IRS Knew Teap Party Was Targeted for Additional Income Tax Scrutiny

[digimon7068]

If there is definitive proof that came from BO I would call this up there with Watergate.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

the people that run the department of treasury are allowed to conduct "profiling" type analysis and examinations any time they want...POTUS doesn't have anything to do with it...they issue field directives, audit technique guides, etc. for those industries, etc. that they choose to focus on...a lot of times it's not necessarily because they believe that there is wanton abuse of the treasury regulations, sometimes it's more of a fact gathering and educational exercise...and, if there is a group of people out there that has put themselves out as vehemently opposing the internal revenue code? uh...yeah...they're probably going to get a little closer look...i'm a conservative person and i don't have a problem with it...why should anyone (other than those that are asking for scrutiny) else??

 

[billfred]

yeah bro we had an election last november.. seems like you are still campaigning as if its gonna make a difference, but to me its the sore loser mentality.. you should be getting ready for 2016 and finding a republican who is capable of winning a state that doesn't have more trailer parks and tornado's than people.

Man that response was eat up with stupid. Stick to roid board.,,,!!!!

 

[Jack steel]

Yeah sure, that's exactly what we need to do. Violate people's rights. We could just force republicans to wear stars on their sleeve and stuff then in concentration camps.

No, not "as they should". It's a complete violation. If the tables were turned liberals would be vomiting and spraying diarrhea while screaming bush doing the monkey dance in the street.

Agreed. It's funny how "liberals" are anything BUT liberal. Liberal... Liberate, liberation, freedom? Bass ackwards

 

[Dial_tone]

Agreed. It's funny how "liberals" are anything BUT liberal. Liberal... Liberate, liberation, freedom? Bass ackwards

cuz pro-choice isn't freedom. Gay/lesbian rights to marry isn't freedom.

 

[Mike4705]

cuz pro-choice isn't freedom. Gay/lesbian rights to marry isn't freedom.

Interesting, pro-choice and freedom. Guess the child doesn't have much of a say in it's freedom.

 

[mrplunkey]

cuz pro-choice isn't freedom. Gay/lesbian rights to marry isn't freedom.

Gay marriage is a good example. I'm conservative but don't care who marries whom. I don't, however, want to subsidize marriage, having children, or mortgages -- straight or gay.

And similarly for abortion, I think it's terrible but sometimes necessary. But once again I have problems with forcing someone else to pay for it -- particularly the controversial kinds such as late-term and partial birth abortions.

If marriage and abortion weren't subsidized, I could appreciate an argument that it isn't anyone elses' business. But once you ask taxpayers to pay for it, it becomes a political issue.

 

[Dial_tone]

Interesting, pro-choice and freedom. Guess the child doesn't have much of a say in it's freedom.

Are children under 16 free not to go to school?

 

[mrplunkey]

Are children under 16 free not to go to school?

I wouldn't mention government failure factories (a.k.a. public schools) as an example of good government.

 

[Mr. dB]

yay...you're advocating profiling! so it's ok to pull over black people cruising through white neighborhoods and it's ok to strip search every swarthy motherfucker trying to board an airplane? i knew that deep down inside you were really one of them!

please...the floor is yours...

and, if there is a group of people out there that has put themselves out as vehemently opposing the internal revenue code? uh...yeah...they're probably going to get a little closer look...i'm a conservative person and i don't have a problem with it...why should anyone (other than those that are asking for scrutiny) else??

Are you contradicting yourself here? The second quote is what I was trying to say earlier.

 

[mrplunkey]

Are you contradicting yourself here? The second quote is what I was trying to say earlier.

You made an interesting argument that singling-out specific groups based on their affiliations or views is justified if it makes collecting taxes more effective.

I like my DNA screening of abortion recipients for similar reasons. I'll bet statistically speaking, someone who needs a 100% state-sponsored abortion would probably have genes similar to someone who has committed a crime (i.e. exact match or at least a relative). Think about how efficient that would be: Some guy could get fingered through the DNA database simply by his sister getting genetically sequenced as part of an abortion. Now THAT would be efficient government.