IRS Announces New Reforms In Wake of Scandal

[BobM]

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced it will enact a series of reforms in its attempts to stem the controversy that it targeted anti-tax conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

The agency has come under fire after a Treasury Department report found that IRS personnel singled out small Tea Party-aligned conservative groups, as well as a few Democratic-leaning groups, for extra scrutiny when reviewing their applications for tax exemption, delaying their approval for several months.

The groups in question had applied for 501(c)(4) status, which applies to nonprofits promoting "social welfare" through issue advocacy.In response to the scandal, which saw the dismissal of its acting administrator, the IRS has laid out its proposed reforms in an 11,758-page document.

The IRS said in a statement that the new rules will “enable the IRS continue its long and proud tradition of eliciting confusion, fear, hatred and irritation from every American, regardless of his or her political affiliation.”

The most important reforms in the complex document are summarized as follows:

* All organizations that apply for nonprofit 501(c)(4) status will be approved in 3 months or less, regardless if IRS agents have reviewed them or not.

* All organizations that apply for nonprofit 501(c)(4) status shall be treated with an equal lack of investigation and oversight, regardless of the organization’s political affiliation, number of tax attorneys or financial backing.

* To deal with understaffing in the IRS's nonprofit division, reviews of all tax-exempt organizations will be contracted to nonpartisan independent auditors, approved by a Koch Brother or a Koch Brothers-affiliated organization.

* To remove any confusion of what constitutes “social welfare” activities, political campaigns and major political parties will now be viewed as “welfare recipients.”

* In a show of bipartisanship, the next Republican president can skip paying taxes for the first two years of his or her presidency.

The IRS said the new reforms will go into effect by April 15 next year, although political and nonprofit organizations that need additional help understanding the new reforms can apply for a legal extension.

President Barack Obama hailed the reforms as “a necessary and crucial step in restoring the microgram of respect and admiration that the agency commands from the American people.”

“We thank the IRS for its careful diligence in responding to this issue,” Obama said in a statement. “These reforms will enable this country to move forward and continue working for the future, and it will free up time for my administration to handle the two other scandals on our plate.”

However, Republican leaders dismissed the IRS’s new reforms and indicated they will continue to investigate the scandal.

“This is yet another partisan move by the most partisan president in the history of our country to cover up his many failures,” House Speaker John Boehner said. “President Obama is causing us to delay our most important work, such as trying to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time.”

http://tinyurl.com/aropdsx

[Frank Ketchum]

"BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
>

I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big deal
that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

NOBODY believes an agency can fix itself. The IRS needs to clean house starting at the TOP. WE need to fire most of IRS management, MOST of whom revealed their true allegiance by donating to the Obama Campaign. They are partisan and they either used their power to harass conservatives, or they watched silently while others did that. Either way, GONE! There are thousands of unemployed accountants who would eagerly take those jobs (for far lower pay!)

Larry

[MNMikeW]

Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.

[MNMikeW]

Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Be serious. There is nothing at all that indicates that anyone in
congress had anything to do with this. Suggesting that Obama "had"
someone do it is ludicrous.

Statements like this really show a lack of thinking Mike. You know
better but you just want to blame the administration for something.

The IRS has been screwing people around for years, this is just a
worst case scenario. Did you watch the House hearings today? The IRS
really needs some oversight.

[MNMikeW]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-targets-conservative-groups/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-stalled-conservative-groups-but-gave-speedy-approval-to-obama-foundation/2013/05/16/90c53e8a-be57-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/lerners-admission-was-pre-planned-public-disclosure/

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You have to be kidding? Everyone knows that the IRS agents pulled
some really bad shit and targeted groups, but none of the above shows
anything to back your last stupid sentence.

Either show where Obama "had" the Democrats in congress do anything to
help or admit that you were wrong.

[MNMikeW]

bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:56:43 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big deal
>>>>> that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
>>>
>>> As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.
>>>
>> Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.
>
> Be serious. There is nothing at all that indicates that anyone in
> congress had anything to do with this. Suggesting that Obama "had"
> someone do it is ludicrous.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brian-walsh/2013/05/14/senate-democrats-pushed-for-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it

>
> Statements like this really show a lack of thinking Mike. You know
> better but you just want to blame the administration for something.

Statements like this show blindness and denial.

>
> The IRS has been screwing people around for years, this is just a
> worst case scenario. Did you watch the House hearings today? The IRS
> really needs some oversight.
>

They have been screwing around CONSERVATIVE people for years. That we
know as fact. The hearings today were just the start.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:00:31 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:56:43 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big deal
>>>>>> that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
>>>>
>>>> As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.
>>>>
>>> Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.
>>
>> Be serious. There is nothing at all that indicates that anyone in
>> congress had anything to do with this. Suggesting that Obama "had"
>> someone do it is ludicrous.
>
>http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brian-walsh/2013/05/14/senate-democrats-pushed-for-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it
>>
>> Statements like this really show a lack of thinking Mike. You know
>> better but you just want to blame the administration for something.
>
>Statements like this show blindness and denial.

Bullshit. You're ducking the issue again. Back up that ridiculous
statement about the Democrats in Congress and Obama. You can't,
It was just another one-liner that wasn't thought out.

>>
>> The IRS has been screwing people around for years, this is just a
>> worst case scenario. Did you watch the House hearings today? The IRS
>> really needs some oversight.
>>
>They have been screwing around CONSERVATIVE people for years. That we
>know as fact. The hearings today were just the start.

We know that they did that in the last several years, but you don't
know if it was being done against liberals in previous years do you?

The hearings today were very good. They pointed out that our tax laws
are full of holes and that agents can do almost whatever they want.
We've known that for years and it's time it changes.

The one thing that was silly was for any of the representatives to
think that Duane ex-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury
Inspector General Russell George could possibly testify about specific
instances that they would have no knowledge of. That was just
partisan jabbing.
>

[MNMikeW]

Seems Treasury knew in 2012. Ever wonder why Obama knows of NOTHING that
goes on in his administration??

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=2&

[MNMikeW]

bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:00:31 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:56:43 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big deal
>>>>>>> that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.
>>>
>>> Be serious. There is nothing at all that indicates that anyone in
>>> congress had anything to do with this. Suggesting that Obama "had"
>>> someone do it is ludicrous.
>>
>> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brian-walsh/2013/05/14/senate-democrats-pushed-for-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it
>>>
>>> Statements like this really show a lack of thinking Mike. You know
>>> better but you just want to blame the administration for something.
>>
>> Statements like this show blindness and denial.
>
> Bullshit. You're ducking the issue again. Back up that ridiculous
> statement about the Democrats in Congress and Obama. You can't,
> It was just another one-liner that wasn't thought out.

You didnt read the above I take it. Not surprising actually.

>>>
>>> The IRS has been screwing people around for years, this is just a
>>> worst case scenario. Did you watch the House hearings today? The IRS
>>> really needs some oversight.
>>>
>> They have been screwing around CONSERVATIVE people for years. That we
>> know as fact. The hearings today were just the start.
>
> We know that they did that in the last several years, but you don't
> know if it was being done against liberals in previous years do you?

At this time, it does not appear to have been an issue for liberal
groups as the graph in one my my links shows.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

I read it, but I'll bet that you didn't go into the details and read
the letter that was written to the IRS by the senators. Not surprising
actually.

There were no specifics in it, it only suggested that there were
political groups that were asking for 501c deductions that should be
vetted.

Anything else was supposition and only hinted at wrongdoing.

Still...Obama had anything done?

[Moderate]

bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:

Like your insistence that it was only a couple underlines. You
don't think at all.
--

[bkn...@conramp.net]

I suppose you meant underlings you half-wit. That was all reported
until the last few days. But I guess you knew everything before it
was reported.

Go out and kill some dogs lowlife.

[Carbon]

The two situations would even be similar if the targeting was being
directed by the Obama administration.

[Moderate]

An adult would apologize for all the personal insults you hurled
at people who suggested it was more than a few underlings, but an
adult would not have hurled all those insults.
--

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 20:16:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

<no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:

>bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:53:53 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Like your insistence that it was only a couple underlines. You
>>> don't think at all.
>>
>> I suppose you meant underlings you half-wit. That was all reported
>> until the last few days. But I guess you knew everything before it
>> was reported.
>>
>> Go out and kill some dogs lowlife.
>>
>
>An adult would apologize for all the personal insults you hurled

> apeople who suggested it was more than a few underlings, but an
> adult wout ld not have hurled all those insults.

You have the brains of an imbecile and no morals, so nothing you have
to say about anything is of any importance.

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

Schumer and other Senators wrote VOCIFEROUS letters to IRS INSISTING that this government agency use the power of audit and refusal to approve tax exempt status to harass conservative groups. AND IRS DID THAT!

Those letters need to be made public, especially in those Senators' states and their constituents should decide whether they want to return that scumbag to congress.

And IRS agents who had anything to do with this should be fired--and prosecuted if they lied to congress.

Larry

[Don A Roof]

Mod to Lord Knight:

"Like your insistence that it was only a couple underlines. You don't
think at all."

Lord Knight to Mod:

"I suppose you meant underlings you half-wit. That was all reported
until the last few days. But I guess you knew everything before it was
reported.
Go out and kill some dogs lowlife."

__________________

LOL! Anybody with half a brain would know what Mod meant!



Oops! My bad. That's Knight's line when HE fucks up.

Ain't fair to throw the Lord's own bullshit back at him, now is it?

That's a typical classy response from the self-appointed owner of the
ng. When Knight's fuck ups are called to his attention he attacks the
attacker as being too dumb to know what the Lord meant <chuckle!>......

What an arrogant asshole!

Knight was WRONG but it's Mod who's a half-wit for calling Knight on
his bullshit claims...

Go figure...

[Alan Baker]

In article <007b84b9-4d9b-45ff...@googlegroups.com>,

So the letters haven't been made public...

...but you know that they exist and what's in them...

Interesting.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[BAR]

In article <3c3dp81qp4ku9dtag...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

If it was going on during the Bush administration then the Democrats would be yelling and
screaming about it happening to them too. So far, there has been nary a a peep out of the

> The hearings today were very good. They pointed out that our tax laws
> are full of holes and that agents can do almost whatever they want.
> We've known that for years and it's time it changes.

What was pointed out was that the former acting commissioner of the IRS doesn't see anything
wrong with the IRS illegally harassing citizens. We also found out that Ingram was running
the Cincinnati office and have moved on to the Obamacare office in the IRS. This woman,
Ingram needs to go to jail.

> The one thing that was silly was for any of the representatives to
> think that Duane ex-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury
> Inspector General Russell George could possibly testify about specific
> instances that they would have no knowledge of. That was just
> partisan jabbing.

You do realize that getting them on record about having no knowledge is extremely important
to future prosecutions. The perjury trap is a wonderful thing, just ask Fitzgerald and Libby.

[BAR]

In article <h55dp8pdk5mkqmf59...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

You don't have the ability to read between the lines, which isn't surprisiing.

> Anything else was supposition and only hinted at wrongdoing.

The effects of the Senators requesting action is now known.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

>screaming about it happening to them too. So far, there has been nary a a peep out of them

Oh bullshit Bert. The old "IF" crap gets old, especially when it's
not true. This has been screamed about from both sides, and if you
don't know that then you really are out of touch. It's a debacle and
has to be cleared up.

>
>> The hearings today were very good. They pointed out that our tax laws
>> are full of holes and that agents can do almost whatever they want.
>> We've known that for years and it's time it changes.
>
>What was pointed out was that the former acting commissioner of the IRS doesn't see anything
>wrong with the IRS illegally harassing citizens.

Obviously you didn't watch them. I did, and of course you're wrong as
usual.

>also found out that Ingram was running the Cincinnati office and have moved on to the Obamacare office in the IRS. This woman,
>Ingram needs to go to jail.

You go to jail if you've done something illegal idiot. So far there
has been nothing illegal even suggested, except by Boehner who just
threw out a nothing statement.

>
>> The one thing that was silly was for any of the representatives to
>> think that Duane ex-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury
>> Inspector General Russell George could possibly testify about specific
>> instances that they would have no knowledge of. That was just
>> partisan jabbing.
>
>You do realize that getting them on record about having no knowledge is extremely important
>to future prosecutions. The perjury trap is a wonderful thing, just ask Fitzgerald and Libby.

They weren't about to discuss individual and specific instances to
which they weren't privy. Only a fool would.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You have the ability to make something out of nothing at times, which
isn't surprising. "Reading between the lines" in your case is
generally making up crap to be what you want it to be.

[Moderate]

bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:18:46 -0400,
>

> Oh bullshit Bert. The old "IF" crap gets old, especially when it's
> not true. This has been screamed about from both sides, and if you
> don't know that then you really are out of touch. It's a debacle and
> has to be cleared up.

Not from you. You just make excuses.


--

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Fuck you lowlife.

[BAR]

In article <svbfp81nopq3eqd99...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

It is easy to tell when I've hit a nerve with you. You end up lashing out.

[BAR]

In article <jrbfp85551ulbsd9n...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

Who, specifically, has been screaming about this from the left side of the political
spectrum?

> >
> >> The hearings today were very good. They pointed out that our tax laws
> >> are full of holes and that agents can do almost whatever they want.
> >> We've known that for years and it's time it changes.
> >
> >What was pointed out was that the former acting commissioner of the IRS doesn't see anything
> >wrong with the IRS illegally harassing citizens.
> Obviously you didn't watch them. I did, and of course you're wrong as
> usual.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-commissioner-activity-absolutely-not-illegal_
724747.html

> >also found out that Ingram was running the Cincinnati office and have moved on to the Obamacare office in the IRS. This woman,
> >Ingram needs to go to jail.
>
> You go to jail if you've done something illegal idiot. So far there
> has been nothing illegal even suggested, except by Boehner who just
> threw out a nothing statement.

I must have missed the indictments, trials, judgments and sentencing?

> >
> >> The one thing that was silly was for any of the representatives to
> >> think that Duane ex-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury
> >> Inspector General Russell George could possibly testify about specific
> >> instances that they would have no knowledge of. That was just
> >> partisan jabbing.
> >
> >You do realize that getting them on record about having no knowledge is extremely important
> >to future prosecutions. The perjury trap is a wonderful thing, just ask Fitzgerald and Libby.
>
> They weren't about to discuss individual and specific instances to
> which they weren't privy. Only a fool would.

We will see.

[BAR]

In article <v9jfp8d4895388ba3...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

You really should see someone about your anti-social behavior.

[William Clark]

In article <if2dp8t7a0799neuq...@4ax.com>,

The fact is that the 501c entities were created to allow tax relief for
charities. The wingnuts found a way to exploit the 501c rules to exempt
organizations whose purpose was not charitable, but undeniably
political. As such, I would expect any outfit applying for 501c status,
and that is clearly identifiable as a political group, to be subject to
more careful scrutiny than one that is obviously a charity. The hot air
generated by the GoP over this principle is as absurd as it is
predictable, and using the idiotic over-reaching of some IRS agents to
define that principle is equally ridiculous.

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

"Nothing illegal" Yeah, right. Unless you conveniently forget that lying to Congress and Obstruction of Justice is nothing. I think it is a federal felony and can result in 5 years in prison. (no parole).

Larry

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

The Supreme Court extended this privilege to other organizations in order to "level the playing field" with unions-- which have enjoyed tax exempt status AND the ability to COERCE money from their members. So the libs went wild and Congress started writing DEMAND letters to the IRS-- to force them to target Conservatives newly able to form tax exempt organizations. They did that-- and it probably changed the results of the 2012 election. But it may result in the dissolution of the IRS! Thanks a lot!

Larry

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You're showing your lack of following this Bert. This has definitely
not been a partisan complaint. Hell, even Obama has railed about it.
Try to keep up.

>> >
>> >> The hearings today were very good. They pointed out that our tax laws
>> >> are full of holes and that agents can do almost whatever they want.
>> >> We've known that for years and it's time it changes.
>> >
>> >What was pointed out was that the former acting commissioner of the IRS doesn't see anything
>> >wrong with the IRS illegally harassing citizens.
>> Obviously you didn't watch them. I did, and of course you're wrong as
>> usual.
>
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-commissioner-activity-absolutely-not-illegal_
>724747.html
>
>> >also found out that Ingram was running the Cincinnati office and have moved on to the Obamacare office in the IRS. This woman,
>> >Ingram needs to go to jail.
>>
>> You go to jail if you've done something illegal idiot. So far there
>> has been nothing illegal even suggested, except by Boehner who just
>> threw out a nothing statement.
>
>I must have missed the indictments, trials, judgments and sentencing?

That may be the most idiotic response you've ever posted.
Try reading the two sentences above your stupid question and see if
you can see why? It's doubtful, but try. Here's a hint; So far
there has been nothing illegal even suggested, so your question shows
just how foolish you actually are.

>> >> The one thing that was silly was for any of the representatives to
>> >> think that Duane ex-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury
>> >> Inspector General Russell George could possibly testify about specific
>> >> instances that they would have no knowledge of. That was just
>> >> partisan jabbing.
>> >
>> >You do realize that getting them on record about having no knowledge is extremely important
>> >to future prosecutions. The perjury trap is a wonderful thing, just ask Fitzgerald and Libby.
>>
>> They weren't about to discuss individual and specific instances to
>> which they weren't privy. Only a fool would.
>
>We will see.

We have already seen you moron. They didn't discuss them.

Thanks for another laugh session. You never fail to deliver them.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You should mind your own business.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

LOL. What a wimp. You call that lashing out? I simply pointed to
one of your many peccadilloes; not having sense enough to realize when
you have nothing to say and just blurting out nonsense.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Well, I disagree to a point. These were egregious acts that were
overdone and should never have happened. They have to be attended to
and stopped from ever happening again.

I agree that it's being used by some only to further their political
interests in the next election.

[William Clark]

In article <4orfp8ptng72820p7...@4ax.com>,

Actually a broader concern I have is with Holder and the DoJ itself. On
the one hand he is launching inquiries into this (comparatively) trivial
stuff, but the Wall Street bankers, who clearly lied to the public to
get them to take on high risk debt, caused thousands upon thousands of
people to lose their pensions and have their houses foreclosed on them,
and drove the entire economy to the brink of total melt down, are
apparently to go scot free. Not one of them has been prosecuted, and
they continue to take home multi-million dollar bonuses.

That, to me, is a far more serious indictment of Holder than this IRS
nonsense.

[Moderate]

William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> Wrote in message:

>
> The fact is that the 501c entities were created to allow tax relief for
> charities. The wingnuts found a way to exploit the 501c rules to exempt
> organizations whose purpose was not charitable, but undeniably
> political. As such, I would expect any outfit applying for 501c status,
> and that is clearly identifiable as a political group, to be subject to
> more careful scrutiny than one that is obviously a charity. The hot air
> generated by the GoP over this principle is as absurd as it is
> predictable, and using the idiotic over-reaching of some IRS agents to
> define that principle is equally ridiculous.
>

So please explain why only conservative 501c groups were targeted.
Stupid welsher. Stick with dentures.
--

[Don Kirkman]

The local office(s) doing this on their own (possibly), their
supervisors and managers allowing or condoning it, and the failure to
tell the truth about it are all black marks for the IRS, but AFAWK
there were no criminal acts. The law doesn't cover all immoral or
unethical behavior. Using the situation hoping for political
advantage falls under the same umbrella. If laws were broken the
courts have a job to do.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:57:16 -0700, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net>

The IRS has been beating U.S. Citizens over the head by bullying for
years. It's time that they get their comeuppance. I don't see any
criminal acts, just targeted bullying.

[Don Kirkman]

That's a reasonable point of view. :-)
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[William Clark]

In article <bf1gp8t1ne82tu9am...@4ax.com>,

Indeed, but there is a certain irony in calling the IRS's actions
"immoral and unethical" (not that I disagree) given that it is the
manipulators of the 501c4 regulations themselves who are setting new
standards for "immoral and unethical" behavior :-)

[William Clark]

In article <kn8vft$7d0$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Which other 501c4 groups had you in mind, dogfighter?

[Moderate]

William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> Wrote in message:
>
>

> Indeed, but there is a certain irony in calling the IRS's actions
> "immoral and unethical" (not that I disagree) given that it is the
> manipulators of the 501c4 regulations themselves who are setting new
> standards for "immoral and unethical" behavior :-)
>

You are a fraud. Pay up welsher. You define unethical.
--

[Moderate]

MoveOn.org welsher.
--

[William Clark]

In article <knb8jk$h9e$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Oh, wow - there's one. Is that the best you can do? Better stick to dog
fighting.

[William Clark]

In article <knb7v1$f3i$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

And you give fresh definition to the word "moron". Want to play more
name calling?

[BAR]

In article <avnhil...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...

>
> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:42:30 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> MNMikeW wrote:
> >>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >>>>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no
> >>>>>> big deal
> >>>>>> that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
> >>>>
> >>>> As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.
> >>>>
> >>> Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-targets-conservative-groups/
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-stalled-conservative-groups-but-gave-speedy-approval-to-obama-foundation/2013/05/16/90c53e8a-be57-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html
> >>
> >> http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/lerners-admission-was-pre-planned-public-disclosure/
> >
> >
> > You have to be kidding? Everyone knows that the IRS agents pulled
> > some really bad shit and targeted groups, but none of the above shows
> > anything to back your last stupid sentence.
> >
> > Either show where Obama "had" the Democrats in congress do anything to
> > help or admit that you were wrong.
> >

> Seems Treasury knew in 2012. Ever wonder why Obama knows of NOTHING that
> goes on in his administration??
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=2&

If treasurey knew then the Obama should have known, or is Geithner a lousy manager just like
Obama is an lousy manager?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Treasurey (sic) thought it was being handled and didn't pass it on.
But then that's been reported and you, as usual, didn't see that
because it's hard to read with your head up your ass.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:32:47 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
crap:

>If treasurey knew then the Obama should have
> known, or is Geithner a lousy manager just like
>Obama is an lousy manager?

obama has been known to smoke crack. What's Geithner's excuse?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

[John B.]

Yes, of course, everything that's known to the Treasury should be known to
the president. That's also true of the Defense Department, the Interior
Department, HUD, the Small Business Administration and the EEOC. It's
inexcusable for the president not to know everything that's known to
everyone in every federal agency.

I remember when Reagan was president, the HUD secretary came to a cabinet
meeting and Reagan didn't know who he was.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:38:04 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>
>I remember when Reagan was president, the
> HUD secretary came to a cabinet
>meeting and Reagan didn't know who he was.

Nobody knows who the HUD secretary is.

[Moderate]

bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:

>
>
> Treasurey (sic) thought it was being handled and didn't pass it on.
> But then that's been reported and you, as usual, didn't see that
> because it's hard to read with your head up your ass.
>

Stick with the underling theory. That really worked for you. Obama
said he found out about it watching TV? Only an idiot like you
would go all in on that explanation.
--

[Moderate]

William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> Wrote in message:
> In article <knb7v1$f3i$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Moderate <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>
>> William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> Wrote in message:
>> >
>> >
>> > Indeed, but there is a certain irony in calling the IRS's actions
>> > "immoral and unethical" (not that I disagree) given that it is the
>> > manipulators of the 501c4 regulations themselves who are setting new
>> > standards for "immoral and unethical" behavior :-)
>> >
>>
>> You are a fraud. Pay up welsher. You define unethical.
>> --
>
> And you give fresh definition to the word "moron". Want to play more
> name calling?
>

No, I want my money.
--

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Arf

[Moderate]

bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:

Case in point.
--

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 19:38:30 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

<no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:

>bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:25:39 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Treasurey (sic) thought it was being handled and didn't pass it on.
>>>> But then that's been reported and you, as usual, didn't see that
>>>> because it's hard to read with your head up your ass.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Stick with the underling theory. That really worked for you. Obama
>>> said he found out about it watching TV? Only an idiot like you
>>> would go all in on that explanation.
>>
>> Arf
>>
>
>Case in point.

But you got the import.

When are you going to realize that you, and what you think, are like
crap on the bottom of a shoe to me? The lowest things possible.

[BAR]

In article <jk1dp8ptqrv5t6pla...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:56:43 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big deal
> >>>> that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
> >>
> >> As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.
> >>
> >Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.
>

> Be serious. There is nothing at all that indicates that anyone in
> congress had anything to do with this. Suggesting that Obama "had"
> someone do it is ludicrous.
>

> Statements like this really show a lack of thinking Mike. You know
> better but you just want to blame the administration for something.
>

> The IRS has been screwing people around for years, this is just a
> worst case scenario. Did you watch the House hearings today? The IRS
> really needs some oversight.

Did you listen to Bob Schieffer's interview with the male version of Susan Rice, Dan
Pfeiffer, on the Sunday talking head show?


BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I don?t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not
think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have
to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said,
?These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to
the people's business.? You?re taking exactly the same line they did.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/19/schieffer-obama-advisor-why-
are-you-here-why-isn-t-white-house-chief#ixzz2Tpg9qYFd

SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is
in charge of the executive branch of the government. It?s my, I'll just make this as an
assertion: when the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any
hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama bin Laden was killed, the
President didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/19/schieffer-obama-advisor-why-
are-you-here-why-isn-t-white-house-chief#ixzz2TpgIRYbH


But what I'm saying to you is that was just PR. That was just a PR plan to send out somebody
who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the
Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if he knew nothing say, ?We don't know
yet?? Why didn't the White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this as
no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here
to tell us what happened?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/19/schieffer-obama-advisor-why-
are-you-here-why-isn-t-white-house-chief#ixzz2TpgUGQgM

[BAR]

In article <oscdp85tr42q1fr9d...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:53:53 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>
> >bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:

> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:56:43 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >>>>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big deal
> >>>>>> that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
> >>>>
> >>>> As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.
> >>>>
> >>>Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.
> >>
> >> Be serious. There is nothing at all that indicates that anyone in
> >> congress had anything to do with this. Suggesting that Obama "had"
> >> someone do it is ludicrous.
> >>
> >> Statements like this really show a lack of thinking Mike. You know
> >> better but you just want to blame the administration for something.
> >>
> >> The IRS has been screwing people around for years, this is just a
> >> worst case scenario. Did you watch the House hearings today? The IRS
> >> really needs some oversight.
> >>
> >

> >Like your insistence that it was only a couple underlines. You
> > don't think at all.
>
> I suppose you meant underlings you half-wit. That was all reported
> until the last few days. But I guess you knew everything before it
> was reported.
>
> Go out and kill some dogs lowlife.

The amazing thing is that you believed what the Obama administration told you to believe.
Trust but verify. Your problem is that you stop at trust and you never do the verification
when it is the left pushing out the information.

[BAR]

In article <2jmdp8hq7v7bc0bnc...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 20:16:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>
> >bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:53:53 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
> >> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Like your insistence that it was only a couple underlines. You
> >>> don't think at all.
> >>
> >> I suppose you meant underlings you half-wit. That was all reported
> >> until the last few days. But I guess you knew everything before it
> >> was reported.
> >>
> >> Go out and kill some dogs lowlife.
> >>
> >

> >An adult would apologize for all the personal insults you hurled
> > apeople who suggested it was more than a few underlings, but an
> > adult wout ld not have hurled all those insults.
>
> You have the brains of an imbecile and no morals, so nothing you have
> to say about anything is of any importance.

Yes, he, Moderate, and most of the right leaning people who in habit this little hell hole
got it right and all of you lefties had tho throw-up or shit out the crap that was fed to you
by the Obama administration. I suppose that you believe that firing the acting head of the
IRS 45 days before his acting head of the IRS gig is over is a bold and decisive move.

[BAR]

In article <pan.2013.05...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
says...

>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> > Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big
> >> deal that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
> >
> > Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
>

> The two situations would even be similar if the targeting was being
> directed by the Obama administration.

You have no proof it wasn't being directed by the Obama administration.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/anonymous-cincinnati-irs-official-everything-comes-from-the-
top./article/2530001

[BAR]

In article <doqfp8lncevop03j2...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:12:32 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <jrbfp85551ulbsd9n...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:18:46 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3c3dp81qp4ku9dtag...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:00:31 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:56:43 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:

> >> >> >>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big deal
> >> >> >>>>>> that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
> >> >> >>>>

> >> >> >>>> As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>> Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Be serious. There is nothing at all that indicates that anyone in
> >> >> >> congress had anything to do with this. Suggesting that Obama "had"
> >> >> >> someone do it is ludicrous.
> >> >> >

> >> >> >http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brian-walsh/2013/05/14/senate-democrats-pushed-for-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it

> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Statements like this really show a lack of thinking Mike. You know
> >> >> >> better but you just want to blame the administration for something.
> >> >> >

> >> >> >Statements like this show blindness and denial.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bullshit. You're ducking the issue again. Back up that ridiculous
> >> >> statement about the Democrats in Congress and Obama. You can't,
> >> >> It was just another one-liner that wasn't thought out.

> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The IRS has been screwing people around for years, this is just a
> >> >> >> worst case scenario. Did you watch the House hearings today? The IRS
> >> >> >> really needs some oversight.
> >> >> >>

> >> >> >They have been screwing around CONSERVATIVE people for years. That we
> >> >> >know as fact. The hearings today were just the start.
> >> >>
> >> >> We know that they did that in the last several years, but you don't
> >> >> know if it was being done against liberals in previous years do you?
> >> >
> >> >If it was going on during the Bush administration then the Democrats would be yelling and
> >> >screaming about it happening to them too. So far, there has been nary a a peep out of them
> >>
> >> Oh bullshit Bert. The old "IF" crap gets old, especially when it's
> >> not true. This has been screamed about from both sides, and if you
> >> don't know that then you really are out of touch. It's a debacle and
> >> has to be cleared up.
> >
> >Who, specifically, has been screaming about this from the left side of the political
> >spectrum?
> >
> You're showing your lack of following this Bert. This has definitely
> not been a partisan complaint. Hell, even Obama has railed about it.
> Try to keep up.

Do you mean Obama's curt and decisive actions on Friday afternoon where he expressed his
displeasure with the IRS harassaing tax payers and his bold and decisive move to fire the
acting head of the IRS when the acting head of the IRS's appointment is over in 45 days?

Has Obama failed against the DOJ for its unconstitutional search and seizure of AP's records?

> >> >
> >> >> The hearings today were very good. They pointed out that our tax laws
> >> >> are full of holes and that agents can do almost whatever they want.
> >> >> We've known that for years and it's time it changes.
> >> >
> >> >What was pointed out was that the former acting commissioner of the IRS doesn't see anything
> >> >wrong with the IRS illegally harassing citizens.
> >> Obviously you didn't watch them. I did, and of course you're wrong as
> >> usual.
> >
> >http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-commissioner-activity-absolutely-not-illegal_
> >724747.html
> >
> >> >also found out that Ingram was running the Cincinnati office and have moved on to the Obamacare office in the IRS. This woman,
> >> >Ingram needs to go to jail.
> >>
> >> You go to jail if you've done something illegal idiot. So far there
> >> has been nothing illegal even suggested, except by Boehner who just
> >> threw out a nothing statement.
> >
> >I must have missed the indictments, trials, judgments and sentencing?
>
> That may be the most idiotic response you've ever posted.
> Try reading the two sentences above your stupid question and see if
> you can see why? It's doubtful, but try. Here's a hint; So far
> there has been nothing illegal even suggested, so your question shows
> just how foolish you actually are.

No, you don't go to jail if you have done something illegal, idiot. You go to jail if you are
arrested, indicted, tried in a court of law, judged by a judge or jury as guilty and then you
are sentenced. We still have a legal system that is supposed to protect the individuals
rights.

>
> >> >> The one thing that was silly was for any of the representatives to
> >> >> think that Duane ex-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury
> >> >> Inspector General Russell George could possibly testify about specific
> >> >> instances that they would have no knowledge of. That was just
> >> >> partisan jabbing.
> >> >
> >> >You do realize that getting them on record about having no knowledge is extremely important
> >> >to future prosecutions. The perjury trap is a wonderful thing, just ask Fitzgerald and Libby.
> >>
> >> They weren't about to discuss individual and specific instances to
> >> which they weren't privy. Only a fool would.
> >
> >We will see.
>
> We have already seen you moron. They didn't discuss them.
>
> Thanks for another laugh session. You never fail to deliver them.

Why do you work so hard to white wash the Obama administrations illegal activities?

[BAR]

In article <3arfp81rvb3sshubj...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:13:32 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <v9jfp8d4895388ba3...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:22:07 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

> >> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:

> >> >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:18:46 -0400,
> >> >>

> >> >> Oh bullshit Bert. The old "IF" crap gets old, especially when it's
> >> >> not true. This has been screamed about from both sides, and if you
> >> >> don't know that then you really are out of touch. It's a debacle and
> >> >> has to be cleared up.
> >> >

> >> >Not from you. You just make excuses.
> >>
> >> Fuck you lowlife.
> >
> >You really should see someone about your anti-social behavior.
>
> You should mind your own business.

I am just trying to help you live a longer life so that I may torment you more.

[BAR]

In article <tfhip81iag3gmnhkq...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

Timmy "Tax Cheat" Geithner failed again. Why is he still in office?

I'll tell you why, Obama will not fire any of his secretaries, of cabinents, or his top
advisers due to the fact that it would be viewed as a mistake to have hired them or that his
juegement was flawed because he brought in incompetent people. Obama will not apologize for
anything becasue it will make him look stupid and incompetent. We have seen the Obama
playbook used many times in the past and it has always lead to death and destruction.

[BAR]

In article <q5sip8teeo1kio2ki...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

With know that truth and fairness are foreign concepts to you.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

The amazing thing is that you take for granted that there are
conspiracies going on at every turn. That isn't always the case. So
you're doing the verification in the IRS probe? LOL. Use your head
and just wait to see what those who have that ability will find. In
the meantime take and English lesson or two.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

LOL. It's always refreshing when you post something this idiotic.
Otherwise you might be taken seriously.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

There's also no proof that it was. Did you understand that this
quote, even if true, was by an anonymous person? You swallow it
without doubt though.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:00:06 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>In article <doqfp8lncevop03j2...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
>>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:12:32 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

<clip>

>> >
>> >> >also found out that Ingram was running the Cincinnati office and have moved on to the Obamacare office in the IRS. This woman,
>> >> >Ingram needs to go to jail.
>> >>
>> >> You go to jail if you've done something illegal idiot. So far there
>> >> has been nothing illegal even suggested, except by Boehner who just
>> >> threw out a nothing statement.
>> >
>> >I must have missed the indictments, trials, judgments and sentencing?
>>
>> That may be the most idiotic response you've ever posted.
>> Try reading the two sentences above your stupid question and see if
>> you can see why? It's doubtful, but try. Here's a hint; So far
>> there has been nothing illegal even suggested, so your question shows
>> just how foolish you actually are.
>
>No, you don't go to jail if you have done something illegal, idiot. You go to jail if you are
>arrested, indicted, tried in a court of law, judged by a judge or jury as guilty and then you
>are sentenced. We still have a legal system that is supposed to protect the individuals
>rights.

One stupid post after another. You never fail to amuse. You do go to
jail if you have done something illegal...the rest of your screed was,
as usual, unnecessary of course.

>
>>
>> >> >> The one thing that was silly was for any of the representatives to
>> >> >> think that Duane ex-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury
>> >> >> Inspector General Russell George could possibly testify about specific
>> >> >> instances that they would have no knowledge of. That was just
>> >> >> partisan jabbing.
>> >> >
>> >> >You do realize that getting them on record about having no knowledge is extremely important
>> >> >to future prosecutions. The perjury trap is a wonderful thing, just ask Fitzgerald and Libby.
>> >>
>> >> They weren't about to discuss individual and specific instances to
>> >> which they weren't privy. Only a fool would.
>> >
>> >We will see.
>>
>> We have already seen you moron. They didn't discuss them.
>>
>> Thanks for another laugh session. You never fail to deliver them.
>
>Why do you work so hard to white wash the Obama administrations illegal activities?

What illegal activities? When any of the charges are proved to be
true THEN they will be illegal.

Why would a reasonable person assume facts not in existence? Oh, that
leaves you out Bert.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

You don't torment anyone, but provide comic relief here. Clown. If
it weren't for you, Whorebath and Shit-On-The Shoe it would be a
pretty reasonable forum.

[BAR]

In article <7u6kp8p8sb3g9gui8...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

An illegal activity is an illegal activity, it doesn't require proof to be an illegal
activity, proof is only required to convict someone of an illegal activity.

> Why would a reasonable person assume facts not in existence? Oh, that
> leaves you out Bert.

What facts are not in existence?

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:00:06 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>No, you don't go to jail if you have done something illegal, idiot. You go to jail if you are
>arrested, indicted, tried in a court of law, judged by a judge or jury as guilty and then you
>are sentenced. We still have a legal system that is supposed to protect the individuals
>rights.

People accused of dangerous crimes go to jail (where they can pay bail
to get out). If they get convicted they go to prison.

--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no big
>>> deal that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
>>
>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
>
> The two situations would even be similar if the targeting was being
> directed by the Obama administration.
>

You're funny.

[MNMikeW]

William Clark wrote:
> In article <if2dp8t7a0799neuq...@4ax.com>,

> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:42:30 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> MNMikeW wrote:

>>>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:

>>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:55:02 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>>>>> "BobM" <defangeda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:10ce3823-7fa5-453d...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I encourage you and all your left tard friends to pretend it's no
>>>>>>> big deal
>>>>>>> that the irs targeted the political enemies of the president.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like Nixon did in '73. Of course, THAT was a big deal.
>>>>>

>>>>> As you pointed out, Nixon did it....himself. THAT WAS a big deal.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes Obama had the Democrats in congress help him with this one.
>>>
>>>

>>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-sc
>>> andal-election_724711.html
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-targets-conservativ
>>> e-groups/
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-stalled-conservative-groups-but-ga
>>> ve-speedy-approval-to-obama-foundation/2013/05/16/90c53e8a-be57-11e2-89c9-3be
>>> 8095fe767_story.html
>>>
>>> http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/lerners-admission-was-pre-planned-public-di

>>> sclosure/
>>
>>
>> You have to be kidding? Everyone knows that the IRS agents pulled
>> some really bad shit and targeted groups, but none of the above shows
>> anything to back your last stupid sentence.
>>
>> Either show where Obama "had" the Democrats in congress do anything to
>> help or admit that you were wrong.
>

> The fact is that the 501c entities were created to allow tax relief for
> charities. The wingnuts found a way to exploit the 501c rules to exempt
> organizations whose purpose was not charitable, but undeniably
> political. As such, I would expect any outfit applying for 501c status,
> and that is clearly identifiable as a political group, to be subject to
> more careful scrutiny than one that is obviously a charity. The hot air
> generated by the GoP over this principle is as absurd as it is
> predictable, and using the idiotic over-reaching of some IRS agents to
> define that principle is equally ridiculous.
>
Looks like you pay attention as little as Bobby does. Liberal 501c
groups had no such issues with their applications. If fact many breezed
through in a matter of weeks.

[MNMikeW]

bkn...@conramp.net wrote:

> Well, I disagree to a point. These were egregious acts that were
> overdone and should never have happened. They have to be attended to
> and stopped from ever happening again.
>
> I agree that it's being used by some only to further their political
> interests in the next election.
>
Never let a crisis go to waste as they say. Of course the IRS, Benghazi,
AP scandals will be used as political fodder. The left would do exactly
the same thing.

[BAR]

In article <qmbkp8d5jr6t6hhpm...@4ax.com>, how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:00:06 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >No, you don't go to jail if you have done something illegal, idiot. You go to jail if you are
> >arrested, indicted, tried in a court of law, judged by a judge or jury as guilty and then you
> >are sentenced. We still have a legal system that is supposed to protect the individuals
> >rights.
>
> People accused of dangerous crimes go to jail (where they can pay bail
> to get out). If they get convicted they go to prison.

Is the act illegal by definition or does it only become illegal when the person committing
the illegal act is arrested or indicted?

If I kill someone in a fit of rage have I committed a murder or do I have to wait until I am
arrested or indicted to have committed an illegal act?

[BAR]

In article <kc6kp8trjftsvnu9m...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

With the Obama administration the conspiracy theories are being proved ture with each passing
day.

[BAR]

In article <hi6kp89i4id4vbc6c...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

You have never had to terminate someone. The stupid ones walk into your office and get fired.
The smart ones walk into your office and immediately resign effect now.

[BAR]

In article <5p6kp81bb96ebsmgs...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

When the anonymous source saw what happened to the Bengahzi whistle blowers they are smart to
keep their identity hidden for the time being.

[BAR]

In article <avupug...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...

When are Bobbie and Carbs going to spit Obama's dick out of their mouths.

[MNMikeW]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bushel-of-pinocchios-for-irss-lois-lerner/2013/05/19/771687d2-bfdd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Maybe you should pay attention Mike. All applications from
conservative groups weren't targeted either.


Q: How many Tea Party groups were affected?

A: Lerner said about 300 groups went into a "bucket" of applications
getting more scrutiny. About a quarter of them were groups that had
"Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their names, she said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/13/irs-tea-party-scandal-explained/2156009/

[bkn...@conramp.net]

I would hope that you understand that, but then it's beyond you.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Even with correct English that would be ridiculous.

[MNMikeW]

This Lerner?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bushel-of-pinocchios-for-irss-lois-lerner/2013/05/19/771687d2-bfdd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html

[BAR]

In article <v6hkp81rhfho9b82g...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

We only whipped our noeses and then stuck our fingers in the food for a couple of people.
Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

For God's sake Bert. Learn to spell or type or whatever your
deficiency is. Other than being a shallow prick that is.

[BAR]

In article <vbhkp8t3ag9spao49...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

Is the act illegal or is it only illegal if you are caught?

[BAR]

In article <4tikp852shd4bklu6...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

Is that artery on your forehead throbbing. Should somebody push on it and stop the flow of
blood to your brain to cause you to pass out and take a rest.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Only a fool doesn't know the answer to that Bert, and you're the one
asking it.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Actually I'm having trouble seeing because of the tears of laughter.
God you're stupid.

[BAR]

In article <m5mkp8hl4lchrf66a...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

Prove you aren't a fool.

[Don Kirkman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:58:34 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>In article <qmbkp8d5jr6t6hhpm...@4ax.com>, how...@brazee.net says...
>>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:00:06 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No, you don't go to jail if you have done something illegal, idiot. You go to jail if you are
>> >arrested, indicted, tried in a court of law, judged by a judge or jury as guilty and then you
>> >are sentenced. We still have a legal system that is supposed to protect the individuals
>> >rights.
>>
>> People accused of dangerous crimes go to jail (where they can pay bail
>> to get out). If they get convicted they go to prison.
>
>Is the act illegal by definition or does it only become illegal when the person committing
>the illegal act is arrested or indicted?

An act is illegal by definition; nobody challenges that. The point,
however, is whether someone in fact has done something that is
illegal. This isn't rocket science.

>If I kill someone in a fit of rage have I committed a murder or do I have to wait until I am
>arrested or indicted to have committed an illegal act?

You're positing a factual illegal act, which is true - a murder has
been committed and you acknowledge that you did it. However, the
legal system still has to prove it in legal proceedings before you can
be punished for it. That first part of your hypothetical doesn't
apply to any of the current political issues because we don't *know*
what acts were committed and which if any are illegal. Crim. Just.
101 - or common sense.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Don Kirkman]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 07:51:46 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>In article <2jmdp8hq7v7bc0bnc...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...
>>
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 20:16:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

>> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:
>> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:53:53 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> >> <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Like your insistence that it was only a couple underlines. You
>> >>> don't think at all.
>> >>
>> >> I suppose you meant underlings you half-wit. That was all reported
>> >> until the last few days. But I guess you knew everything before it
>> >> was reported.
>> >>
>> >> Go out and kill some dogs lowlife.
>> >>
>> >

>> >An adult would apologize for all the personal insults you hurled
>> > apeople who suggested it was more than a few underlings, but an
>> > adult wout ld not have hurled all those insults.
>>
>> You have the brains of an imbecile and no morals, so nothing you have
>> to say about anything is of any importance.
>
>Yes, he, Moderate, and most of the right leaning people who in habit this little hell hole
>got it right and all of you lefties had tho throw-up or shit out the crap that was fed to you
>by the Obama administration. I suppose that you believe that firing the acting head of the
>IRS 45 days before his acting head of the IRS gig is over is a bold and decisive move.

And if he hadn't acted you'd be accusing him of being lazy,
ineffective, or coddling the guilty. The 45 days argument is a sham.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[bkn...@conramp.net]

I know the answer You obviously don't.

You lose again and will never learn.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:37:06 -0700, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net>
wrote:

Of which he hasn't any. :-)

[BAR]

In article <6qpkp8h22rjek4t0u...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

The Obama administration has committed illegal acts.

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:43:26 AM UTC-7, BobM wrote:
> The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced it will enact a series of reforms in its attempts to stem the controversy that it targeted anti-tax conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
>
>
>
> The agency has come under fire after a Treasury Department report found that IRS personnel singled out small Tea Party-aligned conservative groups, as well as a few Democratic-leaning groups, for extra scrutiny when reviewing their applications for tax exemption, delaying their approval for several months.
>
>
>
> The groups in question had applied for 501(c)(4) status, which applies to nonprofits promoting "social welfare" through issue advocacy.In response to the scandal, which saw the dismissal of its acting administrator, the IRS has laid out its proposed reforms in an 11,758-page document.
>
>
>
> The IRS said in a statement that the new rules will “enable the IRS continue its long and proud tradition of eliciting confusion, fear, hatred and irritation from every American, regardless of his or her political affiliation.”
>
>
>
> The most important reforms in the complex document are summarized as follows:
>
>
>
> * All organizations that apply for nonprofit 501(c)(4) status will be approved in 3 months or less, regardless if IRS agents have reviewed them or not.
>
>
>
> * All organizations that apply for nonprofit 501(c)(4) status shall be treated with an equal lack of investigation and oversight, regardless of the organization’s political affiliation, number of tax attorneys or financial backing.
>
>
>
> * To deal with understaffing in the IRS's nonprofit division, reviews of all tax-exempt organizations will be contracted to nonpartisan independent auditors, approved by a Koch Brother or a Koch Brothers-affiliated organization.
>
>
>
> * To remove any confusion of what constitutes “social welfare” activities, political campaigns and major political parties will now be viewed as “welfare recipients.”
>
>
>
> * In a show of bipartisanship, the next Republican president can skip paying taxes for the first two years of his or her presidency.
>
>
>
> The IRS said the new reforms will go into effect by April 15 next year, although political and nonprofit organizations that need additional help understanding the new reforms can apply for a legal extension.
>
>
>
> President Barack Obama hailed the reforms as “a necessary and crucial step in restoring the microgram of respect and admiration that the agency commands from the American people.”
>
>
>
> “We thank the IRS for its careful diligence in responding to this issue,” Obama said in a statement. “These reforms will enable this country to move forward and continue working for the future, and it will free up time for my administration to handle the two other scandals on our plate.”
>
>
>
> However, Republican leaders dismissed the IRS’s new reforms and indicated they will continue to investigate the scandal.
>
>
>
> “This is yet another partisan move by the most partisan president in the history of our country to cover up his many failures,” House Speaker John Boehner said. “President Obama is causing us to delay our most important work, such as trying to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time.”
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aropdsx

Too little, too late. IRS may be dissolved in favor of a flat tax as a result of this. That will certainly happen after the 2014 landslide elections.

Larry