ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 20, 2013

First they came for the conservatives

"IRS commissioner Steven Miller said the IRS's targeting of conservatives "is absolutely not illegal"
Fascinating.  I'm sure the Jews, among others, will be delighted to hear that it is now "absolutely not illegal" to have government agents targeting a particular minority among the population.

You know how it goes: "first they came for the conservatives, but I was not a conservative...."

Labels: ,

185 Comments:

Anonymous educated professor May 20, 2013 9:07 AM  

what law did the IRS break? But please, let's not get in the way of your faux outrage / Koch Bros $$$.

Blogger Bullitt315 May 20, 2013 9:14 AM  

When a couple brothers are vilified for being evil because they want less government and more freedom, it's pretty obvious the country is screwed. I don't really follow the Kock bros outside of knowing that if liberals hate them this much, they're probably pretty decent guys.

Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. May 20, 2013 9:17 AM  

Isn't Steven Miller a Space Cowboy?

Anonymous Roundtine May 20, 2013 9:18 AM  

The rot is so deep that there's no saving the patient. EPA is also playing politics with FOIA requests. The government isn't corrupt, this is democracy in action. Conservatives are still too stupid to realize they cannot win. They investigated the IRS for abusing people during the 1990s and they're back at it, only worse. The GOP is worthless.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 9:18 AM  

cognitive dissonance... FTW!

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 9:19 AM  

> it is now "absolutely not illegal" to have government agents targeting a particular minority among the population.

It's called selective enforcement. And while not technically illegal, it can be consider so by a court depending on how it is applied. In the worst case for the administration, it can be a basis for having the existing legal structure declared invalid.

Anonymous Shorty May 20, 2013 9:19 AM  

The Koch Brothers. Like anyone here really gives two shits about what they have to say about anything.

It's indicative of the liberal brain that there couldn't possibily be this many people independently coming to the same conclusion; there HAS to be a figurehead in the shadows.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic May 20, 2013 9:25 AM  

Laws?

By the time the pogroms start, they'll be perfectly legal.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 9:27 AM  

Wouldn't this be an example of disparate impact?

Or does that only matter if minorities are being disparately impacted?

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 9:30 AM  

> Wouldn't this be an example of disparate impact?

Probably. I'm sure the Justice Department will be on that any minute now.

Anonymous joe doakes May 20, 2013 9:36 AM  

It's a free speech issue. By preventing conservative groups from raising money in time to buy ads for the election, the IRS denied them freedom of political speech and ensured Obama's narrative would be unopposed.

If it isn't illegal, it ought to be.

Anonymous Anonymous May 20, 2013 9:46 AM  

Targeting Moslems, Blacks, Hispanics, and Communists is illegal. Targeting everyone else is still OK.

--Hale

Anonymous Skinny Dan May 20, 2013 9:52 AM  

We'll see where this goes. Ultimately I think it will be the gulag.

Anonymous Orion May 20, 2013 9:56 AM  

Substitute the words "People", "Rights", or perhaps in your case "Teachers" as the phrases to be used for the targeting Edjumacated Perfesser. Don't forget that "legal" of the rules has a way of coming back around. And if your looking for supporters of the Koch brothers here... you really don't know your target audience.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 9:59 AM  

My idea: make the IRS illegal

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 10:00 AM  

I'm not sure "educated professor" is meant to be taken seriously. But as with many things, it's hard to tell. So many times what should be parody turns out to be the actual statements of the left.

Anonymous rycamor May 20, 2013 10:03 AM  

I used to get the impression that Americans are the subjects of a grand experiment in gradual desensitization.

But that was a long time ago. I don't know what I was so worried about...

Anonymous See ya in court, sucka May 20, 2013 10:04 AM  

Of course, maybe "freedom of association" doesn't apply to conservatives...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0357_0449_ZS.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
357 U.S. 449
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Patterson
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530. It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 321. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the [p461] effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.

Anonymous anon123 May 20, 2013 10:06 AM  

I love Barry's interpretation of the Sgt. Schultz defense: "I know NOTHING!"

Anonymous RINO May 20, 2013 10:06 AM  

My idea: make the IRS illegal

Very good idea. Throw the Department of Justice in there too.

Blogger IM2L844 May 20, 2013 10:07 AM  

Or does that only matter if minorities are being disparately impacted?

In Liberal Bizarro Land where doublethink is axiomatic, you get to have your cake and eat it too. It is at the very core of leftist's muddled ideology.

"Conservative" is quickly becoming a misnomer. Through pseudo-heroic cheek turning compromises, concessions and pussified acquiescence we're running out of things to conserve.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 10:07 AM  

> My idea: make the IRS illegal

Well Neal Boortz has been arguing for replacing all the existing federal taxes with a single sales tax for years now.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 20, 2013 10:10 AM  

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

Anonymous Salt May 20, 2013 10:11 AM  

Did anyone ever think the decent into desolation would happen so rapidly?

Anonymous Roundtine May 20, 2013 10:13 AM  

This scandal is just starting. I posted that Michael Burry clip before, he was punitively audited (they went after everything) a couple of weeks after writing an op-ed in the NYTimes questioning why the Fed didn't see the bubble. In order for him to be audited like that, they weren't just targeting "tea party" groups. Someone was widely monitoring the media and anyone who wrote or said anything remotely opposed to the government was targeted for audits. There was also some woman who wrote an article against Obamacare and she was audited.

Anonymous educated professor May 20, 2013 10:17 AM  

WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN? Name the law.

It's not hard wingnuts. Unless no law was broken ... hmmm. Maybe the IRS "scandal" is merely a Rovian pushback on C-4/C-3 regs. Now, there will be no regs. Which was the goal. Corporate pawns take democracy's rook. The Koch Bros approve.

Anonymous CLK May 20, 2013 10:19 AM  

Even here ? .. the loyal followers of VD... :)

You have a poorly written law, you have groups using that law to buy our electrons, funneling money anonymously ... combined with a poorly run government agency given to following laws that make no sense and are so ambiguously and poorly written that even an honest man could not please everyone in its enforcement.

Profiling is a valid law enforcement technique -- you have groups that have already shown that they are violating the law by being primarily political while claiming to be social/welfare, groups that have expressed an opinion against paying taxes and who often have lots of money.

These three "scandals" are the biggest bunch of political crap all artificially raised at the same time because of some desired political advantage and an overall desire to distract the public from the real problems --- if we had a Colosseum they would be marching christians and lions into the ring as we speak ... instead we have the virtual Colosseum on the TV... same effect.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 10:21 AM  

Well Neal Boortz has been arguing for replacing all the existing federal taxes with a single sales tax for years now.

The FairTax is a nonstarter for numerous reasons.

I'd favor eliminating the income tax entirely and funding the government through user fees and import tariffs.

Needless to say, it's not designed to be revenue neutral.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 10:22 AM  

you have groups using that law to buy our electrons

What groups, and what elections?

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 10:23 AM  

Of course, maybe "freedom of association" doesn't apply to conservatives...

You have no Constitutional right to operate as a not-for-profit social welfare group. That much is obvious. Your requirement to pay or not pay income taxes on donations has nothing to with your right to assemble or associate.

what law did the IRS break? But please, let's not get in the way of your faux outrage / Koch Bros $$$.

I have learned and am still learning that this is not the place to actually discuss the law in detail. There is probably not a wider audience that understands the broad strokes of legal theory unpinning the country, but when it comes to specifics, it's a dog that will not hunt.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 10:25 AM  

"WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN? Name the law. "

One would think an educated professor would be aware that this exact same accusation was listed in Nixon's impeachment documents.

Anonymous Nah May 20, 2013 10:26 AM  

You have no Constitutional right to operate as a not-for-profit social welfare group.

Tell that to the NAACP. The 1958 decision said yes they did.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 10:29 AM  

"Did anyone ever think the decent into desolation would happen so rapidly?"

Yep.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 10:36 AM  

I have learned and am still learning that this is not the place to actually discuss the law in detail.

Do you want to get into the details of who is required to pay taxes according to the federal tax code?

Anonymous ZhukovG May 20, 2013 10:40 AM  

The descent has been going on since at least 1913 and possible from the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation. It's just that, now that we see the canyon bottom rushing up to meet us, we realize we are falling.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 20, 2013 10:43 AM  

Obviously, Nixon was a very bad man.

How many people lie dead because of Watergate?
Dead ambassadors and staff are good.

How many people were profiled and targeted by the IRS because of Watergate? IRS profiling and targeting is good.

How many guns were run to narco gangs in Mexico because of Watergate? Guns to narco gangs is good.

How many whites were voter intimidated by Watergate? Intimidating white voters in Philadelphia is good.

Nixon wiretapped the Democrats, not the AP. It is bad to to wiretap the D's, but not the AP. Wiretapping the AP is good.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 20, 2013 10:45 AM  

CLK:
Profiling is a valid law enforcement technique


Profiling is valid for Racists and Bigots.

Good to see you are out of the closet, bigot/racist.

Anonymous RINO May 20, 2013 10:48 AM  

How many guns were run to narco gangs in Mexico because of Watergate? Guns to narco gangs is good.

Don't forget a dead border patrol agent.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 20, 2013 10:49 AM  

RHINO:

Don't forget a dead border patrol agent.


Dead border patrol agents are good because they are profiling, racist, bigots.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 10:53 AM  

> The FairTax is a nonstarter for numerous reasons.

Not the least of which is that it would require the repeal of the 16th amendment. But it would greatly limit the power of the IRS.

> ...but when it comes to specifics, it's a dog that will not hunt.

Duh. You want legal specifics, you hire a lawyer. Most of us here aren't lawyers.

Anonymous wcu May 20, 2013 10:55 AM  

Doesnt Russia have a flat tax like bortz (loves lower taxes and loves abortion...true moderate) has been howling for?

Anonymous David May 20, 2013 10:58 AM  

"WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN? Name the law. "

The law of never admit to anything that makes the government look bad, educated professor, especially when it comes to the IRS.

The IRS is the most feared department in the US govt...people tolerate it because they accept the claim it is fair and impartial. But scandals like these pop that fantasy, and that is why the Obama administration is reeling from the public anger.

Anonymous ZhukovG May 20, 2013 11:00 AM  

Russia has a flat tax of 13%, however if you own a business that employs at least 100 Russians, your tax drops to just under 6%. If I recall correctly.

Needless to say this has helped fuel Russia's economic recovery, since the Yeltsin disaster.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 11:02 AM  

However, since educated professor insists on continuing to ask, allow me to point him to the Selective Enforcement page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement

Which states:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886),[1] was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

So yes, it's entirely possible that the highest law of the land was in fact broken. That would, of course, be up to a court to determine.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 11:05 AM  

But it would greatly limit the power of the IRS.

I don't think it would: you would still need an enforcement agency, and because all transactions would be subject to the sales tax, you'd be giving over even more information to the IRS than you do now.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 11:08 AM  

Yahoo News Top Story: Kate Middleton taking cooking classes.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 11:12 AM  

> ...and because all transactions would be subject to the sales tax, you'd be giving over even more information to the IRS than you do now.

Only if you made all transactions subject to the tax. There's no real reason not to limit it to transactions between and with incorporated entities. I doubt Boortz does that, but it's what I would do.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 11:13 AM  

Of course, I would also Constitutionally limit the sales tax to a maximum of 5%, and explicitly disallow all other taxes and fees at the federal level.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 11:20 AM  

Only if you made all transactions subject to the tax. There's no real reason not to limit it to transactions between and with incorporated entities. I doubt Boortz does that, but it's what I would do.

According to his book, the fair tax applies to the purchase of all new goods and services.

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 11:35 AM  

One would think an educated professor would be aware that this exact same accusation was listed in Nixon's impeachment documents.

It is obviously not. Nixon's charge alleged that the enemies list was run from the White House, directly by Nixon and his aides. It could get to that point, but that's not where things are at. Right now, everyone is arguing about who knew about the investigation within the administration.

That's a big difference. Especially legally.

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 11:39 AM  

Tell that to the NAACP. The 1958 decision said yes they did.

It did no such thing. This was a 14th amendment case and 1st amendment case, decided on those grounds. It had nothing to do with non-profit status. The case law is used for both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, and did not establish precedence on the right of a group to an IRS tax determination.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet May 20, 2013 11:42 AM  

Never forget WHO? hangs from the Liberty Tree.

DannyR

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein May 20, 2013 11:44 AM  

Isn't Steven Miller a Space Cowboy?


Some call him the "Gangster of Love".

I call him "Maurice".

If the GOP ever gets him under oath, maybe we can all find out what a "pompatus" is?

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 11:44 AM  

" Right now, everyone is arguing about who knew about the investigation within the administration."

Right Now.

At the beginning of the summer of 74 they were also arguing about who knew what when. By the end of the summer... not so much.

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 11:45 AM  

However, since educated professor insists on continuing to ask, allow me to point him to the Selective Enforcement page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement

Which states:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886),[1] was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


So yes, it's entirely possible that the highest law of the land was in fact broken. That would, of course, be up to a court to determine.

However, there are several things to consider: (a) political affiliation is not a protected class under any Federal law; (b) applying for a tax-benefit, which is what tax-exempt status is, has not been held to be a protected activity, or an activity to which you are entitled; (c) profiling in the detection or investigation of criminal activities is currently legal, and especially so when it does not involve race.

Anonymous JohnS May 20, 2013 11:51 AM  

@josh

Yup, and each one is taxed at 23%.

To be fair, the fair tax is based on a study that indicated that around 15-18% (can't remember now how much) of the price of retail goods is paying for tax compliance, which disappears under the new scheme.

Wholesale transactions are not taxed under the fair tax.

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 11:59 AM  

At the beginning of the summer of 74 they were also arguing about who knew what when. By the end of the summer... not so much.

I agree, it totally has legs. I am pointing out that people who compare this to Nixon's articles of impeachment, however, typically do not know what they are talking about. The fact that there was an Inspector General (the position didn't exist during the 70's, by the way) doing an investigation throws a wrench into the works.

The biggest problem for Obama is that it sure looks like he or his people were working overtime to avoid this coming out before the election.

White turnout may have been a bit higher if this was well known...

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 12:01 PM  

I don't think it would: you would still need an enforcement agency, and because all transactions would be subject to the sales tax, you'd be giving over even more information to the IRS than you do now.

One nice thing would be that your average every citizen would not have any compliance costs. Business who are sales taxed already have that compliance cost, sending the data to another entity is not going to replace the compliance cost of all other taxation going on.

The distortions on the economy would be far smaller under a sales tax regime. And plus all taxes would be voluntary, which would serve the interest of liberty.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 20, 2013 12:04 PM  

Re: Fairtax: "you'd be giving over even more information to the IRS than you do now."

Why would it be inherently different than how current state sales taxes are done? I don't have to report @#$% about it currently unless I want to deduct it on my Fed Income Tax return, which would be gone under the Fairtax as I understand it.



Anonymous Joe Doakes May 20, 2013 12:11 PM  

Which law was broken? The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Congress, acting through its agents in the IRS, infringed on conservates' freedom of political speech by intentionally delaying their ability to collect tax-exempt donations with which to educate the public until after the election.

Government agents didn't tell local tv stations "We forbid you to run ads for this group" because they didn't have to, they shut off the money so the group couldn't buy ads. Tactic different, result same.

Yes, the whole Rube Goldberg system of campaign finance reform is rubbish. But legally, it must be applied even-handedly.
.

Anonymous FP May 20, 2013 12:12 PM  

"So yes, it's entirely possible that the highest law of the land was in fact broken. That would, of course, be up to a court to determine."

No, its up to the citizenry. The supreme taco court means nothing. They view the "people" as slaves since Roberts sell out on healthcare.

Planned Parenthood should be gov funded apparently and involved in schools, with its supporters talking about the "right to do with your body as you wish". All while supporting enslaving everyone besides women's uteruses to IRS/gov control. Equality!

Anonymous FP May 20, 2013 12:14 PM  

IRS Union president meets with Prez.. next day tea partiers targeted?

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking/print

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 12:19 PM  

Why would it be inherently different than how current state sales taxes are done?

Because every single retail good and service would be subject to the tax.

So...you hire a kid to mow your yard...you pay the tax...you hire a kid to babysit your kids...you pay the tax...

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 12:26 PM  

From Nixon's Articles of Impeachment:

"endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

Anonymous Rally May 20, 2013 12:27 PM  

Why bother with tax collection at all? For the Krugmen, we can be borrowing north of a trillion dollars every year and they call it austerity. And demand much, much more deficit spending. So if you're prepared and willing to borrow multiple trillions, why not reduce tax collection to zero?

The obvious answer is that those in charge would never be willing to give up the control and fear they can impose on the public.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 12:28 PM  

"White turnout may have been a bit higher if this was well known..."

Imagine if Romney had actually said, "I can't tell you that Bengazi would've turned out differently if I'd been in command. But I can tell you, I wouldn't have gone to bed during the attack."

Anonymous Stilicho May 20, 2013 12:30 PM  

Potential laws broken:

Constitution:

1) First amendment--prior restraint/chilling effect(see, e.g. demand that anti-abortion group commit to NOT protesting pro-abortion groups/politicians/clinics, etc.)

2) Fourteenth Amendment--equal protection (contrary to liberal views, some animals are not more equal than others particularly when the government tries to treat similarly situated citizens and groups in different and discriminatory fashions: see also overly intrusive/irrelevant information demanded )

Criminal:

1) conspiracy laws (there are a variety, including conspiracy to deprive someone of civil rights, also RICO is damned near broad enough for anything a prosecutor wants it to cover)

2) privacy/unauthorized disclosure--the disclosure of individuals' private information to leftist interest groups (some of which was also subsequently published by those groups)

Anonymous Jack Amok May 20, 2013 12:31 PM  

Did anyone ever think the decent into desolation would happen so rapidly?

You go broke slowly at first, then all at once.

Doesn't matter what it is you're going broke with, money, legitimacy, honor, morality, it's all the same process when you start out with a lot of it you inherited from someone else (perhaps even your own younger self) and then squander it.

First the habits that led to accumulating the excess slip a little. Since you've already got so much, there's no immediate feedback that you can't ignore. So things slip a little more, and a little more, and. Then one day, there's no excess left, but by then the habits are thoroughly gone too, so there's no turning back. By the time the feedback arrives, there's no way to fix the problem.

One of the habits that we don't have any more is the habit of knowing that something doesn't have to be technically illegal to be absolutely wrong.

Anonymous Despair May 20, 2013 12:35 PM  

educated professor May 20, 2013 10:17 AM
WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN? Name the law.


You remind me of the Crazy Tax Conspirators who say you don't have to pay Income Tax because there's no law.

Anonymous Stilicho May 20, 2013 12:36 PM  

Because every single retail good and service would be subject to the tax.

So...you hire a kid to mow your yard...you pay the tax...you hire a kid to babysit your kids...you pay the tax...


Generally, all such transactions are already subject to state sales taxes in most states (with typical exemptions like groceries). It is far from perfect, but it would be better than the current income-based system because it provides more opportunity to avoid the taxes by avoiding taxable transactions. It would also be abused by the government just like the income taxes are (e.g. NY is particularly notorious for its abuse of businesses with respect to sales taxes).

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 12:46 PM  

It would also be abused by the government just like the income taxes are (e.g. NY is particularly notorious for its abuse of businesses with respect to sales taxes).

Exactly. Which is why the fair tax does nothing to stop the IRS from abusing taxpayers.

Anonymous Stilicho May 20, 2013 12:50 PM  

Exactly. Which is why the fair tax does nothing to stop the IRS from abusing taxpayers.

True, but that is true of all tax systems. Fair enforcement of criminal penalties against IRS employees would help, but no system of men will ever be perfect.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 20, 2013 12:51 PM  

It is far from perfect, but it would be better than the current income-based system because it provides more opportunity to avoid the taxes by avoiding taxable transactions. It would also be abused by the government just like the income taxes are

Yep, pretty much. Every form of tax - every form of anything government does - is subject to abuse. The only way to limit the abuse is to severely limit the power of government, encourage serious competition between government agencies for what little power there is, and be pretty damned unforgiving of people who abuse government power over citizens.

None of that is conducive to a large government though, and it's why it is simply impossible to have a large government that does not abuse its citizens.

Personally, as far as taxes goes, I'd advocate a biennial Head Tax. Everybody owes $X where $X depends on how much spending their Congressional delegates voted for in the last Congress. Take half the total spending of a bill, divide it by the number of Senators who voted Yea, divide the other half by the number of House Reps voting Yea, and add each amount onto each voter's bill, payable on Election Day.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 20, 2013 12:54 PM  

President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to reassure the American people that he has “played no role whatsoever” in the U.S. government over the past four years.

“Right now, many of you are angry at the government, and no one is angrier than I am,” he said. “Quite frankly, I am glad that I have had no involvement in such an organization.”

The President’s outrage only increased, he said, when he “recently became aware of a part of that government called the Department of Justice.”

“The more I learn about the activities of these individuals, the more certain I am that I would not want to be associated with them,” he said. “They sound like bad news.”

Anonymous Stilicho May 20, 2013 12:56 PM  

Personally, as far as taxes goes, I'd advocate a biennial Head Tax. Everybody owes $X where $X depends on how much spending their Congressional delegates voted for in the last Congress. Take half the total spending of a bill, divide it by the number of Senators who voted Yea, divide the other half by the number of House Reps voting Yea, and add each amount onto each voter's bill, payable on Election Day.

Please, Lord, let this happen, if only for the lulz

Anonymous Jerome Horowitz May 20, 2013 12:59 PM  

10% flat tax.
..
If its enough for G-d, its enough for the government.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 20, 2013 1:00 PM  

So. The President met with an anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.

Is anyone — and I do mean anyone, including even Rick Moran (I’ve long believed that some centrist Republicans were the last of the credulous hold-outs, that the left knew all along who and what Obama was, and approved of both him and his methods) — at all surprised to learn of this?

Now, we’ll be told that no laws were broken, that the meeting was over something else entirely, that the timing was completely coincidental, and that we’re all racist (and likely even white supremacists) and misogynist for even noting the meeting, much less its proximity to the targeting of the TEA Party and other small government groups.

But honestly, doesn’t that faux-outraged denial just make you want to slap a bitch at this point? The President told us he’d learned of this IRS scandal from news reports. And yet the Treasury knew about the investigation and the targeting before the 2012 election. Now this.

Does Obama really expect us to believe his own political appointees kept him in the dark? And that he’s nothing more than an absent and incompetent puppet who is otherwise out of the loop?

His ego is too big to let that kind of thing stand, fortunately, so we should press it as our narrative of his increasingly absurd and dismal presidency. That way, before all is said and done, I believe if somebody asks him the right set of questions, he may just cop to ordering the code red on Private Santiago.

And then we could all bathe in the cleansing waters of Ezra Klein’s endless tears.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 1:08 PM  

Listen to you suckers arguing about how much money you think we should give to the most corrupt organization this world has ever known.

Hopeless.

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 1:09 PM  

Stilicho-

You pretty much have it down. These are the areas of concern. You will find that RICO, however, EXPLICITLY has carve outs for government.

But otherwise, that's where the danger is for the Obama administration. But these people do learn, and I suspect, there is absolutely not one shred of paper or testimony that will link this to the White House. I may be wrong, but this is sophisticated operation. Obama takes to the airwaves, makes his positions known, and then the useful fools in the administration and agencies take up the cause, independently. It's like a terrorist network. Redundant array of inefficient agents.

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 1:12 PM  

Imagine if Romney had actually said, "I can't tell you that Bengazi would've turned out differently if I'd been in command. But I can tell you, I wouldn't have gone to bed during the attack."

The problem with this is, it presumes it's true. There is no evidence that Willard wouldn't have done equally bad or worse during the situation.

It would be a lot more honest for Obama to just say "I wasn't willing to put troops at risk to protect diplomats who are acting foolishly". Benghazi was hostile terrority in a failed state. The Department of State has no place being there. The State department has been standing in for the military for too long, this should be the end of it.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 20, 2013 1:21 PM  

"So...you hire a kid to mow your yard...you pay the tax...you hire a kid to babysit your kids...you pay the tax..."

Every presentation of a FairTax I have heard or read stressed two important features:

1) Repeal the 16th amendment and forbid national incomes tax by additional amendment as necessary.

2) Remove any and all requirements for reporting any personal financial transactions to the IRS.

Anything else is not the FairTax I support.


Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 1:22 PM  

dh: "The problem with this is, it presumes it's true. There is no evidence that Willard wouldn't have done equally bad or worse during the situation."

Sure there is. He has a long record of success as an executive.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 20, 2013 1:24 PM  

"You remind me of the Crazy Tax Conspirators who say you don't have to pay Income Tax because there's no law."

You have to pay Income Taxes because the biggest gang with the most money and guns says you do and they don't abide by what the law says.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 1:24 PM  

Anything else is not the FairTax I support.

1) would never happen, so you'd get both the income tax and the sales tax.

2) how do they enforce who paid taxes, then?

And furthermore, you support a 30% sales tax?

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 1:25 PM  

Patrick Kelly: "Anything else is not the FairTax I support."

So giving 23% of your money to the most corrupt organization on the planet seems "fair" to you?

Sucker.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 1:27 PM  

Sure there is. He has a long record of success as an executive.

Because borrowing money to buy a company and then loading the company with debt to pay dividends to himself is good practice for sending in troops to rescue gun running diplomats?

Anonymous George of the Hole May 20, 2013 1:29 PM  

"First they came for the conservatives..."

53% of the country is saying "Yeah, that sounds cool".

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 1:31 PM  

Hey look, everybody. Josh completely missed the point yet again.

I know. It's completely shocking.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 20, 2013 1:34 PM  

Josh and Porky's straw men are not the FairTax I'm looking for.

"2) how do they enforce who paid taxes, then?" How the States do it with Sales tax, and I've never been required to file anything with them ever regarding what I spent to whom for what.

"So giving 23% of your money to the most corrupt organization on the planet seems "fair" to you?"

It's 23% on what I spend, and when the pre-bate is thrown in likely much less for me than what I pay now. About 18% of what I spend now is hidden in taxes, so it's only nominally a %5 increase, except now there would be no income/payroll/medicare taxes deducted from my check or other income. No more tax on savings, investment, interest etc.

The FairTax has a more voluntary nature. If I want to live frugally and spend very little money, I pay less taxes. People who spend and participate and benefit the most from the government protection of a stable economy would pay the most taxes in totally and likely as a % of their income.




Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 1:37 PM  

Hey look, everybody. Josh completely missed the point yet again.

I know. It's completely shocking.


What point did I miss?

I'm sorry you find my ankles so tasty, perhaps I should stop doing calf raises.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 20, 2013 1:39 PM  

53% of the country is saying "Yeah, that sounds cool".

See, that's the problem when Rabbits start trying to be Wolves. Two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch works fine once, but tomorrow it's just two wolves. Except of course what we really have is a one wolf joined by a rabbit voting to have the sheep for lunch. The idiot rabbits (interesting typo, I called them Robbits, thieving little shits) don't realize they'll be lunch tomorrow.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 1:40 PM  

How the States do it with Sales tax, and I've never been required to file anything with them ever regarding what I spent to whom for what.

From what I've read, the fair tax generally taxes more things than state taxes currently do.

And given the IRS policy of guilty until proven innocent, you can probably bet that they'll be just as abusive with the fair tax as they are with the income tax.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 1:40 PM  

> You have to pay Income Taxes because the biggest gang with the most money and guns says you do and they don't abide by what the law says.

Bingo.

> So giving 23% of your money to the most corrupt organization on the planet seems "fair" to you?

No. It seems fairer than what we have now. That's not saying much, but since the topic came up...

Like I said, I'd limit it to a maximum of 5%, and add a balanced budget requirement. I'd allow the government to run a deficit on a 51% vote of congress any given year, but if the did, neither congress nor their staffs would get paid. If the president signed it, neither he nor his staff would get paid. I doubt we'd ever run a deficit, at least not with the type of representatives we have now.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 1:41 PM  

@Patrick: "People who spend and participate and benefit the most from the government protection of a stable economy would pay the most taxes in totally and likely as a % of their income."

It's the idea that your tax money is being used to make a stable economy that I find laughable.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 1:46 PM  

> maybe we can all find out what a "pompatus" is?

I always figured he was just mispronouncing pompousness. Or perhaps pompous a**, but that sort of goes without saying.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 1:47 PM  

I'm sorry you find my ankles so tasty

Josh hears Porky say the words"Mitt" and "Romney" in same sentence, salivates like Pavlov's dog, snarks at Porky, then claims that Porky is the ankle biter.

Good stuff, Joshy. Keep it coming.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 1:52 PM  

Josh hears Porky say the words"Mitt" and "Romney" in same sentence, salivates like Pavlov's dog, snarks at Porky, then claims that Porky is the ankle biter.

I didn't even pay attention to who made the comment. The idea that Romney would be competent in areas like foreign policy (where he made huge blunders during the campaign) because of his track record as an executive (where most of that time was in banking and other financial services) is a pretty silly assertion. It's the equivalent of saying that the boys at Goldman Sachs would have done a goodjob dealing with Benghazi. Anyone think that's a good idea?

Anonymous RINO May 20, 2013 1:56 PM  

It's the equivalent of saying that the boys at Goldman Sachs would have done a goodjob dealing with Benghazi. Anyone think that's a good idea?

You might not like what they do .. but they get stuff done.

Anonymous allyn71 May 20, 2013 1:57 PM  

"All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war" - Wm. J. Beck III August 2009



Pretty much sums it up as well as anything I would say.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 2:03 PM  

"I'm sure the Jews... will be delighted to hear that it is now "absolutely not illegal" to have government agents targeting a particular minority"

You don't understand. The Jews now effectively ARE the government, so they'll be the ones who get to pick and target the particular enemies I mean minorities, which is just fine with them; the problem is they also think now that they've won, the situation will simply remain static, and they'll stay on top forever. They think they won the whole game, and now they can just bid everyone good night, and leave with everyone else's money in their pockets, and that there will never be another game. They forget that great Langston Hughes poem...

SITUATION

When I rolled four sevens
In a row,
I was scared to walk out
With the dough.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 2:04 PM  

"You might not like what they do .. but they get stuff done."

You know what else "gets stuff done"? Pancreatic cancer.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 2:05 PM  

I didn't even pay attention to who made the comment.

Lol! Whatever.

The idea that Romney would be competent in areas like foreign policy (where he made huge blunders during the campaign)

I never said he'd be competent in foreign policy, silly. I said that there is evidence that he would take executive action rather than go to bed.

It's the equivalent of saying that the boys at Goldman Sachs would have done a goodjob dealing with Benghazi.

I never said Romney was honest, forthright, or decent silly Joshy. I said there is evidence that he would take executive action rather than go back to bed. You don't have to like the guy to acknowledge that he is a successful hands-on executive.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:16 PM  

I said there is evidence that he would take executive action rather than go back to bed.

You never mentioned either executive action or going back to bed. You simply said that Romney would have handled bengazi better than Obama because he had executive experience. I responded that Romney's executive experience was in leveraged buyouts, which has nothing to do with diplomatic and military crises.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:17 PM  

You know what else "gets stuff done"? Pancreatic cancer.

AND HITLER. HITLER GOT STUFF DONE.

/Godwined

Blogger RobertT May 20, 2013 2:19 PM  

@Josh
"The FairTax is a nonstarter for numerous reasons."

For one thing, it's unconstitutional. For the same reasons I posted yesterday, it's only profits that can be taxed by the Feds. Of course that particular point has been shredded many times. May as well throw the entire constitution overboard. Even the courts have been backing off that particular point. Out of sight, out of mind. This issue is too arcane for most people. The only time I've heard this said out loud by a constitutional authority was by Mark Levine a few years ago.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 2:20 PM  

"The idea that Romney would be competent in areas like foreign policy"

At this phase in the nation's crisis, the best foreign policy we could possibly have would be to simply not have one. What do we need one for? What do we get for it, except headaches? We buy oil and other stuff from foreigners, we give them money in exchange, we sell them stuff in return, we police whichever sea lanes we deem necessary to our own interests (narrowly defined), that's about it. Let the rest of the world sort itself out for a change. Including, and especially, Israel.

Our only active foreign policy should be towards the numerous foreigners in our midst, and it should be a very, very hostile one.

Anonymous RINO May 20, 2013 2:22 PM  

Scoobius really seems to hate Juice.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:23 PM  

At this phase in the nation's crisis, the best foreign policy we could possibly have would be to simply not have one. 

Absolutely.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:25 PM  

Scoobius really seems to hate Juice.

He's an equal opportunity hater, also hating hispanics, Asians, muslims, blacks, etc.

Blogger RobertT May 20, 2013 2:26 PM  

One more thing about taxation. If we ever abandon the present system for another system, first of all it's unconstitutional, but also, we abandon the principle that only profits can be taxed. We would remove any and all limitations on taxation and open the door to wanton and discriminate taxation. That's probably a moot point, but there it is. Fair tax, schmair tax.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:27 PM  

Our only active foreign policy should be towards the numerous foreigners in our midst, and it should be a very, very hostile one.

How are you defining foreigner here? Non-citizen residents?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 20, 2013 2:31 PM  

These abuses of the First Amendment wouldn't be happening if we had a constitutional law professor as president.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 20, 2013 2:32 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 2:36 PM  

"Scoobius really seems to hate Juice."

I'm getting really tired of this. Only if by "hate" you mean "openly discussing the accurate present landscape, and wondering aloud if it's in one's own interest, or in someone else's". As usual, "hate" means "anything Jews don't like". Get bent, retard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkwJ-g0iJ6w

"He's an equal opportunity hater, also hating hispanics, Asians, muslims, blacks, etc."

Oh, stop it, already. Do you know what "pushback" is? Do you understand that somebody doesn't push "back", unless he's already been pushed?

What children.

Anonymous Anonymous May 20, 2013 2:36 PM  

You have a poorly written law, you have groups using that law to buy our electrons

That is a prescient typo.



Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 2:37 PM  

"These abuses of the First Amendment wouldn't be happening if we had a constitutional law professor as president."

And we have a thread winner.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 2:39 PM  

> And we have a thread winner.

Yep.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 2:41 PM  

You never mentioned either executive action or going back to bed.

I didn't bring up the argument, I responded to it. Read.

Anonymous Ghost of Trayvon May 20, 2013 2:45 PM  

Fuk all y'all muthaphukaz!

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 2:46 PM  

I didn't bring up the argument, I responded to it. Read.

Dh didn't say anything about going to bed either. Nate did. Dh said that there isn't any reason to believe that Romney would have handled the situation any better than Obama did. You responded that his executive experience was proof that he would have.

Feel free to continue being evasive and shifty, though. And to continue snapping at ankles.

Anonymous RINO May 20, 2013 2:47 PM  

As usual, "hate" means "anything Jews don't like".

You hate Joos, it's ok. The real question is .. what is your opinion of Slavs?

Anonymous dh May 20, 2013 2:51 PM  

Congress, acting through its agents in the IRS, infringed on conservates' freedom of political speech by intentionally delaying their ability to collect tax-exempt donations with which to educate the public until after the election.

This is a strong angle of attack. It appears though that in the Ohio office, there was an 11 month period where NO applications were processed, because of a system problem caused by modifying the rules. That is a LONG-TIME to wait in an election year.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 2:54 PM  

@Josh

And what did dh say was presumed to be true without evidence?



Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 3:33 PM  

And what did dh say was presumed to be true without evidence?

That Romney could have done better than Obama at handling the situation.

Of course you could ask dh what was presumed to be true.

Anonymous Will Best May 20, 2013 3:51 PM  

It is actually becoming difficult to follow all the corruption at a micro level. Somebody needs to just produce a live feed of a clear room with a fan at the top of it, and then have a guy periodically shovel a pile of manure into it as each new revelation occurs.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 3:55 PM  

That Romney could have done better than Obama at handling the situation

Nope. In fact, the actual suggestion was that Romney could NOT say one way or another, only that he would have not gone to bed.

So basically you've chased me all over this thread because you don't have enough reading comprehension to read a fucking blog.

Anonymous Stilicho May 20, 2013 3:57 PM  

One more thing about taxation. If we ever abandon the present system for another system, first of all it's unconstitutional, but also, we abandon the principle that only profits can be taxed. We would remove any and all limitations on taxation and open the door to wanton and discriminate taxation. That's probably a moot point, but there it is. Fair tax, schmair tax.

Are you arguing that excise taxes, imposts, and duties are not constitutional? Or are you defining excise tax to exclude the value of the merchandise and only apply to the profit on the sale? If the former, you are wrong. If the latter, doing away with the 16th Amendment and the income tax is not an abandonment of this principle. The only possible way that your statement could be correct that I see is if you view the 16th amendment as modifying what excise taxes could be levied upon (profit only). Please clarify.

Anonymous Stilicho May 20, 2013 4:13 PM  

You will find that RICO, however, EXPLICITLY has carve outs for government.

I'm aware of that. This has already gone beyond government employees: see, e.g. Pro Publica and the head of the IRS employees union. IIRC, the presence of a gov't employee in a criminal conspiracy does not invalidate a RICO prosecution. However, many details remain to be discovered. Drawing it out may not aid the administration as much as they think. Hillary's fake illness, subsequent claim that Benghazi was old news, and "What difference does it make!?" hasn't exactly taken Benghazi out of the news cycle or Congressional oversight.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 4:18 PM  

Nope. In fact, the actual suggestion was that Romney could NOT say one way or another, only that he would have not gone to bed.

That was Nate's suggestion. Too bad you weren't responding to Nate, but to dh, who had that there wasn't evidence that Romney would have handled it better. You offered his executive experience as evidence. When I responded that his executive experience wasn't related to a foreign policy crisis like bengazi, you start backpeddling and saying what you really meant by executive experience was that Romney wouldn't have gone to bed.

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 4:23 PM  

dh: "The problem with this is, it presumes it's true. There is no evidence that Willard wouldn't have done equally bad or worse during the situation."

Sure there is. He has a long record of success as an executive.


"there is no evidence"

"sure there is"

Hrm...now to me that looks like you're trying to refute dh's claim about evidence. And you pointed to Romney's record of success as said evidence.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 4:29 PM  

That was Nate's suggestion. Too bad you weren't responding to Nate, but to dh...

...who was responding to... Nate! Either you are dumber than a box of guano or you are purposely ignoring context in order to cover up the fact that you are dumber than a box of guano.





Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 4:33 PM  

Hey porky, did dh mention going back to bed at all?

Anonymous Razoraid May 20, 2013 4:39 PM  

No worry, Obama already investigated it and said that he is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is innocent, proving once again that he is simply an innocent bystander in his own life.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 4:40 PM  

DH totally missed the point of my comment. It is rhetoric to point out Obama's egghead-just-doesn't-get-it weakness. There is a theme there that could have, and should have, been beaten like a drum.

It wasn't.

Most likely because the as usual, the republicans likely weren't actually trying to win.

The folks in charge of the party would rather see a dem in charge, than the conservative wing of their party.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 4:45 PM  

Hey porky, did dh mention going back to bed at all?

No, dumbass, he just quoted it in big bold letters and responded directly to it.

Your antics bore me now. Please go drink some bleach or something.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 4:46 PM  

"Oh, stop it, already. Do you know what "pushback" is? Do you understand that somebody doesn't push "back", unless he's already been pushed?"

Do you realize that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate a person or people?

You're suggesting that because you have legitimate reasons... you therefore do not hate... like the two are mutually exclusive or something.

No one has said your hate was irrational.

Ok I did once but it was just an excuse to get to use the term "blaxican".

Anonymous Josh May 20, 2013 5:01 PM  

No, dumbass, he just quoted it in big bold letters and responded directly to it.

Nate just said that Dh missed his point. But continue to cling to your typical evasiveness.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 5:23 PM  

Tell us the truth, Josh. When you were a child did your parents tie you up and feed you Ritalin with a slingshot?

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 5:30 PM  

Porky... stop being a retard.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 5:36 PM  

Aww. White Knighting for ritalin boy. So cute!

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein May 20, 2013 5:38 PM  

When I rolled four sevens
In a row,
I was scared to walk out
With the dough.



Langston only rolled three sevens, but an excellent point, nonetheless.




Anonymous Jack Amok May 20, 2013 5:38 PM  

...it's unconstitutional...

So was the Income Tax until we passed an amendment.

Of course, we're far past the point where we could fix this through normal politics and by introducing "better" rules. For one thing, not enough of the government even bothers with rules any more.

But if we ever get back to that point, were we can take another stab at having a tax system worthy of a free people, I'd advocate my proportioned Head Tax proposal. Try to strike a balance between free riders and free lunchers. Ultimately it would fail too, no institution is going to be perfect when run by fallible humans, but I think it would last longer than an income tax, everything else being equal.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 5:50 PM  

Jack Amok: "I'd advocate my proportioned Head Tax proposal...Ultimately it would fail too, no institution is going to be perfect"

Then it would appear that the only solution is... no institution. Perfect.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 5:55 PM  

"No one has said your hate was irrational."

Of course he did. When somebody spells Jews as "jooos" that is precisely what they are saying: that you are an obsessive, tinfoil-hat-wearing crackpot who sees Jewish conspiracies under every bed. It is a way of pre-emptively short-circuiting rational discussion by tagging the other speaker as a nutcase, thus preventing a rational discussion about actual real-world Jewish actions from taking place. It is an absolute affront to free and rational discourse, and I wish VD would use the banhammer on it.

Furthermore, when somebody says you "hate [entire group, collectively and categorically]" that is in itself an accusation of irrationality. It is not rationally possible to hate an absolute entire group in that manner. Still further, the constant labelling of legitimate criticism, even criticism of a satiric or rhetorical nature, as "hate" is yet another vicious and cynical attempt to disrupt and prevent criticism and discussion, for as we all know, "HATE = TEH RACISM = ABSOLUTE EVIL." It is a technique of brownshirted thugs, and it is absolutely disgusting.



Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 6:00 PM  

It is an absolute affront to free and rational discourse, and I wish VD would use the banhammer on it.

ROFL!

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 6:06 PM  

Why is that ROFL? Do you think that a "banhammer" is itself an affront to free discourse, and that therefore it's ironical?

Do you also think that shouting a speaker down, hurling objects at him, and pulling fire alarms in the building where he speaks so that the speech is cancelled, are forms of speech? Do you support a heckler's veto?

Anonymous RINO May 20, 2013 6:15 PM  

Why is that ROFL

I think he's laughing at your meltdown.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 20, 2013 6:15 PM  

scoob,

I think Scalzi revels in his ban hammer.

That alone makes "ban hammer" ghey.

Now, I wouldn't worry about Rino. It is not like you should take him seriously anyway.

So, keep on truckin'.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 6:16 PM  

Why is that ROFL? Do you think that a "banhammer" is itself an affront to free discourse, and that therefore it's ironical?

Dude, you are advocating banning a particular spelling of a word because it offends you. You libertarians are a freakin hoot!

Do you support a heckler's veto?

What do I look like? Some kind of JOOOOOOO?!?!?

Anonymous patrick kelly May 20, 2013 6:17 PM  

Just how do the poor little Jews keep all the ultra rich powerful people in the world under their control?

Seems like a pretty good trick. More power to them, obviously they are better than everyone else.

If they are ruling the world they are doing a pretty good job considering what they have to work with.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 6:29 PM  

"I think he's laughing at your meltdown."

Not only are you an idiot, you're a tone-deaf idiot.

If I ever have a meltdown, trust me, you'll know it.

Blogger J Curtis May 20, 2013 6:39 PM  

From today's Rush Limbaugh Show..

"Goal of the IRS Scandal: Scare GOP Donors

May 20, 2013

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We're gonna start Southern California with Mattie. Thank you for calling. It's great to have you here. Hi.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush, and thank you for being the number one guy to get the news out to people who get it.

RUSH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

CALLER: I want to talk to you because I am what's called a major donor in the Republican Party and a bundler. So that means all the businesspeople that I know, they write checks for our candidates, for our party, and all this scandal that has come out now on the IRS... We knew that the Tea Party was being targeted back in 2010. But we figured, "Okay, it's not gonna reach us," but then --

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. When you say, "We knew," you mean who? Major Republican donors, now?

CALLER: Well, no. The Republicans knew, and I know you said something the other day about Twitter, but Twitter knew. They were talking about it all over Twitter, about how the Tea Party was being targeted by the IRS.

RUSH: Oh, that's right. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Republicans in Congress also knew.

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: And the regime knew, too. Everybody knew this was going on except us.

CALLER: Yeah, everybody knew. But here's what's happened. This IRS scandal was not leaked by some great reporter. This IRS scandal was leaked by them, because they have one purpose in mind: 2014 is coming up, and they are scaring the hell out of Republican donors. I can't get anyone to write a check, for congressman, for senator, for anybody or anything. Now that it's public on Fox and the Internet that Vandersloot paid 80 grand to defend himself against the IRS, anybody who has a business and writes checks to the GOP -- they write checks, they're businesspeople, and they support the GOP -- now they're not gonna do anything.

RUSH: That's right."

Link

Anonymous Red Comet May 20, 2013 6:45 PM  

Upper middle class/rich (atheists-pretending-to-be) Jews in the US are just like the other SWPL leftoids with whom they are actually culturally aligned.

That is, they'll protest the Patriot Act in one breath while in another saying this isn't an "actual scandal" or mad government power overreach so long as it targets the wrong kind of white people.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 20, 2013 7:47 PM  

It's a pity they are not as concerned about anti-Christian sentiments.

Blogger Saxon May 20, 2013 7:48 PM  

"you have groups using that law to buy our electrons"

Not the electrons! They'll be coming after our valuable protons next.

Blogger Nate May 20, 2013 8:36 PM  

"So was the Income Tax until we passed an amendment. "

Except it didn't.

Anonymous clk May 20, 2013 8:56 PM  

Conan The Cimmerian says

"Profiling is valid for Racists and Bigots.Good to see you are out of the closet, bigot/racist."

I would be careful who you call a racist ... maybe its the word that bothers you -- well you have to mature past that. "Profiling" is done all the time and has nothing to do with race or bigotry -- there are key elements/characteristic in any data set can be looked for and used to analysis a group/set to draw conclusions.


Anonymous Jack Amok May 20, 2013 9:03 PM  

Then it would appear that the only solution is... no institution. Perfect.


No institution would also fail. Everything will fail, it's just a matter of time. But, some things my work for a while. And when they begin to fail, they can be replaced. Sort of like fan belts. Society does require some maintenance.

Anonymous Porky May 20, 2013 9:35 PM  

And when they begin to fail, they can be replaced. Sort of like fan belts. Society does require some maintenance.

The libertarian penchant for social engineering never fails to amuse.

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 10:05 PM  

> I can't get anyone to write a check, for congressman, for senator, for anybody or anything.

He says that as if it's a bad thing. The sooner the gop goes the way of the dodo, the better.

Anonymous nick digger May 20, 2013 10:06 PM  

"I'd advocate a biennial Head Tax"

It's bad enough that they tax beer & cigarettes, but this, "sir", would be the last straw.

Anonymous ConantheCimmerian May 20, 2013 10:14 PM  

clk:
I would be careful who you call a racist ... maybe its the word that bothers you -- well you have to mature past that. "Profiling" is done all the time and has nothing to do with race or bigotry -- there are key elements/characteristic in any data set can be looked for and used to analysis a group/set to draw conclusions.


Racist.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 10:18 PM  

"The sooner the GOP goes the way of the dodo, the better."

Well, yeah, but not like this. You think the new and improved conservative/right party would somehow _not_ be subject to the same tender mercies of the new Permanent Left Majority?

Anonymous A Visitor May 20, 2013 11:04 PM  

instead we have the virtual Colosseum on the TV... same effect. TVs have studios or live shots. I assume those would be the actual Colosseum.

I guarantee this IRS scandals goes right to the top. Dear Leader is a smart Commie though. He most likely invoked Becket authority or gave explicit verbal orders that nobody charged with violating the law will recall or even know were given by him. A crook but a smart one!

Blogger James Dixon May 20, 2013 11:09 PM  

> You think the new and improved conservative/right party would somehow _not_ be subject to the same tender mercies of the new Permanent Left Majority?

I don't think there will be a new or improved party anytime soon. And while I may be being a bit pessimistic at the moment, I don't think it would matter if there was.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 20, 2013 11:13 PM  

""Profiling" is done all the time and has nothing to do with race or bigotry -- there are key elements/characteristic in any data set can be looked for and used to analysis a group/set to draw conclusions.

Racist."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTduCiXfh0

I like this guy more and more.

Anonymous dh May 21, 2013 12:04 AM  

Most likely because the as usual, the republicans likely weren't actually trying to win.

The folks in charge of the party would rather see a dem in charge, than the conservative wing of their party.


I agree with this. The goal right now seems to be election politics, in 2014. It should be either:

a. Impeachment (which won't lead to removal, really, just political crippling, which again goes back to 2014 and 2016)

b. Shutting down of the IRS. This is do-able, right now.

Anonymous Chuckling Observer May 21, 2013 12:25 AM  

""first they came for the conservatives, but I was not a conservative...."

Drama much??

Can we finally call it a "national past time"? The hysterical reactions of the nut fringe. First it was the black helicopters. Nope they didn't show up. Then it was the UN concentration camps. Nope they didn't show up. Then it was Obama being born in Kenya. Whoops...that went wrong. What about the "Activist Court": Whoops...the most pro business court in decades.

You know why no one listens to you cooks? You know why this "scandal" won't have any impact other than to make the Right Wing look petty? Because for years now the Kooky Right has been shouting "look out, the sky is falling"....and it never falls.

Drama much?

Anonymous Jack Amok May 21, 2013 12:32 AM  

"I'd advocate a biennial Head Tax"

It's bad enough that they tax beer & cigarettes, but this, "sir", would be the last straw.


Notice I said it was a biennial tax, so you'd only have to pay once every two years. The rest of the time, it would be, shall we say, duty free?

And frankly, when you think about it, I may have actually found a way to make people look forward to tax season.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 21, 2013 12:34 AM  

The libertarian penchant for social engineering never fails to amuse.

The dimwitted are often amused, even, perhaps especially, when they don't understand what they are looking at.

Anonymous Porky May 21, 2013 12:43 AM  

Shutting down of the IRS. This is do-able, right now.

Lol! What planet are you on?

Anonymous Porky May 21, 2013 12:47 AM  

@Jack Amok

I understand that you think you've found a better way to steal money from the populace. Now you've just got to find a way to force the unwilling to comply with your wishes. What was your plan for that?

Anonymous The other skeptic May 21, 2013 12:47 AM  

Police to ramp up presence in Gay Communities

Ahhh, that should result in more dead fudge packers.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein May 21, 2013 1:11 AM  

You know why no one listens to you cooks?


Obviously a fan of the Kansas City Chefs.....

*The NFL---never OT*

Anonymous Toby Temple May 21, 2013 1:30 AM  

Lol. What the hell, Porky? You drunk or something?

So, when is Obama going to face impeachment proceedings?

Blogger Ron May 21, 2013 5:49 AM  

Hence, why I expated.

Anonymous CLK May 21, 2013 8:10 AM  

Cinnamon Bun ... you can say what you want from the safety of your mothers basement without fear ... your a weaselly little troll and do not exist.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian May 21, 2013 9:55 AM  

RACISSSS!

Anonymous Jack Amok May 21, 2013 11:42 AM  

I understand that you think you've found a better way to steal money from the populace...

You have serious reading comprehension problems. Let me know when you can make it through Green Eggs and Ham without needing someone to explain the big words to you and I'll go over it again.

Anonymous Porky May 21, 2013 1:53 PM  

@Jack Amok

Put down the Dr. Seuss and pick up Murray Rothbard some time. You might learn a little about what an arrogant authoritarian prick you are.

"Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match." - Murray Rothbard

Anonymous Jack Amok May 21, 2013 7:55 PM  

Obviously the tax man stole your brain pig, because you still haven't figured out what I wrote. If you're using Rothbard for anything other than a booster seat so you can see over the Big Kid's table, the book is sadly wasted on you.



Anonymous Porky May 21, 2013 9:02 PM  

You know what would happen with your stupid "head tax", Jack?

Special interests would have a freaking field day. You think lobbyists are ruthless now? Wait until they think that a politician has one shot at grabbing the money - they haven't invented the briefcase big enough to carry all that payola. And the ousted politicians will be rewarded with a juicy seat on the board. If the tax bill becomes too high and poor folks can't pay they will simply not pay - and in one election cycle a tiered tax structure will be implemented and we're right back to where we are now but without the tax shelters and loopholes that made it bearable.

You are naive in the extreme - blinded by your sinister desire to socially engineer the American populace. You are worse than Sunstein and Obama. You think that you can "nudge" America into behaving responsibly by punitively taxing them (no doubt with the best of intentions paving your road to hell). Get this through your skull if possible - as long as you invite them to stick their hands in your pocket they will do it. Every time. With impunity.

Get lost, you authoritarian, morally bankrupt control freak.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 21, 2013 9:49 PM  

Sorry pig, I've got an innate sense of direction. Couldn't get lost if I tried.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 22, 2013 11:53 AM  

" If the tax bill becomes too high and poor folks can't pay they will simply not pay "

The Fed's wouldn't tax the people directly. The Fed's send a bill to the States proportional to their representation in the Congress and Senate.

The States figure out how to pay the bill. Seems I read about something like that in a document....called the Constitution....long ago, in a galaxy far, far, away....

That way higher populated States can't extort money from smaller states using the force of the Fed gov't. Crazy concept, I'm a crazy looneytarian, so what do I know....

Anonymous Porky May 22, 2013 2:38 PM  

The States figure out how to pay the bill

Riiiggght. Because paying the bill is sooooooo important to progressive politicians. I'm sure states won't ever spend too much or resort to borrowing, or increasing "fees" or property taxes or anything like that cuz they are concerned about the middle class. And the children. And "at-risk" youth. And the elderly. And workers. And unions. And....

You libertarians are funny. Stupid and naive, but funny. This head tax nonsense is like handing a needle and a baggie to a junkie and asking him to only limit his usage to once a day.


Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts