- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: IRS Needed Only Two Days to Confirm Lerner Hard Drive Crash
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:39 am to wickowick
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:39 am to wickowick
quote:
Do you not realize that it is copied and pasted from Congress's website?
It doesn't matter in either case. The title doesn't match the point of the article and you shouldn't have used it as your own, either.
0
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:43 am to Rex
quote:
Here's a clue: two days is a LONG time to recognize a hard disk crash.
The same organization that does not verify your identity or income, yet takes 6-8 weeks to issue a refund AFTER it has processed.
I say two days is a jiffy
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:48 am to 4LSU2
Since you're persisting with your dumb and dishonestly loaded questions, YES, I do approve of the IRS targeting certain groups for scrutiny, as is their job. Are you sure you phrased that as you genuinely intended?
And, no, the function of the IRS is not to seek the largest government possible.
And, no, the function of the IRS is not to seek the largest government possible.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:49 am to Rex
quote:
YES, I do approve of the IRS targeting certain groups for scrutiny
slanted towards one political ideology?
i'm refining his question
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:49 am to Rex
quote:
YES, I do approve of the IRS targeting certain groups for scrutiny, as is their job.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 8:53 am
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:51 am to wickowick
rex isn't wrong in his response to that question, as the reason for scrutiny is left out
it's like saying "i discriminate", which is what we all do every day. you can't make a decision without discriminating
it's like saying "i discriminate", which is what we all do every day. you can't make a decision without discriminating
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
rex isn't wrong in his response to that question, as the reason for scrutiny is left out
it's like saying "i discriminate", which is what we all do every day. you can't make a decision without discriminating
Good point, I will wait for his clarified answer...
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:54 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
My god...
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
slanted towards one political ideology?
i'm refining his question
Yes, he needs a lot of refinement.
Still, if the doctrine of one party is to use IRS regulations in ways not intended by law then it stands to reason that they would and should receive greater scrutiny.
But, no, generally, groups should not be subjected to IRS disfavoritism simply because of party affiliation.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:58 am to wickowick
Something doesn't feel right about this. How do they know it was "scratched"? The HDD platters are contained in a sterile sealed casing. Removing them outside of a sterile clean room environment is a huge no no. The type of data recovery at their disposal, from what I understand, would not have warranted doing that. 
Posted on 7/23/14 at 8:58 am to Codythetiger
Even if they can still recover the e-mails, this still shows, imho, criminal intent to cover up a crime.
Just a bit of information I picked up a couple of weeks back, but relevant to this, is the fact that the IRS was legally required to protect ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE as far back as 2010, because a group had sued the IRS on targeting them in 2010.
I forget the name of the group, but it was on FOX NEWS a few weeks back.
This is a crime.
Anyone remember the groups name ?
Just a bit of information I picked up a couple of weeks back, but relevant to this, is the fact that the IRS was legally required to protect ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE as far back as 2010, because a group had sued the IRS on targeting them in 2010.
I forget the name of the group, but it was on FOX NEWS a few weeks back.
This is a crime.
Anyone remember the groups name ?
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 9:31 am
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:01 am to Rex
quote:
if the doctrine of one party is to use IRS regulations in ways not intended by law then it stands to reason that they would and should receive greater scrutiny.
that's a broad stroke
all this funny business with the investigations at issue could easily be interpreted as a doctrine of the DEMs to "use IRS regulations in ways not intended by law", in a MUCH more direct way that what i presume you will claim to be the mis-use by the "conservative" group.
i agree with your statement, in a general sense, but i don't think i will agree with how that point links to conservative groups. so, to clarify, are you presuming the targeted groups were using IRS regs incorrectly?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:04 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
I forget the name of the group
I think it was True The Vote.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:05 am to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
Just a bit of information I picked up a couple of weeks back, but relevant to this, is the fact that the IRS was legally required to protect ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE as far back as 2010, because a group had sued the IRS on targeting them in 2010.
Wow, interesting?!
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:08 am to ruzil
Cummings wasting no time displaying his arse.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:15 am to Codythetiger
quote:
Why are yall still talking about the harddrive?
Can they really not go the server and pull the emails?
It's all bullshite. Once the liberal Dems control the narrative, they stay on the same mantra indefinitely until anyone without critical thinking believes it.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:18 am to wickowick
I haven't followed this as closely as many here, but I don't get why they are talking about the hard drive on her machine. Why aren't they talking about the Exchange (or whatever email program they use) server drives?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:21 am to coolpapaboze
Because they claim they have limited storage capability, they only keep 6 months of tape back up. Thus they didn't have back up of her "scratched" hard drive so sorry for the loss.
Now they say they may have the data.
It's all Soprano's level bullshite. But Rexy wants to deflector shield over the thread title.
Now they say they may have the data.
It's all Soprano's level bullshite. But Rexy wants to deflector shield over the thread title.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:33 am to Quidam65
quote:quote:
I forget the name of the group
I think it was True The Vote.
I think this was actually a different case than True The Vote, though TTV is one of the two cases which will get the IRS on oath about this.
There was at least one other case involving Lerner in that timeframe by another group which, IIRC, was a religious organization, meaning that there would have been a subpoena on Lerner's data.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 9:34 am to Rex
quote:
But, no, generally, groups should not be subjected to IRS disfavoritism simply because of party affiliation.
Equivocate much?
The correct answer is "No, groups should not.."
If Progressivism is such a morally superior system then it does not need the additional "help" from the IRS.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News