What was false? That the IRS was giving people a hard time? Or that the president personally ordered the IRS to give the Tea Party groups a hard time?
- when you're lacking a response, change the focus and cast blame ??? 
Just because you've dismissed everything as long as black Jesus isn't implicated doesn't mean nothing was there. The rank and file auditors said they had to correspond with people out of Washington in the course of reviewing certain applications. The supervisors said there was nothing to it. That hasn't been explained. Likely because it's too far removed from the White House.
People like you are to blame, which is the problem. I didn't name a SINGLE one because they all do it. Its the nature of the system to only pass laws for certain people. The base receives benefit, everyone else gets the leftovers.
YOU stated, "people vote in politicians who write subjective laws." Then, you couldn't name a single politician that ran or was elected on the "Subjective Laws" platform.
It's called an adult mentality where people who disagree with you aren't evil. Regular people are regular people even if they don't worship the same President you worship. Over the course of this story, there were multiple reports of people's personal experiences with the IRS. No matter what someone believes they don't deserve to be fucked with by government if they aren't doing something wrong. I don't have to read my minds. They told their stories and I made a judgment of whether it was genuine. You need to learn to escape the hatred your masters told you to feel towards them.
First you talk about me being shocked and now you're expressing the Tea Partiers being shocked. You spend a hellava lot of time knowing and articulating what's in the mind of others.
You know, I think you're talking about yourself, using the third person-Tea Party ???
That's fine Que, you're in the position of the winning team knowing nothing will change. You don't have to understand anything I'm saying. I'll keep pointing out how much savagery you support and you'll keep not understanding.
Is that what people are complaining about, "Demanding standards and asking questions?"
The hidden hate oozes out. 
What a letdown, huh?
YOU stated, "people vote in politicians who write subjective laws." Then, you couldn't name a single politician that ran or was elected on the "Subjective Laws" platform.
When them evil fucks you worship, Darrell Issa, Ted Cruz & Co., turn out to be bald-faced liars, now I'm to blame and I'm the problem. 
The fact that the IRS treated both groups like shit doesn't address whether both group should be treated like shit.
There are multiple ways to be wronged like being denied status, holding your status in limbo for 3 years (two election cycles), or making the process so expensive that only the biggest groups can get through it. Its just as much of a big deal when they make people withdraw their application when those people weren't doing anything wrong. There were groups just looking to collect a few thousands in donation to hand out pamplets, yet in your America it makes sense to treat them like this. I guess people without big money have one less way to be part of the political process.
Because you're so far gone you don't get it at all.
Your problem is, you wanted something to be there. And more than that, you wanted Black Jesus to be implicated.
So your fake indignation led you to make this thread and volunteer your concern but not actual follow the details of the story? I don't feel like researching 6 month old details, and you wouldn't give a shit anyway. But we all can google. If you want to look up IRS emails out of Washington then go ahead.
True to form hommie. Once again you're either putting words into people's mouths or you're making judgments about someone you don't know; AND, you're attributing those tainted misconceptions to another whole class of people ("People like you") who you don't know.
Why do you constantly make shit up ???
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here: Example please. (so that I can understand your point)
And, tie that example to the point you're trying to make.
and blame everyone else.
Obviously black Jesus refers to Obama and it's also a five year reference to how people like you see him. I know Obama never promoted himself as such, but that never stopped his supporters from asking for deliverance. He was my state senator and federal senator. I'm well aware he campaigned on pragmatism until 2012.
I'm not looking to nuance every topic every time we talk about something when it's been discussed multiple times already.Of course, I disagree with your faulty logic -- since it falls flatly on it face because politicians are elected by the "voters" not the people". The people are a much larger group than voters. But, to the extent that you really do mean "The People" -- then how do you escape blame Sir??? - you're part of the "People", and therefore part of the problem -- unless you're alien or something . . .
Since by your repeated admissions you're NOT A VOTER, then your hidden hate manifesting itself as disgust is misplaced: It should be focused sharply upon YOU -- and those like you who have failed to participate -- but complain like little bitches
You're right I don't know what you think. I only know what you post. And what this thread is full of are updates that focus on establishing that the President didn't personally order specific targeting of the Tea Party groups. The updates reflect the general concerns of the media. The updates here aren't a narrative of what happened in general, which is actually fairly uncommon for this board when a thread has this many post. That is the indicator I'm using when I say you don't give a shit about the details of what happened. I don't need to read your mind. I can read what you post and what you prioritized to post. It's not rocket science. Or telepathy.
Obviously groups that have done something wrong should be treated like shit. People applying for a particular tax exempt status shouldn't need to prove they haven't been doing anything wrong, prove they aren't doing anything wrong, or prove they're not going to do anything wrong. There should be an objective standard to obtain that status, and if a group meets it then give them the tax exempt status. If they violate the law afterwards then go after them.
You can rely on the post in this thread for that like post #55:
The IRS manager didn't deny subjective screening, he just denied it was the result of political targeting.
On this kind of board, it can be lost that there are more than just left-leaning and right-leaning political thought, so I would argue against a "we're good" mentality.
This is the difference in our views of government officials. You're comforted by this. I have no reason to believe that increase oversight will work or even occur.
Independent of this particular scandal, you don't think that regulating speech is the ENTIRE point of giving special governmental designations to political action groups and the like?
You've already conceded the point with your support of tiered taxation for different activities which is the norm for this society. People cry that certain activities have prohibitive cost so they need to be given special exemptions to make the activity economically viable because the activity will have a desirous effect for the country. That argument has been used for everything from helping people eat, to subsidizing solar power, and you just made it in the other thread for mortgage interest deduction. It's desirous for people to speak their voice (provide for social welfare) or however they want to word these groups. It's been deemed by your government that a tax exempt status is needed and these groups cannot reasonably be expected to perform effectively without this special tax status due to the prohibitive cost. In your system they can't participate without the special consideration. Don't run away from your convoluted world.
You have so much faith in holding the IRS accountable for following the same law they were already tasked to follow. If Congress isn't going to change the law, then they can only ensure the IRS follows the letter of the law with increased oversight, which I said isn't likely to happen.
They regulate speech all the time in the name of the public good that has nothing to do with taxes. Whether something is art or pornographic like the Virgin Mary made out of shit or to mandate condoms, where you can stand during a protest like the Iraq War protest or the Westboro church, whether something is deceitful or fully disclosed like advertising or prescription drug risk. All those things aren't about government favor or hurt someone, but your government regulates it.
I know its a lie, did you read the rest of what I wrote. That's the logic of the system that's set up. The logic you used today for interest deductions. Everything you want more of needs to be subsidized.
Despite your faith, there is already a track record that exists regarding the ability of the IRS to follow the law as written and the effectiveness of the law as written to regulate the behavior of the IRS. You're so trusting you don't even think increased oversight is necessary.
You don't know about this. Stop pretending like you do or at least research the actual story. Your posts keep exposing your limited information.
The law doesn't need to be changed. It's perfect as it stands. It's the IRS that needs to go by the word of the law, as written. They don't need additional oversight, just people to do their jobs.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/odonnell-the-real-irs-scandal-happened-1
a few posts about ron paul in another thread reminded me how insanely retarded this political philosophy is. It's a fantasy-land, pie-in-the-sky ideology that sounds wonderful in theory but has nothing to do with reality.
In libertopia government is the source of all problems and reducing it's scope improves everything magically.
anti-discrimination laws? unnecessary... "right of association" and "mutual consent" is all that matters... It's a private matter.
minimum wage? no.... The "market" will determine a fair living wage.
civil rights? unnecessary.... We don't understand what systemic and institutional racism mean.
intelligent regulation? no... Even though we've seen the effects of massive deregulation play out in the financial sector specifically over the last few years we abhor regulation as a matter of course.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg. How can intelligent people believe this bullshit?
Discuss
