• 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

Did I speak of Mr. Obama?
You are the first to defend Mr. Issa.
How'd you like that censure vote today?

Please continue to let Mr. Issa be the one of the main players in this election .
US Conservative said:
Continue to make excuses for dear leader.
Click to expand...
 
sedan said:
Naive and gullible fools believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Where is your evidence that Holder and Obama are behind this?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they want a complete investigation rather than Obama saying there is not a "smidgen of evidence", an obvious lie, and Holder refusing to launch a DOJ investigation?

If Holder can investigate the Associated Press, a reporter for Fox News, George Zimmerman, The WSJ, Romney donors, and himself, why can his DOJ not investigate the wrongdoings in the IRS?

This cover-up is as crude and as typical of any Obama's foreign and domestic policies, if we can even call them policies..
 
NIMBY said:
Did I speak of Mr. Obama?
You are the first to defend Mr. Issa.
How'd you like that censure vote today?

Please continue to let Mr. Issa be the one of the main players in this election .
Click to expand...

Issa needs no defense because he did not act improperly while Cummings was posturing and seemed rehearsed in his outburst and, naturally, Jesse Jackson was quick to call Issa "racist". It was political theater designed once again for the low information voters. They responded on cue.
 
NIMBY said:
Did I speak of Mr. Obama?
You are the first to defend Mr. Issa.
How'd you like that censure vote today?

Please continue to let Mr. Issa be the one of the main players in this election .
Click to expand...

Issa is my congressional rep, and I believe he is doing a good job.

These scandals-they aren't going away, are they?
 
Did Issa apologize tonite to Congressman Cummings?
You're right, as long as Issa is chair, we'll still have these hearings, PLEASE !
US Conservative said:
Issa is my congressional rep, and I believe he is doing a good job.

These scandals-they aren't going away, are they?
Click to expand...
 
Fletch said:
So why is she taking the Fifth?
Click to expand...

Considering that the affected groups can sue, it may just be good old CYA, not coppin' to nuthin'.

It really is a bunch of nonsense. A handful of groups had their applications held up. They could have gone 527 and given up ONLY the anonymity AND would have been able to spend 100% of donations on political intervention without going through all the gymnastics they do now. Like setting up multiple 501(c)(4)s that donate to each other to get around the "primarily" limitation, which was an IRS modification of wording that allowed what the statute forbade.

Lazy bureaucrats ****ing up is what it was. Had they been targeting groups they would have got Rove's, dontcha think?

And they were free to operate without approval.

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
 
What if...? said:
Considering that the affected groups can sue, it may just be good old CYA, not coppin' to nuthin'.

It really is a bunch of nonsense. A handful of groups had their applications held up. They could have gone 527 and given up ONLY the anonymity AND would have been able to spend 100% of donations on political intervention without going through all the gymnastics they do now. Like setting up multiple 501(c)(4)s that donate to each other to get around the "primarily" limitation, which was an IRS modification of wording that allowed what the statute forbade.

Lazy bureaucrats ****ing up is what it was. Had they been targeting groups they would have got Rove's, dontcha think?

And they were free to operate without approval.

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Click to expand...

They did target Rove.

I like your spin on the "lazy bureaucracy" excuse though. Haven't heard that one before. Did you make it up yourself?
 
NIMBY said:
Which is why this legit IRS investigation into these scofflaw con groups began in the first place.
Let's get back to focusing what the USSC will eventually rule on, 501(c)(4) .
Click to expand...

The statute forbids election intervention activity. The "primarily" thing came from the IRS.
 
When I see the ISSA committeeS move off of partisanship garbage like yesterday, I'll start listening.
I want to hold all law-breakers accountable, even those on this committee, as well as those bridge-closers .
What if...? said:
So has Issa stopped beating his wife?
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
They did target Rove.

I like your spin on the "lazy bureaucracy" excuse though. Haven't heard that one before. Did you make it up yourself?
Click to expand...

Did you read the Treasury report on the matter?
 
What if...? said:
Considering that the affected groups can sue, it may just be good old CYA, not coppin' to nuthin'.

It really is a bunch of nonsense. A handful of groups had their applications held up. They could have gone 527 and given up ONLY the anonymity AND would have been able to spend 100% of donations on political intervention without going through all the gymnastics they do now. Like setting up multiple 501(c)(4)s that donate to each other to get around the "primarily" limitation, which was an IRS modification of wording that allowed what the statute forbade.

Lazy bureaucrats ****ing up is what it was. Had they been targeting groups they would have got Rove's, dontcha think?

And they were free to operate without approval.

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Click to expand...

I dont think you know what the IRS is doing. Watch and learn.
Hearing IRS Targeting Investigation Part 1 | Video | C-SPAN.org
 
Grant said:
No. I never got around to it..Did it have a happy ending?
Click to expand...

It establishes pretty clearly that the "Bolo" lists were simply a shortcut adopted when the big increase in applications appeared post CU.

The term "inappropriate", which has made it into so much of the hype, was the "a hammer is an inappropriate tool to cut a 3x4" inappropriate. Using a shortcut instead of actually reviewing each application was inappropriate. NOT that there was an inappropriate singling out of conservative groups for political purposes.

The WHOLE issue is about anonymous donations.

**** anonymous donations.
 
What if...? said:
Considering that the affected groups can sue, it may just be good old CYA, not coppin' to nuthin'.
Click to expand...
But that is just conjecture on your part and a willingness to cover for people on your side of the political spectrum. If this was the Bush Whitehouse and the situation were reversed you would be singing a different tune and you know it. So you lack credibility. Sorry.
 
You know how potentially damning this sitiation is based on the lefts continued mitigations and attempts to divert away from the real issue.

They want this all to disappear and fast.

Whether they like it or not Lois Lerner's continued refusal to answer questions looks bad Politically and not only for Obama, but for the Democrats in general and in a election year no less.


According to them this is a bunch of contirived GOP motivated BS with Issa as the the bad guy. Oh and Lerner exercising her right not to incriminate herself is absolutley irrelevent.

The problem with that is Lerner could make all of this go away easily AND make Issa and the GOP look like a bunch of partisan motivated bullies in the process by just aswering the questions.


If there is nothing behind the charges of Obama's use of the IRS to target Conservatives then wouldn't the wise strategy employ truth and full disclosure instead of obfuscating ?

Thd left wants us to think the Democrats are passing up a golden oppurtuntiy here.

Think about the implications of shutting down this investigation in a election year. The Democrats would be able to expand upon a victory over Issa and the GOP for the next 8 months.

But thats not whats happening.

Lerner and the Democrats are making sure this issue stays alive and theyre making sure that these charges of unprecedented corruption continue to go on unanswered.

There is only one explanation for Lerners continued refusal to amswer questions and most objective Americans know that it has nothing to do with the person asking them.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
One problem: Lois Lerner is not a government official
Click to expand...

Any official attached to the IRS is the government. The IRS and NSA and ATF are the greatest opponents of liberty this country has. Put them all in the ground and call in a dozer.
 
What if...? said:
It establishes pretty clearly that the "Bolo" lists were simply a shortcut adopted when the big increase in applications appeared post CU.

The term "inappropriate", which has made it into so much of the hype, was the "a hammer is an inappropriate tool to cut a 3x4" inappropriate. Using a shortcut instead of actually reviewing each application was inappropriate. NOT that there was an inappropriate singling out of conservative groups for political purposes.

The WHOLE issue is about anonymous donations.

**** anonymous donations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Watergate was just a two bit break in by people not connected to the President. On anonymous donations. Maybe if Obama's protectors hadn't changed the rules to put to rest all the nefarious out of country donations to the Obama campaign in 08 you libs, and maybe the country wouldn't have this problem.
 
Fenton said:
You know how potentially damning this sitiation is based on the lefts continued mitigations and attempts to divert away from the real issue.

They want this all to disappear and fast.

Whether they like it or not Lois Lerner's continued refusal to answer questions looks bad Politically and not only for Obama, but for the Democrats in general and in a election year no less.


According to them this is a bunch of contirived GOP motivated BS with Issa as the the bad guy. Oh and Lerner exercising her right not to incriminate herself is absolutley irrelevent.

The problem with that is Lerner could make all of this go away easily AND make Issa and the GOP look like a bunch of partisan motivated bullies in the process by just aswering the questions.


If there is nothing behind the charges of Obama's use of the IRS to target Conservatives then wouldn't the wise strategy employ truth and full disclosure instead of obfuscating ?

Thd left wants us to think the Democrats are passing up a golden oppurtuntiy here.

Think about the implications of shutting down this investigation in a election year. The Democrats would be able to expand upon a victory over Issa and the GOP for the next 8 months.

But thats not whats happening.

Lerner and the Democrats are making sure this issue stays alive and theyre making sure that these charges of unprecedented corruption continue to go on unanswered.

There is only one explanation for Lerners continued refusal to amswer questions and most objective Americans know that it has nothing to do with the person asking them.
Click to expand...

I do not think the IRS will be much of an election issue, at least in the independent ranks. We both know the Democrats will be saying there is nothing there and the Republicans saying there is a lot there. But most independents haven't given this issue much thought, they probably won't unless something big breaks on it between now and November. As of today, most independents will make up their minds on whom to vote for in November based on Jobs, the economy and the ACA. the IRS and Benghazi are way down in the one and two percent factors when it comes to deciding whom to vote for.

Learner in my opinion definitely leaves the impression that something very sinister happened with the IRS. But even so, it is not a hot issue for most independents. For your information, I make it a hobby of mine to study independent voters and have done so since I worked for Perot back in 92 and 96. I feel I usually know how Republicans and Democrats will vote for fall in line on different issues. It is those independents that usually make the difference. If one goes inside the polls and studies them, most major polling firms always break down how Republicans, Democrats and Independents view each issue the poll was taken on. It is here I get my information and draw my conclusions.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps Lerner changed her mind because of political pressure or a woman's prerogative. I don't know and, unlike you, I don't pretend to know.
Click to expand...

Holy fn crap.... Your argument for why Issa isn't lying is that Lerner is a woman??????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom