Hello again, Steve:


Yeah, well I hope you aren't next to feel the weight of the IRS bulldozing through your life.What makes you think I'm a virgin? I've been audited several times. I just never thought I was TARGETED - until now. I'll bet I WAS. It happened during the Bush administration, and I WAS posting here. Duh! I can connect the dots..

Excon

Obviously you can't connect dots, the IRS confessed and you still see no problem. Nothing to see here, move along...

Lefties were denied exemptions and the TParty was not.

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/)

Seems Obama could have done a better job of targeting his enemies.

Don't tell me the iRS was even handed after all, well go figure!

don't tell me the iRS was even handed afterall, well go figure!

No they weren't . Their case is worse in that there was no denial... just endless delays and intrusions in matters unrelated to the application. Like I've already stated ;the delay is the equivalent of a denial .

Again... it is absolutely undeniable that conservative groups applications were set aside for extra scrutiny . That is a known fact. The only reason they were is because they had conservative sounding names.

This scandal isn't going away . In fact ,even in the IRS ,the investigation is much broader than we know. The IRS a week ago issued a "top priority" e-mail ordering its employees not to "wipe, re-image or otherwise destroy any hard drives"on any computer. If anything this scandal is going to grow... not go away .

Hello again, tom:

Like I've already stated ;the delay is the equivalent of a denial .

Couple things. Pursuant to the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Contributions-to-Organization-with-IRS-Application-Pending), when the IRS approves a timely filed exemption application, exempt status is recognized back to the date the organization was created. Thus, while an application is pending, the organization can treat itself as exempt..

So, your assertion is bunk. Most of the 501(c)4's are operating with their application "pending".

Secondarily, I WELCOME the continuing investigation. Every day, I am MORE and MORE convinced that there's NO scandal here. At most, it's bad management, and LACK of oversight by congress.

Look. If I hated Obama like YOU hate him, I'd latch on to every scintilla of scandal I could, too.

Excon

When someone that has applied for that exemption has been hassled by the IRS, EPA and 9 other government agencies it kind of hinders one's ability to do much besides fight the man. You hate the man don't you? I can never tell if you love or hate the man, it's very confusing.

As you deny hatred of Bush ,I also deny hatred of Obama.

My that Shulman fellow was awfully chummy with Obama.


Publicly released records show that embattled former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times during the Obama administration, more recorded visits than even the most trusted members of the president’s Cabinet.

Read more: Shulman had more White House visits than any cabinet member | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/irss-shulman-had-more-public-white-house-visits-than-any-cabinet-member/#ixzz2UmwYnT5I)


May not mean anything, but still curious. Obviously it wasn't 157 Easter Egg Rolls.

P.S. For Tal and all those fighting the one percenters, I also noticed on there another curious name on that list that was awfully chummy, Obama fundraiser and Commerce Secretary nominee Penny Pritzker (http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/28/obama_taps_billionaire_fundraiser_penny_pritzker). She's worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.7 BILLION, partly earned from depositors before her bank collapsed.

Where are the records of who visited Bush how many times?

By all means, get back to us on that. My link does offer this tidbit:


By contrast, Shulman's predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration and compared the IRS's remoteness from the president to “Siberia.”

Read more: Shulman had more White House visits than any Cabinet member | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/29/irss-shulman-had-more-public-white-house-visits-than-any-cabinet-member/#ixzz2Un6kvy7Q)

Hello again, Steve:


Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times Visitor, schmizitor.

Yawnnnnn...

Excon

I see.. they are targeting liberals...

For a non-policy making officer that is a hell of a lot of visits . There weren't that many Easter egg roll days at the White House. Even if you take into account the extra capo role the IRS will take on with Obamacare ,those vists are an unusual amt.

Hello again, Steve:

Visitor, schmizitor.

Yawnnnnn...

excon

You aren't the least bit curious why the IRS commissioner was in the White House more times than 3 of his closest cabinet members combined, more times than his boss Tim Geithner?

No of course not because that could lead to some of that evidence of a scandal you can't see yet. Like the White House you're satisfied with the non-answers (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/29/good-news-white-house-satisfied-with-irs-scandal-response-n1608761)we've been given thus far.

P.S. Americans overwhelmingly aren't satisfied with the non-answers we're gotten, including 63% of Democrats.


Special IRS Prosecutor Favored as Obama Support Drops (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/special-irs-prosecutor-favored-as-obama-support-drops.html)

Three-quarters of U.S. voters want a special prosecutor to investigate the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party groups, according to a poll that showed a drop in PresidentBarack Obama’s approval and trust ratings.

In the survey released today by Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University, registered voters favored a special prosecutor by 76 percent to 17 percent. Those backing such a move included 63 percent of Democrats.

“There is overwhelming bipartisan support for an independent investigation into the IRS,” Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac polling institute, said in a news release.

And 80% of Americans want background checks and that didn't happen either.

The Nixon defenders all wanted the see the "smoking gun " too even though everyone knew he was guilty .

And 80% of Americans want background checks and that didn't happen either.

And Americans overwhelmingly said not to pass Obamacare and we got it rammed down our throats anyway, but both are another thread. This one's about the IRS scandal.

And 80% of Americans want background checks and that didn't happen either.

And of those that supported background checks they did not want a national registration for guns. But that is what they tried to pass. Why? They could have made it simple and said no gun sales without a FFL. That is all they had to do. They screwed it up in a sneek attack power grab. Go figure??

That's the reason the right gives for voting down Toomey/Manchin but that's been debunked as a lie already.

That's the reason the right gives for voting down Toomey/Manchin but that's been debunked as a lie already.

Where is the link to the debunking because here is a link in support of what I had said.

The Problems of Toomey-Manchin | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345845/problems-toomey-manchin)

That was an interesting read and it bears study, but a national registry is a concern for a some but not others, and some like myself support a national registry. But if that's the only sticking point, so be it, but there is still the matter of what a majority of Americans want.

No doubt the right will find another sticking point if this one gets solved as its still early in the process. The last bill started in '86, and took half a decade to pass. I expect no less this time. But I hope it comes sooner.

If it's about what the people want we wouldn't have Zerocare, but that's another thread. The people want to get to the bottom of the IRS scsndal.

Opps

If it's about what the people want we wouldn't have Zerocare, but that's another thread. The people want to get to the bottom of the IRS scsndal.

The people want a job, not right wing hollering.

Lol, and yet your guys have hammered away at everything but jobs.

Larry Kudlow today makes the tax reform as a means to reigning in the corrupt powers of the IRS ,and spurring economic growth case today . He is right on!


Apart from criminal prosecution, the best way to strip the power of politics and corruption from the IRS is to initiate broad-based, pro-growth tax reform and simplification.

It's the complexity of the tax code that nurtures the corruptness of the IRS. There's a buzz in Washington about this possibility, where both Democrats and Republicans are interested in reform. We need a simpler and flatter tax code. We need to get rid of the crony-capitalist insider deductions and exemptions, which have given the IRS so much power.

These deductions and exemptions are precisely what nurtured the political corruption that led to a major scandal. Some conservatives—like my great pal Jim Pethokoukis—don't believe tax reform can be done. Old habits die hard, he believes. And the budget numbers from a pure flat tax never add up. Well, Pethokoukis may be right in his concerns. But that's no reason to give up the fight. I'm going to argue for a modified flat tax in the personal code, and a single-rate flat tax—or a sales tax net of investment—for large and small businesses. Here's a quick example of the need for this reform.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page just ran a tax-exempt IRS primer surrounding the 501(c), which unbelievably covers 28 categories of organizations.

That's a gigantic mess. And I say scrap the whole thing — take the IRS' power away. If people want to give to political campaigns, fine.

Give as much as you want to whomever. But post it on the Internet for all to see. No secret donors. No tax deductions. And no IRS interpretations. I don't know how many other examples of tax-exempt craziness there are in the code.

The Journal itself says "The tax code would be cleaner, and our politics fairer, if no one enjoyed any tax-exempt advantages."

Right on. That's where the simplicity comes from. And then let's put a limit on numerous other tax deductions. Trillions of revenue dollars are lost from mortgages, charitable contributions, health care, and state and local spending deductions. We don't need them.

But to make the tax-reform transition easier, and promote economic growth, let's go the way of Reagan in 1986 and slash marginal tax rates. For example, we have six brackets today: 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 40%. How about two brackets? One at 10% would have a high income threshold, and one at 28% would take over from there.

And lower tax rates make the remaining deductions far less valuable, even unnecessary.

And the low tax rates spur economic growth by providing new incentives to work, save, and invest. Housing and charitable deductions went through the roof during the prosperity years that followed the 1986 reform.

Really, why should Warren Buffett enjoy a $15 billion tax-free charitable loophole merely by donating his fortune to the Bill Gates Foundation? And why should the tax code stimulate non-profits when the economy needs profitable job-creating startups and companies?

Middle-income folks would benefit enormously from a flatter approach. Right now, a middle earner pays roughly a 15% payroll tax and a 28% income tax. That's a 43% tax rate, which is actually higher than the 40% top rate.

This is wrong. At a 10% income tax, the total burden for a middle-income family would drop to 25%. That's a major tax cut and a great increase in take-home pay.

Lower rates, fewer brackets, and a major cutback in cronyist deductions and exemptions won't end the IRS. But these measures surely will cut back on its arrogant power to make political judgments. That's the point. Budget cuts also will be necessary to make the deficit numbers work. That's as it should be.

But dynamic scoring will show a burst of economic activity that will reduce the short-term cost of tax-rate reduction while increasing the long-run growth of the American economy.

Coming out of this deep recession, we need 4% to 5% growth over the next 10 years, not 2%. Tax incentives are not the only instrument, but taxes change behavior. Taxes matter.

Of course, Team Obama thinks the IRS problem is just a few bad apples. They're wrong.

The IRS' institutional corruption has been enabled and encouraged by one of the craziest tax codes in the world. Tax reform can solve this.

IRS Reform Begins With Tax Reform - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/053113-658469-to-straighten-the-irs-reform-the-code.htm)

Rep Jim McDermott blamed the victims (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/04/IRS-Scanal-McDermott-Blames-the-Victims) of the IRS abuse for bringing it on themselves. That's right, you darn Teabaggers wouldn't have been harassed by the IRS if you hadn't tried to exercise your rights.


If the IRS scandal lacked a bully figure, it has one now. McDermott repeated the same attacks on 501(c)4 organizations that other Democrats have recycled in their talking points since the scandal began. But he made the mistake of attacking the witnesses--and misrepresenting the testimony of at least one in particular. All of them, he said, were before Congress because they had been seeking tax subsidies; but as Dr. John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage--already a tax-exempt organization--had just testified, his specific complaint was about the apparently criminal leak of their donors' names to a liberal organization.

Earlier in the hearing, it fell to Dr. Eastman to correct Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) in his attack on 501(c)4 groups and the anonymity of their donors, noting that the NAACP had relied on that anonymity as it was targeted by state governments in the Jim Crow South of the 1950s. Now, it was Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who came to Eastman's defense, setting aside his prepared questions to remind McDermott that no left-wing groups had been targeted. That point, in turn, was disputed by Democrats--who failed, however, to call any left-wing witnesses.

The basic--and deliberate--fault in McDermott's attack is the idea that being denied tax-exempt status does not mean being denied freedom of speech and assembly. It certainly does in a context in which applications for tax-exempt status were followed by intrusive questions about speech (and prayer!), and also, in some cases, further investigation of donors and organizers by the IRS and other federal agencies, creating a chilling effect. And, of course, if the government is seen to favor some groups and not others, that effectively discourages certain kinds of speech and assembly. The issue at stake remains constitutional liberty, not tax exemption.

McDermott and other Democrats showed a greater willingness to push back than they had previously done. But their resistance was as desperate as it was abusive. They pointed out (again) that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman (a Democrat) was a Bush appointee, and claimed that the Bush administration carried out similar targeting of liberal groups such as the NAACP.

In the NAACP's case, however, the recent scrutiny was legitimate: it had run highly political advertising against George W. Bush. In this case, the sweeping investigation and obstruction of every Tea Party group, before they had engaged in any kind of questionable political conduct, is what qualifies the IRS scandal as the national travesty that it is.

National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman, whose group's confidential information somehow found its way into the hands of their biggest rival the Human Rights Campaign, also ripped into Dems for their nonsense and explained how their donors have been harassed because their donor lists were released.

eSgFIo1kPG8


One of the members of the tea-party groups that were targeted by the IRS fired back at two Democratic congressmen (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350104/tea-party-group-chairman-fires-back-democrats-hearing-andrew-johnson) for their “scurrilous” comments dismissing the agency’s actions.

John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, addressed Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon first. Blumenauer had just finished arguing that the groups before the committee were political and should not be considered social-welfare organizations.

“It’s your kind of statements that have empowered IRS agents to make determinations about which organizations qualify for the public good and which don’t,” Eastman said to a round of applause. “The notion that defending traditional marriage doesn’t qualify as a defense of the public good is preposterous.”

Later, Eastman spoke to Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas. “How sad it is that efforts to educate about our Constitution have become a partisan, political issue that you think people ought not to get tax-exempt status for that,” Eastman said.

Hello again, Steve:

Damn that IRS. Let me know when you link Obama to it.. Yaaaaaawn..

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Damn that IRS. Lemme know when you link Obama to it.. Yaaaaaawn..

excon

Yaaaawn is right. I have yet to approach this as a witch hunt on Obama, it's about our rights no matter how far up the ladder it goes.

That's not what your fellow conservatives are saying.

Answer to what I say.

Its about our rights if indeed they were violated. That has yet to be confirmed. Issa will let you know when he has the proof. An admission to a glitch in the process is not admission of intentionally violating anyone's rights given the ambiguity of the law.

Targeted, I ain't ready for that one yet, not without more than allegations. If indeed the TParty was targeted unfairly without proper cause, I will join your outrage but excuse me if I don't just give knee jerk reaction to the allegations.

Its about our rights if indeed they were violated. That has yet to be confirmed. Issa will let you know when he has the proof. An admission to a glitch in the process is not admission of intentionally violating anyone's rights given the ambiguity of the law.

Targeted, I ain't ready for that one yet, not without more than allegations. If indeed the TParty was targeted unfairly without proper cause, I will join your outrage but excuse me if I don't just give knee jerk reaction to the allegations.

Still in denial. From the get-go the admission was inappropriate targeting of conservative groups.

But for now, I leave you with this:


Top IRS Official For Obamacare Implementation Placed On Administrative Leave (http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/top-irs-official-for-obamacare-implementation-placed-on-admi)

Sources say a key official in charge of overseeing health reform implementation, as well as another staffer, have been put on leave for accepting more than $1,000 in free meals and other items at a 2010 conference.


IRS “Can’t Find Receipts’ For $4 Million Conference (http://www.inquisitr.com/689139/irs-cant-find-receipts-for-4-million-conference/)

The IRS was apparently guilty of some sketchy recordkeeping in determining the complete cost of a $4 million employee conference held in Anaheim, Calif.

Evidently no one had a shoebox to keep all the paperwork.

This infamous conference paid for by the American people, which included a lame Star Trek parody video and a line-dancing video, was the subject of a Treasury Department Inspector General audit into excessive government spending that was released this week.

The IRS spent $50 million on conferences over a couple of years, but it turns out that the price tag for this one may have been higher than reported.

The Inspector General’s 63-page report explained in part, “While IRS management provided documentation showing the total final costs at $4.1 million, we could not obtain reasonable assurance that this amount represents a full and accurate accounting of the conference costs. The IRS was unable to provide documentation to support all costs associated with the conference … As a result, we cannot validate that the ‘final’ conference cost of $4.1 million reported by the IRS.”

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, the IRS sucks... But, you didn't spend 30 pages whining about them. You want the big guy, and you can't get him.

excon

How come nobody calls congress men on the Agriculture committee a scandal?

EWG Farm Subsidy Database (http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A09225128)

This is the guy who voted against feeding kids while he votes himself government money for his farms. And the right hollers about the nanny state but they think its okay tosuck off the public teat.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-hypocrisy-lawmakers-tea-party-ties-government/story?id=13259014#.Ua_-66Io6M8

Okay Speech where is your outrage?

You know my position on subsidies.

How come nobody calls congress men on the Agriculture committee a scandal?

EWG Farm Subsidy Database (http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A09225128)

This is the guy who voted against feeding kids while he votes himself government money for his farms. And the right hollers about the nanny state but they think its okay tosuck off the public teat.

Tea Party Hypocrisy? Some Lawmakers With Tea Party Ties Are on the Government Dole - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-hypocrisy-lawmakers-tea-party-ties-government/story?id=13259014#.Ua_-66Io6M8)

Okay Speech where is your outrage?

And the new farm bill is a trillion dollar protection racket, start a thread.

MSNBC's Martin Bashir has skillfully identified the latest Republican dog whistle, IRS.

N7s4_Fw65Ps

Apparently it goes even farther than just trying to get Obama it's a racist thing, got to get the "black man in the White House."

Just because you are not a nasty ol' racist doesn't mean they don't exist and are highly offended by the black guy in the white house. And will do and say anything to get him out.

And they vote for those that feed them and whose agenda aligns with theirs. A sad fact for sure but race baiting is done on both sides. You have to feed your base or you don't get elected.

Just because you are not a nasty ol' racist doesn't mean they don't exist and are highly offended by the black guy in the white house. And will do and say anything to get him out.

And they vote for those that feed them and whose agenda aligns with theirs. A sad fact for sure but race baiting is done on both sides. You have to feed your base or you don't get elected.

Come on Tal, don't you have anything left but the same ol' nonsense? No one has ever said racists don't exist, but you guys just keep validating my point that you either don't care about reality or are in complete denial about it, and you fully intend to perpetuate racial tension.

I guarantee that the vast majority of Americans of any political persuasion do not have some light bulb that goes off in their head saying "that damn n*****" when someone says "IRS."

That you would agree with Bashir at least tells me where you get your "news." If you want to be seen as in lockstep with such looney birds that's your call, he makes Michelle Bachmann look like an Einstein.

Simple fact is the repubs NEED the racist vote because the won't get the minority one, or the youth or most females. My gosh man, what's left?

Just do the math. And keep hollering about voter fraud, abortion bans and denying gay rights and how lazy and immoral everyone else is but you and you are a victim that's everyone else is trying to take your rights. Do you really think it looks good when old white guys talk so disrespectfully to black men and women in government?

Like I said, your brethren in your party make it very hard to trust them with the interests of America when they treat everyone but their own as second class immoral false citizens. I don't need a poll, or talking head to tell me that.

Simple fact is the repubs NEED the racist vote because the won't get the minority one, or the youth or most females. My gosh man, what's left?

Just do the math. And keep hollering about voter fraud, abortion bans and denying gay rights and how lazy and immoral everyone else is but you and you are a victim that's everyone else is trying to take your rights. Do you really think it looks good when old white guys talk so disrespectfully to black men and women in government?

Like I said, your brethren in your party make it very hard to trust them with the interests of America when they treat everyone but their own as second class immoral false citizens. I don't need a poll, or talking head to tell me that.

Enough flapping your gums, get me some hard data on this racist constituency because I just can't seem to find any way to calculate how that puts us over the top on anything.

And funny thing, but making women pole dance for jobs and tweeting ones privates is not a Republican thing, and no one treats blacks with less respect than liberals.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GUhZQDJypWY/SaNDa-gZ_rI/AAAAAAAAAHc/67giEeKPMpY/s400/Racist+Danziger+cartoon+on+Rice.jpg

If it takes bribing people and treating them as helpless fools as Dems do I'll be happy to lose elections rather than condescend and lie to people. I'll keep my integrity thank you very much, you can compromise yours for a political agenda if you want but stop taking us down with you. .

no one treats blacks with less respect than liberals.Like all those crazy liberal celebrities that go to Africa to try to make a difference?

Like all those crazy liberal celebrities that go to Africa to try to make a difference?

Uh no, I gave my example already. Our side does things, we don't just pay lip service.

Bushes honored for AIDS efforts - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/life/article/Bushes-honored-for-AIDS-efforts-1747811.php)

Hello again,

Being an OUTRAGED taxpaying citizen, I want to KNOW who did WHAT? Why can't Issa subpoena the actual workers or their bosses and make them testify under oath? What is he waiting for? Don't tell me he can't find out who they are. This is an INVESTIGATIVE committee by the US Congress, and they're NOT investigating some PRIVATE company. They've got to know just who the workers are, and there's a REASON why they're not called.

I think Issa is corrupt!

excon

we don't just pay lip service

No, you get the elites together for photoshoots:

A well-connected coterie of more than 200 guests... After a cocktail reception and the awards presentation, guests adjourned to a seated dinner by Tony’s in a lavish party tent. and then a listing of celebrities in attendance. LOL.

If he ain't corrupt he sure is slow. Seems like the people who did what he thinks they did would know who told them to do it.

Or maybe he isn't ready to let the air out of the right wing glee fest and make himself look stupid. It's all drama to distract us from something repubs are up to. Maybe its another robbery of the American people. I thought the bankers got it all last time.

Hello again, tal:


Seems like the people who did what he thinks they did would know who told them to do it. Issa can give them "use immunity", meaning that anything they say can't be used against them. That COMPELS them to testify or go to jail. Issa HAS that power. Why isn't he using it?

More importantly, why aren't the right wingers demanding the same thing?

Excon

There is already committee pre-interviews that have been leaked . Pre-interviews are typical for this process. The leaks suggest that more than one IRS employee is going to reveal the truth since they indicate that they are rather peeved at being thrown under the bus and being called 'low level employees' etc.

Two Internal Revenue Service employees in the agency's Cincinnati office told congressional investigators that IRS officials in Washington helped direct the probe of tea-party groups that began in 2010.

Transcripts of the interviews, viewed Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, appear to contradict earlier statements by top IRS officials, who have blamed lower-level workers in Cincinnati.

Elizabeth Hofacre said her office in Cincinnati sought help from IRS officials in the Washington unit that oversees tax-exempt organizations after she started getting the tea-party cases in April 2010. Ms. Hofacre said Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in Washington, closely oversaw her work and suggested some of the questions asked applicants.

“I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull's influence or input,” she said, according to the transcripts.

Mr. Hull could not be reached for comment.


IRS Staff Cite Washington Link - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324069104578527713122409302.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

This isn't going away no matter how hard the Obots try to blame shift.

Hello again,

If we're living in a post racial world, as our resident right wingers would have us believe, how come so many people are OUTRAGED (http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/cheerios-commercial-featuring-interracial-family-draws-harsh-comments) at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYofm5d5Xdw&feature=youtu.be) interracial Cheerios commercial?

excon

there is already committee pre-interviews that have been leaked . Pre-interviews are typical for this process. The leaks suggest that more than one IRS employee is going to reveal the truth since they indicate that they are rather peeved at being thrown under the bus and being called 'low level employees' etc.


IRS Staff Cite Washington Link - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324069104578527713122409302.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

This isn't going away no matter how hard the Obots try to blame shift.

I hope it highlights the stupidity of such tax exemptions and wipes them out, and all those groups have to pay back all the taxes they have already been exempt from, and a hefty fine.


Hello again,

If we're living in a post racial world, as our resident right wingers would have us believe, how come so many people are OUTRAGED (http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/cheerios-commercial-featuring-interracial-family-draws-harsh-comments) at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYofm5d5Xdw&feature=youtu.be) interracial Cheerios commercial?

excon

Don't drink their Kool Aid Ex, but you already know that. Enjoy your Cheerios.

Hello again,

If we're living in a post racial world, as our resident right wingers would have us believe, how come so many people are OUTRAGED (http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/cheerios-commercial-featuring-interracial-family-draws-harsh-comments) at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYofm5d5Xdw&feature=youtu.be) interracial Cheerios commercial?

excon

Im not sure what was posted as comments but you have to realize that the schools are out for the summer and the trolls are invading. I watched it and didn't feel offended in any way and I got the message. I thought it was cute.

Hello again,

If we're living in a post racial world, as our resident right wingers would have us believe, how come so many people are OUTRAGED (http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/cheerios-commercial-featuring-interracial-family-draws-harsh-comments) at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYofm5d5Xdw&feature=youtu.be) interracial Cheerios commercial?

excon

And obviously you're assuming those comments were posted by us.

Honestly - and if you've actually ever paid attention to my comments (not to mention my signature) you'd find this consistent - I had already been watching the ad and didn't notice anyone's skin color.

Now, back to the actual IRS scandal. Oops, I just blew the dog whistle.

There are trolls everywhere ;especially on YouTube . I've seen many a vile comment on some of the videos. I don't think it makes any kind of statement at all about our society except that every opinion is expressed in an anonymous internet environment .
Smart marketing by General Mills... 1st by creating the clever ad... and then humping the comments all over the MSM .

They turned the comments off.

They turned the comments off.

Not before they let ABC and others know so they could dutifully report it.

AdWeek reported it - they follow these things.
I guess if you want to see conspiracies everywhere you will always find a way to rationalize it.

Whatever... it's working out for them Google has 21 pages of links for this one topic.

It's simply a trend. Here's more info for you: Google Trends - Hot Searches (http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends)

Well there you go... Cheerios is hot.. good for General Mills .

Google Trends (http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=cheerios#q=cheerios&cmpt=q)

Yep, marketing works sometimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bye3PEJoGZM&feature=player_embedded

Well that was juvenile.

As was the Star Trek video that the IRS produced with $50,000 tax payer bucks

Cummings calls Issa's IRS bluff: 'I'll release' transcripts clearing White House if he doesn't | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/09/cummings-calls-issas-irs-bluff-ill-release-transcripts-clearing-white-house-if-he-doesnt/)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/-issa-squashing-info-on-irs-probe-approach-is-accuse-then-prove/


Cummings also sent a five-page letter to committee Chairman Darrell Issa, accusing the California Republican of withholding information in the IRS probe and criticizing how he has investigated the Justice Department's flawed gun-tracking program Operation Fast and Furious, the fatal Benghazi terror attacks last year, and now the IRS.

“Your actions over the past three years do not reflect a responsible, bipartisan approach to investigations,” Cummings wrote. “And the committee's credibility has been damaged as a result. Your approach in all of these cases has been to accuse first, and then go in search of evidence to back up your claims. … You have selectively leaked excerpts of interview transcripts, documents and other information, and you have withheld evidence that directly contradicts your claims.”

Issa responded to Cummings' allegations and his comment Sunday on CNN's “State of Union” that the IRS case is “solved” and that he would “wrap this case up” and move on.

Cummings calls Issa’s IRS bluff: ‘I’ll release’ transcripts clearing White House if he doesn’t | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/09/cummings-calls-issas-irs-bluff-ill-release-transcripts-clearing-white-house-if-he-doesnt/)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/-issa-squashing-info-on-irs-probe-approach-is-accuse-then-prove/

LOL, this is priceless:


“Based upon everything I’ve seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on.”

Uh no, it is not solved and everyone who's paid any attention knows this has been the game plan for every admin scandal, the "nothing to see here" defense while waiting for it to fade into a mere memory.

So why did Issa withhold some facts that were contrary to his theories? I guess the conservative republican IRS worker was lying and he was taking orders from the White House?

I dare Cummings to release the full trascripts .I'm begging him ! But he won't because he is all hot air bluster . He told this line of bovine excrement to Candy Crowley; last seen giving cover to the Emperor's bold face lie about Benghazi during the debate against Romney.
Let's just assume his claim that a 'conservative Republican' worker in the IRS didn't see evidence of problems... what exactly does that prove ? Answer NOTHING .
Hate to break his balloon ;but this is only the opening phase of the investigation. Remember ;Watergate happened June 17, 1972 .It took until August 1974 to link the smoking gun to the President.
IRS agents are beginning to finger their superiors, including one IRS lawyer in Washington DC.It won't take long to peel back this stinkin onion.

So why did Issa withhold some facts that were contrary to his theories? I guess the conservative republican IRS worker was lying and he was taking orders from the White House?

Did you notice the accusation was orders from Washington, not the White House? Cummings is just flapping his gums. I'm with tom, release the documents and let the chips fall. You in?

One of the groups that waited two years for their exemption recorded a phone conversation with an IRS agent crossing the line (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/10/new-audio-reveals-irs-treatment-of-pro-life-group-you-cant-force-your-religion-on-somebody-else/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons) from government servant to "speech and belief police."


Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal group, released audio on Monday of a conversation between Ania Joseph, president of Pro-Life Revolution, and Sherry Wan, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent.

The Texas-based pro-life group offers counseling to mothers who are considering abortion. The group also seeks to educate scared soon-to-be mothers on the possible long-term physical and psychological ramifications of abortion.

Wan lectured Joseph on the group’s mission and told the pro-life leader that she needs to “know [her] boundaries.”

“You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else,” Wan told Joseph in a nearly 10-minute phone conversation.

“I just have a question, Sherry,” Joseph interjected. “Is handing a brochure to somebody forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do?”

Wan explained her position.

“You convince them. But when you take a lot of action, [unintelligible] other people. For example, when you, you know, go to, you know, the abortion clinic, and you found them [unintelligible], we don’t want, you know, to come against them,” the agent said.

“You can’t take all kinds of confrontation activities and also put something on a website and ask people to take action against the abortion clinic. That’s not, that’s not really educational.”

Wan added:

You have the right to believe. You have the right to do, your religion told you what’s right. You have a right to, you know, outreach to other people.

But meanwhile, you have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs. You have somebody else come to your door and know you don’t like them. When they come to you, how do you feel?

Joseph decided from there that the wiser move would be to seek legal counsel. So she did, enlisting the aid of ADF which now provides the group with legal advice.

“The IRS is a tax collector; it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The current scandal isn’t new but has merely exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.”

“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” added Stanley. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We cannot allow the IRS to ruthlessly dictate against legitimate non-profits simply because it does not approve of the organization’s mission. It must be held accountable.”

“The IRS has approved applications for tax exemption for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and Life and Liberty for Women,” ADF said.

Yeah, yeah, she's a crook for recording the call, right?

Hello again, Steve:

Come on, Steve. I hate the IRS too, and I hate defending them. But, it ain't their fault.

The problem, as both tal and I have pointed out, is the task we've given the IRS, to determine HOW MUCH of an applicant's activities are of a social welfare nature or of a political nature. I don't like the questions they're required to ask an organization such as the one you describe... But, the problem is the LAW, not the IRS.

excon

I kind of doubt the law directs them to ask the questions that have been reported. Naaah ;that was marching orders from either a boss in the IRS ;or more likey higher up the food chain.

Hello again, Steve:

Come on, Steve. I hate the IRS too, and I hate defending them. But, it ain't their fault.

The problem, as both tal and I have pointed out, is the task we've given the IRS, to determine HOW MUCH of an applicant's activities are of a social welfare nature or of a political nature. I don't like the questions they're required to ask an organization such as the one you describe... But, the problem is the LAW, not the IRS.

excon

If you believe the IRS is REQUIRED to ask applicants the content of their prayers and the names of FUTURE students you've gone off the deep end.

Hello again, Steve:

When you give a bureaucrat the power to ask ANYTHING about someone's political activity, these abuses are BOUND to happen.. The problem is NOT this one misguided bureaucrat.. It's the RULES that allow ANY of them to ask ANY questions about it at all.

Besides, in the final analysis, so what? I hate bureaucrats... You hate bureaucrats... To discover an IRS employee behaving badly is NOT news. The only reason you continue this thread is you're HOPING and PREYING that somebody can link Obama to it. But, they just CAN'T...

A thread about an abusive bureaucrat isn't worth too much more comment...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

When you give a bureaucrat the power to ask ANYTHING about someone's political activity, these abuses are BOUND to happen.. The problem is NOT this one misguided bureaucrat.. It's the RULES that allow ANY of them to ask ANY questions about it at all.

Besides, in the final analysis, so what? I hate bureaucrats... You hate bureaucrats... To discover an IRS employee behaving badly is NOT news. The only reason you continue this thread is you're HOPING and PREYING that somebody can link Obama to it. But, they just CAN'T...

A thread about an abusive bureaucrat isn't worth too much more comment...

excon

Never thought I'd see the day when you'd blow off something as outrageous as this. Personally I don't care if it gets to Obama or not, I want it stopped - but I believe I said that already. If anything you've just admitted the problem, endlessly expanding government leads to such abuses. You're resigned to shrugging them off and allowing the people to be victims of their government, I'm not.

Hello again, Steve:

When you give a bureaucrat the power to ask ANYTHING about someone's political activity, these abuses are BOUND to happen.. The problem is NOT this one misguided bureaucrat.. It's the RULES that allow ANY of them to ask ANY questions about it at all.

Besides, in the final analysis, so what? I hate bureaucrats... You hate bureaucrats... To discover an IRS employee behaving badly is NOT news. The only reason you continue this thread is you're HOPING and PREYING that somebody can link Obama to it. But, they just CAN'T...

A thread about an abusive bureaucrat isn't worth too much more comment...

excon

Let's face it you don't really know what a charity is

Or it was the agent opinion, and she has a right to it but not on company time right? Or does she have a right to express her convictions on company time? You can't assume it's a policy of the IRS. Because you hate the IRS and the winger was a victim. Yet the end of the transcript was this,

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ProLifeRevolutionCallTranscriptIRS.pdf


Agent (8:52-9:57) – Yeah. I apologize for this because it is a holiday and everything and I'm off and on another project, so I apologize for the delay, but I think we're talking about more time to discuss and think about your application and want to give you more time to think about this, too. So, I just want you to know that, you know, we understand your position, we know where you're coming from, and we want to respect your religion, and we think that you think your intentions are good, OK? You want to do something good for the society, your religion, and we understand that. But meanwhile, we want you to be aware that, you know, when you conduct religious activities, meanwhile you have to respect other people's beliefs, other people's religion. You cannot use any kind of, you know, confrontation way, or to, or against other groups or devalue other groups, other people's beliefs. OK?

So I guess we can never know the beginning of this conversation, who called who or the questions and conversation that lead to this published part of the event. Sorry wingers, you excerpt is incomplete, as always, and without context.

I kinda doubt the law directs them to ask the questions that have been reported. Naaah ;that was marching orders from either a boss in the IRS ;or more likey higher up the food chain.

Actually it does as the IRS is required to tell them what tax exemption they do qualify for. Its often the case that citizens or groups without lawyers do make mistakes on filing the proper paper work, or filing them improperly documented. A protest group is hardly an educational one and has no legal standing for tax exemptions. Thought you knew.

Or it was the agent personal opinion, and she has a right to it but not on company time right? Or does she have a right to express her convictions on company time? You can't assume its a policy of the IRS. because you hate the IRS and the winger was a victim. Yet the end of the transcript was this,

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ProLifeRevolutionCallTranscriptIRS.pdf



So I guess we can never know the beginning of this conversation, who called who or the questions and conversation that lead to this published part of the event. Sorry wingers, you excerpt is incomplete, as always, and without context.

There goes your theory about letting it be and havng the courts fight it out. I wasn't aware the IRS was the place to call for legal advice. Something I must note for future posts in the law board.

I find it hard to believe that this agent doesn't know to look at facts and not feelings when doing their job. Paying taxes and tax law isn't about feelings. Its about the law as it applies to the tax codes. Its not up to the agent to deliver any kind of speech on religion. Quote the laws as they know them and let it go. Measure compliance and take actions if those laws are not met. But if the critria matches that wich allows them to be a non-profit then you don't preach to them and stand in the way. Simply saying Im sorry doesn't cut it.

Hello again, dad:

Simply saying Im sorry doesn't cut it.It's true. This agent should be fired. But, I'm waiting for you to tell me that Obama ORDERED him to do it...

Otherwise, I'm getting bored here... What? You think I'm going to DEFEND the IRS?

Excon

For one the group this lady seeks exemption for should have consulted a lawyer first to properly fill out her applications for exemption. She acknowledged she had one, and the reason for the call was not made clear. Not defending the IRS, but law and procedure shouldn't be a matter of how you feel about and should be equal under that law.

Hello again, dad:
It's true. This agent should be fired. But, I'm waiting for you to tell me that Obama ORDERED him to do it...

Otherwise, I'm getting bored here... What? You think I'm gonna DEFEND the IRS?

excon

No I don't think your defending the IRS. We are discussing a situation here. As with the phone call that was recorded. Furthermore I don't believe Obama ordered it. I do believe it was within the spirit of the administration to cause an unequal application of the law but as far as direct orders. Nope didn't happen.

What I feel is the debate is the unweilding power that the government has and how bloated it has become in recent times. Im not calling for that persons firing but maybe re-education of the job at hand. Just like the debates going on over the florist in Washington State we have boundries that come with living in the United States. Right now with such mistrust of the government those boundries are becoming more and more important. We (the public at large) need assurances that this really isn't getting out of hand. Isn't that or shouldn't that be a goal for everyone especially if they vote?

For one the group this lady seeks exemption for should have consulted a lawyer first to properly fill out her applications for exemption. She acknowledged she had one, and the reason for the call was not made clear. Not defending the IRS, but law and procedure shouldn't be a matter of how you feel about and should be equal under that law.

Then here are some of the "rules that apply according to the IRS.

CHARITABLE
Charitable organizations conduct activities that promote:

- relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged
- advancement of religion
- advancement of education or science
- erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works
- lessening the burdens of government
- lessening neighborhood tensions
- eliminating prejudice and discrimination
- defending human and civil rights secured by law
- combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency



So why would an agent keep talking about religion when its clear that it is part of the list. And those things I have highlighted are ones that could apply to the organization in question. Seems most of the list is covered.


Ref:

http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf

Hello again, dad:

Furthermore I don't believe Obama ordered it. I do believe it was within the spirit of the administration to cause an unequal application of the law but as far as direct orders. Nope didn't happen.You are describing the exact reason why I believe the abuses at Abu Grahib happened. The underlings BELIEVED they had permission to act the way they did.

I'm willing to believe, that you believe, that Obama is SOOOOO partisan, that underlings at the IRS believed they had permission to act the way they did. I don't carry water for him, and he's NEVER been my "anointed one", but I just don't see it.

Excon

Hello again, dad:
You are describing the exact reason why I believe the abuses at Abu Grahib happened. The underlings BELIEVED they had permission to act the way they did.

I'm willing to believe, that you believe, that Obama is SOOOOO partisan, that underlings at the IRS believed they had permission to act the way they did. I don't carry water for him, and he's NEVER been my "anointed one", but I just don't see it.

excon

Here is what I see. There are many out there that voted for him because they wanted to see a "black" president. They didn't look at him as a person. But they elevated him to another level. In being the first "black" president the minions have decided that he can not fail. He is a man and he will have failures like all of us. But he has proven himself adept at speaking to the public at large. And there are many believers that preach his faith. I have no doubt he wishs to be a good president. But anytime he is challenged directly on issues he is offended and the media calls it racist. That is how he is covered by his minions. He can do no wrong. I see him as a President. I do not care what color his skin is but the policy that he chooses to back. I have never in my lifetime thought I would see it that they openly pass bills without reading what's in it or review of the content. Everything about this President has become a lie since he first took office. He promised transparency - nope didn't happen. He promised to remove special interests - nope didn't happen. He promised promised promised and has so far failed to deliver. The only one happy with this presidency is Jimmy Carter because I believe history will show that Obama failed as a president.

Hello again, dad:

I don't see too much different than that.. Except I'd add that there was a contingent in the senate who were committed to blocking EVERYTHING Obama did, and proceeded to DO so. Where Obama failed, in my view, was his inability to break that deadlock.

In terms of reading or writing bills, here's some news. MOST bills are written by LOBBYISTS, and I PROMISE you, they're not read by the congressman...

excon

Or it was the agent personal opinion, and she has a right to it but not on company time right? Or does she have a right to express her convictions on company time? You can't assume its a policy of the IRS. because you hate the IRS and the winger was a victim. Yet the end of the transcript was this,

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ProLifeRevolutionCallTranscriptIRS.pdf



So I guess we can never know the beginning of this conversation, who called who or the questions and conversation that lead to this published part of the event. Sorry wingers, you excerpt is incomplete, as always, and without context.

Again, we don't have space to post everything but I linked the source and quoted the whole article so don't give me that nonsense.

It's obvious the agent called, and no the agent does not have a right to force their opinion on the applicant - they are supposed to be NEUTRAL - which is the whole issue here, Tal.

Hello again, dad:

I don't see too much different than that.. Except I'd add that there was a contingent in the senate who were committed to blocking EVERYTHING Obama did, and proceeded to DO so. Where Obama failed, in my view, was his inability to break that deadlock.

In terms of reading or writing bills, here's some news. MOST bills are written by LOBBYISTS, and I PROMISE you, they're not read by the congressman...

excon

No doubt that in politics today there has never been more polarization then what we are seeing in these times we live in. That is why I keep trying to advocate to throw the bums out. Any one of them that has been there for more then 2 terms needs to go so they can live under the laws they have created. We need fresh ideas to move this country back into a position that is once was. That of greatness. I believe there is balance and it can be found in the system but not in this system we have today with such great entrenchment.

Again, we don't have space to post everything but I linked the source and quoted the whole article so don't give me that nonsense.

It's obvious the agent called, and no the agent does not have a right to force their personal opinion on the applicant - they are supposed to be NEUTRAL - which is the whole issue here, Tal.

The link I provide was from your article and the transcript pointed out that she needed advice from her lawyer, and get back to the IRS with more information.

As the agent points out there is a difference in the tax law between education, and social activism that includes protesting. Protest organizers are not eligible for tax exemptions, and often a permit has to be obtained for a fee to even hold one.

The lawyer used this as an event to make this winger female a victim and she was in fact ignorant of the law. She did good getting a lawyer, but that victim stuff was a bit overboard and had no basis in facts.

The link I provide was from your article and the transcript pointed out that she needed advice from her lawyer, and get back to the IRS with more information.

As the agent points out there is a difference in the tax law between education, and social activism that includes protesting. Protest organizers are not eligible for tax exemptions, and often a permit has to be obtained for a fee to even hold one.

The lawyer used this as an event to make this winger female a victim and she was in fact ignorant of the law. She did good getting a lawyer, but that victim stuff was a bit overboard and had no basis in facts.

Well duh, after that call who wouldn't need counsel? You're also ignoring the fact I stated at the beginning, it took her TWO YEARS while liberal groups weren't enduring any such delays. Is the government supposed to be neutral or not, Tal?

No doubt that in politics today there has never been more polarization then what we are seeing in these times we live in. That is why I keep trying to advocate to throw the bums out. Any one of them that has been there for more then 2 terms needs to go so they can live under the laws they have created. We need fresh ideas to move this country back into a position that is once was. That of greatness. I believe there is balance and it can be found in the system but not in this system we have today with such great entrenchment.

I kind of agree with you, but a better informed society as a whole would certainly help to perfect a better union and we could all thrive and survive, and achieve a balance between our idealogical differences.

As to how ridiculous this is, the National Organization for Marriage, which had its donors' names leaked by the IRS to its enemy putting those donors at risk, asked the IRS for an investigation (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323844804578529713576219412.html?m od=wsj_share_tweet). Their response as interpreted by Ace of Spades:


NOM: I want to know who broke the law protecting confidentiality of taxpayer information.

IRS: We can’t tell you that.

NOM: Why not?

IRS: The law protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information protects the confidentiality of those who break the law of protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.

That’s the joke version. It also happens to be the actual account of the IRS’ position.

You just can't make this stuff up.

You just can't make this stuff upYes you can - what you quoted is indeed made up.

Yes you can - what you quoted is indeed made up.

OK genius, what part of "Their response as interpreted by Ace of Spades" do you not understand, and how exactly does it differ in meaning from reality? From the link provided:


For the next 14 months they heard nothing about an investigation. By August 2012, the NOM was filing Freedom of Information Act requests trying to find out if there was one. The IRS stonewalled. Their "latest nonresponse response," said Mr. Eastman, claimed that the law prohibiting the disclosure of confidential tax returns also prevents disclosure of information about who disclosed them. Mr. Eastman called this "Orwellian."

Compare to the "made up version": The law protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information protects the confidentiality of those who break the law of protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.

Do you need someone to help you recognize humor, satire, sarcasm, etc. or more likely, to get over your obsession with me? Just trying to help dude, but you seem bent on forcing me to make you look stupid. I'm glad to oblige, though.

as interpreted by Ace of Spades"Who the hell is "ace of spades'?

You have to ask?

A notorious blogger.

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ace+of+spades)

Lol!!

Hahahhaa... a notorious blogger... yes, there aren't many bloggers out there.
You just can't make this stuff up.

hahahhaa... a notorious blogger... yes, there aren't many bloggers out there.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Nice try but Ace is no slouch.


Ace of Spades HQ, Ace of Spades, or AoS is a conservative and humor-driven U.S.-based Political Blog covering current events, legal issues, military hardware, and salacious topics in popular culture. The blog was first launched in 2003. It has been quoted, mentioned, referenced or linked by the Wall Street Journal,[1]Fox News,CNN,[2]National Review, The Weekly Standard, and many notable online magazines/blogs. The site's leading blogger, "Ace of Spades," has also appeared as a guest expert on Fox News, although it is quite rare for him to make media appearances.Ace's co-bloggers include: "Dave in Texas," "DrewM.," "LauraW.," "Gabriel Malor," "Andy," "JohnE.," "BenK.," "CAC," "Jack M.," "Slublog," "rdbrewer," "Maetenloch," "Monty," "Russ in Winterset", and "Purple Avenger,". In addition to these main contributors, other readers of his are able to post to the weblog via its "open blog" mechanism.

Public recognition

Ace of Spades HQ has in the past won "Webbies" for "Best Conservative Blog" (2005 and 2007), Blog of the Year at the 2013 CPAC, and has also won accolades as the "Most Obscene Conservative Blog" in years past.[citation needed] When Ace himself was honored as the "Blogger of the Year" at the Conservative Political Union's Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2008, Brian Faughnan of The Weekly Standard wrote that "Ace has a gift for cutting through political BS, for dissecting the fatal flaws behind liberal arguments, and for doing so with humor.. . [H]e gave an incisive speech on the death of democracy and the rise of tyranny, accompanied by an analysis of how Ronald Reagan re-invigorated the two-party system. Seriously You Guys."[3] Joy McCann of Little Miss Attila wrote of Ace's speech that "AoS gave a rather thoughtful set of remarks on the why New Media is an important part of policy-making, and drew a straight line between the history of policy debate in a town-hall setting and the Reagan Revolution, which rejected the notion—now so prevalent in Europe and elsewhere—that the political class can consider itself our 'betters,' and simply make policy decisions on our behalf. We have, he reminded us, not simply an opportunity to inform ourselves about politics, but a 'duty' to do so. Naturally, alternative streams of information will play a large role in that process." [4]In a 2007 editorial for the Washington Times, editor Tony Blankley described Ace of Spades HQ as a "very smart military blog",[5] which became a catchphrase at the blog.

Ace of Spades HQ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_of_Spades_HQ)

Hint, saying ha ha ha doesn't make anyone take you seriously. You never learn.

"Most Obscene Conservative Blog"
Guess that's right up your alley.
Perfect for the righty fanatics... not so much for anyone else.

Guess that's right up your alley.
Perfect for the righty fanatics...not so much for anyone else.

Too biting and witty for prudes and dullards like you, I understand.

Yep I guess so. Enjoy your Purple Avenger.

OK genius, what part of "Their response as interpreted by Ace of Spades" do you not understand, and how exactly does it differ in meaning from reality? From the link provided:



Compare to the "made up version": The law protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information protects the confidentiality of those who break the law of protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information.


Actually, I would argue that the two statements do differ in meaning.

It would seem to me that the provisions for that particular tax law would come under- Confidentiality and disclosure. Clearly there are certain instances where disclosure of taxable information is within the boundaries of the law. The most obvious example that springs to mind is that taxable information can be used for research purposes.

Mr Eastman got it pretty right when he used the term, "disclosure" to highlight the problem. The second formulation is inaccurate because it is not a confidentiality issue.

The tax act probably allows the IRS not to disclose certain relevant documents pertaining to the investigation. In other words, it is a refusal to disclose information to the investigators based on some type of inclusive provision contained within the Act. If it were a confidentiality issue then it would need to be recognized as a non-disclosure issue.

The IRS has obviously worked out that that by refusing to disclose relevant information to the investigation they are protecting the confidentiality of the public in terms of tax information. In this particular instance, from the eyes of the investigators.

The benefits of this move are fairly obvious. It means that by protecting the tax information of the public they are also benefiting from an important spin off. Protecting themselves from being exposed.

I'd call it stonewalling

Hello again,


I'd call it stonewallingI'd call it a last ditch effort to find a scandal where there in none.

Excon

Yes ,well you have a long record of it, started with a guy called Jackson, I hear, I hear he used stone walls to some effect

I'd call it stonewalling

I would too. I would call it prudent to sift through information supplied by bloggers.

In fact, I would say that it is prudent to sift through information supplied by all of the media.

I would too. I would call it prudent to sift through information supplied by bloggers.

In fact, I would say that it is prudent to sift through information supplied by all of the media.

That goes without saying . But there is no denying the fact that the IRS is stonewalling... The truth is that the IRS didn't give a damn about the law when they forwarded the applicants private non-disclosable information to ProPubilica

IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups - ProPublica (http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs)
This is not just some blogger... ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist site.. . this information was also confirmed by the Inspector General .
IG: Giving tax info to Pro Publica 'could have been' illegal | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/inspector-general-disclosure-of-tax-info-to-pro-publica-could-have-been-illegal/)

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist siteActually it is quite a good non-partisan site.

It has this investigation as well: Inside Game: Creating PACs and then Spending Their Money - ProPublica (http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-game-creating-pacs-and-then-spending-their-money)




In August 2008, as the right wing of the Republican Party grew increasingly disenchanted with the party’s direction, the men from Russo, Marsh and Associates sensed opportunity: They created a political action committee, Our Country Deserves Better, and in time launched the Tea Party Express.

Russo, Marsh—an established California outfit of Republican consultants—was just getting started. The firm formed a second political committee, this one with a pro-military agenda. And eventually, seizing on the President’s unpopularity in certain circles, they opened a third, the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama.


Throughout the 2012 election cycle, the committees were relentless. In email after email, they pleaded for small donations to run ads supporting candidates who would defeat President Obama’s “socialist” agenda. And it worked: They collected more than $14 million in donations.

Yet an examination of the PACs’ expenditures shows they spent a small percentage of the money they raised on work directly aimed at getting candidates elected -- paid ads, say, or contributions to other political committees. Mainly, they paid consultants. And the biggest chunk of that consultant money went to Russo, Marsh and Associates, and people connected to the firm.

Of the $9.3 million spent by Our Country Deserves Better, more than $3.8 million went to Russo, Marsh and Associates, employees or others connected to the firm. Of the $3.9 million spent by the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama, $2.4 million went to the firm and its associates. The pro-military Move America Forward Freedom PAC spent almost $143,000. Of that, $92,000 went to the firm and people connected to it.

In addition to paying Russo, Marsh an assortment of fees, the PACs spent money so its principals could travel well: from almost $1,300 for meals at a fondue restaurant in Ohio on Oct. 18, to more than $50,000 for consultants and staff to occasionally stay at a golf resort on Lake Michigan last fall.

And the PAC also let its consultants live rather large: $3,500 for “PAC Election Night Headquarters” at a casino-resort in Las Vegas, $3,200 for meals and a meeting at a Mediterranean restaurant in Boston in February 2011, more than $1,000 for parking at LaGuardia Airport in New York in May 2011.

Barely one-third of the $3.9 million spent by The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama went to truly focused efforts at electing candidates, but its consultants traveled comfortably: More than $4,500 to stay at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas in June, more than $8,200 to stay at the Paris Las Vegas Hotel in July.

Maybe they should be audited.

Yeah they do a lot of reports.

FBI is right on this case :
FBI Director Doesn't Know Who Lead Investigator in IRS Case Is - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BPrUCPTWTAo#)!

Yeah... no stonewalling here !

Hello again,

Yawwwwwn...

What? Are you telling me that the IRS is full of a$$holes??

Yawwwwn again..

excon

The FBI too ;and the White House Chief of Staff ,and the White House Council . The only other questions is how high up it goes.

Hello again, tom:


the FBI too ;and the White House Chief of Staff ,and the White House Council .The only other questions is how high up it goes.Yeah, they're all a$$holes. Obama too. But, I don't care about 'em being a$$holes. I care about 'em being CORRUPT.

Unless you can prove that - YAWNNN..

Excon

We have already proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only thing left is who takes the fall.

Forgive me if I doubt your shadows and wait for proof.

You libs make me laugh. We've had what, 48 threads on a mythical Republican war on women and you can't acknowledge the ADMISSION of corruption that started this whole thing. That sand must taste awfully good.

Been drinking your own Kool Aid again huh? That's a good thing after trying to eat your own sand. At least I hope its sand your eating.

Been drinking your own Kool Aid again huh? That's a good thing after trying to eat your own sand. At least I hope its sand your eating.

'Tis not I denying an admission of guilt... or running interference for the IRS in an attempt to undermine and shut down the investigation.


The IRS's Best Friend in Congress (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557274272099196.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)

The House Oversight Committee's investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's discrimination against conservative groups continues—but at least one unenthusiastic member seems to think the committee's work is done.

Over the objections of Chairman Darrell Issa (R. Calif.), Rep. Elijah Cummings (D. Md.) last week released online the full, 205-page transcript of an interview that committee investigators conducted with an IRS employee in Cincinnati named John Shafer. Mr. Cummings explained that he was compelled to release the Shafer transcript because it explodes Mr. Issa's "conspiracy theories"—chiefly, that the White House played a role in the targeting of conservative groups, and that it was orchestrated out of IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C. In fact, Mr. Issa has never said the former, and much that is known so far about the IRS scandal suggests that the Washington connection is substantial.

The column goes on to point out how the transcript doesn't actually answer the questions it supposedly answers, but let's hear it for Cummings willingness to take one for the IRS.

Hello again, Steve:

Yawwwwn... Let me know when you have a smoking gun... Otherwise, all you got is your flapping gums...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yawwwwn.... Lemme know when you have a smoking gun... Otherwise, all you got is your flapping gums...

excon

Stay tuned.

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/HighCrimes.png

Hello again, smoothy:


Never held accountableSounds like a FAILURE of congress, specifically the Republicans who's job it is to provide OVERSIGHT! Why can't they do their jobs?

Excon

Would be helpful if the adm wasn't stonewalling every chance they get

Hello again, tom:

A congressional subpoena ENDS the stonewall, if the Republicans want to use it.. They HAVE some power here. They can COMPEL testimony.. They can JAIL those who don't cooperate.

Don't you wonder WHY they don't use it? I don't. They don't because there's NO SCANDAL and Issa KNOWS it.

Yawwwwwwwn..

excon

Yeah and we've already had a senior IRS official plea the 5th under oath ,and another show absolute contempt for Congress in his testimony. Yeah ,if I was Issa I'd be much tougher .

Hello again, tom:

I thought you knew how things worked. Congress can subpoena her, give her use immunity, and COMPEL her to tell EVERYTHING she knows. If she refuses, she can be put in the slam..

That Issa HASN'T done that, says MORE than if he HAD.

excon

What is shows is the spinelessness of the Repubics under Speaker Bonehead's leadership. You know that if Waxman was the head of the committee ,he'd be gnawing on the bones of the IRS and White House leaders.

Tom have you switched allegiences?

Never did have 'allegiance to the Republic party. I identify with conservatisms, and where the Repubics act like conservatives I support them,and when they don't I oppose.
Speaker Bonehead has been as much a part of the purge the Tea Party as the Democrats .

His next test (which he'll probably fail ) will be in the House consideration of SHAMnesty 2.0... aka the Senate Immigration bill that 14 Repubics voted for (including some Tea Party Repubics who I will have a real hard time supporting in the future. But that discussion is worthy of another OP ) .

never did have 'allegiance to the Repubic party. I identify with conservatisms, and where the Repubics act like conservatives I support them,and when they don't I oppose.
Speaker Bonehead has been as much a part of the purge the Tea Party as the Democrats .

His next test (which he'll probably fail ) will be in the House consideration of SHAMnesty 2.0 ...aka the Senate Immigration bill that 14 Repubics voted for (including some Tea Party Repubics who I will have a real hard time supporting in the future. But that discussion is worthy of another OP ) .

Ah, so you see Tea Party as conservatives rather than radicals. I think the reform of immigration is just a recognition of reality. It would make a real didn't in your economy to round these people up and send them home but you do need to have people come in an orderly manner. We have similar problems, we don't mind refugees who arrive in an orderly manner but these economic migrants who just tax our resources are a pest or a plague

Ah, so you see Tea Party as conservatives rather than radicals. I think the reform of immigration is just a recognition of reality. It would make a real dint in your economy to round these people up and send them home but you do need to have people come in an orderly manner. We have similar problems, we don't mind refugees who arrive in an orderly manner but these economic migrants who just tax our resources are a pest or a plague

The people behind this are looking for a cheap source of labor . Ironically this is the same group that complains about outsourcing jobs because of the labor rates overseas.
What they are also not telling us is that under Obamacare, businesses with over 50 workers that employ American citizens without offering them qualifying health insurance could be subject to fines of up to $3,000 per worker. But because newly legalized immigrants under the Senate bill wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the health care exchanges until after they become citizens(at least 13 years under the Senate bill )businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the former illegals instead ;and refuse to offer them any health insurance .

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1012620_488090024604441_153663613_n.jpg

Well Tom I have been saying the same thing and you have taken umbrage at last you have seen the light

Ah, so you see Tea Party as conservatives rather than radicals. I think the reform of immigration is just a recognition of reality. It would make a real dint in your economy to round these people up and send them home but you do need to have people come in an orderly manner. We have similar problems, we don't mind refugees who arrive in an orderly manner but these economic migrants who just tax our resources are a pest or a plague

The Tea Party is not a bunch of radicals, you have bought into the myth.

The Tea Party is funded by big business to be lead to do big business' bidding.

The Tea Party is funded by big business to be lead to do big business' bidding.

That's a lie. There isn't even a central organization to fund or operate from and no two groups are exactly alike except in their common goal of low taxes, smaller government and constitutional fidelity.

smaller government Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about your "small"government.. First off, you want a pregnancy COP to monitor every pregnancy that happens in this great nation of ours, to INSURE what the GOVERNMENT wants to happen to the girl, is what happens to her... You want to strap her down and shove a thing way up inside her if she wants to seek her LEGAL remedies...

That's going to take a BIG, unbelievably LARGE government to do..

Then you got the NSA who you think should be BIGGER, and look DEEPER into American lives... That too, is going to take a HUGE, unbelievably LARGE government to get done... So, let's get rid of THAT plank right off the top..

And, since we're PROTECTED from those kind of searches BY the Constitution, we can sh1tcan that plank too. I'll concede that the Tea Party wants lower taxes.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about your "small"government.. First off, you want a pregnancy COP to monitor each and every pregnancy that happens in this great nation of ours, to INSURE what the GOVERNMENT wants to happen to the girl, is what happens to her... You wanna strap her down and shove a thing way up inside her if she wants to seek her LEGAL remedies...

That's gonna take a BIG, unbelievably LARGE government to do..

Then you got the NSA who you think should be BIGGER, and look DEEPER into American lives... That too, is gonna take a HUGE, unbelievably LARGE government to get done... So, let's get rid of THAT plank right off the top..

And, since we're PROTECTED from those kind of searches BY the Constitution, we can sh1tcan that plank too. I'll concede that the Tea Party wants lower taxes.

excon

Wow, not even close. You should just ask instead of speaking for me.

That's a lie. Nope:

Tea Party Funding Koch Brothers Emerge From Anonymity - Peter Fenn (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0

Big Tobacco's Tea Party Ties Exposed | Politics News | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/big-tobaccos-tea-party-ties-exposed-20130213)

The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers)

Who's Raising Money For Tea Party Movement? : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123859296)

LOL, the TParty is as corrupt and dysfunctional as the rest of us. What a scandal.

That's a lie. There isn't even a central organization to fund or operate from and no two groups are exactly alike except in their common goal of low taxes, smaller government and constitutional fidelity.

You are only considering the internal representation of these groups. Not the political mechanism whereby such group interest is realized.

Money rules the TParty like it does any other organization in the country. Even if its SECRET money.

There is no "organization " called "the Tea Party" . They are individual local organizations . In some cases organizations like 'Tea Party Patriots ' and others have received corporate donations no doubt . But they do NOT represent the vast majority of the organizations . There were about 115 of them targeted by the IRS . Why would so many be needed if they were the product of a central organizing foundation ? Even the vast web of Soros controlled groups don't number that many

Well somebody besides Sarah Palin is using them as a national organization and feeding the locals money and advice, and lawyers. This idea they shouldn't be investigated is ridiculous.

Trust but verify.

They weren't investigated.. Not even close . They were targeted for the purpose of intentionally stalling their applications ,for the purpose of blunting their impact on the 2012 election . That is an undeniable real case of a systematic campaign of voter suppression by the party in power.

Hello again, tom:
That is an undeniable real case of a systematic campaign of voter suppression by the party in power.That WOULD be so, IF it happened. Unfortunately for you and Darrel Issa, you can't PROVE that it did. Until then, you're flapping your gums.

Yawwwwwn.

Excon

They weren't investigated .. Not even close . They were targeted for the purpose of intentionally stalling their applications ,for the purpose of blunting their impact on the 2012 election . That is an undeniable real case of a systematic campaign of voter suppression by the party in power.

That's what Issa said and now looks foolish since he hasn't proved he was right, and actual evidence proves he was wrong so far. We know you guys never quit hollering your victimhood, while you victimize, though.

It is early in the process. At least Ex admits that given the scenario I laid out ,it is indeed voter suppression by the party in power.

Hello again, tom:


At least Ex admits that given the scenario I laid out ,it is indeed voter suppression by the party in power.It's dirty tricks worthy of jail. The only thing you lack is PROOF.. Bummer that you ain't got any.

Yawwwwwwwwn.

Excon

Issa's Committee voted on Friday that Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights during a hearing last month .After Lerner read her opening statement, Rep. Trey Gowdy argued that she'd waived her Fifth Amendment rights and should be compelled to testify. Issa decided to recess the hearing rather than adjourn, which means that Lerner is still under the original subpoena.
The Friday vote paves the way for the committee to bring Lerner back to Congress and force her to answer questions from lawmakers or face contempt charges .

Hello again, tom:


Issa's Committee voted on Friday that Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights during a hearing last month Hello again, tom:

Good thing her rights aren't dependent on a committee vote.

I listened to Gowdy on the weekend shows (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/videos#p/86913/v/2518637091001)... First off, he says he CAN'T make her talk, which is absolutely UNTRUE.. Then he mentions use immunity, but said he's not going to offer it unless he KNOWS what she's going to say.. So, he's going to compel her to tell him what she knows BEFORE he gives her immunity for telling him...

Wha??

Excon

My take is simpler . She testified under oath .Once she made an opening statement then she effectively waved her right to plea the 5th . But since the WH is stonewalling she's covered . If the House charges contempt then the case goes to Holder's Justice Dept for investigation. WE know how far that will go . He of course has already been charged by the House with the same and will do nothing .
Since it is impossible to force the adm to appoint an independent prosecutor ,then most likely they will get away with it . But you should stop your meme that we isn't got nothing . What " we " don't have is the power to force the adm to investigate itself in a fair and impartial manner .
The only card Congress has is the power of the purse . And I don't think Speaker Bonehead has the stones to defund the IRS . The other possibility would be to create a constitutional crisis by having the Sergeant at Arms of Congress arrest her .The House has arrested and held executive-branch officials twice in U.S. history.A more feeble response would be for the House to sue and let the courts handle it .
None of this will happen of course . The very least they should do is call her back and force her to plea the 5th to a thousand + questions.Let her sit though a marathon hearing while one member of the committee after another grill her.

In the meantime you will get release of the transcript from questioning of the other witnesses called so far, that paint a picture that Issa doesn't want to reveal, or discuss.

Cummings Releases Transcripts of IRS Interviews (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/cummings-issa-irs-transcripts/2013/06/18/id/510640)

Dana Milbank: Issa (http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/dana-milbank-issa-s-scandal-quest-hits-dead-end/article_ef502ad4-e038-11e2-b2e4-001a4bcf887a.html)

There doesn't see too be a full story with you guys, only your version.

In the meantime you will get release of the transcript from questioning of the other witnesses called so far, that paint a picture that Issa doesn't want to reveal, or discuss.

Cummings Releases Transcripts of IRS Interviews (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/cummings-issa-irs-transcripts/2013/06/18/id/510640)

Dana Milbank: Issa (http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/dana-milbank-issa-s-scandal-quest-hits-dead-end/article_ef502ad4-e038-11e2-b2e4-001a4bcf887a.html)

There doesn't see too be a full story with you guys, only your version.

There was no there, there (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557274272099196.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)with Cummings' attempt to undermine the investigation. That's the whole argument for every scandal in this administration, "nothing to see here, move on."

Nice try, but let's finish the investigation and watch Democrats running for reelection on their defense of the IRS.

Cool with me.

Hello again, tom:

The only card Congress has is the power of the purse . And I don't think Speaker Bonehead has the stones to defund the IRS . The other possibility would be to create a constitutional crisis by having the Sergeant at Arms of Congress arrest her .It's just not true. You, make it sound like congress is feckless, and has NO power to carry out its constitutional mandates... King Obama REIGNS...

But, if all you wanted to do was SOUND tough, you'd say the things you and Gowdy, and Issa are saying... If you wanted to KNOW what actually happened, you'd stop talking and go to work.. You'd SUBPOENA her. You'd give her USE IMMUNITY. Then if she didn't answer EVERYTHING, the committee asks, the sergeant at arms puts her in jail for contempt of congress. If it causes a constitutional crisis, then that's what it's SUPPOSED to do. If Obama is a CROOK, and a LIAR, and CORRUPT, it's HE who is causing the constitutional crisis - NOT congress...

But, if you KNEW you were dead in the water, and you KNEW there's no there, there, then you'd SOUND tough, and throw up your hands and DO nothing... Kind of like you're doing.

Excon

What about the testimony of Elizabeth Hofacre, or Gary Muthert ? Who at the IRS,developed the intrusive and exhaustive questions that were sent to the TP groups? Why did so many of those groups have to wait years for their applications to be processed, and why are many more still waiting? Who were the IRS officials in Washington directing the Cincinnati agents targeting theTP groups ?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578557274272099196.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Cummings can run intereference for the adm all he wants to... he is just another cog in the coverup . Until we know who ordered the targeting of conservative groups and donors, what Lerner, Schulman, and the White House knew and when they knew it, whether this is still going on, and what is being done to ensure it never happens again, the case isn't closed. You can yawn all you want to ,but even Cummings admits the case isn't closed .
Rep. Elijah Cummings clarifies: IRS case not 'solved' - Rachael Bade - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/elijah-cummings-clarifies-irs-case-not-solved-92689.html)

Hello again, tom:
It's just not true. You, make it sound like congress is feckless, and has NO power to carry out its constitutional mandates... King Obama REIGNS...

But, if all you wanted to do was SOUND tough, you'd say the things you and Gowdy, and Issa are saying... If you wanted to KNOW what actually happened, you'd stop talking and go to work.. You'd SUBPOENA her. You'd give her USE IMMUNITY. Then if she didn't answer EVERYTHING, the committee asks, the sergeant at arms puts her in jail for contempt of congress. If it causes a constitutional crisis, then that's what it's SUPPOSED to do. If Obama is a CROOK, and a LIAR, and CORRUPT, it's HE who is causing the constitutional crisis - NOT congress...

But, if you KNEW you were dead in the water, and you KNEW there's no there, there, then you'd SOUND tough, and throw up your hands and DO nothing... Kinda like you're doing.

excon

Why offer her immunity ? What if you are right and the chain ends with her ? Then there is no accountability . She don't need immunity if she did nothing wrong.

Hello again, tom:


why offer her immunity ? What if you are right and the chain ends with her ? It depends. Does Issa want BLOOD, or the truth..

Excon

I wonder if you were saying the same thing when they gave immunity to Ollie North. Nahh treat it like the criminal investigation it is . I'd have a sit down with her and her lawyer and give her a heads up about what she can expect if she continues to stonewall. Maybe they can work out a limited immunity deal . But full immunity... no way !

Hard to get truth from an entire administration that knows nothing, doesn't recall, can't remember, or just doesn't have an answer (http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/21/jay-carney-has-said-i-dont-know-over-1900-times/).

Now that's what I call transparency.

And the cover-up/stonewalling continues :

More than a month and a half after it was announced that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would launch an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) targeting of conservative groups, the groups and their legal representatives are still waiting to hear from the FBI.
FBI Still Hasn't Contacted IRS-Targeted Tea Party Groups About Investigation | CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/fbi-still-hasnt-contacted-irs-targeted-tea-party-groups-about-investigation)

Are you complaining about procedure? Do you think investigation is conducted by interviewing complainants when what is been investigated is the internal procedures?

Just looking at a date on an application will tell them what the complainant will tell them, it's been a long time

Huh ? You conduct an investigation without interviewing the victim ?

I get the idea this is a victimless crime, I think the FBI are trying to decide if a crime has been committed and if so by who. I doubt the victim can identify the perp

I get the idea this is a victimless crime, I think the FBI are trying to decide if a crime has been committed and if so by who. I doubt the victim can identify the perp

It is not victimless . Hundreds of conservative and Christian groups were denied equal protection of the law. If this happened to an organization like NAACP I assure you the Holder Justice Dept would be all over this .

I get the idea this is a victimless crime, I think the FBI are trying to decide if a crime has been committed and if so by who. I doubt the victim can identify the perp

Victimless? One 'non-victim' had 17 encounters (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/irs-scandal-749229-10.html#post3467358) with the government including the FBI, IRS, OSHA, Commission on Environmental Quality, and the ATF after applying for the exemption.. I remember the president personally intervening when a belligerent black professor was arrested for refusing to cooperate with police.This goes way beyond that.

it is not victimless . Hundreds of conservative and Christian groups were denied equal protection of the law. If this happened to an organization like NAACP I assure you the Holder Justice Dept would be all over this .

The point is that might be so but conducting hundreds of interviews will do nothing towards prosecuting the people who did it. Don't you think there are more important crimes to investigate, crimes with real victims who need the protection of the law. Yes it is unfortunate that someone didn't get a benefit they might have been entitled to and just maybe some law was violated. This time the system worked for the left, in the past it has worked for the right. A foul has been called. If the FBI wasn't stuffing about with this they might have caught that leaker before he got away or does the NSA investigate itsself so those who violate the law aren't caught

Hello again,

I too wonder why congress doesn't get to the bottom of it. Issa HAS the power to investigate. He HAS the power to jail people if they don't cooperate. He HAS subpoena power. He HAS the power of the purse. If the IRS IS targeting people because of their politics, then I want to KNOW who's doing it.

WHAT is Issa hiding? Why won't he investigate? What is he afraid of? Who is he protecting?

excon

The most tedious fall back position here is "the other side does it too" .


If the FBI wasn't stuffing about with this they might have caught that leaker before he got away or does the NSA investigate itsself so those who violate the law aren't caught
Nah ,the FBI never saw the Boston Marathon bombers come and go even when they were warned about them. Their failure in other cases has nothing to do with their inaction on this case. This is more in line with Holder's refusal to prosecute the New Black Panthers intimidation of voters in Philadelphia. Holder investigates and prosecutes according to a political agenda instead of a fair and impartial rule of law.

Hello again,

I too wonder why congress doesn't get to the bottom of it. Issa HAS the power to investigate. He HAS the power to jail people if they don't cooperate. He HAS the subpoena power. He HAS the power of the purse. If the IRS IS targeting people because of their politics, then I want to KNOW who's doing it.

WHAT is Issa hiding?? Why won't he investigate?? What is he afraid of? Who is he protecting??

excon

Hard to investigate when the enforcement arm of the government is part of the stonewalling .

The point is that might be so but conducting hundreds of interviews will do nothing towards prosecuting the people who did it. Don't you think there are more important crimes to investigate, crimes with real victims who need the protection of the law.

I guess you have no concept of the power the IRS holds.

Hello again, tom:

hard to investigate when the enforcement arm of the government is part of the stonewalling .Nahhh... Issa has his OWN investigators, if he chooses to use them. He doesn't need the FBI. He doesn't need ANYBODY. The Constitution gives HIM the POWER. The question you should be asking, is why doesn't he USE it?

Why are you covering for Issa..

Excon

You know the FBI investigation is the Obama admin investigating itself, launched by Eric Holder. It's relevant to ask why they haven't done anything.

It is also clear that a special independent prosecutor is required. However ,Congress cannot appoint one.. It has to come from the executive.

Hello again, Steve:
It's relevant to ask why they haven't done anything.
Uhhh, because they're investigating themselves?? Why are YOU covering for Issa?

Excon

Hello again, tom:

it is also clear that a special independent prosecutor is required.Not to me.. Do you think the founders FAILED to give congress the ability to oversee the executive?? Issa HAS power, and PLENTY of it.. Yet, he WON'T use it.

Why are you covering for him?

Excon

Hello again, tom:
Not to me.. Do you think the founders FAILED to give congress the ability to oversee the executive??? Issa HAS power, and PLENTY of it.. Yet, he WON'T use it.

Why are you covering for him?

excon

Short of a constitutional crisis by sending the Sgt at Arms to arrest Holder ,what do you think he should do?? Oh yeah... and short of giving immunity to everyone involved .

short of a constitutional crisis by sending the Sgt at Arms to arrest Holder ,what do you think he should do ??? oh yeah ...and short of giving immunity to everyone involved .

And if he did take over for the FBI he'd call it overreach.

Hello again, tom:

short of a constitutional crisis by sending the Sgt at Arms to arrest Holder ,what do you think he should do?? I sound like YOU.

You start at the beginning. You give Lois Lerner immunity and find out what SHE knows and follow the trail. If it gets to Holder or Obama, THEN you subpoena them.

Do you not know this? Why are you covering for Issa?

Excon

Hello again, tom:

and short of giving immunity to everyone involved .I could have edited my comments above, but THIS deserves its own post...

Look. You don't want Lois Lerner. You don't want a middle manager. You don't even want the TOP IRS guy. You want HOLDER and/or OBAMA.. If that's your goal, and it IS, then you give immunity to EVERYBODY until you GET them.

If your goal is to holler and scream and do NOTHING, then you'd make noises like YOU and Issa are making.. I say again, WHY are you covering for Issa?

Excon

Hello again, tom:
I sound like YOU.

You start at the beginning. You give Lois Lerner immunity and find out what SHE knows and follow the trail. If it gets to Holder or Obama, THEN you subpoena them.

Do you not know this? Why are you covering for Issa?

excon

Would YOU give immunity before you know what she will testify ? Probably not .

She already sounds like a mafioso under testimony . I can hear it now... Alright Ms Lerner ... you have complete immunity . What do you know ? http://fritzbreland.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/sgt_schultz.gif

Hello again, tom:

would YOU give immunity before you know what she will testify ? If I didn't know WHO she'd SNITCH on, and I REALLY, REALLY wanted to know, then OF COURSE I would... Besides, if she knows NOTHING, then you've LOST nothing by giving her immunity...

Poor right wingers... You can't give her immunity WITHOUT knowing what she'll say, but you can't know what she'll say WITHOUT giving her immunity... So, the thing to do, is NOTHING.

Excon

Like you'd let someone off the hook before knowing what it is they have to offer.

Issa has found out that it's easier to accuse, call names, throw rocks, and get you guys all pumped up, and excited than to actually get the result he wants. Or maybe he got what he wanted his face on camera, accusing, calling names, and getting wingers pumped up and excited.

Just another tough talking guy who got power and tries to be a bully, like the rest of the wingers on the right. You guys love your bullies. But like most they can't do a darn thing when people refuse to be bullied by your tough guys.

Issa has found out that it's easier to accuse, call names, throw rocks, and get you guys all pumped up, and excited than to actually get the result he wants. Or maybe he got what he wanted his face on camera, accusing, calling names, and getting wingers pumped up and excited.

Just another tough talking guy who got power and tries to be a bully, like the rest of the wingers on the right. You guys love your bullies. But like most they can't do a darn thing when people refuse to be bullied by your tough guys.

I get it, you're OK with the IRS being the new Gestapo.

It happens often here I notice.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Godwin_WikiWorld.png

I get it, you're ok with the IRS being the new Gestapo.

If that's what they are then I would be plotting overthrow, but facts have not born the new gestapo label as being accurate. What's more accurate is you guys having the need for a lawyer to fill out forms and there is no shame in that as the process is complicated for the average kitchen table person.

The notion you have a right, or entitled to be tax exempt when your purpose is political change though is completely bogus, and delusional. Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides. So I probably don't need to borrow your guns, but keep 'em shiny, just in case.

What you and I have a right to is fairness and impartiality, and you can thank us later for fighting on your behalf since you won't.

If that's what they are then I would be plotting overthrow, but facts have not born the new gestapo label as being accurate. What's more accurate is you guys having the need for a lawyer to fill out forms and there is no shame in that as the process is complicated for the average kitchen table person.

The notion you have a right, or entitled to be tax exempt when your purpose is political change though is completely bogus, and delusional. Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides. So I probably don't need to borrow your guns, but keep 'em shiny, just in case.

And Moveon.org or Planned parenthood have never engaged in ANY political activities?

Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides.

Missed that part huh?

Missed that part huh?

Yes, yes I did. Then we're in agreement, we need to stop the unequal application of the law, right?

On all fronts.

On all fronts.

That is never going to happen. Ever since this country has granted superior rights then the rest of us are screwed.

I disagree.

I disagree.

Can you explain? To me so long as superior rights exist then there can never be equality.

Because those that don't have equality are striving for it still, and by law there can be no superior rights, just denying others their rights. Do the motives or methods matter?

Because those that don't have equality are striving for it still, and by law there can be no superior rights, just denying others their rights. Do the motives or methods matter?



Its written into the laws that give them superior rights. That is why you can never have equality so long as superior rights exist. In the world we live in today there is no reason for anyone to be striving for rights that have to be protected by class. There are legal remidies that exist. And its through the law that disputes can be settled. But in cases of superior rights then you by its very nature cause inequality. You are in effect quashing ones rights in favor of another. Where is the equality in that?

Specifics please and define they so I can follow your point better.

I'm just guessing here but SCOTUS just struck down one at least in part, that affirmative action thing.

Voter rights section 5 which made changes to voting laws have to be pre cleared for some states and jurisdictions. There is no preclearance, but voting laws can still be challenged in any jurisdiction.

Well a day for democracy Eh?

The same laws that the court found discriminatory are now being enacted post haste so expect the same lawsuits.

Are you saying your legislators don't learn

Specifics please and define they so I can follow your point better.

Here is one recent one in the news. When they ruled on DOMA. They gave superior rights to a group of people when in fact the law didn't discriminate but was a definition of law. It is the difference between saying you can't park in front of a fire hydrant without specifics vs having specifics like how far that boundary actually reaches.

By redefining the law from being specific they in fact opened it to superior rights. There is no definition now so those rights can extend to anyone that applies in superior fashion. All they have to do is fit into any class of persons that didn't fit into the previously defined law.

So its okay to EXCLUDE a class of people from monetary benefits and economic advantages that others enjoy? Striking down DOMA for FEDERAL purposes doesn't affect existing couples at all, nor give superior rights. Lets not confuse the same rights with superior ones and the definition of marriage is now defined on the federal level, and changes nothing for traditional, or religious couples.

Maybe you could elaborate on how the DOMA ruling makes guy marriage superior than traditional marriage. I don't see it, but I know the law use to be that whites were superior to blacks and other races.

So its okay to EXCLUDE a class of people from monetary benefits and economic advantages that others enjoy? Striking down DOMA for FEDERAL purposes doesn't affect existing couples at all, nor give superior rights. Lets not confuse the same rights with superior ones and the definition of marriage is now defined on the federal level, and changes nothing for traditional, or religious couples.

Maybe you could elaborate on how the DOMA ruling makes guy marriage superior than traditional marriage. I don't see it, but I know the law use to be that whites were superior to blacks and other races.

You don't seem to understand. Doma was a definition of law. Without it anything goes. The fact that gays are a protected class shows how it involves superior rights. That decision does affect current law with the interest of the State. The fact that they allowed an argument to remove the definition of law and knowing that there were other remidies in place again shows the courts affect in granting superior rights to a law. You keep infering the "same" rights. But that is untrue. If it were just a question of being the "same" then all that apply can and will be married. From this point forward until there is an actual definition anything goes. Poligimy, child / adult marriges all of it. Is that really how we want to be in this country? Without definition of law there can be no law. If its inequality that you seek keep pressing to protect classes of people based on whatever so you can grant superior rights and what you end up with is a lawless unprotected society. If you were to truly promote equality then you will also have to resist superior rights and seek out the normal chain of law to get your remidies. Otherwise were all going to end up criminals of some kind where everything is against the law or we will become completely lawless.

Expand your thinking. Granting superior rights to one class then others will be in line for those same rights because after all its not fair until everyone is equal right ?

Redefine marriage and make it only church sanctioned. Civil unions would be non-religious.

Why can't a civil union (non-religious union between two adults) confer the same rights and privileges as marriage (church-sanctioned union between two adults) does?

State and federal tax laws conflict for same-sex couples (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2012-02-13/same-sex-marriage-couples-taxes/53084112/1)

Before DOMA was struck down civil unions were not recognized as far as filing joint federal returns. Separate was not equal in this area of the federal law and could never be equal. Does this open the door for other marriage unions? I don't know, but people have already been practicing there preference. Legal or not. The states already have their own rules regulating marriage, and some still do not allow for gay marriage nor recognize them, so the superior protected class still has no rights but can now file a federal return.

The whole notion of anything goes and protected classes and superior rights smacks in the face of equality, and justifies denying federal rights to a class of people while another class of the more traditional citizens have enjoyed superior right than other's for centuries.


Redefine marriage and make it only church sanctioned. Civil unions would be non-religious.

Why can't a civil union (non-religious union between two adults) confer the exact same rights and privileges as marriage (church-sanctioned union between two adults) does?

Why can't gay people use the term marriage and why should a definition be the exclusive domain of religion?

State and federal tax laws conflict for same-sex couples (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2012-02-13/same-sex-marriage-couples-taxes/53084112/1)

Before DOMA was struck down civil unions were not recognized as far as filing joint federal returns. Separate was not equal in this area of the federal law and could never be equal. Does this open the door for other marriage unions? I don't know, but people have already been practicing there preference. Legal or not. The states already have their own rules regulating marriage, and some still do not allow for gay marriage nor recognize them, so the superior protected class still has no rights but can now file a federal return.

The whole notion of anything goes and protected classes and superior rights smacks in the face of equality, and justifies denying federal rights to a class of people while another class of the more traditional citizens have enjoyed superior right than other's for centuries.



Why can't gay people use the term marriage and why should a definition be the exclusive domain of religion?

The problem with the civil unions could have been taken to the next step and been recognized if that were the plan. But the plan was never to have the same rights. It was to appear "normal". Anything short of calling it marriage and opening an avenue to attatck churches is the true message. Why couldn't civil unions have been elevated through the existing system and left the definition of marriage alone? They have huge advocacy in political circles. So why the need to destroy one in favor of another and open a pandoras box?

You seem to keep going back to objecting that gay people calling their unions marriages. I will ask why civil unions weren't elevated to the same federal status of marriages as a civil union between a male and female has the same consequences as a gay civil union does it not?

I don't think polygamy, and marrying a minor is even at the same level as gay marriage is given how long it took gays to arrive at this stage and have a ways to go. Marriage as an exclusive domain of man and woman is barely half a success in America, so to think gays will be any more successful is a stretch I think and hopeful at best. Besides fear that it leads to even more uncomfortable stuff for religious types.

I mean what do you expect when married filing jointly is a cash cow for couples even though for straight people it's a temporary arrangement and any shack for an alternative. Still waiting for an explanation that makes gay marriage superior to straight marriage. Besides the fear of religious people that more people they are uncomfortable with get a shot at the cash cow of federal benefits and taxes.

Big difference between religious beliefs, and economic opportunity and options. And marriage is more than JUST a religious institution as far as the secular government is concerned.

Why can't gay people use the term marriage and why should a definition be the exclusive domain of religion?
I was trying to make those other guys here happy.

How about "religious marriage" and "civil marriage" as terms to use?

Still waiting for an explanation that makes gay marriage superior to straight marriage. Besides the fear of religious people that more people they are uncomfortable with get a shot at the cash cow of federal benefits and taxes.

Big difference between religious beliefs, and economic opportunity and options. And marriage is more than JUST a religious institution as far as the secular government is concerned.

I had never said it was a superior marriage for gays to be married. I said that a superior right was inposed in the decision. Opening the pandoras box.

I don't think polygamy, and marrying a minor is even at the same level as gay marriage is given how long it took gays to arrive at this stage and have a ways to go. Marriage as an exclusive domain of man and woman is barely half a success in America, so to think gays will be any more successful is a stretch I think and hopeful at best. Besides fear that it leads to even more uncomfortable stuff for religious types.


In a span of less then 30 years there has been many changes and a lifestyle has moved into a protected class. Its not much of a leap that the next wave of "I want rights too" is coming down the pike. Why should it in your opinion be illegal for anyone to marry based on the decision that knocked out DOMA ?

Ref: LGBT social movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-rights#Gay_Rights_movement_.281975.E2.80.93present .29)

1987–present[edit]

Some historians posit that a new era of the gay rights movement began in the 1980s with the emergence of AIDS, which decimated the leadership and shifted the focus for many.[15] This era saw a resurgence of militancy with direct action groups like AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), formed in 1987, as well as its offshoots Queer Nation (1990) and the Lesbian Avengers (1992). Some younger activists, seeing gay and lesbian as increasingly normative and politically conservative, began using queer as a defiant statement of all sexual minorities and gender variant people—just as the earlier liberationists had done with gay. Less confrontational terms that attempt to reunite the interests of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people also became prominent, including various acronyms like LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTI, where the Q and I stand for queer or questioning and intersex, respectively.

On June 24, 1994, first Gay Pride march was performed in Asia in the Philippines. In the Middle East, LGBT organizations remain illegal, and LGBT rights activists face extreme opposition from the state.[citation needed] The 1990s also saw the emergence of many LGBT youth movements and organizations such as LGBT youth centers, gay-straight alliances in high schools, and youth-specific activism, such as the National Day of Silence. Colleges also became places of LGBT activism and support for activists and LGBT people in general, with many colleges opening LGBT centers.[32][dead link]

Hello dad:

Why should it in your opinion be illegal for anyone to marry based on the decision that knocked out DOMA ?It isn't. Why do you believe that adults shouldn't be able to make those decisions for themselves?

Before we get all Bill O'Reilly here, keep in mind that dogs and children can't enter into contracts.

Excon

Hello dad:
It isn't. Why do you believe that adults shouldn't be able to make those decisions for themselves?

Before we get all Bill O'Reilly here, keep in mind that dogs and children can't enter into contracts.

excon

Actually your only partially right. Dogs can't but under certain circumstances children can. If a child were to have a child then they are the legal parent and can sign contracts and make medical decisions even though they are below the age of emancipation. Also there could be an argument made that by not allow a child to marry that is age based discrimination. When you open pandoras box there is no end to what may come of it.


Also in the case of polygamy then adults are involved and it is still illegal. My point being that this goes much further when you remove the definition and leave it open to opinion.

When you open pandoras box there is no end to what may come of it.Not for 'reasonable people" which is the legal term oft used. It seems to be exclusively the rightys that bring up these "marry your horse" or "marry a child" arguments, why is that?

I've already pointed out that Polygamists are happy with the DOMA ruling and is easy to see why.

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Big week for SCOTUS (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3494347-post93.html)

You guys fought for this and said there would be no slippery slope, called us silly for thinking gay marriage might open the door to other arrangements. I think a foot just got in the door.

Not for 'reasonable people" which is the legal term oft used. It seems to be exclusively the rightys that bring up these "marry your horse" or "marry a child" arguments, why is that?

See above. When you make the definition of something fluid it can mean anything.

there would be no slippery slopeThere isn't. Nothing has changed concerning polygamy.

Yet. I believe I said "a foot in the door." cdad said "Pandora box." Camel's nose under the tent. Take your pick, if it's no longer one man and one woman the possibilities are endless by the same legal argument.

See my post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/irs-scandal-749229-47.html#post3499470

Hello again, Steve:


if it's no longer one man and one woman the possibilities are endless by the same legal argument.I see polygamy possible, but not man and dog.. Does a multiple marriage hurt your marriage like gay marriage did?

Ex

If two men and two women can mary so can a man and a dog.. or a horse... or his TV.

If you can't legally define marriage.. you can't legally deny that from happening.

If two men and two women can mary so can a man and a dog.. or a horse... or his TV.

If you can't legally define marriage.. you can't legally deny that from happening.Thanks for proving my point. LOL!

Hello again, Steve:

I see polygamy possible, but not man and dog.. Does a multiple marriage hurt your marriage like gay marriage did?

ex

And it begins.

See my post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/irs-scandal-749229-47.html#post3499470

See my arguments above. Ex doesn't seem to think there is anything unreasonable about polygamy, he's using the same argument he did for gay marriage so take it up with him, he just made my point for me.

Personally I consider Polygamists gluttens for punishment. One spouse is enough to deal with... particularly since women living together tend to have their periods sync with each other eventually... can you imagine 4 wife's PMS'ing every month in unison? That would be magnitudes worse than having three daughters and your wife on the rag.

That alone is enough to keep the average educated male from wanting to have multiple wives. Legal or not.

Polygamy is accepted by those people based on religious grounds - they are using the same arguments as you.

can you imagine 4 wife's PMS'ing every monthMost women do not have PMS.

Most women do not have PMS.

And thank god for that... but plenty enough do.


Edit... I mean BAD PMS... noit minor irritability.

So it comes down to some people have a right to their religious beliefs and some don't.

Most women do not have PMS.

It's quite common, that's a no-brainer.


How common is PMS? (http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/premenstrual-syndrome.cfm)

There’s a wide range of estimates of how many women suffer from PMS. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that at least 85 percent of menstruating women have at least 1 PMS symptom as part of their monthly cycle.

So it comes down to some people have a right to their religious beliefs and some don't.

Are you making a religious argument for polygamy?

Hello again, smoothy:


If you can't legally define marriage.. you can't legally deny that from happening.I CAN define marriage. It's a CONTRACT. You can't enter into a contract with a child, your TV, or your horse.

Excon

Hello again, righty's:

Look. I'm not gay. I'm not Mormon. I'm not married. So, I'm not INTO plural marriage. I'd be HAPPY to be against it. Give me a reason why I should be.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:
I CAN define marriage. It's a CONTRACT. You can't enter into a contract with a child, your TV, or your horse.

excon

Marriage is not a contract... marriage was invented and defined by the Church thousands of years before contracts existed or most civilizations.

Are you making a religious argument for polygamy?

No I am making an argument for hollering about your rights while denying others their rights.

You make so much of your religious principles, and being "made" to go against them, yet to anyone else you have no problem squashing theirs. That's my argument, and always has been, and that's forcing yourself into the lives of others to bend them to your religious beliefs.

marriage was invented and defined by the ChurchAbsolutely false.

Hello again, Steve:

Are you making a religious argument for polygamy?I am. Look. I don't know WHY Mormons do that. I don't know WHY they want to do that. But, if their religion calls for it, and it doesn't HURT anybody, then I believe the Constitution allows them to practice their religion as they see fit WITHOUT government interference.

Tal raises a good point.. You are the one who CLAIMS religious liberty on the issues YOU care about.. Does your claim for religious liberty run across the board?

Excon

No I am making an argument for hollering about your rights while denying others their rights.

You make so much of your religious principles, and being "made" to go against them, yet to anyone else you have no problem squashing theirs. That's my argument, and always has been, and that's forcing yourself into the lives of others to bend them to your religious beliefs.

And there you go again with that straw man of us forcing our beliefs on others while denying their rights nonsense. Everything is not a right and marriage as defined by centuries is a standard. Do you have standards or is it anything goes?

Absolutely false.

Care to prove that then... as its clearly in the Torrah and Bible... not to mention the Koran and many other very old religious texts... and predates ANY existing laws or legal codes.

Hello again, Steve:
I am. Look. I dunno WHY Mormons do that. I dunno WHY they wanna do that. But, if their religion calls for it, and it doesn't HURT anybody, then I believe the Constitution allows them to practice their religion as they see fit WITHOUT government interference.

Tal raises a good point.. You are the one who CLAIMS religious liberty on the issues YOU care about.. Does your claim for religious liberty run across the board?

excon

That's the same false argument Tal uses all right and you've always had it backwards. The contraception mandate is a government imposed violation of a reasonable religious belief. You guys have this asinine view (which would never stand up to any legal scrutiny) that us not buying birth control for someone else is forcing our beliefs on others. Hogwash, no one is preventing anyone from accessing birth control - which I'll remind you the use of was already virtually universal by the government's own report. I mean really, the idea that free birth control is a right is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, right behind the notion that my not buying it for you is me imposing my beliefs on you.

I've never claimed an absolute right to religious liberty, if that were the standard then there's nothing in the way of Sharia law and you can let the stonings and public beheadings begin.

Hello again, Steve:

So, you're for religious liberty for Christians.. That ain't how the First Amendment reads...

excon

Care to prove that then.Sure.

The Avalon Project : Laws of the Kings, 753 - 510 B.C. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/laws_of_thekings.asp)

eHistory.com: Marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia (http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58)

Daily Kos: Dear Christians who oppose (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/04/1199278/--Dear-Christians-who-oppose-gay-marriage-because-it-isn-t-Biblical-marriage)

Hello again, Steve:

So, you're for religious liberty for Christians.. That ain't how the First Amendment reads...

excon

How about addressing my actual argument and not the ones you make up?

Sure.

The Avalon Project : Laws of the Kings, 753 - 510 B.C. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/laws_of_thekings.asp)

The Old Testiment and the Torrah significantly predate that.


eHistory.com: Marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia (http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58)

This link is returning an error from their server right now so I can't make any comments on it.



Daily Kos: Dear Christians who oppose (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/04/1199278/--Dear-Christians-who-oppose-gay-marriage-because-it-isn-t-Biblical-marriage)

This is a purely and completely biased blog with no credibility