Orwellian USA

[rishaed]

My last post explaining why what you did pissed me off so much,see if you are able to follow along.

Ooge says "So John Doe its a nice day today,the sun is out,no clouds in the sky,its 73 degrees". Woodruff comes along "actually its 75 degrees" I respond "What does the temperature matter its still a nice day" Woodruff responds "because you said the temperature is wrong" I respond "that is nit picking and does not take away from the point of it being a nice day" Woodruff responds "your point is based on a LIE of stating the temperature being wrong"....john smith "ooge dont you know anything about temperatures? ooge "Temperatures is not the point of this".........

Other than the fact that's not what happened, sure. You can go back and review the thread as easily as I can.

I also had you in a similar situation but I chose not to act like you do.

Unlike you, if I make a statement that is not accurate, I don't really mind someone pointing it out.

and yes I have admitted when I was wrong before I doubt you have.

You would be quite wrong there too. Again, it's easy enough to find.

Can we just stop the pissing contest here? Its going way off-topic even for off-topics. (As much as I agree with Woodruff and your initial point, its getting out of hand.)
So, if you could choose between the IRS and NSA which is worse in your opinions. My opinion says both are bad, but what the NSA did/are doing is much much worse.

[patches70]

So, if you could choose between the IRS and NSA which is worse in your opinions. My opinion says both are bad, but what the NSA did/are doing is much much worse.

The deal with the IRS and the NSA are just symptoms of the real problem. A government that is willing to do anything, regardless of law or constitution. Henry Kissinger once said this-

Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, 'The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.

True story.

But Kissinger sums it up very well, the US government will do what it wants when it wants. Legal or not, constitutional or not.

And there in is the real problem. Our Founders intended a central government that was restrained by law, by constitution and by the people.

[Woodruff]

So, if you could choose between the IRS and NSA which is worse in your opinions. My opinion says both are bad, but what the NSA did/are doing is much much worse.

Without question what the NSA is doing is much worse. The IRS was absolutely worth investigating, but turns out it wasn't particularly nefarious at all. I don't believe the same can be said for the NSA's activities.

[Night Strike]

So, if you could choose between the IRS and NSA which is worse in your opinions. My opinion says both are bad, but what the NSA did/are doing is much much worse.

Without question what the NSA is doing is much worse. The IRS was absolutely worth investigating, but turns out it wasn't particularly nefarious at all. I don't believe the same can be said for the NSA's activities.

There's no difference between the two. Whether the government is trying to get people to hand over their free speech on their own or just gather the data themselves, the end result is still the same: the outlawing of people to live free. ALL of it has to be stopped, not just the ones that are politically attractive.

[Woodruff]

So, if you could choose between the IRS and NSA which is worse in your opinions. My opinion says both are bad, but what the NSA did/are doing is much much worse.

Without question what the NSA is doing is much worse. The IRS was absolutely worth investigating, but turns out it wasn't particularly nefarious at all. I don't believe the same can be said for the NSA's activities.

There's no difference between the two.

That's frankly an ignorant statement made of false outrage.

Whether the government is trying to get people to hand over their free speech on their own or just gather the data themselves, the end result is still the same: the outlawing of people to live free. ALL of it has to be stopped, not just the ones that are politically attractive.

That you can't see the difference between a stupid mistake (that violated freedoms, yes) and the intentional violation of those freedoms tells me that you're simply trying to make mountains out of molehills. Use a little judicious reasoning here. The world is not black and white, Night Strike.

[Night Strike]

That you can't see the difference between a stupid mistake (that violated freedoms, yes) and the intentional violation of those freedoms tells me that you're simply trying to make mountains out of molehills. Use a little judicious reasoning here. The world is not black and white, Night Strike.

Except the IRS actions weren't a "stupid mistake". It was just as intentional as the NSA. Violating one Constitutional right is just as bad as violating another.

[Woodruff]

That you can't see the difference between a stupid mistake (that violated freedoms, yes) and the intentional violation of those freedoms tells me that you're simply trying to make mountains out of molehills. Use a little judicious reasoning here. The world is not black and white, Night Strike.

Except the IRS actions weren't a "stupid mistake". It was just as intentional as the NSA. Violating one Constitutional right is just as bad as violating another.

Again, this is just manufactured outrage (either on your part or via your being duped by Fox News). Being intentional has nothing at all to do with whether something was a stupid mistake or not.

By all available evidence in the IRS actions, there was no intent to violate freedoms. The same is certainly not true in the case of the NSA. Please do stop being a partisan hack...it gets really old, and just makes you look stupid.

[PLAYER57832]

That you can't see the difference between a stupid mistake (that violated freedoms, yes) and the intentional violation of those freedoms tells me that you're simply trying to make mountains out of molehills. Use a little judicious reasoning here. The world is not black and white, Night Strike.

Except the IRS actions weren't a "stupid mistake". It was just as intentional as the NSA. Violating one Constitutional right is just as bad as violating another.

You do realize that further evidence has shown the "targeted discrimination" was against a wide range of groups across the entire political spectrum. Words like "progressive" and other patently liberal phrases were identified for higher scrutiny.

The real trouble is that Supreme Court rulings meant a LOT more organizations were filing for tax exempt status, but no more personnel were given. In fact, the agency was being asked to cut back personnel -- by folks just like you.

The real issue here is folks like you want the government to "do everything", but then want to complain if they need more people to do that. Your REAL complaint, ultimately, is just that everyone doesn't think like you... but you also won't consider that the world won't really come out as you pretend if everyone DID think like you.

[thegreekdog]

The real trouble is that Supreme Court rulings meant a LOT more organizations were filing for tax exempt status, but no more personnel were given.

What Supreme Court rulings?

[BigBallinStalin]

By all available evidence in the IRS actions, there was no intent to violate freedoms. The same is certainly not true in the case of the NSA. Please do stop being a partisan hack...it gets really old, and just makes you look stupid.

So, no one within the IRS intended on violating any freedoms?

Other than freedoms, were there any violations at all?

[Woodruff]

By all available evidence in the IRS actions, there was no intent to violate freedoms. The same is certainly not true in the case of the NSA. Please do stop being a partisan hack...it gets really old, and just makes you look stupid.

So, no one within the IRS intended on violating any freedoms?

No, the available evidence does not show any intention to do that. The available evidence shows that workers within the IRS were attempting to do their job more effectively, and made a mistake in doing so that resulted in delays to those tax exemption requests. That is a violation, and certainly worthy of investigation, but it does not at all show an intention to create that violation of freedoms. Do you know how many organizations had their tax exemption requests rejected entirely, and which organizations those may have been?

[BigBallinStalin]

By all available evidence in the IRS actions, there was no intent to violate freedoms. The same is certainly not true in the case of the NSA. Please do stop being a partisan hack...it gets really old, and just makes you look stupid.

So, no one within the IRS intended on violating any freedoms?

No, the available evidence does not show any intention to do that. The available evidence shows that workers within the IRS were attempting to do their job more effectively, and made a mistake in doing so that resulted in delays to those tax exemption requests. That is a violation, and certainly worthy of investigation, but it does not at all show an intention to create that violation of freedoms. Do you know how many organizations had their tax exemption requests rejected entirely, and which organizations those may have been?

They don't have to be rejected. Their acceptance can be suspended indefinitely, and they can incur higher costs (lawyer fees, collecting information, wasted time, etc.). The IRS has broad and vague enough powers to de facto deny certain groups the Cool Kid status...

Where's the evidence which states that no IRS worker ever intended to do the above for particular groups? Their own spokespeople?

[Woodruff]

By all available evidence in the IRS actions, there was no intent to violate freedoms. The same is certainly not true in the case of the NSA. Please do stop being a partisan hack...it gets really old, and just makes you look stupid.

So, no one within the IRS intended on violating any freedoms?

No, the available evidence does not show any intention to do that. The available evidence shows that workers within the IRS were attempting to do their job more effectively, and made a mistake in doing so that resulted in delays to those tax exemption requests. That is a violation, and certainly worthy of investigation, but it does not at all show an intention to create that violation of freedoms. Do you know how many organizations had their tax exemption requests rejected entirely, and which organizations those may have been?

They don't have to be rejected. Their acceptance can be suspended indefinitely, and they can incur higher costs (lawyer fees, collecting information, wasted time, etc.). The IRS has broad and vague enough powers to de facto deny certain groups the Cool Kid status...

Where's the evidence which states that no IRS worker ever intended to do the above for particular groups? Their own spokespeople?

First of all, you can't prove a negative. I'm surprised to see you even suggest such a thing.

Aside from that, we can only weigh the evidence available to us. That evidence does not suggest that there was any intent. You can makebelieve anything you want about it, but now you're wandering into Night Strike and Phatscotty territory. While you're at it, you should start believing in God, because you can't prove he ain't there.

[BigBallinStalin]

By all available evidence in the IRS actions, there was no intent to violate freedoms. The same is certainly not true in the case of the NSA. Please do stop being a partisan hack...it gets really old, and just makes you look stupid.

So, no one within the IRS intended on violating any freedoms?

No, the available evidence does not show any intention to do that. The available evidence shows that workers within the IRS were attempting to do their job more effectively, and made a mistake in doing so that resulted in delays to those tax exemption requests. That is a violation, and certainly worthy of investigation, but it does not at all show an intention to create that violation of freedoms. Do you know how many organizations had their tax exemption requests rejected entirely, and which organizations those may have been?

They don't have to be rejected. Their acceptance can be suspended indefinitely, and they can incur higher costs (lawyer fees, collecting information, wasted time, etc.). The IRS has broad and vague enough powers to de facto deny certain groups the Cool Kid status...

Where's the evidence which states that no IRS worker ever intended to do the above for particular groups? Their own spokespeople?

First of all, you can't prove a negative. I'm surprised to see you even suggest such a thing.

Aside from that, we can only weigh the evidence available to us. That evidence does not suggest that there was any intent. You can makebelieve anything you want about it, but now you're wandering into Night Strike and Phatscotty territory. While you're at it, you should start believing in God, because you can't prove he ain't there.

You claim to KNOW there was no intent involved. But, how do you know? You should be able to demonstrate whether or not they had the motive to discriminate against particular groups. But since you can't, then you should be saying, "I don't know."

Suppose I claimed that George Bush did not intend on invading Iraq, and someone says, "provide evidence." If I responded with "you can't prove a negative" (implied: therefore, I'm correct), I'd be laughed out of the room. If you lack the evidence, all you can say is, "I don't know" or "Maybe that's true/false."

Currently, the soundness of your conclusion is unknown. Don't you agree?

And, what evidence? What are you referring to? (You're still dragging your feet on that one).

[Night Strike]

That you can't see the difference between a stupid mistake (that violated freedoms, yes) and the intentional violation of those freedoms tells me that you're simply trying to make mountains out of molehills. Use a little judicious reasoning here. The world is not black and white, Night Strike.

Except the IRS actions weren't a "stupid mistake". It was just as intentional as the NSA. Violating one Constitutional right is just as bad as violating another.

You do realize that further evidence has shown the "targeted discrimination" was against a wide range of groups across the entire political spectrum. Words like "progressive" and other patently liberal phrases were identified for higher scrutiny.

You haven't paid attention to what really happened...you just saw that your favored buzzwords were "included" and automatically assumed that their treatments were equal. They weren't. "Progressives" and "Occupy" were terms on a be on the lookout (BOLO) list with instructions stating that if they were trying to apply for 501(c)(3) status, that would probably be an inappropriate application. As long as they were not applying for 501(c)(3) status, the field agent could approve their application. However, any group flagged as "Tea Party" had to be sent to a supervisor. And remember, all these groups that report having to answer the inquisition were applying for 501(c)(4) status, meaning they're allowed to be involved in political matters. But because the IRS people didn't like their politics, their applications were held up and massively scrutinized. There has still been no indications that these same questions were asked of progressive groups, and remember, the IRS themselves started this whole thing by coming out and stating that they unfairly targeted Tea Party groups. They admitted that what they did was wrong, so this isn't some manufactured scandal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-24/irs-screened-applications-using-progressive-israel-.html

[Woodruff]

By all available evidence in the IRS actions, there was no intent to violate freedoms. The same is certainly not true in the case of the NSA. Please do stop being a partisan hack...it gets really old, and just makes you look stupid.

So, no one within the IRS intended on violating any freedoms?

No, the available evidence does not show any intention to do that. The available evidence shows that workers within the IRS were attempting to do their job more effectively, and made a mistake in doing so that resulted in delays to those tax exemption requests. That is a violation, and certainly worthy of investigation, but it does not at all show an intention to create that violation of freedoms. Do you know how many organizations had their tax exemption requests rejected entirely, and which organizations those may have been?

They don't have to be rejected. Their acceptance can be suspended indefinitely, and they can incur higher costs (lawyer fees, collecting information, wasted time, etc.). The IRS has broad and vague enough powers to de facto deny certain groups the Cool Kid status...

Where's the evidence which states that no IRS worker ever intended to do the above for particular groups? Their own spokespeople?

First of all, you can't prove a negative. I'm surprised to see you even suggest such a thing.

Aside from that, we can only weigh the evidence available to us. That evidence does not suggest that there was any intent. You can makebelieve anything you want about it, but now you're wandering into Night Strike and Phatscotty territory. While you're at it, you should start believing in God, because you can't prove he ain't there.

You claim to KNOW there was no intent involved. But, how do you know? You should be able to demonstrate whether or not they had the motive to discriminate against particular groups. But since you can't, then you should be saying, "I don't know."

You seem to be unable to understand the phrase "By all available evidence in the IRS actions" even though you underlined it yourself. I used it quite clearly each time I've discussed this. By the evidence we currently have, there is nothing to suggest that it was. I am not claiming "to know", I am claiming that the evidence does not show it. It's not a difficult concept.

Suppose I claimed that George Bush did not intend on invading Iraq, and someone says, "provide evidence." If I responded with "you can't prove a negative" (implied: therefore, I'm correct), I'd be laughed out of the room. If you lack the evidence, all you can say is, "I don't know" or "Maybe that's true/false."

Currently, the soundness of your conclusion is unknown. Don't you agree?

I do not, no. My conclusion has never been "conclusive", as it were, nor have I claimed that it was. It has always carried that caveat.

And, what evidence? What are you referring to? (You're still dragging your feet on that one).

Everything we have. Yes, it is their own statements...since that is all we have, I'm not sure what you expect here. However, in contrast to this, the NSA situation IS ACTUALLY self-evident...it's not possible to spy on the American populace without intending to invade their privacy, since breaking that privacy is fundamental to being able to accomplish it at all.

[Woodruff]

That you can't see the difference between a stupid mistake (that violated freedoms, yes) and the intentional violation of those freedoms tells me that you're simply trying to make mountains out of molehills. Use a little judicious reasoning here. The world is not black and white, Night Strike.

Except the IRS actions weren't a "stupid mistake". It was just as intentional as the NSA. Violating one Constitutional right is just as bad as violating another.

You do realize that further evidence has shown the "targeted discrimination" was against a wide range of groups across the entire political spectrum. Words like "progressive" and other patently liberal phrases were identified for higher scrutiny.

You haven't paid attention to what really happened...you just saw that your favored buzzwords were "included" and automatically assumed that their treatments were equal. They weren't. "Progressives" and "Occupy" were terms on a be on the lookout (BOLO) list with instructions stating that if they were trying to apply for 501(c)(3) status, that would probably be an inappropriate application. As long as they were not applying for 501(c)(3) status, the field agent could approve their application. However, any group flagged as "Tea Party" had to be sent to a supervisor. And remember, all these groups that report having to answer the inquisition were applying for 501(c)(4) status, meaning they're allowed to be involved in political matters. But because the IRS people didn't like their politics, their applications were held up and massively scrutinized. There has still been no indications that these same questions were asked of progressive groups, and remember, the IRS themselves started this whole thing by coming out and stating that they unfairly targeted Tea Party groups. They admitted that what they did was wrong, so this isn't some manufactured scandal.

So nobody who favors Tea Party ideals works at the IRS? Who exactly are "the IRS people"?

[Night Strike]

The Inspector General audit confirms what the IRS has already apologized for: that conservative groups were inappropriately targeted.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456

[patches70]

You seem to be unable to understand the phrase "By all available evidence in the IRS actions" even though you underlined it yourself. I used it quite clearly each time I've discussed this. By the evidence we currently have, there is nothing to suggest that it was. I am not claiming "to know", I am claiming that the evidence does not show it. It's not a difficult concept.

Not sure where you get evidence from when the IRS audits hadn't even been concluded for you to make that claim that there is no evidence.

The Treasury department inspector general has finished with his audit and reported that 100% of Tea Party groups were subjected to increased IRS review while only 30% of progressive groups felt such pressure. 292 Tea party groups were targeted. Only 6 progressive groups.

Granted, a lot fewer progressive groups applied for those specific tax exempt status, through May 2010- May 2012. 20 total, where 6 were singled out for review. In contrast, 292 Tea party groups applied and all 292 groups were singled out for review.

Evidence shows that equal treatment was not given.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury- ... le/2532456

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... iberals-w/

Not that any evidence of IRS wrongdoing is going to make much difference. The IRS will still be pricks now and into the future and democrats will dismiss abuses by their party while republicans will dismiss abuses by their party. People, citizens, are the only ones who get screwed. But so long as those getting screwed aren't on "your side"* no one cares. And since there are (at least) two sides, the side that gets screwed the most will always be the side that is not in power.

And all those being unfairly treated will be our brethren citizens. One of these days, the one getting screwed might be you. If we keep letting central governments get away with stuff like this.

*Not saying you are taking sides. But there are sides regardless.

[Woodruff]

The Inspector General audit confirms what the IRS has already apologized for: that conservative groups were inappropriately targeted.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456

First of all, it's not news that conservative groups were inappropriately targeted. The IRS themselves stated as much. However, is it really much of a stretch to understand why groups WHO ARE AGGRESSIVELY AGAINST TAXATION would be scrutinized more than other groups when it comes to being tax exempt? How does that not at least fall within the realm of common sense?

I agree that this was a problem, and that they shouldn't have been targeted as such. Yet I do not agree that it was NECESSARILY a political intent (though I agree that it may have been).

[Woodruff]

You seem to be unable to understand the phrase "By all available evidence in the IRS actions" even though you underlined it yourself. I used it quite clearly each time I've discussed this. By the evidence we currently have, there is nothing to suggest that it was. I am not claiming "to know", I am claiming that the evidence does not show it. It's not a difficult concept.

Not sure where you get evidence from when the IRS audits hadn't even been concluded for you to make that claim that there is no evidence.

I didn't claim there was no evidence. See my response to Night Strike.

But so long as those getting screwed aren't on "your side"* no one cares.

I know you said you didn't necessarily think I was taking sides, but where have I stated that I didn't care about this issue? I'm quite certain that I have not. In fact, several times I have stated that an investigation is appropriate. Mostly, my complaints regarding this issue have been in stating that the intent was not as plain as it was in the case of the NSA's. I still stand by that, even with the IG investigatory information available.

[patches70]

In fact, several times I have stated that an investigation is appropriate. Mostly, my complaints regarding this issue have been in stating that the intent was not as plain as it was in the case of the NSA's. I still stand by that, even with the IG investigatory information available.

What good is having an investigation if no one is going to be prosecuted? None of the IRS people are going to be fined or imprisoned for their actions, actions that if private individuals had done would quickly find themselves fined significantly and/or jailed.

The IRS has the backing of the democrats who say that it's not as bad as it looks, that the IRS targeted others (from their side) pretty much the same, which the IG's report shows isn't the case.

With the IRS and the protection from on high, gets to say "Opps, so sorry" and that's that. Maybe an IRS executive or two resigns (and collects government pension for life) but that's the extent of the fall out. Later, (and before) when republicans are in power, the IRS targets progressives and dems. Dems scream bloody murder and republicans say it's not as bad as it looks, the IRS targeted others (from their side) pretty much the same, which the IG's report ends up showing is not the case.

The IRS has been used as a blunt instrument against political opponents since it's inception. And the nails the IRS pounds are people targeted because of their political beliefs.

It's unacceptable and it's been going on for a very long time. As far as I'm concerned, it's criminal. Not that I ever expect any justice to be dealt to the IRS, but that doesn't change the nature of their intrusions always at the bequest of whomever is in power or has influence.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, no one within the IRS intended on violating any freedoms?

No, the available evidence does not show any intention to do that. The available evidence shows that workers within the IRS were attempting to do their job more effectively, and made a mistake in doing so that resulted in delays to those tax exemption requests. That is a violation, and certainly worthy of investigation, but it does not at all show an intention to create that violation of freedoms. Do you know how many organizations had their tax exemption requests rejected entirely, and which organizations those may have been?

They don't have to be rejected. Their acceptance can be suspended indefinitely, and they can incur higher costs (lawyer fees, collecting information, wasted time, etc.). The IRS has broad and vague enough powers to de facto deny certain groups the Cool Kid status...

Where's the evidence which states that no IRS worker ever intended to do the above for particular groups? Their own spokespeople?

First of all, you can't prove a negative. I'm surprised to see you even suggest such a thing.

Aside from that, we can only weigh the evidence available to us. That evidence does not suggest that there was any intent. You can makebelieve anything you want about it, but now you're wandering into Night Strike and Phatscotty territory. While you're at it, you should start believing in God, because you can't prove he ain't there.

You claim to KNOW there was no intent involved. But, how do you know? You should be able to demonstrate whether or not they had the motive to discriminate against particular groups. But since you can't, then you should be saying, "I don't know."

You seem to be unable to understand the phrase "By all available evidence in the IRS actions" even though you underlined it yourself. I used it quite clearly each time I've discussed this. By the evidence we currently have, there is nothing to suggest that it was. I am not claiming "to know", I am claiming that the evidence does not show it. It's not a difficult concept.

Suppose I claimed that George Bush did not intend on invading Iraq, and someone says, "provide evidence." If I responded with "you can't prove a negative" (implied: therefore, I'm correct), I'd be laughed out of the room. If you lack the evidence, all you can say is, "I don't know" or "Maybe that's true/false."

Currently, the soundness of your conclusion is unknown. Don't you agree?

I do not, no. My conclusion has never been "conclusive", as it were, nor have I claimed that it was. It has always carried that caveat.

And, what evidence? What are you referring to? (You're still dragging your feet on that one).

Everything we have. Yes, it is their own statements...since that is all we have, I'm not sure what you expect here. However, in contrast to this, the NSA situation IS ACTUALLY self-evident...it's not possible to spy on the American populace without intending to invade their privacy, since breaking that privacy is fundamental to being able to accomplish it at all.

You're acting like Symmetry. Perhaps if I ask again, you'll show some evidence to support your claims?

[Woodruff]

In fact, several times I have stated that an investigation is appropriate. Mostly, my complaints regarding this issue have been in stating that the intent was not as plain as it was in the case of the NSA's. I still stand by that, even with the IG investigatory information available.

What good is having an investigation if no one is going to be prosecuted?

A good question. Obviously, I want to see prosecutions happen if they are warranted. But even if that doesn't happen, I do believe there is some good done by an investigation from an informational standpoint, both as to IRS procedures as well as maybe future voting decisions (based on how various politicians deal with it).

[Woodruff]

No, the available evidence does not show any intention to do that. The available evidence shows that workers within the IRS were attempting to do their job more effectively, and made a mistake in doing so that resulted in delays to those tax exemption requests. That is a violation, and certainly worthy of investigation, but it does not at all show an intention to create that violation of freedoms. Do you know how many organizations had their tax exemption requests rejected entirely, and which organizations those may have been?

They don't have to be rejected. Their acceptance can be suspended indefinitely, and they can incur higher costs (lawyer fees, collecting information, wasted time, etc.). The IRS has broad and vague enough powers to de facto deny certain groups the Cool Kid status...

Where's the evidence which states that no IRS worker ever intended to do the above for particular groups? Their own spokespeople?

First of all, you can't prove a negative. I'm surprised to see you even suggest such a thing.

Aside from that, we can only weigh the evidence available to us. That evidence does not suggest that there was any intent. You can makebelieve anything you want about it, but now you're wandering into Night Strike and Phatscotty territory. While you're at it, you should start believing in God, because you can't prove he ain't there.

You claim to KNOW there was no intent involved. But, how do you know? You should be able to demonstrate whether or not they had the motive to discriminate against particular groups. But since you can't, then you should be saying, "I don't know."

You seem to be unable to understand the phrase "By all available evidence in the IRS actions" even though you underlined it yourself. I used it quite clearly each time I've discussed this. By the evidence we currently have, there is nothing to suggest that it was. I am not claiming "to know", I am claiming that the evidence does not show it. It's not a difficult concept.

Suppose I claimed that George Bush did not intend on invading Iraq, and someone says, "provide evidence." If I responded with "you can't prove a negative" (implied: therefore, I'm correct), I'd be laughed out of the room. If you lack the evidence, all you can say is, "I don't know" or "Maybe that's true/false."

Currently, the soundness of your conclusion is unknown. Don't you agree?

I do not, no. My conclusion has never been "conclusive", as it were, nor have I claimed that it was. It has always carried that caveat.

And, what evidence? What are you referring to? (You're still dragging your feet on that one).

Everything we have. Yes, it is their own statements...since that is all we have, I'm not sure what you expect here. However, in contrast to this, the NSA situation IS ACTUALLY self-evident...it's not possible to spy on the American populace without intending to invade their privacy, since breaking that privacy is fundamental to being able to accomplish it at all.

You're acting like Symmetry.

That doesn't even make basic sense, frankly.

Perhaps if I ask again, you'll show some evidence to support your claims?

I'm not sure what you're looking for, since the available evidence has been scoured pretty well both here in this thread and the thread regarding the NSA. It's not like I'm keeping anything hidden.