They created a spreadsheet of group names and activities to watch, called a ???be on the lookout??? list, or BOLO, borrowing jargon used by police. The list soon included 40 groups, including 22 with ???tea party??? in their names.
No bias there, right?
You're not pointing out ANY suspcious coincidences at all. Not unless you know anything about the contents of his filings. Which you don't.
Do you know what the word coincidence means?
No, it doesn't say that he ordered anyone..
Nope, no bias. Read 501c4, probably for your first time, then get back to me. Political groups can't be exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and also be a political group. So, ANY group with a political name should be screened.
Yes, I know what coincidence means. I also know it doesn't mean "fact", which you seem to think it does. I also know what suspicious means, too. A guy who happens to be a Republican, being audited, isn't suspicious, unless you're a conspiracy nut.
The article you posted says this:"The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see."
It does say Obama ordered the IRS to audit VanderSloot and people of his ilk. You're dishonest.
I'm not putting any words in your mouth, buddy. You posted the article, and you're defending it. Take ownership of your positions.
And, if you're going to pull a "Maggie Thatcher Thread", and cry about being "mischaracterized" let me know. Don't have time for that.
If someone airs something negatively about me and a bunch of shit that has never happened to me occurs after, I'd be a gullible moron to completely attribute it to "WELL YOU KNOW THESE GUYS WERE PROBABLY JUST DOING THEIR JOBS, NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE".
Or, you could be a guy that had some irregularities in his tax filings.
But, don't let that get in the way of your conspiracy bloodlust.
Nope, no bias. Read 501c4, probably for your first time, then get back to me. Political groups can't be exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. So, ANY group with a political name should be screened.
You just agreed with me a few pages back that anything that falls under "the promotion of social welfare" is likely to be political also. So everything should be screened in that case.
Yes, I know what coincidence means. I also know it doesn't mean "fact", which you seem to think it does. I also know what suspicious means, too. A guy who happens to be a Republican, being audited, is suspicious, unless a conspiracy nut.
A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
The article you posted says this:"The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see."
You're dishonest.
I posted several times in this thread that I did not believe that Obama ordered anyone. The article uses the word order but shows zero examples of him directly ordering anyone. If it really makes you feel better, I meant directly order. Does that work? The only thing I emphasized from that article was that there were real costs to these delays which you and several others originally claimed were harmless. Keep trying to dig for some shit to sling though.
If someone airs something negatively about me and a bunch of shit that has never happened to me occurs after, I'd be a gullible moron to completely attribute it to "WELL YOU KNOW THESE GUYS WERE PROBABLY JUST DOING THEIR JOBS, NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE".
Or, you could be a guy that had some irregularities in his tax filings.
But, don't let that get in the way of your conspiracy bloodlust.
Who knows? But you shouldn't let something that is suspicious get in the way of you defending every little thing the government does. I'm at least basing it on something; you're just assuming that some random government worker was just doing their job when there was clear evidence they weren't.
Nope, no bias. Read 501c4, probably for your first time, then get back to me. Political groups can't be exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. So, ANY group with a political name should be screened.
You just agreed with me a few pages back that anything that falls under "the promotion of social welfare" is likely to be political also. So everything should be screened in that case.
Yes, I know what coincidence means. I also know it doesn't mean "fact", which you seem to think it does. I also know what suspicious means, too. A guy who happens to be a Republican, being audited, is suspicious, unless a conspiracy nut.
A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
The article you posted says this:"The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see."
You're dishonest.
I posted several times in this thread that I did not believe that Obama ordered anyone. The article uses the word order but shows zero examples of him directly ordering anyone. If it really makes you feel better, I meant directly order. Does that work? The only thing I emphasized from that article was that there were real costs to these delays which you and several others originally claimed were harmless. Keep trying to dig for some shit to sling though.
I don't recall saying that anything that falls under promoting social welfare is likely to also be political, but I'll go back and check. But, even if I did, yes I think any group seeking tax exempt status under 501c4 should be screened heavily. ANY GROUP.
Don't see the word "fact" in that definition of coincidence. I see the word "seems", though. Not really helping you out, IMO. "Seems" is a subjective concept. Something may "seem" one way to you, and not "seem" that way to me. Facts are objective.
So, finally we agree that the article DOES in fact say that Obama ordered the IRS to investigate VanderSloot and people of his ilk. Did it really need to be that difficult to get you to admit that? .
Who knows? But you shouldn't let something that is suspicious get in the way of you defending every little thing the government does. I'm at least basing it on something; you're just assuming that some random government worker was just doing their job when there was clear evidence they weren't.
I'm at direct odds with the goverment's position on this IRS thing. They say they were wrong, I strongly disagree.
I'm not defending what the government has done, which is to apologize and kowtow to the paranoid members of the left and the right, for the IRS following the letter of the law.
I think they should have trotted out a large copy of 501c4, and given a definition of the word exclusively. They then should have said "We have been interpreting the word excluslively to mean "primarily" as far as 501c4 goes, and we were wrong. We aren't doing that anymore for anybody".
Sorry, Patrick, I'm not defending the government. You are. You agree with them that this IRS thing was wrong, I don't. Does that blow your mind?
Don't see the word "fact" in that definition of coincidence. I see the word "seems", though. Not really helping you out, IMO. "Seems" is a subjective concept. Something may "seem" one way to you, and not "seem" that way to me. Facts are objective.
Um, what's the point of disagreeing with this when you agree that it's subjective? I don't really care whether you think something seems one way or the other. It's kind of bizarre that you are so fixated on this when at least according to you, it's impossible to consider something a coincidence.
So, finally we agree that the article DOES in fact say that Obama ordered the IRS to investigate VanderSloot and people of his ilk. Did it really need to be that difficult to get you to admit that? .
I am so sorry for overlooking a single quote in an article when the rest of it suggested something completely different. I'm so sorry for mistakenly thinking that a single quote in an article did not exist. You done with your petty shit now?
I know you want to flex some fantasy courtroom shit over here and then declare victory or some shit like that. But please, in the future let me know if you plan on wasting my time like this so I don't even bother. You really arguing with me on the definition of coincidence?
I am so sorry for overlooking a single quote in an article when the rest of it suggested something completely different. I'm so sorry for mistakenly thinking that a single quote in an article did not exist. You done with your petty shit now?
You didn't read the article, did you? The whole article lays out the claim that Obama was in on the VanderSloot audit.
Free tip: Read the articles you post before defending them, bro.
KTHANX.
From your article that you claim you read (Which I now don't believe to be true): Note how it's not a "single quote".
"Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny."
"The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy???one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department.The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone. "
"The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see."
You post up an article that claims total BS, then you defend it. But I'm being "petty" for pointing this out? :liljohn:
I know you want to flex some fantasy courtroom shit over here and then declare victory or some shit like that. But please, in the future let me know if you plan on wasting my time like this so I don't even bother. You really arguing with me on the definition of coincidence?
Your insecurity is really showing.
If you consider me pointing out the flaws in your positions a "waste of your time", then yes, I plan on doing it again.
I know you want to flex some fantasy courtroom shit over here and then declare victory or some shit like that. But please, in the future let me know if you plan on wasting my time like this so I don't even bother. You really arguing with me on the definition of coincidence?
Your insecurity is really showing.
If you consider me pointing out the flaws in your positions a "waste of your time", then yes, I plan on doing it again.
Maybe you should take a break?
Nah, I'm good. Next time you want to argue about definitions of words or test me on whether I overlooked a few words (on some shit I wasn't even arguing for) in an article, just let me know in advance. Thanks.
]Nah, I'm good. Next time you want to argue about definitions of words or test me on whether I overlooked a few words (on some shit I wasn't even arguing for) in an article, just let me know in advance. Thanks.
LOL! You asked me if I knew what a word meant, I said yes. That is some knock down, drag out argument.
You said you have facts. You don't. You have "suspicious coincidences". Thems ain't facts, chief.
And you didn't overlook a few words. The first paragraph of the article YOU POSTED is a dead give away for its content. You either didn't read the article, or you severely misunderstood what it was presenting. Take your pick. Neither one is too flattering, but you earned it.
Too funny.
I will be testing you on the regular now that you earned a reputation for intellectual laziness. This is me letting you know in advance.
And you've been defending this article for the past 5 hours!!!
You're also defending the government, while I'm not. Talk about hilarity! You are so twisted up in this ish that you are doing something really out of character for you: Agreeing with the big bad government.
I think the overarching thing for me is these feel like such petty ginned up controversies- especially clad in low ranking House Reps screaming "IMPEACHMENT," from the word go.
If Obama actually does something wrong, I'm sure you'll be all over it.
Until then, do you have any better ideas/plans on governance that don't include grinding everything to a halt?
God, this and Benghazi are just manufactured and fraudulent. Move on.
A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency???s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.
Comments
Nope, no bias. Read 501c4, probably for your first time, then get back to me. Political groups can't be exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and also be a political group. So, ANY group with a political name should be screened.
Yes, I know what coincidence means. I also know it doesn't mean "fact", which you seem to think it does. I also know what suspicious means, too. A guy who happens to be a Republican, being audited, isn't suspicious, unless you're a conspiracy nut.
The article you posted says this:"The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see."
It does say Obama ordered the IRS to audit VanderSloot and people of his ilk. You're dishonest.
I'm not putting any words in your mouth, buddy. You posted the article, and you're defending it. Take ownership of your positions.
And, if you're going to pull a "Maggie Thatcher Thread", and cry about being "mischaracterized" let me know. Don't have time for that.
IRS audits a near equal amount of those claiming no income as the those that are rich?
What's your snappy comeback for that?
Or, you could be a guy that had some irregularities in his tax filings.
But, don't let that get in the way of your conspiracy bloodlust.
You just agreed with me a few pages back that anything that falls under "the promotion of social welfare" is likely to be political also. So everything should be screened in that case.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coincidence
I posted several times in this thread that I did not believe that Obama ordered anyone. The article uses the word order but shows zero examples of him directly ordering anyone. If it really makes you feel better, I meant directly order. Does that work? The only thing I emphasized from that article was that there were real costs to these delays which you and several others originally claimed were harmless. Keep trying to dig for some shit to sling though.
I don't recall saying that anything that falls under promoting social welfare is likely to also be political, but I'll go back and check. But, even if I did, yes I think any group seeking tax exempt status under 501c4 should be screened heavily. ANY GROUP.
Don't see the word "fact" in that definition of coincidence. I see the word "seems", though. Not really helping you out, IMO. "Seems" is a subjective concept. Something may "seem" one way to you, and not "seem" that way to me. Facts are objective.
So, finally we agree that the article DOES in fact say that Obama ordered the IRS to investigate VanderSloot and people of his ilk. Did it really need to be that difficult to get you to admit that? .
:cry:
I'm at direct odds with the goverment's position on this IRS thing. They say they were wrong, I strongly disagree.
I'm not defending what the government has done, which is to apologize and kowtow to the paranoid members of the left and the right, for the IRS following the letter of the law.
I think they should have trotted out a large copy of 501c4, and given a definition of the word exclusively. They then should have said "We have been interpreting the word excluslively to mean "primarily" as far as 501c4 goes, and we were wrong. We aren't doing that anymore for anybody".
Sorry, Patrick, I'm not defending the government. You are. You agree with them that this IRS thing was wrong, I don't. Does that blow your mind?
That is all.
Um, what's the point of disagreeing with this when you agree that it's subjective? I don't really care whether you think something seems one way or the other. It's kind of bizarre that you are so fixated on this when at least according to you, it's impossible to consider something a coincidence.
I am so sorry for overlooking a single quote in an article when the rest of it suggested something completely different. I'm so sorry for mistakenly thinking that a single quote in an article did not exist. You done with your petty shit now?
I know you want to flex some fantasy courtroom shit over here and then declare victory or some shit like that. But please, in the future let me know if you plan on wasting my time like this so I don't even bother. You really arguing with me on the definition of coincidence?
You didn't read the article, did you? The whole article lays out the claim that Obama was in on the VanderSloot audit.
Free tip: Read the articles you post before defending them, bro.
KTHANX.
From your article that you claim you read (Which I now don't believe to be true): Note how it's not a "single quote".
"Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny."
"The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy???one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone. "
"The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders???openly, for the world to see."
You post up an article that claims total BS, then you defend it. But I'm being "petty" for pointing this out? :liljohn:
Your insecurity is really showing.
If you consider me pointing out the flaws in your positions a "waste of your time", then yes, I plan on doing it again.
Maybe you should take a break?
Shut up.
"Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was"
Eh, I won't beat myself up about it. You missed it too, and it's your contribution.
AMIRITE?
:micro:
LOL! You asked me if I knew what a word meant, I said yes. That is some knock down, drag out argument.
You said you have facts. You don't. You have "suspicious coincidences". Thems ain't facts, chief.
And you didn't overlook a few words. The first paragraph of the article YOU POSTED is a dead give away for its content. You either didn't read the article, or you severely misunderstood what it was presenting. Take your pick. Neither one is too flattering, but you earned it.
Too funny.
I will be testing you on the regular now that you earned a reputation for intellectual laziness. This is me letting you know in advance.
And you've been defending this article for the past 5 hours!!!
You're also defending the government, while I'm not. Talk about hilarity! You are so twisted up in this ish that you are doing something really out of character for you: Agreeing with the big bad government.
You're not good.
If Obama actually does something wrong, I'm sure you'll be all over it.
Until then, do you have any better ideas/plans on governance that don't include grinding everything to a halt?
God, this and Benghazi are just manufactured and fraudulent. Move on.
:shocked:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story
A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency???s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.
Sheldon Whitehouse, the Onion couldn't have made up a better name.
The democrats caused the tornado to hit Oklahoma by constantly charging republicans deny climate change.
Westboro Baptist Church says it's because people support Jason Collins' coming out.
Who's right? Who can really say?