• 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!

If Obama knew....

Vote:

  • Total voters
    59
Guy Incognito said:
You are imputing a motive without any evidence. The IRS was going after the tea party because of the high likelihood they were tax cheats. Yes, that is unconstitutional profiling most likely. But that is a far cry from "sickig the IRS onthem to bring them down.". It is simply sicking the IRS on them tools sure they paid their taxes! If they hadn't tried to apply for tax skeptic a they didn't actually qualify for then they would have had no problem.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that I've already come to the conclusion the President actually did this (I haven't). Hit rewind and try again. I didn't argue that the President sicced the IRS on them, I said that if he did it would be a giant misuse of his authority. You are forgetting that the IRS already admitted to and even apologized for focusing on conservative groups in particular. You're trying to change my point by arguing that I'm already condemning this president for deliberately misusing the IRS (I'm not) and by implying that I think it's acceptable for those conservative groups not to pay their taxes (I don't). It won't work.

I just saw your edit: "I'm the first one to argue that the method the IRS used was unconstitutional but I would never dream of impugning their motives without hard evidence like you are doing."

I never did that. This is an extremely poor display of reading comprehension.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You are imputing a motive without any evidence. The IRS was going after the tea party because of the high likelihood they were tax cheats. Yes, that is unconstitutional profiling most likely. But that is a far cry from "sickig the IRS onthem to bring them down.". It is simply sicking the IRS on them tools sure they paid their taxes! If they hadn't tried to apply for tax exemptions they didn't actually qualify for then they would have had no problem.

I'm the first one to argue that the method the IRS used was unconstitutional but I would never dream of impugning their motives without hard evidence like you are doing.
Click to expand...

They weren't looking at the tea party because of the high likelihood that they were tax cheats. That's not what Lois Lerner apologized for. She apologized for the IRS singling out for greater scrutiny conservative groups by using a selective search criteria such as 'tea party' or 'patriot'.

That's the issue here.
 
L
Monserrat said:
They weren't looking at the tea party because of the high likelihood that they were tax cheats. That's not what Lois Lerner apologized for. She apologized for the IRS singling out for greater scrutiny conservative groups by using a selective search criteria such as 'tea party' or 'patriot'.

That's the issue here.
Click to expand...
No. They singled out groups with tea party and patriot inthe name because they are more likely to be pushing the definition of 501c4. It was apolitical.
 
Cardinal said:
You are assuming that I've already come to the conclusion the President actually did this (I haven't). Hit rewind and try again. I didn't argue that the President sicced the IRS on them, I said that if he did it would be a giant misuse of his authority. You are forgetting that the IRS already admitted to and even apologized for focusing on conservative groups in particular. You're trying to change my point by arguing that I'm already condemning this president for deliberately misusing the IRS (I'm not) and by implying that I think it's acceptable for those conservative groups not to pay their taxes (I don't). It won't work.

I just saw your edit: "I'm the first one to argue that the method the IRS used was unconstitutional but I would never dream of impugning their motives without hard evidence like you are doing."

I never did that. This is an extremely poor display of reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
If you are not impugning their motives then you should know there is no scandal here. The IRS is supposed to investigate compliance with tax law, which is precisely what they did. Nothing criminal or untoward about it. They should have had the stones to stick by their policy and fought it out it court. It might not necessarily be unconstitutional.

In any event, you criticize my "reading comprhension" but you are actually contradicting yourself . You accused to IRS of trying to "bring down" tea party groups.
 
Guy Incognito said:
L
No. They singled out groups with tea party and patriot inthe name because they are more likely to be pushing the definition of 501c4. It was apolitical.
Click to expand...

No. Lois Lerner admitted that the cases were picked out just for the names not because the IRS thought that they were more likely to be pushing the definition, that's why this whole thing is an issue.

However, approximately 75 of the 300 groups that were filed for further review were simply filed because they had the names "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.

"They did pick the cases by names and that's absolutely inappropriate and not the way we should do things," she said, though stressing it was done as a "shortcut," not out of "political bias."

Following tea party complaints, IRS admits ‘mistakes’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Click to expand...
 
Monserrat said:
No. Lois Lerner admitted that the cases were picked out just for the names not because the IRS thought that they were more likely to be pushing the definition, that's why this whole thing is an issue.
Click to expand...

Did you even read you own quote?? It was not out of political bias! It was to make it easier to separate the questionable cases from the real charities.
 
Guy Incognito said:
If you are not impugning their motives then you should know there is no scandal here. The IRS is supposed to investigate compliance with tax law, which is precisely what they did. Nothing criminal or untoward about it. They should have had the stones to stick by their policy and fought it out it court. It might not necessarily be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Your continuous string of strawmen bore me and do nothing to address my question, which is what power, if any, does the executive office have over who the IRS investigates? If you don't know just say so.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Did you even read you own quote?? It was not out of political bias! It was to make it easier to separate the questionable cases from the real charities.
Click to expand...

I never assumed any motive...

I'm not arguing either way for any motive I'm just simply pointing out that many of those groups were targeted because of their name because of the search criteria used and not as you claimed in your previous post because they were more likely to be a tax cheat.

I call things as they are and in this case it's pretty clear especially when we have a top IRS official apologizing for singling out groups by using the search criteria that they did.
 
Cardinal said:
Your continuous string of strawmen bore me and do nothing to address my question, which is what power, if any, does the executive office have over who the IRS investigates? If you don't know just say so.
Click to expand...

It's not a straw man, Cardinal, it is a direct quote from you. You accused the IRS of trying to "bring down" conservative groups, without any evidence of this motive. They are your own words.

Timaty the chief executive bears responsiblility for failings of the IRS. But it is irrelevan because nothing wrong happened here.
 
Monserrat said:
I never assumed any motive...

I'm not arguing either way for any motive I'm just simply pointing out that many of those groups were targeted because of their name because of the search criteria used and not as you claimed in your previous post because they were more likely to be a tax cheat.

I call things as they are and in this case it's pretty clear especially when we have a top IRS official apologizing for singling out groups by using the search criteria that they did.
Click to expand...

So their methods in their search criteria was stupidity on the part of the irs.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's not a straw man, Cardinal, it is a direct quote from you. You accused the IRS of trying to "bring down" conservative groups, without any evidence of this motive. They are your own words.

Timaty the chief executive bears responsiblility for failings of the IRS. But it is irrelevan because nothing wrong happened here.
Click to expand...

So you don't know what power the executive has in who the IRS investigates then. Fine. You're useless to me -- be off with you.
 
Guy Incognito said:
L
No. They singled out groups with tea party and patriot inthe name because they are more likely to be pushing the definition of 501c4. It was apolitical.
Click to expand...

The you're calling Lois Lerner a liar? Alrighty then.
 
Monserrat said:
I never assumed any motive...

I'm not arguing either way for any motive I'm just simply pointing out that many of those groups were targeted because of their name because of the search criteria used and not as you claimed in your previous post because they were more likely to be a tax cheat.

I call things as they are and in this case it's pretty clear especially when we have a top IRS official apologizing for singling out groups by using the search criteria that they did.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding this so completely I hardly know where to begin. The IRS was singling out tea party groups applying for tax exempt status based on their names because a group called "tea party patriots" is less likely to qualify for tax exempt status than a group called "Methodist hospice" or something. It was to catch tax cheats. This so damned obvious to anybody not pushing a political agenda!
 
nota bene said:
The you're calling Lois Lerner a liar? Alrighty then.
Click to expand...

No, quite the contrary. That's a paraphrase from a Lois Lerner quote.

Geez, will you stop at nothing to create a scandal where there is none? Have you no shame? Does intellectual honesty mean anything to you?
 
Cardinal said:
So you don't know what power the executive has in who the IRS investigates then. Fine. You're useless to me -- be off with you.
Click to expand...

This is pathetic. You just can't bear to admit I bested you with simple facts. Symptomatic of the dishonesty that pervades this whole phony scandal.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
So their methods in their search criteria was stupidity on the part of the irs.
Click to expand...

Their methods were probably unconstitutional, hence the apology. But the government does unconstitutional things all the time, usually they are pretty shameless. What is different about this? Only selective outrage by the tea party trying to gin up a scandal by loudly complaining and making insinuations about apolitical bureaucrats at an unpopular agency.
 
Guy Incognito said:
This is pathetic. You just can't bear to admit I bested you with simple facts. Symptomatic of the dishonesty that pervades this whole phony scandal.
Click to expand...

If I set the bar for "besting" people as low as you I'd be winning every debate too.
 
Cardinal said:
If I set the bar for "besting" people as low as you I'd be winning every debate too.
Click to expand...

Sure, it was a pretty low bar because you have such a terrible argument. Defeating you is no great achievement.
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, quite the contrary. That's a paraphrase from a Lois Lerner quote.

Geez, will you stop at nothing to create a scandal where there is none? Have you no shame? Does intellectual honesty mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

Yes, intellectual honesty means a great deal to me. I'm glad that you're thinking about this too and am looking forward to your applying some of the required principles.
 
Aaaaanyway, I'm still curious what power the president has in this case. Anybody who believes the IRS scandal is a scandal for the President as well should be able to answer this.
 
MMC said:
Heya Pero.
yo2.gif
Do you think Obama knowing he fired an IG in 2009 for going after a 501 3 C Liberal Education group. Which was then checked into by Congress over Obama releasing the IG and took until the end of 2009. Being in the News over the Involvement of Sacramento Mayor and friend of Obama Kevin Johnson. That he would know what was going on with the DOJ and the IRS from that time into 2010. Wherein the Issue with the Conservative group True the Vote began? That there was a change of direction so to speak?

Some called it Walpin-Gate. Back then.....as Obama's only reason was he had lost confidence into Walpin. The NY Times would eventually cover it. Even tho they didn't want to in the beginning.
Click to expand...

I don't remember anything about Walpin,so I can't really answer your question. I think it was you I said I would get back with the latest independent approval rating of the president when it came out. This is independents only minus Republican and Democrats.

April 15-22 46%
April 22-28 45%
April 29- May 5 42%
May 6-12 45%
May 13-19 46%

As you can see the scandals haven't stuck or hurt the president yet among independents. FYI, back in November of last year Obama won his second term with a 48% approval rating among independents which this group broke approximately 50-50 between him and Romney.

And just for the heck of it, here is another thing I keep track of, party affiliation/identificaiton.

Here is the party affiliation/identification for 2013. Just remember party affiliation is dynamic and continues to change.

Rep – Republican
Dem – Democrat
True Ind – True Independents – Independent voters who do not lean toward one or the other major political party, would consider voting for a third party candidate.
SVLR – Swing voter, leans Republican
SVLD – Swing Voter, leans Democrat
TP – Third Party Voter


Rep Dem True Ind SVLR SVLD TP
Nov 2012 28% 33% 8% 12% 17% 2%

Jan 7-10 2013 27% 33% 10% 13% 16% 1%
Feb 7-11 2013 28% 32% 8% 14% 16% 2%
Mar 7-10 2013 27% 35% 8% 12% 15% 3%
Apr 4-14 2013 26% 33% 9% 14% 16% 2%
May 2-7 2013 28% 32% 10% 13% 16% 1%
 
nota bene said:
Yes, intellectual honesty means a great deal to me. I'm glad that you're thinking about this too and am looking forward to your applying some of the required principles.
Click to expand...

Of the two of us I am the only one looking at this with intellectual honesty, whereas your behavior shows that intellectual honesty means nothing to you. If it did then you would agree with me that there is nothing going on to be outraged about.q
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. Tax evaders don't tend to announce that they are tax evaders
Click to expand...
I disagree
My experience has shown that they will often join political groups that promote cutting taxes.
'''Like the TEA Party.
This is why they are all so frightened and outraged. If every member of the TEA Party were audited the IRS would find most of the tax evaders in the nation.
 
Buck Ewer said:
I disagree
My experience has shown that they will often join political groups that promote cutting taxes.
'''Like the TEA Party.
This is why they are all so frightened and outraged. If every member of the TEA Party were audited the IRS would find most of the tax evaders in the nation.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. They are regular taxpayers. That's why they are so sensitive to tax rates; if they weren't going to pay then they wouldn't care. Much more likely to find tax cheats among those advocating higher rates.:mrgreen:
 
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.'

Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


'In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."'

Impeachment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Currently, the Republicans control the House of Representatives, 233-201.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom