• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lois Lerner does about-face, will give Hill testimony on IRS scandal

maybe becuase there was not enough liberal groups applying to make it a 50/50 ratio.

Oh, of course there wasn't. It was just a ****ing coincidence that for years under Obama almost no liberal groups applied. That must have been it! :roll:
 
wrong out of the gate
but prove me wrong instead
offer us a cite which shows the IRS employees engaged in illegal activity
a challenge offered to demonstrate your side has no idea what it is posting about

My understanding is that the IRS should, and needs to, hold the information they have in a confidential manner, and not have that information released to others. Yes?


So, yes. The IRS has in fact committed an illegal act, has it not?
 
Of course you can have a politically ideological 501c4, you are being ridiculous. If their cause for organizing is one with a clear cut party line (like taxation, abortion, etc.) then they will be liberal or conservative ideologically and still be qualified as a 501c4. You can stomp your feet and hold your breath until your face turns blue, but promoting lower taxes and balanced budgets IS promoting social welfare.

Umm... No.... The law defines 501c4's as
(501) (C) (4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.​

Politics is not social welfare. Now I agree, these groups can lobby, but they can't engage in electioneering in any way shape or form.

Social Welfare - The well-being of the entire society. Social welfare is not the same as standard of living but is more concerned with the quality of life that includes factors such as the quality of the environment (air, soil, water), level of crime, extent of drug abuse, availability of essential social services, as well as religious and spiritual aspects of life.​

Forming a political group interested in electing people who will reform the tax code is NOT social welfare.

If you want to do that, then you should file under 26 U.S.C. § 527 : US Code - Section 527: Political organizations
 
Maybe they mentioned the concept of Contempt of Congress to her. Frankly I'd like to see her ass frog-marched into the committee chamber. :lol:

She was certainly smug as she was entering and leaving. She may have friends in high places.
 
what was the ratio?

Applications were between 4:1 and 5:1 conservative to liberal groups. Investigations were closer to 3:1 conservative to liberal. A liberal political group had a much higher chance of being investigated than a conservative group.

Ahh.. Bayesian math.
 
Misogyny is not the same as irony. Explaining the disconnect between Issa's claim that Lerner agreed to testify, and Lerner's immediate counter that she did not as "Lerner exercising her woman's prerogative" isn't irony.

Nor was it intended as irony. That you do not understand it's meaning is why you should avoid it.

A real example of irony is what happens when an individual that's paranoid about government lies places all their faith in a con artist; and completely ignores and excuses that con artist's baldfaced lies. So you're right; you're far better at irony than I am.... unfortunately for you.

What are you talking about here?

I'm sorry, it's hard to imagine that even a small child would not recognize that Issa was lying when he said that Lerner agreed to testify last week. Left, right, center, wherever... Believing that Issa was telling the truth is akin to believing that pro wrestling is real. But please.. pretend away.

How do you know he was lying? Apparently her attorney said she would be there and minds were changed. We don't enough of what happened to support any claim that anyone involved was 'a liar'. Leftists throw this word around with such ease and do not seem to understand, again as with 'irony', what they are saying.
 
Last edited:
Applications were between 4:1 and 5:1 conservative to liberal groups. Investigations were closer to 3:1 conservative to liberal. A liberal political group had a much higher chance of being investigated than a conservative group.

Ahh.. Bayesian math.

thank you
you anticipated exactly where i was headed with that question
to deflate the presentation that conservative groups were 'victims' of the IRS
 
My understanding is that the IRS should, and needs to, hold the information they have in a confidential manner, and not have that information released to others. Yes?


So, yes. The IRS has in fact committed an illegal act, has it not?


so, now you are moving the goal posts to make this about inappropriate disclosure and no longer about the conservative groups being illegally targeted by the IRS
about time you moved away from that losing argument
 
Nor was it intended as irony. That they do not understand it is why they should avoid it.

A real example of irony is what happens when an individual that's paranoid about government lies places all their faith in a con artist; and completely ignores and excuses that con artist's baldfaced lies. So you're right; you're far better at irony than I am.... unfortunately for you.




How do you know he was lying? Apparently her attorney said she would be there and minds were changed. We don't enough of what happened to support any claim that anyone involved was 'a liar'. Leftists throw this word around with such ease and do not seem to understand, again as with 'irony', what they are saying.

Issa said that Lerner had changed her mind and would testify.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_mB9HApsHs

Issa claimed that Lerner would testify; presumably so that news organizations would cover an otherwise pointless hearing. If I believed that Issa was acting in good faith, I would still have to acknowledge that he was in fact lying on this point. I might justify it by saying that he was renewing media attention to an otherwise stalled story. But to claim that Issa was telling the truth is simply ludicrous. And to even hint that Issa is believable because Lerner is a woman is beyond ridiculous.
 
Issa said that Lerner had changed her mind and would testify.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_mB9HApsHs

Issa claimed that Lerner would testify; presumably so that news organizations would cover an otherwise pointless hearing. If I believed that Issa was acting in good faith, I would still have to acknowledge that he was in fact lying on this point. I might justify it by saying that he was renewing media attention to an otherwise stalled story. But to claim that Issa was telling the truth is simply ludicrous. And to even hint that Issa is believable because Lerner is a woman is beyond ridiculous.
Please read this carefully and please don't respond until you completely understand what I said. I never said Issa was telling the truth. I said we don't know. You don't know and I don't know. It was all behind the scenes and is a matter of he said/she said. Your presumptions are guesses. You just don't know.
 
Applications were between 4:1 and 5:1 conservative to liberal groups. Investigations were closer to 3:1 conservative to liberal. A liberal political group had a much higher chance of being investigated than a conservative group.

Ahh.. Bayesian math.

Source please...because news reports have identified in this case about a hundred conservative groups to 7 liberal ones...my math may not be that great but that sure is a lot more than 3:1 ...
 
so, now you are moving the goal posts to make this about inappropriate disclosure and no longer about the conservative groups being illegally targeted by the IRS
about time you moved away from that losing argument

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/05/201310053fr-revised-redacted-1.pdf
WHAT TIGTA FOUND activity guidance be developed by the
Department of the Treasury. The IRS used inappropriate criteria that
identified for review Tea Party and other
 
Please read this carefully and please don't respond until you completely understand what I said. I never said Issa was telling the truth. I said we don't know. You don't know and I don't know. It was all behind the scenes and is a matter of he said/she said. Your presumptions are guesses. You just don't know.

If you can't tell that a politician is lying in this case, then I'm pretty sure you unable to ever tell.

If Issa was telling the truth, then there would be an email chain to back up his side of the story. If there's not an email or paper chain of communication and negotiation... unlike essentially any lawyerly communication since the creation of lawyers, then the chairmen of the house investigative committee is the easiest person on earth to make look like a fool.
 
Source please...because news reports have identified in this case about a hundred conservative groups to 7 liberal ones...my math may not be that great but that sure is a lot more than 3:1 ...

Already posted, and listed to you... by name.. a few months back when this story broke.
 
If you can't tell that a politician is lying in this case, then I'm pretty sure you unable to ever tell.

If Issa was telling the truth, then there would be an email chain to back up his side of the story. If there's not an email or paper chain of communication and negotiation... unlike essentially any lawyerly communication since the creation of lawyers, then the chairmen of the house investigative committee is the easiest person on earth to make look like a fool.

We cannot debate your beliefs. They are yours and we can leave it at that.
 
so, now you are moving the goal posts to make this about inappropriate disclosure and no longer about the conservative groups being illegally targeted by the IRS
about time you moved away from that losing argument

No, I've not given an inch on the possibility, probability really, that the IRS inappropriately delayed / obstructed the approval processing of conservative political groups. It almost appears a certainty that they in fact did, why else apologize for it? Why apologize for something that didn't happen?

Given the links and reporting above, I think it pretty clear that it did indeed happen. With Lerner taking the 5th, seems likely that she was the person that ordered it, and possibly was told or order it from someone else, perhaps the administration.

Whether or not this is illegal I can't speak to, but it certainly makes me uneasy that an governmental organization as powerful as the IRS now has precedent to attack and harass the political opposition of the administration in power. This is toothpaste that I'd very much want to see back in the tube, on a permanent and guaranteed basis. This far more important, in my mind at least, than if this administration ordered it or not, although that's really bad as well. Last time it was Nixon that did it, and the Democrats at the time, quite rightfully so, had a kanipshin. Now it's the Republican's turn to have their kanipshin over this, and again, quite rightfully so. The IRS cannot, and should not, be used to attack political opponents.
 
Umm... No.... The law defines 501c4's as
(501) (C) (4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.​

Politics is not social welfare. Now I agree, these groups can lobby, but they can't engage in electioneering in any way shape or form.

Social Welfare - The well-being of the entire society. Social welfare is not the same as standard of living but is more concerned with the quality of life that includes factors such as the quality of the environment (air, soil, water), level of crime, extent of drug abuse, availability of essential social services, as well as religious and spiritual aspects of life.​

Forming a political group interested in electing people who will reform the tax code is NOT social welfare.

If you want to do that, then you should file under 26 U.S.C. § 527 : US Code - Section 527: Political organizations

When trying to prove the legal definition of a phrase you probably shouldn't pull from BusinessDictionary.com.

But then "social welfare" isn't clearly defined in the law, so I can see your conundrum.

Advocating for one side of an issue is not political. Most Tea Partiers don't give a damn who balanced the budget or lowered taxes, in the end. Just because lately Democrats seem universally opposed to that concept doesn't mean that Tea Party goals are political.
 
Source please...because news reports have identified in this case about a hundred conservative groups to 7 liberal ones...my math may not be that great but that sure is a lot more than 3:1 ...


MediaMatters link incoming. :lol:
 
No, I've not given an inch on the possibility, probability really, that the IRS inappropriately delayed / obstructed the approval processing of conservative political groups. It almost appears a certainty that they in fact did, why else apologize for it? Why apologize for something that didn't happen?

Given the links and reporting above, I think it pretty clear that it did indeed happen. With Lerner taking the 5th, seems likely that she was the person that ordered it, and possibly was told or order it from someone else, perhaps the administration.

Whether or not this is illegal I can't speak to, but it certainly makes me uneasy that an governmental organization as powerful as the IRS now has precedent to attack and harass the political opposition of the administration in power. This is toothpaste that I'd very much want to see back in the tube, on a permanent and guaranteed basis. This far more important, in my mind at least, than if this administration ordered it or not, although that's really bad as well. Last time it was Nixon that did it, and the Democrats at the time, quite rightfully so, had a kanipshin. Now it's the Republican's turn to have their kanipshin over this, and again, quite rightfully so. The IRS cannot, and should not, be used to attack political opponents.


Yeah, if she thought what she did on the job was legal she wouldn't be pleading the 5th.
 
That doesn't mean a pardon down the road is out of the question...

If she's covering Obama's ass, it may very well be that she'll get one when she takes the fall for him. I'd be on the look out for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom