• 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!

Is the IRS scandal worse than Watergate?

Is the IRS scandal worse than Watergate?


  • Total voters
    44
BTW In the OP I asked the Question "Is the IRS scandal worse than Watergate?" That is the question, not whether or not it was connected to the White House. I do believe however that we will find that the Obama campaign was involved. It has all the earmarks of dirty Chicago politics.
This is stupid, the equivalence you set up is completely dependant upon whether or not this was a directive from the PRESIDENT...as that was the case with the bugging of the DNC offices. For this "scandal" to equal or worse to Watergate it has to be a top down situation.

Apparently you don't understand your comparison on multiple levels.
 
This is stupid, the equivalence you set up is completely dependant upon whether or not this was a directive from the PRESIDENT...as that was the case with the bugging of the DNC offices. For this "scandal" to equal or worse to Watergate it has to be a top down situation.

Apparently you don't understand your comparison on multiple levels.

I understand perfectly that the severity of the scandals is based on who they were directed towards. Watergate was politicians on politicians. The IRS scandal is based on the government attacking grass roots organizations, religious organizations, and individual citizens based on their political or religious ideologies. The premise of my question was not based on the involvement of Nixon or Obama. It's my ****ing question who are you to tell me what it's based on. ****ing liberals piss me off.
 
I understand perfectly that the severity of the scandals is based on who they were directed towards. Watergate was politicians on politicians. The IRS scandal is based on the government attacking grass roots organizations, religious organizations, and individual citizens. The premise of my question was not based on the involvement of Nixon or Obama. It's my ****ing question who are you to tell me what it's based on. ****ing liberals piss me off.
You just didn't think out the implication of your non-equivalence and you are trying to compare a well understood WH criminal action to a undisclosed investigation into a satellite IRS office.
 
You just didn't think out the implication of your non-equivalence and you are trying to compare a well understood WH criminal action to a undisclosed investigation into a satellite IRS office.

You know what it doesn't matter. We will see when the facts come out. In the meantime you can continue to support an ineffective bystander and chief and I will support the organizations who are attempting to remove him from the white house before he does anymore damage. Have a nice day liberal. And I say that with venom and disgust.
 
You know what it doesn't matter. We will see when the facts come out. In the meantime you can continue to support an ineffective bystander and chief and I will support the organizations who are attempting to remove him from the white house before he does anymore damage. Have a nice day liberal. And I say that with venom and disgust.
Of course it matters....TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

Beyond that, I bet you will have continuing disappointment with your "goals", I sure hope they don't involve illegal acts that your side is prone to, Watergate et al.
 
The President claimed he found out about this from the media recently. That may be true but if it is his staff was keeping him in the dark. He has reason to be pissed because once again if this is true he is in fact a bystander and not a leader.




So you think that President Obama should be informed when a light bulb is changed at the Pentagon?

Interesting, very interesting.





"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
I will support the organizations who are attempting to remove him from the white house






You guys couldn't win a fair election,so now you are trying to change the occupant of the White House by other means.

You and those organizations will fail miserably.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
You are not operating on facts, you are not even operating on historical equivalences. You can't even call something a WH scandal went there are of as yet any connections to the WH.

If you knew the long history of Nixon's dirty tricks, going back to his days in CA, his being the right hand man of Joe McCarthy,

Do you know about JFK's connections to Joe McCarthy ? I doubt you do. JFK approved of every proposal of Joe McCarthy.

Document
LETTER TO MR. PIERRE SALINGER FROM
Doc No/ESDN: CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040055-1
Pages: 27 Download PDF for CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040055-1

Search Results | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
 
Not comparable. Fail.

What, are you seriously saying a terrorist attack on a US diplomatic post under Bush is not comparable to one under Obama?
 
What, are you seriously saying a terrorist attack on a US diplomatic post under Bush is not comparable to one under Obama?

Well duh, an attack on diplomats under Bush can't be used as attack issue on Obama, huge, massive difference.
 
Similar in offense.

But the Benghazi screw up is much worse because people died as a result of a poor policy decision leaving them unprotected.

What he said, the IRS scandal has diverted attention from Benghazi and that is sad but the Whitehouse is probably smiling that we can still be manipulated
 
Do you know for a fact that the president was not involved? Do you know for a fact that David Axelrod, who was the senior strategist for the re-election campaign for Obama in 2012 was not involved? I suggest that you do not and that is why we are going to have hearings on this and when we find out the truth we will have trials and people will go to prison. Mark my word, people will go to prison over this.

No one is going to prison because no harm was actually done. This is about the IRS selecting applicants for 501(c)(4) status for deeper review based upon the name of the applicant. 501(c)(4) is presumed... the IRS can overturn the status, but the applicant does not have to await approval to be deemed a 501(c)(4). No applicants were actually turned down, so no harm was done.

501(c)(4) status is for Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees. From Wikipedia: "....501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[37] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[38] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[39] 501(c)(4) organizations are not permitted direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.[36]..." and "...The law allows Section 501(c)(4) organizations to self-declare and hold themselves out as tax-exempt; they do not have to obtain any approval from the Internal Revenue Service, though they may...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization

The fact is that most of the new 501(c)(4) applicants in the 2009-2011 time frame were tea party organizations and entities organizing to take advantage of Citizens United. As each lives in the gray area between politics and social welfare, a good argument could be made the IRS was merely doing its job intelligently.

...as is typical in politics, the outrage of many is way ahead of fact and reality.
 
Last edited:
Do you know about JFK's connections to Joe McCarthy ? I doubt you do. JFK approved of every proposal of Joe McCarthy.

Document
LETTER TO MR. PIERRE SALINGER FROM
Doc No/ESDN: CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040055-1
Pages: 27 Download PDF for CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040055-1

Search Results | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Good grief, what in those 27 pages of clippings from foreign news services (TASS!, East Germany! China!!!) on the 1960 campaign makes Kennedy equal to Joe McCarthy? Beyond that, are you trying to argue that Kennedy was as corrupt as Nixon?
 
I see different as the term for levels of corrution. The Democratic party was permanently harmed by the Kennedy's. When will top secret documents be released? Obama permanently caused a rift with Repubs, real or not, by agreeing to Teddy's health plan which Hillary wouldn't. Bush permanently ruined federal education policy by agreeing with Teddy on NCLB.
 
No.. Not even close.
ehnb7p.jpg
 
I wish you had an option in your poll that said "not yet". It's far to early to tell considering that the story is only about 10 days old and it took almost 3 years from the time of the break in at the Watergate until Nixon resigned. Watergate started with a criminal act that wasn't linked to the White House until much later - IRS-gate starts with a criminal act that hasn't been linked to the White House - we'll have to wait and see. I still find Valerie Jarrett's disappearance to be interesting.
 
What he said, the IRS scandal has diverted attention from Benghazi and that is sad but the Whitehouse is probably smiling that we can still be manipulated

The White House and Democrats may be hoping soon that the media gets back on the Benghazi story. In my view, this IRS story has the potential to damage a lot of Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms and could harm the President as well. Every American has a connection to the IRS and many know what they can be like when they weild power - any whiff of scandal at the IRS can taint everyone in political power at the time. If the White House lets this come out in dribs and drabs and doesn't nip it fast they will appear to be hiding something and that makes it worse.
 
Or real "scandals", such as those before Feb. 2009. Remember when Obama closed the door on prosecuting Bush's corrupt regime in the name of peace at home? Meanwhile, Repubs including Ryan were meeting after the election to sabotage Obama. And then there were the mountain retreats of the Kochs including members of the SCOTUS CORRUPTUS.
 
I wish you had an option in your poll that said "not yet". It's far to early to tell considering that the story is only about 10 days old and it took almost 3 years from the time of the break in at the Watergate until Nixon resigned. Watergate started with a criminal act that wasn't linked to the White House until much later - IRS-gate starts with a criminal act that hasn't been linked to the White House - we'll have to wait and see. I still find Valerie Jarrett's disappearance to be interesting.

I agree, way too early for any comparisons.
 
Worse then Watergate? Are you serious?

Not even remotely close.

Even if a direct tie to Obama is found (though he should resign if it was), it's still not close.


Watergate was about the POTUS office doing dozens/hundreds of illegal things like breaking and entering, wiretapping, destruction of private property, massive political corruption and on and on...AND THEN using almost every layer of government (including the FBI) to cover it up.

This is, at worst, the POTUS asking the IRS to look at various conservative groups for tax reasons...and that's assuming a direct link to Obama could be found (which I highly doubt ever will).

The latter is bad.

The former is absolutely ridiculous.
 
Actually, liberals were furious with Democrats for NOT doing these kinds of things to Bush.

Kucinich and Wexler were actively proposing impeachment on 35 charges against Bush, but Democrats were not interested in pursuing this course of action even though the liberal base was sure that Bush was a criminal.

These GOP witch hunts are not coming from the base, they are coming from GOP Congressmen.

You could find hundreds of thousands or articles arguing for investigations and/or impeachment of Bush from the left, but virtually zero support in the Democratically controlled Congress. Democrats would not allow themselves to be manipulated by the farthest left of their base. Republicans seem to represent ONLY the farthest right of their base.
Even Obama isn't defending the IRS. Even the IRS isn't defending the IRS.
 
Correct.

We see this all of the time.

Ultimately, I don't believe that the GOP's activities will turn out well for the GOP.

There are some good people in the GOP, but unfortunately they are not in charge.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
What specifically is the GOP doing wrong?
 
Back
Top Bottom