Get Ready for Obamagate!

https://i.imgur.com/7cElI.jpg

I wasn't aware of this, but the sixth year of a two-term presidency is usually when scandals break. (And yes, we're all aware of the birth certificate, Fast and Furious, and Benghazi. None have gained traction, although for the wingnuts, they are already discrediting evidence of Socialist betrayal and incompetence and one-world UN takeover blah blah blah.) From the article:

Year Six of a two-term presidency has been a fruitful time for scandal. Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky came to light in January 1998, at the start of Clinton's sixth year in office. Iran-Contra was revealed in November 1986, in the sixth year of Reagan's presidency. The Watergate break-in occurred in 1972 while Richard Nixon was running for re-election, but the revelations played out slowly enough that he didn't resign until his sixth year in office, in August 1974. Similarly, the Bush administration revealed Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative in 2003, though the scandal wasn't fully over until 2007, when Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, and President Bush commuted his sentence.

That confluence of timing is probably nothing more than a coincidence; we're dealing with a small number of cases. On the other hand, there might be something about second terms—turnover among staff, or the fact that the big legislative pushes of the first term are behind you—that makes malfeasance more likely.

Any bets on what the Year 6 scandal might be?

This is America we're talking about, so I'm going to disregard the person in question and place my bet on the usual: a sex scandal.

I only hope it will involve toe-tapping and public restrooms...

Even though Obama has been a disappointment, you can still judge him by his enemies. His enemies are absolute lunatics who I wouldn't trust to flip burgers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This is America we're talking about, so I'm going to disregard the person in question and place my bet on the usual: a sex scandal.

I only hope it will involve toe-tapping and public restrooms...

---

That is a possibility...but he's a democrat...so it will be a hetero sex scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

he's a democrat...so it will be a hetero sex scandal.

---

Now hang on a second, in general Dems have hetero sex scandals and Repubs have gay sex scandals. But it's not a hard rule, and I can think of exceptions.

Bestiality and necrophilia scandals, however, know no party or affiliation.

That just means we're way overdue for one, doesn't it Ronin?

If not, I hope he finds a more imaginative spot to unload than a dress. That's just sooo 1998.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now hang on a second, in general Dems have hetero sex scandals and Repubs have gay sex scandals. But it's not a hard rule, and I can think of exceptions.

Bestiality and necrophilia scandals, however, know no party or affiliation.

---

tee hee hee hee hard rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now hang on a second, in general Dems have hetero sex scandals and Repubs have gay sex scandals. But it's not a hard rule, and I can think of exceptions.

Bestiality and necrophilia scandals, however, know no party or affiliation.

---

We need some kind of F#(*$ING METAL party. I'd join.

Michelle has turned the Lincoln bedroom into an S&M dungeon. Receipts show that a ballgag and set of handcuffs were bought with taxpayer dollars.

OMG!

It all makes sense now. With the governments wind-fall profits from the AIG bailout (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...g-lawsuit.html) well, "the money was just sitting there".

Michelle, unable to restrain herself had to restrain hubby. All done on the backs of the masses who started the ball rolling by their criminal bailout of AIG. Lust and monies!!! There will be an accounting ye sinful citizens!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That just means we're way overdue for one, doesn't it Ronin?

If not, I hope he finds a more imaginative spot to unload than a dress. That's just sooo 1998.

---

Does the Petraeus affair count, or was that too mundane and short-lived to really count as one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does the Petraeus affair count, or was that too mundane and short-lived to really count as one?

---

A bit to heterosexual to count as gay-sex, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A bit to heterosexual to count as gay-sex, don't you think?

---

Sorry, I thought we were talking about vanilla Democratic sex scandals, and I wondered if the Petraeus affair counted as one, or whether it was too boring to count a one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Sorry, I thought we were talking about vanilla Democratic sex scandals, and I wondered if the Petraeus affair counted as one, or whether it was too boring to count a one.

---

Yeah, I was speaking about gay scandals specifically...

Anyway, what about a lesbian scandal? Never had that one, have you? And I've seen the way Michelle looks at Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yeah, I was speaking about gay scandals specifically...

Anyway, what about a lesbian scandal? Never had that one, have you? And I've seen the way Michelle looks at Hillary.

---

I don't think we've had one at the federal level. Some at state level.

Are you suggesting that Hillary's recent health scare was a result of unrequited...whatever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does the Petraeus affair count, or was that too mundane and short-lived to really count as one?

---

Nice to hear from you Pannonian. Long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I don't think we've had one at the federal level. Some at state level.

Are you suggesting that Hillary's recent health scare was a result of unrequited...whatever?

---

Perhaps she ate some bad clam?

Seems we have some winners. Me, I'll take option #2 for maximum Oh No You Di'n't:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

So which is the bigger scandal:

• State Dept CYA on the Bengazi attack.
• IRS performing a little electoral manipulation.
• Justice Dept fishing 2 months worth of AP reporters' phone records.

Not a good month for the administration.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Seems we have some winners. Me, I'll take option #2 for maximum Oh No You Di'n't:

---

USA...

Politics in short: You don't see the forest for all the trees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does the Petraeus affair count, or was that too mundane and short-lived to really count as one?

---

If it was that short it explains the dissatisfied look on his wife's face...

The accusations are starting to get somewhere. The birth cert stuff was infuriating because it showed no understanding of the term natural born citizen. The Benghazi stuff I honestly don't understand, it just seems like we are digging too hard.

Now, if there is proof that the admin was wire tapping without warrant from more sources or that more Federal agencies were targeting groups with punishment due to their political persuasion, we could get a few pounds of flesh out of the admin. This will get traction. I'm rather surprised that they've finally hit on target. On not Normally one to hook up up for scandal, but I've seen different people take issue with these things.

Whats needed is more direct administration stuff. This will confound some of their messaging for a little while and may get the press secretary, along with IRS officials and Justice department staff terminated, but a more direct hit in terms or criminal malfeasance. The more time the White House is on defense the less time they have for offense. And we know what they do with time for offense - abuse authority to go after political opponents, just like the GOP probably would in their shoes.

Either way, once shtf, people start folding and telling more secrets to save their skin. Let the whack-a-mole begin!

Well, the IRS collects taxes and the whole tea party thing is kinda against taxes in some ways, it only seems logical that they would have a closer look at them, no?
Does the IRS have an obligation to be neutral or what would be a good reason for them to have a closer look at an organization requesting tax exempt status? If I called my organization "tax evasion organization" and wanted tax exempt status, would that be a reason for a closer look or would that be political bias simply because my political view is that I should be allowed to evade paying taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, the IRS collects taxes and the whole tea party thing is kinda against taxes in some ways, it only seems logical that they would have a closer look at them, no?
Does the IRS have an obligation to be neutral or what would be a good reason for them to have a closer look at an organization requesting tax exempt status? If I called my organization "tax evasion organization" and wanted tax exempt status, would that be a reason for a closer look or would that be political bias simply because my political view is that I should be allowed to evade paying taxes?

---

We are not to be targeted or punished for lawful speech. If the name of a group is "tax evaders unite" then by all means. They would be advocating for unlawful action. Publicly advocating for lower taxes should not be a reason for the government to politically attack you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

We are not to be targeted or punished for lawful speech. If the name of a group is "tax evaders unite" then by all means. They would be advocating for unlawful action. Publicly advocating for lower taxes should not be a reason for the government to politically attack you.

---

I thought they just put them into the "more susceptible" part of the to-do list, you know, kinda like how the TSA puts people onto "no fly" lists based on their name or skin color.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, the IRS collects taxes and the whole tea party thing is kinda against taxes in some ways, it only seems logical that they would have a closer look at them, no?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Does the IRS have an obligation to be neutral

---

Yep, absolutely.

Look, there are a lot of groups that file for tax-exempt status who have no business doing so. Some blatantly political groups do some very shady things to gain/maintain that status.

However, the loopholes and just-regular-holes in the law are an issue for the legislature, not the IRS or the executive. This targeting of specific groups is an immense no-no. Massive. Heads will roll.

I am not a tax lawyer, but my understanding is that the IRS is responsible for issuing the non-profit 501(c)4 designation, which the Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates on. There are restrictions on how political these organizations can be, but they can be to some extent. So several IRS offices apparently used "tea party" and "patriot" as key words to extend the process and ask for donor lists. As this happened before the 2012 election, some people are a little upset about it, "chilling effects" has been tossed about. Nixon used the IRS against his enemies, so this is a bit of a sensitive subject. Popcorn time.

The AP is pissed because the Justice Dept now has the phone numbers of all of their confidential sources. Maybe this well get the press off their butts about the Constitutional abuses of the executive branch now that it's their bill of rights being violated.

Some good questions about the IRS scandal:

1) The core issue here is that the IRS was using the term “tea party” and its associated language as a flag for organizations that might be more political than the 501(c)4 designation permitted. As Juliet Eilperin writes, this kind of category-based approach to choosing which applications require more scrutiny is typical for the IRS. It’s even used in individual tax returns. The question was whether, when it came to the 501(c)4 groups, the only kind of political activity being rigorously screened was conservative political activity. Was tea party language the only red flag? Or did other kinds of politicized language set off alarm bells, too? If so, what was that language?

2) Was the Cincinnati office the only one that used the tea-party test or was it more widely applied? The fact that some tea party groups received scrutiny from Washington-based IRS employees doesn’t answer that question. We should expect tea party groups to get scrutiny when they apply for non-political 501(c)4 designation. The question is whether their applications were flagged through a politically discriminatory test that existed in other agencies, too.

3) Did the IRS higher-ups act appropriately? Right now, much of the reporting indicates that IRS higher-ups shut this down pretty much as soon as they heard about it. Their sin, if there was one, was that they didn’t disclose that anything had gone awry when asked whether the IRS was targeting conservative groups. But they may also have thought that this wasn’t targeting conservative groups — it was simply a reasonable, but ultimately unwise, way of filtering politicized applications for appropriate scrutiny. The IG report should tell us more on this score.

4) In which direction does our outrage point? Do we think the tea party groups really are primarily non-political social welfare organizations and they should’ve received 501(c)4 designation more smoothly? Or do we think that they’re clearly political organizations and their applications should’ve been closely scrutinized and maybe even rejected – but so too should the applications from a host of other politicized groups on the left and the right?

5) Do we want a personnel outcome, a political outcome, or a policy outcome? Is the right endgame simply that some IRS employees get fired? That the Obama administration gets embarrassed? Or is that Congress tightens the language governing who does and doesn’t qualify for 501(c)4 status so that the IRS doesn’t have so much discretion — and career employees don’t resort to these confused tactics — when reviewing applications? Note that if we go the legislative route, we could either widen the 501(c)4 designation, making it clear that political groups qualify, or we could narrow it, making it clear that they don’t.

Bottom line: Do we really want the IRS making the decision about what is a "non-political social welfare organization"? I wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of independent board that makes that call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yep, absolutely.

Look, there are a lot of groups that file for tax-exempt status who have no business doing so. Some blatantly political groups do some very shady things to gain/maintain that status.

However, the loopholes and just-regular-holes in the law are an issue for the legislature, not the IRS or the executive. This targeting of specific groups is an immense no-no. Massive. Heads will roll.

---

I see, but it was not exactly what I meant. I meant that groups which publicly say they don't want to pay taxes are more likely to try tax evasion by attempting to get tax exempt status when they really can't/shouldn't get it. My understanding was that they were put on some list where more scrutiny would be applied to the process than for other applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No.

---

It's so much clearer now, thanks for the explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I am not a tax lawyer, but my understanding is that the IRS is responsible for issuing the non-profit 501(c)4 designation, which the Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates on. There are restrictions on how political these organizations can be, but they can be to some extent. So several IRS offices apparently used "tea party" and "patriot" as key words to extend the process and ask for donor lists. As this happened before the 2012 election, some people are a little upset about it, "chilling effects" has been tossed about. Nixon used the IRS against his enemies, so this is a bit of a sensitive subject. Popcorn time.

---

Yes, thank you, my question is, if they had political names and the politicalness of a 501(c)4 has to be limited, is it not the job of the IRS to check the politicalness of them? Or did the democrat 501/c)4s give themselves similarly political names and were not checked anyway?
What about republican and tea party 501(c)4s that did not have very political names but could be easily identified regarding their party affiliation?
If this was used by the people in power to hinder the support of the opposition, it was indeed a bad thing worthy of a true banana republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The AP is pissed because the Justice Dept now has the phone numbers of all of their confidential sources. Maybe this well get the press off their butts about the Constitutional abuses of the executive branch now that it's their bill of rights being violated.

---

Yes, some of this sounds like the god-king of America does indeed have way too many powers, something I already mentioned years ago.
Our chancellor doesn't seem nearly as powerful. The problem I see though as that this system is based on the holy constitution that shall not be changed. At all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The IRS should have known better, no matter what the intentions. It is my understanding that this was really an attempt to hit Super PACs and similar types of organizations (who are, you know, destroying our political system every day...). But, the IRS and Obama ought to have known better.

---

The system was already rotten because it allowed SuperPACs in the first place. Certain people in America said this for a long time but they shouldn't be listened to because they have a liberal agenda that will destroy America.

Seems like the IRS may had also expanded its extra scrutiny to pro-Israel and pro-life groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Politico

“Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a ‘higher risk of terrorism,’” wrote Jon Waddell, manager of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Determinations Group. “A referral to TAG is appropriate whenever an application mentions providing resources to organizations in a country with a higher risk of terrorism.”

However, Z Street and other groups reported getting unusual inquiries from the IRS. A Z Street lawyer was contacted by a Jewish religious group, which detailed inquiries from the IRS that the group’s leaders thought had treaded too far.

“Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? Describe your organization’s religious belief system towards the land of Israel,” the IRS asked in a letter sent to the religious group, which asked not to be named.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas More Society

the Thomas More Society issued a letter response to the Internal Revenue Service, contending that the IRS’ repeated requests for information about the viewpoint and content of the communications, prayer vigils, and other activities of “Christian Voices for Life” violate the group’s First Amendment rights. In its demand letters, the IRS has sought to know whether the group does “education on both sides of the issues,” whether members of the group “try to block people to [sic] enter a … medical clinic” during “40 Days for Life” and “Life Chain” events, whether members of the group “attempt to talk to someone trying to enter a medical clinic,” and to “please explain what you are [doing] during” 40 Days for Life and Life Chain vigils.

---

This is starting to get interesting...
Also, let me remind you of the expanded role the IRS has under Obamacare. I'm just glad we can trust them.

WTF am I supposed to do now? The Dems are now violating civil liberties left and right, while the Reps remain their usual bigoted asstards. Can someone please start a political party that isn't full of jackasses?

If anyone tells me to vote Green or Libertarian, I will choke you with my belt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

If anyone tells me to vote Green or Libertarian, I will choke you with my belt.

---

Whig perhaps, or Federalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

If anyone tells me to vote Green or Libertarian, I will choke you with my belt.

---

At this point, I just write-in Kodos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't think its actually all that complicated.

---

When you have political groups applying for tax exemption as social welfare groups, with gloriously unclear rules from Congress, you have to admit it's a little complicated. And like I said, I don't know that the IRS is the best venue for sorting that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

WTF am I supposed to do now? The Dems are now violating civil liberties left and right, while the Reps remain their usual bigoted asstards. Can someone please start a political party that isn't full of jackasses?

If anyone tells me to vote Green or Libertarian, I will choke you with my belt.

---

violating civil liberties is against the law...

It was not a waste of time when I wrote in Marty Huggins for every office because it made me feel better.

As an outsider, it is a bit rich that Tea Party groups complain about what effectively amounts to profiling by a government agency. Hope the irony is not lost on them.

Of course it is completely reprehensible that the IRS stoops so low. The executive has overstepped its bounds on many, many occasions. Civil rights mean nothing, if the system is inaccessible, or if the system, for whatever, reason refuses to acknowledge them. Or if the executive simply appropriates the right to itself to decide whether you are allowed to live or not. Even if it came to impeachment, nothing meaningful will change. Obama would then simply be replaced with another morally bankrupt guy. There is a depressing thought.

The two big parties are part of the problem, and the way they gerrymandered the system to keep "upstarts" out. Media as well. If they would consistently do their job right, the USA would not be in this mess. But it is not surprising that they fail to do so, especially since they are now corporate entities, which serve the vested interests.

Worrying times for Americans. I hope they can reclaim their country from the corporate toadies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

When you have political groups applying for tax exemption as social welfare groups, with gloriously unclear rules from Congress, you have to admit it's a little complicated. And like I said, I don't know that the IRS is the best venue for sorting that out.

---

I know I sound like a broken record here..... but maybe more government isn't the answer? If the IRS abused it's power, how does it make sense as a solution to create another agency? It's up to the IRS to makes sure we pay taxes. They apparently suck at that job, so I guess we need another agency to make sure they do their job.... until we discover the new agency isn't up to the task, then we'll have to make another panel to watch the watchers.... :dizzy2:

Simplify our ridiculous tax code and watch the problem go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

So we fix Corporate subversion with Executive subversion? All this stuff does is add to the pile of problems, not fix anything.

---

I didn't say what should be replaced by what, I just said the current system is rotten and it's not just the the whole habeas corporation law thingamajig, it's the whole voting system and political process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

WTF am I supposed to do now? The Dems are now violating civil liberties left and right, while the Reps remain their usual bigoted asstards. Can someone please start a political party that isn't full of jackasses?

---

What's the point?
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

They'll never get elected and you just make sure the party you want less has a better chance to get elected. Which brings me back to the system being rotten...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Simplify our ridiculous tax code and watch the problem go away.

---

Well, you know I'm in favor of radically simplifying the tax code. But what to do about political groups claiming they are "social welfare organizations," when they obviously are not? What to do with the tax-exempt status? Grant it to everyone? No one? I'd like to hear your proposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Government is a business tool when the Republicans have control, so obviously less government isn't the answer either.

---

It is not about "less" or "more" government. That is a fallacy, that only serves to obscure the problem.

You can have all the rights in the world, but if you can't access them, they are not even worth the paper they are written on. Conversely, you can have no rights at all, but if no one interferes with your (would be) rights, there would not be a problem either. It is about having proper checks and balances. Meaning that these do not exist as merely theoretical abstractions, but are actually accessible to the American people. Those checks and balances seem to get destroyed on a daily basis, meaning that the US increasingly becomes a country where corporate might is right, and the Executive can do as it pleases. The Republicans are only more blatant about it.

The Democrats are better at portraying the illusion that they really care about Joe Doe. But the main contribution of the Democrats is that they legitimize this "democracy", by virtue of being a second party so that people can "choose", between what is essentially almost the same thing. Essentially Americans are having to choose between voting for a horrible party or a terrible one. Needless to say, public life cannot be sustained by voting for either of them. Or abstaining.

Americans need to find a way to reclaim their political spheres. Whether that is through a functional political party, protests or some other mechanism. What is important is that they really involve a lot of Americans. I think most Americans realize that government is not working properly, and a fairly large portion of Americans realize that changing the executive won't solve the major problems. Tried that with Obama, and he is hardly an improvement (if at all).

We can argue ad infinitum about what an ideal society would look like, what an ideal tax code would look like etc.. But until Americans successfully reclaim the public and political spaces, they are more or less reduced to discuss these things in relative obscurity. Whether that is on online forums or in empty town halls does not make much of a difference. You need to engage the citizenry on these issues. And since Americans get screwed over left, right and center, it should be possible to organize yourselves in a meaningful manner - an elitist stance of bystanders "it ought to be so and so", has never really changed the world, has it? Don't let differences of opinions on the details paralyze you in taking action.

Yes, d'Arthez, and I believe this problem comes from the two party system, which in turn is a result of FPTP voting. Essentially the two parties do not have to cater to a whole lot of people, they move relatively close to eachother and behind the scenes they are both manipulated by big business. Here for example we have two major parties as well but they're still pretty dependent on coalitions with smaller parties and the votes can shift significantly between all these parties. It keeps them more on their toes because it's entirely possible that a minority party takes a huge chunk of votes from any other party away and thus can become part of a government, demeaning the impact of the large parties and so on. The two party system seems to do nothing but shuffle between the only two contenders that are left, which do not really represent most people and so on, I already posted the explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, you know I'm in favor of radically simplifying the tax code. But what to do about political groups claiming they are "social welfare organizations," when they obviously are not? What to do with the tax-exempt status? Grant it to everyone? No one? I'd like to hear your proposal.

---

If they can't come up with clear, unambiguous criteria then we should abolish tax exempt status.

The criteria should be clear and the results of an application should be the same regardless of who is responsible for approving it that day. If they can't manage that, then do away with the status altogether. There should be nothing left open to interpretation.

Ditto for the income tax code in general. I'm sure anyone of us, if we gained the attention of the wrong people at the IRS could be found in some violation of the tax code. My returns have been simple and I use Turbotax, but I still have no doubt that someone at the IRS could make a case against me regardless. Tax laws are too complex and no one understands them.

... and all of that is up to Congress. Who are currently exploring how to demonstrate dysfunction on ever-more-epic levels. Who have a well-deserved 12% approval rating, because they are such epic idiots.

Well, it's nice to dream, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

... and all of that is up to Congress. Who are currently exploring how to demonstrate dysfunction on ever-more-epic levels. Who have a well-deserved 12% approval rating, because they are such epic idiots.

Well, it's nice to dream, anyway.

---

There's maybe a handful of people in both chambers of congress who have a clue what's going on and any interesting in doing anything about it.

I expect they'll be voted out next election...

Full Inspector General report on the Tea Party/IRS thing was released. Found PDF hosted here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You're right in that the issue of political groups trying to disguise themselves and take advantage of tax loopholes is bad and complex.

What's not complicated is that the groups targeted were Obama's obvious political opponents, perhaps even some of the same groups that fund a lot of the right wing scaremongering. Executive subversion, however well-meaning, is very straightforward. People should not tolerate it. :shrug:

---

A group has to be non-political to get tax breaks, right?

So.... If they're political enemies of Obama, doesn't that make the IRS right in their inquiries?

How can you say that a political group should get benefits reserved for non-political groups?

Of course, It's all crystal clear now!

The Justice Dep't., IRS and Benghazi => Welcome to the Obama-Nation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A group has to be non-political to get tax breaks, right?

So.... If they're political enemies of Obama, doesn't that make the IRS right in their inquiries?

---

The same would then logically apply to the various groups that support Obama. And that has not happened.

I hope it get's to the point where we can start setting things on fire.

I so rarely get to use my riot playlist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d'Arthez

The same would then logically apply to the various groups that support Obama. And that has not happened.

---

That it has not happened yet is no proof that it will never happen, nor is it a proof that they are being explicitly left out.

An indication, perhaps, but definitely not proof.

You cannot prove the non-existence of any object, even if they are supposedly contradictory entities. Of course we can imagine some pro-Obama group being investigated. Just because we can think it can happen does not mean it has happened, or will happen. Are we to judge the legality of this, by what the Administration decides to do in 2016?

We can only judge by facts as they are, not on thought experiments that have little to no resemblance to reality. If it had happened, some pro-Obama group would have come out by now with the story. It would certainly strengthen Obama's position in this matter.
If it had not happened (and we don't have any indication that is has), there must be a rational explanation to explain the behavior of the IRS in this matter. Organisations do not act in a completely random fashion. Just as the army does not decide to suddenly assemble Gucci bags, the IRS does not act in a random manner. Someone must have come up with directives to guide the employees of the IRS to act in a certain manner. My limited understanding of US government agencies notwithstanding, that leaves only a few people in the entire country who have the power to do so.

I know Bush did the same thing. But two wrongs don't make a right. It ensures the wrongs become systemic.

No matter how much bigger or smaller you make the government it won't work because the politician's are not accountable to the public. Massive electoral reforms are needed if you want representatives that need to care what you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

No matter how much bigger or smaller you make the government it won't work because the politician's are not accountable to the public. Massive electoral reforms are needed if you want representatives that need to care what you think.

---

Oh really? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Oh really? ~D

---

Ya rly

1. FPTP needs to go away. Honestly, you don't need to strive for the most mathematically optimal method here. Just switch to some sort of voting that allows voting based on preferences not absolute decisions.

2. Gerrymandering needs to be reduced by increasing the size of the house. Yeah, I know it would make deliberation practically impossible. But that is to be expected for a chamber that is meant to represent 300 million people. Only the most important things should be decided on the Federal level. That's not right wing ideology, that is just the reality of the situation. Issues like gay marriage are already being done on the state level at a speed that would be unprecedented than if you tried to fight the good fight in Congress.

3. Repeal the 17th amendment. Electing senators is just a joke and a highlight of how money just dominates our elections. This suggestion is not because I feel like the system before was any better, but as it stand now, senatorial elections are a bigger detriment to our democracy by the blatant nature of the corruption and powerlessness of the average citizen. It reinforces apathy and distrust in the system.

Oh, I was just happy not to be the only one saying that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Oh, I was just happy not to be the only one saying that.

---

WHy is it that I only understood that now when I have been drinking?

With luck this is a "state dependent" thing. As soon as you sober up and rehydrate, harmony and agreement will vanish; you will again perceive Husar as an opponent.

IRS’s Shulman had more public White House visits than any cabinet member

Quote:

---

Publicly released records show that embattled former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times during the Obama administration, more recorded visits than even the most trusted members of the president’s Cabinet.

---

That in itself strikes me as a bit odd. Shulman would report to Geitner at Treasury- not to anyone at the WH. Why all the visits?

But then, take this information along with the fact that the IRS was found to have been harassing conservative groups and it even seems more curious. The frequency of his White House visits averages out to about once a week. What were they talking about so much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

IRS’s Shulman had more public White House visits than any cabinet memberThat in itself strikes me as a bit odd. Shulman would report to Geitner at Treasury- not to anyone at the WH. Why all the visits?

But then, take this information along with the fact that the IRS was found to have been harassing conservative groups and it even seems more curious. The frequency of his White House visits averages out to about once a week. What were they talking about so much?

---

Perhaps he was helping White House staff do their taxes?

After all, talking taxes is "sessy" not boring like that natsec crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I hope it get's to the point where we can start setting things on fire.

I so rarely get to use my riot playlist

---

I miss Rage Against The Machine too bro.

As more info emerges about the IRS thing, looks like it's going to be very hard to tie to the White House.

A U.S. Internal Revenue Service manager, who described himself as a conservative Republican, told congressional investigators that he and a local colleague decided to give conservative groups the extra scrutiny that has prompted weeks of political controversy. [...]

The excerpts of interviews with IRS workers released by Cummings indicate that the IRS manager and an underling first decided to contact Washington, D.C. IRS officials for guidance on the cases from groups aligned with the anti-tax Tea Party movement.

They did so to consolidate them, as they might be precedent-setting for future cases, the manager said, according to the interview transcripts.

It was an unidentified Cincinnati IRS worker who reported to the manager, identified as John Shafer by committee aides, who identified the first Tea Party case.

Two interesting notes: (1) None of these groups actually needed permission to assume 501(c)4 status; their request of status from the IRS was voluntary and "on them." All of these political groups could have had their tax-exempt status without any problem by filing for 527 status. The only reason to file for 501(c)4 was to prevent disclosure of their donors.

I'd like to thank Citizens United for making this unholy mess possible!

Not surprised. The irs is old news, all the attackers on the Obama administration have moved onto the nsa leak by now with nought but a second thought.

In the good old tradition of politics. Don't play the issues, but play the man. Though if the Republicans played on the issues, they'd have to rewrite history under G.W. as well.

Have Democrats and Republicans agreed on anything since they decided the FAA should get some money? Perhaps a major breakthrough on the kind of biscuits that ought to be served with the tea? And so the unraveling of the country continues.

Actually there are a couple with the IRS. Not just the targeting of conservative groups. There is their spending scandal, and who knows what else. They also oversee Obamacare, that will be a mess.

There is the NSA and everyone in congress and the administration want to hang the guy who leaked it, even though everyone says we were already told about it.

Then there is the DOJ and the EPA. And who knows what they will come up with next week.

The sex scandal coverup at the State Department might be entertaining.

Republican hard core supporter vs tea party?

Night of Long Knives was all internal.

The radical jihadists over at Al Jazeera offer a nice concise summation of ObamaGate:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...529477869.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

(1) None of these groups actually needed permission to assume 501(c)4 status; their request of status from the IRS was voluntary and "on them."

---

Why are you so quick to drink the kool-aid? These are the latest librul talking points, but they don't pass muster.
Tell me, how many 501(c)4 groups claim that status without first seeking IRS review? Do you think the IRS would "review" this status when they filed their taxes and take punitive action if they disagreed with the status? Would it make sense for any organization to risk IRS prosecution instead of seeking IRS approval in advance?

I know the left wants this to go away, and maybe it will, but they need to do better than this.

Quote:

---

All of these political groups could have had their tax-exempt status without any problem by filing for 527 status. The only reason to file for 501(c)4 was to prevent disclosure of their donors.

---

Sort of like Move-on.org? There's scads of 501(c)4s that fall on both the liberal and conservative sides of the issues. Why were only conservative ones singled out for additional scrutiny?

I love the "blame the victim" approach that's being employed here. Classy.
I know the left wants this to go away, and maybe it will, but they need to do better than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

These are the latest librul talking points, but they don't pass muster.

---

Ask a lawyer familiar with tax-exempt organizations. Then, inevitably, tell him he's a filthy librul kool-aid drinker.