quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


And if she lied, how many people got killed because of it? Because I know this 'crew' that lied to America about Iraq and got....THOUSANDS....of Americans killed. On top of that, got.....TENS of THOUSANDS...more Americans with long term injuries. Because they were not 'honest' or 'truthful' about things under their watch, to the same level as you accuse Mrs. Lerner.....

And I know this one President who had trying to use the IRS as a tool against his political enemies in the articles of impeachment against him.

Yeah, Tricky Dick used the IRS against enemies...the only thing is, they had direct proof of him doing it, memos and such telling the iRS to go after political enemies...

Which is quite different than what Lerner supposedly did. Nixon used the power of the IRS to go after enemies, telling them to audit tax returns and to burn them on any little thing, which is a violation of law.

The incident with searching out "tea party" and so forth was quite different, despite what Faux News claims. Congress, when they created the idiotic 501c4 tax designation for non profits doing 'social advocacy' (that is a fucking joke, it is really designed to allow people like the Koch brothers to do political lobbying hiding behind non profit status), authorized the IRS to decide if a program was valid or not. When the IRS sought out groups with 'tea party' in the name and the like, they were searching in groups who had filed for 501c4 designation, which the IRS legally is supposed to decide if they are valid or not. Basically, what they did was put groups with tea party in the name who had filed to the head of the line...and what of course is totally not mentioned is that even doing this, that very few groups got rejected, and percentage wise a larger percentage of liberal groups got rejected than conservative ones,, which would indicate that the IRS didn't 'get' conservative groups in terms of denying them the 501c4 status.

What this reminds me of is the old statement by Joseph Goebbels, and it applies to the right these days, and that is that a lie told often enough becomes the truth, whether it is Bengazi, the IRS scandal, 'death panels' or the lie that Obamacare is failing.....yell it from right wing talk radio and blog sites and such, and the boobs will believe it.....

As far as George Bush Lying about WMD's, the proof is in the pudding. When Clinton made those statements, it was in the mid 90's when Iraq refused to allow inspectors in there. By the time Bush had taken office, the UN inspectors had been in there and they stated that Iraq had no WMD's left.......and after the Iraq invasion, which happened quite a few years after the Clinton statements mentioned, the only WMD's they found were some chemical weapons that were in such a bad state (basically leftovers from 20 years before) that they were useless, and despite all the claims they were moved to Iraq, etc, not one sign of WMD's was ever found..and the Bush administration mysteriously changed the justification for going in from being WMD's, to 'freeing the Iraqi people", which pretty much proves it.


BTW, the Bush administration got its claims that Iraq had WMD from one clown called Chalabi, who was an Iraqi exile who claimed that he had a network of spies in the country reporting that they had WMD's,and they basically used this as 'proof' for WMD's existing..leaving out that both the Mossad and German intelligence told them that the evidence was dubious, and also that Chalabi styled himself as the next leader of Iraq, figured he would be put in power if Hussein was deposed by the US, so had every reason to lie about WMD's......so either the Bush administration really was the most mentally challenged administration in history and bought this bilge, or was more likely, knew it wasn't true but needed an excuse to invade Iraq so that Bush could both show daddy he was much more of a conservative hero who unlike dad, would 'finish the job', and also avenge Hussein's plot to kill poppy...and 5000+ troops dead, 100,000 seriously wounder, and roughly 3 trillion dollars pissed away, what have we got to show for it? Not much.

quote:

He said that while he wasn't privy to anything in particular, friends of his still active said that what made them suspicious was the lack of chatter at the time of the runup, that if Iraq really had the kind of WMD's there would have been chatter on it all over the place, but there was nothing, that the amount of chatter and reports about/from Iraq were what they had been.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

I would love one of the conservative numbnuts on here to explain to me why conservative group filings were approved at the same overall rate as liberal groups?

I don't believe that is true. The final numbers of those Conservative groups disapproved plus those same type of Conservative groups not "disapproved" but simply stopped and put in limbo were in the hundreds whereas the Lib groups approved are way more than the number you quote. So, see my prior on source, dates and context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The conservatives, figuring their base are morons, say things like "86 conservative groups were denied this status, while only 35 liberal groups were denied this status", but what they left out was that conservative leaning groups filed at a rate 10 times higher than liberal groups, so as a percentage there was little difference.......

Source? Quote? Date? Context?

I should have noted that the 86 and 35 numbers I gave are not exact but were designed to illustrate how this was being put out by the conservatives....but the ratio of conservative to liberal groups filing for 501c4 was close to 10 to 1, so if more conservative groups were turned down than liberal ones, that is the explanation (it is why percentage is much, much better)......

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The conservatives, figuring their base are morons, say things like "86 conservative groups were denied this status, while only 35 liberal groups were denied this status", but what they left out was that conservative leaning groups filed at a rate 10 times higher than liberal groups, so as a percentage there was little difference.......

Source? Quote? Date? Context?

I should have noted that the 86 and 35 numbers I gave are not exact but were designed to illustrate how this was being put out by the conservatives....but the ratio of conservative to liberal groups filing for 501c4 was close to 10 to 1, so if more conservative groups were turned down than liberal ones, that is the explanation (it is why percentage is much, much better)......

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

I would love one of the conservative numbnuts on here to explain to me why conservative group filings were approved at the same overall rate as liberal groups?

I don't believe that is true. The final numbers of those Conservative groups disapproved plus those same type of Conservative groups not "disapproved" but simply stopped and put in limbo were in the hundreds whereas the Lib groups approved are way more than the number you quote. So, see my prior on source, dates and context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The conservatives, figuring their base are morons, say things like "86 conservative groups were denied this status, while only 35 liberal groups were denied this status", but what they left out was that conservative leaning groups filed at a rate 10 times higher than liberal groups, so as a percentage there was little difference.......

Source? Quote? Date? Context?

I should have noted that the 86 and 35 numbers I gave are not exact but were designed to illustrate how this was being put out by the conservatives....but the ratio of conservative to liberal groups filing for 501c4 was close to 10 to 1, so if more conservative groups were turned down than liberal ones, that is the explanation (it is why percentage is much, much better)......

IIRC, there were only a handful of liberal applications investigated, with a small number being not approved. The conservative application numbers were much greater in the number of applications, the number of applications investigated, but, again, IIRC, none of the conservative applications were turned down.

The problem was the extra scrutiny and the delay (IIRC, there were some that waited for a decision for over a year). Regardless of how many were or weren't accepted, targeting of applications based on partisan politics is not right.

I said it when the story initially broke way back when, but I doubt the White House was involved, and that this may or may not go up to the top of the IRS. I think this will end up being shown to be some Federal employees working to the benefit of President Obama without any knowledge or direction from the President.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The conservatives, figuring their base are morons, say things like "86 conservative groups were denied this status, while only 35 liberal groups were denied this status", but what they left out was that conservative leaning groups filed at a rate 10 times higher than liberal groups, so as a percentage there was little difference.......

Source? Quote? Date? Context?

I should have noted that the 86 and 35 numbers I gave are not exact but were designed to illustrate how this was being put out by the conservatives....but the ratio of conservative to liberal groups filing for 501c4 was close to 10 to 1, so if more conservative groups were turned down than liberal ones, that is the explanation (it is why percentage is much, much better)......

IIRC, there were only a handful of liberal applications investigated, with a small number being not approved. The conservative application numbers were much greater in the number of applications, the number of applications investigated, but, again, IIRC, none of the conservative applications were turned down.
The problem was the extra scrutiny and the delay (IIRC, there were some that waited for a decision for over a year). Regardless of how many were or weren't accepted, targeting of applications based on partisan politics is not right.
I said it when the story initially broke way back when, but I doubt the White House was involved, and that this may or may not go up to the top of the IRS. I think this will end up being shown to be some Federal employees working to the benefit of President Obama without any knowledge or direction from the President.

I don't disagree with that analysis, though I also believe that the reason so many conservative groups came under scrutiny is because a large percentage of the politically based 501c4's are conservative. Interestingly, according to one article I read, one of the people responsible is himself conservative, and he said that he used things like 'tea party' and the like was his own assumption that with the flood of filings after the Citizens United decision, that the tea party, then in the media and such as being so active and reputedly filing, would be a lot more likely to need the scrutiny.
It was stupid, I don't disagree, but then again I think the whole 501c4 designation is ridiculous. Political groups should be using the 527, which was designed for political advocacy, 501c4 should be left to groups that advocate on social causes but don't do straight political advocacy. Apparently, under 501c4 rules, a certain percentage can be used for political advocacy, which is one of the issues the IRS has to decide, about how much is being used for political versus social advocacy.
More importantly, one of the reasons for the delays is that just when Citizens United created a surge in spending, the IRS had its budget cut by a billion bucks and a lot of people were let go.
Personally, the only reason this is still out there is because the GOP is worried, Benghazi isn't getting any traction, the economy is improving steadily, Obama care isn't failing the way conservatives claimed it would, and more importantly, because of the tea party, the GOP stands very, very badly with independents and young people. They are looking to fire up their base and hope they will vote in numbers, with the tea party clocking a 15% approval rating, and the GOP itself having problems.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So losing emails is fine when Bush did it. I see...

Of course, here it is...Bush again. How do we somehow get a President who left office six years ago factored into a discussion on the IRS under Obama? My head is ready to explode again. Someone hand me the duct tape, the good kind, not that off brand stuff.

When a lefty says some form of "but Bush" that translates to We know Obama is guilty but we want to give him a pass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

BTW, the Bush administration got its claims that Iraq had WMD from one clown called Chalabi, who was an Iraqi exile who claimed that he had a network of spies in the country reporting that they had WMD's,and they basically used this as 'proof' for WMD's existing

I'm old enough to remember the Satellite photos of WMD storage locations and the trucks removing them before the UN observers were allowed to see those locations. There were many instances where UN observers were sent in to verify the WMD claims and were refused entrance by the Iraq authorities. This suggests there is much more to push President Bush to finally attack Iraq than an urge to look good for Daddy.

Waittaminute, what has Bush and WMDs got to do with Lois Lerner? Is this another sly "it's Bush's fault" diversion? By damn it is...and I got caught up in it too. Must be slipping.

I am more than old enough, and before the Iraq war every claim the Bush administration said turned out to be BS..remember the Niger Yellowcake story, that Colin Powell was dumb enough to go in front of the UN with, that turned out to be totally made up? I also remember the photos in question, and what I recall of them this happened way before Bush came to office, back in the mid 1990's, and that the UN inspectors eventually found anything that was there. As far as I can recall, there was nothing in the runup to the Iraqi war, done after Bush was in office, that showed WMD's being moved.......the only claims I have seen of that were on Fox News, claiming that the WMD's had been moved to Syria before the invasion, but the only problem with that is there isn't one shred of evidence that that happened...Mossad for example said they saw no sign of that, and military satellites that were tasked on Iraq saw no signs of it, and to this day, nothing showed up. The Bush administration also never cited that, what they said was that they had evidence from people inside Iraq that Hussein had WMD's that were a threat to the US....and foreign intelligence services, notably the Germans, told the US that those reports were single sourced through a network headed by Chalabi, who they said was unreliable and had an agenda and very good reason to lie, and the Mossad also said they doubted the veracity of those reports, but those are what Bush used to justify the war. It is pathetic, both Cheney and Rumsfeld still claim the reports were good, when the stuff they picked up from the Iraqis after the war showed that there was basically nothing, that what had existed the inspectors had cleaned up years before. The biggest problem with all this is that one of the most basic rules of intelligence is that you never, ever trust a single source, you always verify things with other sources before acting. A friend of mine at a church I belonged to at the time of the runup to the Iraq war was ex military intelligence (he had been active duty during desert storm), and he said that what got him was the lack of evidence that Bush laid out, to the UN and elsewhere, and he said it smelled, that you never took action when the evidence was that flimsy. He said that while he wasn't privy to anything in particular, friends of his still active said that what made them suspicious was the lack of chatter at the time of the runup, that if Iraq really had the kind of WMD's there would have been chatter on it all over the place, but there was nothing, that the amount of chatter and reports about/from Iraq were what they had been. Two reporters for the St. Louis Post despatch, who were the only journalists doing their job and not giving Bush free reign, had a lot of inside sources in intelligence, and what they were told was that basically the same thing, that based on the traffic they saw, the justification for invading Iraq looked to be nonexistent. The fact that Bush and Cheney suddenly went from it being about WMD's, to being about 'Freeing Iraq" tells volumes, that it became patently obvious that there was nothing there and hadn't been for a long time, and that the whole runup was bull, a story put together to justify an invasion.

Okay. We are talking about Lois Lerner and the IRS here. But it appears you cannot challenge my statement about the photos and the trucks moving them out before the UN inspectors arrived all of which makes your charge that President Bush had Americans killed in a war just to get the approval of Daddy well unsupported. You are entitled to your opinion but it seems very much contrived at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


Goebbels is the patron saint of the left for that very reason. Since Nixon (who of course was told to resign by three Republicans; name 3 Democrats with the same stature and principle), there has been this thing called electronic mail and electronic storage. Lerner is obviously a shill. Email is kept on servers, not on PCs. That's a complete lie. Pretty much everything from the administration is a complete lie. Have they done a better cover-up job than Nixon? Absolutely. Kudos to them. Obama is doing the same thing, auditing enemies du jour.

You mention Clinton's earlier statements but ignore later ones, as well as concurrence by essentially all of the EU. Facts are stubborn things when they're twisted. Those WMDs never found were recently reported to have been taken over by ISIS. I guess an Arabian djinn made them rematerialize.

To refer to another poster on here, you assert that all accusations about Bengazi, the IRS, etc. are lies and that Obamacare is "not failing." If you presented such evidence in a courtroom as any attorney, you'd be disbarred.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

He said that while he wasn't privy to anything in particular, friends of his still active said that what made them suspicious was the lack of chatter at the time of the runup, that if Iraq really had the kind of WMD's there would have been chatter on it all over the place, but there was nothing, that the amount of chatter and reports about/from Iraq were what they had been.

Again, I was there too. I remember Saddam moving truckloads of weapons into Syria and his Air Force into Iraq in advance of Invasion. There was much chatter about WMDs every day about this time with real fears and even threats of them being sent tipped on SCUDs into Israel and then later into our advancing troops. Our troops were always fearful of a WMD attack. It was a real fear and not something in Bush's head or some great conspiracy to even the odds with Saddam for attempting to assassinate Bush 1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

He said that while he wasn't privy to anything in particular, friends of his still active said that what made them suspicious was the lack of chatter at the time of the runup, that if Iraq really had the kind of WMD's there would have been chatter on it all over the place, but there was nothing, that the amount of chatter and reports about/from Iraq were what they had been.

Again, I was there too. I remember Saddam moving truckloads of weapons into Syria and his Air Force into Iraq in advance of Invasion. There was much chatter about WMDs every day about this time with real fears and even threats of them being sent tipped on SCUDs into Israel and then later into our advancing troops. Our troops were always fearful of a WMD attack. It was a real fear and not something in Bush's head or some great conspiracy to even the odds with Saddam for attempting to assassinate Bush 1.

Did you take a lot of LSD? None of that happened.

Saddam hated the Ba'athists in Syria so there is no way he'd give them anything and he never got the planes he sent to Iran back after the First Gulf War he'd never do it again.

There were no WMD's. We looked and didn't find anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
By that logic, Flight 370 never really existed. We looked and didn't find anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

The amount you don't know about computers is staggering. Email is not usually stored on servers. The only usual time an email is stored on a server is when it is sent through a web mail service. If you have a mail client like Exchange on your computer, which Lerner likely did, then your computer sends and receives email directly. So yes, if her hard drive crashed and she had not been archiving her email those emails are likely lost unless you can get the recipient's copies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
By that logic, Flight 370 never really existed. We looked and didn't find anything.

Except that we have prior evidence of Flight 370.