- 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: More crashed IRS HDDs
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:12 pm to Vegas Bengal
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:12 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
what you're missing is VB is an ends justify the means kind of girl.
Homophobe.
I didnt say anything about gays, m'am. Maybe you're having trouble reading.
quote:
I don't think they're racist. But I think all those steroids have not only shrunken your balls but have made you a very angry man.
Listen m'am, this is no wya to have a discussion. It seems you irritable for reason. Is it something else...
1
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:13 pm to Bard
quote:
You mean like when Clinton fired them ALL and no one said anything?
You're not telling the truth.
quote:LINK
Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:14 pm to CptBengal
quote:Calling a gay man a girl is derogatory. I RAed.
I didnt say anything about gays, m'am.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:14 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You mean like when Clinton fired them ALL and no one said anything?
You're not telling the truth.
quote:
Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office,
way to disprove yourself!
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:15 pm to Jax-Tiger
quote:
It's not OK for our politicians to do whatever they want and expect to get away with it.
What politician has been implicated in this?
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:15 pm to Vegas Bengal
The U.S. attorneys were fired because they were agenda driven hacks whom the Clinton administration hired after getting rid of the honest, career long guys in their 8 years in office ( this is what happens when you have an agenda in the W.H. the next president deems it appropriate to tilt the scales back the other way.)
Obama is the worst offender. He also is screwing the military up in ways that will have to be straightened out after he is gone, and you liberal hacks will cry about that.
Obama is the worst offender. He also is screwing the military up in ways that will have to be straightened out after he is gone, and you liberal hacks will cry about that.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:16 pm to CptBengal
Is someone sandy?
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:21 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You're not telling the truth.
How so?
Bush fired 7 during the middle of one of his terms and that's considered a threat to the independence of prosecutors yet Clinton fired all 93 at the beginning of his tenure and that's not a threat?
How does that logic work?
And how does this disprove the charge of political bias in the actions of Lerner & her cohorts?
This post was edited on 9/9/14 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:24 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:Incorrect. They were all first appointed by Bush.
The U.S. attorneys were fired because they were agenda driven hacks whom the Clinton administration hired after getting rid of the honest, career long guys in their 8 years in office ( this is what happens when you have an agenda in the W.H. the next president deems it appropriate to tilt the scales back the other way.)
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:26 pm to Bard
quote:
And how does this disprove the charge of political bias in the actions of Lerner & her cohorts?
It's just more proggie obfuscation.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:26 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You can use emoticons and words like illegal and enemies but what it comes down to is groups who were not eligible for tax exempt status were denied tax exempt status after being unfairly profiled. On a scale of 1 - 10 of scandals that's about a ,5
They weren't simply denied. A moratorium was placed on all conservative groups. They were left in limbo which denied their ability to proceed through the appeals process. In the run up to the presidential election, not a single conservative group was approved for 27 straight months.
quote:
once again, you're assuming they were targeted for their political beliefs and not their political name.
Good grief. The BOLO flags listed conservative groups only........initially. Out of all the groups flagged, %100 percent of the conservative groups were held up for extra scrutiny while only %30 percent liberal or progressive. Of those groups held up for extra scrutiny, 0 conservative groups were approved while almost all liberal/progressive groups where approved. (I'll spare you the rolly eyed emoticon here.)
quote:
As for the rest of what you said, nothing illegal about it except for providing info of applicants rather than approved which I believe happened if not only once, a few times. Not the first time a govt worker fricks up.
Can you explain to me what the "Secret Research Project" was in relation to conservative donor lists? Only conservative orgs were asks for their donor lists. Can you tell me how those donor lists, including the physical addresses and phone numbers of donors, ended up on a progressive groups website? Can you tell me how the confidential tax information of conservative groups ended up in the hands of the DOJ? Political names, NOT political eh? (insert lmao emoticon).
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:31 pm to Bard
quote:
How so?
Bush fired 7 during the middle of one of his terms and that's considered a threat to the independence of prosecutors yet Clinton fired all 93 at the beginning of his tenure and that's not a threat?
How does that logic work?
Every president appoints his own US Attorneys. However, firing them because they don't prosecute your enemies is improper. And that's not just me saying that. It's the IG Report.
quote:LINK
The Department’s removal of the U.S. Attorneys and the controversy it created severely damaged the credibility of the Department and raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecutive decisions. We believe that this investigation, and final resolution of the issues raised in this report, can help restore confidence in the Department by fully describing the serious failures in the process used to remove the U.S. Attorneys and by providing lessons for the Department in how to avoid such failures in the future.
We believe our investigation was able to uncover most of the facts
relating to the reasons for the removal of most of the U.S. Attorneys. However, as described in this report, there are gaps in our investigation because of the refusal of certain key witnesses to be interviewed by us, including former White House officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and William Kelley, former Department of Justice White House Liaison Monica Goodling, Senator Pete Domenici, and his Chief of Staff. In addition, the White House would not provide us internal documents related to the removals of the U.S. Attorneys.
The fact that you guys still defend it shows how disingenuous you are now calling for "good government".
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:35 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Vegas Bengal
Can you explain to us what the "Secret research project" was or could have been regarding conservative donor lists? Only conservatives were asked for their donor lists.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:37 pm to Vegas Bengal
I am not incorrect jackleg.
The Clinton's came in and fired U.S. attorneys left and right, replacing them with liberal hacks, just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen, you only hear what the MSM wants you to hear.
Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys, GWB fired 8.
The better question is why would not know this.
Answer, you are nothing but a liberal repeater of B.S.
The Clinton's came in and fired U.S. attorneys left and right, replacing them with liberal hacks, just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen, you only hear what the MSM wants you to hear.
Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys, GWB fired 8.
The better question is why would not know this.
Answer, you are nothing but a liberal repeater of B.S.
This post was edited on 9/9/14 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:45 pm to Vegas Bengal
BTW, once the IRS received the donor lists from conservative groups.....1 in 10 from those lists got audited. The normal audit rate is roughly 1 percent.
Political names, NOT political eh?
Political names, NOT political eh?
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:50 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
However, firing them because they don't prosecute your enemies is improper.
And why exactly do you think the attorneys get replaced in the first place?
My point is that there is no difference to me in doing it in the middle or doing it in the beginning because the reason for either is going to be the same.
Back to the emails: any ideas on what this "secret research project" was and why it was redacted?
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:51 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Anyone who has formed an opinion on this being political does so based on assumptions and not on facts.
Oh for fricks sake.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:53 pm to McChowder
quote:
They weren't simply denied. A moratorium was placed on all conservative groups. They were left in limbo which denied their ability to proceed through the appeals process. In the run up to the presidential election, not a single conservative group was approved for 27 straight months.
Incorrect:
On May 15 the IRS released a list of 176 advocacy organizations that were approved for tax-exempt status.Of the 176 organizations the IRS has approved, Tax Analysts counted 46 that had either "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9-12 project" in their name. The table released by the IRS indicated that 136 of all approved organizations were awarded 501(c)(4) status, 39 received 501(c)(3) status, and one was granted 501(c)(6) status. LINK
quote:
Good grief. The BOLO flags listed conservative groups only........initially. Out of all the groups flagged, %100 percent of the conservative groups were held up for extra scrutiny while only %30 percent liberal or progressive. Of those groups held up for extra scrutiny, 0 conservative groups were approved while almost all liberal/progressive groups where approved. (I'll spare you the rolly eyed emoticon here.)
You make statements and provide no links. I'm at work and I'm not going to do your research for you. I could find nothing that corroborates what you're saying.
But here's a little ditty that's interesting:
As it turns out, the 501(c)(4) tax-exempt "social welfare" groups aren't required to get approval from the IRS to carry on their activities, and in most cases, these groups had no tax liability anyway. For some groups, government certification as a social welfare group could serve as a kind of good housekeeping seal, making it easier to attract donations. This allows them to assure donors their names will remain secret and the only thing the groups actually have to do is file an annual tax return.
Of the nearly 300 groups singled out for extra scrutiny, just 89 actually had to apply. Those groups were seeking 501(c)(3) charitable status. They can offer their donors a tax deduction in addition to anonymity and have to apply. LINK
quote:To determine tax exempt status, there are no set rules for what the IRS can ask... which is why I said earlier Congress needs to address parameters.
Can you explain to me what the "Secret Research Project" was in relation to conservative donor lists? Only conservative orgs were asks for their donor lists. Can you tell me how those donor lists, including the physical addresses and phone numbers of donors, ended up on a progressive groups website? Can you tell me how the confidential tax information of conservative groups ended up in the hands of the DOJ? Political names, NOT political eh? (insert lmao emoticon).
The information released is proper for approved organizations but not for applicants. There was one instance where some applicants were improperly released. I addressed this above.
Look I have work to do and a mother in the hospital. I'll let you guys spin your wheels.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 1:59 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
You see it's fine when the president uses the government to target his opponents (which these US Attorneys refused to do and were fired because of their refusal), that's fine and dandy... if he's a Republican. But if there's an allegation with a Democratic administration, that's when you scream.
VB with the "Simpson's did it" defense yet again.
Posted on 9/9/14 at 2:06 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:Who cares. She made a statement under oath that she had broken no laws or IRS rules. The truthfulness of that statement can be analyzed. Based on the evidence coming to light it appears she lied when making that statement.
That Lerner's invocation of her 5th Amendment privilege was legit.
quote:What about arbitrary and capricious application of the law? That is the issue here.
That under the letter of the law, most of these tea party groups don't qualify under the tax exempt statute nor do many other groups who have been given that status like Rove's, the Koch's and the liberal groups.
quote:All laws restricting political speech should be carefully scrutinized for compatibility with the First Amendment. I have problems with the tax code being used in an attempt to limit political speech by imposing costs on the speech.
Congress needs to get rid of the law or be more specific.
quote:The information coming to light is evidence that the investigation is warranted. Each additional unusual coincidence does not increase doubt. It just creates the need for additional investigation and explanation.
It's a question whether the IRS targeted them because it was an easy way to flag political groups or because there was an agenda.
quote:You can't be serious. There have been admissions of inappropriate actions, and the evidence clearly indicates who the victims were. It is safe to presume that the selection of the victims was according to the agenda, and those making the selection were those with the agenda.
If there was a political agenda, it's unclear whose agenda.
quote:Anyone claiming this is not political must be ignoring the facts.
Anyone who has formed an opinion on this being political does so based on assumptions and not on facts.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News