RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution

RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 10:05:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: The fact that you have an inferior understanding of the english language is your problem. Do you mean "English language"? [:)] . I will happily admit to being lazy regarding spelling, capitalization. And punctuation has always been a bona-fide bugaboo. However since it seems that few are bothering to read the article, let me summarize. The IRS received applications progressive organizations and 292 conservative ones according to the IG. The selected 30 percent of the progressive organizations and 100 persecent of the conservative ones for comprehensive review. I don't recall the numbers of the top of my head, but I believe that all the progressive organizations received approval, and I believe it was within 6 weeks. Most of the conservative organizations are still waiting, after three years. The prosecution of these comprehensive review takes 3 years. (A huge part of the review involved just sending them to washington and sitting on them for a year until after the elections had passed). The rest of it involved huge, inappropriate intrustions into Americans public lives. Who were members?...What articles had they ever written or published? For purposes of space, Ill not recount the full list. So yes, I meant and I mean that the IRS selected conservative organizations to be bear the brunt of their politicized, intrusive "investigations" (which were really nothing more than a fig leaf to deprive political opponents the opportunity to organize prior to the election). Ie. Selective prosecution.

mnottertail -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 10:15:39 AM)
What were the original raw numbers, first off, was it 292 each of new 50x org applicants? What was the quality of the application and mission statement in each? I see little in the way of a factual case here, just a lot of untutuored and inumerate blowholing and asswipe, Luckydawg.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 10:26:23 AM)
I am not luckydawg, nor have I ever been. This matter has been brought to to the Moderators three times before and if you persist I will bring it again. For the record I agree with you that all groups should be exposed to reasonable investigation. Thats not what occurred and its not what the issue is. The issue is that it is abundantly clear that the Obama administration used the mechanisms of power in the IRS/EPA/Justice department against political opponents selectively. Namely, the irs prevented opposing groups from organizing and receiving donations. There is no other reasonable explanation for applications to be sent for washington for further review - and no action occurs.

mnottertail -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 10:27:53 AM)
Go ahead. I will sleep fine tonight, I don't give the glimmer of a good goddamn fuck what you do.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 10:56:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux You thought to prosecute meant criminal prosecution. Which isn't the preferred meaning. And as usual you were so arrogant that you didn't look up the meaning - and so quick to mock that you now have egg on your face. Hold on there. I was going to let this slide with just laughing at you. Now I'm going to have to deal with your ignorance and straw grasping. Selective pursuit to the finish doesn't make sense. In your unnuanced opinion. Fortunately you don't write dictionaries. Also suitable are the meanings of "engagement" or "performing" quote: Now actually going to the same dictionary you used for the actual word you used, prosecution not prosecute, what do we find quote: 1 : the act or process of prosecuting; specifically : the institution and continuance of a criminal suit involving the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment 2 : the party by whom criminal proceedings are instituted or conducted 3 obsolete : pursuit http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecution So I was right. Either you have not just an inferior but obsolete command of the English language or you are flat out lying. So which is it? Feel free to keep arguing. You just keep a topic where you are shown to be wrong and ridiculous alive. Take for example the sentence, perfectly acceptable "The prosecution of the war proceeded flawlessly". Notice that it has nothing to do with criminal proceedings. It has everything to do with .. "the act of prosecuting". It has a meaning similar to execution, but a different nuance. Ie., quoting miriam, to follow to the end; to engage in; to perform. It is very clear that you are not bothering to actually read my posts since you will see that the definition of prosecution is already discussed in my original quote. qv. The formation and meaning of a noun formed by a verb +tion is not difficult. Here's the wiki, for you: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-tion. It means the act or result of a verb. Elect - election Select - selection Delete - deletion. act - action etc.

VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 11:53:16 AM)
Fast Reply: Phydeaux is NOT luckydawg. I researched it because it has been stated numeous times. The statement is incorrect, he is NOT luckydawg.

papassion -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 12:18:01 PM)
Do Liberals really think if they spout pure bullshit like "The IRS scandal is not true!" That everyone will forget that the SAME IRS APOLIGIZED FOR PROFILING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS? I wonder why the IRS ADMITTED they profiled if they did not? Libs have a short attention span? Forgot about the IRS admission? Wasn't too long ago.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 12:25:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminAlpha Fast Reply: Phydeaux is NOT luckydawg. I researched it because it has been stated numeous times. The statement is incorrect, he is NOT luckydawg. He posts like dawg, he lies like dawg, he argues like dawg. I suppose he must post from a new ip but I'm curious how that proves anything. When you are a hammer, you tend to look at all problems as nails. Hence your opinions on how I post et. al. So clearly while I am not luckydawg - you are a real tool.

DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 12:26:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Do Liberals really think if they spout pure bullshit like "The IRS scandal is not true!" That everyone will forget that the SAME IRS APOLIGIZED FOR PROFILING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS? I wonder why the IRS ADMITTED they profiled if they did not? Libs have a short attention span? Forgot about the IRS admission? Wasn't too long ago. There was no scandal because none of the groups liberal or conservative should have been approved at all. Then it came out that the reason the Treasury IG report only discussed the conservative groups is because Issa asked for a report specifically on that. IOW Issa knew what was happening, that it happened to groups on both sides and tried to put a fraud over on the citizens of this nation. Note that Issa has now dropped the matter entirely and is trying to gin up something new on Benghazi.

papassion -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 12:29:38 PM)
You want more selective prosecution? Obama's Departments fining coal companies and power companies up to $600,000 a bird, for birds killed in coal settling pits or on power companies power lines. The Associated Press ran a story that 573,000 birds A YEAR are killed by the "green" windmill farms. Including Hawks, Falcons and Eagles. All federally protected birds! Not ONE fuckin' citation given to the windmill farm industry. Yeah, real FAIR government enforcement!

mnottertail -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 12:49:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Do Liberals really think if they spout pure bullshit like "The IRS scandal is not true!" That everyone will forget that the SAME IRS APOLIGIZED FOR PROFILING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS? I wonder why the IRS ADMITTED they profiled if they did not? Libs have a short attention span? Forgot about the IRS admission? Wasn't too long ago. No, try again, that never happened. The same person who was in charge of the section who was appointed by W and invited the question apologized. It was done during a Bush appointee oversight. The IRS didn't apologize.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 12:56:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion You want more selective prosecution? Obama's Departments fining coal companies and power companies up to $600,000 a bird, for birds killed in coal settling pits or on power companies power lines. The Associated Press ran a story that 573,000 birds A YEAR are killed by the "green" windmill farms. Including Hawks, Falcons and Eagles. All federally protected birds! Not ONE fuckin' citation given to the windmill farm industry. Yeah, real FAIR government enforcement! I'm well aware of the figures papassion. I'm just outnumbered. I'm also aware, for example that when the federal government publishes the figures on the cost per $MW of energy - the federal government "normalizes" the data - ie fudges it in order to make "green" energy appear cheaper and others more expensive. One quick example. One of the largest costs for building an nuclear reactor has nothing to do with the costs of the concrete, the steel, the uranium. It has to do with political opposition. Building a nuclear reactor is an expensive proposition. Call it a billion dollars. However, once those funds are committed to that purpose, the company has to secure permits, and endure protests, court challenges etc. And this has been a conscious tactic of the anti-nuclear industry. So the time for completion routeinely exceeds 10 years. Interest doubles roughly every 7 years. This means that political opposition to nuclear energy more than doubles its cost. But it is these higher costs that are used in the comparison of nuclear energy costs to solar / wind power for example rather than actual costs. Any technology could be subject to the same harassment. It has nothing to do per se with the cost of generating power - and everything to do with political persecution. Apples to apples comparisons would be nice.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 12:58:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Do Liberals really think if they spout pure bullshit like "The IRS scandal is not true!" That everyone will forget that the SAME IRS APOLIGIZED FOR PROFILING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS? I wonder why the IRS ADMITTED they profiled if they did not? Libs have a short attention span? Forgot about the IRS admission? Wasn't too long ago. No, try again, that never happened. The same person who was in charge of the section who was appointed by W and invited the question apologized. It was done during a Bush appointee oversight. The IRS didn't apologize. You try again: Attending a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association, Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized for the “insensitive” treatment of the groups on behalf of the IRS: “That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. The IRS would like to apologize for that.” - See more at: http://dcxposed.com/2013/05/10/irs-admits-political-profiling-of-conservative-tea-party-groups-apologizes/#sthash.WKkZRzNI.dpuf

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 1:02:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Do Liberals really think if they spout pure bullshit like The IRS scandal is not true! That everyone will forget that the SAME IRS APOLIGIZED FOR PROFILING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS? I wonder why the IRS ADMITTED they profiled if they did not? Libs have a short attention span? Forgot about the IRS admission? Wasn't too long ago. There was no scandal because none of the groups liberal or conservative should have been approved at all. Then it came out that the reason the Treasury IG report only discussed the conservative groups is because Issa asked for a report specifically on that. IOW Issa knew what was happening, that it happened to groups on both sides and tried to put a fraud over on the citizens of this nation. Note that Issa has now dropped the matter entirely and is trying to gin up something new on Benghazi. Uh. Logic fail. If none of the groups should have been approved - and liberals selectively were - thats a scandal. If groups should have been subjected to scrutiny - and only conservative gruops were subjected to comprehensive review- thats a scandal. And frankly, despite your assertions, groups that want to organize to teach the constitution are a perfectly valid c(4) purpose.

mnottertail -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 1:03:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: papassion Do Liberals really think if they spout pure bullshit like "The IRS scandal is not true!" That everyone will forget that the SAME IRS APOLIGIZED FOR PROFILING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS? I wonder why the IRS ADMITTED they profiled if they did not? Libs have a short attention span? Forgot about the IRS admission? Wasn't too long ago. No, try again, that never happened. The same person who was in charge of the section who was appointed by W and invited the question apologized. It was done during a Bush appointee oversight. The IRS didn't apologize. You try again: Attending a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association, Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized for the “insensitive” treatment of the groups on behalf of the IRS: “That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. The IRS would like to apologize for that.” - See more at: http://dcxposed.com/2013/05/10/irs-admits-political-profiling-of-conservative-tea-party-groups-apologizes/#sthash.WKkZRzNI.dpuf quote: Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized for the “insensitive” treatment of the groups on behalf of the IRS: “That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. The IRS would like to apologize for that.” Learn to read Englische, as she is goodley spokene. That is what I said. The same person who was in charge of the section who was appointed by W and invited the question apologized. It was done during a Bush appointee oversight. The IRS didn't apologize That person, is Lois Lerner. Try again, again.

DomKen -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 1:05:40 PM)
Those political protests are for very good reasons. Nuclear plants are never kept up to the standards they should be. See Fukushima Daiichi. We still have no good solution to what to do with the waste. And finally the more nuclear fuel there is the more likely it becomes some will be diverted to bad people.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 1:18:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Those political protests are for very good reasons. Nuclear plants are never kept up to the standards they should be. See Fukushima Daiichi. We still have no good solution to what to do with the waste. And finally the more nuclear fuel there is the more likely it becomes some will be diverted to bad people. I don't mind the political protests Ken. I agree they serve a valuable purpose. And I am in favor of people helping to determing public policy. However the DOE guidelines are supposed to represent a reasonably best case implimentation. And the figures are not "fair" they are unethically shaded toward a green position.

Phydeaux -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 1:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No, try again, that never happened. The same person who was in charge of the section who was appointed by W and invited the question apologized. It was done during a Bush appointee oversight. The IRS didn't apologize. quote: Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized for the “insensitive” treatment of the groups on behalf of the IRS: “That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review. The IRS would like to apologize for that.” She was in charge of the subject area and responsible for it. She was speaking in her official capacity. The IRS apologized. Again, she also stopped the policy for a few months until she was overruled.

dcnovice -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 1:24:34 PM)
quote: We live in a day and age when dictionaries are considered old-fashioned and a hindrance to communication. A word means whatever someone's emotions tell them it means. As someone whose work involves countless dictionary checks each day, I think things are a bit more complex than that. Language evolves. It always has. That's vividly clear to anyone wading into Chaucer or Shakespeare. A dictionary is a snapshot of a language at a particular moment, not a shrine of eternal definitions. If one is attempting to communicate, it's essential to have some sense of what the word will actually mean to the person hearing or reading it. One could find dictionary entries galore to support intended usage in the following sentences, but only a naif would be stunned by puzzled or even adverse reactions: -- You're looking very gay [cheerful] today! -- The Sistine Chapel is an awful [awe-inspiring] example of Renaissance artistry. -- Consumption [tuberculosis] is a tragedy. -- My brother-in-law is a cad [bus conductor]. In terms of dictionaries, it may bear noting that (if Wikipedia is correct) they were a relatively recent development in English. (So, for that matter, is standardized spelling.) For much of the language's vibrant life, people used their wits, memories, and shared understanding to sort out what words meant. Today's dictionaries also vary in their approach to language--some prescriptivist (what words should mean), others descriptivitist (how people actually use words). quote: It won't surprise me if dictionaries are called "racist" one of these days, and dismissed as a tool of eeeevil white people trying to control speech. Oh my.

mnottertail -> RE: IRS - Selective Prosecution (6/28/2013 1:29:34 PM)
By a W appointee. A person responsible apologized. The IRS has not, because they haven't actually did anything wrong, or it remains to be seen. When JimBobBillyBoy apologizes for us fining BP for spilling oil, the Legislative Branch of the US Government did not apologize. And I was commenting on your punctilious usage of the word 'prosecution' looks like you run luke-warm though. Perhaps it was accidental after all.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625