Bush is a hero
miner49er

Lerona, WV

#163779 Jun 26, 2013
Bobin, please show a little respect for your fellow beings...

"Did your parent have any children that lived? "

Really funny grade school humor, you conservatives are so respectful of others, especially when you don't have a valid response.

"you have ANY credibility left"

Again, a mature person would refute my facts rather indulging in personal attacks.

As to the IRS issues, there's a simple reason "teabaggers" were scrutinized more closely.
The conservatives don't understand that tax-exempt status is for "charitable social welfare organization", not political action groups.

Too many "teabagger" groups have interfered in our election process while fraudulently claiming tax-exempt status.

And the birth certificate still stands.
miner49er

Lerona, WV

#163780 Jun 26, 2013
"while causing moderate to heavy economic and other domestic damage to the United States that will take at least a decade to repair. "

Yep, Bush/Cheney's election in 2004...
HipGnozizzzzz

Dahinda, IL

#163781 Jun 26, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll stand with what I already posted. But I found this to be of some interest from the link YOU posted:
"Because the IRS is prohibited by law from releasing information on applications either denied or not yet approved, we will probably never know the political persuasions of all of the 298 advocacy cases selected for extra scrutiny and of the additional 170 or so applications selected since then. We can, however, try to assess the political persuasion of the 176 approved organizations that the IRS identified on May 15."
And this:
"With all of these caveats, the results of the Tax Analysts review of these organizations are the following: 46 with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their name, 76 other conservative organizations, 48 nonconservative organizations, and six organizations about which we can make no determination. A table with brief descriptions of the 48 nonconservative groups appears below."
46 + 76 = 122 conservative orgs (out of 176).
48 NON-conservative orgs
6 "UNKNOWN"
Ah, waffle for breakfast, eh?

You said it was necessary to know if liberal groups were subjected to the same scrutiny. You further said that "we now know they weren't". Yet here is a sample, showing that fully 1/3 were "non-conservative". So the facts don't quite support your speculation, do they? Further, as the report states, it would now be necessary to know the proportions of ALL applicants, to know if conservative-sounding groups were disproportionately targeted, or if these numbers aren't in fact a representative sample, ie, did conservative-sounding group-names make up something near 2/3 of all applicants?

It's worthwhile to further note that Rep. Issa released >partial< transcript excerpts, all of which served to support his desire to make it appear that the nascent "scandal" extended to the WH. When challenged to release the transcripts in totality, he balked, backed, and filled. Come to find out, the full transcript revealed testimony that outright repudiated any WH connection. Whudupwiddat?

So much for this latest wolf-sighting.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it appears you're all doing just as mentioned earlier - selective hearing, recognizing only that which scores your scandal tune, and disregarding the rest.

Yes, the IRS got sloppy. Yes, they needed to do the tighten up. Yes, the criteria for 501(c)(4) needs to do the tighten up as well. Do you suppose that bit of House-work will result from the hearings? Uh, don't hold your breath.

But were the IRS actions politically motivated, and were they engineered "from the top"? The facts, as yet revealed, don't support it. So, on with the selective speculation.......
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163782 Jun 26, 2013
A struggling economy, high unemployment, Benghazi, IRS, AP, Syria, Snowden, NSA, EPA, GSA (and any other of his agencies which end in 'A' that are currently under the microscope,) a 2nd term that's unraveling by the minute and Obama wants to talk about the weather before he takes off for Africa, emits a whole load of pollutants to do it and assumes no one will notice.

Unfortunately for me during his climate change speech, I had to look at that vile garment again he wears under his shirts because he got hot and had to take off his coat-(or was the jacket removal a not-so-subtle move to tell America the planet really IS getting hotter even though it isn't?) Unfortunately for him, climate change is low on the list for Americans. Sorry about that to all you liberals out there who think it should be on the top of everyones agenda but except for Robert Redford and a handful of others who actually lose sleep over it and have morphed into atmospheric voodoo scientists, the majority of America is sweating not over climate change but rather the impending doom of Obamacare and the crappy state of the union. As the big dogs laugh at us over Snowden and country after country doesn't pay much attention to the leader of what once a respected superpower, for added fun we get to say bye bye to coal. It's the liberal version of outsourcing......

Obama talks about "climate cooperation" with countries like China and India, but what are the chances such countries will halt the development of their industrialization to please Obama?(Didn't China just flip him off the other day when we asked for Snowden? Why, yes they did!) They are not going to arrest their coal development, which has been lifting the Chinese and Indians out of poverty, in order to make Obama do the happy dance. He's not exactly on the top of his game as far as getting other nations to work with him (or congress for that matter but that's another story) only he hasn't evidently been informed he's been reduced to the 'B' list.

I sure hope he has a nice time in Africa. I'm pleased he's going. He does a whole lot less damage when he's gone.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163783 Jun 26, 2013
HipGnozizzzzz wrote:
<quoted text>

Yes, the IRS got sloppy. Yes, they needed to do the tighten up........


We're to be confident that another 10,000, 15,000, 18,000 (or whatever the number is) of new hires who will be working under the umbrella of the IRS to implement and administer Obamacare throughout the merry old land of OZ will alleviate the "sloppy" snafu.

Hellooooooooooooo, insanity! Welcome to my Kingdom.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#163784 Jun 26, 2013
HipGnozizzzzz wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, waffle for breakfast, eh?
You said it was necessary to know if liberal groups were subjected to the same scrutiny. You further said that "we now know they weren't". Yet here is a sample, showing that fully 1/3 were "non-conservative". So the facts don't quite support your speculation, do they? Further, as the report states, it would now be necessary to know the proportions of ALL applicants, to know if conservative-sounding groups were disproportionately targeted, or if these numbers aren't in fact a representative sample, ie, did conservative-sounding group-names make up something near 2/3 of all applicants?
You libs keep reading what you want it to say, not what was written.

The original msg CLEARLY admitted some non-conservative groups were scrutinized. But at the time, the IG could NOT determine exactly what the criteria of that scrutiny entailed and why.

IINM the investigation continues, so ya might wanna save yer rooster strut for a future party.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163785 Jun 26, 2013
Historic SCOTUS rulings. Gays can wed. Good. I was tired of the discussion. Now we can move into the ramification phase of that decision without further ado......assuming of course there will be remifications. What might they be? I dunno.

It was interesting to me to see how many liberals were waving the American flag when their wish was granted but when other sects of society want their constitutional rights addressed or upheld, those same flags get stomped.
Oh well, something else to ponder I suppose.



Divorce lawyers are pleased. Their demographic potential just grew!
lisw

Hamersville, OH

#163786 Jun 26, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
Historic SCOTUS rulings. Gays can wed. Good. I was tired of the discussion. Now we can move into the ramification phase of that decision without further ado......assuming of course there will be remifications. What might they be? I dunno.
It was interesting to me to see how many liberals were waving the American flag when their wish was granted but when other sects of society want their constitutional rights addressed or upheld, those same flags get stomped.
Oh well, something else to ponder I suppose.
Divorce lawyers are pleased. Their demographic potential just grew!
Ha-ha! We had a lawyer friend that used to laugh and say "cha-ching" about divorces. The more they argued the more he made. I personally see no problem with gay marriage and we might see more effort to stay among gay couples.
lisw

Hamersville, OH

#163787 Jun 26, 2013
That's to stay "married"
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#163788 Jun 26, 2013
HipGnozizzzzz wrote:
<quoted text>All of a sudden? There were progressive groups being scrutinized along with conservative, and it's been a part of the story from the git. I mentioned it myself, more than once, and received the requisite "in the tank" dismissal.
What we have here is known as "selective hearing".
Not so......according to David Camp anyway.

He claims the following:

1) The "scrutinized progressive" applications were not required to be sent to a special IRS unit for additional review. but tea party and conservative applications were subjected to extra scrutiny by 12 different working groups within the IRS. Tea Party groups were also marked for extra scrutiny in the same document.

2) It was noted that while progressive groups were also featured on an IRS’ BOLO list alongside tea party groups, it pointed out that only tea party groups had their donors threatened, had confidential information leaked, were sent "inappropriate and intrusive" questions, and had their applications delayed for more than two years, according to currently available evidence.

3) It was also noted that ONLY tea party groups were mentioned as having been targeted in a Treasury Inspector General’s report on the IRS scandal.

4) It should also be noted that Ways and Means Democrats did not call any progressive victims of IRS targeting at the committee’s hearing on IRS victims.

"I do want to note that the minority was given the opportunity to call a witness, but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity — by IRS activity." Camp said at the June 4 Ways and Means hearing, in response to Democratic Rep. Ron Kind’s complaint that no progressive victims were present at the hearing. Camp later said at the hearing that he welcomed potential progressive victims to come forward, but that no progressive groups had done so.
I wonder why no progressive victims came forward.
Hmm.

Let me know if that's a only a check or if it's a checkmate.

HipGnozizzzzz

Dahinda, IL

#163789 Jun 26, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so......according to David Camp anyway.
He claims the following:
1) The "scrutinized progressive" applications were not required to be sent to a special IRS unit for additional review. but tea party and conservative applications were subjected to extra scrutiny by 12 different working groups within the IRS. Tea Party groups were also marked for extra scrutiny in the same document.
2) It was noted that while progressive groups were also featured on an IRS’ BOLO list alongside tea party groups, it pointed out that only tea party groups had their donors threatened, had confidential information leaked, were sent "inappropriate and intrusive" questions, and had their applications delayed for more than two years, according to currently available evidence.
3) It was also noted that ONLY tea party groups were mentioned as having been targeted in a Treasury Inspector General’s report on the IRS scandal.
4) It should also be noted that Ways and Means Democrats did not call any progressive victims of IRS targeting at the committee’s hearing on IRS victims.
"I do want to note that the minority was given the opportunity to call a witness, but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity — by IRS activity." Camp said at the June 4 Ways and Means hearing, in response to Democratic Rep. Ron Kind’s complaint that no progressive victims were present at the hearing. Camp later said at the hearing that he welcomed potential progressive victims to come forward, but that no progressive groups had done so.
I wonder why no progressive victims came forward.
Hmm.
Let me know if that's a only a check or if it's a checkmate.
Of course you see that as more evidence of....well, we're not really sure now - WH scandal doesn't quite fit the bill anymore - which is why the air has gone out of this balloon as far as the general public is concerned. For me, I dunno, I guess I'd say, apparently progressive applicants don't choose to flip out the victim card with such aplomb as teabaggers. >shrug<

As in your post, I still just see a bunch of partisan claims and gratuitous speculation, with a jaundiced eye toward mid-term elections. How do we cut to the heart of the "discrimination"? Here we go. Simple question: How many "conservative social welfare" applications were denied? Not a bunch of victimhood whining about paperwork and bureaucracy - how many were denied? That number will quantify this thing quite nicely.

No WH connection.
No apps denied.

Mate.

“On a sailing ship to nowhere”

Since: Jun 07

Colorado

#163790 Jun 26, 2013
HipGnozizzzzz wrote:
<quoted text>...How do we cut to the heart of the "discrimination"? Here we go. Simple question: How many "conservative social welfare" applications were denied? Not a bunch of victimhood whining about paperwork and bureaucracy - how many were denied? That number will quantify this thing quite nicely.
No WH connection.
No apps denied.
Mate.
Hiya Hip G,
Only one group was denied. It was a group that helped Democrat women get elected which clearly violated 501(c)(4) restrictions. 501(c)(4) are social welfare groups that are not to be primarily involved in partisan politics.
"Emerge America and its initial state programs were granted 501(c)(4) status by the IRS several years ago. Later, when a new state program applied for the same status, it was denied because Emerge works only with women who are in the Democratic Party, so the IRS determined this did not meet the definition of “social welfare” for the common good. We believed this denial triggered a review of the Emerge programs that had already been granted c4 status, and consequently those statuses were revoked."

The IG report mentions that conservative groups faced substantial delays. Here is an ugly fact to consider while sifting through all the information regarding the extremely long delays for Conservative c4 applicants:(the NTEU is the IRS employees union)
"The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party."

The timeline of the IRS meetings with Obama and resultant policy changes is rather interesting to peruse.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obam...

There is so much going on in the news these days it is almost impossible to keep up!

“On a sailing ship to nowhere”

Since: Jun 07

Colorado

#163791 Jun 26, 2013
And further, HippyG,

Now, the IRS's union is going to receive a $70,000,000
bonus for ___? What for? For collecting taxes? Sure, that's what that bonus is for.

"The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.
Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country."

This thing stinks to high heaven. To deny a group their requested status meant giving answers as to the reasons for the denial. Far easier to keep them waiting by pushing them from division to division rather than giving those excuses.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#163792 Jun 26, 2013
HipGnozizzzzz wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you see that as more evidence of....well, we're not really sure now - WH scandal doesn't quite fit the bill anymore - which is why the air has gone out of this balloon as far as the general public is concerned. For me, I dunno, I guess I'd say, apparently progressive applicants don't choose to flip out the victim card with such aplomb as teabaggers. >shrug<
As in your post, I still just see a bunch of partisan claims and gratuitous speculation, with a jaundiced eye toward mid-term elections. How do we cut to the heart of the "discrimination"? Here we go. Simple question: How many "conservative social welfare" applications were denied? Not a bunch of victimhood whining about paperwork and bureaucracy - how many were denied? That number will quantify this thing quite nicely.
No WH connection.

No apps denied.
Mate.
Total BS pal. But then this is so obvious I know its the best you can hope to come up with.Partisans targeted their political adversaries and got caught. End of story.
HipGnozizzzzz

Dahinda, IL

#163793 Jun 26, 2013
Pernrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Hiya Hip G,
Only one group was denied. It was a group that helped Democrat women get elected which clearly violated 501(c)(4) restrictions. 501(c)(4) are social welfare groups that are not to be primarily involved in partisan politics.
"Emerge America and its initial state programs were granted 501(c)(4) status by the IRS several years ago. Later, when a new state program applied for the same status, it was denied because Emerge works only with women who are in the Democratic Party, so the IRS determined this did not meet the definition of “social welfare” for the common good. We believed this denial triggered a review of the Emerge programs that had already been granted c4 status, and consequently those statuses were revoked."
The IG report mentions that conservative groups faced substantial delays. Here is an ugly fact to consider while sifting through all the information regarding the extremely long delays for Conservative c4 applicants:(the NTEU is the IRS employees union)
"The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against the Tea Party."
The timeline of the IRS meetings with Obama and resultant policy changes is rather interesting to peruse.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obam...
There is so much going on in the news these days it is almost impossible to keep up!
Roger that. In context, I thought it clear I was talking about the fact that no conservative apps were denied, since they were the alleged "victims", but it never hurts to be scrupulously accurate with the known facts. Leave the self-serving vagary and speculation to the wolf-spotter dweebs, right? Thx.

Gooda "see" ya, MaryCO of the High Country Far!

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#163794 Jun 26, 2013
miner49er wrote:
Bobin, please show a little respect for your fellow beings...
Isn't that what my question was trying to determine?
miner49er wrote:
"Did your parent have any children that lived? "
Really funny grade school humor, you conservatives are so respectful of others
Yes we are, when it's deserved.

I didn't think you could answer the question... you brain-deads can't process any meaningful responses.

http://www.spirithalloween.com/product/zombie...

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#163795 Jun 26, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You libs keep reading what you want it to say, not what was written.
The original msg CLEARLY admitted some non-conservative groups were scrutinized. But at the time, the IG could NOT determine exactly what the criteria of that scrutiny entailed and why.
IINM the investigation continues, so ya might wanna save yer rooster strut for a future party.
I love when the government investigates the government... and expects us to believe that it's a legitimate investigation. I'm guessing that's why we just get investigation after investigation, stalls and delays, but we never get answers.

Where was obama on the night of 9/11/12?

Did obama authorize troops to be sent to Benghazi? If not, why not? If he did, who countermanded the pResident's order?

Why were we able to get up drones over Benghazi to send live TV back to the State Department and the White House, but couldn't manage any air support?

What did Hillary do on the night of 9/11/12 while her people were being killed and her Consulate was being destroyed?

Why has nobody been fired for the huge display of incompetence that got our Ambassador and three other Americans killed?

I know you were discussing the IRS, but these questions have been unanswered a whole lot longer, although we're running multiple government investigations. They're worthless.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#163796 Jun 26, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Ha-ha! We had a lawyer friend that used to laugh and say "cha-ching" about divorces. The more they argued the more he made. I personally see no problem with gay marriage and we might see more effort to stay among gay couples.
I wonder if there will be a mass exodus of gay couples from states that don't recognize same sex marriage to the states that do.

I agree with the ruling, I understand the ruling, but it sure seems screwed up that some same sex couples get to be recognized by the feds, but others won't. The sad thing, Texas will probably be one of the last holdouts to recognize same sex marriage... and that won't be doing what's right for all our citizens.
miner49er

Bluefield, WV

#163797 Jun 26, 2013
"Did obama authorize troops to be sent to Benghazi?"

Don't be foolish, that would be an act of war, bad idea.

"couldn't manage any air support?"

Great idea, air strikes on a residential neighborhood without any type of Forward Air Control or targeting... another bad idea.

And you would have Obama commence ground and air assaults on a country in the middle of a civil war, all without Congressional approval.

Have you ever even read that Constitution thingy?

"Why has nobody been fired for the huge display of incompetence that got our Ambassador and three other Americans killed?"

You think someone should be fired? Why didn't you complain about the 13 attacks on real American Embassies under George W. Bush?

"13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News"

"Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn't the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn't he provide additional security?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-be...

Obama and Syria? Don't you mean Bush and Syria?

"September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded."

You folks are more of those well-informed Fox viewers...
lisw

Hamersville, OH

#163798 Jun 26, 2013
miner49er wrote:
"Did obama authorize troops to be sent to Benghazi?"
Don't be foolish, that would be an act of war, bad idea.
"couldn't manage any air support?"
Great idea, air strikes on a residential neighborhood without any type of Forward Air Control or targeting... another bad idea.
And you would have Obama commence ground and air assaults on a country in the middle of a civil war, all without Congressional approval.
Have you ever even read that Constitution thingy?
"Why has nobody been fired for the huge display of incompetence that got our Ambassador and three other Americans killed?"
You think someone should be fired? Why didn't you complain about the 13 attacks on real American Embassies under George W. Bush?
"13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News"
"Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn't the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn't he provide additional security?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-be...
Obama and Syria? Don't you mean Bush and Syria?
"September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded."
You folks are more of those well-informed Fox viewers...
You just exposed yourself. Libya is not in the midst of a civil war, that's Syria buddy. You have no clue what you're talking about. Another waste of everyone's time.
The rest is just you spewing junk you read in the rags. Man it is going to get easy reading here since I know whose posts to skip.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Buck Crick 110,294
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min President Don J T... 675,623
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Po Pierdole ni 46,197
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Gabriel 982,080
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 hr Ronald 28
Hank Williams, Jr. is a retard (Oct '11) 3 hr handsomebrady 26
My NEW SPECULATION about the mystery vehicle an... 6 hr Doctor REALITY 16
More from around the web