|
| Posted by: Boldwin
- [294281510] Wed, May 15, 2013, 17:14
1) You know darn well it's an impeachable offense and if Bush had done it...
What's the big deal?
When the IRS asks you for the names of the employers of the members of you group and the names of your donors, you know you are being setup. |
| | | 1 | Boldwin
ID: 294281510 Wed, May 15, 2013, 17:57
|
When they ask for blog posts, copies of speeches...
The names of the employers of your donors? Is there anyone who can't see that's unacceptable?When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone non-profit status, and he tried a new approach: Starting over. He applied for permanent non-profit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period. The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions' request for non-profit status in three weeks. When news broke last week that the IRS had applied heavier scrutiny to conservative groups seeking non-profit status from 2010-2012, Ryun said he became convinced that his second application was approved quickly because he applied under the Greenhouse Solutions title, which he called a "liberal-sounding name."
---
A major Romney donor says he just happened to get audited three times after the Obama campaign attacked him by name, and that he's not alone:
---
A pro-life group in Iowa alleges the IRS made their tax exempt status contingent upon signing a legally-binding statement foreswearing any picketing Planned Parenthood clinics
---
"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." - President Obama, late March 2009.
---
“After we win this election, it is payback time. For those who supported us, there will be rewards, for the ones who opposed us, they will get what they deserve. There will be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. With no election to worry about, we have two judges ready to go.” - Valeri Jarrett
|
|
| | | 2 | Boldwin
ID: 424311517 Wed, May 15, 2013, 18:33
|
Of the three highest profile scandals the IRS one is Obama's prefered one because it's the only one he can actively manage.
|
|
| | | 4 | Boldwin
ID: 424311517 Wed, May 15, 2013, 19:38
|
When you've lost Ed Schultz... Talking to documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald who released "War on Whistleblowers".
"If this goes all the way to the president this could be the end of BO." - ES about AP-gate
|
|
| | | 6 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Wed, May 15, 2013, 20:52
|
"If this goes all the way to the president this could be the end of BO." - ES about AP-gate
god forbid you even remotely try and be honest, and use the quote in its context. the line that preceded what you posted ABSOLUTELY MATTERS: Well, you know, if somebody's politically motivated, they can destroy people's lives. They can, they can, they can destroy candidates, they can destroy people's lives. I mean, this is almost like a secret society that's operating here.
as does the line a moment earlier where he said My God, this just doesn't even sound like Barack Obama, it just doesn't.
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Wed, May 15, 2013, 20:54
|
Obama just fired Steven Miller, acting IRS director. Even though he wasn't in charge at the time these improper actions were going on.
|
|
| | | 8 | Boldwin
ID: 424311517 Wed, May 15, 2013, 20:59
|
In one instance, the American Patriots Against Government Excess was asked to provide summaries or copies of all material passed out at meetings. The group had been reading “The 5000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen and the U.S. Constitution.
The group’s president, Marion Bower, sent a copy of both to the IRS. “I don’t have time to write a book report for them,” she said.
|
|
| | | 10 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 1550160 Wed, May 15, 2013, 23:39
|
Bad week for Obama...these three scandals are going to hang over him for the rest of his presidency. I guess Chicago style politics do not work on a national level. Lame duck.
I am not sure which is the biggest...probably the IRS as that just breaks the fundamentals of democracy and is 100% indefensible. Targeting the entire AP for investigation is also going to have wide reaching ramifications. The Benghazi stuff seems small now but then they release the documents showing the specific attempt by the administration to squash and change the truth. Cannot ever remember three bomb shells being released on a president in such short order. Each on their own are significant, all three together is a disaster.
|
|
| | | 11 | Boldwin
ID: 41453161 Thu, May 16, 2013, 02:55
|
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, May 16, 2013, 03:58
|
CTRS: The AP thing still has yet to come out fully. The only side we've heard about so far, is AP's. And they aren't inclined to give the full story, IMO. The only things we know for sure right now are not illegal.
The IRS thing seems to have the most legs, but given the fact that the head of the IRS at the time left, and his replacement resigned immediately, the political fallout might be mitigated to some degree.
#9: Miller was asked to resign and he did. You can call it a "resignation" when the boss demands your resignation, but it really is a firing.
|
|
| | | 13 | bibA
ID: 54522612 Thu, May 16, 2013, 05:25
|
#9 - maybe you should consider taking a chill pill. Not worth calling someone a liar over.
|
|
| | | 14 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Thu, May 16, 2013, 08:14
|
I'm going to guess #9 was posted because he thought it was posted by Boldwin, not PD.
It will be interesting to see the details of the AP investigation. I don't have a problem with a legal review of phone calls placed, which is what my understanding is as of this time. But, I do agree that if it had been Bush in charge at the time, there would be a much bigger cry for immediate for impeachment. I think the IRS and AP stories are going to get way more headlines, but the biggest scandal potential is Benghazi.
While I'm typing this, I realize that while, IMO, the media leans left, it also plays favorites outside of that leaning. Look at athletes for example. An athlete who is nice to the press can basically get away with murder, see Ray Lewis, while someone who can't stand the media is going to get slammed over minor matters.
|
|
| | | 15 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Thu, May 16, 2013, 10:08
|
9 was actually two different thoughts, hastily put together. my apologies. probably need to not be posted when i'm rattled after just returning to my home after tornado sirens go off. scrubbing the post from the board.
|
|
| | | 16 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Thu, May 16, 2013, 10:13
|
i guess i see the AP scandal as the biggest one, because that is the one that, to me, can be most tied to the presidency, at least in responsibility, and it also involves one of or most sacred tenets, that of Freedom of the Press.
Benghazi isn't a scandal.
the IRS issue is certainly critical, but i think it is likely the work of a few individuals, and one of those things where the president can't be in control of every minute detail.
|
|
| | | 17 | GO
ID: 120252515 Thu, May 16, 2013, 10:17
|
I don't see why the names of the employers is a big deal. For compliance reasons I am required to tell my employer about any group that I have made a donation to. I assume that is being checked in reverse.
|
|
| | | 18 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, May 16, 2013, 10:53
|
Well, I never thought I'd say this about one of tree's posts, but I agree 100% with 16.
And GO - you really don't see how the government singling out a specific party affiliation then going to them and demanding not only names of the group they are auditing but people associating with them who are not necessarily part of that group being audited is a problem? Not a bit of an over-reach at all?
|
|
| | | 19 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Thu, May 16, 2013, 11:06
|
as a follow up to 16 and 18, i also believe that when a few people resign/get fired from the IRS, it won't quell the critics.
rather, they'll rely on the old "well, they just fell on their sword" motif, and insist Obama ordered it, much in the way they hold him responsible for what happened in Benghazi.
|
|
| | | 21 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Thu, May 16, 2013, 11:37
|
The IRS scandal is much bigger. Maybe I've missed something but I don't know of any evidence that any illegal activity occurred in obtaining the AP phone records. I'm not very comfortable with the administration's actions there but on the other side its nothing short of outrageous that the IRS would so target political groups for scrutiny.
The notion that one is any more or less serious because it seems closer to the presidency is folly. The president doesn't run the day-to-day operations of the IRS or the Justice Department and isn't personally connected to either "scandal" unless and until some evidence emerges that ties him to it.
When you start ranking these things according to some kind of impeachment argument validity scale you need to take a step back and reevaluate your perspective in viewing current events.
|
|
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, May 16, 2013, 11:50
|
#21: I agree.
As Andrew Sullivan pointed out, we now know Obama won't be impeached over the IRS scandal because Dick Morris just predicted he would be.
|
|
| | | 23 | Boldwin
ID: 494571610 Thu, May 16, 2013, 12:36
|
Human Events:the IRS targeting was completely foreseeable. Surely, it’s fair to hold the president to his own standard.
Consider: Obama’s “bitter clingers” remark, his statement that conservatives who want a “small America” are dragging America into “a race to the bottom where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards,” his calling Republican congressmen “hostage takers” for opposing his tax policies (does that ring a bell, i.e., those who criticize the government?), his despicable statement that Republican leaders are “willing to compromise (their) kids’ safety so some corporate jet owner can get a tax break,” Vice President Joe Biden’s saying Republicans “have acted like terrorists” and are using threats of shutting the government down as a “weapon of mass destruction,” Obama’s looking on with approval as Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa said of the tea party, “Let’s take these sons of b—-es out,” and his spiritual adviser the Rev. Jim Wallis’ saying, “And to be blunt, there wouldn’t be a tea party if there wasn’t a black man in the White House.” In my book “The Great Destroyer,” which was published in 2012, I reported that there were “literally dozens of tea party organizations that (had) received intrusive information demands from the IRS” in response to tea party requests for tax-exempt status. These demands, I reported, “have not been in response to allegations of wrongdoing against the parties, but simply in response to their applications for tax exemptions.”
I reported that some were alleging that “the Obama IRS (was) ‘using the routine process of seeking and granting tax exemptions to undertake a sweeping, top-down review of the internal workings of the tea party movement in the United States.’” I added, “Recall that Obama’s own campaign organization, Organizing for America, once labeled tea party opponents of Obamacare ‘right-wing domestic terrorists.’ … If Team Obama views tea partyers as a dangerous threat, would it really be surprising to learn that it treats them as such?”
|
|
| | | 24 | Tree
ID: 254471611 Thu, May 16, 2013, 12:47
|
fair points in 21.
that being said, i wasn't ranking anything in regards to impeachment - rather, which scandal i view as one i think that could have more legs.
no question - the IRS scandal is outrageous, and any common sense person would understand that, and see that the outrage doesn't run along party lines, nor should it.
|
|
| | | 25 | Boldwin
ID: 494571610 Thu, May 16, 2013, 12:55
|
The Media Meme of the Day is BS! Obama Isn't Disengaged -- He Leads a Government Waging War on Its Domestic Enemies - Cal Thomas quoting Rush Limbaugh
|
|
| | |
| | | 27 | Boldwin
ID: 494571610 Thu, May 16, 2013, 13:10
|
No one is denying it is bigger than just Obama.
|
|
| | | 28 | Boldwin
ID: 494571610 Thu, May 16, 2013, 13:13
|
But that piece makes a salient point. Is it a few rogues or is it the agency?
Right now Obama's preferred meme is that two rogue agents corrupted three IRS offices.
If you are hanging your hat on that, better strap it down.
|
|
| | | 29 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, May 16, 2013, 14:24
|
#26: RINO, of course.
The problem isn't that this is something that should be investigated (it absolutely should), it is that the Far Right wants to pin everything on Obama personally. And the Far Right has no real self control right now, on any issue, at any time.
This has all the makings of a classic overreach, where they might have decent crossover appeal on something but whackos like Allen West, Bachmann, Issa, etc are going to completely oversell this.
They simply can't help themselves. They don't know any other way than grabbing people and trying to pull them into the dark corners where they like to talk amongst themselves.
|
|
| | | 30 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Thu, May 16, 2013, 15:55
|
Re: 29
That doesn't anything like the people who ran on the platform of "I'll do the opposite of Obama" would do. Oh wait, yes it does. Carry on.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 33 | Boldwin
ID: 504361623 Fri, May 17, 2013, 01:17
|
Kevin Williamson summarizesWhat we have, then, is this: Under a Democratic administration, the IRS was under pressure from Democratic elected officials to investigate political enemies of the Democratic party. The agency did so. Its commissioner lied to Congress about its doing so. When the inspector general’s report was about to make these abuses public, the agency staged a classic Washington Friday news rollout at a sleepy American Bar Association tax-law conference, hoping to minimize the bad publicity. Lerner lied to the public about the nature, scope, and extent of the IRS intimidation campaign.
|
|
| | | 34 | chode
ID: 212581213 Fri, May 17, 2013, 09:48
|
Re: 29/31
"The problem isn't that this is something that should be investigated (it absolutely should) ..."
Right. The actual wrongdoing isn't the problem here. What we should all focus on is how the other side reacts to it. They're gonna look so foolish!! *That's* the real story. At least, that's easier and better for you.
Even with that limp parenthetical caveat, do you even read yourself? In a world where everything is hyper-politically motivated and charged with slant, and it's that very predisposition that I think most people agree is stalling genuine progress for this country, it would be nice to at least stop pretending it doesn't cut both ways, on both sides of the aisle.
I'll brace myself for the inevitable "yeah, but the Right is worse" response, chuckle, and continue to expect nothing to change.
|
|
| | | 35 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Fri, May 17, 2013, 12:27
|
The right is worse.
At least at this time in history, they are far, far worse.
And until every come to understand that, nothing will change.
First step: you gots to marginalize the nut-cases.
|
|
| | | 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, May 17, 2013, 12:54
|
#34: This is a political message board. It seems a little vaporous to be taking my post to task for being, well, political.
You might note that I made no comparison to what the GOP has done in the past. No reflexive "they do it too" that you seem braced to get. The IRS problem should be investigated, absolutely.
But I really don't get this overwhelming response on the Far Right to personally blame Obama right now. Their script writes itself. And they vastly overreach, to the point where people stop taking them seriously on even stuff that should be, since they are the party who cried wolf too many times.
|
|
| | | 37 | chode
ID: 212581213 Fri, May 17, 2013, 13:45
|
Well if your goal on these boards is simply to take sides and shoot at your opposition for what they're doing next, without, you know, discourse about the actual issues themselves (instead wanting the focus to always be on how those issues are framed up by your opponents) ... then yes Fred, "this is a political board so I'm being political" seems like a perfectly reasonable response.
I don't believe it's an overreach to think Obama (or any president) should be held accountable for the things that happen under his administration's direct supervision on his watch. Sure there will always be fringe who'll claim he was the one who personally rejected all Tea Party applications for charitable status. But contrary to your ubiquitous inclination here to over-generalize what "the Far Right" believes, I don't believe that's what most people who you'd consider "the opposition" think. I will grant that it is a shame that those voices do seem to have some of the loudest microphones these days, and that needs to be addressed too, best done from within the GOP and at the polls. I agree that's critical to the kind of progress I referred to in #34, and my guess is on that point an overwhelming majority of people agree.
And there will just as surely (even if not as loudly) be a similar number of fringe on the Left who want to credit Obama *personally* with killing bin Laden, rallying the Dow, vastly increasing the number of Americans on federal assistance, or whatever else his supporters will champion as successes of his presidency. You don't get to chalk those up to being *his* actions, and then turn around and accept this "I had no idea, but I'm upset" response to the IRS scandal (at least not with any credibility anyway). Government action (or inaction, like Benghazi) doesn't just 'happen' without some form of directive, a directive that leads back to his office. And that cuts both ways, for successes and failures.
I have no idea what credit you're seeking in the second paragraph of #36, but biliruben dutifully obliged in #35 so I'm feeling fairly validated there. If that's the whole response (and *nothing* can be done until "everyone" agrees with you on that), then congrats bili, you're still part of the problem. At least "the Right is worse" and that's what matters.
|
|
| | | 38 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Fri, May 17, 2013, 13:45
|
the far right belongs they are the norm, they are the average voter, and that most Americans believe as they do.
there is a heavy disconnect, as they consider moderates - which are the people who ultimately decide nationally elections - are liberals.
it's baffling to me.
|
|
| | | 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, May 17, 2013, 13:59
|
don't believe it's an overreach to think Obama (or any president) should be held accountable for the things that happen under his administration's direct supervision on his watch.
I agree with you, but my point is that we simply don't know who did what yet in order to apportion blame. If you think I'm saying that people who are responsible (including Obama) should be held accountable I'm happy to clarify.
But we're not at that point yet.
|
|
| | | 40 | Boldwin
ID: 504361623 Fri, May 17, 2013, 14:23
|
The only story as far as PD is concerned, is your reaction, Chode.
|
|
| | |
| | | 42 | Boldwin
ID: 504491721 Fri, May 17, 2013, 23:02
|
BTW let's clear up this 'IRS Chief' thing. According to wiki:Prior to the "IRS scandal," Stephen T. Miller planned to step down as the acting Commissioner in early June, 2013, and entirely retire from the IRS within 2 months. [11] They've already admitted the question was planted that brought this to light. They picked the venue. They had the fall guy in position. It wasn't a fall, it was the retirement he'd been planning all along.
Expect a nice bonus parting gift.
|
|
| | | 43 | Boldwin
ID: 504491721 Fri, May 17, 2013, 23:03
|
And if it wasn't illegal he's the only one who thinks so. The actual heads who approved the action, lied about it to congress so they obviously didn't think it was kosher.
|
|
| | | 44 | Boldwin
ID: 504491721 Sat, May 18, 2013, 12:11
|
Here's the other sacrificial goat so far:

Joseph Grant, on the job only 8 days, had nothing to do with it.
The people who actually led these efforts within the IRS have received big bonuses [@100K] and one received a promotion.
Reminiscent of the big bonuses and promotions handed out for killing civilians at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Don't suggest there has been anything reasonable or appropriate done to correct this.
|
|
| | | 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Sat, May 18, 2013, 12:39
|
See, folks: They just can't help themselves.
|
|
| | | 46 | Boldwin
ID: 504491721 Sat, May 18, 2013, 13:14
|
Look at them complaining about the double standard. Look at them complaining about all the lawbreaking. Look at them complaining about the media laying down on the job.
Ignore the saboteurs and criminals.
|
|
| | | 47 | Boldwin
ID: 524281815 Sat, May 18, 2013, 16:33
|

And it's the exact same person in charge of the questions. The one who got the bonus for abusing her power last time. The one who actually asked people to turn over the contents of their prayers to the IRS.
|
|
| | | 48 | Boldwin
ID: 524281815 Sat, May 18, 2013, 18:42
|
Well of course it wasn't a couple low level rogue agents: “We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”
The staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that the determinations unit is competent and without bias, and that it grouped together conservative applications “for consistency’s sake” — so one application did not sail through while a similar one was held up in review. This consistency is paramount in the review of all applications, according to Ronald Ran, an estate-tax lawyer who worked for 37 years in the IRS’s Cincinnati office.
“You’re not going to have a bunch of flaming liberals in the exempt-organizations department looking for conservative applications,” he says.
- Washington Post So someone higher up set the rules for sorting the targets.
|
|
| | | 49 | Boldwin
ID: 524281815 Sat, May 18, 2013, 19:04
|

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the republican party?
|
|
| | | 50 | Boldwin
ID: 524281815 Sat, May 18, 2013, 21:03
|
Celia Roady, a partner in the Washington D.C. office of Morgan Lewis and a member of the the IRS’ Advisory Committee on Tax-Exempt and Government Entities, said she got a call from Lois Lerner, head of the IRS’ tax-exempt organizations division, on May 9, the day before Lerner appeared on a panel at the American Bar Association tax section’s annual meeting.
“On May 9, I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks at the ABA Tax Section’s Exempt Organizations Committee Meeting, and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks," Roady said in the statement, obtained by TPM. "I agreed to do so, and she then gave me the question that I asked at the meeting the next day.
|
|
| | | 51 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Sun, May 19, 2013, 01:45
|
considering your history, i'm not sure you've gathered that #49 is parody.
|
|
| | | 52 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Sun, May 19, 2013, 02:46
|
Maybe--but Waco!
|
|
| | | 53 | Boldwin
ID: 52440198 Sun, May 19, 2013, 09:41
|
Tax-cheating crook Charlie Rangel on the Sunday shows defending the corrupt IRS? Yeah, we're through the looking glass. - John Hayward, twitter
|
|
| | | 54 | Boldwin
ID: 364171912 Sun, May 19, 2013, 23:22
|
|
|
| | | 55 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Mon, May 20, 2013, 00:50
|
FOXNews lies thru their teeth and thats been repeatedly demonstrated. Who gives two shits what Lou Dobbs has to say on the Liars Network?
|
|
| | |
| | | 57 | Boldwin
ID: 2446204 Mon, May 20, 2013, 05:25
|
New Yorker Magazine President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to reassure the American people that he has “played no role whatsoever” in the U.S. government over the past four years.
“Right now, many of you are angry at the government, and no one is angrier than I am,” he said. “Quite frankly, I am glad that I have had no involvement in such an organization.”
The President’s outrage only increased, he said, when he “recently became aware of a part of that government called the Department of Justice.”
“The more I learn about the activities of these individuals, the more certain I am that I would not want to be associated with them,” he said. “They sound like bad news.” ... --- ...“If I find that any members of my Administration have had any intimate knowledge of, or involvement in, the workings of the United States government, they will be dealt with accordingly,” he said.
|
|
| | | 58 | Boldwin
ID: 2446204 Mon, May 20, 2013, 05:32
|
Washington Post yesterday quoting an anonymous IRS Cincinnati office staffer:"Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”
|
|
| | | 59 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Mon, May 20, 2013, 07:35
|
Baldwin, again, falls for a satire site. Only a matter of time before he does it, again.
|
|
| | | 60 | Boldwin
ID: 2446204 Mon, May 20, 2013, 07:56
|
I understand exactly what the New Yorker was doing. Do you understand their intent? They aren't mocking the scandal. What does it mean when the New Yorker starts mocking the president? It is another 'Cronkite Moment'.
|
|
| | | 61 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Mon, May 20, 2013, 08:06
|
He think he was referring to 49.
|
|
| | | 62 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Mon, May 20, 2013, 08:51
|
No, I'm referring to #57. Apparently looking up who Andy Borowitz is, is too much for him...
Gives me a great Monday Moment, though, to see such predictable overreach where the Far Right uses Andy Borowitz for its own arguments. As though somehow this helps them.
What's next: The Onion "man on the street" interviews.
Hahaha!
|
|
| | | 63 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Mon, May 20, 2013, 08:57
|
It is certainly funny he falls for two jokes on the same issue, within two days of each other.
This is what happens when you pawn your critical thinking skills for the crack cocaine of partisan sniping.
His pimps have the Far Right shaking their money makers out there.
|
|
| | | 64 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Mon, May 20, 2013, 10:19
|
It is certainly funny he falls for two jokes on the same issue, within two days of each other.
i also believe this is not the first time he has fallen for Borowitz either.
|
|
| | | 65 | Boldwin
ID: 164192113 Tue, May 21, 2013, 20:16
|
IRS scandal: Wherever Lois Lerner goes, ‘prayer interrogations’ seem to followLerner is the supposedly “apolitical” official who first admitted her agency had been targeting conservative groups Friday before last.
Between 1986 and 2001, Lerner served as head of investigations for the Federal Election Commission. From that post, Hemingway relates, she launched a lengthy, very expensive and ultimately fruitless investigation of the Christian Coalition. And in Hemingway’s explanation of it, you might recognize some of the “investigative” tactics that have been mentioned in connection with the current IRS scandal.[Actual FEC deposition of Ollie North - B]
Q: (reading from a letter from Oliver North to Pat Robertson) “‘Betsy and I thank you for your kind regards and prayers.’ The next paragraph is, ‘Please give our love to Dede and I hope to see you in the near future.’ Who is Dede?”
A: “That is Mrs. Robertson.”
Q: “What did you mean in paragraph 2, about thanking -you and your wife thanking Pat Robertson for kind regards?”
A: “Last time I checked in America, prayers were still legal. I am sure that Pat had said he was praying for my family and me in some correspondence or phone call.”
Q: “Would that be something that Pat Robertson was doing for you?”
A: “I hope a lot of people were praying for me, Holly.”
Q: “But you knew that Pat Robertson was?”
A: “Well, apparently at that time I was reflecting something that Pat had either, as I said, had told me or conveyed to me in some fashion, and it is my habit to thank people for things like that.”
Q: “During the time that you knew Pat Robertson, was it your impression that he had – he was praying for you?” she was in charge of FEC investigations then, and she’s in charge of IRS exempt organizations now. So is it her, or does the entire bureaucracy routinely and systematically discriminate against Christians?
|
|
| | | 66 | Boldwin
ID: 164192113 Tue, May 21, 2013, 20:17
|
And yes, of course I understood #49 was parody, and I am not gonna start pointing out the obvious.
|
|
| | | 67 | Boldwin
ID: 14427221 Wed, May 22, 2013, 05:26
|
|
|
| | | 68 | Mith
ID: 412561115 Wed, May 22, 2013, 08:23
|
So is it her, or does the entire bureaucracy routinely and systematically discriminate against Christians?
Strange question to pose without showing any actual discrimination against Christians.
A few questions from an FEC deposition provided without context is not evidence of discrimination.
And whatever you care to call it, the fact that all of the examples provided amount to exactly three questions from 19 years ago suggests that it is anything but systematic.
Conservative Intel my ass.
|
|
| | | 69 | Boldwin
ID: 14427221 Wed, May 22, 2013, 11:18
|
I wonder if praying will disqualify you from healthcare? Why would they even ask? But they surely will.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 72 | Boldwin
ID: 384162217 Thu, May 23, 2013, 12:03
|
Obama says he just heard about the IRS scandal the same time and way that you did.
Which you and I both know is a bold faced lie.
No, the orders to deny tax exempt status to all Tea Party applicants went out in time to prevent any getting started all election long.
The Treasury IG report was finished before the election concluded last year.
White House Chief Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler
'claims to have learned about the IRS audit scandal only last month' but actually she began unprecedented meetings with
'the Treasury Department’s chief lawyer, who has known about the inspector general’s investigation of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative nonprofits since at least June 2012',
meetings with
'Christopher J. Meade, Treasury Chief Counsel, met with Ruemmler on September 27th, December 11th, and December 13th, 2012.'
She also apparently had meetings with the 15 person task force assigned to manage this scandal, meetings on
July 2nd, 2012 and with fifteen other people on July 17th.
[Insert youtube of Obama lying about when he learned the IRS was targeting conservatives]
|
|
| | | 74 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Thu, May 23, 2013, 12:33
|
Ruemmler says she learned about it last month.
WaPo says Ruemmler and McDonough agreed to keep it from Obama until the investigation was made public.
Daily Caller says Ruemmler met three times last fall with Meade, who has known of the investigation since June, suggesting that "Ruemmler and potentially other White House members may have known of the IRS Inspector General Report months earlier than has been reported."
This is reasonable speculation, however calling the meetings "unprecedented" is rather creative since, as the Daily Caller notes, Meade didn't become Treasury's acting Chief Counsel until June. So there is no reason for why White House Counsel would have met with him when he was just Treasury's Deputy Counsel.
The wingnuttery comes with the claim that this is somehow evidence that the timing of when Obama learned of it (or the narrative that it was kept from him) doesn't add up.
|
|
| | | 75 | Boldwin
ID: 434372312 Thu, May 23, 2013, 13:38
|
Treasury Inspector General broke the law. The Inspector General Act requires that he report “particularly flagrant problems” to Congress within seven days. Watch how he responded to frequent requests from congress for an update:[we can't tell you or you'll leak it] “When information is conveyed to the Hill, it is not aways retained by the Hill,” George testified
[they knew enuff in June to have been legally required to alert congress] “Field work on this audit is still ongoing,” was the Sept. 24 response.
[Dec. 18] “I was studying for and then taking a final.” “We will be able to offer a substantive briefing, i.e. the facts, findings and recommendations and outcomes, by March,”
Feb 20] “We are leaving no stone unturned as part of our due diligence," the IG responded. "As such, we won’t be able to provide a detailed, substantive briefing until late April/early May.”
At that time, Issa told George that the Inspector General Act requires that he report “particularly flagrant problems” to Congress within seven days.
|
|
| | | 76 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Thu, May 23, 2013, 13:58
|
Was 75 an attempted response to 74 or just a shrinking subject change from your latest beating?
they knew enuff in June to have been legally required to alert congress
That's what your Examiner link says Darrell Issa wrote to the IG last year.
But the Examiner piece does not offer anything on what Issa believes J. Russell George knew and stops well short of stating outright that George broke the law.
Perhaps he did break the law. Though an adult who isn't overcome with bloodlust for impeachment would probably refrain from presenting the above as established fact.
|
|
| | | 77 | Boldwin
ID: 434372312 Thu, May 23, 2013, 16:39
|
Do not venture into the woods. There aren't enuff breadcrumbs in the world to lead you back out.
|
|
| | | 78 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Thu, May 23, 2013, 16:43
|
Funny I was going to say that someone should have given you that advice years ago.
|
|
| | |
| | | 80 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Fri, May 24, 2013, 01:58
|
what an elitist.
he's using math. that's not fair.
|
|
| | | 81 | Boldwin
ID: 31427247 Fri, May 24, 2013, 09:19
|
So zero Tea Party tax exempts approved in an election year is what, just a rounding error? Within the random normal range?
And how does he divide by zero? Could be we have to alert the math community about a breakthru!
|
|
| | | 82 | Boldwin
ID: 31427247 Fri, May 24, 2013, 09:27
|
And not only is there a zero chance this was random, there is also a zero chance you or Nate Silver believe it was random.
|
|
| | | 83 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Fri, May 24, 2013, 09:29
|
I don't think you read the link.
For the record dozens of Tea Party exemptions were approved in 2012.
But that's a whole different thing from Silver's point. Read the link, Great Carnac.
|
|
| | | 84 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Fri, May 24, 2013, 10:06
|
he's using math. that's not fair.
You are correct since the math he is using is correct but the logic is wrong.
I read the link and it actually does not necessarily show what it says it is showing. What it needs to show, but doesn't, is that distribution of audits between income groups has not changed in the last 10 years, since this would show a change in behavior in IRS audits. Not only does it not show what it claims it could be argued that since they disproportionately auditing higher incomes they are disproportionately auditing big political donors, and since more Romney supports are in these brackets they are probably being audited more often than Obama big donors...Now, he correct pointing to 4 instances does not make a trend, but neither does his analysis.
|
|
| | | 85 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Fri, May 24, 2013, 11:19
|
Boikin why should he have to show 10 years worth of audit figures to establish what he says about the singulr year of 2012? Over 10 years the size of different income groups has changed significantly - it seems like there likely would have been changes in the percentage of each group that gets audited regardless of any targeting.
So here's data from individual returns from the past five years:
2012: Total Audited: 1.482m/143.400m Under $25,000: 1.2 $25,000 under $100,000: 2.4 $100,000 under $200,000: 3.6 $200,000 or more 3.4
2011 Total Audited: 1.565m/140.837m Under $25,000: 1.3 $25,000 under $100,000: 2.9 $100,000 under $200,000: 4.3 $200,000 or more: 3.8
2010: Total Audited: 1.581m/142.823m Under $25,000: 1.2 $25,000 under $100,000: 2.5 $100,000 under $200,000: 4.7 $200,000 or more: 3.3
2009: Total Audited: 1.426m/154.067m Under $25,000: 1.1 $25,000 under $100,000: 1.9 $100,000 under $200,000: 4.2 $200,000 or more: 3.2
2008: Total Audited: 1.392m/137.85m Under $25,000: 1.2 $25,000 under $100,000: 1.9 $100,000 under $200,000: 3.8 $200,000 or more: 3.1
As you can see the percentage of higher-end earners (who Silver called for Romney) were actually audited less frequently in 2012 than in previous years.
|
|
| | | 86 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, May 24, 2013, 11:26
|
Silver's point was that there is no evidence that the Administration was using the IRS to attack specific, conservative, political activists. And he's right.
That point is clearly a co-relational point: People who are conservative are more likely to be wealthy. People who get audited are also more likely to be audited. Therefore (for the Far Right): The IRS is targeting conservatives.
|
|
| | | 87 | Tree
ID: 444522410 Fri, May 24, 2013, 11:52
|
i've been audited twice in six years. the IRS is clearly targeting Jews who don't make a ton of money.
|
|
| | | 88 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Fri, May 24, 2013, 12:37
|
Re 85: This is more the type of data that should have been looked at. As for the 10 years I just made up that range since that would include data from before Obama took office vs before.
re 86: he didn't show that, that article was terrible use of data. Try getting that published in scholarly journal. That is why you would need multiple years of data to indicate a change in behavior or no change
This totally ignores the fact that since he does not know the political views of those audited he can not actually say anything about if someone was targeted or not. His fallacy was basically the opposite of using too specific of data he generalized based on general of data.
|
|
| | | 89 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Fri, May 24, 2013, 12:45
|
Try getting that published in scholarly journal.
Do you know who Nate Silver is?
I think you think he claims to extrapolate more from his work here than he intends.
|
|
| | | 90 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Fri, May 24, 2013, 12:58
|
I do know who he is and I was curious and you know how many Journal authors he is primary author on? Zero, and the co-author on one. This was only quick search so he could have more.
|
|
| | | 91 | Tree
ID: 444522410 Fri, May 24, 2013, 13:28
|
how many Journal authors he is primary author on?
which means absolutely nothing.
|
|
| | | 92 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, May 24, 2013, 13:44
|
Attacking Nate Silver's credibility on political statistical analysis? Really? That didn't work so well for the Right when they did it month after month after month last year, either.
On the other hand, you are welcome to show, statistically, that conservative political activists are, in fact, being targeted for auditing. I promise, when looking over your work, that I won't take off points for journal authorship.
|
|
| | | 93 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Fri, May 24, 2013, 14:19
|
PD, that was not even a statistical analysis that was a frequency table. Secondly I was not trying to say if they were being targeted or not, I was just pointing out that article did not disprove or prove anything. I am sure if I brought up my concerns with nate silver he would agree but since he is job or writing editorials for NYT I sure doing proper analysis are not his first concern.
Now if you want to show me where the statistical analysis was in that article feel free
|
|
| | | 94 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Fri, May 24, 2013, 14:31
|
I was just pointing out that article did not disprove or prove anything. I am sure if I brought up my concerns with nate silver he would agree
You don't have to ask you, since he doesn't claim to have proved anything:Ms. Noonan is surely correct that many conservative taxpayers were audited. In fact, based on some simple math that I’ll present in a moment, it’s likely that hundreds of thousands of Mitt Romney voters were selected for an audit in 2012.
However, it’s also likely that hundreds of thousands of Mr. Obama’s supporters were audited. Although the percentage of taxpayers who are audited is relatively low — about 1 percent — the number of taxpayers in the United States is so large that this still yields well more than a million audits every year, across the political spectrum.
To be clear, this calculation assumes that individuals’ risk of being audited is independent of their political views. In fact, there is no way to know exactly how many supporters of each candidate were chosen for an audit — nor could there be, since individual-level voting records and audit records are private.
The point is, however, that even with no political targeting at all, hundreds of thousands of conservative voters would have been chosen for audits in the I.R.S.’s normal course of business. Among these hundreds of thousands of voters, thousands would undoubtedly have gone beyond merely voting to become political activists.
The fact that Ms. Noonan has identified four conservatives from that group of thousands provides no evidence at all toward her hypothesis. Nor would it tell us very much if dozens or even hundreds of conservative activists disclosed that they had been audited. This is exactly what you would expect in a country where there are 1.5 million audits every year. Frankly Boikin I have no idea what you're talking about when you say Silver's work does not necessarily show what it says it is showing. I'm not sure you do, either. What is it you think he claims to have "proved"?
|
|
| | | 95 | Boldwin
ID: 31427247 Fri, May 24, 2013, 16:37
|
For the record dozens of Tea Party exemptions were approved in 2012.
But that's a whole different thing from Silver's point. Read the link, Great Carnac. - MITH
More specifically:dozens of Tea Party groups were approved for tax exempt status beginning in May 2012. That was the same month that Representative Dave Camp of Michigan wrote to the I.R.S. asking for information about all “social welfare” groups that had applied for tax-exempt status in 2010 and 2011, to determine whether the I.R.S. was targeting conservative groups...
from March 2010, when the agency began singling out conservative groups, to April 2012, just before it received Mr. Camp’s letter and changed its search criteria for the last time — the I.R.S. approved the applications of just four groups with those conservative keywords in their names. After the I.R.S. altered its search criteria the final time, the agency approved more than 40 Tea Party applications. But you keep pretending the IRS wasn't illegally used as a political weapon.
Lie with statistics.
Go ahead, tell me with a straight face Van DerSloot wasn't targeted to harass a key Romney donor.
Yes I knew your link didn't include discussion of 'groups' but that just demonstrates that Sliver didn't even try to make that case, thus weakening his case that a highly politicized IRS was too ethical and law abiding to attack individuals.
|
|
| | | 96 | Mith
ID: 412561115 Fri, May 24, 2013, 17:00
|
I swear Nate Silver writes down a row of numbers and you guys complain that they aren't in alphabetical order.
From the post:
None of this ought to take away from the major part of the I.R.S. scandal — the targeting of conservative groups that applied for 501(c)(4) status, which the I.R.S. has admitted to and for which the statistical evidence is very clear. And evidence could yet emerge that there was targeting of politically active individual taxpayers.
|
|
| | | 97 | Tree
ID: 41412416 Fri, May 24, 2013, 17:01
|
come on Mith, Go ahead, tell me with a straight face that you expect them to read the entire thing, or even use some basic reading comprehension skills.
|
|
| | | 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, May 24, 2013, 17:06
|
Exactly. When in doubt, yell about a different point entirely.
|
|
| | | 99 | biliruben
ID: 21841115 Fri, May 24, 2013, 21:04
|
Brain damage.
How can someone write post after post screaming about an article, without reading, or at least comprehending, the article?
|
|
| | | 100 | Boldwin
ID: 504442421 Fri, May 24, 2013, 22:46
|
I really gotta start making a list of all the dodges you guys come up with when you know your side has been acting like Nixon and McCarthy all rolled into one and 0n steroids.
Or be honest and tell us why you like what this administration has been doing.
Give us a little of the old 'ends justifies the means', why doncha?
|
|
| | | 101 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Sat, May 25, 2013, 00:41
|
What in fantastical unicorn land are you talking about?
|
|
| | | 102 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Sat, May 25, 2013, 01:33
|
I really gotta start making a list of all the dodges
well, that's ironic.
you wrote the book on dodges.
|
|
| | | 103 | Boldwin
ID: 1849259 Sat, May 25, 2013, 10:21
|
Now The Gibson Guitar Raids Make SenseOn Aug. 24, 2011, federal agents executed four search warrants on Gibson Guitar Corp. facilities in Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., and seized several pallets of wood,...
In one raid, the feds hauled away ebony fingerboards, alleging they violated Madagascar law. Gibson responded by obtaining the sworn word of the African island's government that no law had been broken.
In another raid, the feds found materials imported from India, claiming they too moved across the globe in violation of Indian law. Gibson's response was that the feds had simply misinterpreted Indian law.
Interestingly, one of Gibson's leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Co. According to C.F. Martin's catalog, several of their guitars contain "East Indian Rosewood," which is the exact same wood in at least 10 of Gibson's guitars. So why were they not also raided and their inventory of foreign wood seized?
Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.
"two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."
Gibson, fearing a bankrupting legal battle, settled and agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty to the U.S. Government. It also agreed to make a "community service payment" of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — to be used on research projects or tree-conservation activities.
... are but a few examples of the abuse of power by the Obama administration to intimidate those on its enemies list. Is this really the way you wanna play it? Cause there are a lotta liberal businessmen to return fire on when republicans get back in power.
|
|
| | | 104 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Sat, May 25, 2013, 10:32
|
For those not blinded by the meme-of-the day, you might recall my own link (#487) of this thread.
Apparently, the new rule of the Far Right is that problems in government have to tick off two or more Far Right current outrages to be mentioned by them.
|
|
| | | 105 | Boldwin
ID: 1849259 Sat, May 25, 2013, 15:39
|
I wasn't revealing the Gibson raid. I was explaining why it happened.
|
|
| | | 106 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Wed, May 29, 2013, 18:31
|
Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics
When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress. The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application. And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign literature. Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications. But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review. There are currently over 300 "non-profits" under investigation for improper political involvement. I guess for some conservatives Citizens United just didn't go far enough...
|
|
| | | 107 | Boldwin
ID: 2251229 Sun, Jun 02, 2013, 10:13
|
|
|
| | | 108 | Boldwin
ID: 1053758 Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 09:39
|
The Associated Press has turned up a collection of secret email accounts used by White House appointees. Yet another dark wall is revealed in the most "transparent administration in history." --- "most U.S. agencies have failed to turn over lists of political appointees' email addresses, which the AP sought under the Freedom of Information Act more than three months ago." --- Already we know that while she was the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson used an email account in the fictitious name of Richard Windsor to hide her communications inside and outside of government.
Some of those emails have been seen by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which sued for them under the Freedom of Information Act. But, according to CEI, the "EPA has refused to produce — or produced only heavily redacted — documents in response to virtually all (of senior fellow Chris) Horner's requests." --- a shakedown element is connected to this latest — yes — scandal: "The Labor Department initially asked the AP to pay more than $1 million for its email addresses." --- Federal law prohibits the government from using private emails for official communications unless they are appropriately stored and can be tracked. Yet that appears to be a widespread practice of this administration. That's illegal, which defines outlaw behavior.
- IBD
|
|
| | | 109 | Boldwin
ID: 1053758 Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 09:52
|
Yesterday the Department of Justice tried to explain away the Attorney General's deceptions. It claimed that the Attorney General told the truth when he told Congress he never "heard of" prosecuting a member of the press.
But he told a federal judge, in a sworn affidavit, that there was "probable cause" to believe that a Fox News reporter committed a crime. - Jay Sekulow What is the point of having laws anymore? At this point they are nothing more than a tax on the honest. They don't even slow down the lawless. They pay no penalty for breaking the law.
|
|
| | |
| | | 111 | Boldwin
ID: 32532618 Thu, Jun 06, 2013, 23:44
|
Of the four scandals currently embroiling Obama [until the MSM can helpfully find a quiet moment to 'just move on']...
Not a single story was broken by the MSM.
They spent some time demonizing Bob Woodward recently however. Kinda ironic. 'Wouldn't wanna be'ya'.
|
|
| | | 112 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 09:25
|
So the suggestion that rightist media is far inferior.
We are to understand that no journalists covering Washington at FOX News, Breitbart, National Review, Pajamas Media, Weekly Standard, Washington Times or The Daily Caller had the contacts, the insiders, the access to break this story.
|
|
| | | 113 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:44
|
I guess is it always time for self-congratulating when you are making up or spinning stories, for the most part.
|
|
| | | 114 | Boldwin
ID: 2254279 Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:46
|
Without tracking them down, I believe Breitbart did break one or more of them. The blogosphere is a big place tho, so...
|
|
| | | 115 | Boldwin
ID: 2254279 Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:47
|
You can only pretend these aren't blockbuster stories, because your side has a corrupt hold on the media, PD.
|
|
| | | 116 | Tree
ID: 651779 Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 11:13
|
You can only pretend these aren't blockbuster stories, because your side has a corrupt hold on the media, PD.
did you recently post something about how Fox News was whipping everyone else?
which is it? or is speaking out of both sides of your mouth acceptable to you, and you only?
|
|
| | | 117 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 11:38
|
I believe Breitbart did break one or more of them.
Not according to your Breitbart article about who broke them. Did you not read it?
|
|
| | | 118 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 11:57
|
Ha!
No, but they broke the story about the stories being broken. And that counts, right? Worthy of an award?
|
|
| | | 119 | Boldwin
ID: 4453598 Sun, Jun 09, 2013, 10:18
|
Campaigning against the man in the mirror.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 122 | Boldwin
ID: 465452112 Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 14:28
|
Actually threatening going permanently nuclear does not have that milktoast Bob Michels feel to it.
Unfortunately McConnell and Boner are only Tea Party for show. They'd rather have drinks with the Dem 'in crowd' and get the invites to the fashionable Washington salons than represent their constituents real feelings.
|
|
| | | 123 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 18:35
|
If they did represent "your" real feelings they'd never get re-elected. You have yet to understand, you are in a decided minority.
|
|
| | | 124 | Boldwin
ID: 465452112 Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 19:38
|
You aren't even interested in an accurate reading of the right side of the aisle. We all understand what you are doing with your little 'extremist' rubber stamp and your grafiti. If the Tea Party were really marginal the RINO's like McCain, Rubio and Graham wouldn't be having to practically caucus with Reid in order to defeat their own party's wishes wrt immigration..
|
|
| | | 125 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Sat, Jun 22, 2013, 00:14
|
2012 should have, but 2014 and 2016; will make it self evident.
|
|
| | |
| | | 127 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Mon, Jun 24, 2013, 15:11
|
lmao...you rightwingnuts, the extremists who have hijacked the GOP, keep blaming everything for your 2012 defeat EXCEPT...yourselves. Every week, its a different boogeyman. Someday, you might even admit the truth...you are, your own worst enemy.
|
|
| | | 128 | Boldwin
ID: 125452510 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 11:47
|
Federal Data Services Hub
The Hub is a central feature of ObamaCare.
The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic...
Not to worry, says the Obama administration. "The hub will not store consumer information, but will securely transmit data between state and federal systems to verify consumer application information,"...
But a regulatory notice filed by the administration in February tells a different story.
That filing describes a new "system of records" that will store names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, taxpayer status, gender, ethnicity, email addresses, telephone numbers on the millions of people expected to apply for coverage at the ObamaCare exchanges, as well as "tax return information from the IRS, income information from the Social Security Administration, and financial information from other third-party sources."
the filing says the federal government can disclose this information "without the consent of the individual" to a wide range of people, including "agency contractors, consultants, or grantees" who "need to have access to the records" to help run ObamaCare, as well as law enforcement officials to "investigate potential fraud."
If these government agencies can't protect data kept on their own servers, how much more vulnerable will these databases be when they're constantly getting tapped by the ObamaCare Data Hub? Say anything to get it passed.
We'll have to pass it to see what's in it.
Destroy any whistleblower who spills the beans before we can pass it.
|
|
| | | 129 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 15:58
|
Remember the glee at the Right, over an IRS scandal that fell into their laps?
Turns out, like many "scandals," this one was self-made as well.
The House GOP asked the IG to prepare a report on 501c3 audits, but limit them to just the Tea Party ones. When he does, they are up in arms that all the audits are--against Tea Party groups!
|
|
| | | 130 | Tree
ID: 135382713 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 16:17
|
in regards to post 129, i anxiously await to see whether Baldwin:
1. ignores it 2. blames the liberal media 3. blames liberals 4. blames the gay agenda 5. blames the Jews, because sooner or later the Jews get lamed for everything
6. actually admits he was wrong.
|
|
| | | 131 | Boldwin
ID: 495552717 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 19:00
|

How can they claim IRS processing of tax exempt status is classified, and so classified that they dare not share them with congressmen? Time for a special prosecutor.
** At least 292 conservative groups targeted ** At least 5 pro-Israel groups targeted ** Constitutional groups targeted ** Groups that criticized Obama administration were targeted ** At least two pro-life groups targeted ** A Texas voting-rights group was targeted ** Conservative activists and businesses were targeted. ** At least 88 IRS agents were involved in the targeting scandal ** At least one conservative Hispanic group was targeted
Today the Inspector General confirmed that 292 conservative groups were targeted by the IRS. Only 6 liberal groups were targeted.
All 292 Tea Party groups, meanwhile, were part of the IRS witchhunt.
|
|
| | | 132 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 19:25
|
(A)..they were not 'targeted'. They came up, because of key words. just as numerous progressive groups did. (B) Like Benghazi...no story is here to be had, by HONEST people. Only, by biased pawns of their machine. (C) Have you bought your Glenn Beck wardrobe yet?
|
|
| | | 133 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 19:38
|
They don't seem to understand that many of these groups were actually participating in the very activities which were illegal by an organization with a 501c3 status. In fact, that *is* the beef: That these partisan organizations were heavily scrutinized.
This is like a bunch of men, caught in a sting operation at a whorehouse, complaining that they were unfairly targeted because of their gender.
|
|
| | | 134 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 19:57
|
btw Boldwin? Why was it 292 conservative groups and 6 progressive?
From PDs link above:
The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”
Because Issa ASKED for exactly that. IOW, the entire "scandal", is a GOP fabrication.
|
|
| | | 135 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 19:59
|
sarge: so you don't get lost in the maelstrom: The letter referenced in #131 is specific, and limited to, the audit which itself was limited in scope.
In other words, when found out that the audit was biased by design, the Right still tries to point to letters about that same audit--a drum circle of "proof" as it were.
|
|
| | | 136 | Tree
ID: 135382713 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 20:11
|
re 135 - which is what 131 did.
i guess the answer to 130 was (1) ignores it.
|
|
| | | 137 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 20:18
|
All 292 Tea Party groups, meanwhile, were part of the IRS witchhunt.
(A) Since when is an investigation of potential criminal wrong doing, frowned upon by the Republican party? (Arent you the ones who self promote as tough on crime?) (B) The witchhunt as it were, is being conducted BY, the GOP.
|
|
| | | 138 | Mith
ID: 412561115 Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 20:28
|
Obviously the authoritarian proponents of criminal profiling don't think it's so great when they are the ones being profiled.
If this is what it takes for them to figure out the practice of such general class profiling is wrong - whether it's Muslims or young black men or tea partiers, I'll gladly welcome them into their enlightenment.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 141 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022 Thu, Jul 23, 2015, 22:46
|
Confirmed: IRS used donor lists to target audits.
Also the stats:
|
|
| | | 142 | Tree
ID: 161036918 Sun, Jul 26, 2015, 15:06
|
confirmed by who?
|
|
|
|