IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups...

[scharm]

I don't think anyone disputes that there was some impropriety here. Although, and as I posted before, perhaps not as much impropriety as initally hollered about.

 

 The question asked is why is Mr. McDermott offering validation of the IRS defense or justifying their motive of the wrong doing?

 

Your link suggests they might have screwed both conservative, non political, and liberal groups in their application of wrong scrunity.

 

Why is he offering up a defense or validation?   His motives are not pure.  If I'm to believe Jamie's are, I like to know why he thinks he "nailed it". 

[Jamie_B]

 
The no scrutinization part you are agreeing with is a strawman arguement and an unfounded statement by Mr. McDerrmott. 
 
At the time saying it he even describes as his feeling.
 
 
The last part is hilarious.   Obiviously the pure nature of applying for an exempt status has benefits that appeal to groups that apply for it.   It has already been determined and Mr. McDermott has agreed with conclusion the IRS was wrong.   They were prevented the benefit allowed by law.
 
The justification of the IRS actions is invalid.  Mr. McDermott and other Representatives have agreed to the wrong doing.  

Lol what?

I didn't say there should be no scrutiny I said that the scrutiny that they did do was not thorough enough and that should be more than does your name sound controversial

I'm going to ask but as a simple yes or no then because you seem to be hard pressed to continue to avoid the question and twist it into something that its not

yes or no do you believe that the IRS has a right to scrutinize these groups and every group based on a criteria that includes more than just the name of the group?

seems like an easy question to answer without cherry picking and trying to form an argument that just simply isn't there

let's see if your bias will allow you to not answer it with a simple yes or no

[scharm]

My opinion on the rights on the IRS is consistent with the findings of the IG report and the acknowledgement of wrong doing by Mr. McDermott.

I believe any adjustments to their procedures can't be determined until you find how and why the errors occurred.

Are you disputing the wrong doing?

[Jamie_B]

My opinion on the rights on the IRS is consistent with the findings of the IG report and the acknowledgement of wrong doing by Mr. McDermott.

I believe any adjustments to their procedures can't be determined until you find how and why the errors occurred.

Are you disputing the wrong doing?

simple yes would have sufficed

I think I've been pretty clear on what the wrong doing I think I was and that is that they should not havesingled these groups or any group out by name alone that they should have been more thorough in looking into these groups across the board

[|Numbers|]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350279/msnbcs-martin-bashir-says-irs-new-nr-charles-c-w-cooke

 

 

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir: ‘IRS’ Is the New ‘N****r’

 

The GOP is using the term “IRS” in place of the term “n****r,” MSNBC host Martin Bashir claimed on his Wednesday show.

“Republicans are using [the IRS scandal] as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House,” he suggested. ”IRS” is the new “N****r.” Bashir gave a nod to the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater, to whom he attributed the subtle strategy.

 

 

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7s4_Fw65Ps[/media]

[MichaelWeston]

My opinion on the rights on the IRS is consistent with the findings of the IG report and the acknowledgement of wrong doing by Mr. McDermott.

I believe any adjustments to their procedures can't be determined until you find how and why the errors occurred.

Are you disputing the wrong doing?

What specifically are the errors that you are frustrated with?

[Vol_Bengal]

What specifically are the errors that you are frustrated with?

I don't think they're errors per se...  I think the argument he's making is that this hearing was designed to determine what went wrong and why it went wrong so that it doesn't go wrong in the future...

 

McDermott used said hearing to go on a politically driven rant specifically about conservative lobbying groups and how they were attempting to gain tax exempt status...  What he said may have complete merit but it had no place in this setting and he was essentially saying that even though what the IRS did, as written, was wrong...  in the spirit of what they were doing, etc. they're really not "wrong".  3/4 of his dissertation here quite frankly had no place in this hearing.  Speak to the what happened.  If you want to have a hearing on the rules as they pertain to tax exempt organizations and scale back who is eligible, etc. (which I believe is valid btw) then have that hearing.  But McDermott makes the comment about "politcial theater"... hell - he's the lead actor after this commentary.

 

In such a hearing - don't try to explain away or justify wrong-doing.  Speak to what went wrong.  Save the justification for a hearing to resolve the "issues" that you're attempting to use as justification.  You can't acknowledge wrong-doing and then attempt to justify it in the same commentary like this.  Again - that justification piece should be handled in a hearing to attempt to change what made what happened wrong.

[scharm]

What specifically are the errors that you are frustrated with?

 

Frustration? None.  A major Government Agency was found to be in error by an Inspector General report.   The findings of this report have been almost universally condemmed by members of both parties.    The errors have been confirmed by the agency itself and subsequently there have been people reassigned, put on leave, and people leaving the agency.

 

The  wrong actions are not up to debate.   You don't get to this level over a minor error in procedure.  You don't get people pleading the 5th over a minor detail that was not followed.

 

I'd like to know why and how this happened.   I don't believe Mr. McDermott "nailed" anything.  I think it showed he was willing to put the victims on trial, diminish the harm done to these groups, and then speak out of both sides of his mouth by attempting to justify the behavior in the same speach that he declared the actions as wrong.

 

It was the equivalent of telling a rape victim they are partially to blame because they wore a short skirt.     I am little bit worried now that this political witch hunt might have a little more substance because it is clear the Democrats are trying to formulate a narrative of the events and the sheep are starting to fall in line.

 

The narrative:

 

1. Low Level Employees - Painted as incompetence

2. The actions were wrong and yet fighting a great evil

 

I have seen this before in Corporate Accounting scandals.  The Executives blame Mid-Management and claim no knowledge or difficulty in knowing.   Then as the investigations take root you find out they were dumping stock after finding out critical information and then demanding the opposite be conveyed publically. 

 

The results for those Executives were wide sweeping investigations.  Some Criminal hearings.   Wide sweeping financial oversight reform.    Pending the outcome maybe that's what needs to be done here.   It's going to be difficult to get to that outcome with attitudes displayed by Mr. McDermott. 

[scharm]

I don't think they're errors per se...  I think the argument he's making is that this hearing was designed to determine what went wrong and why it went wrong so that it doesn't go wrong in the future...

 

McDermott used said hearing to go on a politically driven rant specifically about conservative lobbying groups and how they were attempting to gain tax exempt status...  What he said may have complete merit but it had no place in this setting and he was essentially saying that even though what the IRS did, as written, was wrong...  in the spirit of what they were doing, etc. they're really not "wrong".  3/4 of his dissertation here quite frankly had no place in this hearing.  Speak to the what happened.  If you want to have a hearing on the rules as they pertain to tax exempt organizations and scale back who is eligible, etc. (which I believe is valid btw) then have that hearing.  But McDermott makes the comment about "politcial theater"... hell - he's the lead actor after this commentary.

 

In such a hearing - don't try to explain away or justify wrong-doing.  Speak to what went wrong.  Save the justification for a hearing to resolve the "issues" that you're attempting to use as justification.  You can't acknowledge wrong-doing and then attempt to justify it in the same commentary like this.  Again - that justification piece should be handled in a hearing to attempt to change what made what happened wrong.

 

Thank you.  

[Homer_Rice]

When I posted the link, I described it as "middle ground." I still think that description is apt. What's going on here is normal sausage-making at the hot dog factory. It isn't pretty, but it's how it has always worked. I understand the outrage a few of you have because from a principled p.o.v. it looks like crap. But again, that's how this stuff works. The irony here is that McDermott is actually creating political space--using a time-honored strategy for the possibly tactical purpose of creating some kind of melioration of this problem.

 

Using the IRS as a political weapon is a dangerous thing to do. Consider Nixon. But, I suspect it is done on the down low by all parties in power. At least there have been allegations of such, usually in specific circumstances via the auditing power of the IRS. This circumstance is a bit different because it features profiling, the which is necessary but ought be strictly impartial. It is the lack of partiality which is the real question here. McDermott acknowledges this and does a little push back because that is his job as a politician. Don't have to like it to understand that it is what it is.

 

Nothing would make me happier, sharm, than to see a number of high-level folks reap the justice they deserve. Our economy has been ruined by such folks and the common citizen is screwed for the next generation as a result. But, if that is to happen, then it'll happen in one of two ways: either via the rules of the game of the current political process or by some kind of revolutionary change in the way we do things. As the latter is mostly a wet-dream of extremists at both ends of the political spectrum, it'll have to be the former. And that is an ugly, ugly (and slow and not always just) process. With no guarentees, either.

[Jamie_B]

When I posted the link, I described it as "middle ground." I still think that description is apt. What's going on here is normal sausage-making at the hot dog factory. It isn't pretty, but it's how it has always worked. I understand the outrage a few of you have because from a principled p.o.v. it looks like crap. But again, that's how this stuff works. The irony here is that McDermott is actually creating political space--using a time-honored strategy for the possibly tactical purpose of creating some kind of melioration of this problem.

 

Using the IRS as a political weapon is a dangerous thing to do. Consider Nixon. But, I suspect it is done on the down low by all parties in power. At least there have been allegations of such, usually in specific circumstances via the auditing power of the IRS. This circumstance is a bit different because it features profiling, the which is necessary but ought be strictly impartial. It is the lack of partiality which is the real question here. McDermott acknowledges this and does a little push back because that is his job as a politician. Don't have to like it to understand that it is what it is.

 

Nothing would make me happier, sharm, than to see a number of high-level folks reap the justice they deserve. Our economy has been ruined by such folks and the common citizen is screwed for the next generation as a result. But, if that is to happen, then it'll happen in one of two ways: either via the rules of the game of the current political process or by some kind of revolutionary change in the way we do things. As the latter is mostly a wet-dream of extremists at both ends of the political spectrum, it'll have to be the former. And that is an ugly, ugly (and slow and not always just) process. With no guarentees, either.

 

 

Just dont put me in a room with Llyod Blankfein or Jamie Dimon, or you might see some of that extreamism, Reginald Denny style. :)

[MichaelWeston]

I don't think they're errors per se...  I think the argument he's making is that this hearing was designed to determine what went wrong and why it went wrong so that it doesn't go wrong in the future...

 

McDermott used said hearing to go on a politically driven rant specifically about conservative lobbying groups and how they were attempting to gain tax exempt status...  What he said may have complete merit but it had no place in this setting and he was essentially saying that even though what the IRS did, as written, was wrong...  in the spirit of what they were doing, etc. they're really not "wrong".  3/4 of his dissertation here quite frankly had no place in this hearing.  Speak to the what happened.  If you want to have a hearing on the rules as they pertain to tax exempt organizations and scale back who is eligible, etc. (which I believe is valid btw) then have that hearing.  But McDermott makes the comment about "politcial theater"... hell - he's the lead actor after this commentary.

 

In such a hearing - don't try to explain away or justify wrong-doing.  Speak to what went wrong.  Save the justification for a hearing to resolve the "issues" that you're attempting to use as justification.  You can't acknowledge wrong-doing and then attempt to justify it in the same commentary like this.  Again - that justification piece should be handled in a hearing to attempt to change what made what happened wrong.

Who gets to name such hearings and control the speaking paremters? Maybe he had to do it now or never?

[HaydenM]

This argument is stupid - People trying to justify a corrupt IRS, going back and forth setting up straw man arguments...

There is one simple issue here. You have a corrupt, Chicago-style thug administration that has enemy lists, goes after select private citizens, business owners, tries to intimidate, coerce, silence them, destroy their lives, destroy their businesses, make their lives a living hell, illegally publishes personal information and financial records, lists of donors, etc so they can be more easily targeted, demands that organizations turn over information about private citizens, all in attempt to destroy anyone who dare to oppose their political agenda.

That's what's going on here. Period. It's just sad that we have some morons on this board attempting to rationalize or justify it.

And it all starts at the top, where you have a corrupt, despicable human being running the country, one who would be more suited to being a dictator running some third world banana republic.

[MichaelWeston]

This argument is stupid - People trying to justify a corrupt IRS, going back and forth setting up straw man arguments...

There is one simple issue here. You have a corrupt, Chicago-style thug administration that has enemy lists, goes after select private citizens, business owners, tries to intimidate, coerce, silence them, destroy their lives, destroy their businesses, make their lives a living hell, illegally publishes personal information and financial records, lists of donors, etc so they can be more easily targeted, demands that organizations turn over information about private citizens, all in attempt to destroy anyone who dare to oppose their political agenda.

That's what's going on here. Period. It's just sad that we have some morons on this board attempting to rationalize or justify it.

And it all starts at the top, where you have a corrupt, despicable human being running the country, one who would be more suited to being a dictator running some third world banana republic.

I stopped reading at Chicago....can anyone beat that?

[Jamie_B]

This argument is stupid - People trying to justify a corrupt IRS, going back and forth setting up straw man arguments...

There is one simple issue here. You have a corrupt, Chicago-style thug administration that has enemy lists, goes after select private citizens, business owners, tries to intimidate, coerce, silence them, destroy their lives, destroy their businesses, make their lives a living hell, illegally publishes personal information and financial records, lists of donors, etc so they can be more easily targeted, demands that organizations turn over information about private citizens, all in attempt to destroy anyone who dare to oppose their political agenda.

That's what's going on here. Period. It's just sad that we have some morons on this board attempting to rationalize or justify it.

And it all starts at the top, where you have a corrupt, despicable human being running the country, one who would be more suited to being a dictator running some third world banana republic.

 

 

Ok who let Alex Jones out of his cage?

[Homer_Rice]

This argument is stupid - People trying to justify a corrupt IRS, going back and forth setting up straw man arguments...

There is one simple issue here. You have a corrupt, Chicago-style thug administration that has enemy lists, goes after select private citizens, business owners, tries to intimidate, coerce, silence them, destroy their lives, destroy their businesses, make their lives a living hell, illegally publishes personal information and financial records, lists of donors, etc so they can be more easily targeted, demands that organizations turn over information about private citizens, all in attempt to destroy anyone who dare to oppose their political agenda.

That's what's going on here. Period. It's just sad that we have some morons on this board attempting to rationalize or justify it.

And it all starts at the top, where you have a corrupt, despicable human being running the country, one who would be more suited to being a dictator running some third world banana republic.

Lol. Trolls gotta troll.

[BengalBacker]

This argument is stupid - People trying to justify a corrupt IRS, going back and forth setting up straw man arguments...

There is one simple issue here. You have a corrupt, Chicago-style thug administration that has enemy lists, goes after select private citizens, business owners, tries to intimidate, coerce, silence them, destroy their lives, destroy their businesses, make their lives a living hell, illegally publishes personal information and financial records, lists of donors, etc so they can be more easily targeted, demands that organizations turn over information about private citizens, all in attempt to destroy anyone who dare to oppose their political agenda.

That's what's going on here. Period. It's just sad that we have some morons on this board attempting to rationalize or justify it.

And it all starts at the top, where you have a corrupt, despicable human being running the country, one who would be more suited to being a dictator running some third world banana republic.

 

 

FWIW, I gave you a plus one. ^_^

[BengalBacker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?ref=politics&_r=0

[BengalBacker]

Hope everyone reads the link above, and some of the comments.

 

 

 

 

 

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.

Senator Barack Obama (2007)

 

[BengalBacker]

Yup, Bush started it. Obama's expanding it. You know what they say about absolute power.

 

We've created a monster. I fear we are all fucked.

[HaydenM]

Yup, Bush started it. Obama's expanding it. You know what they say about absolute power.
 
We've created a monster. I fear we are all fucked.

I don't think that saying applies here. We don't have a president who was corrupted by absolute power. We elected one who was already extremely corrupt and despicable. We didn't create a monster - we elected one.

[T-Dub]

I don't think that saying applies here. We don't have a president who was corrupted by absolute power. We elected one who was already extremely corrupt and despicable. We didn't create a monster - we elected one.

 

Is your contention that we should've elected honest, hardworking man-of-the-people Mitt Romney?

[Jamie_B]

 

Is your contention that we should've elected honest, hardworking man-of-the-people Mitt Romney?

 

 

:lol:  no shit

[Jim Finklestein]

I can't believe people are surprised about the cell phone and internet thing.  Even staunch liberals know how Obama has reneged on his promises regarding anything having to do with civil liberties vs. homeland security.  While I think Ron Paul is a wingnut, he is absolutely right about this.

[Jim Finklestein]