• 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!

IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases [W:127]

Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

pbrauer said:
Well, no it really not. Here is part of the transcript from the House Oversight Committee; it shows they were looking for consistency not targeting.

http://democrats.oversight.house.go...and_Account_Origin_Of_Tea_Party_Screening.pdf look at page 36
Click to expand...

Pete. They didnt hold up the applications on any liberal or progressive groups as they did conservative ones. They did deny some in both conservative and liberal groups. But the problem comes with the extra delay and the type and lengthy scrutiny placed on conservative groups that was not placed upon liberal or progressive groups. While you say it is not targeting---it inadvertantly did so, or maybe not so inadvertantly, thats what we are trying to find out.

The IRS even admitted that the effect of the wording amounted to targeting conservative groups and should not have happened--otherwise, why stop doing it, if it was as innocent as you claim?
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

OpportunityCost said:
Pete. They didnt hold up the applications on any liberal or progressive groups as they did conservative ones. They did deny some in both conservative and liberal groups. But the problem comes with the extra delay and the type and lengthy scrutiny placed on conservative groups that was not placed upon liberal or progressive groups. While you say it is not targeting---it inadvertantly did so, or maybe not so inadvertantly, thats what we are trying to find out.

The IRS even admitted that the effect of the wording amounted to targeting conservative groups and should not have happened--otherwise, why stop doing it, if it was as innocent as you claim?
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but it seems to me, progressive/liberal groups are more likely to fit the social welfare requirement than conservative ones.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

pbrauer said:
I may be wrong but it seems to me, progressive/liberal groups are more likely to fit the social welfare requirement than conservative ones.
Click to expand...

You're right. You are wrong.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

pbrauer said:
I may be wrong but it seems to me, progressive/liberal groups are more likely to fit the social welfare requirement than conservative ones.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly the kind of arrogant echo chamber nonsense that gave us this cluster **** to begin with.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

Michael66 said:
I'll let you know how embarrassed I am when I stop laughing at you people. Promise not to go away for while?
Click to expand...

Hey. You've been a great addition to the liberal absurdity here yourself. A wonderful addition to the "I can't make this **** up" dossier of low-information posters.

Don't quit on us !
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

OpportunityCost said:
Thats exactly the kind of arrogant echo chamber nonsense that gave us this cluster **** to begin with.
Click to expand...

Do you still think President Obama is responsible for the targeting of conservative groups?
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

pbrauer said:
Do you still think President Obama is responsible for the targeting of conservative groups?
Click to expand...

The buck stops here. You either believe that or you dont.

Ill ask again, if it was all so innocent, why was it stopped? Why not keep doing it if there was nothing wrong with the policy?

If President Obama is NOT responsible for this, then thats a great argument that government needs to be smaller to be more responsible. If the left hand doesnt know what the right is doing, it must be pretty easy to perpetuate fraud and waste as well.

You are left with a few outcome choices---Obama is corrupt or Obama is incompetent because he didnt know what the IRS was doing. The IRS is incompetent for engaging in activity thats clearly wrong ethically, or they are corrupt for doing so. Administrators at various levels engaged in a cover up of the activity or were not reporting it to those above them in the command chain to end the activity---or they did and the entire system is corrupt.

Pick a few Pete.
 
Last edited:
Michael66 said:
Keep up the good work Pete! When you know they are crackers to begin with
it's usually not going to take much to drive them completely around the bend.

Calling your sources a POS is an important step to note. It always gets better!
Click to expand...


Maybe he should throw out the race card ? It's comparable to the ridiculous arguments he's been making so why not ?

Just say " you people a wan't the IRS investigted because Obama's a black man."

Because he's offered up no better and simply wants a very damaging scandal to go away.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

OpportunityCost said:
The buck stops here. You either believe that or you dont.

Ill ask again, if it was all so innocent, why was it stopped? Why not keep doing it if there was nothing wrong with the policy?

If President Obama is NOT responsible for this, then thats a great argument that government needs to be smaller to be more responsible. If the left hand doesnt know what the right is doing, it must be pretty easy to perpetuate fraud and waste as well.

You are left with a few outcome choices---Obama is corrupt or Obama is incompetent because he didnt know what the IRS was doing. The IRS is incompetent for engaging in activity thats clearly wrong ethically, or they are corrupt for doing so. Administrators at various levels engaged in a cover up of the activity or were not reporting it to those above them in the command chain to end the activity---or they did and the entire system is corrupt.

Pick a few Pete.
Click to expand...

Of course the buck stops here. I don't know if President Obama has shirked from that responsibility. But you know it not humanily possible for one person to know everything that is happening around them. Heck some people in President Bush's immediate staff were talking to reporters about a covert CIA agent and he didn't seem to know it. So I don't see how you could expect President Obama to know what was happening in a IRS office in Cincinnati. I don't see how anyone would know how they conduct they their business. The growing demand for the 501c4 non-profit status is what caused the problem, the IRS were unable to handle it. The management at the IRS has been changed and that's all anyone can expect President Obama to do.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

pbrauer said:
Of course the buck stops here. I don't know if President Obama has shirked from that responsibility. But you know it not humanily possible for one person to know everything that is happening around them. Heck some people in President Bush's immediate staff were talking to reporters about a covert CIA agent and he didn't seem to know it. So I don't see how you could expect President Obama to know what was happening in a IRS office in Cincinnati. I don't see how anyone would know how they conduct they their business. The growing demand for the 501c4 non-profit status is what caused the problem, the IRS were unable to handle it. The management at the IRS has been changed and that's all anyone can expect President Obama to do.
Click to expand...

How do you know he didn't know what was going on? Because he said so? They said so? Now it is a defense that the President of the US didn't know what was going on for 18 months because no one told him.

What sort of defense is that? There must be many other things they're not telling him because this guy is certainly behaving like a stumble-bum.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

OpportunityCost said:
The buck stops here. You either believe that or you dont.
Click to expand...

Well then many conservatives don't, because they didn't apply that to Bush and still voted him in. So no, conservatives don't believe the buck stops at the president.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

Grant said:
How do you know he didn't know what was going on? Because he said so? They said so? Now it is a defense that the President of the US didn't know what was going on for 18 months because no one told him.

What sort of defense is that? There must be many other things they're not telling him because this guy is certainly behaving like a stumble-bum.
Click to expand...

Either show some specific proof, or stop with the conspiracies. Hell, show actual proof that Obama authorized this and I'll be first in line to support impeachment. But all I see is pure Obama hatred and no proof.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

TheNextEra said:
Either show some specific proof, or stop with the conspiracies. Hell, show actual proof that Obama authorized this and I'll be first in line to support impeachment. But all I see is pure Obama hatred and no proof.
Click to expand...

Proof of what? It was the other poster making the claim and it simply raised more questions. Please familiarize yourself with the debate and then respond.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

TheNextEra said:
Well then many conservatives don't, because they didn't apply that to Bush and still voted him in. So no, conservatives don't believe the buck stops at the president.
Click to expand...

Didn't apply what to Bush? Was Bush involved in having the IRS target left wing groups?

Who made the claim that George Bush was never responsible?
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

Grant said:
Didn't apply what to Bush? Was Bush involved in having the IRS target left wing groups?

Who made the claim that George Bush was never responsible?
Click to expand...

For anything, what did you hold Bush accountable for. NOTHING, because you and others voted for him twice.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

TheNextEra said:
For anything, what did you hold Bush accountable for. NOTHING, because you and others voted for him twice.
Click to expand...

How does that not hold him accountable for any errors he might have made? The voters decided that, despite any errors, perceived or otherwise, he was still the better candidate, And of course he was.
 
Ya know this whole IRS thing is really just a bunch of crap. I can't believe that this kind of stuff has been going on for as long as it has. Someone needs to pay for this, whether it is the Obama administration or someone else, someone needs to be held accountable. I spoke with Judge Michael Warren, a county circuit judge in Michigan, and he told me that the tea party group that he lead was directly targeted by the IRS because it was a conservative group. Judge Warren said that it took nineteen months for paper work to be processed by the IRS, which should have happened in half that time. Now I'm not a tea party or conservative group sympathizer, I'd feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot. It is just unacceptable that this type of thing could happen. The IRS needs an audit, but who audits the auditor? There is a political commentator who goes by Malcolm Out Loud, and I think he provides some very good insight into this headache of a scandal. I've taken the liberty of posting the link below so that anyone who would like to gain more perspective has the chance to do so. I really enjoying listening to this guy, he speaks directly to the purpose of this forum.

MalcolmOutLoud: Is IRS Profiling Legal? Constitutional? Political?
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

Grant said:
How does that not hold him accountable for any errors he might have made? The voters decided that, despite any errors, perceived or otherwise, he was still the better candidate, And of course he was.
Click to expand...

Yeah some accountability :roll: Screw up and we'll vote for you a second time. Yeah, you sure showed Bush didn't you :roll:
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

TheNextEra said:
Yeah some accountability :roll: Screw up and we'll vote for you a second time. Yeah, you sure showed Bush didn't you :roll:
Click to expand...
Despite any faults you feel Bush may have had he was a tested leader with a record that one could inspect, and it was felt both times that he was a superior candidate to either Gore or Kerry. In retrospect I think the people were right

If George Bush were to run against Barrack Obama now, purely on their records, Bush would most likely win.
 
Re: IRS supervisor in DC scrutinized tea party cases

TheNextEra said:
Well then many conservatives don't, because they didn't apply that to Bush and still voted him in. So no, conservatives don't believe the buck stops at the president.
Click to expand...

So your thought is that Obama is not held responsible for anything because you believe Bush wasnt? How many different ways do you want me to shred that? If you really want to discuss it, start a new thread.

Back to the topic at hand---if you believe that the President cannot possibly be responsible for everything that occurs, that would be a good argument for two things: stronger oversight and less government. Internal investigations and IG inspections arent getting the job done and the stonewalling that has been occurring just makes the administration look guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom