IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[Vic]

Interesting....so you publicly admit to illegal interviewing. Just where do you work?

Does your company know you do this? I bet if they knew, you would be out of a job, since you just opened them up to lawsuits from the "lefties' you weeded out.

Amazing how the far-right feels laws only applies to others, and not them.

It's not illegal per se as political affiliation is not a protected class, but I'm confident his employer wouldn't approve of him discussing such biases publicly. BTW anyone familiar with the poster should have no trouble figuring who he works for.

For the dipshits among us, political affiliation has shit to do with work production, if only because terms like right and left are subjective. I align left on social issues but right on economic issues, yet most of the conservatives here would call me a leftist. The reason is because the difference between liberalism and conservatism has jack shit to do with economic issues, their usual talking points notwithstanding.

 

[Bowfinger]

They admitted to improperly targeting conservative groups. ...

You and several others have repeated variations of that comment many times, but it's inaccurate. Here's what Lerner actually said:

"Used names like Tea Party and patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate"
​

Lerner acknowledged that the use of partisan keywords was wrong, not that the IRS had improperly targeted conservatives. There is a difference.

 

[ivwshane]

You and several others have repeated variations of that comment many times, but it's inaccurate. Here's what Lerner actually said:

"Used names like Tea Party and patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate"
​

Lerner acknowledged that the use of partisan keywords was wrong, not that the IRS had improperly targeted conservatives. There is a difference.

Yep and he hasn't addressed or acknowledged that point when I brought it up either so don't hold your breath waiting for him to respond about this particular point.

 

[werepossum]

You and several others have repeated variations of that comment many times, but it's inaccurate. Here's what Lerner actually said:

"Used names like Tea Party and patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate"
​

Lerner acknowledged that the use of partisan keywords was wrong, not that the IRS had improperly targeted conservatives. There is a difference.

Gotta give you guys credit. Just when I think you've finally hit rock bottom, you get out the shovels. Sheesh! The really scary part is thinking that one or two of you might actually be able to convince yourself that you aren't blatantly lying.

"It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" now stands as a shining moment of proggie integrity.

 

[werepossum]

It's not illegal per se as political affiliation is not a protected class, but I'm confident his employer wouldn't approve of him discussing such biases publicly. BTW anyone familiar with the poster should have no trouble figuring who he works for.

For the dipshits among us, political affiliation has shit to do with work production, if only because terms like right and left are subjective. I align left on social issues but right on economic issues, yet most of the conservatives here would call me a leftist. The reason is because the difference between liberalism and conservatism has jack shit to do with economic issues, their usual talking points notwithstanding.

Does it really matter what he does? Under the new standard he can easily say he doesn't discriminate against liberals, just against people who say certain liberal-sounding phrases. There is a difference, you know.

 

[Bowfinger]

Gotta give you guys credit. Just when I think you've finally hit rock bottom, you get out the shovels. Sheesh! The really scary part is thinking that one or two of you might actually be able to convince yourself that you aren't blatantly lying.

"It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" now stands as a shining moment of proggie integrity.

Does it really matter what he does? Under the new standard he can easily say he doesn't discriminate against liberals, just against people who say certain liberal-sounding phrases. There is a difference, you know.

You have become such a dishonest POS. Read the words. The difference is intent. Did the IRS employees intend to target conservatives, or were they trying to identify political groups in general? Given that they also used BOLO lists with left-leaning keywords, an honest person would conclude their intent wasn't aimed specifically at conservatives. Instead, they wanted an easy way to find political groups.

Unfortunately, that shortcut was inappropriate, not because it was ineffective -- remember that the IG found that the majority of groups they targeted did deserve greater scrutiny -- but because the terms they used were partisan in nature. It is appropriate for the IRS to screen for political groups. It is not appropriate to do so using a technique with potential partisan bias. That is what Lerner apologized for, and it applies to both the right-wing and left-wing groups pulled using that process. Both were inappropriate. I'll also remind you that Lerner ordered it stopped as soon as she found out about it. That should make Lerner your hero ... except Issa told you to hate her. Good boy.

 

[Vic]

Does it really matter what he does? Under the new standard he can easily say he doesn't discriminate against liberals, just against people who say certain liberal-sounding phrases. There is a difference, you know.

Okay, but what's a liberal sounding phrase? "Liberty and justice for all?" "All men are created equal?"
Let's remember that we're dealing with people who are still upset that freedom doesn't mean you're free to own slaves.

 

[Vic]

What do you mean, "I don't believe in God"?
I talk to him everyday.
What do you mean, "I don't support your system"?
I go to court when I have to.
What do you mean, "I can't get to work on time"?
I got nothing better to do.
And, what do you mean, "I don't pay my bills"?
What do you think I'm broke? Huh?

If there's a new way,
I'll be the first in line.
But it better work this time.
What do you mean, "I hurt your feelings"?
I didn't know you had any feelings.
What do you mean, "I ain't kind"?
Just not your kind.

What do you mean, "I couldn't be the President
Of the United States of America"?
Tell me something, it's still "We the people," right?
If there's a new way
I'll be the first in line
But it better work this time.

 

[werepossum]

You have become such a dishonest POS. Read the words. The difference is intent. Did the IRS employees intend to target conservatives, or were they trying to identify political groups in general? Given that they also used BOLO lists with left-leaning keywords, an honest person would conclude their intent wasn't aimed specifically at conservatives. Instead, they wanted an easy way to find political groups.

Unfortunately, that shortcut was inappropriate, not because it was ineffective -- remember that the IG found that the majority of groups they targeted did deserve greater scrutiny -- but because the terms they used were partisan in nature. It is appropriate for the IRS to screen for political groups. It is not appropriate to do so using a technique with potential partisan bias. That is what Lerner apologized for, and it applies to both the right-wing and left-wing groups pulled using that process. Both were inappropriate. I'll also remind you that Lerner ordered it stopped as soon as she found out about it. That should make Lerner your hero ... except Issa told you to hate her. Good boy.

Absolutely no one capable of dressing himself believes this. No one. At best there are some people willing to pretend to believe this because they feel this is the proper role of government, crushing non-proggie content. If you must be totally dishonest, surely you could at least be smarter. "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" now stands as a shining moment of proggie integrity as well as apparently the high point of proggie intellect.

The left's entire narrative - this was an accident and affected left wing groups as well as right wing groups - is a sick joke. You are intentionally turning America into a banana republic for political expediency.

Okay, but what's a liberal sounding phrase? "Liberty and justice for all?" "All men are created equal?"
Let's remember that we're dealing with people who are still upset that freedom doesn't mean you're free to own slaves.

According to Bowfinger and like-minded sycophants, a liberal sounding phrase can be anything you need it to be. One could literally disqualify every registered Democrat and then pretend to be amazed and horrified to learn that this had a politically biased effect.

 

[Bowfinger]

Absolutely no one capable of dressing himself believes this. No one. At best there are some people willing to pretend to believe this because they feel this is the proper role of government, crushing non-proggie content. If you must be totally dishonest, surely you could at least be smarter. "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" now stands as a shining moment of proggie integrity as well as apparently the high point of proggie intellect.

The left's entire narrative - this was an accident and affected left wing groups as well as right wing groups - is a sick joke. You are intentionally turning America into a banana republic for political expediency.

Never go full Stewox. No matter how desperately you need to believe otherwise, the FACT is the IRS also used a BOLO list with "progressive" terms. No matter how desperately you need to believe otherwise, the FACT is some left-leaning groups were targeted along with the Tea Party groups. No matter how desperately you need to believe otherwise, the FACT is my comments above are accurate. Lerner did not say what you keep claiming she said. She did, however, order it stopped, another FACT you shills continue to ignore because it blows yet another hole in your talking points.

According to Bowfinger and like-minded sycophants, a liberal sounding phrase can be anything you need it to be. One could literally disqualify every registered Democrat and then pretend to be amazed and horrified to learn that this had a politically biased effect.

More lies, pulled straight from your ass. You're well on your way to full Issadom. Good boy.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

It's not illegal per se as political affiliation is not a protected class, but I'm confident his employer wouldn't approve of him discussing such biases publicly. BTW anyone familiar with the poster should have no trouble figuring who he works for.

For the dipshits among us, political affiliation has shit to do with work production, if only because terms like right and left are subjective. I align left on social issues but right on economic issues, yet most of the conservatives here would call me a leftist. The reason is because the difference between liberalism and conservatism has jack shit to do with economic issues, their usual talking points notwithstanding.

IANAL (thank god!), but I've been through various hiring classes at my job, and they clearly stated that questions like that were illegal.

So it is totally possible that the various far-right trolls are either lying about this (something they do quite often) or if they are doing it, they possibly are breaking federal or state regulations.

Interesting how they feel the law needs to be followed, except by them.

 

[thraashman]

Absolutely no one capable of dressing himself believes this. No one. At best there are some people willing to pretend to believe this because they feel this is the proper role of government, crushing non-proggie content. If you must be totally dishonest, surely you could at least be smarter. "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" now stands as a shining moment of proggie integrity as well as apparently the high point of proggie intellect.

The left's entire narrative - this was an accident and affected left wing groups as well as right wing groups - is a sick joke. You are intentionally turning America into a banana republic for political expediency.


According to Bowfinger and like-minded sycophants, a liberal sounding phrase can be anything you need it to be. One could literally disqualify every registered Democrat and then pretend to be amazed and horrified to learn that this had a politically biased effect.

You know I used to feel you were one of the more reasonable conservatives on this board, but posts like this make me feel that you absolutely must be on drugs or something.

 

[Corn]

IANAL (thank god!), but I've been through various hiring classes at my job, and they clearly stated that questions like that were illegal.

So it is totally possible that the various far-right trolls are either lying about this (something they do quite often) or if they are doing it, they possibly are breaking federal or state regulations.

Interesting how they feel the law needs to be followed, except by them.

GTC, you are mostly a straight up guy so I'll tell you the truth. After witnessing what lefties think that someone should be fired for at http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2376005 and what others stated in this very thread should be public information to be used to destroy people's lives for having a different political opinion, I just wanted to see their reaction were the tables turned.

Truth is there's lots of lefty progressives under my direct employ and they are great employees and good people. That said, during the interview process I pose several questions asking how people dealt with "unfair" situations they perceived in previous employment or scenarios posed if they hadn't experience any such issues previously. Political affiliation is not really a predictor of what I would term to be acceptable responses to these questions.

A lot of people know my real identity on this forum, most should know my history here too and know I'm just stirring the pot. I kinda let on to that as soon as Incorruptible hitched up to my troll wagon. :sneaky:

 

[werepossum]

You know I used to feel you were one of the more reasonable conservatives on this board, but posts like this make me feel that you absolutely must be on drugs or something.

When the price to be considered reasonable is to swallow such huge lies as truth, there can be no one who can claim to be conservative and also be considered reasonable by progressives. You have framed "reasonable" as swallowing whatever tripe the Obama administration chooses to put out as the Gospel, no matter how incompatible it is with known truth.

You guys have gone full retard, to the point that the Obama administration isn't even trying anymore. The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups, yet is unwilling to provide names even though they had to have counted them a year ago to reach that conclusion. The Obama administration claims it will take years to produce Lerner's emails. The Obama administration has been caught not releasing to Congress subpoenaed documents, as well as re-classifying declassified documents already under subpoena and redacting as privileged national security comments which we now see are purely political. And the ONLY reaction by proggies has been "GO TEAM!" The left in this nation has far surpassed Russian levels of partisanship and moved firmly into North Korean territory.

 

[thraashman]

^ There's facts and then there the stuff that conservatives believe. ^

 

[fskimospy]

When the price to be considered reasonable is to swallow such huge lies as truth, there can be no one who can claim to be conservative and also be considered reasonable by progressives. You have framed "reasonable" as swallowing whatever tripe the Obama administration chooses to put out as the Gospel, no matter how incompatible it is with known truth.

You guys have gone full retard, to the point that the Obama administration isn't even trying anymore. The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups, yet is unwilling to provide names even though they had to have counted them a year ago to reach that conclusion. The Obama administration claims it will take years to produce Lerner's emails. The Obama administration has been caught not releasing to Congress subpoenaed documents, as well as re-classifying declassified documents already under subpoena and redacting as privileged national security comments which we now see are purely political. And the ONLY reaction by proggies has been "GO TEAM!" The left in this nation has far surpassed Russian levels of partisanship and moved firmly into North Korean territory.

It's always interesting to see someone complain about how his political opponents are unreasonable, and then in the same post describe the American left as similar to North Korea.

Then again it is often the craziest and most delusional people who tend to think that everyone else must be like them.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
The Obama administration has claimed that sixty percent of the groups targeted (of which we've seen three) were not conservative groups ...

This is news (if true). Can you provide a credible citation supporting this claim?

 

[Fern]

You and several others have repeated variations of that comment many times, but it's inaccurate. Here's what Lerner actually said:

"Used names like Tea Party and patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive and inappropriate"
​

Lerner acknowledged that the use of partisan keywords was wrong, not that the IRS had improperly targeted conservatives. There is a difference.

"There is a difference."

LOL

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Given that they also used BOLO lists with left-leaning keywords....

Please link where the initial BOLO included "left-leaning keywords"

Fern

 

[dank69]

You know I used to feel you were one of the more reasonable conservatives on this board, but posts like this make me feel that you absolutely must be on drugs or something.

Werepossum has gone plaid on several occasions. I'd bet his real beliefs are much closer to what we see when he lets himself go.

 

[ivwshane]

Please link where the initial BOLO included "left-leaning keywords"

Fern

Oops!!

From June 2013:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/busines...l?Post+generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost


So are you guys just uninformed? Stupid? Partisan hacks, or parrots unable to think for yourself?

 

[ivwshane]

"There is a difference."

LOL

Fern

Lol! Indeed! Stick to numbers because the English language ain't your thing

 

[Fern]

Oops!!

From June 2013:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/busines...l?Post+generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost


So are you guys just uninformed? Stupid? Partisan hacks, or parrots unable to think for yourself?

The above in no way addresses the question I posed. I'll repeat it for you:

Originally Posted by Fern View Post
Please link where the initial BOLO included "left-leaning keywords"

Fern

Please focus on the bolded word.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

This is news (if true). Can you provide a credible citation supporting this claim?

There has not been and will not be a credible citation supporting this claim. However, I can link you to the IRS report. The chart is on page 8. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/irs-timeline/index.html This is what you guys used as "proof" that there was no wrongdoing in the original thread.

It also has such gems as "Determination Unit employees stated that they considered the Tea Party criterion as a shorthand term for all potential political cases."

This came about as a defense after we learned that in fact the political targeting continued for more than a year after the administration said it was shut down. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/irs-targeting/

Please link where the initial BOLO included "left-leaning keywords"

Fern

Mankind has not yet gone as deep down as the proggies set the bar for this administration. Imagine the furor had Nixon claimed he wasn't trying to use the IRS against his political enemies, it just accidentally happened - and he has proof, which will merely take a few years to provide.

 

[werepossum]

Werepossum has gone plaid on several occasions. I'd bet his real beliefs are much closer to what we see when he lets himself go.

Because of course if I were REALLY reasonable, I too would march in lockstep with the left no matter what they do.

If you believe that the people who agree with one side 100% of the time are reasonable and the people who split 40/60 are the unreasonable partisans, you seriously need to seek a refund from either your university or your church, for either your thinking skills or your honesty are seriously malfunctioning. But thanks for playing.