IRS guilty, ordered to pay 3.5 million to conservatives..

Nothing. They settled. "Overzealous audits" is what this is about. There was a huge surge in requests for a non-profit designation from political groups in 2010 and 2012 that overtaxed the IRS, which then began using certain search terms--"progressive," "occupy," "patriot," and "Tea Party" among them--and scrutinizing those groups further. Groups that had those words in their titles felt unfairly targeted and brought a suit. Initially, the full list of search terms was not made public and it was strongly implied that it was only conservative groups being targeted, which is what prompted action.



All these "hahs" when you realize you have no intelligent response makes you look crazy.
once again w/ the misplaced projection

You, once again, accused me of being some conservative partisan hack...

Yet, i've literally never supported a single GOP candidate for any office that wasn't Arnold, am for abortion, gay marriage, weed legalization, gun controls, etc....I have never actually voted for a single GOP led bill either, literally not one. So partisan

I agree w/ you far more than we differ, and you know this.
 
We will just call it, "JVS'ing"

Yes, yes, I'm glue and you're rubber. But in this very thread, we have an example of Hunter ignoring the fact that groups on both sides of the aisle were targeted in order to advance a discredited partisan narrative. You will be able to produce no examples of me ever doing anything like that.
 
You will be able to produce no examples of me ever doing anything like that.

Your lack of self awareness is astounding.

When we talk about partisan hacks here in the WR you are LITERALLY the first name that pops up.
 
Your lack of self awareness is astounding.

When we talk about partisan hacks here in the WR you are LITERALLY the first name that pops up.

I'm aware that some of the lesser posters accuse me of being a hack for not blindly accepting the GOP narrative. But what I said--and what you confirmed--is that you will be able to produce no evidence for the charge. You know it's false, but you make it to deflect.
 
The TS linked an opinion article, from the "rapid reactions" segment. Rapid indeed, since it does not sound like a whole lot of thought went into writing the article.

I would read the article linked by @Jack V Savage for the non-Bloodworthed version of the story (aka, a factual article, not an opinion piece).

Well to be fair, the way that it is worded makes it would be like the tea party/libertarian types/people that eventually went to Bernie Sanders during the next election cycle. More people in the middle, rather than total right wingers. No surprise tho, since the DNC sidelined Bernie Sanders during the last election cycle. Or did that turn out to be completely false?

Looks like elites trying to stay elite, which happens on both sides. Regardless of which elections, and what foreign countries get involved.

Dunno why people on both sides won't come together on an issue like this. Seems obvious fuckery with the elections. But then again, both articles are not very detailed, and are being written about how many years after the fact.
 
Last edited:
Well to be fair, the way that it is worded makes it would be like the tea party/libertarian types/people that eventually went to Bernie Sanders during the next election cycle. More people in the middle, rather than total right wingers. No surprise tho, since the DNC sidelined Bernie Sanders during the last election cycle. Or did that turn out to be completely false?

Looks like elites trying to stay elite, which happens on both sides. Regardless of which elections, and what foreign countries get involved.

Dunno why people on both sides won't come together on an issue like this. Seems obvious fuckery with the elections. But then again, both articles are not very detailed, and are being written about how many years after the fact.

Oh I agree that there is plenty of fuckery occurring all over the political spectrum. But that only makes it more frustrating when people misrepresent situations. The OP took a legitimate issue, posted an opinion piece on it instead of something held to higher standards, and then said it was "fully supported by Osama" which is both objectively untrue and idiotically childish.
 
once again w/ the misplaced projection

You, once again, accused me of being some conservative partisan hack...

Yet, i've literally never supported a single GOP candidate for any office that wasn't Arnold, am for abortion, gay marriage, weed legalization, gun controls, etc....I have never actually voted for a single GOP led bill either, literally not one. So partisan

I agree w/ you far more than we differ, and you know this.

Are you on hormone therapy as well.
Your one step away from being a chick
 
No you are ignoring the court ruling.

They were told specifically to go after tea party members and patriotic groups .

Thats like a terrorist bombing a public space and you saying but muslims were killed to, its ok

What "court ruling"? The DOJ settled the lawsuits, and that's only one with monetary payout. The other lawsuit settled with no money and a nice warm apology letter.

The IRS also targeted groups with "progress" and "occupy" in their names.

You're "sources" are extremely biased opinion pieces, not real news articles. Your assertion that some how democrats or Obama "weaponized" the IRS is completely ignorant of how these groups operate; Obama or democrats don't own or direct the IRS. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Oh I agree that there is plenty of fuckery occurring all over the political spectrum. But that only makes it more frustrating when people misrepresent situations. The OP took a legitimate issue, posted an opinion piece on it instead of something held to higher standards, and then said it was "fully supported by Osama" which is both objectively untrue and idiotically childish.

Well, but the way Jacked countered it is by dismissing it and not faulting the bigger players. I think that is equally misrepresenting it, in order to safe his affiliated party's face.

I mean, even the article he posted said "progressive" and "occupy" What follows the progressive? Moreover, the occupy, as I mentioned, would generally be associated with people who would have been voting for someone like Ron Paul and not Obama, who bailed out wall street, among other things. You are acting as if your sources cant be biased as well. The are writing these articles now and associating these types of groups with liberals, due to the last election cycle and Bernie Sanders. The election cycle before were probably voting for Ron Paul, if they could. So it was 248 right side groups, and the 146 left wing groups (which included ones with occupy, and progessive without knowing what follows the progressive).

Moreover, Obama, who bailed out wallstreet, could have directed the IRS to use its agents to make sure that money is being used appropriately. Instead, they are wasting time investigating fringe political groups?

Just because someone resigns over something, doesn't mean that is it and it doesn't go further. And now the whole liberal lot on here is completely writing this off as nothing. It is classic manipulation of the masses.

edit: just because some biased right wing OP says a sarcastic remark, does not make the issue go away lol
 
Are you on hormone therapy as well.
Your one step away from being a chick
nope, live and let live my dude

what other people do, short of like pederasty or some weird ish, has zero bearing on me.
 
Lmao this is the same guy that bitches nearly CONSTANTLY about how Trump supporters never accept anything Trump has done wrong.

Your lack of self awareness is staggering.
Keep reading the thread, soyboy, cause it has been debunked. The more you know ;)
 
Well to be fair, the way that it is worded makes it would be like the tea party/libertarian types/people that eventually went to Bernie Sanders during the next election cycle. More people in the middle, rather than total right wingers. No surprise tho, since the DNC sidelined Bernie Sanders during the last election cycle. Or did that turn out to be completely false?

Sanders supporters complained about the debate schedule (not enough officially sanctioned debates to get a lesser-known candidate out there). In response, more were added, though not enough more to satisfy everyone). That has nothing at all to do with this issue, though.

Dunno why people on both sides won't come together on an issue like this. Seems obvious fuckery with the elections. But then again, both articles are not very detailed, and are being written about how many years after the fact.

What's the election fuckery? The fact that political groups were allowed to use a non-political, nonprofit designation? I think the issue there was more about the law itself being unclear and hard to enforce. I think we can all agree that the IRS needs more manpower.
 
We can say that Obama should shoulder some of the blame as leader, even though I doubt these Drumpf tardlings would extend such accountability to their dear leader, but either way it's not proof of a conspiracy ordered by Obama or the dems.
They only ran the country at the time, but sure, they had nothing to do with a federal agency

How does Hillary's old muff taste BTW
 
I think we can all agree that the IRS needs more manpower.

tenor.gif
 
Well, but the way Jacked countered it is by dismissing it and not faulting the bigger players. I think that is equally misrepresenting it, in order to safe his affiliated party's face.

Huh? What do you think I misrepresented? What is my affiliated party?

I mean, even the article he posted said "progressive" and "occupy" What follows the progressive?

Anything can follow any of the key words. The issue is that there was a surge in applications, and the IRS (correctly) suspected that many political groups were applying. Lacking the ability to check them all, they used keywords to identify likely violators and requested additional info from them. The Tea Party groups could have trying to encourage tea drinking, and the progressive groups could have been art appreciation associations.

Moreover, Obama, who bailed out wallstreet, could have directed the IRS to use its agents to make sure that money is being used appropriately

Not without Congress changing the laws to allow more control over the IRS by the president.
 
So the fucking IRS was used to attack political opponents and these motherfuckers have the gall to bitch about Trump campaign using Cambridge Analytica for data? Holy shit, it's not even in the same ballapark. The DNC is guilty of treason, hell maybe even domestic terrorism.
 
Back
Top