Orwellian USA

[Phatscotty]

Stewart, for the win

[Woodruff]

Stewart, for the win

I wonder...do you ever, in that moment of lucidity that perhaps happens every three or four months...do you ever feel like a hypcorite in those moments?

I just wonder is all.

[Night Strike]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

[Symmetry]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

That's a little misleading:

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Elevating-Exempt-Organizations-Examinations-and-Determinations-Issues

[Woodruff]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

[Night Strike]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

That's a little misleading:

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Elevating-Exempt-Organizations-Examinations-and-Determinations-Issues

Hence why I said the "primary handler". It's only when organizations have an issue, say maybe when they're being blanketedly flagged due to politics, that an appeal is heard from someone at another office.

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

Except that "local" covers the entire country. Non-profits apply through this office, not truly local offices around the country.

[Woodruff]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

That's a little misleading:

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Elevating-Exempt-Organizations-Examinations-and-Determinations-Issues

Hence why I said the "primary handler". It's only when organizations have an issue, say maybe when they're being blanketedly flagged due to politics, that an appeal is heard from someone at another office.

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

Except that "local" covers the entire country. Non-profits apply through this office, not truly local offices around the country.

That's thoroughly irrelevant to my point, you do realize...right? That doesn't change that it could have just been a local decision with no political intent at all, and certainly not an Obama scandal.

Unless you do have that evidence?

[Phatscotty]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

That's a little misleading:

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Elevating-Exempt-Organizations-Examinations-and-Determinations-Issues

Hence why I said the "primary handler". It's only when organizations have an issue, say maybe when they're being blanketedly flagged due to politics, that an appeal is heard from someone at another office.

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

Except that "local" covers the entire country. Non-profits apply through this office, not truly local offices around the country.

That's thoroughly irrelevant to my point, you do realize...right? That doesn't change that it could have just been a local decision with no political intent at all, and certainly not an Obama scandal.

Unless you do have that evidence?

Sure there is. There is 1 new piece of evidence that shows Obama's top advisers knew about the IRS targeting for weeks before the scandal broke, and another from the white house visitors log that shows a meeting with the IRS official and Obama the day before the targeting began. Plenty more evidence to come, and we haven't even started the official investigations yet. And it doesn't really matter if Obama knew or not, the Obama administration has been going wild and these are only the things they got caught doing. Keep defending him tho

Obama's entire council is gonna have to resign over this one. I suppose you guys will just call it a shake up, and say it was overdue anyways.

[Woodruff]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

That's a little misleading:

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Elevating-Exempt-Organizations-Examinations-and-Determinations-Issues

Hence why I said the "primary handler". It's only when organizations have an issue, say maybe when they're being blanketedly flagged due to politics, that an appeal is heard from someone at another office.

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

Except that "local" covers the entire country. Non-profits apply through this office, not truly local offices around the country.

That's thoroughly irrelevant to my point, you do realize...right? That doesn't change that it could have just been a local decision with no political intent at all, and certainly not an Obama scandal.

Unless you do have that evidence?

Sure there is. There is 1 new piece of evidence that shows Obama's top advisers knew about the IRS targeting for weeks before the scandal broke, and another from the white house visitors log that shows a meeting with the IRS official and Obama the day before the targeting began. Plenty more evidence to come, and we haven't even started the official investigations yet. And it doesn't really matter if Obama knew or not, the Obama administration has been going wild and these are only the things they got caught doing. Keep defending him tho

Defending him? Where do you get the moronic idea that I'm defending him? I'm certainly not. But I thought you believed in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? I guess that only applies to people you like?

God it'd be nice if you'd ever decide not to be a partisan dipshit.

[Night Strike]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

That's a little misleading:

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Elevating-Exempt-Organizations-Examinations-and-Determinations-Issues

Hence why I said the "primary handler". It's only when organizations have an issue, say maybe when they're being blanketedly flagged due to politics, that an appeal is heard from someone at another office.

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

Except that "local" covers the entire country. Non-profits apply through this office, not truly local offices around the country.

That's thoroughly irrelevant to my point, you do realize...right? That doesn't change that it could have just been a local decision with no political intent at all, and certainly not an Obama scandal.

Unless you do have that evidence?

“We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/at-cincinnati-irs-office-surprise-over-claims-of-partisan-villainy/2013/05/17/f693c60e-bd81-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_print.html

[Phatscotty]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

That's a little misleading:

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Elevating-Exempt-Organizations-Examinations-and-Determinations-Issues

Hence why I said the "primary handler". It's only when organizations have an issue, say maybe when they're being blanketedly flagged due to politics, that an appeal is heard from someone at another office.

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

Except that "local" covers the entire country. Non-profits apply through this office, not truly local offices around the country.

That's thoroughly irrelevant to my point, you do realize...right? That doesn't change that it could have just been a local decision with no political intent at all, and certainly not an Obama scandal.

Unless you do have that evidence?

Sure there is. There is 1 new piece of evidence that shows Obama's top advisers knew about the IRS targeting for weeks before the scandal broke, and another from the white house visitors log that shows a meeting with the IRS official and Obama the day before the targeting began. Plenty more evidence to come, and we haven't even started the official investigations yet. And it doesn't really matter if Obama knew or not, the Obama administration has been going wild and these are only the things they got caught doing. Keep defending him tho

Defending him? Where do you get the moronic idea that I'm defending him? I'm certainly not.

So are you interested in learning more about the topic? Or are you just going to keep reminding us that there is no proof?

Question for ya: Is it possible that people can do things and there isn't any proof? Does that mean they didn't do it?

[Woodruff]

For the record, the "it was just one small office in Cincinnati that was doing these things" isn't a valid argument. That office is the primary handler of non-profit applications and approvals from all around the country.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/How-to-Contact-the-Tax-Exempt-and-Government-Entities-Division

That's a little misleading:

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Elevating-Exempt-Organizations-Examinations-and-Determinations-Issues

Hence why I said the "primary handler". It's only when organizations have an issue, say maybe when they're being blanketedly flagged due to politics, that an appeal is heard from someone at another office.

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

Except that "local" covers the entire country. Non-profits apply through this office, not truly local offices around the country.

That's thoroughly irrelevant to my point, you do realize...right? That doesn't change that it could have just been a local decision with no political intent at all, and certainly not an Obama scandal.

Unless you do have that evidence?

“We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/at-cincinnati-irs-office-surprise-over-claims-of-partisan-villainy/2013/05/17/f693c60e-bd81-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_print.html

I feel I must point out to you that I don't think that article says what you seem to believe it says. You might try reading the whole thing instead of just one paragraph. It seems to me to support what I've been saying regarding evidence.

[Woodruff]

I still haven't seen any evidence that it was anything more than a local decision. Is there any?

Except that "local" covers the entire country. Non-profits apply through this office, not truly local offices around the country.

That's thoroughly irrelevant to my point, you do realize...right? That doesn't change that it could have just been a local decision with no political intent at all, and certainly not an Obama scandal.

Unless you do have that evidence?

Sure there is. There is 1 new piece of evidence that shows Obama's top advisers knew about the IRS targeting for weeks before the scandal broke, and another from the white house visitors log that shows a meeting with the IRS official and Obama the day before the targeting began. Plenty more evidence to come, and we haven't even started the official investigations yet. And it doesn't really matter if Obama knew or not, the Obama administration has been going wild and these are only the things they got caught doing. Keep defending him tho

Defending him? Where do you get the moronic idea that I'm defending him? I'm certainly not.

So are you interested in learning more about the topic? Or are you just going to keep reminding us that there is no proof?

So you don't believe in needing proof? You don't believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? I thought you liked the Constitution, Phatscotty?

Hell, at this point, I'd probably settle for significantly damning evidence rather than proof, but that doesn't seem to be forthcoming either.

Question for ya: Is it possible that people can do things and there isn't any proof? Does that mean they didn't do it?

Question for ya: Is it possible that if there isn't any proof, then nobody did those things?

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm not sure that you guys all know what even happened.

Lower-level employees came up with a tag system to flag files they wanted to better scrutinize. First tier-management approved their idea.

When upper-management was briefed, they told lower-level management that the system was unusable.

So lower-level employees came up with a new tagging system, which again, lower-level management approved. And again, upper-level management told them they couldn't use it.

THEN the "scandal" broke. Jack Lew said he was stepping down, because the IRS obviously needed some new leadership. Even though this crap happened before he ever took the job.... he cried some stuff about how angry he was, yadda yadda....
None of that involves Obama.



As for the jpeg

This is what a Workplace Flexibility Forum is:



Colleen Kelley is the president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Maude Baggetto is a lowly staff assistant at the whitehouse. She has a clerk's job involving the Office of Public Engagement, or more specifically, she coordinates public speaking engagements involving federal employees. Kelley and Baggetto coordinating a Flexability Forum together for IRS employees makes sense. Essentially the rabbit hole that you're going down is that if anyone working in the Executive Branch has ever been to the IRS in the last 6 years, then that's proof that there is a conspiracy against you.

You guys have nothing. Sure this is upsetting, but there is no evidence that Obama did it.

[Juan_Bottom]

Question for ya: Is it possible that people can do things and there isn't any proof? Does that mean they didn't do it?

Question for ya: Is it possible that if there isn't any proof, then nobody did those things?

AMERICA: Where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Unless they are Obama.

[Phatscotty]

Question for ya: Is it possible that people can do things and there isn't any proof? Does that mean they didn't do it?

Question for ya: Is it possible that if there isn't any proof, then nobody did those things?

AMERICA: Where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Unless they are Obama.

Typical

I knew you would jump to that conclusion. I ask him that because he has been clinging to the fact that as of today, there is no direct proof. I want him to admit or deny that it's possible somebody still did something, even if there is no direct proof.

[Night Strike]

Woodruff, do you really think an administration that can't even tell the entire truth in an apology would immediately release every single detail of what happened? It does take time for actually investigations to take place and full-proof evidence to be revealed. You're demanding immediate proof where what's really happening is trying to piece together the events and timeline.

By the way, all these issues in the administration keep getting blamed on "low-level" people. Assuming that's actually true (dismissing the fact that Obama doesn't take responsibility for the organization he leads), it just shows that the government is way too big and massive to be controlled responsibility. Assuming it's truly "low-level" people doing all these actions, the only way to keep them from happening is to cut the size of the government, thereby cutting the number of "low-level" people in the government.

[Phatscotty]

I'm not sure that you guys all know what even happened.

Lower-level employees came up with a tag system to flag files they wanted to better scrutinize. First tier-management approved their idea.

When upper-management was briefed, they told lower-level management that the system was unusable.

So lower-level employees came up with a new tagging system, which again, lower-level management approved. And again, upper-level management told them they couldn't use it.

THEN the "scandal" broke. Jack Lew said he was stepping down, because the IRS obviously needed some new leadership. Even though this crap happened before he ever took the job.... he cried some stuff about how angry he was, yadda yadda....
None of that involves Obama.



As for the jpeg

This is what a Workplace Flexibility Forum is:



Colleen Kelley is the president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Maude Baggetto is a lowly staff assistant at the whitehouse. She has a clerk's job involving the Office of Public Engagement, or more specifically, she coordinates public speaking engagements involving federal employees. Kelley and Baggetto coordinating a Flexability Forum together for IRS employees makes sense. Essentially the rabbit hole that you're going down is that if anyone working in the Executive Branch has ever been to the IRS in the last 6 years, then that's proof that there is a conspiracy against you.

You guys have nothing. Sure this is upsetting, but there is no evidence that Obama did it.

Because you have all the facts before the investigations have even started??? All you have is the story they have given you. You should be careful with this one, because it keeps changing everyday.

[Woodruff]

Question for ya: Is it possible that people can do things and there isn't any proof? Does that mean they didn't do it?

Question for ya: Is it possible that if there isn't any proof, then nobody did those things?

AMERICA: Where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Unless they are Obama.

Typical

And typical of you, you ignored my question back to you.

I knew you would jump to that conclusion. I ask him that because he has been clinging to the fact that as of today, there is no direct proof. I want him to admit or deny that it's possible somebody still did something, even if there is no direct proof.

What is to admit? Anyone with a half a brain knows it's possible. Just as anyone with half a brain knows that it is better to presume innocent without significant evidence to the contrary.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, do you really think an administration that can't even tell the entire truth in an apology would immediately release every single detail of what happened? It does take time for actually investigations to take place and full-proof evidence to be revealed. You're demanding immediate proof where what's really happening is trying to piece together the events and timeline.

What I'm DEMANDING is that the "get Obama at all costs fucktards" like yourself wait until that evidence IS revealed rather than running around with pitchforks and torches trying to rile up the masses before you have even the first clue about what the situation actually is.

By the way, all these issues in the administration keep getting blamed on "low-level" people. Assuming that's actually true (dismissing the fact that Obama doesn't take responsibility for the organization he leads), it just shows that the government is way too big and massive to be controlled responsibility. Assuming it's truly "low-level" people doing all these actions, the only way to keep them from happening is to cut the size of the government, thereby cutting the number of "low-level" people in the government.

I'm in favor of intelligent cuts (not this bullshit sequester crap). The first place to cut is the military. It's got boatloads of bloat (unless you're asking my co-teacher, who actually told me today that the Defense budge is "miniscule" (actually used that word) in comparison to entitlements). The next place is in welfare by making it smarter.

[Woodruff]

You guys have nothing. Sure this is upsetting, but there is no evidence that Obama did it.

Because you have all the facts before the investigations have even started??? All you have is the story they have given you. You should be careful with this one, because it keeps changing everyday.

Do you two stupid shits even think about what you're saying?

You're demanding that we not ask for the calls for Obama's head to stop because we don't have the facts because the investigations haven't started. Yet you're also demanding that Obama be held accountable when you don't have the facts because the investigations haven't started. Could you BE more hypocritical?

[Juan_Bottom]

Typical

I knew you would jump to that conclusion. I ask him that because he has been clinging to the fact that as of today, there is no direct proof. I want him to admit or deny that it's possible somebody still did something, even if there is no direct proof.

Anyone accused of a crime doesn't have to deny it. In fact, that can get people into even more trouble, even if they are innocent.
Obama said that he learned about this from TV.

Also, this isn't just "some story." This came from Jack Lew, Lois Lerner, and others at the IRS. You know, the people who ran this. They told their subordinates to look into the files of groups with political sounding names, to make sure they weren't overreaching their tax exempt status'. All the facts line up.

[Night Strike]

Woodruff, do you really think an administration that can't even tell the entire truth in an apology would immediately release every single detail of what happened? It does take time for actually investigations to take place and full-proof evidence to be revealed. You're demanding immediate proof where what's really happening is trying to piece together the events and timeline.

What I'm DEMANDING is that the "get Obama at all costs fucktards" like yourself wait until that evidence IS revealed rather than running around with pitchforks and torches trying to rile up the masses before you have even the first clue about what the situation actually is.

The only way to make sure they're actually investigated is to keep hounding on the issue. This media has shown a strong penchant to be complicit in taking whatever the administration says and leaving it at that. It's the job of the populace to hold the government accountable for their actions.

By the way, all these issues in the administration keep getting blamed on "low-level" people. Assuming that's actually true (dismissing the fact that Obama doesn't take responsibility for the organization he leads), it just shows that the government is way too big and massive to be controlled responsibility. Assuming it's truly "low-level" people doing all these actions, the only way to keep them from happening is to cut the size of the government, thereby cutting the number of "low-level" people in the government.

I'm in favor of intelligent cuts (not this bullshit sequester crap). The first place to cut is the military. It's got boatloads of bloat (unless you're asking my co-teacher, who actually told me today that the Defense budge is "miniscule" (actually used that word) in comparison to entitlements). The next place is in welfare by making it smarter.

Well, the percentage of governmental spending on defense has actually decreased drastically, but that is because of the massive increase in entitlement spending. That still doesn't change the fact that it all has to have cuts, which should start with the equipment buying that the military doesn't need but the politicians keep including anyway.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, do you really think an administration that can't even tell the entire truth in an apology would immediately release every single detail of what happened? It does take time for actually investigations to take place and full-proof evidence to be revealed. You're demanding immediate proof where what's really happening is trying to piece together the events and timeline.

What I'm DEMANDING is that the "get Obama at all costs fucktards" like yourself wait until that evidence IS revealed rather than running around with pitchforks and torches trying to rile up the masses before you have even the first clue about what the situation actually is.

The only way to make sure they're actually investigated is to keep hounding on the issue. This media has shown a strong penchant to be complicit in taking whatever the administration says and leaving it at that. It's the job of the populace to hold the government accountable for their actions.

1. I agree that the media can't be expected to hold the administration to the fire.
2. I am 100% certain that your making these statements on the Conquer Club website will have zero impact on whether it is investigated or not.

By the way, all these issues in the administration keep getting blamed on "low-level" people. Assuming that's actually true (dismissing the fact that Obama doesn't take responsibility for the organization he leads), it just shows that the government is way too big and massive to be controlled responsibility. Assuming it's truly "low-level" people doing all these actions, the only way to keep them from happening is to cut the size of the government, thereby cutting the number of "low-level" people in the government.

I'm in favor of intelligent cuts (not this bullshit sequester crap). The first place to cut is the military. It's got boatloads of bloat (unless you're asking my co-teacher, who actually told me today that the Defense budge is "miniscule" (actually used that word) in comparison to entitlements). The next place is in welfare by making it smarter.

Well, the percentage of governmental spending on defense has actually decreased drastically, but that is because of the massive increase in entitlement spending. That still doesn't change the fact that it all has to have cuts, which should start with the equipment buying that the military doesn't need but the politicians keep including anyway.

Yeah, that stuff is getting ridiculous, I agree.

[Night Strike]

Typical

I knew you would jump to that conclusion. I ask him that because he has been clinging to the fact that as of today, there is no direct proof. I want him to admit or deny that it's possible somebody still did something, even if there is no direct proof.

Anyone accused of a crime doesn't have to deny it. In fact, that can get people into even more trouble, even if they are innocent.
Obama said that he learned about this from TV.

Also, this isn't just "some story." This came from Jack Lew, Lois Lerner, and others at the IRS. You know, the people who ran this. They told their subordinates to look into the files of groups with political sounding names, to make sure they weren't overreaching their tax exempt status'. All the facts line up.

Why did the "looking into" only apply to conservative groups? Why did a group led by an Obama family member that had already broken the law get fast-tracked, retroactive approval while these other groups were being blanketedly delayed? Also, why was the IRS asking questions that were completely impossible to comply with such as reporting every speech ever made to the group, every Facebook wall post made by any member on the group page, and of course donor lists?

By the way, why did Obama learn about this on TV? As Seth Myers stated on SNL this weekend, why is this government so incompetent that the only way they learn information is from the same TV that the rest of us learn from? Are his advisers too incompetent to advise?