+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Today's Press Conference - Curious Parsing (Lies) by Obama

  1. #21

    Default

    Congress, not the White House, asked the IRS to subject organizations suspected of being PAC's seeking 501(c) tax exempt status to additional scrutiny. From what I've read the head of the IRS became aware of the problems in doing this in 2012 and addressed the matter to stop any abuses. The White House really has nothing to do with this issue that was fundamental internal to the IRS.

    Why is it that when any jerk-off idiots in the government screw up that Republicans blame the President as if the President ordered them to do it? The President did not order the additional scrutiny of the 501(c) applications, Congress did, and any problems with implementing the wishes of Congress was internal to the IRS. The "fix" was already implemented by th IRS long before the President was even aware of any problem existing.
    Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit (anti-black) racism (79% among Republicans compared with 32% among Democrats).
    Source: 2012 AP Study on racial prejudice in America (link providee on request by PM)

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    Congress, not the White House, asked the IRS to subject organizations suspected of being PAC's seeking 501(c) tax exempt status to additional scrutiny. From what I've read the head of the IRS became aware of the problems in doing this in 2012 and addressed the matter to stop any abuses. The White House really has nothing to do with this issue that was fundamental internal to the IRS.

    Why is it that when any jerk-off idiots in the government screw up that Republicans blame the President as if the President ordered them to do it? The President did not order the additional scrutiny of the 501(c) applications, Congress did, and any problems with implementing the wishes of Congress was internal to the IRS. The "fix" was already implemented by th IRS long before the President was even aware of any problem existing.
    Perhaps, but then, perhaps not. What we know initially doesn't look too good for the president and his compormised honesty.

    His first public comment on the IRS issue was to disavow knowledge of the problem until "everyone else" knew, however Jay Carney has admitted that the White House counsel was told of the brewing trouble more than a month beforehand. Presumably he has no interest in keeping vital secrets from his boss so on the face of things, Obama's very first comment on the issue seems to be a lie! http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-did-the...id-he-know-it/

    As a matter of fact, when asked about what he knew of the targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS Obama spoke instead about what he knew of the IG's report....already parsing words and playing games here. If the president wishes to resolve this issue first he must demonstrate he is being straight with the public and already we see he is not!
    Who do you call for when the government itself is the enemy of America?

  3. Likes cupid dave liked this post
  4. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    (delete excuses for IRS scumbaggery)
    You're shilling for thuggery. Guess what that makes you?

    Putin is really nice to his cat.

    Kim has his golf game together.

    Osama gave to the poor.
    Tired of endless AGENDA EDITING?
    COMPLAIN. OFTEN. What do you risk if you can't speak your truth?

  5. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yosh Shmenge View Post
    Perhaps, but then, perhaps not. What we know initially doesn't look too good for the president and his compormised honesty.

    His first public comment on the IRS issue was to disavow knowledge of the problem until "everyone else" knew, however Jay Carney has admitted that the White House counsel was told of the brewing trouble more than a month beforehand. Presumably he has no interest in keeping vital secrets from his boss so on the face of things, Obama's very first comment on the issue seems to be a lie! http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-did-the...id-he-know-it/

    As a matter of fact, when asked about what he knew of the targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS Obama spoke instead about what he knew of the IG's report....already parsing words and playing games here. If the president wishes to resolve this issue first he must demonstrate he is being straight with the public and already we see he is not!
    And today we're getting the 5 Sunday show blitz of coordinated agitprop and lies from Dan Pfeiffer.

    They're in deep.
    Tired of endless AGENDA EDITING?
    COMPLAIN. OFTEN. What do you risk if you can't speak your truth?

  6. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio Refugee View Post
    And today we're getting the 5 Sunday show blitz of coordinated agitprop and lies from Dan Pfeiffer.

    They're in deep.
    Yes. When they send out a numbnuts who doesn't even know how to properly look into the camera, who is a nobody when it comes to accountability, who will be forgotten before the sun sets tonight .......................... the poo is deep on this one.
    Last edited by Eighty Deuce; May 19 2013 at 08:17 AM.

  7. #26
    usa
    Location: Santa Monica California
    Posts: 9,124
    Blog Entries: 7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hummingbird View Post
    Yeah, I had watched that - and Charles Krauthammer had pointed out the same thing...... he wasn't asked about the IG report. He danced around, not directly answering the specific question and he thinks no one notices.

    He was also asked about what his admin knew and he didn't answer that either..... Obama is not as brilliant as he & his followers thinks he is......
    One need only examine the way people think in the Religious Forums to realize that ANY answer is all that is required to ward off an accusation like these ones.

    It does NOT matter if the response is ridiculous, unbelievable, irrational, or, as in this case, indirect and unrelated to the accusation directly.

    All that is needed is the straight face response which is sufficient for the followers, supporters, and people on his side of the controversy.

    Any action against Obama must come from the very hand picked guy who recuses himself on everything he has been charged with, the Attorney General.
    Remember, Attorney Generals are the only people who can decide that a crime may have been committed.

    If the Republicans try to Impeach this guy, they will rouse the rabble of the 30 million Black people, (80% on Welfare/Medicaid/Food Stamps), who presently hold all our cities hostage to their crime/danger, and especially the 10 biggest and most important ones.
    If these people in Washington want to pull what Hitler did in 1933, insisting, also as did he, that political gridlock has frozen government and brought progress to a stand still, this is the one thing the republicans can do to light that fuse.

    Black people, not Brown Shirts, will rampage the cities everywhere, joined by the anti-business/Wall Street radicals already organized, coupled with the forces of still angry demanding Public Unions, and unrestrained by a Military, commanded by Obama, himself.

    Such an uprising will then be a crisis which does require Emergency Powers.

    In the end, after martial law are utilized, Obama will have Nationalized Big Oil which opens the coffers to solve his money problems, while he sees his whole unified Entitlements army granted a Chicken every Sunday, Hitler-like expression of great prosperity, as he dismantles every enemy on hos hit list, one by one, aiming first at Fox News.



    The Peter Principle:
    "If something bad COULD happen, then it will happen, and the worst possible moment."


    Rx:
    Gather the facts, complain, spend time preparing for when Obama leaves office, and then uses his Community Organizing Skills to bring about the same take over he would be able to accomplish now were the republicans to throw down and fight him today.
    Last edited by cupid dave; May 19 2013 at 08:10 AM.

  8. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    Congress, not the White House, asked the IRS to subject organizations suspected of being PAC's seeking 501(c) tax exempt status to additional scrutiny. From what I've read the head of the IRS became aware of the problems in doing this in 2012 and addressed the matter to stop any abuses. The White House really has nothing to do with this issue that was fundamental internal to the IRS.

    Why is it that when any jerk-off idiots in the government screw up that Republicans blame the President as if the President ordered them to do it? The President did not order the additional scrutiny of the 501(c) applications, Congress did, and any problems with implementing the wishes of Congress was internal to the IRS. The "fix" was already implemented by th IRS long before the President was even aware of any problem existing.
    Shiva. The issue here is not about any need for increased scrutiny of 501C's. Scrutinize them more, or do it less, just do it objectively. As the laws are written.

    This is about targeting based upon political identity, in this case, those applicants who were likely of a political persuasion contrary to the sitting President.

    As to any "fix " before the POTUS found out (claiming he just found out last week), do you have some inside info on that ? Can you refute the following:

    1) This abusive policy went on for almost two years ?

    2) It extended well beyond the regional Cincinnati office, and was known by the highest echelons of the IRS for at least 18 months ?

    3) That despite prior hearings and requests by Congressional GOP, where such abuse was denied, the IRS never came forward with the correct information once it had it ?

    4) That what the President calls "outrageous and unacceptable" was clearly not so for a period of almost two years ? As it continued unabated ? That the issue is therefore how large the circle of those in the loop of acceptance had grown before Obama finally said it was "unacceptable" ?

    5) Finally, there has not yet been any "Investigation" ? Only an audit indicative of wrongdoing ? That we do not yet know who directed such or why ? Who then found out, when did they find out, and what did they do ?

    Again, this is not about added scrutiny of 501C's, as you erroneously claim Its about targeting political opponents using the IRS.
    Last edited by Eighty Deuce; May 19 2013 at 08:15 AM.

  9. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio Refugee View Post
    You're shilling for thuggery.
    Were any organizations that qualified for 501(c) tax exempt status ever denied that status by the IRS?

    That is the only real question that needs to be answered.

    As noted I found a few of the questions asked to be irrelevant to the IRS making a determination but that doesn't have anything to do with the White House unless someone shows me that those questions originated from the White House. Those responsible for those questions need to be held accountable but I don't engage in witch hunts trying to blame someone for something they had nothing to do with.

    I've personally dealt with the IRS and it has huge power but in my personal dealing I was always able to work with the IRS to resolve any questions they had about my taxes. My 2009 tax return was audited and, in the end, the IRS owed me over $8,000 and it only took four weeks for them to pay me. I hated the audit and didn't like being forced to deal with it but I happened to come out on top and the IRS didn't complain or deny me the additional refund. The fact that the IRS exerts a lot of power doesn't imply that the IRS is not ultimately fair in its determinations.

    Were any "conservative" organizations that qualified for 501(c) status remains the key question. Show me where that happened and I'll join with those condemning the IRS. I will not condemn the White House for something it had nothing to do with.
    Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit (anti-black) racism (79% among Republicans compared with 32% among Democrats).
    Source: 2012 AP Study on racial prejudice in America (link providee on request by PM)

  10. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Shiva. The issue here is not about any need for increased scrutiny of 501C's. Scrutinize them more, or do it less, just do it objectively. As the laws are written.
    I agree absolutely with this.

    It would also be my opinion, as I've noted before, if an application appears to be from a "political action" group then it probably warrants additional scrutiny. I provided the example of a "liberal" group that, based upon its name, would trigger further investigation by me if it was called "Americans for Gun Control" because gun control groups are typically political action groups and not a 501(c) entity. The name "Tea Party" would also trigger further investigation by me because the Tea Party has been overwhelmingly related to political action which would not be a 501(c) entity.

    I believe naming a 501(c) entity with a name typically associated with "political activities" would warrant addtional scrutiny by the IRS and that should be applied universally without bias or prejudice by the IRS. Is there any actual evidence that the IRS, for example, ignored a "liberal" organization like a "gun control" organization that applied for 501(c) tax exempt status? I'm not aware of that actually happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Again, this is not about added scrutiny of 501C's, as you erroneously claim Its about targeting political opponents using the IRS.
    I didn't know that the IRS had "political opponents" per se and the IRS is comprised of conservatives and liberals. We know that the "White House" didn't issue any directives to the IRS about additional scrutiny for 501(c) applicants so there wasn't anything "political" coming from the White House.

    Now I do know that some "tea party" activists want to abolish the income tax which would end the need for the IRS but we also know that these people are probably living in a bubble and they don't really represent a political opponent to the IRS. They're opposed to income taxes and not the IRS per se. Of course if their primary focused is on eliminating income taxes then they wouldn't qualify as a 501(c) organization as they are a political action group.

    I will also acknowledge that there are some real wacko's possibly carrying "tea party" banners that are delusional and that illegally avoid paying taxes. People like Westley Snipes fall in with these wacko's and the IRS has to be on the lookout for them as well.

    Bottom line I'm not even sure that only "conservative" groups were subjected to additional scrutiny. There might have been far more "conservative" groups investigated possibly because the "tea party" is now trying to get tax breaks by becoming 501(c) entities than liberal groups and unquestionably if they included "tea party" in their name it would trigger an investigation if I was the IRS agent. That isn't being discriminatory because it is based upon a rational determination by the IRS agent. I mean, for example, if an IRS office said "beware of Tea Party groups applying for 501(c) tax exempt status because they very well might be a PAC and not a 501(c) entity" that is a logical matter for the IRS to investigate. It isn't "targeting" based upon "conservative" or "liberal" but instead is addressing a simple fact that the "Tea Party" has overwhelmingly been a political action group. I could see the same directive being issued for any applicant with "gun control" in their name as that is overwhelmingly indicative of a political action group.

    Maybe the "Tea Party" actually brought this additional scrutiny upon itself. Has anyone considered that?
    Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit (anti-black) racism (79% among Republicans compared with 32% among Democrats).
    Source: 2012 AP Study on racial prejudice in America (link providee on request by PM)

  11. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiva_TD View Post
    Were any organizations that qualified for 501(c) tax exempt status ever denied that status by the IRS?

    That is the only real question that needs to be answered.
    Oh, if it were only true. Whether 501(c) tax exempt status was eventually granted or not you seem to be saying the "no harm, no foul" standard works for the IRS. Not so!

    The IRS caused conservatives applicants to suffer undue costs, undue delays, undue intrusive standards to meet (tell us who you represent, promise us you will not picket Planned Parenthood, etc.) and, most importantly, by selectively withholding approval for 501(c) status to overwhelmingly right leaning organizations the IRS was handicapping the conservative movement and it's ability to challenge the power of Barack Obama and when sensitive tax information was leaked to Romney foes, and used to great effect, then the IRS crosses a line that changes our nation from a democracy to a dictatorship!
    You couldn't be more wrong when you assert that merely denying 501(c) status is the only thing that matters.
    Who do you call for when the government itself is the enemy of America?

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jun 08 2012, 01:57 PM
  2. Replies: 77
    Last Post: May 16 2012, 08:38 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks