Orwellian USA

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not saying it's ok,
but the Libs and Liberal charities were complaining about exactly this under Bush II.

[Orwell]

Don't worry, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... interview/

http://danaloeschradio.com/exclusive-so ... s-scandal/

And how is this proof of anything? The reporter admits he crossed personal and professional lines by making a spurious claim on his FB page after the lamest interview question ever...What? WAIT! Are you saying there is an armed IRS agent off-screen making sure he apologizes for his asking the President a question about traveling with the Secret Service???!!! Good Lord man, we have a real scandal!!!!! #rightbackatcha.

[Night Strike]

Don't worry, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... interview/

http://danaloeschradio.com/exclusive-so ... s-scandal/

And how is this proof of anything? The reporter admits he crossed personal and professional lines by making a spurious claim on his FB page after the lamest interview question ever...What? WAIT! Are you saying there is an armed IRS agent off-screen making sure he apologizes for his asking the President a question about traveling with the Secret Service???!!! Good Lord man, we have a real scandal!!!!! #rightbackatcha.

It sure doesn't sound spurious....unless you're a liberal who supports forcing those who disagree with you to make approved statements whether they're true or not.

[Orwell]

Don't worry, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... interview/

http://danaloeschradio.com/exclusive-so ... s-scandal/

And how is this proof of anything? The reporter admits he crossed personal and professional lines by making a spurious claim on his FB page after the lamest interview question ever...What? WAIT! Are you saying there is an armed IRS agent off-screen making sure he apologizes for his asking the President a question about traveling with the Secret Service???!!! Good Lord man, we have a real scandal!!!!! #rightbackatcha.

It sure doesn't sound spurious....unless you're a liberal who supports forcing those who disagree with you to make approved statements whether they're true or not.

Sorry, dude, it sounds spurious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. When you have a real link between the White House and the IRS targeting conservative groups, we can talk scandal. Let me know.

[Night Strike]

Don't worry, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... interview/

http://danaloeschradio.com/exclusive-so ... s-scandal/

And how is this proof of anything? The reporter admits he crossed personal and professional lines by making a spurious claim on his FB page after the lamest interview question ever...What? WAIT! Are you saying there is an armed IRS agent off-screen making sure he apologizes for his asking the President a question about traveling with the Secret Service???!!! Good Lord man, we have a real scandal!!!!! #rightbackatcha.

It sure doesn't sound spurious....unless you're a liberal who supports forcing those who disagree with you to make approved statements whether they're true or not.

Sorry, dude, it sounds spurious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. When you have a real link between the White House and the IRS targeting conservative groups, we can talk scandal. Let me know.

So the fact that the pressure from the IRS increased after his interview with Obama means absolutely nothing to you?

[rishaed]

Don't worry, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... interview/

http://danaloeschradio.com/exclusive-so ... s-scandal/

And how is this proof of anything? The reporter admits he crossed personal and professional lines by making a spurious claim on his FB page after the lamest interview question ever...What? WAIT! Are you saying there is an armed IRS agent off-screen making sure he apologizes for his asking the President a question about traveling with the Secret Service???!!! Good Lord man, we have a real scandal!!!!! #rightbackatcha.

It sure doesn't sound spurious....unless you're a liberal who supports forcing those who disagree with you to make approved statements whether they're true or not.

Sorry, dude, it sounds spurious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. When you have a real link between the White House and the IRS targeting conservative groups, we can talk scandal. Let me know.

So the fact that the pressure from the IRS increased after his interview with Obama means absolutely nothing to you?

I present to you sir, the party-line skeptic. Sure that whatever so called scandals and logical links, are nothing more than conspiracy theories and hogwash, when of course they are associated with his party. He further decides to hides his true self behind the man of George Orwell, who in his day wrote books on government corruption such as 1984 and Animal Farm.
That being said if it was just one source I would be skeptical myself, however it is from two independent sources, on video, and as such may be labeled as "evidence/credible sources." The accusations related to other proven accusations priorly brought thus can form a link to any such perpetrators and thus also lends credibility. Also seeing as Wikipedia does not count as a source accepted in college, but these two would be this can be considered as "credible Sources"
Joking aside, (1st Para), What would it take for you to accept a link between the White House and the IRS, a yellow brick road, a Painted Sign on Obama that says "I ordered it!", or a Wikipedia source straight from the textbook? I'm sure I can arrange 1/3 of those temporarily. In all likelyhood he has motive (Gun Bill Rejection/New Polit Party/Gov. Control) and he has the means. It makes him a prime suspect.....

[Orwell]

Don't worry, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... interview/

http://danaloeschradio.com/exclusive-so ... s-scandal/

And how is this proof of anything? The reporter admits he crossed personal and professional lines by making a spurious claim on his FB page after the lamest interview question ever...What? WAIT! Are you saying there is an armed IRS agent off-screen making sure he apologizes for his asking the President a question about traveling with the Secret Service???!!! Good Lord man, we have a real scandal!!!!! #rightbackatcha.

It sure doesn't sound spurious....unless you're a liberal who supports forcing those who disagree with you to make approved statements whether they're true or not.

Sorry, dude, it sounds spurious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. When you have a real link between the White House and the IRS targeting conservative groups, we can talk scandal. Let me know.

So the fact that the pressure from the IRS increased after his interview with Obama means absolutely nothing to you?

In a word: spurious.

Do you know the financial history of the reporter? Do you know about his tax filings? And what makes a better story? An unimpressive interview with the President or implying the IRS applied unspecified pressure on him after an unimpressive interview with the President?

Spurious at best. Questionable for sure.

[Orwell]

Ah, a true partisan.
Yes, my nick is Orwell. If you think that I choose it to tow some party line, I'd suggest you haven't read the books you cite, let aloner the many he wrote that you haven't.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, goodness.

So, the IRS was targeting non-profit groups--more so than other groups/individuals--based on the criteria: "tea party," "change america for the better," etc. (more should be disclosed in their report coming within a week).

By 'IRS', currently, the upper management is blaming the lower management/front line employees who allegedly were acting on their own accord. According to the WSJ, groups of a particular political interest (e.g. concerned about debt, deficit spending, more taxes) were audited/ filter through to a higher degree.

This is definitely discrimination, and it's definitely due to particular bureaucrats being self-interested (as they are, and as we should admit).


So, what should the punishment be? I hear that the upper-management of companies gets indicted for the actions of their lower-level management. Will the same occur with the IRS? If so, what difference would it make? (It's not like the IRS faces the threat of bankruptcy, thus a need to satisfy customer preferences and make substantial changes for the better).

[Woodruff]

And next year the IRS gets to control everybody's health care also. Welcome to the modern day Inquisition and Enemies List.

I agree with Woodruff here. It is basically meaningless rhetoric to describe the IRS looking a little bit harder at someone's tax records as an example of the "modern day Inquisition."

It's a good thing the federal government doesn't have access to all sorts of personal records thanks to our privacy laws.

Seriously guys - this is the Wall Street Journal. Nobunaga didn't pull this from some Glenn Beck website. It doesn't bother anyone in the least? Is it going to bother you when the IRS goes after moveon.org in a few years?

Did you even read what I posted?

EDIT: Changed the word "write" to "read"...duh. <sigh>

Yes. I wasn't replying to you. Settle the f*ck down.

I'm not "anyone"?

[Woodruff]

And please, who are the anti-Semites in Obama's Cabinet?

Anyone who doesn't think we should support Israel at all costs. Duh.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, goodness.

So, the IRS was targeting non-profit groups--more so than other groups/individuals--based on the criteria: "tea party," "change america for the better," etc. (more should be disclosed in their report coming within a week).

By 'IRS', currently, the upper management is blaming the lower management/front line employees who allegedly were acting on their own accord. According to the WSJ, groups of a particular political interest (e.g. concerned about debt, deficit spending, more taxes) were audited/ filter through to a higher degree.

This is definitely discrimination, and it's definitely due to particular bureaucrats being self-interested (as they are, and as we should admit).


So, what should the punishment be? I hear that the upper-management of companies gets indicted for the actions of their lower-level management. Will the same occur with the IRS? If so, what difference would it make? (It's not like the IRS faces the threat of bankruptcy, thus a need to satisfy customer preferences and make substantial changes for the better).

What I wonder is whether an IRS under a Republican administration would target the same groups. Would the party be that transparent about its fiscal spending policies that it would target those non-profits who were concerned about the debt, deficit spending, and/or more taxes? I think so.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd think so too, but I'm not sure how easy it is for the Administration to call up the head honcho of the IRS and suggest that he should investigate these particular groups much more closely because "national security," "I'm the president," "I did you that favor back then," and/or "I promise better things will come to you."

Now, that's possible. I find it amusing that one particular group ITT and out there rabidly reject the possibility that the current administration would have anything to do with this. If this happened during the Bush administration, I wouldn't be surprised to see that same group blaming Bush for it.

Oh, US democracy...

[Phatscotty]

Oh, goodness.

So, the IRS was targeting non-profit groups--more so than other groups/individuals--based on the criteria: "tea party," "change america for the better," etc. (more should be disclosed in their report coming within a week).

By 'IRS', currently, the upper management is blaming the lower management/front line employees who allegedly were acting on their own accord. According to the WSJ, groups of a particular political interest (e.g. concerned about debt, deficit spending, more taxes) were audited/ filter through to a higher degree.

This is definitely discrimination, and it's definitely due to particular bureaucrats being self-interested (as they are, and as we should admit).


So, what should the punishment be? I hear that the upper-management of companies gets indicted for the actions of their lower-level management. Will the same occur with the IRS? If so, what difference would it make? (It's not like the IRS faces the threat of bankruptcy, thus a need to satisfy customer preferences and make substantial changes for the better).

What I wonder is whether an IRS under a Republican administration would target the same groups. Would the party be that transparent about its fiscal spending policies that it would target those non-profits who were concerned about the debt, deficit spending, and/or more taxes? I think so.

Republicans have joined Democrats many times against the Tea Party, because they know we challenge their 1 party system. That's how you can tell we were co-opted.

[Phatscotty]

and Nixon didn't even go through with it, he only TRIED to. Obama administration actually DID it.

Except... Obama didn't suggest it or request it.
But why let good conspiracy get in the way of the facts, eh.

Even if Obama didn't order these specific actions, these actions have been his modus operandi at every level of government,

Your proof?
What is Obama's alleged Modus Operandi at every level of government?

so at the very least, the culture of every political group he's been involved with is to do everything possible to win. That's why he took actions such as leaking sealed divorce records to smear an opponent in Illinois and leaked other donor/tax issues in a different election. These actions are par for the course for any political operation he's been involved in, so they didn't have to be specifically spelled out from on high.

Yes, in fact, they must be for you to correlate Obama's involvement to Nixon's involvement in Watergate.

But I get it. This is about partisan revisionism, not a political reality. It is one thing to hold President Obama accountable for IRS actions during his administration - it is a wholly different matter if he ordered the IRS to target conservative groups.

We don't need proof to know all this happened on Obama's watch. We don't need proof that Obama's motive is his hatred for the Tea Party and the Constitution.

We know what you are saying. Orwell.

-Concerning the illegal and impeachable activities from the IRS, Obama didn't know.
-Concerning the Benghazi cover-up, Obama didn't know.
-Concerning the warrantless wiretapping of the AP for 2 months, Obama didn't know.

We know, Mr. Orwell. On your faith, Obama is totally clean. We know.......

[Woodruff]

Republicans have joined Democrats many times against the Tea Party, because they know we challenge their 1 party system. That's how you can tell we were co-opted.

It's always humorous when a died-in-the-wool Republican tries to claim to belong to the Tea Party. You were a co-opter, not a co-optee.

[Orwell]

We don't need proof

Right - this is the heart of it.

[Phatscotty]

We don't need proof

Right - this is the heart of it.

It happened on Obama's watch. It's like asking for proof the story broke in 2013. There is no need to ask who's watch this happened on.

It's a fact this all happened on Obama's watch

[Orwell]

We don't need proof

Right - this is the heart of it.

It happened on Obama's watch.

RIght, you don't need proof because it happened on his watch.
Brilliant. Why investigate? It's done. L̶y̶n̶c̶h̶ Impeach him. This is the moment y'all been waiting for since January 2009.

[Phatscotty]

that's what Obama wants, for the people not to investigate, not to ask too many questions. Not me. I have known Obama was rotten to the core since January 2009 and before. Now, everyone is seeing it. But it doesn't matter now, because Obama doesn't need to pretend anymore. He doesn't need to get re-elected. Now everyone is seeing the real Obama.

OR, like you have been promoting, it's all just a conspiracy....

the truth is coming out before our very eyes. Enjoy

[Orwell]

that's what Obama wants, for the people not to investigate, not to ask too many questions. Not me. I have known Obama was rotten to the core since January 2009 and before.

No, Obama wants an investigation. Just as I do. As we all should. Because the questions and the details matter.

You seem to take great pride in declaring that it doesn't matter what actually happened, that you do not need proof, that you made up your mind long ago, that somehow your unyielding bias validates pure conjecture. Well, that makes you a partisan puppet, not a patriot.

Good luck.

[thegreekdog]

I like this Orwell fellow (the poster, not this IRS organization he runs and/or owns).

[Phatscotty]

that's what Obama wants, for the people not to investigate, not to ask too many questions. Not me. I have known Obama was rotten to the core since January 2009 and before.

No, Obama wants an investigation. Just as I do. As we all should. Because the questions and the details matter.

Fair enough

Let's start with this question


btw, does that mean you are on the record as disagreeing with Hillary Clinton? Would you vote for her?

No, Obama wants an investigation. Just as I do. As we all should. Because the questions and the details matter.

Hillary: What difference does it make?

[Phatscotty]

I like this Orwell fellow (the poster, not this IRS organization he runs and/or owns).

Interesting statement there...

If it's not his constant support of the IRS that you like, it must be his blind faith basead defense of Obama? Because that's all he's been doing.

[Orwell]

I like this Orwell fellow (the poster, not this IRS organization he runs and/or owns).

Interesting statement there...

If it's not his constant support of the IRS that you like, it must be his blind faith basead defense of Obama? Because that's all he's been doing.

He is pro-Obama, pro-IRS. Right up your alley as of late

I am not defending the IRS, I am calling you on your conjecture and biased hostility towards the President.

And who the hell is pro-IRS?
I probably have much bigger reasons to dislike them that you do, Phatty. Specifically, 40k reasons - that's how much I owed the IRS after my father died in 2003. Funny to be audited when you're actively protesting the Iraq War... But you probably think I deserved it. Or you will claim it had nothing to do with my political views. Of course, I wonder if it did but I do not assume it did. That is the difference between me and you.