IRS targeted conservative groups

Tools    





Ok will we all know you're so full of it that the thread is overflowing, everyone else came to the obvious conclusion of this situation, what else is there to discuss, besides the most ironic, hypocritical complaints ever made? Don't answer that.



Huh? Originated? That wasn't the question; the link was posted in reference to the idea that they were acting without knowledge of their superiors. How are you still so confused about this?

The really incredible thing is that you don't seem to realize you're confused about it, either. And the cherry on the sundae is that you don't really seem to care, as if none of your ignorance about this matters if you can find manufacture some trumped up counter-accusation to change the subject. That's just a fundamentally messed up way to think, guy.

Sorry, but if you don't take what you say seriously (and it's clear that you don't), I don't see why anyone else should.



I haven't followed this as closely as I should, given how important it is. Yet I get from what I've watched that there's a bit too much theatricality and pity-partying going on.

My point isn't that it doesn't matter. In fact I think it matters more than some of the grandstanders involved themselves even seem to understand. Using the IRS to pressure political speech and organization?

You're damn right it's deadly serious. That's the makings of an overtly oppressive system, pure tyranny in its infancy. I just get the feeling from watching some of the testimonies that those people wear it as a badge of honor that they've been hassled by "The Man".

Despite the lofty speechifying, I get the impression that neither side is taking this as seriously as they should, that it's just more political in-fighting to too many of them, and that scares me.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Huh? Originated? That wasn't the question; the link was posted in reference to the idea that they were acting without knowledge of their superiors. How are you still so confused about this?

The really incredible thing is that you don't seem to realize you're confused about it, either. And the cherry on the sundae is that you don't really seem to care, as if none of your ignorance about this matters if you can find manufacture some trumped up counter-accusation to change the subject. That's just a fundamentally messed up way to think, guy.

Sorry, but if you don't take what you say seriously (and it's clear that you don't), I don't see why anyone else should.
You don't take this entire thread seriuosly because you just are using it to go ballistic against the obama Administration posting links you assume have hard facts when for the most part they come from dubious sources and on closer examination are actually more ambiguous than you claim.. The earlier statement about a few rogue agents was never an officilal definitive statemnt about what was going on, and was never relevant to what these hearings are about. An investigation by the IRS in tea party groups is not inherently wrong. A Washingtom lawyer being aware of that and asking for sample cases so he can develop criteria to to be used to examne similiar groups regardless of their politics is not agains the rules. The issue is, was the policy of seeking out tea party groups for scrutiny because of their political agenda? Did it originate in Washington or Cincinatti? Was the Washington lawyer or someone above him directing the targeting for political purposes? That is the issue, not your silly hysteria avout a few rogue agents' comments. So it is you who is triviallizing the discussion, not me.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



What part of "in reference to the idea that they were acting without knowledge of their superiors" did you not understand? The testimony contradicts the idea that they were doing things off on their own, without knowledge from the central office. It's ridiculous how many things you try to argue about that stem almost entirely from a lack of reading comprehension.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
What part of "in reference to the idea that they were acting without knowledge of their superiors" did you not understand? The testimony contradicts the idea that they were doing things off on their own, without knowledge from the central office. It's ridiculous how many things you try to argue about that stem almost entirely from a lack of reading comprehension.
Here is what you don't understand. Show me where this was an actual definitve statement it was just a few rogue agents. It was more like "it appears.." There is still no evidence the Washington high command knew the Cincinatti office was targeting tea groups by using incorrect standards like searching for groups with key words for extra scrutiny. The extra scrutiny was supposed to come from red flags in the actual application. It is you who isn't comprehending. All we know at this point is the Cincinatti office asked a Washington lawyer responsible for such things what criteria to use in examining tea party group applying for tax exempt status. We don't know if he told them to do anything that became controversial. My guess is the investigators already interviewed the attorney in question and if they had evidence he did, it would have been leaked by now and you would have linked it here.



There is still no evicence the Washington high command knew the Cincinatti office was targeting tea groups by using incorrect standards like searching for groups with key words for extra scrutiny. The extra scrutiny was supposed to come from red flags in the actual application. It is you who isn't comprehending. All we know at this point is the Cincinatti office asked a Washington lawyer responsible for such things what criteria to use in examining tea party group applying for tax exempt status.


What you're saying applies, at most, to Muthert's testimony, where he says Washington was requesting information on these groups. I think you'd have to be pretty damn naive to not find this shady given what was going on at the time, but let's put it aside anyway. That still leaves Hofacre's testimony, which contradicts it explicitly: she says she was "micromanaged" by Washington and had "no autonomy." This is impossible to reconcile with the defenses offered by the higher-ups, or with what you're saying now.

So yet again we have another statement that shows a basic ignorance of the facts. Why should anyone listen to you about this any more? That's an actual question.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey


What you're saying applies, at most, to Muthert's testimony, where he says Washington was requesting information on these groups. I think you'd have to be pretty damn naive to not find this shady given what was going on at the time, but let's put it aside anyway. That still leaves Hofacre's testimony, which contradicts it explicitly: she says she was "micromanaged" by Washington and had "no autonomy." This is impossible to reconcile with the defenses offered by the higher-ups, or with what you're saying now.

So yet again we have another statement that shows a basic ignorance of the facts. Why should anyone listen to you about this any more? That's an actual question.
You're the one that is confused. The Washington lawyer I mentioned is Carter Hull. He is the one Hofacre testified was supervising her work. But was he? She or her supervisor contacted him about developing criteria to scrutinize the tea party applications. There is, again, zero evidence at this point to show he had any authority to hold up an application except to the extent he was creating the guidelines he was asked to create. So yet again, in attempting to show my basic ignorance, you once more reveal yours.

I have since discovered Hull testified yesterday.



You're the one that is confused. The Washington lawyer I mentioned is Carter Hull. He is the one Hofacre testified was supervising her work. But was he? She or her supervisor contacted him about developing criteria to scrutinize the tea party applications. There is, again, zero evidence at this point to show he had any authority to hold up an application except to the extent he was creating the guidelines he was asked to create.
Hofacre: "I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hullís influence or input."

Is it even possible for you to be embarrassed by this stuff, or do you just charge forward no matter how many times it happens?



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Hofacre: "I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hullís influence or input."

Is it even possible for you to be embarrassed by this stuff, or do you just charge forward no matter how many times it happens?
But her statement contradicts what others have said about his role. Are you embarassed by the fact you just one post earlier misrepresented what I was claiming, tried to claim I didn't understand what was alleged, and you just ignored that to go on your merry way assuming what one IRS agent whose own behavior in this is under scrutiny says is gospel, when she might have a good reason to pass the buck possibly to someone else? Instead of repeating her testimony, which at this point has nothing but her statements to back it up, why don't you wait to see what the leaked testimony of Hull's is on this, if the Republican leakers see fit to selectively leak it?



Just out of curiousity, will, is there anything a democrat can do that you would consider indefensible?
Approve of something Bush did probably (Don't tell him about Obama I don't think he knows yet).



So every time you say "zero evidence," what you really mean is that you don't count the testimony as evidence. And you think that's an argument...why?

Whatever your answer, it doesn't explain all the big, blustery claims about how sources were making things up and the articles don't actually say what's being claimed. Then, it turns out the source is perfectly consistent with others and that the testimony in the articles says exactly what was claimed. So those get quietly abandoned and the argument gets whittled down into just you doubting the testimony.

And therein lies the problem: people can't have constructive conversations unless they both have the capacity for intellectual shame. Shame of being wrong, shame of making false accusations, shame of being ignorant of the topic. Otherwise, there's no penalty for bullsh*t.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Just out of curiousity, will, is there anything a democrat can do that you would consider indefensible?
I'm not defending Democrats. I am pointing out Yoda is in attack dog mode when at this point nothing of substance has emerged. He started this thread with a real case of sillies, pointing out how often an IRS head went to the White House, as if that had anything in itself had to do with the tea party scrutiny, and it turned out in all those meetings he actually spoke to the president just once or twice.

Where is my double standard like Yoda? Have I ever attacked a Republican president for doing something while defendiing a Democrat for doing the same thing? You show me where I have done that. But with Yoda it is typical behavior. If it wasn't for his blatant partisan tone, i wouldn't even be in this thread. I believe in fairness. I don't believe something you justified when Bush did it is a horrible crime if Obama does it.



So your game is to counter Yoda every time he criticizes a democrat because he's too partisan?

Oh okay. That's useful.



I don't believe something you justified when Bush did it is a horrible crime if Obama does it.
I don't believe criminality is justified no matter who does it. Even if Yoda is a hypocrite, you're no better for making it about parties yourself.

I really couldn't care less who does what. Behavior matters, not political labels.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
So every time you say "zero evidence," what you really mean is that you don't count the testimony as evidence. And you think that's an argument...why

It is testimony that has been contradicted by other testimony from someone who could have a motive for not wanting to take responsiblity for their own behavior. Yes, at this point it is zero evidence because she has not provided proof like emails or testimony from colleagues that would corroborate her. That may come. It is actually okay for you to mention it. It is not okay, as you have been doing, to accept such testimony as fact and to be rubbing your hands like it is vital, smoking gun stuff.

Whatever your answer, it doesn't explain all the big, blustery claims about how sources were making things up and the articles don't actually say what's being claimed. Then, it turns out the source is perfectly consistent with others and that the testimony in the articles says exactly what was claimed. So those get quietly abandoned and the argument gets whittled down into just you doubting the testimony.

First off, your sources for what we are talking about has been a phantom, a Wall Street Journal article that could not be accessed without a subscription, which made it hard to know exactly what it said from secondary sources. Secondy, the actual testimny has shown in many instances Washington invovement more ambiguous than advertised and often of the I believe so variety rather than any direct knowledge.

And therein lies the problem: people can't have constructive conversations unless they both have the capacity for intellectual shame. Shame of being wrong, shame of making false accusations, shame of being ignorant of the topic. Otherwise, there's no penalty for bullsh*t.
You are the one who has been making accusations and innuendoes that if I was doing it with the same scanty information against President elect Romney you would be screaming bloody murder. That is not intellectual shame, to only be idignant when the other party is in power? So shame on you being wrong, shame on you making false accusations, and shame on being ignorant of the topic, because every word of it applies to you as much as would me.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I am the attack dog against the attack dog because the way yoda has started this thread, making hay out of literally nothing like how often someone went to the White House and trying to create motives out of thin air, like the unions support democrats and going on from there in like vein has been reprehensible.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
So your game is to counter Yoda every time he criticizes a democrat because he's too partisan?

Oh okay. That's useful.
I think so. If he wasn't using this scandal just as a punching bag against a President he doesn't like for partisan reasons and proves his insincerity by his shifting excuses when the other side engages in similar behavior, then I let him have his say. I don't think it is honest or fair to have double standards depending on which party is in power.