wont you savage fools not answer the question - How much fuel pressure I should set the fuel pump to run at and at what radiator pressure should my radiator cap open. Why wont you answer the question ... yea ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/20/13 at 19:52:52 1312090E011408600 wrote:
What garbage question - when was it proved that the donor list to that 501c4 was released to any "enemy" ... You do know that a 501c4 - a social welfare organisation wont have any enemies right ? Ergo - your question is lassoed upon its own feet. 501c4 has no enemies. Donor list released to enemies = its not 501c4. If it has enemies - its a 527, not a 501c4. Dude you are shooting @ a soup kitchen's donor store and restaurant. I'll put it in terms of the savage. Why wont you savage fools not answer the question - How much fuel pressure I should set the fuel pump to run at and at what radiator pressure should my radiator cap open. Why wont you answer the question ... yea ... Cool. Srinath.[/quote] Well, apparantly they do have enemies because the administrion somehow coordinated attacks against them so, naturally, no they have no enemies but reality has proven that they do. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/20/13 at 19:54:22 What garbage question figured you'd dodge it; coward. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/21/13 at 10:33:31 142621303726310E223128430 wrote:
Evade, dodge, deflect. That's the liberal playbook. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/21/13 at 16:14:48 71545B50745959505B350 wrote:
Evade, dodge, deflect. That's the liberal playbook.[/quote] OK why wont you answer my question then ... What is the savage's fuel pressure ? And where can I get the radiator cap for it ? Yea why wont you answer it. Evade, dodge, deflect ... that's the republicommunists play book. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/21/13 at 16:19:00 4F6A656E4A67676E650B0 wrote:
They have enemies because they are political. They were scrutinized by the IRS cos they tried to sneak in as social welfare organization. D-uh. Social welfare have no enemies. The fact that they said "you're giving the list to our enemies" implies they are not social welfare. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/21/13 at 16:27:51 Well Lookie Here: 3/28/2012: Judge rules tea party group a PAC, NOT a nonprofit orginazion. A Travis County district court judge has ruled that a Houston-based tea party group is not a nonprofit corporation as it claims, but an unregistered political action committee that illegally aided the Republican Party through its poll-watching efforts during the 2010 elections. The summary judgment by Judge John Dietz upheld several Texas campaign finance laws that had been challenged on constitutional grounds by King Street Patriots, a tea party organization known for its "True the Vote" effort to uncover voter fraud. The ruling grew out of a 2010 lawsuit filed by the Texas Democratic Party against the King Street Patriots. The Democrats charged that the organization made unlawful political contributions to the Texas Republican Party and various Republican candidates by training poll watchers in cooperation with the party and its candidates and by holding candidate forums only for GOP candidates. Changes in law cited The group filed a counterclaim challenging several provisions of Texas campaign finance law, including the state's restrictions on corporate contributions to candidates, officeholders and political committees, and disclosure requirements that apply to political committees. ************************************************************************ They weren't even trying to be subtle about it either. They made unlawful political contributions to the Texas Republican Party and they endorsed republican candidates. when you have members of Congress, the Press and even the White House expressing outrage over the IRS doing their jobs to police these groups for violating the Tax exempt Laws. Thjey are still pushing this theme the IRS only singled out conservative groups. It was reported out of 300 groups examined by the IRS, 70 were conservative. How do you get from 70 out of 300 to only conservative groups were examined? I bet if you could get to their funding source you would find it was republican think tanks or creeps like Kochroach brothers....scandle my tushy. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/13 at 18:17:26 OK why wont you answer my question then ... What is the savage's fuel pressure ? And where can I get the radiator cap for it ? Yea why wont you answer it. Evade, dodge, deflect ... that's the republicommunists play book. don't your feet get tired from all that dancing around the question? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/21/13 at 18:18:29 Well Lookie Here: 3/28/2012: Judge rules tea party group a PAC, NOT a nonprofit orginazion. one out of how many?.... |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/21/13 at 18:45:09 152720313627300F233029420 wrote:
I seem to be learning form the best @ that tactic ... so why dont you answer the question. BTW read my reply, I already answered it. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/21/13 at 21:30:47 10110A0D02170B630 wrote:
I seem to be learning form the best @ that tactic ... so why dont you answer the question. BTW read my reply, I already answered it. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] Web, we keep bringing out the truth and they just dodge, evade and deflect, tossing insults the whole way. Why do we even bother? We know what's right and they know what's right but can't bring themselves to admit it. We dismantle their weak arguments and they just comeback with a different falshood, dodge or deflection. I think I am just going to go back to ignoring their posts.... I don't know how you help someone who doesn't want to learn. :( :( :( |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/22/13 at 05:11:48 I agree dane; it's a character flaw we have; looking at a train wreck. Honest; I've got to stop. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/22/13 at 05:22:31 I'm heading out today and won't be back for a few days so I will get a forced vacation from those two loonies. Here's what will happen, I will visit 3 different plants in Georgia. While we walk around the plant or have lunch, politics will come up like it always does. None of these people will say they should pay more taxes, none of the will say it's not fair that 'rich guys' don't pay their 'fair' share, no one will be glad government is taking over healthcare and none of them will think things are better today than 5 years ago. None of them. These will be plant engineers, managers and supervisors. Now, ask yourself why these people, who are leaders of industry and from all different backgrounds, see the world so vastly different than our friends Star and Sri.... |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/22/13 at 06:16:01 Oh gee how altrusitic of you 2. Really you should register yourself as a social welfare organisation. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/22/13 at 06:17:27 5E6C6B7A7D6C7B44687B62090 wrote:
Ooooo Now, I know, you work @ fox studios. Yea that's a cool job to have. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/22/13 at 19:47:57 Heading out webby? Don't let the door hit you in the ass. Sri, I have wasted my time over and over arguing with these two right-wing nuts who delight in posting 100% brainwashed bullsh!t. It seems they are both cut out of the same mold. Their brains are wired the same. They are angry 24/7. They get even angrier when presented with facts. Logic and reason are foreign to them. Every fact is nonsense. Every stupid lie from Fux Noise is gospel. One thing they have in common, they get really angry. And they start calling you every name they can come up with. Ha, ha, I've been called a commie, socialist, libtard, dirty hippy, moron, stupid, etc. I really wish someone could do a psychological study on these two guys. I would be interested in an analysis of the hate and anger they display. These guys are almost foaming at the mouth when posting. They are so angry, frustrated and maladjusted they must live horrible lives of anger, hate and frustration. Type A personalities no doubt. I would suspect they both have appointments with heart attacks somewhere down the line...sad. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/23/13 at 10:19:51 350700111607102F031009620 wrote:
Oh ... that's easy ... 9 out of 10 CEO's prefer to shaft the workers. You need to only stay with your CEO friends, so you can remain in your echo chamber. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/23/13 at 14:31:36 Oh ... that's easy ... 9 out of 10 CEO's prefer to shaft the workers. You need to only stay with your CEO friends, so you can remain in your echo chamber. they are not CEO's; they are people who work for a living. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/23/13 at 14:35:36 Sri, I have wasted my time over and over arguing with these two right-wing nuts I wish you argued Star. You make statements and when challenged, you change the topic or YOU start name calling. I asked one very simple question that you and Sri won't answer. You claim the IRS was just giving an extra closer look at conservative organizations. closer scrutiny you called it. I simply asked if it was your opinion that giving personal financial information to an organizations political enemies fell under the guise of closer scrutiny. Neither of you will answer. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Dane Allen on 05/23/13 at 16:27:02 182A2D3C3B2A3D022E3D244F0 wrote:
It's all a house of cards, if they answer that question then the whole thing comes crashing down. Star doesn't argue, he bullies and then spews hate. It's just who he is and the belief structure he has adopted, which cannot be challenged else it will collapse and he will have nothing. It's not that they won't answer, it is that they cannot answer for it would cast aside the dreamworld in which they reside. I've stopped reading their posts altogether because there just isn't anything to learn from their writings, no intellectual benefit. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by LostArtist on 05/23/13 at 16:44:02 637C7A7D60675666566E7C703B090 wrote:
UNless people STOP leaning on the bad behavior of "The Other Guy" & Hold THEIR GUys feet to the fire for Their bAD BEHAVIOR, nothing WILL EVER SLOW THE CORRUPTION WE ARE all BEING RUINED BY, Admit the faults of Your Guy. Demand they be held accountable. Only then can we hope to get control over our government. Character & principled behavior on both sides will repair our country. Continued bickering, justifying bad behavior of one side by the bad behavior of the other side yields WHAT?> What we Have! Grow up, everyone,, [/quote] that's the darn best post I've ever seen on any web forum anywhere!!!! awesome JOG! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Midnightrider on 05/23/13 at 16:45:54 +1 :) |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/24/13 at 08:03:55 596B6C7D7A6B7C436F7C650E0 wrote:
Aaaah OK you do work @ fox studios then. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/24/13 at 08:08:19 04212E25012C2C252E400 wrote:
It's all a house of cards, if they answer that question then the whole thing comes crashing down. Star doesn't argue, he bullies and then spews hate. It's just who he is and the belief structure he has adopted, which cannot be challenged else it will collapse and he will have nothing. It's not that they won't answer, it is that they cannot answer for it would cast aside the dreamworld in which they reside. I've stopped reading their posts altogether because there just isn't anything to learn from their writings, no intellectual benefit.[/quote] I have answered the bloody question 100 times. But for the extremely hard of comprehension - here it is again. A social welfare organization has no "political enemies" The fact that they have them, and have declared that their "donor list is handed over to their political enemies" means they are not social welfare. Simple. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/24/13 at 08:15:17 0B2834330635332E3433470 wrote:
UNless people STOP leaning on the bad behavior of "The Other Guy" & Hold THEIR GUys feet to the fire for Their bAD BEHAVIOR, nothing WILL EVER SLOW THE CORRUPTION WE ARE all BEING RUINED BY, Admit the faults of Your Guy. Demand they be held accountable. Only then can we hope to get control over our government. Character & principled behavior on both sides will repair our country. Continued bickering, justifying bad behavior of one side by the bad behavior of the other side yields WHAT?> What we Have! Grow up, everyone,, [/quote] that's the darn best post I've ever seen on any web forum anywhere!!!! awesome JOG! 8-)[/quote] You want to hold Obama's feet to the fire ... I saw no fire holding when Cheney/Bush ran the constitution and the country into the ground based on lies. Then the TEA bagging Idiots started proper as grassroots in 2008 and in 10 were co opted by Koch bros and Grover Norqvist and turned against Obama when he had nothing to do with explosion of all the expenses. Cheney/Bush charged the credit card, and Obama just had to pay the bill. The TEA baggers blame Obama for it. They call Obama Food stamp president. Bush opened the criteria for it, Obama is just paying that bill too. Welfare queens are republican states. I'd limit the outflow/inflow ratio to something like .9. Unlike SC which is @ .6. Seriously, cutting govt entitlements starts with the red states. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/24/13 at 20:33:44 The red states do not want ANYTHING from the federal government. Period. gubbmint intrusion gonna take away har guns n' bibles doncha' know. Oklahoma Republicans say NO to disaster relief and ask for a smaller government. .......Oh wait, that was NO to disaster relief for hurricane Sandy affecting the east coast. Those people didn't deserve it. I'm sure we will hear a different tune now. And it's not just disaster relief. The richest nation in the world has an appalling record on helping/treating the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the mentally ill, children -- the least-powerful of our society. We can't afford social programs but we can always afford WMD. We can't afford to provide single-payer but every goddammed congressperson and their families sure as hell has full coverage. The 1% condemn everything: unemployment benefits, taxes for the wealthy (little people, taxes are OK), food stamps, housing assistance, equal and fair access to health care that won't bankrupt people, and the list just goes on and on. Of course, the wealthy are also the ones responsible for much of the unemployment in this country, due to the Wall Street scandal (the scandal that hasn't really been a scandal so far), they are also responsible for people not having access to affordable health care, because they own the health care providers and they charge $15 for one aspirin tablet because the CEO has to make $24 million plus every year. They own all the big corporations, and they work together to fix prices so there's really no competition to keep prices low. They pool their money and buy Congress, to make sure nothing changes for them. Everyone else, tough. They commit crimes and don't get prosecuted, much less investigated. They destroy the environment, and if the little people create a stink about it, they pay a pittance as their penalty--what the hell, they'll just raise prices on everyone and make up the loss. Meanwhile, they continue to rape the environment hoping no one will notice, but they know if someone does it won't be much of a set back for them. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by WebsterMark on 05/25/13 at 05:41:23 A social welfare organization has no "political enemies" The fact that they have them, and have declared that their "donor list is handed over to their political enemies" means they are not social welfare. That, is beyond stupid..... You definition of what is and what is not a social welfare organization would depend entirely upon where it fits in the political spectrum. The fact you are blind to this shows how political this is. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/25/13 at 10:21:20 76776C6B64716D050 wrote:
UNless people STOP leaning on the bad behavior of "The Other Guy" & Hold THEIR GUys feet to the fire for Their bAD BEHAVIOR, nothing WILL EVER SLOW THE CORRUPTION WE ARE all BEING RUINED BY, Admit the faults of Your Guy. Demand they be held accountable. Only then can we hope to get control over our government. Character & principled behavior on both sides will repair our country. Continued bickering, justifying bad behavior of one side by the bad behavior of the other side yields WHAT?> What we Have! Grow up, everyone,, [/quote] that's the darn best post I've ever seen on any web forum anywhere!!!! awesome JOG! 8-)[/quote] You want to hold Obama's feet to the fire ... I saw no fire holding when Cheney/Bush ran the constitution and the country into the ground based on lies. Then the TEA bagging Idiots started proper as grassroots in 2008 and in 10 were co opted by Koch bros and Grover Norqvist and turned against Obama when he had nothing to do with explosion of all the expenses. Cheney/Bush charged the credit card, and Obama just had to pay the bill. The TEA baggers blame Obama for it. They call Obama Food stamp president. Bush opened the criteria for it, Obama is just paying that bill too. Welfare queens are republican states. I'd limit the outflow/inflow ratio to something like .9. Unlike SC which is @ .6. Seriously, cutting govt entitlements starts with the red states. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] And THERE You Are! How will your attitude yield an Improved America? YOu will NOT hold your guys feet to the fire because Bush got away with things. YOU say you are a principled man,m, Yet, here you demonstrate you arent, & I was always the same. I have been every bit as ready to see their feet held to the fire, nbo matter what party.. & YOU act as if youre so "Right".. Youre part of the problem, Either admit that or get off of the Obama is a good man thing. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/25/13 at 15:49:38 You cant vote for Idiot #1 and turn around and complain about him. A lot of Bush voters did that ... promptly some how that absolved them of their responsibility, those same fools recommended we vote for McCain - the entire conservative talk radio roster did this. Calling Bush Jorge W Bush. Of course these same Idiots recommended we vote for RMoney. The whole problem with complaining about the guy you just voted for has this air of "Well I've voted cos its my credo to vote for Republican but the Idiot on the republican ticket is a loser, so I am going to vote for him and complain and that way I dont have to own up" Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/13 at 18:23:42 DO WHAT??? YOu mean if I vote for someone I cant complain about him? YOu realize how IDIOTIC that is? BY that logic I get hired & screw things up & tell the boss HEY! YOU Hired me, you cant complain! Why do you argue from such childish positions? If you vote for them you cant complain??? REally? Well Guess WHAT? You realize people have been recalled from their elected positions, right? YOu suppose Only those who didnt voye for him voted to fire him? Good GRIEF, You actually Typed that? You believe that? Honestly? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/27/13 at 08:11:57 I'm sorry JOG, I have heard that line of complaining by all the republican talking heads when Bush was in office IMHO its as hollow as it gets. Its one of those, "yea yea yea Bush is bad, lets now vote for McCain" ... seriously ... huh, then you can complain about McCain ... then vote for palin next time ? I dont care what you think really. The argument is hollow and complaining about the guy you just voted for is a convenient way to wash your hands off the responsibility you had in putting him in office. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/27/13 at 08:17:20 Obama is so bad. e need to repair what he's done. Vote for Elizabeth Warren. She's the only one who can fix the 16 years of crap. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/27/13 at 08:40:24 I didnt vote for Bush, but when he was in office I complained about him. I am HONEST. I complain about WRONG BEhavior, no matter what party is doing it, |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/27/13 at 11:40:25 Right you do that. We have however been picking the best of 2 Idiots for a long time. Its very glib to vote for someone, and turn around and complain about him and advocate to vote for the next one from that same party. I see that all the time - on radio as well as here. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/13 at 10:21:06 & how do YOU suggest we get America back on track? Continue to protect Our Guy from criminal prosecution because YOUR GUY skated? |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Paraquat on 05/28/13 at 11:14:47 Let them all burn. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/28/13 at 12:20:30 2A353334292E1F2F1F27353972400 wrote:
Yea Obama is so awful, the only way to get us back on track is to vote for Elizabeth Warren. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/13 at 13:11:06 You are avoiding the truth, YOu know both sides cover for "Their Guy". I know & you know obama has done some wrong,, but you dont want him to pay, because bush skated,, thats really sick, |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/28/13 at 13:18:05 Yes I want Obama to pay, right as soon as we get Bushies to pay ... BTW I hear a lot of allegations about what Obama did, I need to see proof though, Bush we do have the proof, so lets lynch that guy, then work on proof, then when he's done with his term if he's guilty, we lynch him too ... Then we need to vote Warren. She's the only one who can un screw us. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Paraquat on 05/29/13 at 06:11:49 4F4E55525D48543C0 wrote:
Yea. That's what Obama promised. He failed to deliver. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/29/13 at 07:07:03 Ive been watching the New president "forgive" the outgoing president for decades |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/29/13 at 08:09:59 647B7D7A6760516151697B773C0E0 wrote:
We can forgive the Bush. Yes New president Forgives the outgoing president. We lynch Cheney ... no one said nothing about forgiving the devil ... Obama promised ... and we were hoping he would deliver. RMoney promised ... and we were terrified he might deliver. Anyway all that is old news. We gotta repair the Obama and Bush damage. We're going to have to vote for Elizabeth Warren. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/29/13 at 08:11:15 I like her a lot better than most. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/29/13 at 11:30:25 485751564B4C7D4D7D45575B10220 wrote:
Whaaaaa ... how am I going to annoy you then ... I know ... Vote Hilary, she's the only one who can lead us out of this mess. Plus we need a lesbian woman president, and a black first dude. We need Hilary. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/29/13 at 11:56:03 I couldnt possibly care less about the color of anyone. Actions are what matter. If Bammy didnt suck Id happily support him, Hillary is a criminal & has been for decades. Ill never support her. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by srinath on 05/30/13 at 07:26:47 4B545255484F7E4E7E46545813210 wrote:
Yea Obama is so awful, we will hold his feet to fire, as soon as his term is over and then we'll pardon him when we vote in Hilary. We need to hold his feet to fire. Then we pardon him with Hilary. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: opps... Post by Starlifter on 05/31/13 at 20:01:57 Elizabeth Warren Rocks! She could be my President, I would follow her through fire. Item: Washington Post Elizabeth Warren starts the pendulum swing back to the left Elizabeth Warren slams pro-Wall Street bill Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday that she will fight legislation in the Senate that would roll back key parts of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday that she will fight legislation in the Senate that would roll back key parts of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, just a week after the package made it out of the House Financial Services Committee with support from fellow Democrats. Item: Boston Globe Warren uses liberal clout selectively in new role. Sen. Elizabeth Warren supports new bill to break up big banks. Elizabeth Warren grilled Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew on the Obama administration's opposition to breaking up the big Wall Street banks that are "too big to fail." As a solution, Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and David Vitter (R-Louisiana) introduced a bipartisan bill to break up the big banks and prevent future bailouts. AND Sen. Elizabeth Warren Questions Regulators’ Willingness To Prosecute Wall Street Banks. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) isn’t letting regulators off the hook for their lack of prosecutions of Wall Street banks in the wake of the financial crisis. After using her initial Senate Banking Committee hearing to press regulators about whether big banks are “too big to fail,” Warren is doing so again — this time in a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Justice Department, and the Federal Reserve. **************************************************************** Most people here are not followers of Sen Warren. She represents the hated left. But if ANYBODY is fighting for the country it's Elizabeth Warren! SOMEBODY has to, Obama sure won't. The right wingers have had their greedy grip on the country far too long. And while they're winning elections thanks to the brain dead viewers of the Fox Opinion Channel, they're losing their moral high horse on just about every issue in the book. That's what happens when you tip the scales so far to one side for far too long. People start to see what these assholes *REALLY* stand for. There are FAR too many gullible and ill-informed people (some of them proudly and willfully ill-informed!) who still vote for these wingnut morons. With Warren's example (and a whole lot of work) we may yet be able to take our country back from the greed-driven madness that is our current out-of-control financial system. I need a bumper sticker. Warren 2016 A President For The 100% Let's see the teabaggers run 'Ayn' Rand Paul against that. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |